<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Church Blogging?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:45:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: James W. Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/#comment-11129</link>
		<dc:creator>James W. Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=395#comment-11129</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve heard that alot of people got scared off when the Church stopped alot of the old ward and stake websites that were on personal websites and things like that.

That was only so they could have a unified presence with each ward and stake having an official site on LDS.org.  Sure they look minimal at times now, but they are planning new features that will really make these stand out and these will always be somewhat more than what many people can program themselves.  These will prove to be highly useful to many.

On the &#039;search engine optimization&#039; matter, there have been some recent changes in the search engine industry of late that will change the way most earch engines rank sites.

Now they will take into account the age of the site, and the relevancy of the content.  For example, if a site has a webring link or an FFA (Free For All) link page, it may not be looked on as favorably as it might have in the past .  The links should be to similar or generally related content, and the content of the page should be relevant to the overall page.  Page Rank is no longer considered that important now.

The Church has it right on both counts.  The lds.org site has existed in some form since 1997 but only with conference talks added by the Church after the conference is over, and the content since 2000 has been added to by the Church itself on a rather frequent basis, with links largely to other websites owned or maintained by the Church or its other organizations, such as BYU.

One problem has been the long URLs.  There&#039;s a certain point at which Google will bypass a particular page&#039;s URL and not list it if it is too long of a character string in one part of a URL, usually the last part (as is seen in some of the beta site pages right now).  There are some other URL string issues that should also be resolved, which will actually help search engines spider all applicable pages on the site properly, the end result is that the desired result of putting up lds.org, getting the words of the Prophets out to the world, will be available to anyone, just by searching on a topic and finding the lds.org results in their search.  And not just one page, but maybe quite a few separate article pages at that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve heard that alot of people got scared off when the Church stopped alot of the old ward and stake websites that were on personal websites and things like that.</p>
<p>That was only so they could have a unified presence with each ward and stake having an official site on LDS.org.  Sure they look minimal at times now, but they are planning new features that will really make these stand out and these will always be somewhat more than what many people can program themselves.  These will prove to be highly useful to many.</p>
<p>On the &#8216;search engine optimization&#8217; matter, there have been some recent changes in the search engine industry of late that will change the way most earch engines rank sites.</p>
<p>Now they will take into account the age of the site, and the relevancy of the content.  For example, if a site has a webring link or an FFA (Free For All) link page, it may not be looked on as favorably as it might have in the past .  The links should be to similar or generally related content, and the content of the page should be relevant to the overall page.  Page Rank is no longer considered that important now.</p>
<p>The Church has it right on both counts.  The lds.org site has existed in some form since 1997 but only with conference talks added by the Church after the conference is over, and the content since 2000 has been added to by the Church itself on a rather frequent basis, with links largely to other websites owned or maintained by the Church or its other organizations, such as BYU.</p>
<p>One problem has been the long URLs.  There&#8217;s a certain point at which Google will bypass a particular page&#8217;s URL and not list it if it is too long of a character string in one part of a URL, usually the last part (as is seen in some of the beta site pages right now).  There are some other URL string issues that should also be resolved, which will actually help search engines spider all applicable pages on the site properly, the end result is that the desired result of putting up lds.org, getting the words of the Prophets out to the world, will be available to anyone, just by searching on a topic and finding the lds.org results in their search.  And not just one page, but maybe quite a few separate article pages at that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LifeOnaPlate</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/#comment-9256</link>
		<dc:creator>LifeOnaPlate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=395#comment-9256</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s to LDS blogging! I think it&#039;s a wonderful ways for families to keep a great history, complete with photographs, movies, and stories from many contributors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s to LDS blogging! I think it&#8217;s a wonderful ways for families to keep a great history, complete with photographs, movies, and stories from many contributors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bookslinger</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/#comment-8854</link>
		<dc:creator>Bookslinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=395#comment-8854</guid>
		<description>I am sending Larry Richman the URL for my public counter/tracker.  This
shows what people are searching on when they come to my site.

One of the goals of SEO (search engine optimization) is to find out what search terms people are using, which &quot;should&quot; bring them to your site, but are  actually taking them elsewhere.  Looking at your own logs doesn&#039;t tell you that.  Ttheoretically, you  want to look at your competitors&#039; logs.

For instance, my blog gets people from around the world looking for the Book of Mormon in various world language translations.  My blog side-bar has links and phone #&#039;s  that people can go to and call.  Theoretically, I&#039;d like those people to originally go to the proper LDS.org web page.  My goal is to supplment, not steal from, whatever is on LDS.org and Mormon.org

Call to action for bloggers:  If you have a public counter/tracker, send Larry the URL.  If you have a private one, or a private referral log, send him an occasional snap-shot if you think that LDS.org or Mormon.org should be getting some of those referrals from search engines. 

That may help him see what people are looking for, determin if it is something that the church websites could/should be offering, and how to craft or improve  DS.org and Mormon.org pages to rank better for those queries.

If you are tech-savvy, set up something to &quot;grep&quot; (filter)  those logs, and send him just the referral entries from search engines.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sending Larry Richman the URL for my public counter/tracker.  This<br />
shows what people are searching on when they come to my site.</p>
<p>One of the goals of SEO (search engine optimization) is to find out what search terms people are using, which &#8220;should&#8221; bring them to your site, but are  actually taking them elsewhere.  Looking at your own logs doesn&#8217;t tell you that.  Ttheoretically, you  want to look at your competitors&#8217; logs.</p>
<p>For instance, my blog gets people from around the world looking for the Book of Mormon in various world language translations.  My blog side-bar has links and phone #&#8217;s  that people can go to and call.  Theoretically, I&#8217;d like those people to originally go to the proper LDS.org web page.  My goal is to supplment, not steal from, whatever is on LDS.org and Mormon.org</p>
<p>Call to action for bloggers:  If you have a public counter/tracker, send Larry the URL.  If you have a private one, or a private referral log, send him an occasional snap-shot if you think that LDS.org or Mormon.org should be getting some of those referrals from search engines. </p>
<p>That may help him see what people are looking for, determin if it is something that the church websites could/should be offering, and how to craft or improve  DS.org and Mormon.org pages to rank better for those queries.</p>
<p>If you are tech-savvy, set up something to &#8220;grep&#8221; (filter)  those logs, and send him just the referral entries from search engines.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Butler</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/#comment-8851</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=395#comment-8851</guid>
		<description>One should not neglect &lt;a href=&quot;http://eatslikeahuman.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Taking Genealogy&lt;/a&gt;, by Dan Lawyer, a Product Manager in the Family History Department of the Church.  His weblog has been around at least since March of this year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One should not neglect <a href="http://eatslikeahuman.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Taking Genealogy</a>, by Dan Lawyer, a Product Manager in the Family History Department of the Church.  His weblog has been around at least since March of this year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/#comment-8849</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=395#comment-8849</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the heads up on this.

I also like the comments by J. and Geoff.

Oh to have a crystal ball and see how this develops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the heads up on this.</p>
<p>I also like the comments by J. and Geoff.</p>
<p>Oh to have a crystal ball and see how this develops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff J</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/church-blogging/#comment-8848</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=395#comment-8848</guid>
		<description>I agree, J.  We will continue to be warned to use the Web and all media wisely but there is no inherent danger in blogs that needs to be warned about.  The fact is that faithful saints tend to sound like faithful saints on blogs so what is there to warn about on that?  And as you said, the blogs slanted against the church won&#039;t be going away so the more church-friendly bloggers there are the better I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, J.  We will continue to be warned to use the Web and all media wisely but there is no inherent danger in blogs that needs to be warned about.  The fact is that faithful saints tend to sound like faithful saints on blogs so what is there to warn about on that?  And as you said, the blogs slanted against the church won&#8217;t be going away so the more church-friendly bloggers there are the better I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

