Existing users, 
 Advanced Web Ranking - 6.3find position of your site in search engines |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
(3.7)
Feedback Summary:
| This Version: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Not rated (0.0) | Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews 
Troubleshooting 
Usage Tips 
Developer Notes 
Commentary 
Featured Reviews
Google Dangers? Loss of ranking? - Version: 6.0, 12/4/2007 05:27AM PST
(1 of 1 users found this comment useful)
Jefferis Peterson
Hi folks, I have been interested in a program like AWR and have demoed an earlier version, but when I work on Google, I see warnings from google itself not to use things like Web Position Gold because of the way they ping the search engine and ask for info. I'm concerned that this program might fall into that category. Any ideas or feedback?
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
- Google Dangers? Loss of ranking?
Still the best! - Version: 5.0, 12/3/2006 02:32AM PST
(3 of 3 users found this comment useful)
julianps_dotmac
I've used AWR for a couple of years now and as mentioned here already, it just gets better and better. However it also gets more and more expensive.
Users planning on upgrading to the new Enterprise license should note that the annual keep-it-going charge virtually doubles as well (as does the re-instatement fee if you accidentally let an annual agreement lapse). Whilst the 5 year cost of the standard version is a modest $250, the five year price of Enterprise might be closer to $1,000!
Also, the publisher missed a significant trick in not have the Enterprise function link AWR [projects] to their (also pretty nifty) Link Analysis software [projects] - allowing the two to be managed together. For my money upgraders should hold out on the Enterprise license until "killer" functionality is added to justify the killer pricing.
Because the division of features between Standard, Pro end Enterprise looks more to do with canny marketing than how real-world users might benefit (ie some non-Enterprise 'Pro users are going to be paying a lot more to access useful additional features).
As an unrelated footnote, when we renewed our maintenance agreement a month early we lost a month off the existing agreement. Sure we got a speedy reply to our complaint (and re-instatement of the month; thanks Philip) but others who might not have noticed might not get the same result.
So whilst AWR is still the only game in town that game is getting more and more expensive more play and users will need to look closely at features and alternatives and check the all-in costs before making a decision.
Webranx Pro, anyone?
Users planning on upgrading to the new Enterprise license should note that the annual keep-it-going charge virtually doubles as well (as does the re-instatement fee if you accidentally let an annual agreement lapse). Whilst the 5 year cost of the standard version is a modest $250, the five year price of Enterprise might be closer to $1,000!
Also, the publisher missed a significant trick in not have the Enterprise function link AWR [projects] to their (also pretty nifty) Link Analysis software [projects] - allowing the two to be managed together. For my money upgraders should hold out on the Enterprise license until "killer" functionality is added to justify the killer pricing.
Because the division of features between Standard, Pro end Enterprise looks more to do with canny marketing than how real-world users might benefit (ie some non-Enterprise 'Pro users are going to be paying a lot more to access useful additional features).
As an unrelated footnote, when we renewed our maintenance agreement a month early we lost a month off the existing agreement. Sure we got a speedy reply to our complaint (and re-instatement of the month; thanks Philip) but others who might not have noticed might not get the same result.
So whilst AWR is still the only game in town that game is getting more and more expensive more play and users will need to look closely at features and alternatives and check the all-in costs before making a decision.
Webranx Pro, anyone?
Not garbage for me 
- Version: 4.7.1, 10/7/2006 06:09AM PST
(1 of 1 users found this comment useful)
Paul_Vail_674
I do a fair bit of SEO when I am building sites for customers (not after they are built, usually). This product has been very useful for me to gauge effects my coding has on keyword and various search engine rankings relative to competitive sites. I find the reports thorough, particularly where it stores in a database every analysis so I can take snapshops in time of benefit or mistakes in my code and my SEO work. Being able to upload HTML copies of each report to a server is a blessing, too.
I'm not sure what folks need in an assessment tool for SEO, but this thing is FAR better than paying some SEO company to 'optimize' ones website. It doesn't crash, it does what the adverts claim, and the developers have been receptive to both new ideas and teaching users (me) where to find the features I need.
I'm not sure what folks need in an assessment tool for SEO, but this thing is FAR better than paying some SEO company to 'optimize' ones website. It doesn't crash, it does what the adverts claim, and the developers have been receptive to both new ideas and teaching users (me) where to find the features I need.
