identity
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I can’t answer the question, but just to comment…yes, Google is starting to include SSL (https protocol) as a new ranking signal, but important to understand that it will carry only a fraction of importance (~1% claimed) to start and will probably ramp up slowly.
Strong architecture, easily crawlable, and great, unique content will still be the dominant focus.
Obviously moving to SSL presents other challenges, including potentially slower response times, which also runs counter to Google’s focus on faster load times as a quality signal, not to mention that it may be more costly and technically more complicated to get right for most sites that have not needed SSL for traditional reasons like sensitive, personal information such as banking and finance sites, ecommerce, etc.
Good question to ask, but I wouldn’t advise anyone to rush into this.
Cheers
Also might want to try the Mail Bank plugin.
cheers
To add to the discussion from a comment I made elsewhere…
What I’d like to see and envision as a nice solution to some of this would be the addition of handling frequency within the listing package.
When everything is the same except billing frequency, the ability to add additional frequencies under the package:
“+ to add frequency” on the admin side
radio select between the frequency options on the user side.
But I also think what you are looking at may go beyond that. So maybe full separation of CPTs, listing packages, and pricing, so that each can be configured and then you have a checkbox on the admin side to connect these…pricing and frequency can be minimized as applied, one to many to avoid duplication and also simplify updating.
cheers
thanks. Yes, I share your concern as well. I’m looking to start with 1 free type (unfortunately also includes the description which would be nice to exclude or limit) as well as a 3-tier pricing (good, better, best) after that, with room to add more, though moving beyond that can lead to confusion and users being a bit overwhelmed, so maybe not.
But of course, if you add in frequency as an option, say monthly or quarterly and annually, that magnifies it as well. Ideally, I hope GD will at some point be able to handle that frequency issue, where everything is the same except that and it can merely be setup and presented with the package…”+ to add” on the admin side and then radio select between the frequency options on the user side.
cheers
Guust,
sorry…I should have thought as much. It was a long night, less than 2 weeks from a planned launch, still waiting for the “next update” which has now missed 2 release dates, still lots of things to be figured out and done, especially things like 1 or multiple CPTs that will be extremely challenging if not nearly impossible to change later, and about to drop $2K into this in prep for launch, all while trying to maintain day job…….so perhaps a little tightly wound at the moment.
On first point…right, fortunately the map does show multiple CPTs. I was thinking more about most of the other widgets where a CPT must be designated and more like your second paragraph example where you need to repeat widgets for each CPT.
I may just need to create a handful of CPTs to test with to better understand how it would or wouldn’t come together.
Your initial response idea though was good and certainly could be viable for some sites, but with the number of CPTs, unique fields, and pricing tiers that I have in mind, and all having to be manually constructed and maintained, it would be too much of a nightmare for my instance.
The one drawback I did think about is that without separation of CPTs and pricing, you’d have all of those various options called out on the Add Listing page, which might be a bit confusing and overwhelming for users…again, depending on the site specifics.
cheers
Great to hear. I’ve been tossing that idea around as well, so glad to hear the notion has merit. I think you and I are looking at very similar instances. I’m not entirely as optimistic though in it not creating confusion with users, and as you probably know or I’m sure can imagine, this kind of confusion at the user level could greatly diminish the success or even kill a site, especially a new launch.
So while the plan B is good, I think it is still worth prompting for a better plan A 😉
Good to know, will head over there!
cheers
Guust,
I appreciate the work around idea. It certainly has merit.
The one challenge is that it probably isn’t as simple as one or two fields…if it was, you probably wouldn’t bother with more than one CPT anyway.
It is probably several fields across 5-15 different CPT, across 2-3 different pricing tiers (standard good-better-best marketing/pricing strategy). This seems like more of a nightmare to manage, which leaves excluding multiple CPT and fields, which waters down the site to little differentiation or value.
Or have multiple CPT and relevant fields, but have a potential disconnect on other pages because I’m limited to 1 CPT, or I have to have multiple, separate CPTs on a page (this was what I meant by “cobbled together”) for each CPT you want to include. For example, if I have one CPT on a listing page for restaurants, then anyone going to a location page rather than a specific category (CPT) will only be presented with restaurants. Maybe that is fine, maybe it isn’t. As it is today, that’s the only way it is presented. Maybe I don’t want all CPT, but maybe I want a random (or based on proximity to the user) selection of listings from the top 3 categories (e.g., restaurants, bars, shopping).
Don’t ask what GD can do for you, but what you can do with GD [Guust] 🙄
Sorry, but I think this is a poor, poor response from someone being given the role of moderator. What I’m trying to do is help foster the development of GD to be the best directory solution there is. That doesn’t happen by simply rolling over and accepting it as it is or it’s limitations, but challenging the development to be better. There may be reasons for those limitations, and that’s fine. Some of them may be true limitations, and others maybe self-imposed.
Unfortunately, I’m not a developer, coder, programmer, and I haven’t even done site design for years, so I’m limited on what I can do to help here. But I’ve been involved in software development, worked for a leading SEO agency done SEO work on some of the biggest brands in the world, so I will happily provide my expertise where I can to help things along.
If you misinterpreted my post as an attack on GD, I’m sorry…that wasn’t the intent. And likewise, if I misread the intent of your response, then simply take the above in context there as well.
cheers
paolo,
Thanks. I think going to this for of proximity search by default would address a lot of the issues I see in the forums. And it seems like a lot of development may be getting bogged down in trying to do something unique and different…there must be a reason most sites use this proximity approach.
I do see potential value in this other approach, but I also think it will be very polarizing…you either want/need one way or another, all dependent on the specific site.
Personally, I’d get the proximity approach nailed down, focus on other core issues to get a solid core that everyone would feel trustworthy to go live with, then circle back and revisit some of these more unique, cutting-edge approaches. At that point, a switch could be placed in the Admin between the two methods.
Just my thoughts and I know I may not see the full picture that you guys see, from your perspectives.
cheers
Yes, but the problem is if the user has already selected a location, the search is now restricted to that location.
And even if you remove the location selector, there is a chance that a user may drill down into listings, then click a location link in breadcrumbs, which now locks them into a location with little way of getting back out.
With a relatively small geographical area encompassing 30 or so cities, I’d be happy if the user never got locked into a location, but were able to base their listing or search results from a chosen city center, an entered address, or geo-location (especially for mobile), and their results would simply be in increasing distance from that point.
I think it would simplify and be less confusing, but it should also be able to accommodate “any number” of CPTs. I agree though that it will most likely be single or low double digits. My current structure is looking like 11.
Cheers
Thanks. I think it is a good call to recognize the difference between language variations (favourite vs. favorite) and spelling or grammatical errors.
While you are at it, here’s one I’ve been meaning to mention for sometime and keep forgetting:
On the map widget, the “t” in “height” is missing: Map Heigh (Default is : 370):
cheers
From a user-experience, at a minimum, having “Chicago Restaurants” or “Restaurants in Chicago” would be useful, but not much value to search engines…though better than nothing.
SE’s, especially Google, will identify the types of pages…search and listing pages versus detail pages versus blog posts versus typical about us site pages. The more the search and listing pages are just a bunch of “listings,” the less desirable they are for Google to serve up. One of the problems with these pages like this is that on their own, there isn’t a lot of difference between the Restaurants page, the Chicago Restaurants page, or the anything else Restaurants page, even if the listings themselves are different…the overall “fingerprint” of this page is of a listing page (true whether this is a directory, real estate site, or an ecommerce site).
That doesn’t mean these pages can’t rank or be served up in results, or that you can’t find examples, but for the average site, they will be very challenged to do so, especially a new site.
So the idea of a text spinner is probably not going to be significant enough to get over this hurdle, and might even raise a red flag (outside chance anyway).
What would be beneficial, and was mentioned, is the ability to craft and pull in more unique copy like a description with truly unique copy for each. Say a paragraph or two that talks about Restaurants in Chicago, specific qualities like popular dining locations, types of food, perhaps mentioning events like restaurant week, etc. This is more valuable for search engines and SEO because it is more useful for searchers.
However, it still needs to be unique, not copy and pasted from some other site, or Mad Libs style fill in the blank/replace the city or a couple words here or there.
cheers
Do you think it’s worth trying?
Most likely not much value. Understand, a couple words different from one page to another when the vast majority of the content is the same won’t add much value. Understand that part of how engines review pages is through a shingling methodology, that looks at small blocks of content to help determine how much is truly unique, or simply rearranged within content blocks, on the page, etc.
cheers
paolo,
Great, thanks for the info and update.
cheers
Guust, sorry, have it “behind a wall” at the moment.
Anyway, I’ve checked the nav settings. It isn’t so much an issue of what is selected to be shown, more that I’m not sure the text box is intuitive to users. It’s an open ended request rather than a selection from a limited amount of choices. If they type in “Places” or another CPT title that’s fine, but if they are thinking deeper within the CPT, like hotel, restaurant, cafe, doctor, etc., then they are stuck until they try clicking on what is visible or their typing registers one of the CPT titles.
