Blogging questioned as marketing tool
I would submit that a solid Q&A or "white papers" as PDF documents on a web site have much higher value than "chatting" in a blog. Google will likely rank such "relevant" documents fairly well.
The issue of how one's blog entries appear in a Google search (if they appear at all) is quite pertinent. You can write great stuff, but if no one can find it, the stuff effectively does not exist.
As of August 20, this post has not been indexed by Google.
Still no indexing as of August 21. Of one of the IP patent blogs Ambrogi reviewed in the NJLJ last October (navigating the patent maze), we have from April 2005:
-->This blog has been going for nearly a year and a half. When I started blogging the intent was for it to be syndicated to the front page of the website where I worked at the time. Well, that didn't happen. I continued anyway hoping I'd reach similar users. Also I was keeping it up to support some grant requests submitted with my economist colleagues. Well, those didn't happen either. So a few days ago, I found myself wondering why I was spending the time blogging. As I explained in the previous post, blogging takes a fair modicum of time and effort. Time I should be spending in trying to promote my law services. And my web site Cougar Patent Law is where my efforts are going to be from now on. There is a News page there that will be similar to this blog, but not nearly as detailed and geared more for clients. I hope you'll visit it.
I will leave all the posts here at this site for reference, but will not be adding to it in the foreseeable future. Maybe things will change if I win a big lottery prize!
Cheers to all and thanks for visiting.<--
It took about one week for Google to index the text in the above post about blogging. To the extent that Google takes different times to index different material on the internet, one has an interesting time issue, somewhat like that of INS v. AP 248 US 215 (1918).
That is, a later-in-time internet poster can copy from an earlier-in-time-poster (who nevertheless is not promptly indexed by Google), with the later-in-time poster appearing first-in-time. In the INS case, INS copied from AP's news reports on the east coast, and got them out to the west coast before others. In a different vein, Microsoft filed a patent application before Apple, and thus might appear to be the "first" inventor of the iPod.
The question of "who is first" can seem to turn on how priority is reported, rather than on what actually happened.
**Separately, from sitepoint
Google engineer Matt Cutts chipped in to support the use of the rel=nofollow attribute on ad links. He also stated that he had been aware of O’Reilly’s link sales for some time, and that “parts of perl.com, xml.com, etc. have not been trusted in terms of linkage for months and months.” Further, that “just because a site shows up for a ‘link:’ command on Google does not mean that it passes PageRank, reputation, or anchortext.”
Those words, if they are heard throughout the SEO world, are sure to shake the confidence of many text link brokers… it’s about time. Smart link traders will be moving toward a model that makes it easier to use their networks for advertising that isn’t solely targeted at spiders.
Personally, I just wish Google stopped publishing page rank. How do you do well in search engines? By having the most relevant content. Simple.