Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: I removed the {content} Template from the External Links Section. Put it back up, if you think that there is still more to discuss. If you put it up, state why. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for asking.  Wikipedia isn't a directory.  Please refrain from dropping links.  If you wish to add content, please do, and cite your sources.  Be sure to use reliable sources. See WP:RS  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{content}</nowiki> Template removed 

message: I'm hesitant to remove this link, since normally other editors are really good at catching link spam and adverts.  It just looks like we may have missed one:
:A detailed case for this common ground, cited by the W3C with respect to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/refs.htm| Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case, is http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/downloads/files/search-engine-optimisation-accessibility2.pdf| SEO, A Positive Influence on Web Accessibility.
The links currently don't work in the article because they're not written correctly. Big Mouth Media is an SEO firm, so I think that this isn't so much adding content as an advert.  As I said before, normally other editors are very good and very fast about catching these, so I'm hesitant to remove it if it's legit.  Should this be included? JordeeBec 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just checked the links and they now work - possibly the originator came in and corrected them? It does now seem accurate; the W3 WAI document does indeed cite the Big Mouth Media paper, so it does seem a legitimate resource, not just an advert (The fact that the link was broken does also suggest it wasn't spam - what would be the point?). It does address the content of the preceeding statement in more detail, specifically the link between SEO and accessibility, so it does also address a smaill gap in Wikipedia (since I can't find anything equivilent in the existing Web accessibility entry). To my mind, it's a legit addition, albeit with all due respect to the originator, a slightly clumsily posted one. I'm not sure though if it should be posted under this entry or Web accessibility. I don't think it's a significant enough addition to warrant being posted as an external link, as it's passing expansion reference, not core to the page content.  Cruddy 09:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spam/advert? 

message: You were pushing it :). I added the paragraph "PageRank and Page Rank Clarifications" which contains the stub from a few paragraphs above. The grammar and wording requires improvement. Feel free to fix what you think requires fixing. Thanks everybody. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edit (see WP:BRD). This article is not about PageRank, and this content should be added (if even necessary) to that article, not here. This article already makes mention that "A proxy for the PageRank metric is...displayed in the Google Toolbar", and if readers want more details, they can go to those particular articles. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, because it is about Ranking and the misconception about PageRank. It is also about the mixup by people when it is about Page Rank and not PageRank(tm). See the paragraphs above and the discussions. I am surprised that you reverted that addition and I think that others might disagree with you as well. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lengthy discussions about misconceptions of PageRank don't belong in this article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look here: Confusing phrase / PageRank. It starts with a perfect example of the consequences the confusion can have plus the follow up discussion where multiple other editors do believe that something should be added to THIS article. The "Meaning" of the paragraph added does belong in here and not in the PageRank Article. It would be even better in a separate Article about Ranking Algorithms, but that article does not exist yet. PageRank is one Ranking Factor that is one ingredient of the "SEO Soup". The paragraph addresses 2 things. The one about the PageRank displayed in the Google Toolbar could be more relevant for the PageRank Article. The One about the confusion between Page Rank and PageRank does not. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [repeating my comment from above, since this is a more recent discussion] Again, adding this large chunk of content about PageRank is inappropriate for this particular article . The article already notes that "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." If you want to add this add'l criticism of Toolbar PR vs. "real" PR, then add it to either the Google Toolbar or PageRank articles. You could even add a "For more information, see [XXX]" note, if you wanted. The beauty of this encyclopedia is that we have wikilinks to take readers to articles where such detail is more appropriate. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The PageRank / Toolbar part can be left out as far as I am concerned. It was the smaller part of the paragraph though. The main part was about "Page Rank" which is NOT ... repeat N-O-T! the same as Google PageRank™ covered by the PageRank Article. "Page Rank" does also not belong into the PageRank Article, because it has nothing to do with Google's Patented Algorithm and Trademark. Got it? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PageRank and Page Rank Clarifications 

message: I want to that all the editors who've had the patience to stick with this page. It's very difficult because there's so much speculation and difficult to verify information.  Please keep up the good work.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Courage

message: Any company's website with a /forum doesn't belong as an authority website for SEO.
I have nothing against Highrankings.. I do have a problem with an SEO company considering themselves as an authority on SEO via Wikipedia.
: Can you sign your posts, please. Are you connected to any SEO company?  I'm going to restore the reference until we have a chance to discuss this.  If we can't come to an agreement, we should ask some of the other editors for comments.  You opinion counts, but please understand that this list was assembled after much discussion.  The external links on this article cause a lot of debate.  We want to avoid edit wars.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Just because we listed the best, most authoritative forum or blog (which would serve our readers) doesn't mean we'd be obligated to link to lesser ones (which would dilute the value of the article).  Not that I think the High Rankings forum is clearly the best in class, not by a longshot.  -MichaelBluejay 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wehberf, I did a thorough rewrite of this article a while back, and HR forum was one of the main sources of info I used.  That's why it's listed.  Now, you've peaked my interested. Who are you? I'd like to buy you a beer next time we meet. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Threadwatch.com is owned by Aaron Wall (SEOBook.com) , SearchEngineWatch.com Features writers from various SEO companies. Danny Sullivan, Chief Editor and former owner of the site also uses the site to promote his Search Engine Strategies Tradeshow, WebMasterWorld is organizing the PubCon Tradeshow. Matt Cutts is a Search Engine Employee. We could add Jeremy Zawodny's, Niall Kennedy's and Gary Price's Blog as well (all Search Engine Employees and not from SEO companies) but we would be back to square one again, by only referencing to search engines which can be hardly called WP:NPOV. Every NON Search Engine resource is also in the SEO business. Exceptions are organisations like SEMPO which are already references in the "parent" article about Search Engine Marketing, because SEMPO is not only relevant for SEO, but for PPC/SEM as well. Several people that contributed to this article are in the SEO business themselves but even they agreed upon the authority of  the listed sites (even if it is operated by a competitor). We decided against SEOConsultants.com to be listed because of its commercial nature. The Wikipedia Article is not a Sales Letter for SEO companies, but a Information Resource for anybody who wants to know what SEO is. If you are from DigitalPoint.com, let us know, because I wondered why nobody challenged the HighRankings Forum entry to replace it with DigitalPoint Forums instead. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Roger, my $5 to buy you a pint at the next convention will be well spent.  By the way, that Tribble site is brilliant.  Let's get some more opinions, but I am happy to abide the consensus.  If you want to add Search Guild or other quality references, please post a list and give everyone a chance to comment for the sake of harmony. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think sources should be judged on the quality of info, not who owns them or how they are branded.  Read through this article and make it better using the info you can gather from  Searchguild, and then cite it as your source.  Searchguild is a quality resource and a valid source. Does anyone disagree?  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely not. A relevant citation with the source referenced is anyway for favorable than a lonely link in the External Link Section. If the citation is of good quality, if basically casts a vote about the quality of the source and even Wikipedians that are not very familar with the topic can not deny it. External Links are subjective to some extend without showing to an outsider why the Link is there and that is the problem with them. I think that the way we approached this issue in this article was very good, because it shows at least to the interested observer, that not a single subjective opinion was responsible for the links. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Aaron's fine and I respect his opinion, but ultimately the reason for external links and preferably references (as Roy said), is so people can trace back to the source of the info.  If you gather some wisdom from Search Guild and add it to the article, then I vote for either specific references at the places in the article where the info is added, or if the info is "diffuse," then a reference may belong in the "Background Info" section, which is really a bibliography.Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highrankings Forum (Pros and Cons of Citing) 

message: Anyone else want to get rid of the hats? It is asinine and it devalues what a lot of people do everyday. Anyone else? Any suggested alternatives?
: I don't like hats either, although the term is widely used. How about "Some SEO's follow search engine guidelines, others do whatever they think is necessary to get rankings.  The latter strategy often creates a risk that the client's site may get banned."  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the "Hats" are not very academic, but I think that Wikipedia is not meant for Academics only, but rather for the general public. The "Hats" are used all the time across the Industry and by Search Engines themselves too (although they try to avoid it). I think it helps the regular person who is reading the article to get a better understanding of right/wrong and "gray area" practices and would keep it in the article for this reason. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cumbrowski.  It is proper for us to employ terms commonly used about the subject we're describing (after defining them).  If we don't do so, then what kind of encyclopedia are we? -MichaelBluejay 07:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hats 

message: How about adding this excellent resource to the external links section?:
Search Engine Optimization Basics
Or to the first article in the series
--66.140.109.46 11:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I wouldn't object to it, but I think that SEO 101 is better.  Though of course I'm biased. -MichaelBluejay 14:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you sign your posts, please.  Wikipedia is not a collection of external links.  Drive by external link additions are very likely to be removed as spam.  If you want to improve the article, go ahead and add content, and cite the most authoritative source you can find, but definitely not your own web site.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed external link: Series of articles on SEO basics 

message: Some famous SEOs now have Wikipedia pages that appear to be supported by references that establish notability.  I've added those I've found.  Once this list gets a bit bigger, I would like to separate it to List of SEOs.  Does somebody here know the protocol for creating lists?  The point is to organize these articles in one place. This makes it easier to find them, and potentially easier to AfD those that are unworth.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created an Article for Bruce Clay and added it to the SEO Article. I would appreciate if any of you could check the article for accuracy and improve on it if you have something to add. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Consultants or Professionals are nice neutral words. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 17:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous SEOs

message: Good Idea with the External Link Section and Link to DMoz plus the template. That helped other spammed articles already. Spam will not go away. No hopes there, but it will be a bit less. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Idea with the Template 

message: I agree with the above comments that this section was non-standard.  Active editors of this article are encouraged to revise the article to add specific references for specific statements.
I do not agree with the above comments which criticize these as unreliable sources.  To promote harmonious editing, I agree to move these here for further discussion until we can form a consensus. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved these references to the references section, and added inline citations. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the references section in general. There were some duplicates and inconsistencies which are now taken care of. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Moodyne. I like the Idea with the category for the Notable SEO's. It bugged me too. It was also blogged about it by some other SEO's that are not doing anything at Wikipedia... Talk Talk, but to shy to press the "Edit" Link :) See the blog post at SEOBook . The new category makes it easier to grow without turning the article into the SEO Yellowpages :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non Standard External Links Section

message: Spamming template is derogatory to SEO business. I've removed, because SEO is in no way a part of spamming; spamming indeed can be used as SEO technique, but not vice versa. If you want to discuss it, you're welcome. --194.44.142.134 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article. It discusses how some SEO techniques are considered spamming. The template should remain. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hint:  Login.  Wikipedians often give more consideration to non-anonymous users. Michael, we ought to think about breaking out the Black Hat content, somehow, and make it clear that { { Spamming } } only applies to that small segment of the article.  The objection is valid.  There is a POV that all SEO is spam.  We don't want to take sides in that argument.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't read the inclusion of the template to mean that any/all SEO is automatically considered Spam. But I see your point. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a link to the Spamdexing article, and that's the one that belongs in the { {spamming} } series. This article doesn't belong in that series.  How do we edit the series? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Spamming --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  { { Spamming } } template