Talk:Search engine optimization

Archives

Archive 1

External links, proposed again

Why not links to biggest help forums on SEO. There is WMW, Digital Point, Site Point and many other websites. Comment was made by Dhaliwal on 18 Jan 2006.

Every SEO SEM company, forum, guru, professional would love to have a backlink from this article. The best way to avoid the possilbe flood of spam is to uphold the strict no link policy for this article. Wiipedia is not a directory, community forum or a collection of free for all pages--Synlighet 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as i was quoted here, so i think i should say a word about my comments. I agree to the statement that every SEO guru would like to have a link from such an great resource, but i dont think that big webmaster forum owners would be running after just one link. Just to say about the big ones, I suggested, Webmaster World, Digital Point and Site Point Forums only.

Also, i added them as those are the places a new webmaster or a website owner looking for SEO should visit. Otherwise, all those who have slight idea of SEO, already know about these forums

Thanks, Dhaliwal

A note from Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan, a respected SEO guru, dropped by our article last week and, because he merely added links to the article, I tagged his IP address for {{spam}}. He sent me this note on my Talk page:

You sent me this:

"Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Perfecto Canada 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"

Can you explain why there are commercial links already at the bottom of the SEO entry in Wikipedia then? Last to my understanding, Google, Yahoo and MSN are all commercial companies.

You have an entry on SEO. You are pointing to the search engines which, if you know anything about the industry, are not the only source of SEO knowledge nor necessarily the most accurate. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral ground to educate people. You absolutely should be linking to sources of knowledge beyond the major search engines.

Search Engine Watch and WebmasterWorld are the two largest sources out there, for the reasons I explained in my addition. Yes, one of them is my own site, as I also explained. That doesn't diminish the fact you should be including it.

Of course, the page already isn't accurate. SEO does NOT include paid advertisements. That's search engine advertising. SEO is akin to PR, optimizing for non-paid improvement. Search engine marketing is the umbrella term that combines the two.

Google was not the first to use a new concept of relying on links. It was simply the most popular one to do that. I have no idea where the reference for the official "truce" being discussed comes from. Sure would be nice to have a reference there.

I organized one of the first confernces that connected the two groups in 1999, so I suppose that could have been part of it. I'd send you a link, but you know, that might take you to a commercial web site which apparently is a bad thing. But since I was actually there and involved at that time, I don't recall any particular "truce" like negotiations happening. Rather, the two sides simply had better communication emerge.

As for Googleeating as a black hat tactic, c'mon, someone's having Wikipedia on. No one talks about this as a tactic. Geez.

Further down, you refer people to the W3C guidelines for SEO advice. Um, they advise things the search engines don't even support. Bad place to be pointing people at.

I'd go through and add and contribute, but the entire notion that tomorrow it just gets edited and wiped out by someone who might know nothing about SEO doesn't thrill me. Instead, I'll stick to doing what I've done for the past decade, educating people about SEO on my own web site. It's a pity Wikipedia doesn't find that resource good enough to refer people to. Google, Yahoo and MSN all do.

Danny Sullivan, Editor, Search Engine Watch

I hardly know what to reply to him. I've copied the message here so perhaps someone here can address his concern. I'll email him to come here to read the response. Thank you. --Perfecto 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually read this whole discussion because I could not believe that there were only two references to real SEO knowledge from the experts. I wanted to get Jill Whalen of www.highrankings.com and Dan Theis of www.seoresearchlabs.com added as a reference. But from experience I know that if something is missing from the wiki it is due to controversy. Danny Sullivan, Jill Whalen and Dan Theis are by far the most honest of people that have always and will continue to admonish link myths and black hat SEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seharness (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 January 2006 UTC (UTC)

Fair enough - search engines' TOS is just one side of the story, it would make sence to have links pointing at SEO community's most important and educating resources, and Danny Sullivan's site certainly fits in there. I'd also add a link to Rand Fishkin's Beginner's Guide to SEO - a worthy read for anybody starting in SEO. -- IrishWonder | _{Talk to me} 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny wrote, "You absolutely should be linking to sources of knowledge beyond the major search engines." I disagree, because, since Wikipedia may someday see print or DVD publication, we want more content, not more links.

Let me take your SEW articles as an example, since I'm a long-time reader: Do you have an article there with an external links section with more than three links? Do you have an article there with more than three external links going to the same domain? Why not?

I envision Wikipedia as the "Search Engine Watch" without copyrights and that anyone can edit. All Wikipedia asks from all of us is a bit of generosity. Danny, I invite you to write us an entire article on, say, Google Foundation -- and (I dare you!) put no link to your articles in SEW -- and see what happens.

Though we sincerely appreciate them, we want contributions that are more than a paragraph or phrase or a web link to resource/news/fan/advice/free-sample sites. We're growing a free-content encyclopedia, take note, not a web resource. --Perfecto 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to only consider search engines as the only reliable source of information on SEO that would be equivalent to me only accepting Wikipedia Watch as the single reliable source of information about Wikipedia.

You do realize that ALL major search engines sell links and mix other's contents to make profits. They do so and then they set up arbitrary guidelines that are intentionally vague, which try to minimize the profit others can make from their systems while they drive up their share prices. You point to those guidelines as if they did not have any hidden agenda to them. Do you think it is an accident that the Google information for webmasters page has contact the FTC and fraud near their tips for hiring an SEO?

And if you think that search engines are not hypocritical, please note that those same search engines go so far as to monetize the #1 Warez crack site threadwatch.org/node/5107 and still place their ads on sites that they ban for spamming threadwatch.org/node/4995

And for a real hoot, Yahoo! has bought a ton of links and even Google was caught cloaking threadwatch.org/node/1774

When they do not follow their own guidelines why should everyone else? Why should we see those guidelines as the only authoritative text on the topic?

And for those who think Danny Sullivan does not link out, they could stand to get a clue. He has all kinds of sections on various topics such as meta search, legal history, shopping search, search engine comparisons, etc etc etc

Maybe some of us would put a bit more effort into turning Wikipedia into something similar to SearchEngineWatch, but of course we need to pay for the cost of living, and if some power tripping fool who knows nearly nothing about the topic is just going to edit it out is there any point? Your own bias is heavily reflected in the contents of the Wikipeia. Perspective helps.

- Aaron Wall, SeoBook.com

Danny Sullivan may be a popular guy in the SEO community, but he is by no means the final arbiter of what is correct, important, or popular in the community. Articles related to search engine optimization on Wikipedia have included a lot of erroneous information. Before the issue of whose sites get linked to is resolved, the significant content errors should be cleaned up.

Wikipedia is generally a poor resource precisely because it is so easy for people to manipulate the content, and I have found that content manipulation is rampant. Combine that with the lack of expertise that some well-meaning contributors bring to their topic, and the project is severely challenged to provide consistent quality.

That quality is not going to be improved by providing links to 2 or 3 selected Web sites that are highly biased and in one case (WebmasterWorld) criticized and ridiculed across the community. The SEO community has on several occasions wrangled with ethical issues and every time it has come up wanting. This latest brouhaha is just another example of how a very large and expanding community's interests are not going to be served by singling out a couple of high profile sites without acknowledging the wide and varied opinions in the community. Michael Martinez 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

>quality is not going to be improved by providing links to 2 or 3 selected Web sites that are highly biased

True...may as well remove the links to the search engine guidelines then.

- Aaron Wall, SeoBook.com

The SEO article needs a lot of work. It will probably take a year or more to get it into shape, and then who knows how long it will stay that way? Turning this into an "Us versus Them" argument only hurts everyone. Michael Martinez

The us vs them crap was already there before I commented (and it is not in one topic...that flaw is inherent to the Wikipedia across a boatload of topics). Aaron Wall

Aaron, that kind of pettiness doesn't help the situation. Few people in the SEO community have been as harshly critical of Wikipedia as I have but I at least have been contributing to articles and discussion here for some time. Rousing the legions of SEOs to come over here and berate the Wiki volunteers for applying and enforcing a policy doesn't make the SEO community look good in the least.~

The SEO article needs a lot of work. It will probably take a year or more to get it into shape, and then who knows how long it will stay that way? Turning this into an "Us versus Them" argument only hurts everyone.Michael Martinez 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike, that kind of pettiness doesn't help the situation. Few people in the SEO community have been as harshly critical of Wikipedia as I have but I at least have been contributing to articles and discussion here for some time. Rousing the legions of editors to come over here and berate the SEOs for applying decent content and links doesn't make the Wikipedia community look good in the least.~

The SEO article needs a lot of work. It will probably take a year or more to get it into shape, and then who knows how long it will stay that way? Turning this into an "Us versus Them" argument only hurts everyone.Aaron Wall 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, many hands make light work. Pick a paragraph or section and make a pass over it. Any improvement helps. IMNSHO we don't need to link to SEO help sites. People can Google for them! Right? If you can't find an SEO site via Google, it can't be worth very much. Jehochman 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

>IMNSHO we don't need to link to SEO help sites. People can Google for them! Right? If you can't find an SEO site via Google, it can't be worth very much.

I don't agree with that statement. While my site is on the first page of results if you search Google for SEO, a top ranking for such a term may indicated that either a domain is old or that the domain owner wasted money or effort focusing on that term when better rewards may exist elsewhere, with lower cost / effort being required to succeed.

If your selling SEO services it is more about branding than rankings. That is why you see so many people speaking at ALL the conferences. The only spot there is real money in SEO is working on your own sites, recurring subscriptions, or the edges (newbies or high end corporate clients) of the market. Sell newbies software and sell the high end clients consulting at x hundred dollars an hour.

Also, a person can rank near the top of the search results for SEO and still have little idea what they are talking about. If a person is good enough at selling and others believe them to be an expert when they are not they can still do ok. Since most of the market is working on limited knowledge and some of the most knowledgable people stay quiet it may not be too hard to fool much of the market. I ranked in the top 5 of Google for search engine marketing within 9 months of getting online, when I had absolutely no clue what I was talking about.

In reality, for topics that are thought poorly of and / or are deemed controvercial (like SEO) these talk pages will give a truer picture of the topic or industry or vertical than the main pages ever could (due largely to the ability to express or explain mixed motives and reasoning on these pages). Aaron Wall 05:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

I moved the following (and some linkspam) from the article:

Optimize or Perish

Believe it or not, there are still many who are of the opinion that they don’t need to use search engine optimization. Those who are technically inclined, will need very little convincing that search engine optimization is an integral part of any website trying to attract traffic. Advertisers who either haven’t heard of SEO, or don’t understand why they need to optimize their website spend millions on more conventional forms of advertising.

Why focus on achieving a high ranking on search engines?

Because 85 percent of all website traffic is generated by search engines and it has become the second most preferred online activity after email. The majority of all web traffic is driven by the three major commercial search engines – Google, Yahoo, and MSN (AOL’s search engine uses Google for its search results). In fact, these three account for about 80-90 percent of all search traffic. Various studies depict that most people prefer to click on organic search results rather than sponsored results by a very wide margin. And among the organic search or “natural” results, 90 percent don’t go beyond the first 30 results.

This doesn’t mean that ads placed with search engine programs are useless; neither does this mean that this should be the only strategy of a company’s website marketing campaign. Search engine users tend to trust organic results more than paid ads, which means that they’re more likely to click on them – and more likely to convert. A good position in the search engines can’t be bought in the same way as a banner ad or a sponsored listing.

It reads like an advertisement for a SEO-company, but perhaps someone can salvage something from it. Rasmus (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to mattcutts.com

Would links to mattcutts.com/blog be okay? He is a known Google employee and often writes about Search Engine Optimization.

--RainR 11:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Matt Cutts (added for reference) -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 11:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I really want to support the suggestion, but I am afraid this will increase the number of spam attempts. It would be a bad idea to have a section with external links to SEO-blogs since everybody in that industry is a blogger and would demand a link from Wikipedia. The link if it is added should be justified in a way that would make it as easy as it is today to reject SEO-spammers. --85.166.33.218 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is mention of the BMW delisting, there should be a reference. Perhaps linking to an article in the press would be more acceptable than linking directly to a blog. ie [1]. Another possibility is that this is not important enough to be mentioned. After all, companies are listed and delisted all the time. --RainR 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How about just linking to Matt Cutts instead of an outside URL? Something like "When discovered, search engines may take action against those found to be using unethical SEO methods. For example, in February 2006, Google removed both BMW Germany and Ricoh Germany for use of these practices. This, and other similar incidents are often detailed in Matt Cutts (an employee of Google) blog" could possibly work without causing issues with spammers using it as an excuse to crap all over this article.

The Matt Cutts blog information is both very useful and well informed.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 16:43Z

That's another good solution. --RainR 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally disagree about Matt Cutts blog. It is a one sided affair with sketchy google bias information that reads like a riddle. Im glad no link is given.

An Apology

As the original poster of the link to blog.searchenginewatch, I would like to apologize. I have no affiliation with searchenginewatch, I merely was citing that as the source of my information (I was originally linked to it by Google News). In retrospect, I understand that this was a poor choice of source, and will keep that in mind whenever making future edits. I would like to reiterate however that, despite the fact that the action was wrong, it was made in good faith, and not an attempt to promote the blog at searchenginewatch. If it appears to anyone that I am not comprehending this correctly, feel free to reply here or post it on my talk page.

Lordthees 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Add a Consumer Awareness / SEO Scams Sub-section?

Should we add a sub-section about the common SEO scams out there? For example, those SEO's that "guarantee" top billing? I guess kind of similar to the information found in the Google Info for Webmasters SEO page? I'd think this would be an appropriate addition. Chernicky 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I see no problems with that as long as it can be done with a neutral point of view. However this could also be the subject of a seperate article. --85.166.33.218 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Google doesn't detail all the scams going on. They just address what has proven to be a problem for their services. But you'll find that, in the broader sense, one SEO's scam is another's good practice. This article, for better or for worse, is now on the SEO community's radar screen and it should be closely watched for intrusive editing (as has happened with the Google Sandbox article).Michael Martinez 06:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would be fair to say that any SEO agency that "guarantees" top placement on G and/or Y, yet requires payment before this happens, is running a scam. However, maybe seo "scams" isn't quite the right angle. I would like to see something more consumer focused here though, but still with a factual approach. Chernicky 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I like very much this idea -- and there are many places one could go to build up a "top ten signs your SEO might be committing malpractice on you" like over at Apogee's Avoiding Search Engine Marketing Malpractice. That's just one example, but I've heard that talk given at a number of shows. I'm sure there are many others.

Removed advertising

I have removed the following text, since it promotes spesific SEO-forums also this text look at bit unsuited for a encyclopedia.

There is another major issue with SEO. For each website that undergoes Search Engine Optimization, the keyword ranking in Search Engines takes some time and some SEO professionals make use of this for their benefit. They confuse novice internet merchants and give them wrong estimates. There are certain forums on which one can get tips on various issues related to SEO. Highrankings, SEOChat, Digital Point, IHelpYou, Webmaster World, Digital Point, Do Not Confuse SEO. The forums on Search Engine Rankings provide a platform for people to ask questions on various subjects related to their website rankings. One can get advice of various active users on these forums. The advice offered on these forums is of mixed value, as many novice SEOs often share ideas that they don't fully understand. There are also numerous diverse points of view among experienced SEOs regarding the importance of many factors.

--85.166.33.218 01:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusing phrase

"…Flash animation (by placing a paragraph or division within, and at the end of the enclosing OBJECT tag)…" This doesn't make sense. How can you put a <p> inside an object tag? Can someone give an example? - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the W3 HTML specification. You can put any container, such as P or DIV, as the last thing inside an OBJECT tag. This is the alternative content that the browser renders if it can't display the Flash. There is a second method that is popular but not part of the spec: using Javascript to hide the alternative content if a Flash player is available. This method is a hack, and it's not written up anywhere I know, so I did not include it. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you perhaps mean "in an OBJECT element" rather than "in an OBJECT tag? - Jmabel | Talk 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I think that would be more precise. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Acronym not explained

CPM revenue model? What does this acronym mean?

Cost Per Thousand, with "M" standing for Mil (or however it is spelled), latin or somesuch for thousand.

In general it means that one pays for advertising by the impression, that is, by paying to have one's ad displayed a certain number of times, rather than paying by the click. One site I advertise on charged ten dollars for ten thousand impressions, thus it has a CPM of one dollar.

There is also "eCPM", or "Effective Cost Per Thousand", which refers to how much one pays (or earns) for pay-per-click ads. Google AdSense reports eCPM in their ad performance report. While they are paying by the click, tracking the payment in comparison to how often the ads are displayed allows one to make meaningful comparisons with pay-per-impression ads.

My case for my White Hat SEO article link

I just added an external link to my article located at: "goingware.com/tips/search-engine-optimization" White Hat Search Engine Optimization]. I am vividly aware of how this Wikipedia entry has been under attack by SEOs promoting their wares, and I completely understand why you might want to remove my link. I just ask that before you do, please take the time to consider my case for why you should allow it to be there:

I am not in the business of search engine optimization. My article (and the new sections I plan to add to it soon) explains some of what I learned optimizing my own website. I want others to benefit from what I've learned.

I wrote the article in large part to spare others the misfortune that can befall one who hires a Black Hat SEO. Not everyone knows that some SEOs are unethical, and even those who do may not fully understand why it's not to their advantage to hire them. Many an innocent website operator has unknowingly gotten optimized the wrong way, only to be punished by having their site removed from the search engine indices.

It doesn't have to be this way, and you will see from my article that I clearly explain the difference between ethical and unethical SEO, and why one should care even if one doesn't object to being unethical.

I do however earn money through advertising published on some of my other articles. I understand Wikipedia's objection to linking to sites full of ads; I recall reading here a while back that some external links, while not containing advertising themselves, linked to other pages full of ads, and thus acted as surreptitious gateways to advertising. Why should you consider me any different?

While I do earn money this way, if you explore my site, you will find that there are very few ads. I value my readers, and don't want to drive away repeat visitors who might be turned off by excessive advertising. I also value my reputation as an authority on the material I discuss. This led me to track the performance of the ads on each individual page that I once published them on, and then to remove them from each page which didn't earn significant money. The result is that now I have AdSense on just one page.

There are referrals ads for AdSense itself and for the Google-branded FireFox web browser. I keep those not because they earn me much money, but because genuinely I feel they can benefit my readers. There are also affiliate ads for each of the books I discuss in my articles. In a year of publishing these, I have earned less than twenty bucks from them. I keep them now mainly as a convenience to my readers.

I also want to emphasize that those who work full-time writing free content for their websites don't have the time to hold day jobs, yet cannot feed themselves on thin air. My ad revenue allows me to devote more time to doing a better job writing helpful articles, many of which have Creative Commons licenses (not this one yet, though I am considering it). I have another website devoted to a Free Software (GPL) project I'm working on, that again earns money through advertising.

My SEO article has just one ad, in the section called "Grab Their Attention", for Jakob Nielsen's Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed. If you object to it, I will alter the Amazon and Powells links so that they aren't affiliate links anymore, that is, so that I won't earn money if someone makes a purchase through those links. This leads me to say:

If you will agree to keep my article's link, then I am willing to commit to never placing any ads in the article.

Looks worthy to me. Simple layout. Lots of detailed information. Only a single ad at the bottom of the page. No objections from me. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Thanks, GraemeL. To continue:

I had intended to publish adsense in this article, but I quickly realized that many if not most of the ads would be for black hat SEOs, and that there would be no way for me to monitor or control the objectionable ones. Such ads wouldn't serve my readers! Then I considered offerring paid links directly to ethical SEO firms, but then I realized that it would be intractible to determine whether an SEO was really ethical, or to ensure that they remained that way. Thus I decided quite some time ago to just not accept ads on the page, with the exception of that one ad for Nielsen's book.

How did I learn about SEO?

Most ethical SEO methods are neither secret nor any kind of rocket science. However, since even the ethical firms have an interest in keeping their methods a secret, it's difficult to find much genuinely useful advice. At most one finds little snippets of free advice offerred by someone who uses it as a teaser to attract business.

I got my start because I had the idea that writing technical articles would promote my software consulting business, that some who came to read an article might follow up with a sales inquiry. While this worked well, what I didn't realize was that the fact that many who liked my articles gave me links would improve my search engine position. Some time passed between discovering my site's prominence in the search engine and realizing how it got to be that way. This led me to write another article, which advises that the best way to promote one's website is to "post useful and interesting content" on it.

Once I figured this out, I started working to learn more, and began asking questions at online discussion boards. Some of the tips in this article I learned at Webmasterworld, which while valuable, were again hard to find. Also as discussed above in this page, much of the advice at Webmasterworld and similar sites is of dubious value.

After learning of and applying some methods that worked (and some that didn't) I decided that it was up to me to provide a place where others could find it all written down, in one place, and an easy to understand format.

Finally, I want to point out that many people who have legitimate, socially positive reasons to promote their websites don't have the money to pay for SEO, even if it is ethical. Consider, for example Free Software projects and non-profit organizations. The fact that profitable business can pay for SEO keeps their websites ranking ahead of non-profit websites that may offer more useful or more relevant content.

A notable example is that download.com and tucows are google's top two hits for "free software", while the Free Software Foundation, which arguably should be number one, is only number three, I'm sure in large part because it operates on a shoestring budget.

My article offers a solution to such organizations. While there is certainly valuable knowledge to be had from this Wikipedia entry, presenting detailed nuts-and-bolts knowledge in such a way as to reach the working webmaster is not, I don't think, appropriate for something like an encyclopedia. Much of it is ad hoc, learned through observations of particular search engines, rather than general principles, and some of it is speculative: while I'm confident of it, there is no real way to test my assertions, or verify them short of getting the SEs to disclose their trade secrets.

That it. I'm sorry to have gone on at such length. One you reach your consensus, you're welcome to delete my argument above, provided you record what decision you reached.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my case. MichaelCrawford 30 March 2006

After some reflection I thought I should add the following, in the interest of fairness: while I'm not in the business of SEO, I acknowledge that I have something material to gain if you keep my link. I don't want you to think I'm trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

It's not that anyone reading my SEO article might eventually click my ads, as I don't expect it ever to get that much traffic. The top search engine hits for the relevant queries turn up SEO firms that are already of much higher pagerank than a one-man site like mine can hope to obtain.

No, but your link will improve my search position in two other ways: this wikipedia article has higher pagerank than mine, and few links, so it will confer a significant increment of pagerank to my page. The way pagerank works, some of that boost will be passed on to each page that my article links to, and because my site is highly interlinked, each of my articles will improve their position a little.

More significantly, many interested readers will likely follow my link and, because I worked hard to do the best job I could, very likely give me a link from their own websites. I have already found some professional SEO sites linking my article, but not enough to give it much traffic. But I could see how links given me by enthusiastic readers could boost its PageRank (and the corresponding measure calculated by other search engines) a great deal.

As I said, I have only one article earning money through adsense. While it is popular and highly linked, because it's just the one page, my AdSense revenue is highly sensitive to even small fluctuations in its search engine position. I hope to decrease that by developing more deep links into my website, and ultimately writing some other pages that are able to earn significant ad revenue.

Given all this, please believe me when I say that I Believe In Doing Well By Doing Good: all of my content is free to be read, I don't use obnoxous techniques like cookies or popups, I only present a bare minimum of ads, and much of my material, increasingly so lately, is offered under Creative Commons licenses.

I am thinking though that it might be a bad move to offer my SEO article under a CC license. I could see how, even if I chose the noncommercial or no derivative works variants, that by encouraging copying, black hat SEOs could subvert it for dishonest ends. I recall that once someone "revised" the discussion of ethics in this Wikipedia article to describe an ethical SEO as one who produces results for his clients, without any discussion of how he might achieve that. MichaelCrawford 30 March 2006

Hi MichaelCrawford. I've removed your link for now. I think it would've been best to get agreement here before you added it. I believe your intentions are good but I have two objections. First, this is one of the most heavily spammed articles in Wikipedia. If we open the door even a bit, there's going to be a flood. My opinion is that it's best to keep this strict policy in place so we all don't wind up spending more time cleaning this article. Second, why not add your content directly to the article? It would make a great addition and we could keep the external links in check. Monkeyman^(talk) 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article contents wouldn't really have a place in the article as WP is not an instruction manual. If Michael was willing to contribute his information to Wikibooks, we could link to that as a sister project. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Monkeyman, I actually did ask to have my link added several months ago, when I first wrote the article. The response I got was "go ahead and add your link, but it will likely be removed". It's in the talk page Archive 1 (how do I link it?). I made the best case I could once I finally decided to go ahead and post it.

I'm happy to contribute as much of my article as suits the wikipedia guidelines, that is, those which are verifiable facts. As GraemeL points out, my article is really an instruction manual, and as I posted in my User Talk page just now, my tone is definitely not neutral, in that I often write to convince rather than to simply inform.

That all said, I'll have a look at Wikibooks, and see what I can do. But it won't be very soon, as my work on the article was interrupted by some life events, so I want to complete it first, and I have a couple other articles I'd like to publish at my site soon. But in general, I'm happy to contribute what I can.

On final Hail Mary pass I can make though: I bet many who come to read this Wikipedia entry really are looking for instruction manuals, rather than simple information, and I expect many of them are seeking it desperately. I assert my piece might be the best anyone has to offer them, at least for now.

I won't try to restore my link. I'll leave that decision up to you. MichaelCrawford 00:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Every SEO would like to have a link to one of their articles and also the suggested articles does have advertising. It would be best not to link to your article.

So what that the article has advertising? That's the most ridiculous criteria of what gets linked to and what doesn't. The New York Times carries advertising, you know. What matters is whether a page is relevant and useful. And -- surprise! -- that's Google's criteria too! Does Google care whether a page carries advertising? No. It tries to return the most useful and relevant pages, whether those pages carry advertising or not. I suggest that we consider using the same standards.

That said, while the external article proposed above is very, very good, I have to say that I believe my SEO 101 article is way more comprehensive. I won't link to my article because of the rule against self-promotion, but I'm linking to the other proposed article either because I don't think it's the best external article we could link to. But I might eventually change my mind about that. I really object to this "Oh no, that site has advertising!" snobbery. Let's focus on serving Wikipedia's readers, even if that means (gasp!) that some webmasters wind up making some money off their hard work. -MichaelBluejay 03:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

External resource suggestion

I'd like to nominate my article, SEO 101 for the External Links section. It's the largest and most comprehensive free article on the subject I know of. I won't add it myself because of Wikipedia's rule against self-promotion, and because I know about the controversy surrounding external links. For what it's worth, there is no paid advertising in this article, not even Adsense, and it's already doing well in the search rankings without a link from Wikipedia (e.g., #1 in Google for "get a good google ranking"). -MichaelBluejay 02:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the Google or Yahoo adverts, but that SEOs themselves are the service that is being advertised. For example, I notice your site links to loads of others sites of yours, with plenty of Google Ads, and your rate of $100 per hour is only a click away. I support the current ban on links to any site like this. Thanks for asking though. zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but definitely that's not appropriate for this article. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, I've never sold my web services for $100/hr. and don't intend to I just put that up there to impress upon my readers that my time is valuable, because otherwise I get flooded with questions from people who think I'm a free helpdesk. Also, I promoted my other sites within my articles *long before* I put up any Adsense. You have to put something in a sidebar, otherwise the page is too wide and the line lengths are too long, or you have a ton of whitespace. So I've promoted my other sites/articles, since I like it when people read the things I've taken the effort to create. I definitely haven't received much value in return for the week I spent writing the SEO article, and trying to make money is not why I wrote it. I do think it's the best, most comprehensive free resource on SEO available on the net, and certainly extremely relevant to the article as well as high quality, but I understand how link-phobic people are here. Incidentally, whether a site contains any advertising, direct or indirect, is a silly way to judge its value. The New York Times contains advertising. (The horrors!) -MichaelBluejay 14:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that this page is subject to constant linkspamming. I am sure your article on SEO ranks well in Google, so people can easily find it. Rather than linking to your own article, please work on improving this one. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I have worked on the article. And yes, my site ranks well, which is beside the point, because my motivation isn't trying to increase traffic to my site, it's trying to provide an incredibly relevant and useful resource. The article is *less* useful if readers are deprived of useful external resources. My own resource need not be among them (though admittedly, I don't know of another free, quality article that's as comprehensive), but certainly we should include *some* useful links besides the SE's themselves. Censoring what's truly useful doesn't serve the readers. Yes, spamlinks are a problem. But just because some people add crappy sites doesn't mean we should censor the ones that *are* useful. -MichaelBluejay 08:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge assembled from different sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. If a source has useful information, that knowledge should be included in the article, and a reference made to the source. The citation should be to an authoritative source, such as an established publication, not somebody or some expert's web site. The source should have an editor, be peer reviewed or somehow be very official, especially in the case of this article. Citing one's own website or a friend's website is not acceptable. This article is deficient because it lacks sources. It contains a lot of speculation. We need to find reliable sources and cite them. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

High quality sites typically rank well

This section contained some bullet points about how to build a high-quality site, partly redundant with the content above, and partly speculation and myth. I've chopped that material. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed ethical/unethical to white hat/black hat

The terms "ethical" and "unethical" are obviously *incredibly* POV. I changed them to white hat and black hat. -MichaelBluejay 21:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Standard spelling? Part I

Can we agree on a standard spelling of website/web site? I'm not suggesting that we set the standard for the whole world, but the spelling should probably be consistent within a single article. I vote for website because that's the title of the Wikipedia article (web site is a redirect) and because I like it better. Anyone else have an opinion? JordeeBec 15:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should standardize, and that that standard should be "website". -MichaelBluejay 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, another issue. Since when is search engine hypenated? JordeeBec 18:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! JordeeBec 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Search engine isn't hypenated, and web site is two words. ;)Bill Slawski 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Someone hyphenated SE throughout the article. The "thanks" was meant for the person who took out the hyphens.

Google gets 6.95 billion results for website and 5.19 billion for "web site" (for which they suggest the spelling "website"). But we all know how accurate those numbers are.

Perhaps more importantly in a Wikipedia article, and as I stated in my original post, the title of the Wikipedia article is one word. If we're going by the AP style guide (and why would we?) it's Web site (capitalized). If it's going to be debated, I think the Website Talk page would be the forum (and it's been done there, of course). I was about ready to change it. Anyone else want to vote?

If you want my credentials, I've been an avid Internet user for more than a decade, I work for an SEO company and I have heard of SMA-NA (and other SMAs--EU, UK) as well as SEMPO. JordeeBec 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet, does it? Even a smilie at the end of my sentence there wasn't enough to indicate that my statement was being sarcastic. As you probably know, Google's spell checker isn't based upon a correct spelling of words, but rather the consensus of usage it finds on the web. Bill Slawski 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who took out the hyphens. Bill Slawski 02:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank YOU, then. I kept meaning to check. I didn't mean to jump all over you, sorry. I misinterpreted your smiley. I do still prefer website myself, but I think that the website article is really the biggest argument in favor of that spelling. Does anyone else even care about this? JordeeBec 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

White Hat Methods

There's a list of methods approved by the search engines. As far as I know, SE's don't approve of anything. Webmasters have learned through experience what works in the long run, and what eventually fails. Here's the big problem - no sources are cited. Who are we going to cite? Right now the article is rife with speculation because so much isn't supported by citations.

The main deficiency of this article is that we have not cited any authorities besides the search engines, so we have a one-sided, inaccurate article.

I'd like to nominate a short list of recognized SEO sources:

• WebmasterWorld.com
• HighRankings.com
• SearchEngineWatch.com

Does anybody want to nominate others? Can we form a consensus as to whether these are linkspam or not? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these are the there most well-known and most useful resources. It would be silly to consider them link-spam. -MichaelBluejay 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So the thought is that having only the engines as external sources is creating an incomplete or biased article full of speculation. But we only want to cite sources that you consider to be "white hat" in nature? Will that make the article much more useful?

If we want this article to be realistic we should either drop the pigeonholing of information (allowing sources to be sourced based on quality of information rather than how one person perceives how the source complies with search engine terms of service) or use something other than marketing buzz words to define the separation we chose to make when sourcing.

Frankly I often learn more from spam than from beginner SEO tips. Aaron Wall 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that our criterion for whether a link is added is whether it adds value to the article. That could be white hat or black hat, advertising or no advertising, popular or not. I don't want to see this article become a link farm either, but surely we can point readers to quality sources of more in-depth information (which is supposed to be the whole point of an External Links section anyway). -MichaelBluejay 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody should object to a source if it is a "published" work. We should attempt to cite the most authoritative source for each assertion presented as fact. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References

An anonymous editor has come through and added some good references to make this article higher quality. I've removed two of them because the links didn't seem to work properly. Nice effort. Take another look and try again! Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

They worked fine when I added them. I spent 20 seconds and found an alternative source that may be more stable - from the Stanford database pages. Thanks. Bill Slawski 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly send me your review whether the link I am providing will be pertinent or not. [Bravenet link removed]

Not even close. Removed this spam. -MichaelBluejay 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Resources for Webmasters

A huge part about this topic was left out. I added the most important resources that were missing. Additional resources can be found at the listed resources. A ban of it would be in conflict with WP:NPOV which also applies to this topic (as far as I know). If you have valid arguments, let hear them. Please post at my Talk Page. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Note regarding the older comment from 1. February 2006 by Perfecto as response to Danny Sullivan's Statement: "You absolutely should be linking to sources of knowledge beyond the major search engines.". Perfecto wrote: "I disagree, because, since Wikipedia may someday see print or DVD publication, we want more content, not more links". The situation in SEO and SEM is changing constantly. A place like Wikipedia is not designed to address that issue. The Volume of information produced is huge and you can't simply ignore those information. Historic information are important in this Industry. Wikipedias job is to explain in a general way what SEO is. When it comes to Hard Facts valid TODAY, Wikipedia has no choice, but link to the site specialized in this. Have a look at this Post from Matt Cutts/Google regarding an AdWords book published less than 1 year ago. AdWords which is SEM is not nearly as fast and dramatically changing as Search Engine Algorithms which change in turn SEO. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cumbrowski, I absolutely agree with you that important external resources should be listed, and I'm no longer going to accept the position of those who want to keep it out of the article. I reverted when someone removed your edits, and I'll continue to do so. I do think that we should still be careful about what we link to. WebmasterWorld, yes. SEO Rockstar Radio -- um, probably not. -MichaelBluejay 09:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael. I think we are on the same page. I added the top resources per "type" of resource. Blogs: Matt Cutts from Google, Forums: Webmaster World, Alerts: ThreadWatch, Resources and News: SearchEngineWatch, Expos: SearchEngineStrategies and new Media, Radio/Podcast: SEO Rockstars. I could have added the Daily Search Cast, but I did so already indirectly because you can get it at Webmasterradio.FM or Search Engine Watch. A Print Magazine Resource is missing, but there is none as far as I know, like Revenue Magazine for Affiliate Marketing. I believe SEO Rockstars is a good start for a lot of Web Masters that are Newbies. It's way easier to digest than the huge amount of content which can be found at the other resources it also points out, that there is actually a radio station for Webmasters with shows covering SEO and of course every other important topic of interest for a Website owner. You are right, that you could argue about the link. I would have kept it for the reasons I mentioned, but If others disagree, fine, leave it out. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I invited Tregoweth and Jehochman to join. I hope that other Wikipedians that have the Article on their Watchlist will join too. It is a popular and also controversial article which is a prime target for spammers. Because of that is it most important that everybody who has an interest in the quality of the content here at Wikipedia should be part of the decision about what to keep and what not. For the sake of WP:NPOV is it necessary to add resources for WebMasters other than the one provided by Search Engines. There is no other way around that --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Link. I prefer to link to the resources directly, but propose in case that no consensus can be reached to link at least to the Yahoo Directory Category: Search Engine Optimization (SEO)--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

References Cleanup

The References Section was a mess. It did not match the references used in the Article at all. I cleaned up the mess. I did the following: I added the missing ones and removed the links that are not a reference from the reference section and added them under the new section: Additional Research Resources and last but not leat put the references in the right order that [X] in the article matches the X Reference Listed in the reference section --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

SEMPO

Jcsquardo, regarding the note you left on my talk page, please discuss the article on the article's talk page, not on my personal talk page. As for the internal wikilink to SEMPO, it's fine, I don't know why you'd think I wouldn't feel that way. Maybe you're saying I removed it long ago, but if so it was a mistake and I don't remember that, you didn't provide any link to any such edit, and I'm not going to plow through the Edit history to try to find it. -MichaelBluejay 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the inclusion of a link to SEMPO, especially with the statement in the edit that it is SEO's governing body. It isn't the governing body for SEO. It's just one of a larger number of nonprofits that is attempting to be an industry organization for people who perform SEO. By presenting it in the manner that it is, it makes it look like something that it is not, especially with the shell of a page on wikipedia that discusses it. Perhaps I would feel more comfortable if someone fleshed out the SEMPO page first, before adding the link. Or created pages to the other organizations like SEMPO that also don't have many members at this point in time. Bill Slawski 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not this article's fault if another article isn't fleshed out. Linking to stubs is a primary way to let the community know of articles that need to be expanded. SEMPO is not listed as the governing body, or any governing body, it's just listed with its name. Others can certainly suggest other professional SEO organizations to list, I don't know of any off the top of my head myself. I see no valid reason to not have an interlink to SEMPO. I'm adding it back. -MichaelBluejay 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a Problem. I'll create stubs for some of the other organizations that represent a few hundred SEOs like SEMPO and provide links to those. :) The fact that you don't know of any of the others makes me seriously question your editing of this topic. But if listing these other organizations will improve this article, that's what I wiil do.Bill Slawski 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for questioning my competence. The fact is that you can be knowledgeable about a topic without joining a professional organization devoted to it. I have enough to keep me busy without joining some other organization. -MichaelBluejay 09:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

These professional organizations appear in forums, blogs, and other sources of news about SEO on a regular basis. You don't have to be a member to be aware of them. I was very surprised that you stated that you weren't aware of any other than SEMPO. These are groups that are doing things like attempting to set up certification programs for SEOs, or speaking to the press and other organizations as if they were the "governing body" of the industry.Bill Slawski 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the stubs have been put into "See also". It might be better to make a section explaining the profusion of industry bodies and linking to the articles from that. If we get more articles on these organizations, it would start to clog up the see also section. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. It would probably be a nice addition to the article to do that, too. Bill Slawski 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The industry organizations that have been linked to here are under threat of being deleted as non notable organizations. I see that the wikipedia article on SEMPO has been whittled away to almost nothing by editors, where at one point it was of decent length. Bill Slawski 05:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bill. Regarding: "The industry organizations that have been linked to here are under threat of being deleted as non notable organizations". Please have a look at my comments from May 14. on this Talk Page and also the discussions that were started after this one. The statement "non notable organizations" when referring to the currently listed resources is actually very funny and I won't comment on that.

Regarding SEMPO, SEMPO is listed as Resource for the Search engine marketing Article which I believe is much more appropriate. SEO Firms make up a percentage of SEMPO, but the Organization is primarily for SEM Professionals, not SEO Professionals. SEO and SEM are two very distinct things which each require a very unique set of skills. The Focus of SEMP on SEM is also made clear on the Organizations "About Us" Page. Quote: "Our membership is primarily SEM firms and consultants, inhouse marketing professionals, Web developers, and advertising agencies.". --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Roy. I don't think that there is that large of a divide or difference between SEM and SEO firms. SEO is a subset of SEM, and many SEM firms engage in SEO. Many SEO practitioners offer SEM services. The people who formed SEMPO did so in an effort to include SEO firms and practitioners, as well as search engine marketers. I know people who were on the working committees during the formation of the organization, and initial board members, as well as existing board members. Many of those folks offer both SEO and SEM services.

If you were to go through the list of members of SEMPO, one at a time, I think that you would see a very large percentage of those companies offer SEO services. The SEMPO services page, lists two types of services for people who might want to see what is available services-wise from SEMPO members - SEO and PPC. SEMPO grew out of the SEO/SEM communities and meetings held at Search Engine Strategies Conferences, and wasn't intended to be an industry group for one at the exclusion of the others. Some of the webinars offered on their site recognize this: "SEO for CEOs," "Search Engine Marketing: It's Not Just Paid Search! (parts one and two)."

In their site glossary, they define Search Engine Marketing as: "The act of marketing a web site via search engines, whether this be improving rank in organic listings, purchasing paid listings or a combination of these and other search engine-related activities." Please feel free to contact them if I haven't convinced you, and ask them if SEMPO was intended to include people who practice SEO.

By the way, the name SEMPO wasn't chosen to emphasize SEM over SEO as much as it was selected because the domain name was available. (cite: http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7143&view=findpost&p=57775 - Note: Webmama is the forum name of the first president of SEMPO, who described many of the aspects of the organization in the thread I provide a link to.) Bill Slawski 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Search Engine Marketing incorporated SEO, PPC, Paid Inclusion and all that in the past. Things are changing rapidly and the Usage and meaning of the old definitions are changing. SEM and SEO are now used to describetwo very distinct marketing methods in combination with Search Engines. SEO is used to refer to the technical methods employed to get sites ranked higher in organic search results which are based on algorithms used by SE's. SEM is used to refer to when it comes to PPC Advertising and Paid Inclusion. I know that the SEM Article states something else. SEM is not a technical method at all. That a lot of companies offer both services makes sense like it makes sense for the car dealership to offer repair and maintenance services. You might not agree with that and I don't want to start a discussion about that here. I am sure that you agree to the fact that it is hard enough to get any external resource listed at all. The Link to SEMPO at the SEM Article is the right place if you have to make the choice to either have it at the SEO or the SEM Article. The SEO Article refers to the SEM Article as "Parent". This should be sufficient. Don't you think? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you, but it's probably moot at this point. With the rollback of most of the contributions I've made to this article, and the removal of those links, it's a point that appears to not need to be discussed anymore, and likely so is my participation here. I have plenty of SEO and SEM things to occupy my time. Good luck. Bill Slawski 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Promotional Lang used in desc of Sources of Background Information

"If something happens in SEO/SEM, TW is often the first to report."

If linking to commercail sites isn't enough, why are they allowed to use such promotional language? Has anyone verified "TW is often the first to report" as they claim?

If you check out TW, you will notice, that a) you can turn of Ads, if they annoy you and that b) most posts are simple excerpts and link to the news site, forum or blog source that was cited. It is like a digg.com for Internet Marketing (not just SEO). Btw. None of the Links were added by the Site Owner or anybody who is affiliated with them. They were added by Wikipedians that are interested in that topic or SEO Professionals. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another: "Webmasterworld.com - Leading Search Engine Optimization Forum. WW is one of the few Forums that is watched by Google and posted to anonymously (Google Guy)."

Has anyone confirmed they are the "leading" forum? And then this: "one of the few Forums that is watched by Google", I would like to hear Google, Inc's take on this. Who can really know what Google employees are watching?

Is a direct link by a Senior Google Search Engineer to a specific post in the forum proof enough? Here it is. See chapter "Refreshing supplemental results". They organize the PubCon Conference, look at their attendees and speakers. Not to mention that the forum has a page rank 7, gets mentioned in magazines and radio (WebmasterRadio). Need more? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And another: "SES Search Engine Strategies Most important Conference and Expo of the SEO Industry" Can anyone confirm they are "The MOST important"?

You disagree? which one is the most important in your opinion? and explain why. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it when I remove promotional text to these commercail sites, I get warnings for spam? How exactly is that spamming? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.60.88.59 (talk • contribs) 16 May 2006.

Of course, you're free to edit any language you feel is promotional in nature. I don't know why anyone would be warning you about spamming for doing so. I'm not familiar with all the sites and conferences, but I'm very familiar with WebmasterWorld. You ask if "anyone" has confirmed that they're the leading forum, and one of the few watched by Google. Uh, I think several thousand people familiar with the site would back that claim, including me. You'd "like to hear Google's take" on this, and wouldn't we all. Google doesn't communicate with anyone who wants an audience. But GoogleGuy's participation at WebmasterWorld is no secret, it's been an important part of the industry for years. Do a search on "googleguy" and see what you find. Hope this helps. -MichaelBluejay 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has never even received a warning for spamming so unless he is a sockpuppet I am not even sure what he is on about. I gave him his first warning today and that was for deleting users talk pages (including mine) to give them misplaced spamming warnings (all I have ever done is remove external links from this article). I am assuming good faith when I question whether this guy may just be trolling... - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the current version of the Background Information links, with less verbage, less promotional. If there is any question about deleting or adding to the list, please post here so we can discuss. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to change the verbage. I added most of the links and Jehochman fixed some of my wording among other things. If you would do a poll about what is the most important "what" within the whole SEO community, I am certain that the sites that are already listed would come out on top. There is unfortunately no such data today. The problem is, that if you change the wording to a simple "a Forum" or "a Conference", it will be an open invitation to add any and every seo forum, article collection or conference to the article. Needless to day, the list is not engraved in stone. Suggestions can be discussed here at the talk page. If a "fight" breaks out without reaching a consens, a Link to a directory (for example to Yahoo! as I mentioned earlier) will become the only solution. That resolved the same problem for the article about affiliate marketing. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is value in explaining why the resource is noteworthy. However, we need to be careful about promoting. The best way to avoid spamming is to delete any external link that is added without prior discussion. This article is unique in the way it attracts so much linkspam. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm the only one who finds the phrase "If something happens in SEO/SEM, TW is often the first to report." sounding too much like something you would here in a 6 o' clock News promo. I understand SEO is a highly competitive, money making industry, but the Wiki is not the place for advertisments, or ad-sounding entrys.

Bill S. cleaned up the wording nicely and GraemeL reverted some stupid comments by Mr. 65.60.88.59. BTW. The Forum is free for the most part, only some sections are for subscribers of WW, a subscription is in affect a donation (yes, you can write it off). They decided for that route to be able to keep most of the forum open for the public and Advertisement Free (See Donation Form).

The Benefit is IMO, that discussions in the Subscribers only forum are much more professional and peaceful. I decided last year to pay and this year did I do the same in another forum. I still read public forums, but some discussions turn out better if not every Joe that surfs by can post and litter the thread. It also separates the Hobbyist from the Professionals a bit. But that's just my opinion. I know that many disagree

Regarding TW. Most Articles are only Digg.com like News with a link (but much more commented than most News submit to digg.com). They have also full articles posted by TW Users but that is not making up the majority. I only subscribed to 2 Topics or Subjects to get alerts and its still multiple per Day. It's a news alerts/news discussion site with some own News Stories/Articles. I don't know how else to describe it. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

User:85.166.1.58 suggests "this article needs to be protected, since it is heavyly abused by SEO-professionals." Any thoughts? —tregoweth (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How presumptuous. I don't think SEO professionals are linkspamming. The linkspam comes from black hat SEO's and newcomers. We seem to have a good handle on the linkspam control here. This article is a magnet. By watching it we can rapidly identify the sources of linkspam and go revert their other spammy contributions on the lower profile articles. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was making some positive additions to this article. Looks like a lot of those are now gone. Would love to see the article reverted back a few steps. Bill Slawski 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently User:85.166.1.58 wiped out all the previously discussed references. Then somebody came along and added a bunch of gibberish. I've reverted back to the last stable version. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

SPAM does not last long here. Somebody is always around. I would all external links, massive re-writes and paragraph deletions consider spam, if they were not discussed before. The beauty of a wiki is the versioning. nothing gets lost unless it is manually deleted in the db. The change should be reverted to the previous version and the poster should be invited (user talk page) to this talk page to discuss the modification. I beliefs we can tell if a contribution is meant honest or net, but massive rewrites will cause bad blood and end in tragedy. I completely understand Bill. I would be mad too, if I spend hours on something to make it better and the next person who thinks about it a bit different un-does or modifies it beyond recognition. Discuss it, come to a census and everybody will be happy, might learn something new and who knows, maybe even makes some new friends. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources of background information

No other Wikipedia article needs Sources of background information, so why does this one?

As we say, Wikipedia is not a link repository.

Who is we? The Name was choosen to reduce the atraction for spam. Regarding your question; read the talk page. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The "we" is the official policy that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links or Internet directories --mtz206 (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The only authority listed was searchenginewatch. If you are going to include second tier resources then thenlist will be 20 pages long. And user Cumbrowski seems to be including and removing sites with no consistency. HighRankings gets a mention, but DigitalPoint is called spam? DP is the highest traffic SEO forum on the Internet. And same there are dozens more. Why not just link to a directory category, instead of turning Wikipedia into a directory itself.

Please sign your posts. Please don't delete previously discussed links without discussing first. We've listed the background sources to establish where the info in the article came from. SEO is a unique field of study because it moves quickly. Almost all reliable information about the field is published on several moderated (editorially reviewed) web sites. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jehochman, et al,

I'd like to address several points. First, you state:

"We've listed the background sources to establish where the info in the article came from."

I am talking about the sites listed under "Sources of background information", not "References".

If any of those sites are sources of information, they should IMO be credited with a citation in "References", to the page which provides the information, not a nondescript link to the home page.

And before we make Wikipedia into a link repository, shouldn't there be a consistent and coherent criteria for adding the links?

As it stands now, there is no rhyme or reason to the inclusion or exclusion of the links, other than the fact that somebody liked it. That is entirely subjective and nonsensical.

There are more objective metrics out there to base inclusion or exclusion upon. Alexa ranking does a moderately good job of indicating how much a resource is used. Backlink counts also give a better indication than the simple statement that some Wikipedia user heard of the website before.

But why turn Wikipedia into a web directory? If you folks bother to read the guidelines on external links, you'd know why those links do not belong there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Under "Links to normally avoid":

12. Blogs, social networking sites and forums should generally not be linked to.

HighRankings is a forum. WebmasterWorld is a forum. Matt Cutts blog is a blog. ThreadWatch is a blog, and Search Engine Strategies is a highly commercial offline conference.

Read the guidelines on external links and I am guessing you won't find anything to support those links. You will find plenty to tell you that they do not belong.

And even if it were in Wikipedia's guidelines to include lengthy lists of authorities, those site with the exception of Matt's blog are not authorities.

Do we plan on reviewing each and every SEO resource site? Because I was under the distinct impression that Wikipedia in not a web directory, nor a link repository.

Now compare to other Wikipedia articles such as Online Marketing or Affiliate Marketing. Those are much cleaner and much more representative of Wikipedia's policies and goals.

If the linking contingent wants to provide links to relevant resources, the most logical thing would be to link to the most relevant DMOZ category or Yahoo Directory category.

Just my 2 cents. - 60.45.238.117

---

Mr./Mrs. 60.45.238.117:

1. Incomplete citations to only get the part in favor to ones cause is the worst you can do in an argument. If you cite item 12 of Link to normally avoid (WP External Links Policy), make sure you don't miss the important parts: "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. ". IMO fit all sites listed under Sources of background imformation all the criterias, except the "being the website itself" one, for making an exception to rule 12.

2. Post with your Wikipedia user here or I will be forced to file a request for Checkuser to find out who's Sockpuppet you are. Using just the IP implies that your are just an anonymous Wikipedia Reader and not a Wikipedian who is taking an active part in contributing to Wikipedia and it's Cause.

3. Article Affiliate marketing is currently being disputed because of the fact that the article lags the support of further external resources. I am not talking about citations here. There are Articles that can do well without those further reaching references and there are Articles that can not.

4. Wikipedia is not a link repository or Web directory. This fact is absolutely clear to any of us and we also agree on that. For that reason did we created the additional work for us to only list One Site for each Site category (or type of site) that can not be replaced by Wikipedia and is considered to be the most Important in its category. That limits the number of Links to a very small number and is not making a Web Directory out of Wikipedia.

You could argue (what you do not) that the listing of WW and HR violates this rule and you would be right. WW, although overall the more relevant forum, is going much further than being just a forum about SEO. HR on the other Hand is specialized and ONLY about SEO. This dilema is not solved yet. WW should probably be the External Reference for a merged Online marketing and Internet marketing article (which is also still outstanding).

5. You and everybody else has the right to dispute that the external resource listed as foremost for SEO is actually the foremost. You should state (here at the Talk Page) which Site you consider to be more relevant and important and WHY. This would then be discussed by the Editors of this Article and Readers that want to state their opinion. If a consensus is reached will the old resource either be replaced by the new one or the existing one remains listed.

This is not about personal likes and dislikes. WP:NPOV has precedence and everybody is doing its best to remain true to this policy to the best of each ones abilities.

p.s. Just FYI. ThreadWatch is not a blog. This is not important for this discussion, but shows the quality of your diligence work prior making your argument. I don't question your motives and good intent Mr./Mrs. 60.45.238.117, but I question the methods employed to achieve your goals.

--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Note on the side regarding DMOZ or YAHOO Links: Just linking to DMOZ or YAHOO is a "cheap" solution and should only be done, if no consensus is reached. In case of this Article and its active Editors, a consensus was reached. See my comment from May 14.

Alternative Link. I prefer to link to the resources directly, but propose in case that no consensus can be reached to link at least to the Yahoo Directory Category: Search Engine Optimization (SEO)--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I stated before I made the statement above, that DMOZ has no matching Category and would require to add as much links to the article as we already have. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{Content}} Template to the "Sources of background information" Section of the article to make it an officical discussion. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Roy, in regard to your threat

"Post with your Wikipedia user here or I will be forced to file a request for Checkuser to find out who's Sockpuppet you are."

Please feel free to file a request for Checkuser if you feel it is necessary. Also feel free to peruse the Wikipedia guidelines. Login in not necessary to edit, nor is it required to contribute to discussions.

Since you don't want to reveal your name nor Wikipedia User is it impossible to verify anything you say you do or did.

If you insist on listing websites, please state the criteria upon which you wish to make those decisions. SearchEngineWatch.com is pretty much an indisputable authority. HR, WMW, TW are not even close. Matt Cutts, as a Google employee, probably deserves a listing as well.

SEW an indisputable authority. I agree although some people had different opinions (see older entries at this talk page). "HR, WMW, TW are not even close". Thank you for your personal opinion. You made in previous comments clear how much you favor SEW. You seemed to have changed your opinon about item 12. of the External Links Policy and I agree that Matt Cutts deserves a listing.

SearchEngineStrategies however does not warrant a listing on any basis. The website is nothing more than an advertisement for the highly commercial SES conferences. I have attended SES and considered it to be nothing more than a social networking tool. I doubt that anybody actually learns anything at SES.

It is listed as Formost Event of the Industry (organized by Search Engine Watch hence also called SEW Live, an "indisputable authority" in SEO). Due to the nature of the business can a conference about SEO nothing be, but commercial.

In regard to your assertion that ThreadWatch is not a blog, I will have to disagree. I post on ThreadWatch and read there on a regular basis. According to Cnet Threadwatch is a "Top 100 Blog". ( http://news.com.com/2311-10784_3-119338.html )

Oh Cnet says that, mmhh. Based on wikipedia's definition of Blog is it not looking good for Threadwatch. Anyhow, what people call nowadays a blog, is unbelievable.

For what it's worth, I am also a member of HR, WMW, SEW Forums, DP forums and have been active in the SEO community for over 4 years. I link to most of those resources myself, but this is Wikipedia. And the only recognized authorities on that list are SEW and Matt Cutts.

You have to forgive me, but I can not just take your word for it. You made clear that YOU only recognise SEW and Matt's blog as authorities. I disagree, lets hear what others have to say.

A link to Yahoo's Search Engine Optimization (SEO) would be in the best interest of Wikipedia users, while maintaining adherence to Wikipedia guidelines on external links.

I like the Idea to add the Yahoo Directory to the lisr of existing links. It would be a valuable addition that make sense IMO.

Again, just my 2 cents. - 60.45.238.117

Thanks 60.45.238.117. -roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing phrase/PageRank

Another confusing phrase is the term page rank mentioned in the subsection entitled "organic search engine". As you all know, there is considerable confusion amongst the general public regarding what is known as the google displayed toolbar pagerank and the actual hidden pagerank known only to google. I entered a two sentence edit which was removed this morning. I have since had discussion with the editor who removed the edit and he suggested I discuss the proposed edit here prior to re-inclusion.

The proposed edit was a simple two sentence edit which noted the difference between displayed toolbar pagerank and actual hidden pagerank. I believe the public would benefit greatly from a short addition noting the difference between the two, namely that they are two different things and displayed toolbar pagerank is not to be confused with actual pagerank. Are there any objections to my reincluding this short edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arteworks (talk • contribs)

Such an explanation already exists in this article: "A proxy for the PageRank metric is still displayed in the Google Toolbar, but PageRank is only one of more than 100 factors that Google considers in ranking pages." This is sufficient. --mtz206 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this is sufficient, as toolbar PageRank is one of the "more than 100 factors"; whereas actual pagerank is the congealed mass that is the 100 factors. The term pagerank is still being used in this article in an unclear and interchangeable manner that results in confusion and inaccuracy.ArteWorks Business Class 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are correctly characterizing PageRank. It is one (complex) calculation, but there are a multitude of other factors - that are not components of PR - which help determine a site's ranking for a particular search query. See PageRank, where much of this nuanced discussion belongs, not in this article. --mtz206 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think defining the difference between the pagerank displayed on a toolbar and pagerank used to rank pages, and determine crawler activity is a good idea. But I also think that it may be something better done on the wikipedia entry for pagerank, where pagerank is the focus of the whole entry, and distinctions may be made more completely. We know that a lot of factors are considered in ranking pages beyond just pagerank, such as hypertext analysis and an analysis of term frequency and term weight. Things like a local reranking based upon hyperlink connections between top results may also play a significant part, so the fact that rankings in search results don't match with the displayed ranks in the toolbar isn't an indication that the toolbar is wrong in what it is showing as pagerank. But the fact that we have it on record from a Google employee, Matt Cutts, that the pagerank display on toolbars is only update four times a year or so tells us that there isn't a complete match between displayed pagerank and actual pagerank.Bill Slawski 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and am only proposing a short two sentence, or even one sentence, clarification of the difference, with a link to the wikipedia pagerank page, which itself I believe needs some substantial revision to include a good discussion on the differences between the two. ArteWorks Business Class 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, the article already notes that there is a proxy for the PR in the toolbar, and that PR isn't the sole determinant in a page's rank on a SERP. A link to PageRank is already provided as well. That is sufficient. If people want more info, they'll follow the link. --mtz206 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Arteworks has contacted me and appears discouraged by this discussion. I've urged him to continue making his case here in the Talk page if he feels so strongly about the inclusion of his edit. --mtz206 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I completely agree with Arteworks proposed addition: "It is important to note that actual Google PageRank is not the same as the PageRank displayed within the Google Toolbar. Performing a Google search for most any term will demonstrate this in that the results of the search query are not displayed in order of descending Toolbar PageRank." The second sentence seems to simplify things a little too much because there are other reasons that pages are not displayed in order of descending page rank.

I'm also not sure that this statement in the article is all that clear or helpful, and it doesn't let people know that the pagerank displayed in the toolbar may not actually be the pagerank of the page being displayed: "A proxy for the PageRank metric is still displayed in the Google Toolbar, but PageRank is only one of more than 100 factors that Google considers in ranking pages." Maybe we can work together to come up with something better? Bill Slawski 03:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the way you put it, Bill. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Bill. People are just using one Term that is ambiguous. You can see this here in this discussion. Mtz206 and Arteworks are both right and should not even have a dispute. Mtz206 talks about the generic term "Page Rank" (I rather make 2 words out of it), referring to the calculated Ranking Value a page has for a specific Search Term. "Page Rank" incorporates ALL Ranking criteria and is a part of EVERY Search Engine that displays search results by "relevance" and not just alphabetically. Arteworks on the other hand talks about "PageRank" (tm) - the Google PageRank, which is numeric value that represents how important a page is on the web. Google figures that when one page links to another page, it is effectively casting a vote for the other page. PageRank is a trademark Term of Google and the algorithm named PageRank is patented by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. The Google PageRank is only one criteria for Google to determine the "Page Rank" of a Page in Google's Search Index. What Arteworks points out is, that the Google PageRank(tm) displayed in the Google Toolbar (the value between 0-10) is a) not the value used by Google Internally which means, that a Page where the Toolbar shows "0" as PageRank might has internally a much higher PageRank between 3 and 4 as example. The reason for the difference is not clear and people can only speculate. Even if the display would be somewhat accurate, is it not the exact NUMBER, Google is using. The actual calculated number using the original algorithm is a floating point number with a lot of digits after the decimal point. A site with PR 1 could have an actual PR of 1.298245 another one with PR1 might only has an actual PR of 1.00123. This is important, because this invisible difference is making a huge difference the higher the Pagerank of a site (in the hundreds of thousands of difference in inbound links). Furthermore. The "Google PageRank(tm)" is a number/value assigned to a PAGE by Google, independent from the Keyword Phrase. "Page Rank" on the other hand is the number/value assigned to a page in combination with a specific Keyword Phrase. I believe this should become part of this article as well. ....

Summary 1.) "Page Rank" <> "Google PageRank(tm)" , 2.) "Google PageRank(tm)" in Toolbar <> "Google PageRank(tm)" actual number used by Google to determine the "Page Rank" of a Page for a specific Key phrase and 3.) "Google PageRank(tm)" # - Page , "Page Rank" - Page/Keyword Phrase combination. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay so who's gonna do this? I don't have the time to invest in it to just get it summarily deleted. ArteWorks Business Class 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just do it! We'll watch the edit and do whatever we can to improve the article.Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

After my "sloppy" comments (that's what you get if you think faster than you type ;)) did I write it up a bit nicer and decided to make a little article out of it [2]. I would add the paragraph, but I hate to cite myself. I did it once and still feel shitty everytime I see it. Well, it offers at least some basis for any of you guys to add a paragraph about it here. You have my permission to use whatever you see fit from the article to make something useful out of it for this article here :). And as Jehochman alreay said, we will watch the edit and improve on it where necessary. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrgh. I did write an article about this topic as well on 25 Jan 2006. The URL is here: [3] and could also be cited as a resource, but I have the same concerns as Cumbrowski re: citing own article. Look I'm willing to give it a shot but I request at least some assistance here. So how about I start with an outline of major points here - then if everyone agrees these are the points to be covered then I'll write some proposed language and post it here for discussion prior to going live. Is that cool? Okay: suggested major points: (1)Page Rank vs. PageRank vs. displayed toolbar PR - definitions (2) Source of confusion (3) application of Page Rank (4) Application of PageRank (5) Application of displayed toolbar PR ArteWorks Business Class 15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Addition to External links

Link Building Resources

• linkMarket.net - Directory of Sites willing to trade links.
• google.com/trends - Google Trends - Use Google Trends to choose your anchor text wisely.
• EzineArticles.com - Ezine Article Submission - Submit Your Best Articles For Massive Exposure.
• getyourcontent.com - Post Free Articles - Post your articles at Getyourcontent.com. Allows authors to post unique content with Adsense code.

Voting

I vote no. We're not creating a directory here. Those sites may indeed be very useful, but they aren't sources of info for the article, nor are they among the best available sources of info about SEO. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• No is my vote as well. Primarily because the sites are not about SEO, but are tools and methods employed for different SEO Techniques and Research. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• No for the same reasons as above. I'm not link-phobic, I've pressed for this article to contain more external links back when it had almost none, but these particular links are not worthy. -MichaelBluejay 09:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Link Suggestion for SEO

Shouldn't we include a more direct link to a page that contains the rules.

like: seo.rules.nl; so that they can choose their favorite format (http coming soon, RSS, Blog)?

I couldnt find these things easily on those big sites, especially the forum... I think this is more what people are looking for at wiki; fast, easy info ontopic. This page disrecommends spamming.

Koen

Koen, Wikipedia isn't a directory that facilitates search. It's a compilation of knowledge. We don't add links, we add content, then cite the most authoritative source so users can verify the information they find in Wikipedia. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)