There’s a rumor that Google’s buying FeedBurner so they can capitalize on RSS ads. Makes sense: people who read RSS aren’t that likely to come to the site and see your AdSense ads.
If true, this’ll be a tremendous opportunity for some people and a tremendous source of irritation for others. I’m a long way from [...]

There’s a rumor that Google’s buying FeedBurner so they can capitalize on RSS ads. Makes sense: people who read RSS aren’t that likely to come to the site and see your AdSense ads.

If true, this’ll be a tremendous opportunity for some people and a tremendous source of irritation for others. I’m a long way from wanting to push adds into my feeds at this point, so I don’t really care either way. I just wonder when Google’s going to buy Wal-Mart, Safeway, AT&T and Boeing.

SearchEngineLand covers a way to keep your Feedburner feeds using your domain name, for essentially $1 per feed per month. That’s an interesting alternative if you like pushing your feeds through FeedBurner - it’s always advantageous to have everything showing as your domain.
Personally, I’ve decided to disable my FeedBurner Replacement plugin for WordPress. After running [...]

SearchEngineLand covers a way to keep your Feedburner feeds using your domain name, for essentially $1 per feed per month. That’s an interesting alternative if you like pushing your feeds through FeedBurner - it’s always advantageous to have everything showing as your domain.

Personally, I’ve decided to disable my FeedBurner Replacement plugin for WordPress. After running it for a couple of weeks, I have a good idea how many subscribers I have and where they’re coming from. In a few months I may run it again and see where I’m at then.But I like to keep things simple, so I’m just going to stop using them for now.

JenSense reports that Google is canceling Adsense accounts of users who were making sites for AdSense or doing the arbitrage thing (whatever that is - I’m still not clear). This could have the effect of raising the quality of AdSense from the sewer where it’s been content to wallow for years now.
Making sites strictly for [...]

JenSense reports that Google is canceling Adsense accounts of users who were making sites for AdSense or doing the arbitrage thing (whatever that is - I’m still not clear). This could have the effect of raising the quality of AdSense from the sewer where it’s been content to wallow for years now.

Making sites strictly for AdSense was always against the rules. In that sense, no publisher has a right to complain if Google burns them now (assuming Google is only hitting the most obviously MFA sites and leaving the “maybe, maybe not” sites alone). On the other hand, actions speak louder than words for good reason, and Google has tolerated these sites and even bumped them to the top of the SERPs more than enough times for me to understand the frustration people are probably feeling right now. It’s a case of, “The law was always there - we just failed to enforce it so much that you might have gotten the impression it wasn’t.”

Ah, well. I don’t know that this will raise AdSense up to the quality level that wouldn’t cause me to reject working with it. I did work with it for a while and had lousy results compared to AdBrite and other ad services. Maybe that’s because I wasn’t doing the MFA thing - those were definitely the people cashing in. Will this change that? It’s hard to say.

Digfield has a very clever suggestion for a way to get a new site rolling and earning. Basically, you place a Craig’s list ad looking for writers for your site. This gets people clicking to look at your site. Then when they email for more information, you send them a form email thanking them for [...]

Digfield has a very clever suggestion for a way to get a new site rolling and earning. Basically, you place a Craig’s list ad looking for writers for your site. This gets people clicking to look at your site. Then when they email for more information, you send them a form email thanking them for their interest and put a link to an affiliate product in it. You could just stick it in the signature so it’s on every outbound mail, or you could so what he suggests and actually pitch it to them.

I say "slightly deceptive" because you’re probably not really looking for contributors.

Marketing Pilgrim has a very good article explaining in detail how the new Universal Search is going to work.How will it affect SEO?
It means we have less opportunity to get our pages showing on the first SERP. But on the other hand, some silly image of Darth Vader that you put in a blog post [...]

Marketing Pilgrim has a very good article explaining in detail how the new Universal Search is going to work.How will it affect SEO?

It means we have less opportunity to get our pages showing on the first SERP. But on the other hand, some silly image of Darth Vader that you put in a blog post could become a top result in searches for "Darth Vader". Which is only really helpful if your site is about Darth Vader.

Hmm.

TextLinkAds - no doubt worried about losing sales in light of Google’s Pronouncement of Doom for Links of the Paid Variety - has posted on their blog about an experiment which seems to reveal that Googlebot does indeed follow no-follow links and allow you to rank for their anchor text terms.
The experiment worked like this: [...]

TextLinkAds - no doubt worried about losing sales in light of Google’s Pronouncement of Doom for Links of the Paid Variety - has posted on their blog about an experiment which seems to reveal that Googlebot does indeed follow no-follow links and allow you to rank for their anchor text terms.

The experiment worked like this: Ben Fisher wrote on the SpiderMan 3 game. Then he commented on related blogs with a link back to his post with the misspelled anchor text "piderMan 3" and a nofollow, and soon thereafter his site landed on Google’s page 1 for "piderMan 3" (and some other terms).

After reading the comments, which include what other people have observed in their own tests, I’m inclined to think no-follow links do leak a bit of juice for the anchor text, but it’s probably pretty weak compared to regular links. It might all depend on the trustworthiness (according to Google) that the site sending you the link has.