Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  External resource suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  High quality sites typically rank well

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed ethical/unethical to white hat/black hat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: White Hat Methods

message: 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)
replies: text: Not even close.  Removed this spam. -MichaelBluejay 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Resources for Webmasters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References Cleanup