Do you use "keywords" meta in your site, knowing that Google does not use them (and has no plans) in page ranking, and perhaps even search?
Yes you do; Google is not the only search engine in the web although its has the major market share. There are other engines including Yahoo which use the Keywords META to some extent.
No. I don't want competitors knowing what I am trying to rank for. Keywords are very valuable in some markets. If you found a good keyword phrase that is converting well (and your competitors don't know about it) do yourself a favor, and keep a monopoly on it.
That is NOT a reason to abandon keywords altogether.
They are still indexed and searchable, and so still have a function.
Yes, we do. No one knows the exact Google (or any other search engine) algorithm.
In addition, lots of companies use "keywords" for internal websites that host tons of Html generated content.
I've heard from so many people that Google doesn't use meta keywords, I'm not sure I'm convinced of that however. But, whether they do or they don't you should still use them because Bing and Yahoo (the other 2/3 or the big 3) still do use them. But remember to limit your keywords because (based on popular opinion) none of the 3 engines read past character 46.
I did, because I didn't know that fact. Now I am thinking that is not worth doing so insignificant I see the "energy conversion efficiency", even if we don't take Google in consideration, other SE seems do not take much attention to it...
Related
Here's a somewhat general computer question. I've always been able to follow the LOGIC of programming, but when I go to code something, I always find that I don't know some method or another to get what I need to get done. When I see it, I always think, "OF COURSE!".
How do you go about finding relevant methods for your programming needs that are "built-in?" I don't enjoy re-inventing the wheel, but I find it difficult to find what I need to do what I want to do.
First try Google:
You can use google to search your required method. For example If I want to search a value in array in PHP then I go to Google and type "Search values in array in PHP". I find my required function at first place.
Then try Standard Documentation:
Try standard documentation to search for your required method. For example if my problem is related to strings in PHP then I go to String Functions documentation and find the required function.
Finally try Stackoverflow:
Otherwise you can ask your problem at Stackoverflow for your required methods and libraries. You will always get a shortest way.
What you are asking here is for the best way to do research. Well, that's hard skill to explain, even more so to teach.
Nevertheless here are some tips:
Go to a search engine. It makes no
sense to start in a place like MSDN,
since all of its content is indexed
by the search engines anyway.
Phrase your question several
different ways.
As you learn more
about the issue you will learn new
vocabulary about it. Use that new
vocabulary to do even more searches.
If the searches turn out empty,
switch to browsing a specific
section of the official
documentation that you think is the
most related to what you are doing. If nothing else, it will expand your horizons around the issue and give you more vocabulary to do more searches.
Finally, if all else fails ask a question on StackOverflow explaining what you want to do as clearly as possible.
Note that if there's a simple API that does what you need, you will rarely reach step 4.
You say:
It's very frustrating to suddenly find
an "easy" button mid-way through.
Try to see it differently. Think of these moments as blessings. You've just learned something. You invested a lot of effort - and instead of seeing that effort as wasted, see it as critical to proper learning. You - better than the guy who just happened across the magic method - really understand what it's for and something about how it works. And you really, really, understand why you need it, and you properly appreciate its value. You're never going to forget that method.
So it was costly, but you learned something important. Celebrate, and move on.
It is usually included in some form of documentation. Most IDEs support the documentation format and gives you auto-complete functionality.
if you are using MVS so MSDN is really good for it
In addition to this and this answer above, google's basic and advanced searching tips prove very helpful.
In addition to above, changing the order of keywords in search criteria also sorts the list in different orders.
In essence I believe that searching is still an art rather than a science, and is best learnt - quoting from David Reis' answer above: "2. As you learn more about the issue you will learn new vocabulary about it. Use that new vocabulary to do even more searches."
Search in the API documentation. But the best way to (I found so) is to search on the internet for multiple solutions and then choose the one that you think is best. Make your search as narrow as possible. For example you want to implement random number generation function, then search like this, "How to generate random numbers in Java?".
Namespaces, namingconventions, Autocomplete/Intellisence
I assume that you are trying to find some kind of Object-Oriented-apis . I use .net in my example.
First try to find a class that might be responsable for the method you are looking for.
Example: If you want to "Make a new Directory in the Filesystem" you must know (or learn) that (in dotnet) these classes are in the namespace System.IO:
This namespace contains subnamespaces like Compresseion and Classes like File, Path, Directory, ...
Second you sould know NamingConventions. There are common Naming-Prefixes for methods like Get, Set, Insert, Create. In the documentation for class Directory you will find a CreateDirectory-Method.
If you have an intelligent editor that knows your programming language and the classes and namespaces learning is much easier. In the dotnet-world this feature is called Autocomplete/Intellisence
What practical benefits can my client get if I use microformats on his site for every possible thing?
How can I explain these benefits to a non-technical client?
Sometimes it seems like the practical benefits are hard to quantify.
Search engines already pick up and parse microformats (see e.g. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170). I believe hCard and hCalendar are fairly well supported--and if not, plenty of sites are using it, including places like MySpace.
It's the idea that adding CSS classes and specified IDs make your existing content easier to parse in a machine-readable manner.
hReview is starting to make some inroads, and hResume looks like it take off too.
I heavily use rel="nofollow" on uncontrolled links (3rd party sources) which is actually a microformat.
Check the microformats wiki for a decent starting point.
It just means your viewers can share a few generic "formats". You can generalize stylesheets, and parsing mechanisms. Rather than having a webpage consist of one "html document," you have a webpage that consist of "10 formatted micro-documents".
If you need a real world analog: think of it like attaching a formatted invoice, to a receipt, and a business card, rather than writing it all down on notebook paper with your left hand.
Overall the site becomes easier to digest for the rest of the internet. The data can be reused, combined, cross-referenced, and saved.
A simple example would be to have anywhere on the site a latitude and a longitude (geo). With Microformats, anybody that searches for that latitude and longitude can be easily referenced to their website, increasing traffic, awareness of that person / company, and allow users to easily save that information. (Although I've encountered little of this personally, this is more of 'the future' of things than it is current. But always good to stay up to date).
A second example would be a business card (hCard) where a browser can easily save and transfer it to an address book, so that just one visit to the site and the visitor has the information saved locally. Especially useful if they're getting hits from a cell phone.
I wouldn't recommend using microformats for "every possible thing". Use them for things where you get some benefit, in exchange for the effort of using them.
The main practical benefit I'm aware of is customised search engine results:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170
Technically, Google now prefers this to be implemented using microdata (i.e. itemprop attributes) rather than microformats, but it's the same idea.
Having a micro-format can be better than no format since it lets you save every possible thing in the application.
A micro-format for every possible thing can be better than a standard format only because: it's quicker to create so it costs less and it take less space than some standard formats, like XML.
But all this depends on the context of the application and so you must explain it to the client in that context.
microformatting your content extends its reach in every, which way possible. using your sites structure as its "api" the possibilities are what you set your limits too
A coworker of mine has asked me for a term (preferably an adjective) that can be used to describe a system that gets more "intelligent" as it gets more data. The example she used when asking me this question was "as Google crawls more sites, it gets smarter at searching".
Personally, the best I could think of offhand was "adaptive", but that doesn't feel right. Can anyone suggest something better?
Thanks!
Sometimes you refer to things like spam filters as "trainable". Perhaps that could apply here.
It could be a vague description of an expert system, which often have a learning aspect and use it to gain more "expertise" in their problem domain.
The domain of this kind of applications is "machine-learning". But I'm not aware of a matching adjective.
The example she used when asking me this question was "as Google crawls more sites, it gets smarter at searching".
Unlike learning algorithms, where the algorithm itself changes based on past success, Google searches get better due to improved ranking of the results bringing the best pages to the top. The quality of the PageRank algorithm's results increases due to the network effect of the input data - the more connections, the better the chance that the best connected page is the most relevant.
The rule that says the effect of a network is super-linear is Metcalfe's Law, so if the "smartness" of an algorithm relies on network effects you could call the algorithm "Metcalfian". I've no idea whether the quality of PageRank results is super-linear in the number of inputs though; if anything I'd expect it to be sub-linear, as once you have enough links in the network to get rid of noise the rankings should be stable.
What about the term "evolve" or "evolving."
How about "capable," or "robust."
Learning Artificial Intelligent software.
Skynet or Joshua/W.O.P.R.
I would call it Heuristic.
If it's a communications network, then it follows Metcalfe's law. You could call it Metcalfian. (You'd like be laughed at.)
I think the term is adaptive associative memory systems (leading to autonomy, perhaps).
I need to decide on naming conventions for a new website.
I can use mod_rewrite at will.
My favourite solution would be to work with no file extension at all.
www.exampledomain.com/language/pagename
this would lead to "pagename" being treated as a directory. I would have to take that into account when using relative links.
Are there any other pitfalls I need to be aware of when doing this?
Is this legal, or are resources supposed to have a "name.prefix" structure?
Do you know of any clients that can't deal with this and start looking for /index.htm or .html?
Can you think of any SEO problems to be expected?
Unless you have a very good reason to add an extension, drop it.
are resources supposed to have a "name.prefix" structure?
Not that I know of. Normally not. Resources are just a concept. A custom resource format may have that extension requirement, the other would not. It will depend.
As for SEO, the short a link is, the better. It will increase relative weight of keywords. An extension would make links longer by 4 characters or more.
Do you know of any clients that can't deal with this and start looking for /index.htm or .html?
A problem may arise if you decide to support multiple entry points.
www.exampledomain.com
www.exampledomain.com/index.html
www.exampledomain.com//index.htm
www.exampledomain.com/index
These are all different urls to search engines. Some people will be linking to you with the shortest name, the others will use the other version. Then ultimately there will be different inbound links pointing to your site start page which will essentially be the same. Search engines will detect it and see it as content duplication. Consequently, your page rank will be divided between several url versions. Finally, all except one will likely be dropped out of their index entirely. To deal with this situation, decide for one "true" url and let others perform 301 redirect (moved permanently) to the "correct" url.
Dropping extensions actually has the significant benefit of not tying you to a specific language. If your URLs are http://example.com/page.php and you switch to another language, you'll either lose the existing URLs (bad!) or have to fake the PHP extension (clunky).
Most, if not all architecture documents I've seen (and developed) have been presented as a series of views (Logical, Physical, Use-case etc). Is this the preferred layout? What other styles are there?
Since it's complex, it's hard to do otherwise.
I like to start with the one-paragraph summary of the overall requirements. If there isn't a one-paragraph summary, that's -- perhaps -- the most important thing to build.
Once the summary is out of the way, there's an overview of architectural features. And after that, no one will read a single word.
It isn't a novel. There's no story arc. No drama. No conflict. No characters. At least, I can't find a way to make an architecture readable.
The best you can hope for is a reference work with enough indexes, cross references, overviews and sidebars that people use it.
Indeed, it's the pull-outs that matter. The picture are all anyone will ever use. And those will get put into PPT's for presentation internally and externally.
So, don't waste a lot of time on writing. Invest time in overviews, summaries, feature lists and pictures people want to use every day.
This may be WAY off topic, but is there anyway to use Joel's ideas on making specifications 'fun' usable is this realm?