| LED Digest 2317: Google is Evil, digg Hates SEO |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 .............................................. January 3, 2007 Issue no. 2317 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ===================== <Moderator Comment> ~ Google is Evil ~ digg Hates SEO ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Alt Attributes within Heading Tags ==-- ~ Shari Thurow "Search engines rarely use attributes as a means of determining relevancy." --== An SEO Guide - is it Possible? ==-- ~ Terri Zwierzynski "Perhaps a more realistic task...would be to focus on the basics..." ~ Chris Nielsen "...all possible steps should be taken to avoid personal agendas being advanced." ~ Tom Anson "...a graded list might be the only workable way to provide this important service." --== Simplicity is Overrated ==-- ~ Beth Earle "...for once, I was glad that his goofy phone could take pictures, too." ~ R. Neilson "I agree simplicty is key." --== Google on Linking ==-- ~ Rae Deisler "...I sense a contradiction which makes me wonder about relevance even more..." --== New Years Thanks & Goals ==-- ~ Dan Rosenfield "Why not give us snippets of code so we can put text links on our sites...?" ========== NEW =================================== <Moderator Comment> 1) Google is Evil There's all kinds of talk online this week about the Web losing trust in Google. Posts on TechCrunch and SearchEngineLand and many other blogs point to multiple faux pas by Google, the ensuing deterioration of credibiity Web professionals feel towards the giant, and questions about their "don't be evil" philosophy. Looks like one of our more (recently) prolific LEDers, Nathan Holley, tapped into this back in November. Here's a quote and a link: > Power = corruption it's that simple and we are all witnessing the > opening salvo of a growing corrupt power named Google. Who's > so naive that they believe this company won't be evil? How are they > any different from any other big business? In the end we've seen > this before many times and sadly when it comes to business, ideals > are only words on paper. The bottom line drives the decisions. - Nathan Holley, LED Digest 2269 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1379/55/ The post is actually about the supplemental index "fiasco," but Nathan uses that issue to reflect what he portrays as Google's "growing arrogance." (I'll quit picking on you now, Nathan.) That's one side. On the other side of the coin, as Google grows in power and success many adversaries strive ever harder to tip them on their side. It doesn't take any major fiascos, either, just lots of little mistakes that can be pounced on and used for ammo; which makes their position all the more precarious. Danny Sullivan wrote about that in his recent blog entry on "Google Tipping Points": ---------------------------- "Small "tips" promoting Google products create a fairly large uproar, almost seeming to be a straw that broke the camels back over growing concerns about Google. Is this the real tipping point where trust is lost? Is it just the latest in a series of tipping points Google overcomes? Or is the real tipping point simply that each of these tipping points in totally reduce the company down into something more ordinary, more typical company like." Source: http://searchengineland.com/070101-215524.php ---------------------------- Can Google weather this storm? 2) digg Hates SEO The second issue is about digg. Lately the social media giant has come under attack because their primitive anti-spam system has banned many unspammy and highly ethical domains. Take for instance Lee Odden's Online Marketing Blog. Banned. And Sitepoint? Banned. And there are many more cases where legitimate, ethical publishers have been kicked out of digg. There's a theme that runs through this, too - SEO. It appears that sites have been penalized because their content is related to SEO and marketing and these are topics that digg users despise. digg's spam policy needs some updating, definitely. That problem alone shows the challenges they're having scaling as they serve a massive audience and yet don't completely have an "identity" for how they want to operate the community. This move seems pretty clueless, but I can understand it: it's not that digg hates SEO, it's that digg hates the idea of SEOs using the power of their community for marketing. It's the intent. digg's not the only game in town, of course, and there are other excellent social media sites you can use to promote SEO content. I only bring this up today because Lee is an LEDer and by all accounts a great guy, and every bit of coverage helps his cause (although digg has a "no admittance" policy after banning). Check out his post on this issue: http://www.toprankblog.com/2006/12/the-hypocrisy-of-digg-and-spam/ It will be interesting to see where this goes. Best wishes, Adam ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Shari Thurow Subject: Alt attribute > I was wondering if anyone has evidence for or against the SE's > "weighting" of the alt attribute on an image within a heading. - Stephanie Sullivan, LED Digest 2316 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1683/55/ Hi all- This is in responses to Stephanie Sullivan's post in LED #2316 regarding the alternative text attribute in graphic images. I've been writing about this topic for years, and the question she asked? I've answered for years. And before anyone else comments, my answer has been confirmed as correct by all of the major search engines. Surrounding graphic image HTML with a heading will absolutely not give alternative text more relevancy. No, it has not changed and is extremely unlikely to change. Search engines rarely use attributes as a means of determining relevancy. Unfortunately, too many SEOs are looking for a secret ingredient that gives them the edge. So they turn to attributes, especially since modifying an attribute is easier than admitting that the site's information architecture and interface is problematic. Additionally, I know plenty of companies that do image replacement. Most image replacement strategies are a form of search engine spam. If you are feeding search engines something different than you feed end users, in general, it is considered search engine spam. In rare instances, it isn't spam, but I'd have to look at a site on a case-by-case basis. Sincerely, Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director Grantastic Designs, Inc. http://www.grantasticdesigns.com/tips.html -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Terri Zwierzynski Subject: SEO guide > I wonder if [an open source SEO guide] could be done. > My impression of SEO is about the same as my impression > of national politics. "Lets see who we can get to believe us > so we can take them to the cleaners." - Mari Bontrager, LED Digest 2316 Taken to the cleaners is exactly how I've felt about SEO so far! And everyone's advice conflicts, so I share Mari's doubts about getting the gurus to agree on a topic so expansive. Perhaps a more realistic task, instead of tackling the whole SEO picture, would be to focus on the basics -- the SEO advice the experts CAN agree on. For a solo entrepreneur, that's all we can generally afford to spend time / money on anyway. If someone could compile the "must-do's" that apply to all online businesses, THAT would be worth spending money on! Periodic updates as SEO evolves would be an interesting upgrade to that product and add-on guides specific to certain target markets could be a product extension. Terri Zwierzynski http://www.solo-e.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Chris Nielsen Subject: SEO guide > I'm a cynic. Can this really be done? Can a gathering of SEO > gurus agree on a basic platform of reliable, understandable > information about the subject? - Mari Bontrager, LED Digest 2316 Good question. I think the answer is "maybe". I see a couple of problems to make this work: 1) An impartial, respected party to gather and edit the information. 2) The time and energy needed to collect and sort all the information and opinions. If someone undertakes this (Adam: nudge, nudge :-) ), I think it should be approached in an orderly fashion starting with the basics that should be fairly easy to agree with, and not have too many dissenting opinions and modifiers. For example, "The title tag is the most important tag in SEO. It should contain as many keywords / phrases as possible, yet still be good descriptive English of what the page is about. The length should be between 50 and 80 characters and important keywords should be closer to the beginning of the text." Perhaps only the first sentence is something that can be agreed upon, but perhaps not? Maybe what will be needed is to gather opinions from hundreds of SEOs and see what kind of numbers we get: "The title tag is the most important tag in SEO." Out of 627 SEOs, - 451 said they agree - 111 said on-site anchor text tags pointing to a page are more important - 42 said H tags are more important - 17 said BR tags are more important - 6 said don't know / no response I don't think this is too unreasonable to expect as a sample of what we'll get. I am 100% behind such an effort, but only if conducted by non-SEOs and those that have no direct connection with any SEOs. I do think that a number of SEOs need to be involved to help assemble the information to be researched, but I think all possible steps should be taken to avoid personal agendas being advanced. Perhaps Marketing Experiments Journal ( http://www.marketingexperiments.com/ppc-seo-optimization/ ) could be enticed to expand upon what they already have done on this topic to address what seems to be a very real need in the marketplace? Thanks, Chris Nielsen -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Tom Anson Subject: SEO guide Hi fellow LEDers. Hope your New Year is off to a great start. I like the idea of having a "rock-solid SEO Goodie List" (as Al Toman put it, LED Digest 2315, although I'm pretty sure he was not the one who came up with the idea ... ). And I agree with Mari Bontrager's cynicism about the idea (LED Digest 2316). Can it be done?!? Can a gathering od SEO gurus actually agree on what makes for good SEO?!? I doubt it. Just look at the question of linking. But, we probably CAN agree on a few central ideas, and we can probably find those who support other good ideas, even if we can't find total consensus. What I think might be a good "solution" to this would be to have a graded list: a category of things that we all pretty much agree on, a category of things a majority agree on (with the opposing views explained), a category of things that some agree on (with the opposing views explained), a category that almost none of us agree on (and why) and a strictly black hat category (with an explanation of why some choose these options, and what the risks might be). I'm sure we can refine this concept; but, my feeling is that it would allow for the greatest amount of information with the least confusion to the beginner. And, since there are so many opposing ideas as to what is "rock-solid", something like a graded list might be the only workable way to provide this important service. Let the gurus speak. Tom Anson Anson Aromatic Essentials http://www.therapeutic-grade.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Beth Ann Earle Subject: Simplicity > How many people really need a cell phone that takes > pictures? ... Personally, I want a cell phone to (are you > ready for it?) just make and receive phone calls. - Tom Aman, LED Digest 2316 I've always felt the same way as Tom about cell phones until the morning of Dec. 24, when our son grazed the side door of the car next to ours, as he was pulling out of a parking space. There was no serious damage, aside from some of our green paint on the door of the other car, but my husband, striving to set a good example for the newest driver in our family, insisted that they go back in the restaurant that we had just left to find the owner of the car and 'fess up. Well, the owner of the car tried to blame us for her broken tail light, too (even though there was no broken glass on the pavement or any damage to our front end), so my husband ended up taking pictures of her car and our car with his cell phone, in case she decides to file a bogus claim with our insurance company. Admittedly, this sort of thing is rare, but, for once, I was glad that his goofy phone could take pictures, too. Wishing all LED'ers the very best in the New Year, Beth Earle -------- new post - same topic -------- From: R. Neilson Subject: Simplicity I agree simplicty is key. Your comment about the cell phone is right on. I liked the old basic phones that just let you make a phone call with out all the garbage they have on now. I can't find any phones like that so I don't have or use one. My goal this coming year is to do a facelift on my website to make it easier and simper to use. R. Neilson H. L. Supply www.hansons.net -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Rae Deisler Subject: Relevance and linking [ In reply to Michael Martinez, LED Digest 2315 http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1431/55/ ] Interesting points, sensible post. But I sense a contradiction which makes me wonder about relevance even more in this discussion. You said first, > Many people imply they only exchange links within their > verticals or industries. I don't believe that is what the search > engines care about. They are looking at on-page content first > when they determine relevance for queries, so why not look > at on-page content when determining relevance between > linked pages? Fair enough. But then why do you end with this contrary idea? > Whether you seek them out yourself or sign up for a service should > not matter. But if you sell golf clubs and you reciprocate with a > ring tones affiliate site, think long and hard before you stand up > at an SEO conference and ask Matt Cutts why your rankings suck. Going by the logic from your first point, if my golf club site had a page about cool ring tones Tiger Woods uses and I link to an affiliate or lead gen page... get my point? If it's on-page content that matters then relevance doesn't ... if it's not then it does. So which is it? Rae Deisler -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Dan Rosenfield Subject: Your Search Engine Listing Goal Adam: Why not give us (your subscribers) snippets of code so we can put text links on our sites to help you reach your goal? Surely many of us feel we owe you a hell of a lot more than a link for all the good info we've gotten from the digest. I suggest that you create 12 text links (assigned to us in accordance with our birth month). It would be a great SEO experiment and a way for us to show you our appreciation. Happy new year to all! Dan Rosenfield http://www.college-scholarships.com <Moderator Comment> Dan - you rock! I'm all for it of course. If anyone else wants to support the LED rank for "internet marketing email list" (a much more targeted phrase - thanks Jill) let me know. I'll put together some links with keyword variations. Or, just throw up a link with any or no anchor text. I'm not picky :-) Thanks, Adam ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2007 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Avarice, envy, pride, Three fatal sparks, have set the hearts of all On Fire." - Dante Alighieri |
