Resource Box URLs and Deep Linking

Resource Box is located directly below your article body Two important resource box tips today:

1) If your website address / URL is very long and multi-worded, then consider only running with the domain itself as your link (what the majority of authors do). Example: http://Your-Company-Name.com/

Reason: I’ve noticed too many authors with long multi-word domain names who then go on to list a very deep link in their resource box: (Example: http://Your-Company-Name.com/thisdirectory/thatdirectory/thispage.html etc..)

The problem with the deep link is that the URL itself is too long and will wrap or cut in half when sent by an ezine publisher to his or her plain text newsletter audience. Let me tell you…rarely will readers go through the trouble of copy and pasting 2 sections of a broken link to view your website.

2) If you are going to include a deep link in your resource box (ie: A link to a web page or sub-directory within your website instead of the home page), then be certain you have a missing.html or 404 redirect page setup so that you capture lost traffic.

Reason: I did a random test recently of (8) EzineArticles authors who included a deep link in their resource box to see if they had a 404 redirect setup to capture lost traffic. 87.5% of my informal test did not have a redirect setup and gave either an annoying 404 error from their web host provider or file not found. Dead end. Only 1 out of the 8 I tested had a refresh setup to capture lost traffic.

You work so hard to build traffic to your website…don’t lose your hard earned traffic by failing to have a 404 redirect setup. How to do this? Ask your webmaster or web hosting provider for help.

Two advanced tips:

1) Once a month go read your website statistics or analytics package to look at your 404 error logs. Gold mine data here folks! If you have not looked at your 404 data this year, you’re in for a shock…especially if your site has been around for many years.

2) It’s ok to deep link with anchored text links, but never rely on anchored text links *alone* in your resource box. Instead, have at least one full http:// URL.

Continued Related Reading: (technically, this is an example of deep linking that adds value)

Your thoughts?

Posted by Christopher M. Knight on August 17, 2007 at 9:45 am | 3,714 views

10 Comments »

Scott wiseman writes:

I agree with the 404 page comment above. You must look for every bit of traffic. the one thing that I have noticed is the what now affect. What now after you have the visitor on your page. How do you convert. It is so hard to get them there we run out of steam after that. Now we have to convert to a paying customer.
having a form or a phone number is great for offline companies, for ecommerce of course purchasing on line is the best

just my thoughts

http://the-search-engine-company.com/search-engine-marketing-service.html

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 10:41 AM

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

New EzineArticles blog commentor?

Please read our blog comment policy before posting:
http://blog.EzineArticles.com/2007/01/ezinearticlescom-blog-comment-policy.html

Specifically, we don’t allow resource boxes or sig lines in blog comments. You only get one link and that link must be linked up to your name please (keywords not allowed to be used for your name), etc. Thanks for understanding! :) Now on with the discussion.

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 10:56 AM

[Reply]

Deepak Morris writes:

I’ve found tinyurl ( http://tinyurl.com/ ) very useful in shortening long URLs.

I use it all the time when I post in forums and need to specify a link that either breaks or forces sideways scrolling if it is posted “as is”.

As the name suggests, tinyurl takes a long URL and shortens it to about 25 characters.

Deepak

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Deepak,

For the benefit of others:

We do allow TinyURL links;

BUT, if it’s used to flip a visitor to an Affiliate Link or a suspected affiliate link, the article may be rejected.

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM

[Reply]

Cynthia Pinsonnault writes:

I see this problem a lot in forums, discussion lists, etc. Even if they don’t break, they can look confusing to some readers, or worse, look suspicious. As Deepak said, TinyURL is a wonderful tool to shorten those long, confusing URLs into something easy.

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 12:14 PM

[Reply]

Khalid Alabid writes:

Dear Chris,
I am very much related to this problem as I have checked some of my links and I found some mistakes. But I have two questions:
1. if I wanted to solve this 404 error problem, how can I do that.
2. The author mentioned something about 404 log file which keeps track of all 404 traffic I missed due to this mistake. Where do I find it in my log file as my web hosting company does not have this type of stats.

Please get back to me..

Cheers..

Khalid

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 2:26 PM

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Khalid,

1) I already shared with you how to solve your 404 problem: Contact your webmaster or your web hosting provider ( http://www.servage.net/?a=404error )and ask them how to solve it. It’s different for every type of webserver.

2. Ask your web hosting service provider to help you with this. That is their job. If they say it’s not their job to provide you with this data, find a different web host provider.

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 2:43 PM

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

I think one must use only the domain name.
Speed is also very important, besides a short and clear url that won’t be problematic.

We have to make things simple, easy and fast if we want to please our readers/visitors/clients.

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 3:13 PM

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Chris, I had done this orgininally, I would like to change my link to the actual, main domain name rather than that specific page. Of course, with 11,111 articles, you can perhaps see why I haven’t changed it. I agree with you completely, I was even thinking on this a week ago, so your timing is excellent on this issue.

Comment provided August 17, 2007 at 11:09 PM

[Reply]