- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In my case its several reasons:
1. Page Load Times – A number of programs had problems with banners either not loading at all or taking so long that MY pages timed out before they could display. I felt this alone was a serious problem for visitors and search engines. By serving my own banners I cut page load time by more then 60%.
2. Reliability – Quite a few times while doing updates I found banners missing on my pages. When I checked the casino had deleted that creative or renamed it. I find missing graphics on my pages intollerable.
3. Security – Some casinos have linked the banners they were serving to scripts which ran pop ups on my sites when the banner was displayed. I was also concerned that a few less reputable partners were looking at where the banners were being served on my higher trafficed pages and then TARGETING those pages in Gator, WhenU and other scumware programs.
4. SEO Considerations
Professor wrote:4. SEO ConsiderationsCare to expand on this one Prof?
Cheers
Simmo!
I was thinking the same Simmo about point 4. Would like to know more about that too.
Best argument is [url=xhttp://VegasReference.com]http://VegasReference.com[/url]
(PORNO, sorry ladies)Externally loaded graphics that are common across thousands of sites….
Hmmm Wouldnt take too much to assume those are affiliate banners and we all know how the search engines feel about affiliate banners….
I have always served up my own banners as it gives me more control and the ability to create and use unique banners. Also if there is a technical issue I prefer to have control in correcting it rather than waiting on someone else (I cannot stand that wait)
The SEO cannot be overlooked as well. This way you have the opportunity to name the banners to be the most productive.
Brian
vd752 wrote:Best argument is [url=xhttp://VegasReference.com]http://VegasReference.com[/url]
(PORNO, sorry ladies)Too funny!
Re. SEO, what Lou said, but also the loading time influences SEO.
The only time I will let the program serve is if they auto-update the banners and I trust their taste (at least somewhat). Auto updates are just too convenient.
that is poetic :nono: I prefer using the auto update text links as it is a win/win situation for both the aff and the aff program wants to make sure all promotions are the current ones.
All aff managers should make sure they provide auto update for all their promotions for all their properties to update them first of the month or whenever they change.
I use Casino Feed and I like the service but I prefer to pull it directly from the aff program themselves.
Just my two cents! So Lou that guy was pulling a banner from another site and got caught so the webmasters switched pics correct?
PRICELESS!
Brian
Originally Posted by vd752
best laugh I’ve had all week.
well worth the look …. (if you can get past the picture).
Thanks everyone, especially Dom and Prof for your input. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
I couldn’t see what all the hoopla was about. Using FireFox, the site displays just fine. It’s only with IE that you get the replaced images.
Actually, I think that this is a image hot-linking prevention method gone awry. I’m guessing that VegasReference has code on their site to try to detect when an image is linked from another site and uses the referrer info to do that. I bet XP SP2 broke IE and now their own visitors are getting that rather shocking image.
I think I’ll drop Michael an email.
You miss a good keyword boost opportunity in both the alt image text and the naming of the graphic itself if you use external banner serving. Google and Yahoo both provide image search results.
So, that’s how come I have an increasing number of image links!
Thanks for that, bangsfun! :colgate:
As I guessed, it was a hot-link prevention method that wasn’t working in all browsers.
Professor wrote:Externally loaded graphics that are common across thousands of sites….Hmmm Wouldnt take too much to assume those are affiliate banners and we all know how the search engines feel about affiliate banners….
I just thought this was very unfair when i read about it elsewhere.
I did wonder whether serving ones own graphics for banners would solve out the the potential problem but came to the conclusion that the search engines would read the links, read the page the link links to, find thousands of links pointing to the identical content residing after 1 url and decipher aff links anyhow.
If that makes sense..
I take it I am over estimating the ability or want for search engines to seek out aff links?
