Home / Our Blog

Archive for February, 2009

Web Site Content - Give it Away or Charge for it?

Thursday, February 26th, 2009 by Ilya Bernshteyn

I was reading an article recently where an experienced web guy was describing rules to follow on the web. He might as well have called them unbreakable laws because the idea was that by not following these rules, you were destined for failure on the web.   One in particular caught my attention, which was that you have to give your content away for free, arguing that otherwise someone else would do it, basically that as a paid-content provider you’d loose out to free content.

I’m not going to argue, I definitely like free content. For example, how a lot of news organizations make their publications free on the web, while people can still subscribe to their paid, print versions.  Also, from personal experience, when I’m searching for something online, it’s for some quick information, i.e. a free, quality answer. But I’d say there’s more to it than that. Free and paid content both have their place on the web. It’s up to the individual dispersing that content to find a creative way to use it. Yes, putting time into showing people something you may want to make money from it and in that case advertisements would work, but drawing an example from print life, those free publications running solely on advertisements are definitely not beating out the paid ones, although there are quality ones on both sides. There’s also paid online content that Colleges pay big bucks for, anyone whose done research on one of those databases colleges subscribe to knows that I’m talking about.

Anyway, I’m just saying both can be successful and useful, saying you’ll fail with paid content on the web is a bit overboard :) Let me know what you think!

Lawsuit Going Against Conventional Wisdom

Monday, February 23rd, 2009 by Gene Averbuch

I’m being redundant, right? Many of my lawyer friends would say that a lot of today’s lawsuits would fall under this category, but I thought this particular one was very interesting. Apparently a law firm wanted to stop another site from linking to it if the link name was anything other than the law firm’s domain name or company name. In other words, if I were to draw a parallel to Intechnic’s site, it would essentially be the difference between this “Intechnic Corporation” and “Web Development Services”, the latter of which, is what they did not want.

To me, it does and does not make sense at the same time. The site linking to them (as far as I can tell) was not, in any way, malicious. They linked because they found the information useful, the same way I would link to, for example, Enterprise 2.0 Solutions, if I had a site that talked about that topic. In this scenario, both I (the site owner) and Intechnic (the owner of the page I linked to) win because I get a link with useful information, while Intechnic gets a referring link that helps search engine optimization.

Going back to what I presume was the rationale behind the law firm’s actions. They may have been afraid of something called a “google bomb”. Because of the way search engine optimization works, if I link to a page with a particular keyword (see my web development services link above), google will display that page in its results when someone searches for that set of keywords. Now imagine if I were to have one thousand sites link to a page using the words “there is no place like home”. Well, that site could be about how to properly inflate car tires, but since so many people link to it via that set of keywords, it would end up showing up under the search results for “there is no place like home”…along with Kansas, The Wizard of OZ, Dorothy, and the evil witch. Now imagine someone doing the same thing but with words that you wouldn’t want your business associated with…

In any case, I think they over-reacted, but that’s just my opinion.