SEO and SEM
BT
I'm trying to do something with my site, to promote it and to do higher
positioning on search engines. That would include search engine optimisation
and search engine marketing such as AdWords.
What are the prices and where to search? How much AdWords monthly budget
would be optimal for a starter and what to say about SEO. What things SEO
would include and for how long it could last?
Please give me any ideas or even offers for a 40-50 pages site on two
languages.
Thanks
BT
Big Bill
canadafred
Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:29:19 +0200, "BT" <ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all
> >I'm trying to do something with my site, to promote it and to do higher
> >positioning on search engines. That would include search engine optimisation
> >and search engine marketing such as AdWords.
> >What are the prices and where to search? How much AdWords monthly budget
> >would be optimal for a starter and what to say about SEO. What things SEO
> >would include and for how long it could last?
> >Please give me any ideas or even offers for a 40-50 pages site on two
> >languages.
> >
> >Thanks
> >BT
> >
>
> Start reading
>
> http://66.249.93.104/search?hl=en&q=seo+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search
>
> how come Dave's higher than me?
Cool BB, good example of showing web presence in a meaningful keyphrase
race and with significant challengers.
I just watched http://www.google.com drop to a PR4 and three minutes
later pop back up to a PR7. I assume in a little while longer, it will
resume its throned PR10 status. The SERPs are shuffling frantically at
this moment, again. If the recent synchronization trends continue to
follow the direction they have been taking then things should settle
themselves down in a couple of days. Where will that keyphrase stand in
the rankings at that time will be a better indicator of its sustainable
rankings in the SERPs, theoretically .
I have been keeping an eye on that surprising UK competitor of yours. I
must say the quality of his content has improved significantly over the
last couple of his upgrades. He has further gained ground in his web
site's fortitude by empowering it with rather clever support content.
It appears as if he has been sharpening his pencil quietly in the
background. I must admit though, I did somewhat dislike seeing the way
he uses this A.I.S.E. Usenet group as cover for another agenda. The
manner in which he uses the anchor "alt.internet.search-engines FAQ"
from his top ranked SEO tutorial page, is definitely misleading,
inviting visitors to a completely different place other than
alt.internet.search-engines is rather distasteful for my palette.
--
Big Bill
wrote:
That is the url for what used to be the group FAQ (as was) but really
it's got nothing to do with us anymore. There went our efforts at
contribution. And where's my link?
BB
David
wrote:
>I have been keeping an eye on that surprising UK competitor of yours.
Bill isn't my competitor? To be in competition we must at least be in
the same sort of business, I'm an SEO consultant, not sure what Bill
does for a living? Probably survives on income support and housing
benefit (unless he still lives with his parents) while spending his
days posting one liners below unsnipped posts here.
I did like the "surprising" bit above though Fred, very nice :-)
> I
>must say the quality of his content has improved significantly over the
>last couple of his upgrades.
It has? I've barely touched the site in quite sometime (too busy and
not looking for clients this year).
Unless you mean PR updates that covers about 9 months! In that time
I've added two or three pages I think. Building the tutorial is a very
long term project, been working on it for several years now and never
do much (too busy with real work) should have it done by the time I'm
90 :-)
>He has further gained ground in his web
>site's fortitude by empowering it with rather clever support content.
You mean my blogs? They are where I'm putting my spare time (all two
hours a week of it :-)).
>It appears as if he has been sharpening his pencil quietly in the
>background.
You mean working rather than wasting my time posting drivel here. I
almost made a post here yesterday but realised I could turn it into a
blog post
http://www.morearnings.com/2006/07/17/seo-consultant-ranking/ thanks
for the inspiration.
>I must admit though, I did somewhat dislike seeing the way
>he uses this A.I.S.E. Usenet group as cover for another agenda.
What agenda? My only agenda is to make money from the internet in a
stable manner. Now I used to enjoy posting here for interesting
discussions (and the relatively friendly heated ones), but they have
long since dried up unfortunately (not the heated ones, can do with
out those).
Feel free to show me some interesting discussions started this month
if you can? I would love to join in :-(
>The
>manner in which he uses the anchor "alt.internet.search-engines FAQ"
>from his top ranked SEO tutorial page, is definitely misleading,
>inviting visitors to a completely different place other than
>alt.internet.search-engines is rather distasteful for my palette.
Hmm? That's Will's site and has more SEO information there than I see
posted here and that's because most of the good posters (those that do
research like Will for example) are long gone so no real SEO
discussions occur here anymore. For example I bet most here still
think the sandbox effect is when Google gives a site an artificial
boost at the start (to gain some links presumably) and then drops it
until it earns it's rankings, do some research and you'll see you was
seeing an artifact of when this algo change occurred not a real algo
effect.
So your problem is a link to a site called
alt.internet.search-engines FAQ
with domain name
http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/
Listed in this section of my page http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Looks like this BTW (at the bottom)-
==============================================
Other SEO Tutorials and Resources
**alt.internet.search-engines FAQ** : Collection of short, but highly
informative SEO FAQ questions and answers. Will fill in the blanks
this SEO Tutorial doesn't cover.
==============================================
**alt.internet.search-engines FAQ** is the link.
Why is this "definitely misleading" Fred?
Are you saying this NG is the alt.internet.search-engines FAQ or
something, if it is must be missing something?
Don't tell me it's because Will has added a lot of ads to the site. I
think it damages the sites reputation also, but the good info is still
there.
90% of the posts here are drivel so I won't waste a link on here which
is a shame! Oh and this post of mine adds nothing to the group so
would be covered in the drivel statement above :-)
David
--
SEO Tutorial http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
More Earnings Blog http://www.morearnings.com/
Stacey
news:jcmpb2pjqj2ffpvic...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:29:19 +0200, "BT" <ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi all
>>I'm trying to do something with my site, to promote it and to do higher
>>positioning on search engines. That would include search engine
>>optimisation
>>and search engine marketing such as AdWords.
>>What are the prices and where to search? How much AdWords monthly budget
>>would be optimal for a starter and what to say about SEO. What things SEO
>>would include and for how long it could last?
>>Please give me any ideas or even offers for a 40-50 pages site on two
>>languages.
>>
>>Thanks
>>BT
>>
>
> Start reading
>
> http://66.249.93.104/search?hl=en&q=seo+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search
>
> how come Dave's higher than me?
Better at SEO?:-) Don't know if you know this Bill but mentioning the term
SEO tutorial twice in the title doesn't help. It is better to only have it
once for prominence, twice is less strong.
Stacey
--
Rustic Decor - http://crookedcreekcountry.com
Home Decor - http://eleganthomedecorandgifts.com
All Occasion Gifts for The Family- http://allgiftshop.net/
Flower Delivery - http://flowerdeliveryplus.com
David
wrote:
>>I must admit though, I did somewhat dislike seeing the way
>>he uses this A.I.S.E. Usenet group as cover for another agenda. The
>>manner in which he uses the anchor "alt.internet.search-engines FAQ"
>>from his top ranked SEO tutorial page, is definitely misleading,
>>inviting visitors to a completely different place other than
>>alt.internet.search-engines is rather distasteful for my palette.
>
>That is the url for what used to be the group FAQ (as was) but really
>it's got nothing to do with us anymore. There went our efforts at
>contribution.
There is nothing wrong with that FAQ, it's still accurate.
>And where's my link?
I think Will only links to real SEO's who participate here :-)
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
David
wrote:
>>would be optimal for a starter and what to say about SEO. What things SEO
>>would include and for how long it could last?
>>Please give me any ideas or even offers for a 40-50 pages site on two
>>languages.
>>
>>Thanks
>>BT
>>
>
>Start reading
>
>http://66.249.93.104/search?hl=en&q=seo+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search
>
>how come Dave's higher than me?
>
>BB :-(
Because it's a better site Bill, it contains accurate information not
SEO described with fruit as examples :-)
David
--
Meta Tags, why bother
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/meta-tags-optimization.html
canadafred
> >I must admit though, I did somewhat dislike seeing the way
> >he uses this A.I.S.E. Usenet group as cover for another agenda.
It's stuff like this
http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/get-links.shtml that I don't
particularly care about. I don't think any of the regular SEO experts
around here would endorse link exchanges let alone link brokering
masked as link excvhanges :
"Some of the better reciprocal link programs include:
Link Market
Info Wizards
LinkExchanged
Link Partners
Links-Pal
Linkateer
Webmaster Link Exchange
GoTop Link Exchange ($19.95 fee to join)
LinkLeads
Link Traders
LinkExchangeIt
SEO Park Link Exchange Directory
SiteSell
123ExchangeLinks
Ads4Links
Spocka, also known as LinkFart
Links For You"
Seriously Dave, this is somewhat offensive to have attached to this
Usenet as an answer to any FAQ. This is but one example. Do you really
think this is a complimentary link from your web site. Having it there
simply is distracting from otherwise a pretty good piece.
Stacey
news:1153244859.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> David wrote:
>> On 18 Jul 2006 07:51:32 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >I must admit though, I did somewhat dislike seeing the way
>> >he uses this A.I.S.E. Usenet group as cover for another agenda.
>
> It's stuff like this
> http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/get-links.shtml that I don't
> particularly care about. I don't think any of the regular SEO experts
> around here would endorse link exchanges
That is because they are not experts I suppose. There is nothing wrong with
link exchanges providing they compliment the site. And sometimes even if
not. That page you have above is letting people know how to get links to
their site. This is good for someone just starting out and needs links.
Without links I am sorry you will not get anywhere.
Any one who does SEO and is good at it knows they need some good sites to be
on their side. Sometimes having some sites of their own will help in this
matter of finding good links for the site they have to SEO.
What do you think you make a site and let it sit someone will link to you.
Maybe scrapers, but for the most part a person needs links!
Stacey
canadafred
Google Adwords
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ads/
All Your Other Questions
Obviously you are new to SEO. That means that you'll have to start at
the very beginning. SEO is actually fairly simple :
1. See what the search engine themselves say they want from your web
site.
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/2006/03/ethical-seo-must-reads.html
2. Don't build good content ( text and images mostly ) create great
content.
--
Best Regards - Fred
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/
Stacey
news:865qb2tu6f103e50u...@4ax.com...<snip>
>
>>And where's my link?
>
> I think Will only links to real SEO's who participate here :-)
Hey I am still listed.:-)
http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/links.shtml
http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/newsgroup-contributors.shtml
Big Bill
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jcmpb2pjqj2ffpvic...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:29:19 +0200, "BT" <ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all
>>>I'm trying to do something with my site, to promote it and to do higher
>>>positioning on search engines. That would include search engine
>>>optimisation
>>>and search engine marketing such as AdWords.
>>>What are the prices and where to search? How much AdWords monthly budget
>>>would be optimal for a starter and what to say about SEO. What things SEO
>>>would include and for how long it could last?
>>>Please give me any ideas or even offers for a 40-50 pages site on two
>>>languages.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>BT
>>>
>>
>> Start reading
>>
>> http://66.249.93.104/search?hl=en&q=seo+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search
>>
>> how come Dave's higher than me?
>
>Better at SEO?:-) Don't know if you know this Bill but mentioning the term
>SEO tutorial twice in the title doesn't help. It is better to only have it
>once for prominence, twice is less strong.
>
>Stacey
It is? I seem to recall it went up since I changed it to squeak it in
twice. Where are you getting your information from?
BB
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:54:41 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>would be optimal for a starter and what to say about SEO. What things SEO
>>>would include and for how long it could last?
>>>Please give me any ideas or even offers for a 40-50 pages site on two
>>>languages.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>BT
>>>
>>
>>Start reading
>>
>>http://66.249.93.104/search?hl=en&q=seo+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search
>>
>>how come Dave's higher than me?
>>
>>BB :-(
>
>Because it's a better site Bill, it contains accurate information not
>SEO described with fruit as examples :-)
>
>David
Accurate? More like SEO with a fruit as a writer :-)))
BB
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2006 07:51:32 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I have been keeping an eye on that surprising UK competitor of yours.
>
>Bill isn't my competitor?
I'm not?
BB
Big Bill
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"David" <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:865qb2tu6f103e50u...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:00:17 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
><snip>
>
>>
>>>And where's my link?
>>
>> I think Will only links to real SEO's who participate here :-)
>
>Hey I am still listed.:-)
>http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/links.shtml
>http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/newsgroup-contributors.shtml
>
>Stacey
James Taylor? The guy who died how long ago is still a contributor?
And who exactly is or was Sharon Lane? Actually a quick flick round
the site makes it all seem that out of date. Testing vintage 2004 and
so forth. Also I gave up looking after seeing it isn't in the top 50
for
search engine FAQ
so I suppose it doesn't matter what's on it as I doubt most folk will
ever see it.
Head'em up, mooooooooooove'em out...
Stacey
>> mentioning the term
>>SEO tutorial twice in the title doesn't help. It is better to only have it
>>once for prominence, twice is less strong.
>>
>
> It is? I seem to recall it went up since I changed it to squeak it in
> twice. Where are you getting your information from?
I get my information on keyword analysis reading and sentence structure
tests I have done. Do I have to gain my information from someone like SEO
Guy , Matt Cutts, or anyone else? I have my own ideas, theories, studies and
readings. I have been studying the keyword prominence with sentence
structure for several years now. Take it or leave it, just trying to help
again.:-)
Big Bill
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2q9qb253c6fjul4o2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:04:33 +0200, "Stacey"
>> <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>> mentioning the term
>>>SEO tutorial twice in the title doesn't help. It is better to only have it
>>>once for prominence, twice is less strong.
>>>
>
>>
>> It is? I seem to recall it went up since I changed it to squeak it in
>> twice. Where are you getting your information from?
>
>I get my information on keyword analysis reading and sentence structure
>tests I have done. Do I have to gain my information from someone like SEO
>Guy , Matt Cutts, or anyone else? I have my own ideas, theories, studies and
>readings. I have been studying the keyword prominence with sentence
>structure for several years now. Take it or leave it, just trying to help
>again.:-)
>
>Stacey
I know, I just wondered where you were getting that from. I wondered
if you'd read it in ten places I hadn't.
David
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:12:45 GMT, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 18 Jul 2006 07:51:32 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have been keeping an eye on that surprising UK competitor of yours.
>>
>>Bill isn't my competitor?
>
>I'm not?
>
>BB
Well done Bill you snipped a post, maybe there's hope for you yet :-)
David
--
PageRank Explained http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/pagerank.html
David
wrote:
>>I get my information on keyword analysis reading and sentence structure
>>tests I have done. Do I have to gain my information from someone like SEO
>>Guy , Matt Cutts, or anyone else? I have my own ideas, theories, studies and
>>readings. I have been studying the keyword prominence with sentence
>>structure for several years now. Take it or leave it, just trying to help
>>again.:-)
>>
>>Stacey
>
>I know, I just wondered where you were getting that from. I wondered
>if you'd read it in ten places I hadn't.
>
>BB
Bill do you ever do any research of your own?
If not how can you be sure which current SEO theories are correct?
I try to confirm everything SEO related myself and I know Stacey has a
similar approach so if she is kind enough to give you some free advice
you should give it a lot more credibility than the crap you get in the
places you tend to parrot unproven theories from.
BTW you asked why we aren't in competition. Since you don't do SEO
research (or have staff doing it for you) you aren't really an SEO
consultant (to consult you need knowledge/expertise which you admit
you don't have).
Also-
From Wikipedia
==
Often a consultant provides expertise to clients who require a
particular type of knowledge or service for a specific period of time,
thus providing an economy to the client. In other situations,
companies implementing a major project may need additional experienced
staff to assist with increased work during that period.
==
You've said many times in the past you aren't technically minded and
don't understand important things like PageRank, so how can you be a
consultant in a technically minded business sector like SEO?
At best you are an SEO amateur who is misleading clients into wasting
money/time on a service that you can't provide. If you didn't offer
SEO services it would be funny, like the Bleachboys guy who pops back
here from time to time (he's a harmless joke), but as it is you should
be ashamed of yourself for risking the lively hoods of businesses who
deal with you!
I have a new sig for you,
"BB the SEO cowboy without a clue"
That should be another easy traffic free SERP to add to your "con a
client with traffic free SERPs list".
David
wrote:
>>>http://66.249.93.104/search?hl=en&q=seo+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search
>>>
>>>how come Dave's higher than me?
>>>
>>>BB :-(
>>
>>Because it's a better site Bill, it contains accurate information not
>>SEO described with fruit as examples :-)
>>
>>David
>
>Accurate? More like SEO with a fruit as a writer :-)))
>
>BB
Are you trying to tell me you are gay Bill?
Good for you, but I'm not that way inclined so I hope you find a life
partner elsewhere :-)
David
--
David
wrote:
> SEO is actually fairly simple :
>
>1. See what the search engine themselves say they want from your web
>site.
>http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/2006/03/ethical-seo-must-reads.html
And then do the opposite of their guidelines :-))
That's a joke BTW just in case someone takes the above seriously!
Just looked at your page here (linked from the one above)
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/search-engine-marketing.htm
"Does not manipulate redirects of any kind for an SEO advantage
particularly for pages that no longer exist. If a page no longer
exists, then the page no longer exists. "
Wow! What are you going on about Fred?
If you delete a page or combine two into one etc... why is it wrong to
redirect the deleted one exactly?
That's just stupid, it doesn't help search engine users to be sent to
pages that no longer exist, best thing to do is redirect to a similar
page (or home page if no similar page exists) so until the search
engines update their database visitors don't get a 404 error page and
you don't loose traffic or link benefit.
Some of the other stuff listed on the page is a little 'interesting'
as well (not what I expected to see), but difficult to critique from
an SEO perspective.
David
wrote:
>David wrote:
>> On 18 Jul 2006 07:51:32 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >I must admit though, I did somewhat dislike seeing the way
>> >he uses this A.I.S.E. Usenet group as cover for another agenda.
>
>It's stuff like this
>http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/get-links.shtml that I don't
>particularly care about. I don't think any of the regular SEO experts
>around here would endorse link exchanges let alone link brokering
>masked as link excvhanges :
Which regular SEO experts are you talking about Fred?
I have no problem with link exchanges or purchasing links. The nature
of business is to make money and if a business owner can do that by
buying some links good for them.
I will add a warning from my research purchasing text links for PR is
risky, so do a lot of research before going ahead with it. For
example-
Don't buy from high PR pages (avoid PR7 or higher pages).
Don't buy site wide links (run away if site wide).
Don't buy from sites that sell a lot of unrelated links.
Don't expect to see significant ranking increases for at least 6 and
more likely 9 to 12 months.
The last one is the killer for me, unless you can find cheap quality
links purchasing links is doomed from the onset as no business owner
in their right mind will pay the fees some links are listed at knowing
they have to wait over 6 months for a possible (not guaranteed) ROI!
Understand the sandbox
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/google-sandbox-effect.html and you
understand why purchasing expensive high PR links is poor business
sense.
Also if you do plan to buy links take a look at
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/pagerank.html especially the section
"PageRank Simplified" this will give you the tools to determine what
you are getting for your money. You'll find with most links for sale
from PR7 pages you don't even get a PR4 page out of it because the
page has so many links (they protect their PR by adding a lot of
internal links)!
>"Some of the better reciprocal link programs include:
>
>Link Market
>Info Wizards
>LinkExchanged
>Link Partners
>Links-Pal
>Linkateer
>Webmaster Link Exchange
>GoTop Link Exchange ($19.95 fee to join)
>LinkLeads
>Link Traders
>LinkExchangeIt
>SEO Park Link Exchange Directory
>SiteSell
>123ExchangeLinks
>Ads4Links
>Spocka, also known as LinkFart
>Links For You"
>
>Seriously Dave, this is somewhat offensive to have attached to this
>Usenet as an answer to any FAQ. This is but one example. Do you really
>think this is a complimentary link from your web site. Having it there
>simply is distracting from otherwise a pretty good piece.
Offensive isn't how I see it or presumably the thousands of webmasters
who use some of these services. Some work, some don't my only
complaint on that list is it lacks a warning that search engines don't
like some types of link programs, so be sure you aren't signing up to
a link farm type service first.
I have no problem with a service that puts two webmasters in touch
with one another so they can exchange links, I take it you do Fred?
Stacey
<snip>
> Don't buy from high PR pages (avoid PR7 or higher pages).
> Don't buy site wide links (run away if site wide).
> Don't buy from sites that sell a lot of unrelated links.
> Don't expect to see significant ranking increases for at least 6 and
> more likely 9 to 12 months.
Just to add also not to have a large quantity of links at one time also, or
short period. Start slow and not go for the gusto. There is nothing wrong
with gaining 300 links, just not in one week.:-) Or say have close to 900 or
more links from the same source gained quickly.
David
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"David" <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:u23rb2508t4r7hk3n...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>> Don't buy from high PR pages (avoid PR7 or higher pages).
>> Don't buy site wide links (run away if site wide).
>> Don't buy from sites that sell a lot of unrelated links.
>> Don't expect to see significant ranking increases for at least 6 and
>> more likely 9 to 12 months.
>
>Just to add also not to have a large quantity of links at one time also, or
>short period. Start slow and not go for the gusto. There is nothing wrong
>with gaining 300 links, just not in one week.:-) Or say have close to 900 or
>more links from the same source gained quickly.
Good points.
If I was going to purchase links I'd not use any services, I'd look
for relevant sites with pages with PR5/PR6 with not too many links
from them (well under 50 links) and offer the owner cash (or products
depending on my business) for long term links from no more than 10% of
their pages. With the right site I'd take site wide links since the
site and my link wouldn't look out of place (wouldn't look like a
bought link on the blogroll of a blog say).
Find some hobby/personal type sites to buy links (wouldn't waste my
time contacting businesses) from and I'd not expect to pay too much
for enough links to compete in Google.
I've never had problems with links so never needed to do this.
>Stacey
Stacey
Yep, I agree with ya. I still freely exchange links with those that qualify
to link with me. I even help those with less PR or new, as they have to get
started I know they do. So, I will reap the rewards later when their site
accomplishes what it should. I am also more free now with popping those
links over and throughout my sites(hint to others), as the link will add
relevance to the page. When I first started out I was quite hesitant, but
have found it works out for the best.
For those starting out with a low budget, writing to exchange links with
related sites still works fine. Take time but works fine.
Big Bill
I meant fruitcake, sorry.
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:33:23 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>I get my information on keyword analysis reading and sentence structure
>>>tests I have done. Do I have to gain my information from someone like SEO
>>>Guy , Matt Cutts, or anyone else? I have my own ideas, theories, studies and
>>>readings. I have been studying the keyword prominence with sentence
>>>structure for several years now. Take it or leave it, just trying to help
>>>again.:-)
>>>
>>>Stacey
>>
>>I know, I just wondered where you were getting that from. I wondered
>>if you'd read it in ten places I hadn't.
>>
>>BB
>
>Bill do you ever do any research of your own?
Well this is a valid question.
>If not how can you be sure which current SEO theories are correct?
Indeed, a fair question.
>I try to confirm everything SEO related myself and I know Stacey has a
>similar approach so if she is kind enough to give you some free advice
>you should give it a lot more credibility than the crap you get in the
>places you tend to parrot unproven theories from.
and now, here we go..
>BTW you asked why we aren't in competition.
No I didn't, I commented on your getting your punctuation wrong. You
missed that little point.
>Since you don't do SEO
>research (or have staff doing it for you) you aren't really an SEO
>consultant (to consult you need knowledge/expertise which you admit
>you don't have).
Um, no I don't.
>Also-
>
>From Wikipedia
>
>==
>Often a consultant provides expertise to clients who require a
>particular type of knowledge or service for a specific period of time,
>thus providing an economy to the client. In other situations,
>companies implementing a major project may need additional experienced
>staff to assist with increased work during that period.
>==
>
>You've said many times in the past you aren't technically minded and
>don't understand important things like PageRank, so how can you be a
>consultant in a technically minded business sector like SEO?
Because it isn't technical, it's intuitive. Page Rank is different
now, I do believe it's gone back to being the purely mathematical
concept you always said it is. It was mixed up with what's come to be
known as Trust Rank for a time there, which was why I largely ignored
it, but I think they've separated them now.
>At best you are an SEO amateur who is misleading clients into wasting
>money/time on a service that you can't provide.
And there he goes again, off in his own little world...
> If you didn't offer
>SEO services it would be funny, like the Bleachboys guy who pops back
>here from time to time (he's a harmless joke), but as it is you should
>be ashamed of yourself for risking the lively hoods of businesses who
>deal with you!
>
>I have a new sig for you,
>
>"BB the SEO cowboy without a clue"
>
>That should be another easy traffic free SERP to add to your "con a
>client with traffic free SERPs list".
>
>David
"Quick nurse, the screens!"...
Stacey
<snip>
> Because it isn't technical, it's intuitive. Page Rank is different
> now, I do believe it's gone back to being the purely mathematical
> concept you always said it is. It was mixed up with what's come to be
> known as Trust Rank for a time there, which was why I largely ignored
> it, but I think they've separated them now.
Bill if you believe this last PR update is purely maths I would say really
look at it. And what and why was it messed up and being called Trust Rank?
Because someone seen it in the TM's and thought oh wow Google might start
this, then one thing led to another and poof.
Google's guidelines have stated link to trusted sites and you are
responsible for who you link with and who they link with. You control the
linking. PR is evolving along with the other algos. It seems to be
incorporating a lot more than just numbers now. But that is all I am going
to say of my theory, I will keep the rest to myself as it also explains some
of those PR 0 links pages.:-)
Big Bill
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jqarb25b62f9i0ovc...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>> Because it isn't technical, it's intuitive. Page Rank is different
>> now, I do believe it's gone back to being the purely mathematical
>> concept you always said it is. It was mixed up with what's come to be
>> known as Trust Rank for a time there, which was why I largely ignored
>> it, but I think they've separated them now.
>
>Bill if you believe this last PR update is purely maths I would say really
>look at it.
We don't know what it is yet, it doesn't seem to have settled down
yet.
> And what and why was it messed up and being called Trust Rank?
I think it included both concepts for quite a while.
>Because someone seen it in the TM's and thought oh wow Google might start
>this, then one thing led to another and poof.
Stacey, what is or are the TMs? Do you mean the Google patent
applications?
>Google's guidelines have stated link to trusted sites and you are
>responsible for who you link with and who they link with. You control the
>linking. PR is evolving along with the other algos. It seems to be
>incorporating a lot more than just numbers now. But that is all I am going
>to say of my theory, I will keep the rest to myself as it also explains some
>of those PR 0 links pages.:-)
>
>Stacey
From what I've seen of PR in recent times I'd say it's gone back to
only being about numbers. But I might revise my opinion - again - when
this current update settles and we can maybe draw some new
conclusions.
canadafred
David wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2006 11:04:09 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > SEO is actually fairly simple :
> >
> >1. See what the search engine themselves say they want from your web
> >site.
> >http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/2006/03/ethical-seo-must-reads.html
>
> And then do the opposite of their guidelines :-))
>
> That's a joke BTW just in case someone takes the above seriously!
>
> Just looked at your page here (linked from the one above)
> http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/search-engine-marketing.htm
>
> "Does not manipulate redirects of any kind for an SEO advantage
> particularly for pages that no longer exist. If a page no longer
> exists, then the page no longer exists. "
>
> Wow! What are you going on about Fred?
... woa, I see what you mean man ... must have been one those "fishing"
days in my head when I wrote that up ... Stace knows what I mean. Which
incidentally, is probably the only reason why I am even in this
conservation with you Dave. Stacey seems to think that you are OK. I
tend to trust her judgement in character so you must have some of that
... character that is ...
> If you delete a page or combine two into one etc... why is it wrong to
> redirect the deleted one exactly?
>
> That's just stupid, it doesn't help search engine users to be sent to
> pages that no longer exist, best thing to do is redirect to a similar
> page (or home page if no similar page exists) so until the search
> engines update their database visitors don't get a 404 error page and
> you don't loose traffic or link benefit.
Search technology has evolved sufficiently to recognize that a web page
no longer exists after repeated unsuccessful attempts to fetch it. If a
web page appears to no longer exists for a long enough period of time
then chances are the content was discarded due to it becoming useless,
redundant, replicated elsewhere or outdated. Hanging on to its
credibility and shuffling that to another web page for an intended SEO
advantage is unfair. The question becomes: how many pages of useless,
redundant, replicated elsewhere or outdated content is acceptable?
Empowerment of something, which in itself should be significantly
unique, through distribution of value originally associated with
something else that has become a mediocrity of uselessness,
redundancies and obsolete content is just not right. Does SEO go back
to becoming the "Victory by Volume" again?
A natural volume of great content simply should and in fact does
outclass even the most artificially inflated heaps of the mediocre.
> Some of the other stuff listed on the page is a little 'interesting'
> as well (not what I expected to see), but difficult to critique from
> an SEO perspective.
You certainly make for intelligent discussion about ranking techniques
and what is considered to be acceptable from an ethical Internet
marketing perspective. I suppose I should thank you for opening up an
opportunity for me to discuss in more detail what I mean from my SEO
ethics related content.
I don't really know you. I have examined your work. I have already
complimented you on having some of the better written pieces I have
come across lately. I consider your use of the natural language
pleasant.
I understand how some SEO specialists find you rather abrasive,
particularly ones that share your SEO market interests. I could see how
I could have trouble coming to terms with you on incidental
technicalities. Personally, I'm the type that would prefer to tell a
person off rather than absorb their message open-mindedly if I felt
they were questioning my position. I have learned though, that every
Internet marketing professional has something important to say to me.
They have something to teach me in my quest to be at the pinnacle of
this artistic specialty. Whether I enjoy reading up on your search
engine marketing expert's comments or not, I still respect your work.
So, rather than tell you where to go all day long because of your less
than effective communications capabilities in marketing your
well-researched concepts to other SEO pros, I'll show you respect.
Courtesy for the valiant progress that you made in the art of crafting
optimized content. It is clearly to my advantage to try to learn from
your experiences as a web site promotion consultant, the likes of which
shakes markets around the globe.
--
Web Site Promotion Expert
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/
Eric Johnston
Just joined this.
Thought I would see what Google has to say about SEO advice.
Google #1 or #1 and #2, me #2 or #3, Matt Cutts #3 or #4 (US, UK) amazing !
Best regards, Eric.
canadafred
Eric Johnston wrote:
<snip>
> Just joined this.
>
> Thought I would see what Google has to say about SEO advice.
> Google #1 or #1 and #2, me #2 or #3, Matt Cutts #3 or #4 (US, UK) amazing !
I don't get those results at all for
SEO advice
I think you British searches are getting real messed up results from
Google. For example, BB seems to be unable to find his web site ranked
for
SEO expert
Yet I consistently see his web page in www.google.com around #40. John
B's is usually in the late teens. Mine is around #31 now just under
that guy that someone mentioned in an earlier discussion today. That
4th page position incidentally is a long way from where I started only
two weeks ago when my web site first made its top 100 appearance. I
would think that if my upward SERP thrust for that keyphrase continues,
I should be ahead of the next packet of competitors before me by
Saturday.
Big Bill
<nos...@redyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Just joined this.
>
>Thought I would see what Google has to say about SEO advice.
>Google #1 or #1 and #2, me #2 or #3, Matt Cutts #3 or #4 (US, UK) amazing !
>
>Best regards, Eric.
>
Which are you, Eric?
Big Bill
wrote:
>
>Eric Johnston wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Just joined this.
>>
>> Thought I would see what Google has to say about SEO advice.
>> Google #1 or #1 and #2, me #2 or #3, Matt Cutts #3 or #4 (US, UK) amazing !
>
>I don't get those results at all for
>
>SEO advice
>
>I think you British searches are getting real messed up results from
>Google. For example, BB seems to be unable to find his web site ranked
>for
>
>SEO expert
>
>Yet I consistently see his web page in www.google.com around #40.
I'm 90-something right now. How can I be lower in Britain than I am in
the world? Consistently? It's a joke.
canadafred
Stacey wrote:
<snip>
> I get my information on keyword analysis reading and sentence structure
> tests I have done. Do I have to gain my information from someone like SEO
> Guy , Matt Cutts, or anyone else? I have my own ideas, theories, studies and
> readings. I have been studying the keyword prominence with sentence
> structure for several years now. Take it or leave it, just trying to help
> again.:-)
Stacey, I don't know if you are still following this post but the SEO
Guy you are refering to is that the same www seo-guy com I was doing
some research and found some interesting stuff at that site. It ranks
exceptionally high in some of my newer keyphrase competitions. Whoever
owns that site certainly has all the appearances of a real SEO
superstar. I'd like to pick his brain.
--
... banished to the Google pits again
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/
Stacey
<Snip>
>
> Stacey, I don't know if you are still following this post but the SEO
> Guy you are refering to is that the same www seo-guy com I was doing
> some research and found some interesting stuff at that site. It ranks
> exceptionally high in some of my newer keyphrase competitions. Whoever
> owns that site certainly has all the appearances of a real SEO
> superstar. I'd like to pick his brain.
Yep, same one. His site has been in the toilet and back. He did some
no-nos.:-) At one point in time his forum had a PR8. But he lost it all from
some of those no-no's and is gaining some PR back. He doesn't come up for
seo guy and should but he is still penalized for some things. He was pretty
well known and used to be at the top of the world and now it is over. But
that happens when you sneaked to the other side at times.
Stacey
Big Bill
wrote:
>
>Stacey wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I get my information on keyword analysis reading and sentence structure
>> tests I have done. Do I have to gain my information from someone like SEO
>> Guy , Matt Cutts, or anyone else? I have my own ideas, theories, studies and
>> readings. I have been studying the keyword prominence with sentence
>> structure for several years now. Take it or leave it, just trying to help
>> again.:-)
>
>Stacey, I don't know if you are still following this post but the SEO
>Guy you are refering to is that the same www seo-guy com I was doing
>some research and found some interesting stuff at that site. It ranks
>exceptionally high in some of my newer keyphrase competitions. Whoever
>owns that site certainly has all the appearances of a real SEO
>superstar. I'd like to pick his brain.
Didn't he get banned at some stage?
Stacey
> On 20 Jul 2006 19:06:37 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I get my information on keyword analysis reading and sentence structure
>>> tests I have done. Do I have to gain my information from someone like
>>> SEO
>>> Guy , Matt Cutts, or anyone else? I have my own ideas, theories, studies
>>> and
>>> readings. I have been studying the keyword prominence with sentence
>>> structure for several years now. Take it or leave it, just trying to
>>> help
>>> again.:-)
>>
>>Stacey, I don't know if you are still following this post but the SEO
>>Guy you are refering to is that the same www seo-guy com I was doing
>>some research and found some interesting stuff at that site. It ranks
>>exceptionally high in some of my newer keyphrase competitions. Whoever
>>owns that site certainly has all the appearances of a real SEO
>>superstar. I'd like to pick his brain.
>
> Didn't he get banned at some stage?
Yep.
canadafred
OK thanks. The site has weird rental forum announcements Backlinks. I'm
trying to find his link on the hundred of Backlinks but can't seem to
find it like it was hidden or something.
--
Fred
David
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:11:47 GMT, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:33:23 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>I know, I just wondered where you were getting that from. I wondered
>>>if you'd read it in ten places I hadn't.
>>>
>>>BB
>>
>>Bill do you ever do any research of your own?
>
>Well this is a valid question.
Interesting you didn't answer it.
>>If not how can you be sure which current SEO theories are correct?
>
>Indeed, a fair question.
I thought so which is why I asked. So?
>>I try to confirm everything SEO related myself and I know Stacey has a
>>similar approach so if she is kind enough to give you some free advice
>>you should give it a lot more credibility than the crap you get in the
>>places you tend to parrot unproven theories from.
>
>and now, here we go..
Are you suggesting something above is not accurate bb?
>>BTW you asked why we aren't in competition.
>
>No I didn't, I commented on your getting your punctuation wrong. You
>missed that little point.
The punctuation wasn't wrong it was a statement and a question
(looking for clarifications why someone thinks you are my
competitor!).
>>Since you don't do SEO
>>research (or have staff doing it for you) you aren't really an SEO
>>consultant (to consult you need knowledge/expertise which you admit
>>you don't have).
>
>Um, no I don't.
I'm glad you agree.
>>Also-
>>
>>From Wikipedia
>>
>>==
>>Often a consultant provides expertise to clients who require a
>>particular type of knowledge or service for a specific period of time,
>>thus providing an economy to the client. In other situations,
>>companies implementing a major project may need additional experienced
>>staff to assist with increased work during that period.
>>==
>>
>>You've said many times in the past you aren't technically minded and
>>don't understand important things like PageRank, so how can you be a
>>consultant in a technically minded business sector like SEO?
>
>Because it isn't technical, it's intuitive.
How is SEO intuitive? Few examples maybe where intuition plays a role?
>Page Rank is different
>now, I do believe it's gone back to being the purely mathematical
>concept you always said it is.
PageRank has never changed, it's always been based on a mathematical
formula. You are mistaking the parts of the algo for the whole algo
(rankings/SERPs).
PageRank is part of the Google algo and will have almost certainly
been amended over time (for example maybe the dampening factor is
increased/decreased since PR was first used by Google). It doesn't
matter how it's changed since as long as PR is part of Google's algo
we know links are important since links are intrinsically linked to
PR.
>It was mixed up with what's come to be
>known as Trust Rank for a time there, which was why I largely ignored
>it, but I think they've separated them now.
PR is basically a cog in the mechanism, the cog may be
increased/decreased in size (importance) as Google PHD's try to
perfect their ability to piss off as many webmasters at one time as
possible :-)
It can't be mixed up with other things, PR is calculated based on
whatever mathematical formula Google uses at this time, period. The
other parts of the algo then act together with PR to result in
specific rankings. If links are from paid sources for example and
Google has prevented PR transfer then that link benefit is discounted.
If links are new they don't pass full PR benefit, though the 'correct'
(misleading) PR is still shown on the toolbar. It's not hard to
understand PR.
With regards Trust Rank why did (do?) you think it's part of Google?
Personally I've never given Trust Rank much credibility, nice idea,
but not how I imagine Google wanting to go with such a large index,
more work for them and pick the wrong seed sites and you get a mess
(OK, maybe they do use it at times :-)).
Everything I've made that's done well could be described as brute
force SEO, build a site, add links from other sites of mine and wait
for Google to do it's thing. My sites aren't going to be considered
trusted seed sites, they aren't going to be close to any either (many
links away from them). There is no finesse in what I do, yet my best
two sites with low quality, unrelated links saw ~20,000 visitors
yesterday (slow day for them as well).
>>At best you are an SEO amateur who is misleading clients into wasting
>>money/time on a service that you can't provide.
>
>And there he goes again, off in his own little world...
Tell me how I'm wrong bill? What skills and resources do you possess
that makes you good at optimising sites for clients?
>> If you didn't offer
>>SEO services it would be funny, like the Bleachboys guy who pops back
>>here from time to time (he's a harmless joke), but as it is you should
>>be ashamed of yourself for risking the lively hoods of businesses who
>>deal with you!
>>
>>I have a new sig for you,
>>
>>"BB the SEO cowboy without a clue"
>>
>>That should be another easy traffic free SERP to add to your "con a
>>client with traffic free SERPs list".
>>
>>David
>
>"Quick nurse, the screens!"...
>
>BB
Did you not like the new sig :-)
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
How do you reconcile saying "Page Rank has never changed" and then
saying "PageRank is part of the Google algo and will have almost
certainly been amended over time"?
> (for example maybe the dampening factor is
>increased/decreased since PR was first used by Google). It doesn't
>matter how it's changed since as long as PR is part of Google's algo
>we know links are important since links are intrinsically linked to
>PR.
>
>>It was mixed up with what's come to be
>>known as Trust Rank for a time there, which was why I largely ignored
>>it, but I think they've separated them now.
>
>PR is basically a cog in the mechanism, the cog may be
>increased/decreased in size (importance) as Google PHD's try to
>perfect their ability to piss off as many webmasters at one time as
>possible :-)
>
>It can't be mixed up with other things, PR is calculated based on
>whatever mathematical formula Google uses at this time, period. The
>other parts of the algo then act together with PR to result in
>specific rankings.
To be fair I think we might be both saying essentially the same thing
in our different ways. Mind, I am saying it in English, which might
help.
David
wrote:
I don't think so bill, but feel free to try to show you didn't mean PR
had trust rank associated with it. So what did you mean?
BTW you really should learn to snip, it's easy for anyone who isn't
technically incompetent (I suppose I'm wasting my time asking bill to
learn then!).
David
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:12:16 GMT, David
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:53:54 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>http://66.249.93.104/search?hl=en&q=seo+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search
>>>>>
>>>>>how come Dave's higher than me?
>>>>>
>>>>>BB :-(
>>>>
>>>>Because it's a better site Bill, it contains accurate information not
>>>>SEO described with fruit as examples :-)
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>
>>>Accurate? More like SEO with a fruit as a writer :-)))
>>>
>>>BB
>>
>>Are you trying to tell me you are gay Bill?
>>
>>Good for you, but I'm not that way inclined so I hope you find a life
>>partner elsewhere :-)
>>
>>David
>
>I meant fruitcake, sorry.
>
>BB
No need to apologise bill, I don't care if you think of yourself as a
fruitcake.
David
--
SEO Tutorial http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
David
wrote:
>
>David wrote:
>> On 18 Jul 2006 11:04:09 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > SEO is actually fairly simple :
>> >
>> >1. See what the search engine themselves say they want from your web
>> >site.
>> >http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/2006/03/ethical-seo-must-reads.html
>>
>> And then do the opposite of their guidelines :-))
>>
>> That's a joke BTW just in case someone takes the above seriously!
>>
>> Just looked at your page here (linked from the one above)
>> http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/search-engine-marketing.htm
>>
>> "Does not manipulate redirects of any kind for an SEO advantage
>> particularly for pages that no longer exist. If a page no longer
>> exists, then the page no longer exists. "
>>
>> Wow! What are you going on about Fred?
>
>... woa, I see what you mean man ... must have been one those "fishing"
>days in my head when I wrote that up ... Stace knows what I mean. Which
LOL
>incidentally, is probably the only reason why I am even in this
>conservation with you Dave. Stacey seems to think that you are OK. I
>tend to trust her judgement in character so you must have some of that
>... character that is ...
Stacey also knows her SEO stuff, she's helped me further my SEO
knowledge on many occasions. She has a knack of seeing things from a
completely different perspective than I'd be looking at a problem and
tends to be on the ball when Google changes it's algo. A couple of
times I've been formulating an idea about what's just happened with a
big Google update and she'll email me about a missing piece (don't
tell her I said so though :-)).
>> If you delete a page or combine two into one etc... why is it wrong to
>> redirect the deleted one exactly?
>>
>> That's just stupid, it doesn't help search engine users to be sent to
>> pages that no longer exist, best thing to do is redirect to a similar
>> page (or home page if no similar page exists) so until the search
>> engines update their database visitors don't get a 404 error page and
>> you don't loose traffic or link benefit.
>
>Search technology has evolved sufficiently to recognize that a web page
>no longer exists after repeated unsuccessful attempts to fetch it.
Not quite, Google will happily index deleted pages for many months
(possibly years) especially if the page has links to it.
For example-
Note I don't care about a few pages like that hence no redirects (any
pages named "morearnings.com - paid survey info. This website is for
sale!" are the deleted ones), I bought the domain at auction August
2005, no idea how long the content had been deleted though. So that's
deleted pages still indexed after at least 11 months. I also had the
domain for months with no content before it's current use, so Google
had plenty of time to update it's index.
If I cared about those deleted pages would it not be reasonable to
redirect pages like morearnings.com/pages/faq04.php to the home page
or relevant page is one exists?
> If a
>web page appears to no longer exists for a long enough period of time
>then chances are the content was discarded due to it becoming useless,
>redundant, replicated elsewhere or outdated.
And what about combining two pages into one or renaming pages for
better usability, switching from dynamic to static URLs and any other
legitimate reason for deleting/renaming a page?
>Hanging on to its
>credibility and shuffling that to another web page for an intended SEO
>advantage is unfair.
So the benefit you've been sending it should now be lost, same for any
benefit sent from other sites? Why, it's your hard earned link
benefit?
>The question becomes: how many pages of useless,
>redundant, replicated elsewhere or outdated content is acceptable?
I don't see the link, you delete a page and redirect it to another
existing page.
Starting point two pages - End point one page.
Where is the replication etc...?
>Empowerment of something, which in itself should be significantly
>unique, through distribution of value originally associated with
>something else that has become a mediocrity of uselessness,
>redundancies and obsolete content is just not right.
Exactly so redirect pages you no longer use to similar content or the
home page. No redundancy, no obsolete content and less dissatisfied
users entering your site from search engines that take over a year to
remove deleted pages. No one wants a 404 error page, I'd rather go to
the next best page or the home page as that's my next stop to see if
the content has moved.
>Does SEO go back
>to becoming the "Victory by Volume" again?
Nothing wrong with that if you can get it to work for you. I'm out to
make money not improve the world or anything, so if something works
and I find it ethically/morally acceptable I might use it.
Does it matter that there are 10, 50 or 1,000 copies of the same
content online (obviously not talking copyright infringements here),
at least a user will find it easily? The same content can be presented
in many different forms, some more suited to a particular user group,
if a searcher finds the content in a format they don't like they have
options and options are good.
I think even Google appreciates this with their current "Evil Site"
policy in place. They hate affiliate sites (they call them evil :-)),
but do index some of them because without them there would only be the
likes of Amazon dominating whole sectors, which isn't good for their
users.
>A natural volume of great content simply should and in fact does
>outclass even the most artificially inflated heaps of the mediocre.
Yes, but I think most here are wanting to make money and if mediocre
makes money I'll go with mediocre over great (I personally try for
both, because both have their uses).
You say you like my SEO sites content, it's unique I think it's
accurate (better than most out there IMO) yet it doesn't make me as
much money from ads as an affiliate Amazon store that took me an hour
to create with a script and needs little maintenance (steady revenue
for little effort). Could build at least two of those sites for every
page added to the tutorial.
You might see using affiliate content unethical or something, but I
don't.
I also enjoy writing the SEO tutorial pages which is why I add a page
every 6 months :-)), but don't see the tutorial as a money making part
of the site.
If you want to go high quality only and it works I'm happy for you.
>> Some of the other stuff listed on the page is a little 'interesting'
>> as well (not what I expected to see), but difficult to critique from
>> an SEO perspective.
>
>You certainly make for intelligent discussion about ranking techniques
>and what is considered to be acceptable from an ethical Internet
>marketing perspective. I suppose I should thank you for opening up an
>opportunity for me to discuss in more detail what I mean from my SEO
>ethics related content.
Well thank you for saying so.
>I don't really know you.
It's Usenet, you don't really get to truly know people here.
>I have examined your work. I have already
>complimented you on having some of the better written pieces I have
>come across lately. I consider your use of the natural language
>pleasant.
I'm not a great writer, but think I get my point across in plain(ish)
language.
>I understand how some SEO specialists find you rather abrasive,
>particularly ones that share your SEO market interests.
It's not just SEO specialists, I tend to rub a lot of (possibly most)
people up the wrong way. I know why, in my experience people tend not
to appreciate open confidence and honesty in others and I'm a very
confident and honest (I speak my mind) person. There loss I suppose
feeling all negative about who/what they are and not saying what they
really think (constipation of the mind!).
UK people seem to have it worse, probably the UK weather, which I
happen to like (overcast is my favourite).
>I could see how
>I could have trouble coming to terms with you on incidental
>technicalities. Personally, I'm the type that would prefer to tell a
>person off rather than absorb their message open-mindedly if I felt
>they were questioning my position.
I'm the opposite, tell me I'm wrong on something and I'll ask why,
show I'm wrong and I'll agree with you and say thanks for putting me
straight. Nothing I believe is set in stone, so convince me you are
right.
>I have learned though, that every
>Internet marketing professional has something important to say to me.
Even bill :-)
>They have something to teach me in my quest to be at the pinnacle of
>this artistic specialty. Whether I enjoy reading up on your search
>engine marketing expert's comments or not, I still respect your work.
OK, but you don't have to if you think I'm talking crap, please speak
up, though expect me to ask why.
>So, rather than tell you where to go all day long because of your less
>than effective communications capabilities in marketing your
>well-researched concepts to other SEO pros, I'll show you respect.
Hey my communication skills aren't that bad, I don't pretend to be an
award winning Times journalist or Booker prize winner, I'm into
technical problems with technical solutions and I think I'm quite good
at explaining my findings in layman's terms, I make an effort not to
go overly technical because of who's reading it. I don't write for
other SEO's I write for webmasters looking for SEO information who
like to understand the details.
Also if I was out to make other SEOs respect my views (which I think
you just said I'm failing at) I wouldn't be doing it here in the way I
post (doesn't come across as professional). Basically I see no reason
to make the effort to try to gain an SEO guru status or something
(will it make me more money?). It's too much fun having the freedom to
say what I mean rather than walking on egg shells in case I piss
someone off.
>Courtesy for the valiant progress that you made in the art of crafting
>optimized content. It is clearly to my advantage to try to learn from
>your experiences as a web site promotion consultant, the likes of which
>shakes markets around the globe.
Glad to see someone taking something positive from my sites :-)
Been up all night working, so time for sleep now it's light outside!
Stacey
>>incidentally, is probably the only reason why I am even in this
>>conservation with you Dave. Stacey seems to think that you are OK. I
>>tend to trust her judgement in character so you must have some of that
>>... character that is ...
>
> Stacey also knows her SEO stuff, she's helped me further my SEO
> knowledge on many occasions. She has a knack of seeing things from a
> completely different perspective than I'd be looking at a problem and
> tends to be on the ball when Google changes it's algo. A couple of
> times I've been formulating an idea about what's just happened with a
> big Google update and she'll email me about a missing piece (don't
> tell her I said so though :-)).
My ears were burning........:-)
And visa versa. When one shares with a person one gladly gives out. Dave has
helped me when I was just beginning in SEO learning. Between him and Martin
sharing their knowledge I was able to grasped SEO and go on from there.
Dave convinced me to go for harder SERPs and I am glad. As I have done it
and made them. He also encouraged me to go for more than the one site and
shoot for others for money I hope to be making the big bucks in a few years.
I wish I had done this earlier but something's got into the way like moving
and redecorating, etc. Sites made well is a long term thing and it can't be
done quickly. I have a couple of years before hubby retires and that is what
I am shooting for.