Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 5

message: Let's discuss whether the following material is necessary.  My concerns are that the material is unsourced, we don't know if it's correct, and it seems like it may be redundant with other sections already in the article.  Wikipedia is not meant to be a how-to manual.  The material appears to be unique. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Practical SEO

message: With the rise of social media and networking was a whole new form of marketing created as a side effect of that, called "social media optimization" (SMO) or "social media marketing" (SMM). SMO gets often confused with SEO. Social Media Marketers Need to Accept Some Responsibility by Greg Boser, 2/7/2007, WebGuerrilla.com
SMO is related to SEO, but are not the same. A complete different skill set is needed for SEO than it is for SMO. SMO is more related to Buzz Marketing or Word of mouth marketing, with some positive SEO side-effects.
:part of the article --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Media Optimization (SMO)

message: Reading this page I was struck by the number of Acronyms and web-related terminology that could do with clarification. E.g. "PPC" (Pay per click), "organic search results", SERPs, etc. Blibbka 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can feel free to hit my talk page if they would like a SEO related clarification in any article on WP. NetOracle 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossary? 

message: Search Engine Optimization and Internet Marketing Tutorial
*http://www.htpcompany.com/internet_marketing_seo_tutorial_free.html - This well written SEO Tutorial explains in detail the steps of practical SEO, not just vague theories.  The sample results speak for themselves and prove the author is one of the top experts on Internet marketing and search engine optimization in the world.
====Voting on above - be the first to vote and comment on above.====
Gladly-- No. It appears to be promoting the company, first and foremost. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Please sign posts with --~~~~ and 2. also use ":", "::", ":::" and so forth for indenting your responses to another wikipedians note. Nobody is able to tell stuff appart otherwise.  Now to the comments. 1) References to sources of more information are provided in the article (plenty for that matter). 2) The article had just until a month ago or so an External Links Section with Links to Matt Cutts Blog, WebmasterWorld, Threadwatch, HighRankings and SearchEngineWatch (which would have been replaced or extended by SearchEngineLand by now). A list of lists without additional purpose is an invitation to add any link you want to that is more or less related to the topic. Check the Dmoz listings and you will get an idea how much links the article would have in under 1 year since every english speaking SEO will be linked to from it. 3) last but not least, the section with links to other websites has to be titled "external links" see here. The section in the seo article was renamed back then because of that, before it was removed completely.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Possible Addition to External links

message: Gladly-- No. It appears to be promoting the company, first and foremost. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on above - be the first to vote and comment on above.

message: 75.82.249.29 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Please sign posts with --~~~~ and 2. also use ":", "::", ":::" and so forth for indenting your responses to another wikipedians note. Nobody is able to tell stuff appart otherwise.  Now to the comments. 1) References to sources of more information are provided in the article (plenty for that matter). 2) The article had just until a month ago or so an External Links Section with Links to Matt Cutts Blog, WebmasterWorld, Threadwatch, HighRankings and SearchEngineWatch (which would have been replaced or extended by SearchEngineLand by now). A list of lists without additional purpose is an invitation to add any link you want to that is more or less related to the topic. Check the Dmoz listings and you will get an idea how much links the article would have in under 1 year since every english speaking SEO will be linked to from it. 3) last but not least, the section with links to other websites has to be titled "external links" see here. The section in the seo article was renamed back then because of that, before it was removed completely.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on above - be the first to vote and comment on above.

message: : 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)
thread_title: Voting

message: Shouldn't we include a more direct link to a page that contains the rules.
like: ; 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)
thread_title:  Link Suggestion for SEO 

message: I pulled this content because the editor is the subject of the discussion, and his article is subject to a { { notability } } discussion.  
The first mentions of Search Engine Optimization do not appear on Usenet until 1997, a few years after the launch of the first Internet search engines. Although, the earliest mention of search engine optimization is in the New York Times on November 11th, 1996. A New York Times article about Search Engine Optimization was published about a small group of Web site developers in Utica, New York. This group claimed they used search engine optimization techniques geared at attaining a higher rank for customers that was prefectly legitimate to the business and Web site they were building. In this article Rob Thrasher agreed with Srinija Srinivasan, who helped develop the directory system for Yahoo, that keyword stuffing Web sites with impertinent keywords is bad Netiquette. 
Let's discuss this before proceeding to add this material.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, I removed the block from the article. See this post by Danny where he mentioned the stuff Rob provided. The post is part of this thread at SEW Forums which I refered to from the Bruce Clay Article (Talk Page). See also my SEJ Blog post. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rob Thrasher]]

message: Mergefrom|SEO Services & Search Engine Optimization Company|date=December 2006 Rich257 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I nominated that article for deletion join the discussion here. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article was deleted. No need to merge. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from 

message: I just requested permanent semi-protection for the article. The anonymous spam every day is getting old. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  permanent semi-protection 

message: I think there is an useful tool:
Site Information Tool Information about site/page including domain registration data (whois), Alexa Rank, IP Address, server response headers, page data (title, meta tags, links count) and more.
: Wikipedia isn't a directory of useful tools. That link would not be appropriate for this the article. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is a nice tool and I added it to my site, but as Jehochman said, it is not appropriate for this article. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New  SEO tool 

message: It would be nice if the article had a photo, or several photos.  Which photos should we use? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this article even need a photo? There is nothing to illustrate. NetOracle 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: A Portuguese seocontest, called  esquillo seocontest is currently ending - ends the 8th of January. It would be interesting to publicize this regional seocontests. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.241.129.109 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seocontests

message: Mobile Phone Search Engine Optimisation
*http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/mobile-phone-search-engine-optimisation.asp/3311/ - This article gives an insight into SEO for mobile phones and handheld devices which is inevitably a major future topic of SEO. This has not been covered and is not mainstream enough to deserve a completely new heading under 'Future SEO' but can offer a resource for possiblities of future SEO.
The article was credited on the http://www.w3.org/Mobile/Articles-2006 - W3C Mobile website for W3C MWI in the press 2006.
Tambourinos 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This piece seems to be located on the web site of an SEO firm.  There's no independent editors reviewing the article.  As such, I think it fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 05:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I would suggest to start a new article about mobile search and also one about mobile search marketing and seo and reference from the general seo article to it. It's still a new thing and would be a useful addition to the Wiki. How about it Tambourinos? Interested? Lets face it, there is no authority if something is new. Everybody is equally clueless until experience is gained. The early adopters will become the authorities of tomorrow. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *The article clearly qualifies as an additional source that will help and offer extended information and knowledge on the topic of search engine optimisation, but on a different media source. The article provides information that is possibly not mainsteam enough to deserve a seperate category as it is directly related to seo and is more a spin-off of seo, but it is resource that offers additional guideance on seo that many users may be completely unaware off. Agree on resource addition?
81.129.245.37 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is too small and trivial, and located on SEO "optimisation" company website. Futurix 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, again, Wikipedia isn't a directory, nor a search engine, nor a place to publish original research or thought.  It doesn't matter how informative the article may be.  Until the content has been published by a reliable source, it should not be cited as a reference.   Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Both comments are complete contradictions. If you see my above proposal, the W3C are happy to add it as a reliable source; that clears up any reference issues. How can you justify how informative an article is by length? Wikipedia is a encyclopedia - so any comments of whether it is listed on a seo companys website is irrelevant. Please review the article and my comments and rethink why this article should be added, instead of why not to add the article.
 86.147.53.82 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Your passion for adding a link is unexplained.  If this article is so great, it should be published somewhere with editorial review, not on a corporate web site.  Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Frankly, W3C can link to whatever they like.  That makes no difference to us. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to External links

message: The way that this is written seems to draw the connotation that SEO is spam: "By 1996, SEO related email spam was commonplace.[2][3]" By 1996, all kinds of spam, on all kinds of subjects were commonplace.  You can find spam from 1995 from people selling Valentine's Day candy through unsolicited bulk commercial emails.  A good percentage of the email spam I receive these days involve stock tips, but that doesn't mean that stock brokers are spammers.  I understand that this statement supports the next sentence, which states that the first place people can find a public statement referring to the use of the phrase "search engine optimization" was in a spam message on usenet.  But, I think that this is misleading.Bill Slawski 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Then fix it! Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SEO related email spam

message: The term SEO can also refer to "search engine optimizers", an industry of consultants who carry out optimization projects on behalf of clients.</nowiki>
....
SEOs widely agree that the signals that influence a page's rankings include:Search Engine Watch - Search Engine News and Forums. Organizer of SES (Search Engine Strategies) Conferences. 
SEOs widely agree that the signals that influence a page's rankings include:Search Engine Watch - Search Engine News and Forums. Organizer of SES (Search Engine Strategies) Conferences.Search Engine Ranking Factors frequently updated by Rand Fishkin, SEOMoz.orgGoogle Ranking Factors - SEO Checklist updated frequently, Vaughn's One-Page Summaries 
:implemented in article --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Service

message: Factors that may improve search listing quality include: an attention-grabbing title, an interesting description,SEOmoz and a domain and URL that reinforce the legitimacy of the site. Some commentators have noted that domains with lots of hyphens look spammy and may discourage click throughs. 
Factors that may improve search listing quality include: an attention-grabbing title, an interesting description, and a domain and URL that reinforce the legitimacy of the site. Some commentators have noted that domains with lots of hyphens look spammy and may discourage click throughs and even cause penalties by search engines.How URLs Can Affect Top Search Engine Rankings by John Heard, April 24, 2006, MarketPosition.com
Using Meta Tags in Web Pages
Hyphen Filter
 SEOChat Thread, May 2004</strike>
:references added to article and blog post comment references (6) removed from article. I also did not add the phrase "... and even cause penalties by search engines" due to the lack of substantial evidence. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More than Just Rankings

message: The best use of page titles SEO'Brien, December 2006 Paul 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Hello,
I'd like to add a link to an interesting article about SEO and branding. The link is: http://www.easynet.co.il/sem_articles/seoing_a_brand.php
The article does appear in a commercial site, but I think it has an added value for the readers of this wiki entry.
What do you think?
Davidoff 13:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Forget it. There will be no links to any articles located at websites of search marketing firms like yours. Futurix 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Remember your happy face.  He's probably just inexperienced, not evil.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Davidoff, feel free to add content to the article, but make sure you look at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before adding links.  This article wouldn't be appropriate because it's self-published, so it hasn't been subjected to editorial control or independent fact checking. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a link to an article 

message: Sorry, but this article is a mess. It rambles, is redunant, and often off-topic. Please help me clean it up. In short, this should be an encyclopedia article explaining what SEO is, not how to do it. Not a dog 06:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One requires the other IMO. SEO is for the most part a number of specific things you have "to do". Those things you should do and the priority of them are changing constantly, because of the always changing algorithms and other methods used by search engine to collect, aggregate, return and rank references to websites on the internet in their search result pages. I believe that what you have in mind is what is called "Search Engine Marketing". SEO might not be as technically as it used to be and gets better integrated into other internet marketing strategies and affords by webmasters, but at it's core is it nothing else then "Do this" and "do it this much" and "do it this way" for optimal results. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Professional Web Site Design
Anyone working in the SEO field must have realized that DMOZ has self desctructed over the last few years. There seems to still be so much talk about the directory and Google has even built a directory around it. WHY? The information in the directory (at least in many of the obsolete categories) is out of date and some does not even exist any longer. What is worse than that is that it is near impossible to get any new information into it! 
So, why does Google still have a directory that uses dead information if they are the half baked Wikipedia of the internet. If anyone can offer insight to the continued existence of the DMOZ then please share it with us. If anyone has any influence on the DMOZ please flex your muscle and get it back online and up to date so we all can enjoy a real time internet and not an antique shop of outdated links and information. --President Subnetconsulting.com 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss this question.  Maybe you want to go post at Webmaster World, HighRankings, or Search Engine Watch.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMOZ - Directory Made (itself) ObZolite 

message: Congratulations, the article is now a GA. The article is quite well written delving fairly deep but maintaining accessibility to laymen; while being broad in coverage of topics as well. It is mostly properly and verifiably referenced and overall not much PoV.
But, there is a bit lacking as well, mainly the More sophisticated ranking algorithms section, which focusses too deply on one approach to appear evanelizing it and appearing like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article. That is compounded with lack of references with that. It needs to be fixed before the article can get to the FA status. --soum (0_o) 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Header: Getting into search engines' databases has a link to a Blogspot blog. I don't think this is appropriate!217.194.34.103 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then delete it.  If that is the case, it may be sneaky vandalism.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats Up with this Blatant Advertising? 

message: nofollow is not mentioned anywhere. I thought it was. No need to go into full details since I extended the article to nofollow quite a bit. Any comments? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could expand the article to discuss ways of controlling indexing, and then mention nofollow, and robots.txt briefly.  Jehochman  Talk 06:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another option would be to do something like I did at the affiliate marketing article. See the "see also" section. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I just extended and structured the "see also" section of the article where I also included the robots.txt, meta elements and nofollow amoung a bunch of other articles that I believe to be relevant. You might be able to think of more, but those were the ones I could think of, right out of my head. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nofollow 

message: Both of these article have been nominated for deletion.  Please consider volunteering your time to make improvements.  Jehochman  Talk 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing help needed at [[search engine marketing]] and [[Search Engine Land]] 

message: This article seems to be biased towards PC search, with Mobile Search being completely ignored. Mathiastck 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add mobile search to the article using appropriate references. Jehochman  Talk 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile 

message: I'd like to feature this article on the main page, but it lacks a copyleft image. I leave it up to your collective imaginations to think of a suitable copyleft image. Raul654 04:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll come up with something, even if we have to convince somebody to donate an image. GFDL works too, eh.  Jehochman  Talk 05:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems like the sort of topic that might benefit from a diagram or two.--Pharos 07:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree.  The challenge is that the diagram would have to be semi-legible at 100px wide for it to be useful on the main page.  Jehochman  Talk 12:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page

message: In hacking, "black hat" always implies unethical, and it sounds suspiciously self-serving of that source to say the word doesn't carry the same meaning in the SEO context.  Black hat SEO attempts to pollute search engine indexes to give less valuable results, for the sake of personal gain.  If left unchecked it can make searches almost useless.  It's pretty clearly unethical behavior by my lights, and I don't like the way this article seems to minimize it.  First, by not mentioning in the lead (in my circles, "SEO" is often a shorthand for spammy tactics), and then by claiming it's not so much unethical as a difference in "business model".  Yeah, in the same way that insider trading and options backdating is a different "business model" in the financial industry.  I edited the lead to mention spamdexing and removed the line claiming it's not unethical. Redquark 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I've edited for brevity to prevent the lead from growing too long. Jehochman  Hablar 03:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black hat POV? 

message: I found this sentence rather interesting, considering this is a featured article. "Human visitors"? As opposed to what? I don't think there are many animals or aliens visiting search engines. Just something I thought I should point out. I'll leave it to up to other people whether or not they want to edit it, as it is a minor detail.   --Mathew Williams 09:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots are visitors too.  They aren't human. Jehochman  Hablar 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Like User:Jehochman says, humans aren't the only things that browse the internet. See Web crawler and Internet bot, for example.--Dreaded Walrus  t c 11:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other, more noticeable efforts may include adding unique content to a site, and making sure that the content is easily indexed by search engines and also appeals to human visitors" 

message: I reverted to the last good version before an editor added some diagrams.  Problems with the diagrams include:
#  Improper licenses.  The images contain a copyright notice.
#  Unsourced statements.  Controversial assertions are presented as fact, and aren't supported by a reliable source.
Feel free to discuss, but please do not re-add these materials until there is a consensus. Jehochman  Hablar 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Diagrams 

message: I made the addition below, after spending a considerable amount of time gathering the data involved in this research. It is an important survey for the international section that can be informative to both international companies considering SEO and for compines wishing to target these markets and wanting some cold hard data to either justify it or not. Please let me know if you can come up with better wording or if you believe the referenced article should have more detail.
As a result, an increasing number of international companies are contacting U.S. based firms to help market their services or products.[45]
Semnews 06:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own blog doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability.  I suggest you publish this study in a third party journal, and then post a link to it on this talk page.     - Jehochman  Talk 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a conflict of interest to add links to one's own work into Wikipedia, especially when others are opposed.  I strongly recommend that you avoid doing that.  - Jehochman  Talk 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that this is a featured article, and that the references have been reviewed extensively.  Wikipedia doesn't treat paper references as more valuable than online sources.  The distinction between your own site and ClickZ is that ClickZ has editorial staff who review submissions and decide what to publish.  They also provide independent fact checking. Really, believe me, your best course of action is to publish your study on a third party site that has editorial review.  Then I'd be happy for somebody (but not the author) to cite your study as a source.  I might even cite it myself. - Jehochman  Talk 11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would try some of the sources listed in the article, such as Search Engine Watch, Search Engine Land, and WebProNews.  As for duplicate content, I wouldn't worry about it.  You want to get your name out there and spread your ideas.  It's not necessary to drive people to your own site.  If they see that you've written a useful article or study, that will help you more.  Best wishes - Jehochman  Talk 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Markets 

message: SEMPO does it need to be there?ceo 10:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the leading SEO professional organization.  Yes, I think it belongs, even though I don't particularly like them.  I grudgingly pay my membership dues.  - Jehochman  Talk 14:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many more similar organizations. But, I think it is not good to include them. It will be a problem adding all of those. It is like authorizing unnecessary importance. Again Paid membership is always a problem. ceo 09:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, SEMPO is the organization within this industry that meets Wikipedia's notability requirement.  If any others qualify and have articles, they can be listed too.  SEMPO operates worldwide too. - Jehochman  Talk 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SEO organizations

message: Listings exist in directories. Search engines have rankings. We should change the language to be more accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Goldenberg (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I made a few adjustments to the article. Btw. search engines have indexes that either include or not include content from your site. That is the equivalent of a "listing" in a directory. search engines and directories both have rankings (directories rank often simply alphabetically, but some rank also by importance or popularity). Just FYI :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listings Language Incorrect

message: FYI, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link exchange. --A. B. (talk)  18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link exchange]]

message: FYI, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Jurina. If any SEO types here know of any reliable sources that meet the very particular requirements of our Notability Guideline please let us know at the AfD. Note that in this case, the reliable sources we need are a small subset of what you might think of as reliable sources --see the guideline. 
Likewise, if Mr. Jurina is not notable and such sources don't exist, we'd appreciate knowing that as well.
Thanks! --A. B. (talk)  17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Jurina]]

message: Can someone take a look at Andy Beard and see if we can bring the article back to life. I thought we were getting a positive consensus until an admin killed it.
User:Igorberger/Andy_Beard
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard
Andy Bear is an SEO and a social media consultant.
If you say he is not is like saying Aaron Wall, Jehochman, Rand Fishkin, Barry Schwartz, Danny Sullivan are not SEOs. IMO something wrong here. Michael Gray and David Naylor should be added as well. Any thoughts? Igor Berger (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andy Beard]] and other notable SEOs 

message: This is actually my first attempt to suggest anything in a wiki, so forgive me if I'm doing it wrong. I was told I should ask and discuss things before posting them into wiki articles.
I'm currently building a knowledge database for search engine optimization, I'd like to be able to display a link to it on this wiki entry, I feel it could help users further their optimizing needs for more direct questions. The URL is below, if it can be reviewed and someone give me an answer I would greatly apperciate it.
http:// www.civicseo.com
I've been using my current SEO knowledge plus common questions i find on forums to build this knowledge database if anyone is in question where the data is coming from.
Civicseo (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't add the link; see WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No problem, thanks for asking.  You're more than welcome to contribute content to the article. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on adding outbound link. 

message: I Read in the Contact Wikipedia section that I can have my Site Reviewed for an Outbound Link!
I would greatly appreciate this. The site for review is... 
Webpromo.zxq.net.
There is beautiful content on Search engine Optimization, and much more about Internet Marketing.
Thank you for you time.
j  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.8.86 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not add the link, you can add content directly to the article.
SDSandecki (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OutBound Link Review 

message: Please make reference to PageRank where you feel is fit in the article. PageRank is the foundation and the most integral part of SEO. Igor Berger (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reference to Pagerank in this article already, it also interlinks to the Pagerank article. SDSandecki (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay, I found it. I must have missed it being that I watch for Spammers and vandals all the time and have not really read the article from top to buttom but just summarized it. Over the years I know the story by heart..:) Igor Berger (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It happens, I had to double check. :) SDSandecki (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PageRank]]