Hyperlinks (see my earlier post to learn what these are) connect you with other places on the web. Which is good. Google likes this, so does Yahoo and Bing.
More than that - readers like this, and so do the folk who are responsible for the places you are sending your readers to via these hyperlinks.
It's not as direct an introduction as Twitter, but trust me: I know who links to my blogs because I have stats that give me this information. You probably check your stats, too, right? Ever go see who has been sending traffic your way? (For details on Trackbacks and Pingbacks, go here.)
I've built blog rolls based upon the sites that have had the courtesy of linking to my blogs. I've emailed these bloggers, or placed their blogs in my readers, etc. I've returned the favor and linked to posts or articles they've written within my blog posts.
Of course, it's important to do this in a professional and responsible manner. Some don't and you know who they are.
One easy and smart use of hyperlinks for lawyers: link the case name to the actual opinion at the court's website. I do this as a standard practice at Terry Lenamon's Death Penalty Blog -- saves time, and lots of those readers want to read the full opinion (and the dissents).
1/26/11
Blogging Tip: Who R U Writing 4? Build a Profile of Your Readers and Write for Them, Not You
I consult with attorneys on how to write blog posts. Their blogs may be firm blogs or they may be personal blogs covering any number of personal interests. One thing ribbons through lots of these chats, though: lawyers tend to focus on the issue and not on the reader.
Which is fine, it’s what good lawyers do. Take issues and break them apart. Dogs getting every bit of meat off the bone.
Problem is: readers may not care. Or maybe they care about the issue, but they don’t want to read in depth about it. They may surf right on by your great blog post.
Here’s the thing. You want to connect with your readers. To do that, you need to know who they are.
Thing about who you want to read your blog on a regular basis. What other sites would they be visiting during their day? Go read their content.
If you’re really dedicated here, then build a profile – one or more. Ponder demographics (I’m thinking here of law firms who are blogging as a marketing strategy) if you want to get serious. If not, just make a short list of characteristics that your readers will share. Moms. Divorcees. Bankers. Investors. Brokers. Foodies. Whatever.
Which is fine, it’s what good lawyers do. Take issues and break them apart. Dogs getting every bit of meat off the bone.
Problem is: readers may not care. Or maybe they care about the issue, but they don’t want to read in depth about it. They may surf right on by your great blog post.
Here’s the thing. You want to connect with your readers. To do that, you need to know who they are.
Thing about who you want to read your blog on a regular basis. What other sites would they be visiting during their day? Go read their content.
If you’re really dedicated here, then build a profile – one or more. Ponder demographics (I’m thinking here of law firms who are blogging as a marketing strategy) if you want to get serious. If not, just make a short list of characteristics that your readers will share. Moms. Divorcees. Bankers. Investors. Brokers. Foodies. Whatever.
1/20/11
Google Scholar Keeps Getting Better as a Free Legal Research Tool
Google Scholar has been around for several years now, and I've been monitoring it as a free, online legal research tool. As you'd expect from Google, they keep building upon this product and their latest tweak involves allowing you to perform searches within specific jurisdictional databases. Search their entire federal database, or search within one appellate circuit. Limit your search to a particular state. You get the idea.
How good is Google Scholar -- and how up to date?
Well, today I was working on a blog post with Terry Lenamon on the Texas case where a state district judge wanted to hold an evidentiary pretrial hearing on the constitutionality of Texas' system of capital punishment, and how the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals slapped him down (at least for now).
I found the opinion (actually there are two) on the court's official web site. However, on a whim, I just checked the Google Scholar Advanced Search and yep. There they were. Both opinions.
So, Google Scholar is good, and getting better, but not great. Yet. But if I were Lexis or Westlaw, I'd be worried.
How good is Google Scholar -- and how up to date?
Well, today I was working on a blog post with Terry Lenamon on the Texas case where a state district judge wanted to hold an evidentiary pretrial hearing on the constitutionality of Texas' system of capital punishment, and how the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals slapped him down (at least for now).
I found the opinion (actually there are two) on the court's official web site. However, on a whim, I just checked the Google Scholar Advanced Search and yep. There they were. Both opinions.
So, Google Scholar is good, and getting better, but not great. Yet. But if I were Lexis or Westlaw, I'd be worried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)