Obviously I didn’t quite grasp the question. I thought it was how to construct our own search engine on our site (which I obviously don’t know how to do). From the blogs, I gather the question is how to climb in Google’s rankings to get search engines to name your site. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to do that either. The ideas in the blog seem very sound. I do have my stuff grouped in categories that might provide some decent keywords, and, hopefully, the links to other sites will eventually bring home the bacon. The name of my site will not help the Google page ranking, but after some thought I think the other considerations for the name outweigh that. Although the name, We Had Our God.info perhaps would help in those instances where people are searching for religious related information and not just New Deal type of searches. Having directories so the URLs are logical and simple should help. Otherwise, our metadata has to speak for itself. The keywords on our home page are limited and do shout out oral histories and church records so I think that will help some. And, of course, the site is such a better mousetrap that they will come to us eventually. If we build it, they will come. (one of the few sports movies I can’t stand)
So that was the question
Advertisement
November 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’ll be honest, I didn’t know which way we were supposed to go on this blog. I think I kind of led everyone off in the direction of talking about Google and not our own sites. If that was the wrong direction, I take responsibility. That’s why I tried to comment on both in my blog, but I am very confused over the best way to weight a search in my own site.
November 19, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I agree that it was confusing, and I was thinking about the very complex reading this week about designing keyword searches that effectively net unexpected patterns or reflect patterns in the type of things we are looking for. I have, like many web users, evolved a “style” of searching–sometimes obvious keywords, and sometimes quirky ones–that get me to what I want fairly quickly. I could really relate to the kind of thinking that Prof. Cohen used to get to the syllabi. I did that with the 50 state standards, trying to find keywords in the content standards that pointed to certain common threads, and was able to do that using about 9-10 terms that ultimately allowed me to analyze coverage of a specific topic.