Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Also consider: how similar / relevant the term is for an existing page how many keywords you're attempting to optimise the existing page for how unique, awesome you can make the new page Good luck.

Here's how I did mine: http://www.shipoverseas.com/us/more/how-to-ship-a-car-overseas-faq.html Maybe that can give you an idea.

I have a great example. For the past few months my client was ranking organically on page one for some high level attorney key phrases. We are a web content company working with an SEO and in efforts to stay ahead of the game we made some minor changes to some geo specific key phrases and in less then a month we almost disappeared off the map. The website I am referring to is www.wolfandpravato.com and one of the culprits with thin or no content beating us in the SERPS is www.representingtheinjured.com among others. If you have any feedback or are willing to do a test or case study I would be happy to provide more data. I hope to hear your thoughts soon. We also started doing PPC for the client. Thanks. Alex

Do you know what is the effect on a site that uses another site's infographic in a story or post, The answer depends upon the quality of the story or the post. what is the effect on the site producing and storing the graphic? If the site that uses the infographic is a stronger site then it will probably outrank the source of the infographic if they are optimized for the same keyword. If the site that uses the infographic has 1000x as many visitors it will probably attract 1000x as many likes, links, tweets, etc... and thus outrank the site that produced the infographic. No wonder little sites complain about the big brands beating them all of the time... they give away all of their content and wonder WTF happened.

I've removed dates from evergreen content for the same reason (makes it look outdated) and haven't seen any negative consequences.  Does it really matter to your users when the piece of content was created?  If not, then the date is not necessary.

A lot of spam filtering seems to have gone social. Not like Facebook social, but rather, providers looking at spam reports. Gmail, for instance, looks at spam reports and learns from that. Yahoo doesn't allow direct spam reports, they just say to report spam to your provider and they'll get it that way (not helpful if you run your own email server). It's important to remember that the Spam button has become the new unsubscribe button. Users don't have to click any strange links and hope that they're legitimate, they just flag it as spam and it goes away. We had horrible results with some of our early email marketing because large amounts of people were marking our email as spam (one provider dropped us entirely). So what makes me open an email? Keep your subject clear and concise. Personalizing helps some but many people have those coming in anyways. I want to know why you've sent me an email. Make it look nice. Most spammers won't try to make nice emails. Done properly it will grab attention. Also, avoid images. Most email clients will filter them out and ask users if they want to see them (hint: the answer is usually no). Last but not least, be sure to use a properly configured email server and be sure your domain has a SPF DNS record and/or DKIM. SPF in particular is easy enough to use, it just lets people know what servers are authorized to send email for your domain.

In essence, it's much the same as standard PPC bidding. You choose a keyword to determine the category of sites / pages where your adverts will be displayed and then you are bidding against other advertisers. In my experience, this ends up cheaper than standard PPC but as it is a second attempt you would hope so. If you are using image adverts the best approach is to create ads at all the various sizes and it gives you more opportunities. You can then review the performance / cost of each advert and may find that you do better with certain adverts etc. Much like normal PPC it's all about measuring and refinement over time to really sharpen things up. Marcus

One thing I found works well is to engage with as many of the people you want to use the infographic as possible before you contact them with the image. I try and connect with them on Twitter, leave a comment on a blog post (with a link to my twitter rather than my website so it does not look like I am trying to spam the blog) or help them in some way. Along the help lines I have found an email telling them about a broken link or an error on their site is a good way to get their attention. Then when they say thank you I reply with a question about their work, ask for their advice on something related to what they do and mention I am putting together the graphic, if possible I incorporate the information they have given me into the infographic and let them know. Then when the infographic is ready to send I let them have an advanced copy along with any data used to produce the statistics in it. In my mind I came up with these ideas but I am sure the truth is more along the lines of the day I spent going through the posts in the link Keri has been kind enough to post, it may take a while to read but it is full of great information. I think all the information and tips boil down to give the audience something they want and give them a reason to take it from you. I hope that makes sense Sean

First up, if you have an infographic, the smart money is to control how people link to it in some way. Usually, this involves providing them with some kind of embed or linking code. Secondly, if you are a using some SEO smarts here you are going to want them to link to a page rather than to the image itself so you can pump some of that inbound link juice out to other pages or at least control it and provide a little more info, branding, funnels to service pages / social sign ups etc. So, the way this tends to work is through hosting the infographic on a page and then providing link code to that page something like: [image: my-infographic.png] < href="http://www.yoursite.co.uk/">Your Home Page You may also include a link to your homepage in this to really pimp our link opportunity. Now, the only problem here is that we are creating a signature for the links as each link is going to be exactly the same. So, this is almost the sitewide scenario where they can count one, but identify and easily discount the others. But, the real bones of the question is not 'how can Google devalue infographic links' but rather how can we stop Google devaluing infographic links. Certainly though, an infographic is a high quality piece of content and if people choose to link to it, that link should still count. Whilst, they may look at ways of devaluing these links if they get too widespread but really, the boom (and bust) in infographic production may well have devalued them already in that there are just so many to choose from. Hope that helps Marcus

The infographic directories are fine and whilst it is not a link that is going to set the world on fire the increased exposure may see your infographic picked up a little more extensively and subsequently you get more links which is the idea after all. We don't need to be histerical about links - you have an infographic, these are infographic sites. If the site is low quality, has lots of adverts or something else about it stinks, then don't submit it there but as is mentioned below, you are creating something you want people to link to so low quality sites may pick it up anyway.

Hi there, if it's a "relevant and quality" blog it probably will be considered natural. This is fine once in a while but I wouldn't rely on it as a tactic - too many reciprocal links will devalue the link authority.

The days of link building have changed. IMO if the traffic that flows through here is good for the user its worth getting a second link (That is only if you are referencing something that the users will be interested in on your site). The link is not as important as the user that it drives. "Give the people what they want and Google will give you to the people" Donnie Strompf.

I want to address this question from a couple of perspectives.... USERS:  As Dana said... Users prefer single long pages.   These long pages with lots of content, lots of subtopics and lots of images are impressive when a person lands on them.  That immediately shows them the depth and richness of your content and they can quickly scan your subheadings to see what you have to offer.  These will more readily produce likes, tweets, links, etc. when compared to broken pages. SEO:  I have experimented with long and multiple short pages.  I get more traffic from long pages because of the diversity of words that they contain.  This brings in LOTS more long tail traffic.  And, if visitors are liking, tweeting and linking you might get more search traffic. MONETIZATION:  This is a downside if you are showing ads.  You get fewer impressions and if there is a limit on the number of ads you can display per page your ad density will be lower and thus less income.  However, if your traffic is higher from the increased long tail and better rankings then you might recover the lost impressions per visitor with more visitors.

Google will not really care about FB likes. Not even FB cares too much about artificially inflating likes. Almost all FB competitions attracting likes are short lived and hardly ever engage your brand with the user and there will be zero stickiness. Consider the FB likes a vanity number and nothing else. If a company has no social engagement on the FB wall (i.e. no shares or comments), then it's not worth it to run a campaign. I would rather look at an all-inclusive social campaign where you stretch across Twitter, FB, G+ and Pinterest. We had good engagement from users with our photo- or Pinterest competitions and actually saw backlinks and referrals growing from this. Also look at engaging new / existing users on your site and/or blog - this will have more value than just artificially growing some meaningless number.

Project#Labs, I think there may actually be a couple of things at play here. One is that depending on the resolution of the screen you are viewing the image in, it may be very small. I use a high res screen on Mac and really have to squint often (and I wear glasses). As to could they be trying to get clicks, yes. As to image link versus text link, well I like infographics and we use them. But, according to Matt Cutts, Google has talked of devaluing them as they believe the intent was not always to provide a link back, etc. (I am paraphrasing grossly). Good question.

I'd say one thing that could be causing this is domain age. Is the competitor's site significantly older and more well-established? Another factor could be your engagement. What's your bounce rate? This is definitely part of Google's algorithm. Are people finding what they want? Do you have on-site search? If so, are you getting a lot of searches with "zero" results? One last thing could be the number of years you've registered your domain. If you've registered yours for 2 and your competitor has registered their's for 10, that could be a factor. One last thing. Where is your site hosted? Are you on a shared server? What is the reputation of the other sites sharing that server? If your competitor is on a dedicated server and you are on a shared server with other sites with questionable or low reputations, that could be dragging your site down. I know that's a lot of factors, but each one could make a significant difference. Hope that helps a bit! Dana

It has been a long time strategy of ours to remove ANY site that is linking to us sitewide. Email the webmaster and ask him to make your link a homepage only link. Sitewides are discounted at best and penalized at worst so I would recommend removing all of them when you come across them. They usually come in form of a blogroll link which has been a bad method of link building for many years, and your sitewide link is lumped in with other sites in the blogroll who all have sitewides as well, so their chances of getting penalized are greater too. Then you will be listed sitewide with a penalized domain which is linked sitewide. So now you share a more similar link profile having thousands of links on the same page with a penalizes site or sites. AND you have thousands of links with the same anchor text. It just bad all around.

We actually had a webinar at the end of July about e-commerce. It was changed to "free," as the author did a follow-up blog post, so you'll find it further down the page with the free ones. We're hoping soon to have more.