| LED Digest 2033: The SEO Underground |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 .............................................. October 6, 2005 Issue #2033 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ======= NEW ===================== --== The Google Sandbox Effect ==-- ~ Claudiu Spulber "I've read in some places that the Google sandbox doesn't really exist..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== SEO is Dead ==-- ~ Donald Nelson "I think the SEO that he says is 'dead' is a caricature of the real work done..." ~ Chris Nielsen "SEO is dead? Well, Long Live SEO!!!" ~ Don Baker "Curiously, nobody mentions these [SEO] gurus in forums like this..." --== What's Wrong with DMOZ ==-- ~ Colin Flack "Perhaps...absolute power is one of the things that some people perceive as being wrong..." ~ William Ernest Waites "I am fully fed up with the Open Directory, which is anything but open." --== The Quality of SEO Forums ==-- ~ Dirk Johnson "...I have done my time in some of the big forums." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== ROR XML ==-- ~ Tom Aman ======= NEW ===================================== From: Claudiu Spulber Subject: Google Sandbox Hi all, Have a bit of a dillema here. I've read in some places that the Google sandbox doesn't really exist and I wanted to hear more opinions on this. Our website is up and running for about 4 months now, and even if it was indexed by Google the 2nd day after the official release, I haven't seen traffic for other words then the ones related to the name of the product. On the other hand MSN and Yahoo gave it some good search engine positioning for our targeted keywords, but Google still almost nothing. Is that a "symptom" of the sandbox or just the website is not well optimized? Thank you. Regards, Claudiu Spulber http://www.novapdf.com/ ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Donald Nelson Subject: SEO is dead > If you are not ready for the future, for what's coming > big-time, you do not understand why SEO is dead > and has been for a while. - Ken Evoy, LED 2031 Dear All, As much as I respect Ken Evoy, I think the SEO that he says is "dead" in LED 2031 is caricature of the real work done by reputable search engine optimizers. Sure, keyword stuffing with invisible text, doorway pages and various other gimmicks are a thing of the past, but individuals and companies who are putting up websites for the first time genuinely need guidance and tips on how to best present their work so that their site will be properly indexed by the top search engines. For example, a web designer may provide a design that looks good to the naked eye, but if he or she renders all the important text as gif or jpg images, then it will be extremely difficult for that website to come up in searches for its main keywords. The search engine optimizer is not there to trick search engines, but to give the best possible chance for his or her client's web site to be found. I whole-heartedly agree with Ken that providing good content and providing solutions or answers to the questions of the public is the primary task for anyone who is building a website and attempting to do business online. But this is easier said than done and the role of search engine optimizers (and Ken too) is to help people produce the content and present it properly. Sincerely, Donald Nelson www.a1-optimization.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Chris Nielsen Subject: SEO is dead SEO is dead? Well, Long Live SEO!!! Frankly, while making a statement like that may be good marketing to get people stirred up, I consider it unprofessional and irresponsible. I say that because there may be a number of people that are new to this list and the SEO topic, and to make a false, blanket statement like that is nothing but self-serving by causing confusion, and doubt. Yes, there is bad SEO and bad SEOs out there. No surprise since they've both been discussed on this list for years. Organizations like seopros.org and topseos.com both provide potential clients with education and options to select someone to provide SEO services with confidence. We also started an organization to do the same thing and more. If clients learn as much as they can about SEO and selecting a vendor with experience and ethics, then they should have the same positive experience as hundreds of thousands of others that have used SEO on their sites. Are all auto mechanics rip-offs? No. The same is true for those that provide SEO. I guess my opinion is suspect, since I do provide SEO services, but when you hear that "SEO is dead" from Jill Whalen, Terry Van Horne, Aaron Wall, and others in the SEO industry and not from hosting providers, you may consider there might be some truth to the statement, but not before. Thank you, Chris Nielsen Nielsen Technical Services ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Donald L. Baker Subject: SEO is dead > What we know as SEO is EVOLVING (it's not dead)... > Providing search engines, and ultimately people, with > a content-rich site combined with appropriate development > of a site is what will win out in the end. - Jennifer Thomas, LED 2032 This was just one of many comments in [issue] 2032 I felt I should respond to. I've been doing SEO/SEM for five years, and until very recently, I would've agreed with Jennifer's comment completely. However, I've recently had to do a lot more research and learn some advanced techniques (nothing black-hat) to solve a specific rankings problem. Now I'm convinced that, in certain circumstances, the content-is-king philosophy is just not enough to beat the competition. IMHO, SEO practice will indeed evolve, until everyone has to use certain advanced techniques and software tools just to get decent rankings. The internet industry is being driven by the desire to profit from e-commerce. But the pioneers are not in Business Week companies, but in the semi-underground, internet-marketing industry that turns out one e-commerce software tool after another. Curiously, nobody mentions these gurus in forums like this, but I'm sure most SEO pros are using their tools and getting their email updates. Don Baker NSI Partners ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Colin Flack Subject: DMOZ I read Marsha Kopan's post about DMOZ with interest, especially the last sentence: > ... content on their homepage that speaks to its purpose. > Sites that have a flashy entrance page or too many confusing > chotchkies get the boot too. Perhaps the creator thought a flashy entrance was just what was needed. Perhaps the intended audience is totally at one with the chotchkies. Perhaps editors sitting high up on a judgmental horse wielding absolute power is one of the things that some people perceive as being wrong with DMOZ? Colin Flack ------- new post - same topic ------- From: William Ernest Waites Subject: DMOZ Arrogance Two comments: Having tried on numerous occasions to have sites included in the directory and failing, and having had an editor say that the non-commercial, helpful, informative site I was proposing was excluded because it had "no new information on it that wasn't available elsewhere" (paraphrasing), I am fully fed up with the Open Directory, which is anything but open. Excluding a site because it may duplicate some information found elsewhere is a little like closing the Library of Congress because all those books can be found elsewhere. Nevertheless, it appears to be hopeless to reason with these people. Incidentally, I'm not bucking for the top of the list. I just want to be on the list. Moreover, despite notices on DMOZ almost begging for editors, I have applied three times and never received so much as an acknowledgement. Therefore, I must assume that DMOZ, which I understand is heavily relied on by some search engines, is somewhere between misleading and irrelevant. Still, every once in a while I go back and try again. So, how smart am I? Sincerely, William Ernest Waites, Eyewriter "Words that make pictures." (c) ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: The Quality of SEO Forums > ... as someone who posts in one and a daily lurker / occasional > poster at several others, (SearchEngineWatch, Cre8, Webmaster > World, SEOChat, Digital Point) I can confidently say I see no > misguided or misinformation being disseminated there. - Debra Mastaler, LED 2031 Debra, My apologies if you took personal offense at what I said. My post was not intended to paint all who write and speak on the subject of SEO and linking with the same brush. That would be totally wrong. When I said, "Then again, some of it is valid.", it was not a caveat. It represents my true feelings. There are many people out there in the SEO world who know what they are doing. I work directly with many of them. Nevertheless, I have done my time in some of the big forums. Not much in yours, so I can't speak to it. In some of the others, I do drop in as a lurker from time-to-time to see what's new, but often it is the same old myths being recycled, or new ones. All mixed in with what I'd consider to be good advice. I've found that those with the most misguided notions were also the most strident, prolific, and mean-spirited in their posts and responses. I don't have the time, need, or desire to mix it up in that kind of environment. Debra, maybe your forum is different. I just burnt out of the ones I was in. As to the speakers at the large conferences, I am aware of several people who get regular speaking gigs in that realm, but I wholly disagree with their concepts of linking, based on their previously published writings. Many of them are outright hostile toward what I do for a living, and they have written that reciprocal linking is not an acceptable practice. Some of the "biggest names" in SEO hold this belief, and that's their right. It's also my right to point out that they might be way off-base, and let's let the readers make their own decision. I really do not care how "big" their name is, or how big the conference. Unfounded, biased advice is just bad advice, and there seems to be a lot of it out there, even at the highest levels in the SEO industry. It's been going on for years. But, as you pointed out, there are also speakers at those events who are very grounded and focused on what really works. I feel for the business owner who is trying to get at the facts. Unfortunately, I do still encounter a large percentage of prospective clients who come to us with all manner of misguided SEO concepts. In my conversations with them, I've asked them about their sources. It's usually a little bit of everything (forums, articles, conferences, direct consultations with SEO specialists), but many of them do mention some of the biggest forums specifically by name (again, Debra, not yours). It seems to me that people in the SEO world who promote their own brand of "secret formula, scare tactics" do make an impression. Maybe they are not necessarily the speakers at the biggest conferences, but they do manage to get their theories disseminated, and that's what sticks with people. Many business owners that I talk with will readily admit that they are confused and frustrated by it all, due to the conflicting nature of the various advice. They just want to do the right thing for their business. One thing that deflates this balloon of conflicting advice is to ask people to recall any specific examples and well-documented, definitive proof that these various complex and contrived SEO "gaming theories" actually work, especially the ones based on PageRank thresholds. It never seems to materialize, and that fact is often overlooked amid the emotional discussion. A quick tour of some real search results is all it takes to blow this stuff back into outer space, where it came from. One thing is for sure. Here in LED Digest, it's a well-moderated environment, where we can present reasoned positions on both sides, and the best of them get published, without the noise that permeates many forums. Business owners and managers get a concise discussion, and then they can do their own additional research and make better-informed decisions. In many SEO-related publishing environments, the moderators and editors themselves are hopelessly biased or restrictive, thus limiting the exchange. I have encountered this first hand several times, whereby editors will publish a very questionable, unsubstantiated article, and then refuse to publish a reasoned counter-point. I appreciate the LED Digest. Other readers should understand that it is a very, very unique resource in the SEO/Web marketing world. Thank you again, Adam. Debra, if I offended, my apologies. Readers here should look into your forum and see what's there. But I will stand by my statements that some of these forums (even the large ones) are just one of the many breeding grounds for bad SEO advice, and bad advice is a reality in the SEO industry, from the very top to the bottom. Then again, there are those in this business who know how to do this work properly and effectively. That's not a caveat. My main concern is for the uninitiated who need to sort it all out. My advice to them is to read and study everything they can, be skeptical, and look at what works in real world examples. Then apply that to your own site, or use that information to hire those who pass muster with what has been learned. If it looks like a complex "game", it probably is. If it looks like a legitimate way to promote a website that a reasonable person would agree with, it probably is. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Tom Aman Subject: ROR XML > Addme.com is suggesting the use of ror.xml. > Does anybody have facts on this new SEO technique? - Salem Kashou, LED 2028 First, for those who want to know about ROR, go to http://www.rorweb.com/ Second, looks to me a lot like RSS: I still find RSS to be a solution looking for a problem and ROR sounds like another solution looking for a problem. I belong to a couple of RSS discussion groups. I joined them because I wondered if I was missing something. My main complaints about RSS are first, for something that was supposed to be simple, it has become way too complex and second, it is nearly impossible to find any clear definition of how RSS is all supposed to work. Various people want to add their own flavor of tags for their own special purposes; they present their ideas to the group as if it were a great break-through in some area and no one seems to realize that it is just making RSS even more complex. There is more than one version of RSS (take your pick) and, because some didn't like the way it was going, a breakaway group came up with a similar but different specification called ATOM. And now we have ROR to add to the mix. Mostly it all looks like some techie / geek types looking for an excuse to make more extensive use of XML - XML, that magic tagging wonder that was supposed to do all kinds of amazing things and, in fact, seems to have very limited usage for very specialized purposes. RSS, ATOM and ROR give an excuse to use XML. What is the point? None of these bright ideas accomplish anything that could not have been done simpler and easier within the existing HTML framework. In the early days of the Web a great many sites had a "What's New" page. Many sites still have them. By simply standarizing the tag usage on a "What's New" type page and an "About this site" type page, everything that is done with RSS, ATOM and ROR could be accomplished in a manner that would be much more understandable to everyone. Tom Aman Aman Software http://www.cyberspyder.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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Even beauty may present a prism wearying to the eye." - Karl Joseph |
