|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Content Done Better – Landing Page QualityRate This Post:
Carson Brackney over at his Content Done Better blog had a comment about our landing page quality aspirations: Article marketing and landing page quality… I wanted to put Carson to ease on one issue… he mentions:
To be clear, the only landing page quality metric that we’re actively rejecting articles for are links that are dead. I don’t think that’s too unreasonable to expect that a brand new article submissions should have a valid link that works when clicked on… but we do frown on authors who put a ‘parked’ domain in their resource box because that adds no value to our users when they click on the URL in the authors resource box. Many had a field day complaining about my entry on how I was proposing that resource box website link standards should be raised (63 comments, many of them negative)…and even though I did a follow up to that post to reassure everyone of our intentions; It really seems to me that few are thinking about this issue from our end-users perspective (something that we obsess about improving) or the perspective of making those who refer traffic to us, to look good for having done so.
6 Comments »2
Chris– I think the adjustment you did make is perfectly reasonable. I’m sure you can see where some article-based marketers might have had concerns about “raising the bar” in terms of landing page quality. I certainly didn’t mean to apply that alterations weren’t a good idea–I just had some initial thoughts about how certain changes could have impacted some of my clients. Kathy- I have to agree with you and I hope the quotation pulled from my blog didn’t give you the idea that I was anti-improvement–I just wanted to make sure those with whom I work would be prepared to react accordingly. Carson [Reply] Comment provided December 2, 2006 at 4:56 PM
3
Carson, My message was not really directed at you. It was in response to Chris’ statement below: “Many had a field day complaining about my entry on how I was proposing that resource box website link standards should be raised (63 comments, many of them negative)” I guess I should have stated that. Aloha, Kathy [Reply] Comment provided December 3, 2006 at 1:57 PM
4
Kathy – I really like your quote – “At the moment I think I have ‘arrived’ I am indeed FINISHED.†Is that your original quote? And if it is, may I use it with attribution to you? If not, do you know who said it? There are lots of places I could use it, including with me-self. (spelled differently on purpose) Jeff [Reply] Comment provided December 3, 2006 at 11:17 PM
5
6
This is off the subject but I can’t help it… WOW! and more WOW’S!! I just got my BEAUTIFUL MUG from Ezine Articles! I even got candy inside my mug w/ a note that is actually signed by you, Chris…. such wonderful attention to detail. I mean WOW!! I am just stunned at how COOL EzineArticles is for sending these out to their authors! As if I don’t benefit enough already just by having my articles published by Ezine Articles. WOW… I just can’t say it enough. I wrote my webmaster about receiving your generous gift and her response was: “I just love people who do business right” I second that! THANK YOU! Kathy Ostman-Magnusen [Reply] Comment provided December 5, 2006 at 6:43 PM
|
|
||||||||||||||
BLOG COMMENT POLICY |
|||||||||||||||
I don’t get it…
How can anyone object to raised standards?
What that says to me is that I need to check and re-check my own.
If I want to be lazy and sub standard OK then. But I don’t choose that.
I am an artist. One of the things I tell myself is that, “At the moment I think I have ‘arrived’ I am indeed FINISHED.”
I can only get better by accepting that there is more to attain.
I just got off My Space… networking. WOW! There is some heavy duty competition out there. I need to adjust to that and apply myself to meeting a higher standard, constantly! If I don’t I will become ordinary and an after thought. My passion for art means more to me than that.
I welcome the bar being raised higher.
Thank you for reminding me!
Kathy
[Reply]