When Haytham and I spoke to Scorpion they would do all of this for us. The price of 5k a month to do blog and daily update along with google ad words et al seems like a real value. Why can't chief ingredient do this for us? The one thing that resonated with me was if attorneys are messing with the web site they are not generating income. Neal said a similar thing to me early on. 4 hours at 400 is 1600 x 4 is 6400 dollars. I spent 30 mins on my blog this morning etc. I don't know what they can do or for what cost but it seems like this should be their problem to work if other companies are including it in their plans.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:12:07 -0500
Subject: Google Analytics and Organic Numbers
Blog on Supreme Court USERRA cat's paw is up. And it helps to have it out the day after the SC ruling so the fleeting interested of the public will click on P&F to read more about it. I do put the links out on 6 social networks that people use those to "link back" to the Firm website. That is part of the "organic search" data.
Do we have any data showing this blogging is improving our organic search results? Yes, since I have been back to blogging every day since the middle of February the search terms results are yielding P&F at 68% of the time vice the 30% in January. This is all due to changing the content on the website daily. So doubling the stats in 3 weeks is really, really good.
Blogs on the process and the meaning and application of previous rulings are subject areas that can be done at any time and back logged for posting. Additionally, the creation of handouts on statistics and information for employees to use (a quick picture of the timeline and decision points in an EEOC complaint process for instance) would be posted on the site. And in fact this is one of the means to optimize organic search that the web masters will soon be asking us for.
I think I don't understand why you want to wait for us to post a link to FedSmith on the P&F websites. As I understand the "link back" from other sites, it would be having our website link on FedSmith that someone then clicks on and links to our website. That is called links to P&F via referring sites.
Our current stats for that are below. 90% of the traffic to the Puckett & Faraj websites are via other sites linking to us or via search engines. Of that 90%, 41% is due to link backs or close to half. What target to you want? To me, especially since the increase is dramatic in the last 3 weeks, I see the organic searches as good to better now and can only become outstanding.
Also it would seem that an article you write on FedSmith should be available to others who don't enter P&F from FedSmith. Additionally, if we just have a link on FedSmith on our website, the reader links to their site and increases their google organic and the selection of which sites P&F should "endorse" this way may be a worthy topic of discussion. Part of the statistics on google search is dwell time on the P&F site. The longer someone stays on our site the better for the organic searches, especially if they read more than one page. Not sure if I've got the principal right on this but its probably worth asking the experts about that...
One option, if the team would define a target that you'd like the organic search results (greater than our current 40%) reach then a strategic plan can be defined. The website guys started the SEO campaign yesterday. Providing them targets, metrics, and defining success (such as 15 quality phone calls a day, with 13 conversions - of course you would have to track that information to prove results)... would all be helpful. (FYI, the current conversion metric is only based on the number of people that fill out a "contact us" form on the P&F and FEL website pages.
One additional item re:
I still don't exist on any EEO/MSPB organic searches, and even Tully is beating us on organic searches for the term "military criminal lawyer." - Tully's "
www.fedattorney.com" and "
fedattorney.com/criminal" domain name is a strong pull to the website coming up on the first page when the word "federal" or "attorney" is typed into the search window. There are ways to combat that including populating the content on the pages using the search terms to ensure those terms are on the page 2-7% of the time. Meaning, the words are repeated throughout the paragraphs - in my education and training that means really bad writing and sentence structure has to be used. Neal and I spent 4 hours on a Sunday 3 weeks ago, updating all the pages to put in the search terms the webmasters told us we needed to boost for the google search to recognize. The webmasters have also told me that a critical component is blogging or content change on the website EVERY DAY.... that's where I'm focused right now. Thus my question on how to "bank" some blogs...
How the P&F site is found:
Via Search Engines - 48.58% (PFC $$ here - Organic ranking is 24%, PFC - 14.6% on google - Yahoo organic is 3.78%)
Via Referring Sites - 40.81% (the links from other sites - the issue Eric is raising as part of rationale for articles on CAAFLOG for example or from the subdomain - federalemploymentlaw.puckettfaraj for example)
Sorry, long winded, but there is a lot about SEO and SN, Blogging that is not intuitive nor apparent from doing google searches without a background in statistics, world wide web, and computer algorithms... I'm slowly learning... Marcy
On Mar 2, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Debra A D'Agostino wrote:
I'd rather wait until FedSmith posts the article to post on blog - that way we can have a link.
Not sure how to develop a set of blogs in advance as it seems to make more sense to do them as news comes out.
Do we have any data showing this blogging is improving our organic search results? I still don't exist on any EEO/MSPB organic searches, and even Tully is beating us on organic searches for the term "military criminal lawyer." The paid ads are showing up at certain hours, but the organic searches aren't looking good.
From: Atwood Marcy [mailto:marcy@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 1:05 PM
To: Debra A D'Agostino
Cc: Eric Montalvo; Neal Puckett
Subject: Re: SCT decision, Staub v. Proctor Hospital
Plze send me the article and I'll post on the website too. Attached is the blog I wrote this morning same subject. I'll blend. Please advise how we can better coordinate so as to not duplicate effort. Would you rather I just wait for your inputs? I'd like to develop a set of blogs ready to post each week so as to be able to update the Fed Employment Law pages daily ... thus boosting google organic search results.