| LED Digest 2256: Pieces of the SEO Puzzle |
|
|
|
Today's issue features a recent exchange that took place off-list. The LED Digest was CCd as Eric Ward and Dirk Johnson exchanged ideas and opinions on reciprocal linking. Useful and informed stuff. ================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Registration from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. September 28, 2006 Issue no. 2256 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= <Moderator Comment> --== Meta Tags (and More) ==-- ~ David Spahr "...I certainly would like someone to enlighten me." ~ Al Toman "[The keyword meta tag] is an excellent place to inventory keywords..." --== Linking ==-- ~ Dirk Johnson "Make your own site worthy of linking to..." ~ Eric Ward "...reciprocal links are not evil, but can be used with evil intent." ~ Dirk Johnson "We are just one piece of the SEO puzzle..." ~ Eric Ward "I'd love it if Google would dump every so- called article directory." ~ Dirk Johnson "...this industry desperately needs some balance and understanding on this issue." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Emails with Just Keywords ==-- ~ Tom Aman ~ John Smart ======== CONTINUING =============================== <Moderator Comment> Greetings LEDer, Yup, yesterday's issue went missing. I was traveling on business and didn't have time to complete this issue, so I skipped it. Actually I did have time -- but during my window of opportunity I was unable to get online. But I gotta say, it felt pretty good playing hookie! For today's issue I'm publishing a recent exchange that took place off-list. The list was CCd as Eric Ward and Dirk Johnson exchanged ideas and opinions on reciprocal linking. It's a very worthwhile read and I'm glad the LED was given access to their discussion. Informed, useful stuff. Thanks, guys. You may have noticed that I'm now including URLs to the led-digest.com archives with each quote. Hope this is helpful. Have a great weekend, Adam -------------------- From: David Spahr Subject: Meta tags and keywords > Do I use the meta keywords tag on new sites? Sure. Maybe > 4 or 5 words. It takes 10 seconds. Why not. But if I was advising > someone on how to improve rankings on a non-performing site > I'd be advising to focus on factors which clearly have the most effect. - Steve Pronger, LED 2255 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1075/55/ Steve at least agrees that it is a short job to use keywords and that he still puts them in. I am not removing mine. It would be an interesting experiment to try that I cannot afford if my rank headed south. I too, consider other aspects of design much more important. What bothers me is that people are talking like scientists but have no actual scientific data. Offering selected examples is as anecdotal as the comments I offered. That said, I did not say that I could prove anything other than I have not been hurt by using keywords. Unless you can show it in a large number of carefully controlled tests with a large number of websites it is still theory at best. Obviously some theories are true. We know them - evolution, electricity, gravity etc. but in web design theories and strategies have come and gone. Some basic strategies persist. Using an example like this just shows that search algorithms don't always work as they should or produce results you can bet on. Idiosyncratic results are easy to find. If anyone can explain why http://www.geocities.com/heartland/5873/ shows up on Google in the top ten for the search "stereoviews" I certainly would like someone to enlighten me. David Spahr * Stereoviews.com * Antique-Photography.com * Stereoviews.info * -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Al Toman Subject: Meta tags Regardless whether the keyword meta tag plays a roll in web page ranking or not, it is an excellent and logical place to inventory keywords if your web site consists of multiple (100's) web pages. This is advantageous especially if a server-side script is used in web page analytics (keyword saturation) and if multiple individuals, such as text copy writers (update content), work the web pages. Al Toman studio9.ws -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Linking > If it does work, note that you also just created a reciprocal > link to the high PR site, which *could* devalue the high pagerank > IBL back to your site since now the engines cannot be 100% > certain the link from the high PR site was earned. - Eric Ward, LED 2249 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1052/55/ Eric, with all due respect, can you please provide verifiable, documented proof that just because a link is reciprocated it becomes of less value? I have never seen any, and I have looked high and low for such proof, for years. It's just that, in the course of doing reciprocal link management work for over 8 years now, I have yet to see any real indication that a link is devalued simply due to reciprocation. It still works here, very well. The sooner the public does not have to encounter speculation on this subject, the better for all, don't you think? If a reciprocated link is reduced in value, then by what amount? 100%, 50%, 5%? And a reciprocated link that gets the other link indexed is certainly more valuable than a one-way link that is not being indexed, so even with any perceived devaluation (and, again, my experience indicates that there is none), isn't it better to get it indexed than not? Finally, reciprocal links are actually "earned." In fact, there is considerable work put forward by sites that reciprocate properly and responsibly. To earn a significant number of reciprocated links, one has to: 1) Select sites that are relevant to your own, by visiting those sites and confirming such condition. 2) Select only sites that offer to reciprocate. Again, by visiting the sites and confirming that condition. 3) Log the appropriate method of making the link request, for those sites that offer, be it via email or online submission form. 4) Select from that the sites that meet your own listing criteria. 5) Present them on your own site in a way that is proper. That is, well-categorized, and has the title and description that the other site prefers. 6) Make the link request using the appropriate method of submission, and be prepared to tell the other site exactly where to find their link, how it is presented, and how to modify it. 7) Make your own site worthy of linking to, and not play "hide the link" games. 8) Track where you've been and what you've accomplished, so as to not waste time duplicating your previous effort later. Even at that, the site being asked for the link will review your own site, and then choose to add the link, or deny the reciprocation. It is by no means 100% assured that the link will be placed. There is considerable editorial review taking place these days, among sites that reciprocate responsibly. The act of just placing a link and asking for one back does not assure that reciprocation will take place, by any means. Given those conditions, the task of data management related to reciprocation is considerable, as is the work required to meet the above criteria. Some sites make that investment, and others do not. Those who do will most certainly earn the benefits that accrue to them. Sites owners and their advisors that do not participate can sit on the sidelines and comment. To say that reciprocated links are not "earned" is just wholly inaccurate. It may appear to be that way to those who have misconceptions about the process. For anyone who thinks that reciprocation is easy, I'd ask them to first get 1000 reciprocated links from other relevant sites. Let's say they are all automotive-related links, which is something we have done here for automotive-related clients. It took us a couple of years of continuous effort to do that. Then, after that task is complete, please tell me if those links were earned or not, and what effect it had, in terms of direct traffic and organic search traffic, as well as the effect of additional "link expansion", due to that effort. I have the advantage of having seen that kind of scenario take place time and again. I am continuously baffled that others in the SEO word have little or no respect for it, yet there are thousands of sites that have done it, and they are quite satisfied with the concept of reciprocation, the purpose, the cost, and the outcome. In fact, many of them now enjoy established positions in their realm that are very hard to displace. How this fact is constantly overlooked and disparaged in the SEO world is beyond my comprehension. I guess people just deny what the choose to deny. Reciprocation is an opportunity. Some pursue it, others do not. But it takes considerable work to do it the right way. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com www.linkstrategy.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Eric Ward Subject: Linking Hi Dirk, in my post you can see I included the would *could* devalue, not *does* devalue or *will* devalue. The difference is immense. So documented verifiable proof of something that *could* happen to reciprocal links is no different than documented verifiable proof that a tornado *could* hit Wichita. I respect you as a world class reciprocal link builder and applaud your many years of experience. Your particular niche is under attack left and right, so your passion is understandable and you raise some great points. I've said for 14 years reciprocal links are not evil, but can be used with evil intent. I'll sum up some truths about recips below, and my intent is not to argue with you. I have a fair amount of experience with link building of all flavors myself, and here's what I know to be true, verifiable or not. 1). All recips are NOT earned. We've all seen pages that have add URL forms for link subs with any site willing to recip. That ain't earned, that's crap. Fortunately there's less of it as recip pages are becoming more themed over the years, but the random recips are still out their, and the engines know it. 2). I think we'd all agree the following statement is false: Every pair of reciprocal links in the world can be trusted as a 100% unbiased vote of quality between the two reciprocating web sites. 3). If the above is false then I think we'd also agree that the engines would be nuts if they did not analyze reciprocity in some way so as to try and identify a level of trust or relevancy, and to identify scams, link farms, and self run recip networks. 4). If #3 above is true, then it's logical that the engines could, I repeat loudly, ** C O U L D ** make a decision to ignore, credit, or even penalize based upon what they find. Again, I said COULD. Not WILL. Not DO. 5). Recips are a great way to spread the word about your content and build relevant traffic, if they are done carefully and with the user in mind, not the search engines. Lastly, you used a phrase in your email that I think was directed at me personally, so I'll take the bait and reply. I have no "misconceptions about the process". The "process" is what I do every day of my life. I'm not a theorist, I'm a practitioner. I build links every day for a living, and have since the Titanic sank. Lastly, if Bezos had waited for *verifiable proof* that an online bookstore would work before he started one, he'd be working for Barnes and Noble, and I wouldn't be here posting. Eric Ward http://www.ericward.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Linking Hi Eric, I appreciate the feedback. I just want to have a level-headed discussion. I am aware of your well-earned reputation, and respect it. We each perform different tasks for our clients. I don't try to do what you do. And, for the most part, from what I have seen, you don't try to do what I do. We have a very focused business model here, by specific choice. There is a need for responsible reciprocal link management services. We decided to focus entirely on that aspect of linking. It has served us well, and our clients. We also fully realize that our approach is not the right one for some sites, and that our approach is not the be-all, end-all of link building. We simply try to do this aspect of link building the right way, and we advise our clients that there are other methods of link building that can be added to this mix, or alternatives, if they choose to pursue them. I certainly appreciate this statement you made in your reply: "Your particular niche is under attack left and right". Eric, it comes from almost everywhere in the SEO world these days, or at least it comes from the most vocal portions. Even at that, we have a lot of SEO clients who still bring their clients to us. They realize the value of what we do, but they are also not the "brand name" pundits. They are working SEO practitioners who need results at affordable rates. We're proud to service them. All I have ever asked for from all of these anti-reciprocation pundits is some form of verifiable proof that reciprocation, as a general concept, is nullified. To date, I have yet to see a single shred of proof. Usually, they simply attack me as a "spamming self-promoter", or something worse, and then wash their hands of the argument. I fully appreciate that you did not take that approach in your reply. These pundits have no interest in facts or evidence. We can deliver substantial evidence that contradicts entirely what they say. The challenge is that we are not willing to expose our clients. We don't have their permission, and we would not even assume to ask, nor are we really willing to expose the sites that we link with responsibly. IN other words, we are not about going out and parading our clients or link partner SERP placements publicly. That would be wholly inappropriate, for several reasons. We are just one piece of the SEO puzzle, and we should not even try to take credit for it. But, quite simply, we can show a endless display of sites that reciprocate responsibly, and they use it as their primary means of link popularity, and rank extraordinarily well in Google SERPs, even through all the algorithm changes, some going back several years. Stable, solid results. I am not sure how that can be denied, unless one simply decides to ignore it. It's pervasive. You also said: "the engines would be nuts if they did not analyze reciprocity in some way so as to try and identify a level of trust or relevancy, and to identify scams, link farms, and self run recip networks." We are all for that here. In fact, it has likely already happened at Google, during the Jagger update. Our clients withstood that change quite well. By and large, the sites that we reciprocate with are other legitimate small businesses that use reciprocity properly, to support their business. These are sites that apply editorial control over their sites and link directories, and thus, they establish trust. Links from those sites, even reciprocated ones, are valid. If I might, just for talking purposes, head into the territory of raw speculation. I would speculate that Google has already looked at nullifying ALL reciprocal links, and they did not like what they saw in the test SERPs. It's just a hunch, but they've had 8 years to nullify all reciprocation, and they never have. They'd take down a lot of very legitimate sites, while also driving site owners into even more manipulative one-way linking schemes. So they've attacked the edges, and found methods to establish trust and relevance. Sites that live within those boundaries were left alone, even rewarded. We support that. I fully realized the distinctions that arise with your the use of "could" in your post. However, I feel strongly that most people cannot see the distinction. Wrapping the argument in those kinds of semantics is not helpful to the reader. The implications are self-evident. A lot of things "could" happen, related to linking, such as: - Google could nullify links from "article dumps". That is, the places where people can post all manner of useless "content", only for SEO linkage purposes. - Goodle could nullify links that come via mass-distribution press release. - Google could seek out and nullify links from the large text ad brokers. Maybe they already do some of this, to some degree. Maybe they don't. But what we need in this world of SE advice is facts, not speculation. The SEO world also needs a good look at the return-on-investment aspects of the various link building strategies. I never see that discussed. Eric, your post in LED Digest was one that required a response from me. I make it a policy to respond to anything like that comes along in LED Digest. Your references to "earned" links certainly caught my attention. As I described in my own post, we work very hard here to make this happen for our clients. We most certainly earn links for them. I appreciate the exchange. I hope that you understand that I am fighting against considerable mis-information and confusion about reciprocal linking, and it comes from many of the most vocal voices in the SEO world. My policy here is to address it, stridently. Maybe I go overboard, but their lack of understanding of this subject is palpable, and leads them to make recommendations to their clients and readers that may well cost more, take longer, and be less effective than that of competitors who are not following such advice. Some people would call that malpractice in other industries. In the SEO world, anyone can say anything, and with a large enough audience, and the luxury of of a respected format, they can get away with it. It's a sad situation for those who rely on such advice when making their business decisions. Again, thanks for the exchange. I do hope that you can see this issue from my perspective. Best regards, Dirk Johnson www.domaindrivers.com www.linkstrategy.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Eric Ward Subject: Linking > A lot of things "could" happen, related to linking, > such as... Google could nullify links from "article > dumps". That is, the places where people can > post all manner of useless "content", only for > SEO linkage purposes. - Dirk Johnson I'd love it if Google would dump every so-called article directory. > Goodle could nullify links that come via > mass-distribution press release. Ditto. > Google could seek out and nullify links > from the large text ad brokers. Especially those who sell links for rankings improvement reasons. > Again, thanks for the exchange. I do hope that > you can see this issue from my perspective. Absolutely! I think you have a golden opportunity right now because recips are still very useful and you have the skills to do it right. For me, the fact that your clients withstood jagger tells me everything. The tighter the theme, the more likely the cream rises. This is what it says on my site about recips at http://www.ericward.com/netpost.html ------------------------- "Don't believe the hype about reciprocal linking "Reciprocal linking has its place, and can be very beneficial. People who tell you that reciprocal links are a dead-end are clueless. It's all about quality and relevance. I choose to focus on one-way link building campaigns, and have since the day I began this business. I do not engage in reciprocal linking projects if your objective is search rank, because that's a foolish approach. If I see linking opportunities that require a reciprocal link, I study the site to see if a link would provide strategic value other than SEO, and if so, I'll pursue them under very specific conditions that we agree to beforehand. Most of my clients don't offer, nor do they seek, reciprocal links." ------------------------- That's hardly an indictment, and is closer to an endorsement than anything. My own preference is to work one-way projects on behalf of content that can get away with that approach :) I truly admire your willingness to do what you do. It ain't easy. Eric Ward http://www.ericward.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Linking Hi Eric, Thanks a million. I appreciate the way you have laid this out, especially the "Don't believe the hype about reciprocal linking". Your words carry real weight in the SEO world, and this industry desperately needs some balance and understanding on this issue. Maybe your blog entry today will generate some heat. We'll see. http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2006/09/when_links_attack_revisited_1.html Your reply and clarification is much appreciated. Best regards, Dirk Johnson www.domaindrivers.com www.linkstrategy.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Tom Aman Subject: Keyword emails > Just a codicil, these type of emails are sent out by > spammers to build a mailing list of people who will > open any email, whether they recognize the sender > or not. The spammer gets a return receipt showing > who opened, or didn't open, the email and from > there he builds his list. - Robert Bass, LED 2255 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1075/55/ I think this is unlikely as I have received many, many, many of this type of SPAM and seldom have one that wants to initiate a return receipt. I use Outlook Express and, whenever an incoming email is set return a receipt when opened, it alerts me to the fact and gives me the option of whether or not that receipt is actually sent. The sender also cannot identify my system by including linked images as Outlook Express does not download these unless specifically requested, email by email, so the spammer cannot build a list by that means, either. The word list is only to attempt bypassing spam filters. On the subject of return receipts, the occasional SPAM does want to send one. By disabling my Internet connection at that point (with DSL, just flipping a switch does that), then giving Outlook Express permission to send the receipt, I end up with an email in my outbox with what has a high probability of being a good email address to the spammer. I then change the content of the receipt message - a few words to the effect that I want them to remove me from their mailing list, that I never deal with spammers no matter what the offer and that I will also ask my friends, relatives and everyone else in my address book to not only avoid dealing with their company but to also spread the word to their contacts, etc. Then I reconnect and let the message go. I seldom, if ever, hear from that particular spammer again. Tom Aman Aman Software http://www.cyberspyder.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: John Smart Subject: Keyword emails Robert brings up a good point. I hate people knowing if I read a mail or not, so I disabled that Outlook function. I was closing outlook the other evening and got a popup saying " This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it wants a notification when you delete this mail - would you like to send that now?" I said no, because saying yes shows two things - it shows I am using Outlook (express), and it shows that my address is genuine. With that in mind, everyone should disable that "feature" in outlook. John Smart InternetDesign.com - A Human Touch in a Digital World ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps even these things, one day, will be pleasing to remember." - Virgil |
