function of Cross linking?
Cross linking is used to refer the process of linking one site to another site and provide a way to allow the accessing to it.
It doesn’t need to be owned by the same person as it provides the methods that have been be built on the Internet.
It provides the users with reference sites that consist of the contents similar to the viewing of the site of the document with certain defaults.
It serves the purpose to display the page on the search engines using search engine optimization techniques and methods.
It doesn’t need to be owned by the same person as it provides the methods that have been be built on the Internet.
It provides the users with reference sites that consist of the contents similar to the viewing of the site of the document with certain defaults.
It serves the purpose to display the page on the search engines using search engine optimization techniques and methods.
What is the function of body content relevance?
The body content helps you having the higher ranking in the search engines and allows good optimization of the sites and pages.
- Body content allows the use of many statements and elements to be used to display it on the web front.
- Body content is used to have the relevance of using the tags that focuses on more on increasing the popularity.
- Body content allows the use of many statements and elements to be used to display it on the web front.
- Body content is used to have the relevance of using the tags that focuses on more on increasing the popularity.
What Kind of Things have you Done on the Social Side?
A pretty broad question as there are no right or wrong answers. Its more
about what works. This question is purposely open ended as I just want
to know what the interviewee has worked on in the past. The answer, for
me is not based on how well you know Facebook and Twitter, but simply
given the opportunity, do you have enough knowledge to be able to
leverage social platforms to achieve a particular goal.
Tell us what a Search-friendly Site Looks Like?
Pretty basic I know, but I'm looking to find out whether or not the
applicant has updated what he or she knows about on-site optimisation.
Keyword research, title tags, urls, content, alt tags, site structure,
navigation, internal linking, site maps, subdomains are all part of what
I'm expecting to hear. However, what I don't what to hear is:
Google can't crawl javaScript
Google can't follow JavaScript links
Keyword density must be X percent
Google can't read Ajax
Meta keywords are very important and should spend time including them
Meta descriptions are not so important
Google can't crawl javaScript
Google can't follow JavaScript links
Keyword density must be X percent
Google can't read Ajax
Meta keywords are very important and should spend time including them
Meta descriptions are not so important
Read This Before You Have Your Coffee
Revenge of the sources
understand why a professional journalist like Nate Thayer would be frustrated
at being asked to work for “exposure” rather than work for pay, though I
think it’s unprofessional to vent that frustration by publishing the
e-mails and the name of the junior editor who made the request.
But behind this debate lurks an uncomfortable fact: The salaries of professional journalists are built upon our success in convincing experts of all kinds working for exposure rather than pay. Now those experts have found a way to work for exposure without going through professional journalists, creating a vast expansion in the quantity and quality of content editors can get for free.
Call it the revenge of our sources. For a very long time, we got them to work for nothing more than exposure — and sometimes, we didn’t even give them that. Now they’re getting more and more of us to do it.
Ask somebody who writes for a magazine or a newspaper what they do and it’s rare, at least in my experience, to hear them say they’re a “writer.” Instead, they say they’re a “reporter” or a “journalist.” The difference between “writer” and “reporter” or “journalist” isn’t that the journalist reports — she develops sources, calls people, takes them out to lunch, and generally acts as an intermediary between her audience and the world of experts.
The journalist also writes, of course, but anybody can write. Or, if not anybody, then certainly too many people for comfort. But few can get their calls returned by key congressmen, top academics, important CEOs or even, absent the legitimacy of a media organization people have heard of, a factory worker sitting at home on a Tuesday night. That is the powerful advantage that the journalist has over her audience: She’s got sources and they don’t.
If the transaction between the journalist and the audience is that the journalist has the time, talent, and access to clearly communicate the ideas of newsmakers and experts, what then is the transaction between the journalist and those newsmakers and experts? After all, the journalist, and her institution, are profiting, hopefully handsomely, off their contribution to the enterprise. It’s not going too far to say that the whole business would collapse without their participation. Journalists without sources are, well, mere writers.
But behind this debate lurks an uncomfortable fact: The salaries of professional journalists are built upon our success in convincing experts of all kinds working for exposure rather than pay. Now those experts have found a way to work for exposure without going through professional journalists, creating a vast expansion in the quantity and quality of content editors can get for free.
Call it the revenge of our sources. For a very long time, we got them to work for nothing more than exposure — and sometimes, we didn’t even give them that. Now they’re getting more and more of us to do it.
Ask somebody who writes for a magazine or a newspaper what they do and it’s rare, at least in my experience, to hear them say they’re a “writer.” Instead, they say they’re a “reporter” or a “journalist.” The difference between “writer” and “reporter” or “journalist” isn’t that the journalist reports — she develops sources, calls people, takes them out to lunch, and generally acts as an intermediary between her audience and the world of experts.
The journalist also writes, of course, but anybody can write. Or, if not anybody, then certainly too many people for comfort. But few can get their calls returned by key congressmen, top academics, important CEOs or even, absent the legitimacy of a media organization people have heard of, a factory worker sitting at home on a Tuesday night. That is the powerful advantage that the journalist has over her audience: She’s got sources and they don’t.
If the transaction between the journalist and the audience is that the journalist has the time, talent, and access to clearly communicate the ideas of newsmakers and experts, what then is the transaction between the journalist and those newsmakers and experts? After all, the journalist, and her institution, are profiting, hopefully handsomely, off their contribution to the enterprise. It’s not going too far to say that the whole business would collapse without their participation. Journalists without sources are, well, mere writers.
