On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Lorrie Laskey <lrmalcom@bellsouth.net>wrote: > List, > > Would someone please visit my site and test the slide show? === Hi Lorrie, I know you asked about the slide show but I don't see it on the URL you gave. I try to respond to "only" the part someone has asked about because (IMO) additional comments can get overwhelming for the person who asked about something else. But I hope you won't mind me making one off-the-subject comment. At the top of http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~docex/ you have this: If you have any of the surnames (a list of surnames given but removed for this email) or similar surnames in your family, we might be related. To find out, follow *this link *<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~docex/gedcoms.shtml>to view my direct ancestors and *this link *<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~docex/research.shtml>to view my gedcoms. If you don't see your ancestor listed, contact me. (With "this link" as a hyperlink for each.) My comment: If you google phrases like "this link", "click this link", or "follow this link", you'll see thousands of entries. Even the government's NASA-TV page has 2 "follow this link" items which show under #1 ONLY because it's NASA. I believe sentences with links can be written descriptively so that every_word_counts for Google search. For example, on your sentences, I'd change them to: If you have any of the surnames (a list of surnames given but removed for this email) or similar surnames in your family, we might be related. To find out,(make link--> view my direct ancestors (<--end of that link) and (begin link----->) view my gedcoms (<--end that link). If you don't see your ancestor listed, contact me. Or, an even better way for that second sentence might be: To find out,(make link--> view Lorri Laskey's direct ancestors (<--end of that link) and (begin link----->) view Lorri Laskey's gedcoms (<--end that link). Or, maybe you could use a primary ancestor's name. Let's say the primary ancestor is Michael Laskey 1781-1840. To find out,(make link--> view descendants of Michael Laskey 1781-1840 (<--end of that link) and (begin link----->) view Laskey gedcoms (<--end that link). Every word on a webpage and every link is valuable typing. A few changes in writing sentences can improve Google's results (not necessarily ranking but search effectiveness and clarity). Internet users would be more likely to search for 'the primary ancestor's name' rather than search for "this link". If they heard that a lady named Lorri Laskey had information on a website, they'd use your name as a search term. If users find "About 89,900,000 results" for the search term "this link", they likely wouldn't click any of the results. Judy

Judy, You make good points. I am well aware of the value of relevant, well written content for improved seo. I have been lazy, concentrating on other aspects of web development to the neglect of seo. This is a goal of mine to learn more about seo and make that a regular part of website maintenance. I'll certainly make note of your ideas and incorporate them into my site. I know "about" seo from light tutorials but have not learned the "deeper" lessons. You know more about this than me, as evidenced from your comments. Thanks for sharing your insight. Lorrie On 01/17/11 12:02, J.A. Florian wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Lorrie Laskey <lrmalcom@bellsouth.net > <mailto:lrmalcom@bellsouth.net>> wrote: > > List, > > Would someone please visit my site and test the slide show? > > === > Hi Lorrie, > I know you asked about the slide show but I don't see it on the URL > you gave. > I try to respond to "only" the part someone has asked about because > (IMO) additional comments can get overwhelming for the person who > asked about something else. But I hope you won't mind me making one > off-the-subject comment. > At the top of http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~docex/ > <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Edocex/> you > have this: If you have any of the surnames (a list of surnames given > but removed for this email) or similar surnames in your family, we > might be related. To find out, follow *this link * > <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Edocex/gedcoms.shtml>to > view my direct ancestors and *this link * > <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Edocex/research.shtml>to > view my gedcoms. If you don't see your ancestor listed, contact me. > (With "this link" as a hyperlink for each.) > My comment: If you google phrases like "this link", "click this > link", or "follow this link", you'll see thousands of entries. Even > the government's NASA-TV page has 2 "follow this link" items which > show under #1 ONLY because it's NASA. > I believe sentences with links can be written descriptively so that > every_word_counts for Google search. For example, on your sentences, > I'd change them to: If you have any of the surnames (a list of > surnames given but removed for this email) or similar surnames in your > family, we might be related. To find out,(make link--> view my direct > ancestors (<--end of that link) and (begin link----->) view my > gedcoms (<--end that link). If you don't see your ancestor listed, > contact me. > Or, an even better way for that second sentence might be: To find > out,(make link--> view Lorri Laskey's direct ancestors (<--end of that > link) and (begin link----->) view Lorri Laskey's gedcoms (<--end that > link). > Or, maybe you could use a primary ancestor's name. Let's say the > primary ancestor is Michael Laskey 1781-1840. To find out,(make > link--> view descendants of Michael Laskey 1781-1840 (<--end of that > link) and (begin link----->) view Laskey gedcoms (<--end that link). > Every word on a webpage and every link is valuable typing. A few > changes in writing sentences can improve Google's results (not > necessarily ranking but search effectiveness and clarity). Internet > users would be more likely to search for 'the primary ancestor's name' > rather than search for "this link". If they heard that a lady named > Lorri Laskey had information on a website, they'd use your name as a > search term. If users find "About 89,900,000 results" for the search > term "this link", they likely wouldn't click any of the results. > Judy