| LED Digest 1997: SEO Contracts and Agreements |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest post, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. July 20, 2005 Issue #1997 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Contracts and SEO / SEM ==-- ~ Mark Medlicott "The 'catch' to the contract for me, is...the explanation of what it is about to the client..." ~ Beth Earle "...we rely on simply doing good work and providing continual maintenance..." --== Hidden Link Swapping ==-- ~ Steve Pronger "Google draws heavily on inbound links." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Inbound Link Numbers ==-- ~ Dirk Johnson ===== CONTINUING ================================= <Moderator Comment> Mark Medlicott (below) has an interesting discussion idea: "Now that I have gone off on a tangent, maybe a thread about judging ROI for different website types would be interesting." I just wanted to echo Mark's idea here since you may miss it within his post if you're not following the thread on SEO Contracts / Pricing. Also, two discussions are coming together on the subject of linking. I'll consolidate those into one thread if necessary tomorrow. On the subject on Inbound Links, Dirk Johnson's post is really long, but I wanted to run it un-edited. -Adam ------------------------ From: Mark Medlicott Subject: SEO pricing > Are there any high-minded essential SEO's who > offer a written contract to the client guaranteeing > a greater fixed return on investment, or is SEO > just another one of those "trust me" hyperboles? - Bill Davison, LED 1996 For any SEO work that I carry out, I have intended results listed in a written contract. I do not gaurantee specific ROI numbers, but guarantee an improvement in rankings in the SERPs, which in general terms means an increase in traffic, continued analysis to make sure that the new visitors are increasing the website ROI, and several easy options for both the client and/or myself to close the contract if not satisfied. The 'catch' to the contract for me, is not the SEO process, but the explanation of what it is about to the client, and getting them to buy in to the process. Customers that have bought in, and understood, usually realise that things don't happen overnight; that the process involves offline, real world marketing as well as online SEO, and try and develop their strategies in line with my recommendations. Invariably these projects have been successful, and clients have realised an improved ROI, making them happy customers, which in turn usually means ongoing work for me. In order to write a more specific ROI clause into a contract, is difficult to implement in my opinion, as often businesses can't accurately tell whether a new customer has walked in the door by chance or because they saw their website. The general businesses that I deal with, can't afford a survey of all their customers to determine this, but judge their ROI by any increases in the takings. Now that I have gone off on a tangent, maybe a thread about judging ROI for different website types would be interesting. Regards Mark Medlicott Medlicott Design www.medlicottdesign.orcon.net.nz -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Beth Ann Earle Subject: SEO pricing SEO isn't one of those " 'trust me' hyperboles" at all, but it's hard to provide a written guarantee on something that, honestly, in the end, you have no direct control over. Let's face it: good SEO is only one part of the equation in creating a greater fixed return on investment (which, I think, is why the tagline for the LED Digest is "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997"). Other factors, in no particular order, include: 1. Whether the search engines decide to pick up the page -- we've all seen examples of high-ranking pages that we have no idea of how they got there. 2. The motivational quality of the copy -- writing good SEO copy and writing copy that motivates a visitor to take a desired action (whether to buy or to request more info) are sometimes two different things, although they can be the same thing, too. If I'm only allowed to optimize certain pages, and the content on other important pages stinks, my efforts at writing good SEO / motivational content are for naught. 3. The quality of the site's ecommerce system -- it doesn't do much good for SEO to drive qualified traffic to the site, if the ecommerce system is glitchy or doesn't provide a smooth, reliable method of ordering products. 4. The quality of the site owner's customer service -- if site visitors call or submit a form for more info, and the site owner never responds, well ... that sort puts the kibosh on a greater fixed return, doesn't it? Rather than provide a written contract for something we can't guarantee, we rely on simply doing good work and providing continual maintenance. In this manner, we're able to give prospects a good list of references to call, as well as a list of actual search results based on our work that they can test and review themselves on the search engines. And we're honest with them: We say we feel confident based on our past success that we can help improve the quantity of qualified traffic to their site; we'll monitor the site and if we have concerns, we'll make adjustments, normally at no charge. But we also remind them that it's THEIR site and THEY have to do their part in promoting and maintaining it, too. Good, "high-minded" SEO'ers make sure to educate and enlighten their clients, so that the site owners understand that strong SEO isn't a silver bullet -- it's simply one option in a whole arsenal of Internet promotion and sales development weapons. We make sure our clients know they can count on our firepower, but if they don't take full control and advantage of the available arsenal, really, it's their own fault if they lose the war. Beth Earle Polysort LLC -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Steve Pronger Subject: Links > ... even though I can't find the links that are listed > on these blind pages, do the search engines spider > them? Do they add to my link popularity anyway? If > they went away, would it make any difference? - William Ernest Waites, LED 1995 William, If you can't easily follow a link from the home page to the page where your link is located, or it took more than three clicks to get there, then the link to you probably is of little value. If the page is indexed (just do a search for the url) and has some PageRank (unlikely), and is topically relevant then I'd be inclined to maintain the exchange. Otherwise, you've been stiffed. I suggest you create your own "add link" page and just refer requests to that page. Be specific about how and under what circumstances you will agree to exchange links. If webmasters are unwilling to play by your rules (they are approaching you remember) then simply ignore the request. You can see how I've specified my requirements here: http://www.stevepronger.com/add_link.htm I use a software package called SEO Elite (very handy) to periodically check to see if link partners have been holding up their end of the agreement. > Google is not as sensitive to inbound linkage as Yahoo! > anyway. Most Google rankings can be optimized through > other factors. Only a relatively few search expressions have > been so hyperoptimized that you MUST obtain large > numbers of inbound links to rank well on Google. - Michael Martinez, LED 1996 I know Michael's comments are on a different thread but it all comes back to linking. Michael has built a successful site and I respect his opinion as much as anyone else on this list. But LED readers need to be aware that the great majority of the SEO community, experts such as Brad Fallon (built a site that ranks #1 on Google and Yahoo and grosses over $1 Million a year in sales) and most anyone who's had any degree of success obtaining high rankings on Google for keywords that are remotely competitive, believe the exact opposite to be true. Google draws heavily on inbound links. Always has, always will. The evidence is well documented. Steve Pronger http://www.stevepronger.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Inbound links > Google has been showing only partial > inbound links for a couple of years... - Michael Martinez, LED 1994 True. But there is an easy way to get a much more accurate count of inbound links on Google. Simply put your root domain into the search box. "xyzwidgets.com", skip the "back:http://www." qualifiers. You will then see a much larger list of pages in their index that have your root in it. But also realize that it may also show other domains that also have your root domain in the url. Example: a search for "autos.com" would also show links to "fastautos.com"...so you might have to be creative. You might try "w.autos.com". In any case, ALL raw backlink reports from any search engine (such as the consolidated reports from Marketleap.com), as good as they might be, are useful only as relative indicators, and best used to determine raw trends. A true link back report must be "scrubbed" to determine the unique domain counts, which then gives a much better indication of true link popularity. Michael also stated: > Google is not as sensitive to inbound linkage as Yahoo! > anyway. Most Google rankings can be optimized through > other factors. Only a relatively few search expressions have > been so hyperoptimized that you MUST obtain large > numbers of inbound links to rank well on Google. I'd have to respectfully disagree here, Michael. I often see instances where YAHOO! and MSN can be moved with some simple link work, even the outright purchase of small numbers of links, while I see many, many instances in Google where the 800-pound link gorillas in a category are next to impossible to move from their first place or first page positions. I would not call it "hyperoptimized". Instead, is see it as the result of people who have been working hard to promote their sites properly, over a period of several years, by establishing their link popularity and content depth through legitimate means, including active reciprocation with other relevant sites, as well as cultivating content citation, direct affiliate linking, PR work, etc. I call it "establishment", and more on that term in a bit. Some of these very successful sites have never actually been "optimized" at all, but yes, doing the right things with respect to optimization does help. It is not a "relatively few" terms and the sites that go after them that succeed with such hard work. I could provide a very long list of sites that have dominated popular keyword searches in Google for years, right off the top of my head, just from my ongoing familiarity. But doing so would expose my own clients as well as the other sites that I link with regularly. So I won't refer to specifics. But I am not hiding, either. Anyone who wants to do a "results review" should just take a look at the Google search results for some popular terms. The most "established" sites are often at or near the top. When that is not the case, then it's not really a "competitive" search environment for those terms, in my view. It's a situation ripe for establishment. There are still a lot of those situations, too. Even for "popular" terms. Understand that a popular term may not be competitive. There is a difference. Likewise, a low-volume term might be very competitive, in terms of the search competition among the interested players. Localized real estate terms are examples of that, where there can be acute search competition for low volume terms. Anyone who does the kind of linking work that I do, as a full-time, focused endeavor, becomes very familiar with the other sites who exchange links actively and appropriately, as well as the search results of those other sites. We watch what's going on. We are often on first-name basis with these other site owners, since we cooperate with each other on a daily basis. People outside of reciprocal linking do not understand this relationship dynamic at all, since they never actually see it. There is a considerable degree of "self governance" as to relevance and proper protocol in the linking business, at least among the people who do this work properly. The link scammers and spammers operate on the fringes, and are often ignored by those of us in the core of this work. Some of the SEO "gurus" who are, by their own admitted choice, on the outside looking in at reciprocal linking, plead with us all to focus only on the acts of the spammers. This leads them to make some very inaccurate assumptions or derogatory pronouncements about the whole realm of reciprocal linking based on that very limited view. Often to the detriment of those who decide to follow their mis-guided, emotionally-driven advice. But I digress... My definition of an 800-pound link gorilla is a site that has at least 500 legitimate links (possibly hundreds more) coming back to their site, from unique domains, over a long time frame. The links may or may not be reciprocal. Reciprocation does not seem to matter. PageRank doesn't seem to much matter. It is a robust domain count, broadly-distributed and relevant, that seems to matter most. That's actually very hard to fake. Maybe that's why Google rewards it so much? I have yet to see where some careful optimization and a few strategic links on the part of an upstart will displace one of these well established 800-pound link gorillas in Google. To be quite frank, I have never seen it happen. Not once that I am aware. If there are shifts in SERPs for the top spots, the sites who were previously below the most established sites (the mere 600-pound link gorillas) usually just move up in position. Thin-content sites and sites who do other sordid things with linking or content are the ones who often get shuffled around or sent packing. Not always. But often. Sometimes legitimate sites do get shuffled. There are no guarantees. Unless we are talking about obscure, uncompetitive search terms, a 98-pound weakling usually gets ignored, until they start to bulk up. As always, there are anomalies and exceptions. I just am not aware of any in my experience. Again, a look at actual search results is all it takes to get to the bottom of this. It's pervasive that the established sites do well in search indexing, again and again. Certainly, a read of the Google patent indicates that "site establishment" (comprising things such as back link duration, link count, link diversity, content depth, content duration and stability) is a considerable factor in their indexing. Google appears to have rewarded such "establishment" for a very long time, well before the filing of the patent in 2003, but possibly even more so today. This makes perfect common sense, and explains why Google is successfully Google. From what I surmise, Google continues to find ways to algorithmically determine establishment. BTW - I'll gladly take credit for coining the term "site establishment" here in LED Digest, in this context. I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else. But I have seen some of the other very unique, descriptive terms that I've used my posts in LED Digest show up shortly thereafter under some "big-name" bylines in the SEO realm, with no attribution to the source, terms like "three-legged stool" (referring to content, optimization, links) and the whole discussion of "unique domains". Possibly a mere coincidence, but it's all very curious. To those "big name" lurkers in here, you know who you are..:) Pardon me, while I toot my own horn about this. LED Digest is the primary forum where I post on the subject of linking, and you did read it all here first... Back to the business at hand...Due to the nature of my work, I look closely at the search results for hundreds of commercially-driven search terms, across several categories of interest. Some of these terms are extraordinarily competitive, and some are obscure and non-competitive. I get to see a lot of situations as they evolve, first-hand. In the competitive situations, I just don't see upstarts doing well, until they pay considerable dues. Those who can prove that they can buck this establishment trend with any sort of confidence and consistency, in any given situation, with a quick and easy tweak here and there, would be sitting on a literal gold mine. But then, very quickly, other interested observers would reverse-engineer it and just do the same, nullifying it all. That's not really happening in ways that matter much. Instead, I see a lot of people working hard, trying to get established. It's not easy to do. That's why it's rewarded. Michael, based on our past exchanges here on LED, I am sure that we'll continue to disagree on these points. Your conclusions come from your own perspective, as do mine. Maybe we are both right. Maybe we're both wrong. It's all very subjective. I am just providing my own perspective and empirical conclusions to the readers on this list, and they are substantially and fundamentally different from your own. So, let's respectfully disagree, and let the readers make their own choices. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner DomainDrivers LLC http://www.domaindrivers.com formerly dba as LinkStrategy.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2005 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give." - Sir Winston Churchill |
