When it comes to getting exposure for your website, some places are better than others to get listed or linked to.  Billy Bob's News Portal might send you some traffic, but it will most likely pale in comparison to what you'd get from Slashdot.  A link in Mom's Directory of Pretty Websites can't hurt your exposure… but it won't send as many people your way as, say, a listing in The Open Directory.

If you take the time to read one thing today, make it Danny Sullivan's extensive case study of his experience with two good sources of traffic:  Google News and Digg.

Sullivan compares the traffic generated by Google News and Digg on two different stories he and a fellow blogger posted to Search Engine Watch.  Digg, viewed by many as the 'gotta-get-into' traffic generator, sent a substantially less amount of traffic to Search Engine Watch than Google News.  As surprising as this might sound, Sullivan's careful examination of the factors leading to the results highlight several things I've talked about here at the Internet Marketing Monitor.

Sullivan's article, which appeared in Google News, was on a popular, widely written-about topic.  But his article took a different approach than other news outlets were taking.  This made his content stand out in a crowd of same ol' same ol' articles.  In addition, Sullivan made a conscious effort to check his tail and, as the tables and charts he provides show, it paid off with literally thousands of hits.  When he added up the keywords and phrases people were searching for in the long tail, it proved to be a substantial percentage of how people found his article.

In contrast, the article written by his fellow blogger appeared on the Digg front page.  The dynamics of Digg linkage and Google linkage are vastly different.  Needless to say, the Digg article was visited 80% fewer times than the Google News article.  And while the remainder of Sullivan's case study focuses on the experience with Digg and it's users, the information presented is extremely valuable.

Granted, not every website has the opportunity to get a stab at the Google News front page.  But the grand lesson in Sullivan's case study applies to every website, regardless of its subject:  content is what makes a webpage worth visiting, not where it shows up.

Google… Digg… Slashdot… all irrelevant if the content of your website is lacking.  As Sullivan found out, taking a different spin or a different approach to a well-worn subject can make a huge difference.  Paying attention to the long tail can make a huge difference.  If your content doesn't stand out, what's the point of looking at it?