Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 1

message: Keep your eyes open, SEOs sometimes have websites which at first glance seem to be a reasonable tutorial or text, but in the end it turns out they're advertising anyway (after you've clicked through page after page after page).
Kim Bruning 17:50, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle Adverts 

message: I don't know it this is the right place to post this, but I have discovered a problem with the search engine when searching for "History of Greenland". The History_of_Greenland article doesn't show up, in fact I have to use Google to find the page, but it doesn't work either. The first hit is just the Greenland article, where I can access the History... article, but it's the error that's important.
--FePe 22:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the search engine 

message: Link to http://www.seo-glossary.com/ placed by User:82.92.150.45 , looks clean so far. We'd probably want to make a wikipedia 'list of SEO terms' sometime. Site looks like a good guide to start with. :-) Kim Bruning 15:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: SEO Glossary

message: [On the basis of Kim's remark that follows, I've edited the following comment, to remove the link even from the talk page. Spaces inserted after "http://" to break the links -- Jmabel 22:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)]
The following links were recently re-added to the article. I've moved them here, because I seem to remember we'd reached consensus a while back against including these. They are imaginably slightly useful, but they are not particularly encyclopedic, and they are commercial. 
*[http:// www.seomasters.com/meta-tags-generator.php Meta Tags Generator]
*[http:// www.seomasters.com/meta-tag-analyzer/ Meta Tag Analyzer]
-- Jmabel 07:56, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
: And thank you for adding an extra point to this persons' google rank, I'd wager.  :-/ . Kim Bruning 08:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't we reach consensus against these? 

message: Seems to be an unlikely term to have "taken off", and surpass: 
 * SEARCH ENGINE RANKING
 * SEARCH ENGINE PLACEMENT
 * SEARCH ENGINE POSITIONING
Initially, these terms were more popular; it is interesting that SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION became the chosen term, and also, SEO become the chosen term to describe BOTH the professionals and the profession.
The earliest use on news groups shows it to mean the technical Speed-tweaking of Search Engine Technology.
----
Here are one of the earliest uses of the term:

----
--Search Engines Web 18:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION  

message: Recently added "Example of SEO Tool" looks a bit like linkspam to me, although not a useless site. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
More "possible link spam". We seem to have disagreement over these. A statement of the case for and against each would be welcome:
#http://www.organicseo.org: "Organic SEO Wiki" covering organic search engine optimization techniques.
#http://toprank.blogspot.com" Daily SEO blog regarding search engine news, resources and tactics.
#http://www.webmasterworld.com WebmasterWorld SEO forum and news.
Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:# Non-notable wiki, not yet well maintained. 
:# Blog. We don't link to those unless strong notability can be established.
:# forum, ditto as for blog
: Kim Bruning 09:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam? 

message: Recently added: "Despite this, Google's 'AdSense' programs fuels much of the current search 'spam' on the web, creating an internal and external conflict that is still playing out." I don't follow this; perhaps more of an explanation of AdSense would make it clearer. I've left it as is, for now. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
* I have removed the added part. This is an opinion and should not be stated as a fact, atleast not without a noteworthy source.
--85.166.61.79 00:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AdSense 

message: * I re-added the external link (external link removed. See the consensus, and here for a permanent diff link if you want to see the URL that was removed) as it adheres to Wikipedia:External links (e.g., non-commercial, valuable information, not my private site).  --uriah923 12:54, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
** There is no reason why this site should be prefered over any other site on the subject and this site is not very noteworthy when it comes to SEO. I hope all agree that SEO related subjects are targeted by spammers and that we need to be very carefull about which sites to list afterall this is not a directory. 
**:--85.166.22.1 22:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pamri, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Fact error 1: I did not create ON.  Fact error 2: I am most definitely not a sock puppet, as evident by how fast I am typing.  Fact error 3:  There is not an ON site nor an article on MarkMcB, as evident by your empty links.  Fact error 4: My contributions include much valuable content up and above links to ON.  Links have been used only where they are necessary as References.  I suggest you do more research before posting your conspiracy theories. Uriah923 19:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you trying so many times to promote the ON site, if you have no connection to it?
--85.166.8.211 01:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding valuable content from a legitimate source is much different than trying to promote a site.  I significantly improved the quality of this article through adding missing content, re-organizing, formatting links, etc.  I followed Wikipedia policy in so doing by listing the references for the added content. There is no justification to reverse the changes. Uriah923 15:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Spam, Again 

message: Check out Special:Contributions/Uriah923 and the user has constantly added links to the  ON site, which has been created by him and which I believe is a Sock puppet of CHansen and MarkMcB, who is supposedly the founder of the site and has an article on himself as well. pamri 08:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Pamri, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Fact error 1: I did not create ON.  Fact error 2: I am most definitely not a sock puppet, as evident by how fast I am typing.  Fact error 3:  There is not an ON site nor an article on MarkMcB, as evident by your empty links.  Fact error 4: My contributions include much valuable content up and above links to ON.  Links have been used only where they are necessary as References.  I suggest you do more research before posting your conspiracy theories. Uriah923 19:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you trying so many times to promote the ON site, if you have no connection to it?
--85.166.8.211 01:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding valuable content from a legitimate source is much different than trying to promote a site.  I significantly improved the quality of this article through adding missing content, re-organizing, formatting links, etc.  I followed Wikipedia policy in so doing by listing the references for the added content. There is no justification to reverse the changes. Uriah923 15:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ON spam 

message: I can well understand your problem with link spam, so I won't add my link myself, but ask that you consider linking my article www.goingware.com/tips/search-engine-optimization/, White Hat Search Engine Optimization.  It is still a rough draft, so you should wait until I am done, but enough is there for you to see where I'm going.
The article presently discusses how improving title, h1 and meta description element text can increase search engine referrals.  The second draft, to be posted late tonight, will explain what SEO is, what the difference between White Hat/Ethical SEO and Black Hat is, why one would want to practice ethical seo even if one doesn't care about ethics, why one should be sure only to hire White Hats, and how one can improve one's position significantly even if one isn't an expert.  I'm also going to give a brief explaination of pagerank and link to the wikipedia pages on PageRank and Search engine optimization.
In a couple days I'll post a new draft which discusses keywords.  One recommendation I will make is that rather than targetting high-paying keywords, one target keywords that one can develop content for over a period of years.  That is, someone who does origami as a hobby would do better to develop an origami website than one on online gambling or asbestos lawsuits.
In general the article is meant as an introduction to help nonspecialists either to optimize their own sites, or make better choices when hiring someone else to do it.  It is part of a series of articles that encourage webmasters to produce high-quality legitimate sites.
However, I must say in advance that mine is a commercial site.  I'm not an SEO but a writer.  I don't have ads on this article yet, but in general I earn my living now by writing articles that have ads in them.  Not all the articles have ads, and some have Creative Commons licenses.  I monitor each ad's performance and remove those that aren't earning money, as I feel that too many ads reduce the quality of my site.  I recommend this to others in another article.  You can find an index to all my articles at GoingWare's Bag of Programming Tricks. MichaelCrawford 00:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider my external link? 

message: Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research.  It's an encyclopedia.  You should attempt to get your paper published elsewhere first, by a reputable journal or magazine (i.e. something with peer review, or editorial review - not your own web site).   Every SEO, myself included, has an article they'd like to link from this page.  We can't all stick a links on this page, can we?  Jehochman 06:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Your Own Web Page is Problematic

message: This was recently added: "As of 2005, some webmasters believe that Google has been de-emphasized the importance of link popularity in calculating Pagerank."  First issue, is this worth mentioning?  Is it even true?  Second, if it is left in, we should standardize on how we are going to list 'page rank.'  "page rank" or "Pagerank" or something else?  Uriah923 14:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There's an infinite amount of speculation, that we can't get into to.  Plus I vote for use of PageRank (as opposed to separate words, or lower case).  It makes clear we're talking only about Google's  usage of the term, and not some genral concept, or the dictionary definition of the words.  --rob 14:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-emphasized page rank 

message: The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here.  Uriah923 06:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone is still following the issue, the consensus on that page was that ON is not a suitable reference and due to Uriah's behevior, ON links are not allowed unless added by a longstanding contributor and not prompted by Uriah or other people from ON. It became very clear that Uriah's only interest was having as many links as possible from WP to ON, and in the interests of avoiding exploitation of WP, links to ON should be avoided. Please discuss at that location, as separate discussions of the issu are just redundant. - Taxman Talk 14:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this problem on Wikipedia be mentioned as an example or something in this article? —Frungi 01:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ON content and quality of reference 

message: 1. " If a site is to be found, it must contain keyword phrases that match the phrases the target audience is typing" is not valid anymore. Having the keyword in anchor text alone can get a page to #1 in Google.
 
2. "...(SE) spiders analyze web page content and keyword relevancy based on an algorithm".  They used to. A long time ago. Then came things like Pagerank. Now it's a whole host of factors that determines position.
 
3. "Search engine optimization is the process of configuring a website to be more visible to its target audience". "Configuring a website"? Very narrow definiton. What about off-site factors? Isn't getting a DMOZ listing, blogspamming etc part of SEO? None of that is on-site.
 
4. "...began modifying their site to accommodate the needs of search engine spiders". They modified more to gain advantage with the algorithm at that time rather than for pandering to spiders per se.
 
5. "The content of each webpage is objectively evaluated by analyzing included keywords. While previous analysis used the now outdated keyword density method, the analysis now includes factors such as proximity, distribution, occurrence, and on-topic issues." is largely bunkum :)
 
6. "Methods commonly used to optimize content include". Sorry, guys. No mention of Latent Semantic Indexing? Themeing? Hilltop? Other buzzwords like Authority and Hub? Some of the methods listed here are actually red rags to Google, mark a site out as having being optimized, and actually hinder its ranking. These need to be under "History" i.e. what USED to work.
 
7. "Link popularity is an important factor for high importance rankings." That was a long time ago. PR is about "pages" and WAS an important factor. Now, it plays a teeny, weeny part in the algo. Do a few standard Google searches and you'll see PR0 pages outrank PR7s more often than not. In fact, you may want to differentiate between toolbar PR and the PR google really uses (sometimes referred to as algo PR).
 
There is lots more that needs revision. Can I have a go? MansonP
* These are all really good points. (Well, let me correct myself: the 4 or 5 where I have a clue are really good points, so I assume you also know what you are talking about on the other 2 or 3.) Please, take a shot at it. But remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to, so don't throw away material about methods that are no longer current, just contextualize them in terms of when they were relevant. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs some major revisions. 

message: OK, I don't want to stand in the way of progress.  If you can't find a good source for information, one that is authoritative, then maybe the information needs to be reworked?  As for a title, I suggest "High Quality Web Sites Usually Rank Well" instead of "Long Term SEO."  Although longer, it is also more descriptive, and more accurate. You can address two issues:  what is a high quality web site, and why does it usually rank well.  That's the crux of good SEO work.  Jehochman 04:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to MansonP

message: Although I respect ALA in general, I don't think their article link belongs. My rationale for removing link:
* article isn't particularly noteworthy 
* topic (accessibility == seo) isn't new, but I'm sure ALA will get more credit than earlier works because of high profile
* contains some ideas many SEOs would disagree with (such as code/text ratio being of relevance to search engines)
* sets a new precedent for link spam which was common on this page until external links where wiped out (bar official SE pages)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.171 (talk • contribs) 10 Nov 2005
:Agreed. I wrote a piece nearly 2 years ago that said much the same, though coming more from the accessibility side than the SEO side. I wouldn't consider it to merit a place in the article.-- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed New External Link To ALA 

message: Just a note that although a lot of spam prevention is focused on this article, there are numerous related areas that are being targeted by link spammers to a lesser extent, but that problem will no doubt grow over time.
I just removed a fairly irrelevant link from [search marketing] that was there for over a month.  I'm sure we would all benefit if some folks with an interest in this general subject area could stick a few related articles on their watch list to help out.
* search marketing
* internet marketing
* marketing
* affiliate marketing
* online marketing
Weeboab 11:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related areas