Tuesday, the 13th of November

13.11.2012

- Started the day with adjusting new keywords (found yesterday through Google Analytics) that our visitors use to my keyword list. Now it features more than 350+ words. Too big - so after acquiring some additional data (year global searches, time per visit, our/competitors rank) I'll clean it up and try to make shorter.

- Note on Year visits statistic: useful factor, but somewhat imprecise. Since the google rank changes pretty rapidly and depends on many different factors (media coverage, season events, etc.), and number of visits assumably depends strongly on google rank factor, high/low Year visits number does not necessarily mean that particular keyword is efficient or not. Much precise would be to show the 12 month changing curve or diagram, that could illustrate changes in keyword popularity depending on year period. But that would make my already enormous table even bigger, so I'll reserve this idea for some other time.

 Example to illustrate my words: key word "zzz" generated 20 visits to our website this year. That would probably mean that we have pretty good google rank of this word, right? Wrong! According to Ranck Check we are not even in the top 100 with this word. But how is it possible?! My suggestion is that a few months ago we actually had a good rank position with this word (probably due to some advertising campaign or new published press release, etc.) but then the wind changed and we lost this rank, but traffic, generated with "zzz" word were nevertheless calculated by Google. So I think I'll try to be as careful as possible with this parameters and will not rely on them too much.

- Seemingly simple task - to design a flyer for a magazine, that would advertise some of our products - turned out to be not so simple. The images I selected for this flyer was good, but they were not OUR'S. I was not allowed to use them because of possible copyright-violation. My boss said that he could buy pictures of similar products from iSharephoto, if I could find and identify them with the help of the engineer. iSharephoto proved to be pretty misery - there were only two more-or-less appropriate photos, and even they did not feature the product we needed to advertise, clear enough. Then I spent some hours digging in my predecessor's work files and finally finished with some crappy, low dimension and scetchy pictures. But these pictures were OUR'S - that meant no one will have to worry about it's legalness. I did what I could to make it look like something presentable and ended up with nothing-special-but-not-that-bad picture. It's pity, that due to such limited resources aesthetic values of the end product have to suffer...