Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

External resource suggestion

I'd like to nominate my article, SEO 101 for the External Links section. It's the largest and most comprehensive free article on the subject I know of. I won't add it myself because of Wikipedia's rule against self-promotion, and because I know about the controversy surrounding external links. For what it's worth, there is no paid advertising in this article, not even Adsense, and it's already doing well in the search rankings without a link from Wikipedia (e.g., #1 in Google for "get a good google ranking"). -MichaelBluejay 02:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the Google or Yahoo adverts, but that SEOs themselves are the service that is being advertised. For example, I notice your site links to loads of others sites of yours, with plenty of Google Ads, and your rate of $100 per hour is only a click away. I support the current ban on links to any site like this. Thanks for asking though. zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but definitely that's not appropriate for this article. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, I've never sold my web services for $100/hr. and don't intend to I just put that up there to impress upon my readers that my time is valuable, because otherwise I get flooded with questions from people who think I'm a free helpdesk. Also, I promoted my other sites within my articles *long before* I put up any Adsense. You have to put something in a sidebar, otherwise the page is too wide and the line lengths are too long, or you have a ton of whitespace. So I've promoted my other sites/articles, since I like it when people read the things I've taken the effort to create. I definitely haven't received much value in return for the week I spent writing the SEO article, and trying to make money is not why I wrote it. I do think it's the best, most comprehensive free resource on SEO available on the net, and certainly extremely relevant to the article as well as high quality, but I understand how link-phobic people are here. Incidentally, whether a site contains any advertising, direct or indirect, is a silly way to judge its value. The New York Times contains advertising. (The horrors!) -MichaelBluejay 14:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that this page is subject to constant linkspamming. I am sure your article on SEO ranks well in Google, so people can easily find it. Rather than linking to your own article, please work on improving this one. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I have worked on the article. And yes, my site ranks well, which is beside the point, because my motivation isn't trying to increase traffic to my site, it's trying to provide an incredibly relevant and useful resource. The article is *less* useful if readers are deprived of useful external resources. My own resource need not be among them (though admittedly, I don't know of another free, quality article that's as comprehensive), but certainly we should include *some* useful links besides the SE's themselves. Censoring what's truly useful doesn't serve the readers. Yes, spamlinks are a problem. But just because some people add crappy sites doesn't mean we should censor the ones that *are* useful. -MichaelBluejay 08:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge assembled from different sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. If a source has useful information, that knowledge should be included in the article, and a reference made to the source. The citation should be to an authoritative source, such as an established publication, not somebody or some expert's web site. The source should have an editor, be peer reviewed or somehow be very official, especially in the case of this article. Citing one's own website or a friend's website is not acceptable. This article is deficient because it lacks sources. It contains a lot of speculation. We need to find reliable sources and cite them. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

High quality sites typically rank well

This section contained some bullet points about how to build a high-quality site, partly redundant with the content above, and partly speculation and myth. I've chopped that material. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed ethical/unethical to white hat/black hat

The terms "ethical" and "unethical" are obviously *incredibly* POV. I changed them to white hat and black hat. -MichaelBluejay 21:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Standard spelling? Part I

Can we agree on a standard spelling of website/web site? I'm not suggesting that we set the standard for the whole world, but the spelling should probably be consistent within a single article. I vote for website because that's the title of the Wikipedia article (web site is a redirect) and because I like it better. Anyone else have an opinion? JordeeBec 15:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should standardize, and that that standard should be "website". -MichaelBluejay 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, another issue. Since when is search engine hypenated? JordeeBec 18:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! JordeeBec 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Search engine isn't hypenated, and web site is two words. ;)Bill Slawski 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Someone hyphenated SE throughout the article. The "thanks" was meant for the person who took out the hyphens.

Google gets 6.95 billion results for website and 5.19 billion for "web site" (for which they suggest the spelling "website"). But we all know how accurate those numbers are.

Perhaps more importantly in a Wikipedia article, and as I stated in my original post, the title of the Wikipedia article is one word. If we're going by the AP style guide (and why would we?) it's Web site (capitalized). If it's going to be debated, I think the Website Talk page would be the forum (and it's been done there, of course). I was about ready to change it. Anyone else want to vote?

If you want my credentials, I've been an avid Internet user for more than a decade, I work for an SEO company and I have heard of SMA-NA (and other SMAs--EU, UK) as well as SEMPO. JordeeBec 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet, does it? Even a smilie at the end of my sentence there wasn't enough to indicate that my statement was being sarcastic. As you probably know, Google's spell checker isn't based upon a correct spelling of words, but rather the consensus of usage it finds on the web. Bill Slawski 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who took out the hyphens. Bill Slawski 02:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank YOU, then. I kept meaning to check. I didn't mean to jump all over you, sorry. I misinterpreted your smiley. I do still prefer website myself, but I think that the website article is really the biggest argument in favor of that spelling. Does anyone else even care about this? JordeeBec 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

White Hat Methods

There's a list of methods approved by the search engines. As far as I know, SE's don't approve of anything. Webmasters have learned through experience what works in the long run, and what eventually fails. Here's the big problem - no sources are cited. Who are we going to cite? Right now the article is rife with speculation because so much isn't supported by citations.

The main deficiency of this article is that we have not cited any authorities besides the search engines, so we have a one-sided, inaccurate article.

I'd like to nominate a short list of recognized SEO sources:

• WebmasterWorld.com
• HighRankings.com
• SearchEngineWatch.com

Does anybody want to nominate others? Can we form a consensus as to whether these are linkspam or not? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these are the there most well-known and most useful resources. It would be silly to consider them link-spam. -MichaelBluejay 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So the thought is that having only the engines as external sources is creating an incomplete or biased article full of speculation. But we only want to cite sources that you consider to be "white hat" in nature? Will that make the article much more useful?

If we want this article to be realistic we should either drop the pigeonholing of information (allowing sources to be sourced based on quality of information rather than how one person perceives how the source complies with search engine terms of service) or use something other than marketing buzz words to define the separation we chose to make when sourcing.

Frankly I often learn more from spam than from beginner SEO tips. Aaron Wall 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that our criterion for whether a link is added is whether it adds value to the article. That could be white hat or black hat, advertising or no advertising, popular or not. I don't want to see this article become a link farm either, but surely we can point readers to quality sources of more in-depth information (which is supposed to be the whole point of an External Links section anyway). -MichaelBluejay 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody should object to a source if it is a "published" work. We should attempt to cite the most authoritative source for each assertion presented as fact. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References

An anonymous editor has come through and added some good references to make this article higher quality. I've removed two of them because the links didn't seem to work properly. Nice effort. Take another look and try again! Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

They worked fine when I added them. I spent 20 seconds and found an alternative source that may be more stable - from the Stanford database pages. Thanks. Bill Slawski 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly send me your review whether the link I am providing will be pertinent or not. [Bravenet link removed]

Not even close. Removed this spam. -MichaelBluejay 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Resources for Webmasters

A huge part about this topic was left out. I added the most important resources that were missing. Additional resources can be found at the listed resources. A ban of it would be in conflict with WP:NPOV which also applies to this topic (as far as I know). If you have valid arguments, let hear them. Please post at my Talk Page. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Note regarding the older comment from 1. February 2006 by Perfecto as response to Danny Sullivan's Statement: "You absolutely should be linking to sources of knowledge beyond the major search engines.". Perfecto wrote: "I disagree, because, since Wikipedia may someday see print or DVD publication, we want more content, not more links". The situation in SEO and SEM is changing constantly. A place like Wikipedia is not designed to address that issue. The Volume of information produced is huge and you can't simply ignore those information. Historic information are important in this Industry. Wikipedias job is to explain in a general way what SEO is. When it comes to Hard Facts valid TODAY, Wikipedia has no choice, but link to the site specialized in this. Have a look at this Post from Matt Cutts/Google regarding an AdWords book published less than 1 year ago. AdWords which is SEM is not nearly as fast and dramatically changing as Search Engine Algorithms which change in turn SEO. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cumbrowski, I absolutely agree with you that important external resources should be listed, and I'm no longer going to accept the position of those who want to keep it out of the article. I reverted when someone removed your edits, and I'll continue to do so. I do think that we should still be careful about what we link to. WebmasterWorld, yes. SEO Rockstar Radio -- um, probably not. -MichaelBluejay 09:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael. I think we are on the same page. I added the top resources per "type" of resource. Blogs: Matt Cutts from Google, Forums: Webmaster World, Alerts: ThreadWatch, Resources and News: SearchEngineWatch, Expos: SearchEngineStrategies and new Media, Radio/Podcast: SEO Rockstars. I could have added the Daily Search Cast, but I did so already indirectly because you can get it at Webmasterradio.FM or Search Engine Watch. A Print Magazine Resource is missing, but there is none as far as I know, like Revenue Magazine for Affiliate Marketing. I believe SEO Rockstars is a good start for a lot of Web Masters that are Newbies. It's way easier to digest than the huge amount of content which can be found at the other resources it also points out, that there is actually a radio station for Webmasters with shows covering SEO and of course every other important topic of interest for a Website owner. You are right, that you could argue about the link. I would have kept it for the reasons I mentioned, but If others disagree, fine, leave it out. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I invited Tregoweth and Jehochman to join. I hope that other Wikipedians that have the Article on their Watchlist will join too. It is a popular and also controversial article which is a prime target for spammers. Because of that is it most important that everybody who has an interest in the quality of the content here at Wikipedia should be part of the decision about what to keep and what not. For the sake of WP:NPOV is it necessary to add resources for WebMasters other than the one provided by Search Engines. There is no other way around that --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Link. I prefer to link to the resources directly, but propose in case that no consensus can be reached to link at least to the Yahoo Directory Category: Search Engine Optimization (SEO)--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

References Cleanup

The References Section was a mess. It did not match the references used in the Article at all. I cleaned up the mess. I did the following: I added the missing ones and removed the links that are not a reference from the reference section and added them under the new section: Additional Research Resources and last but not leat put the references in the right order that [X] in the article matches the X Reference Listed in the reference section --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

SEMPO

Jcsquardo, regarding the note you left on my talk page, please discuss the article on the article's talk page, not on my personal talk page. As for the internal wikilink to SEMPO, it's fine, I don't know why you'd think I wouldn't feel that way. Maybe you're saying I removed it long ago, but if so it was a mistake and I don't remember that, you didn't provide any link to any such edit, and I'm not going to plow through the Edit history to try to find it. -MichaelBluejay 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the inclusion of a link to SEMPO, especially with the statement in the edit that it is SEO's governing body. It isn't the governing body for SEO. It's just one of a larger number of nonprofits that is attempting to be an industry organization for people who perform SEO. By presenting it in the manner that it is, it makes it look like something that it is not, especially with the shell of a page on wikipedia that discusses it. Perhaps I would feel more comfortable if someone fleshed out the SEMPO page first, before adding the link. Or created pages to the other organizations like SEMPO that also don't have many members at this point in time. Bill Slawski 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not this article's fault if another article isn't fleshed out. Linking to stubs is a primary way to let the community know of articles that need to be expanded. SEMPO is not listed as the governing body, or any governing body, it's just listed with its name. Others can certainly suggest other professional SEO organizations to list, I don't know of any off the top of my head myself. I see no valid reason to not have an interlink to SEMPO. I'm adding it back. -MichaelBluejay 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a Problem. I'll create stubs for some of the other organizations that represent a few hundred SEOs like SEMPO and provide links to those. :) The fact that you don't know of any of the others makes me seriously question your editing of this topic. But if listing these other organizations will improve this article, that's what I wiil do.Bill Slawski 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for questioning my competence. The fact is that you can be knowledgeable about a topic without joining a professional organization devoted to it. I have enough to keep me busy without joining some other organization. -MichaelBluejay 09:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

These professional organizations appear in forums, blogs, and other sources of news about SEO on a regular basis. You don't have to be a member to be aware of them. I was very surprised that you stated that you weren't aware of any other than SEMPO. These are groups that are doing things like attempting to set up certification programs for SEOs, or speaking to the press and other organizations as if they were the "governing body" of the industry.Bill Slawski 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the stubs have been put into "See also". It might be better to make a section explaining the profusion of industry bodies and linking to the articles from that. If we get more articles on these organizations, it would start to clog up the see also section. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. It would probably be a nice addition to the article to do that, too. Bill Slawski 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The industry organizations that have been linked to here are under threat of being deleted as non notable organizations. I see that the wikipedia article on SEMPO has been whittled away to almost nothing by editors, where at one point it was of decent length. Bill Slawski 05:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bill. Regarding: "The industry organizations that have been linked to here are under threat of being deleted as non notable organizations". Please have a look at my comments from May 14. on this Talk Page and also the discussions that were started after this one. The statement "non notable organizations" when referring to the currently listed resources is actually very funny and I won't comment on that.

Regarding SEMPO, SEMPO is listed as Resource for the Search engine marketing Article which I believe is much more appropriate. SEO Firms make up a percentage of SEMPO, but the Organization is primarily for SEM Professionals, not SEO Professionals. SEO and SEM are two very distinct things which each require a very unique set of skills. The Focus of SEMP on SEM is also made clear on the Organizations "About Us" Page. Quote: "Our membership is primarily SEM firms and consultants, inhouse marketing professionals, Web developers, and advertising agencies.". --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Roy. I don't think that there is that large of a divide or difference between SEM and SEO firms. SEO is a subset of SEM, and many SEM firms engage in SEO. Many SEO practitioners offer SEM services. The people who formed SEMPO did so in an effort to include SEO firms and practitioners, as well as search engine marketers. I know people who were on the working committees during the formation of the organization, and initial board members, as well as existing board members. Many of those folks offer both SEO and SEM services.

If you were to go through the list of members of SEMPO, one at a time, I think that you would see a very large percentage of those companies offer SEO services. The SEMPO services page, lists two types of services for people who might want to see what is available services-wise from SEMPO members - SEO and PPC. SEMPO grew out of the SEO/SEM communities and meetings held at Search Engine Strategies Conferences, and wasn't intended to be an industry group for one at the exclusion of the others. Some of the webinars offered on their site recognize this: "SEO for CEOs," "Search Engine Marketing: It's Not Just Paid Search! (parts one and two)."

In their site glossary, they define Search Engine Marketing as: "The act of marketing a web site via search engines, whether this be improving rank in organic listings, purchasing paid listings or a combination of these and other search engine-related activities." Please feel free to contact them if I haven't convinced you, and ask them if SEMPO was intended to include people who practice SEO.

By the way, the name SEMPO wasn't chosen to emphasize SEM over SEO as much as it was selected because the domain name was available. (cite: http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7143&view=findpost&p=57775 - Note: Webmama is the forum name of the first president of SEMPO, who described many of the aspects of the organization in the thread I provide a link to.) Bill Slawski 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Search Engine Marketing incorporated SEO, PPC, Paid Inclusion and all that in the past. Things are changing rapidly and the Usage and meaning of the old definitions are changing. SEM and SEO are now used to describetwo very distinct marketing methods in combination with Search Engines. SEO is used to refer to the technical methods employed to get sites ranked higher in organic search results which are based on algorithms used by SE's. SEM is used to refer to when it comes to PPC Advertising and Paid Inclusion. I know that the SEM Article states something else. SEM is not a technical method at all. That a lot of companies offer both services makes sense like it makes sense for the car dealership to offer repair and maintenance services. You might not agree with that and I don't want to start a discussion about that here. I am sure that you agree to the fact that it is hard enough to get any external resource listed at all. The Link to SEMPO at the SEM Article is the right place if you have to make the choice to either have it at the SEO or the SEM Article. The SEO Article refers to the SEM Article as "Parent". This should be sufficient. Don't you think? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you, but it's probably moot at this point. With the rollback of most of the contributions I've made to this article, and the removal of those links, it's a point that appears to not need to be discussed anymore, and likely so is my participation here. I have plenty of SEO and SEM things to occupy my time. Good luck. Bill Slawski 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)