Daily Archives

4 February 2015

Postponing the buying decisions for technology items

Let’s say you want to buy a monitor. If you have any option of buying that item later, postpone the decision. For example, if you know you will use the monitor only rarely, and you don’t need too perfect graphics, you could buy a second-hand big monitor. In one or two years, you could sell that monitor, and get some of your money back, and within those years, some new technologies will likely appear.

Or, let’s say you only bought Microsoft keyboards, and you had only problems with them, and you want to try some new stuff. It’s better to buy a second hand Logitech keyboard, see how it goes, and, when you’re happy with the decision, you’ll take a much more informed decision.

Or, let’s say you have the option of buying a cheaper smartphone. You should jump to the occasion of testing the water, buy that smartphone and see how it fits your needs.

Of course, there are counter-arguments. All the examples above are of poorer quality and some of them might break more easily, leaving you without the warranty.

Buying second-hand implies some risks.

Yes, you will get a better monitor and smartphone two years from now, but what will you do during those years? Will you be as happy with the second-hand item as you would have been with the new item?

Anyhow, if you can postpone a technology item for some years, it’s likely you’ll be able to get a better deal in future years.

It’s just that the wait is not so pleasant. :)

Symo0 - Technology, https://flic.kr/p/9hsheb
Symo0 – Technology, https://flic.kr/p/9hsheb

“I want to start something online, but I lack an innovative business idea”. Well, actually, the innovative idea is *nothing*, you can be innovative with an *old* idea

I hear this quite a lot. People looking for the perfect idea, for the perfect circumstances and the perfect wind. And not only the perfect circumstances don’t come, but people tend also to have difficulties in coming up with «good» ideas.

Read Full Article »

Merită să faci redirect de la URL dinamic la URL static?


1. Aș lua în considerare varianta să nu faci redirect. Citește asta:

Google say, in bold, “avoid reformatting a dynamic URL to make it look static.” But Google also admitted that “static URLs might have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates.” However, Google said “dynamic URLs should be favored over hiding parameters to make them look static.”

Does that mean SEOs and webmasters should stop rewriting their dynamic URLs? Would I personally recommend that? I think so, based on what I have been seeing recently from Google. As long as your dynamic URLs do not contain an unusual amount of parameters, like over five, I would think it would serve you better, in terms of ranking well in Google, to use dynamic URLs.

Again, this is a huge change in SEO philosophy and practice.

(sursa – Google Says, Don’t Rewrite Dynamic URLs To Static URLs)

2. Dacă vrei să faci, pune redirecționare 301 de la vechile URL-uri la cele noi. Detalii.

3. Pierzi ceva dacă faci redirect? Cu siguranță vei pierde niște poziții în Google, întrebarea e doar cât de multe. În principiu, se transferă cam 70% din valoarea linkurilor către vechile URL-uri, chiar dacă faci redirect. După ce trece un an doi, se va transfera doar vreo 60%.

Drept concluzie – ia serios în considerare să nu faci redirect de la dinamic la static.

Tomomi - 301 - Moved Permanently, https://flic.kr/p/aW7mb4
Tomomi – 301 – Moved Permanently, https://flic.kr/p/aW7mb4

PS, 2018.02.23: Dacă faci o redirecționare 301 pierzi, inerent, ceva. E imposibil să faci un redirect și să nu ai o minimă pierdere. De ținut cont de asta.