Archive for January, 2009

Google AdWords Conversion Tracking

Saturday, January 24th, 2009

Everyone wants to stretch their AdWords budget to get the best ROI for their money, but how do you know that you are performing at your best? Google includes a tool in standard Adwords accounts called conversion tracking. Put simply, conversion tracking allows you to monitor a user’s actions on your website and links that data to your AdWords stats in terms of budget. You can setup several different types of actions, which are goals that you want your user to accomplish, such as signing up for a newsletter, clicking on a button, completing a purchase, or submitting a form. The action types are:

  • Leads
  • Signup
  • Purchase / Sale
  • View of a Key Page
  • Other

Setting up the conversion tracking is relatively straightforward. Once you create and name your action you are provided with a snippet of Javascript to place in your page. Results are tracked immediately and can be monitored at the campaign, ad group, and keyword levels. Once enough results are calculated, you will be able to see how much it costs you for a user to take an action. For example, in a week if you have 100 clicks at $2.00 / click and 15 conversions then each conversion will have cost you $13.33. Using this information can become a metric for performance. You can work on  decreasing your cost per click, increasing your Quality Score, and reducing you cost per conversion.

Good Luck!

[What is AdWords]

—Alan

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Internet Marketing, Usability - Conversion | 1 Comment »

ASP.NET and XHTML Validation

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

If you’ve ever created an XHTML 1.0 Strict page containing an ASP.NET form element and ran it through the W3 Validator, you’ve undoubtedly noticed it’s reported as being invalid no matter what you do and no matter how valid the code actually appears. This is because ASP.NET adjusts the way it renders markup according to the requesting user agent. ASP.NET pities the W3 Validator and sends it bad code. This can be fixed with a “browser” file. The file and instructions on its use are available from that page.

However, that’s not all. The validator will now see your pages the way you see them in your browser, but ASP.NET is still rendering an invalid name attribute on your form element! You need to add a line to the system.web section of your web.config file:

<xhtmlConformance mode="Strict" />

Now ASP.NET plays nice with the W3 Validator and renders a valid XHTML Strict form! Now you can stop using the XHTML Transitional doctype and start using the XHTML Strict doctype on your ASP.NET pages!

—Kyle Blizzard

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Web Platforms, Web Standards | Comments Off

The Target Attribute and Strict XHTML

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

So, you’ve decided to start creating your web sites with valid strict XHTML 1.0 and CSS. Your client wants a “links” page containing none other than links to other web sites. So you oblige and, to keep your client’s visitors on his site, you make the links open in a new window. So you throw in target="blank" and you’re done. Just run it through the W3 validator…

There is no attribute “target”? What gives?!

Yes, indeed, target is not a valid attribute in XHTML 1.0 Strict. There’s really only one way around it of which I’m aware, and that’s by using Javascript. My preferred method is as follows:

<a href="http://www.bliznet.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href, 'OffSite').focus(); return false;">

This opens the URL in a new window and brings it into focus if the user had previously opened an “OffSite” window and didn’t close it.

You would still put the desired URL in the href attribute just like with any hyperlink. That way, if the visitor for some reason has Javascript disabled, the link still functions correctly. It just wouldn’t open in a new window.

One caveat though—in Firefox 2 and later with default settings, this code causes the linked site to open in a new tab, not a new window. If you find this to be a problem, there is a way around it, and that’s by adding the window options parameter such as:

<a href="http://www.bliznet.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href, 'OffSite', 'directories=yes,location=yes,menubar=yes,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,toolbar=yes').focus(); return false;">

Those are all the options required to make the window appear normally with default tool and menu bars—kind of a pain. At this point, you may want to move the code into an external Javascript file. The function I use typically looks like the following:

function OpenOffSite(a)
{
window.open(a.href, "OffSite", "directories=yes,location=yes,menubar=yes,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,toolbar=yes").focus();
return false;
}

Then the onclick attribute of your anchor would look like so:

<a href="http://www.bliznet.com/" onclick="return OpenOffSite(this);">

Your links now open in a new window! Welcome to the world of XHTML conformity. :)

—Kyle Blizzard

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Web Standards | Comments Off

Does Size Matter for SEO Consultants?

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Bigger is better, right? Not necessarily when it comes to internet marketing companies and SEO consultants.  Don’t get me wrong, I would love to have a team of 20 employees to put on a project and a million dollar budget just for office supplies. But would the results produced for my client  be that much better? I doubt it. Two of our clients have had remarkably similar experiences with large SEO consultants and internet marketing firms and both have had less than stellar results. One of our customers discovered a large, well respected California firm and contracted them to perform search engine optimization, Google AdWords management, press releases, and other services with a large down payment and a healthy monthly fee. Several months elapsed with no results for the customer. There was no increase in traffic, PPC was going nowhere, and 1 press release had been issued and forgotten. The “project manager” for our client was unavailable by phone  and many times would not even respond to repeated emails. There was a response, however, when the bills stopped being paid.

Fast forward two months. The  client came to us  for “AdWords Managment only”  due to the state of the economy, a tight budget, and the natural reluctance to fork out more money for SEO services. In the past two weeks we have doubled his click through rate and now have a PPC campaign that is pulling its weight. As a smaller firm we are able to provide the type of constant contact and reassurance that somebody who has been burned by the big boys needs. Communication and realistic expectations will go far in any internet marketing project to help it go smoother and make the client feel like they are using their dollars effectively.

—Alan

Tags: ,
Posted in Internet Marketing, SEO | Comments Off