| LED Digest 2657: Google Violating Itself |
|
|
|
==================================================
The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom http://www.AudetteMedia.com : the LED's Publisher Boutique Internet Marketing: SEO, SEM, Social Media http://www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. June 3, 2008 Issue no. 2657 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Domain Pointing vs Forwarding ==-- ~ Nancy Schettler "...any problem areas I should look for if I do the switch from forwarding to pointing?" --== Nofollow Directories Worth It? ==-- ~ Leon Simmons "I was under the impression that Google devalues backlinks that carry the 'nofollow' tag." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Discussion Board for Non-Profit ==-- ~ David Jonah "The calendar company is Trumba and I have no problems recommending them..." --== SEO Standards ==-- ~ Grant Crowell "...the culpability of the search engines violating the SEO space." ~ Richard Stubbings "Naturally to compare SEO firms is more than just numbers." ========= NEW ===================================== From: Nancy Schettler Subject: domain pointing vs. forwarding Greetings LED Digest readers. Once again I'm humbly requesting your help in figuring out what I'm doing. First, I would like to apologize for managing to have been muddling along in e-commerce for over five years without knowing some really basic stuff. (I can't believe I got this far knowing so very little...) Anyway, here's the scoop. I have a website, let's call it awebsite.com. I finally decided to buy a second domain name, website.com (same as my original name but without the leading "a", because sometimes people forget to put in the a. Both domains are through GoDaddy and the website is built and hosted (for now) at Homestead. Anyway, in the process of getting the new domain name set up, I've learned a little bit about the difference between domain forwarding (which is what is done with "awebsite" and it makes me look like a subdomain of Homestead) and domain pointing (which is what I have set up with the new "website" domain name, pointing to the original website awebsite.com). Ultimately, I really don't want to look like anybody's subdomain. But after five years of the SE's viewing me as awebsite.homestead.com, what are the risks I take by switching to domain pointing? I think that any links to my site that are out there already, either in a SE index or on a individual website, would still work with the .homestead in them. But am I running the risk of "diluting" my website by possibly appearing to be three different websites: awebsite.homestead.com, awebsite.com, and website.com? Since Homestead is certainly a much more important site than mine, have I enjoyed any "clout" in the SE's by my obvious association with them, even if as a subdomain? Or do you think it has hurt me? Are there any problem areas I should look for if I do the switch from forwarding to pointing? Or any preliminary steps I should take before "pulling the plug"? Or... should I have awebsite.com pointed, but website.com forwarded so that it definitely looks like just ONE website (and nobody's subdomain)? I know you readers will have some great advice, and I look forward to reading your comments! Thank you - Nancy Schettler www.awelldressedkitchen.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Leon Simmons Subject: Directories that have the 'nofollow' tag I have just started to submit articles to directories in order to promote a particular website I deal with. I have noticed that some of these directories are adopting the following procedure which I have copied and pasted: ------------------ "Article Body: minimum of 250 words and a maximum length of 12,000 characters. HTML tags allowing in the body of the article are: <br />, <p>, <b>, <i>, <u> and <a href>. You may include up to 3 self serving links in an article (all anchor text links have the 'nofollow' tag). Author information: may include up to 3 self serving links only. (all anchor text links have the 'nofollow' tag)" ------------------ I was under the impression that Google devalues backlinks that carry the 'nofollow' tag. Are there still any advantages in submitting to these directories or should they be avoided? Leon Simmons ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: David Jonah Subject: Events > We want to capture user details via the > website but also allowing manual entry and > snail mail as some of the people we will be > dealing with are not too IT literate. - Carol Moore, LED 2655 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2070/190/ I know there is great value in what Google does and offers. However, I have used and continue to watch as they improve their product offering, a slick calendar program that several client newspapers are using successfully in community publishing. I like the company and the developers are continuing to find new ways to make their calendar offering better. You can talk with them and create a white label version that if you really need a new functionality, you can get on their development program, if it makes sense. The calendar company is Trumba and I have no problems recommending them and I have no affiliation with them beyond satisfaction. I initially used Version 1.0 and they are the people you will like to do business with. In fair comment, we continue to use a home made SQL database display version because of how we like to promote and merchandize events as part of a directory strategy, but for the items mentioned, Trumba is worth a serious look. David Jonah- Jonah & Associates www.localintheknow.com ============ Sponsor Message =========== Writerfind.com, established in 1998, specializes in connecting professional freelance writers with clients. The site caters to: * freelance business communicators who have a 'way with words' along with industry experience * freelance journalists who have substantial experience writing articles for magazines and journals There is a charge for freelancers to be listed, but no charge for clients to search the database and post jobs. Writerfind.com - http://www.writerfind.com ============ Sponsor Message =========== -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Grant Crowell Subject: SEO standards Hello Freaks, I've enthusiastically followed the discussion here on "The LED" around SEO standards. The debate seems to have bandied on how much weight there is to a number of possible components, and myriad combination of those same components, can exist in the greatest range of scenarios and importance that would ultimately gain it widespread merit by the SEO community as itself a definitive "standard." Some of the debating points have been: - Computer match vs. human persuasion - Constancy vs. randomness - Instruction vs. experience - Science vs. art - Control vs. manipulation - Business goals vs. professional ethics I would like comment on the issue that I feel has been getting the least discussion and attention by our SEO community - ethics. I've found Adam Audette's own column, "Six Principles of Ethical SEO," http://www.audettemedia.com/blog/six-principles-of-ethical-seo to be one of several good guides. One of the early "SEO Code of Ethics" http://www.bruceclay.com/web_ethics.htm is also a good text to follow. Groups like SEMPO sempo.org have discussed the issue at length in their own white papers and forums. When we hear the word "ethics," I think most of us would think we're talking about ethical codes for ourselves and our client relationships. Despite the issues in our industry, ethical codes are something that enough SEO professionals can still get behind by, and least in large enough numbers to distinguish themselves from others that look to distinguish themselves by subversive techniques. That does not mean that those who classify themselves, or are classified by us, as "subversives" (aka "black hats," or semi subversive "gray hats"), are any less ethical than a white hat. I've heard a few white hats wag their finger at black hats on ethics, but ethics are not about someone else's guidelines as they are your own principles. A black hat who truly believes that the search engines are wrong with their guidelines could be far more ethical than a white hat SEO who follows all of the search engines guidelines to a tee, but who's motivation is currying favor with search engine engineers and PR than any real sense of principle. However, I would argue that even these points on SEO ethics, while important for discussion, is missing a huge component - the culpability of the search engines violating the SEO space. From my repeated experiences, I have been led to consider that the search engines, especially Google, have not only violated their own code of ethics by entering into the SEO space, but they have not shown themselves to police their own salespersons' activities when they go directly after our own clients, making them believe that they will receive better SEO results if they hire them instead of us. Case in point: Last year, I posted on here about on how one of my own clients informed me that their PPC provider and marketing consultants at Google - whom I had worked with conjunctively on a marketing project - offered my client in a written proposal to optimize their own video content in their own search engine (that would include YouTube and Google, the top video search engines today). It wasn't the first time my company had experienced a major search engine trying to hijack my own clients with the lure of "insider SEO" results, but it was so blantant I had to wonder why nobody at Google was doing anything about it when I complained. Whether or not this sales team of Google's had the actual access or ability to manually alter the search results, or even if they would have, was actually besides the point. Just the impression that they could was enough to have my client to accept their proposal. The Google reps led my client believe that going with them would give them a huge boost in the search results, far greater than what any outside SEO could provide them with, including myself. My experience is proof that Google's advertising offices have used this tactic to attempt bring themselves more client business. The question I am left with now is, how much of it is tacitly approved by those in charge at Google? I've heard of many other instances of where the search engines have done this to other SEOs, but have they once every reprimanded or fired a salesperson for making such promises or going after our clients? Where can an SEO go to file a complaint with the search engine when the break their own rules and make business at the SEO's expense? When SEOs don't play search engines' rules, the SEO is penalized. The search engines even expect us to report on other SEOs by snitching on them to their "spam cops." Yet if SEOs suffer from a search engine rep or group going after our own clients and violating their own rules, SEOs have no proper redress. The search engines don't have "internal affairs" cops to give us SEO specialists someone we can go to when we find their own in-house salespeople aren't abiding by the very standards that have been expected of us and enforced on us. My point is, if SEOs aren't given a proper redress for these internal violations we come across and are subject to, SEOs can't ever be capable of deciding on any real SEO standards for ourselves. It almost, dare I say it, makes the black-hat SEO look ethical by comparison to the search engine. Don't get me wrong. I am very grateful that the industry of SEO exists as a result of the search engines' existence. I am grateful that I have been able to making a living out of it and churn out practical and philosophical debates in forums like these. But in the many years that I have attended conferences, sat on a few panels, written for numerous publications devoted to the search space, I have never kidded myself to think that the SEO-Search Engine business setting is anything remotely akin to an equal partnership. If the search engines believed they could make a little more money by finding a way to get of all outside SEOs, I have no doubt that they all would. Maybe they're still hard at work on it right now. So I ask this group: Can SEOs realistically set up standards for the industry, when the industry is completely dependent on technology and institutions we have absolutely no real control over? Or do SEOs have a right to demand ethical standards of the search engines, where SEOs are privy to the actual investigation process, and real repercussions are enforced? Or are SEOs not yet to be taken seriously enough to merit it? Well, if you take me seriously, post your thoughts. If not, enjoy some pie. Aloha. Grant Crowell, SEO Specialist and CEO grantasticdesigns.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Richard Stubbings Subject: SEO standards > That's the challenge I'm throwing down - > how do we compare one SEO to another, or > one site to another. - Barry S Mills, LED 2656 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2071/190/ Barry, I know that it is a complex area and there is no simple answer. SEO is one of many marketing tools. For any web site you need good metrics and good numerical goals. E-commerce is easy, number of orders, average value of orders and conversion rates. For other sites it could be number of newsletters signed up, or enquiries made, or whatever. Likewise any marketing activity must be measured. Any advertising campaign should have a landing page or voucher or something to uniquely say where that visitor came from. The effectiveness of any campaign INCLUDING SEO, needs to be monitored, campaigns can be adjusted, monitored again, and see if there is improvement or not. At the end of the day it should be all about the goals. A good e-commerce site should have decent conversion rates, nice average order values and make lots of money. A good webmaster should be able to calculate the return on investment on all campaigns not just SEO, and should be able to tell when a campaign changes whether the change has made improvements or not. SEO is not a one off task. It is an ongoing element in your website. Every addition, every change, must be SEO aware. How do we compare one SEO to another? Well, do they get results? Are you happy working with them? Are they asking you to do things to your site that you do not feel comfortable with? Then look at the numbers. Naturally to compare SEO firms is more than just numbers. Richard Stubbings (c) Copyright 1995-2008 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent." - Euripides |
