Link text (the text that is clicked on when clicking on a link) is singly the most important factor when Google determines the rankings for any given searchterm. This article isn't about that aspect of inbound links, although it is briefly touched on. This article discusses inbound links for their link popularity/PageRank value, and provides ideas on how to acquire them.
Why do we need inbound links?
Even before Google came on the scene, link popularity (linkpop) was being used by one or two search engines as part of their algorithm when determining the rankings for any given searchterm. Then when Google arrived with their link-based PageRank, link popularity took off and became an absolute essential ingredient in achieving top rankings.
The idea behind linkpop is that the more pages that link to a page, the more important the page is and it, therefore, deserves a higher ranking than it would otherwise have.
Some engines simply counted the number of links coming into a page (inbound links), but Google took the idea a step further. Each inbound link comes comes from a page which itself has inbound links. The more inbound links on the linking page, the more important that page is and, therefore, the more important the link to our page is. So Google gives more weight to inbound links from important pages that it does to inbound links from lesser pages. They call the idea "PageRank", and you can learn all about in this PageRank article.
Google is the world's number one search engine, and currently provides the results for around 80% of all the searches done in the world. Because of that, it is vitally important for any website that relies on search engine traffic to do well in Google. Doing well in Google means making the site 'important' in Google's eyes and, to do that, the site must have good inbound links - as many of them as possible, and preferably from important pages (pages with medium to high PageRank values).
How do we get inbound links?
There are a number of ways. Some of them are:-
Directories
Directories usually provide one-way links to websites, although some require a reciprocal link. Personally, I have no time for those that require reciprocal links, because they aren't really trying to be useful directories. Submitting to directories is time-consuming and boring, but there are a number of cheap directory submitting services that do a very good job. There are several of them in this forum thread.
Forums
Join forums and place links to your site(s) in your signature line. Use your main searchterms as the link text - I'll come to why that is necessary later in this article. But before spending time writing lots of posts with your signature line in each post, make sure that the forum is spiderable by checking the robots.txt file, and make sure that non-members don't have session IDs in the URLs. Also make sure that links in signature lines are not hidden from spiders (view the source code to make sure that signature links are in plain HTML format and not in Javascript).
Link exchange centers
Find a join free link exchange center like LinkPartners.com. There you can find a categorized directory of websites that also want to exchange links. Be careful not to sign up with FFA (Free For All) sites because they are mostly email address gatherers and you can expect a sudden increase in email spam soon after you sign up. Also, only sign up with centers where you can approach other sites personally, and where they can approach you personally.
Do not join any link farms!!! Link farms, such as LinksToYou.com, sound excellent for building up linkpop and PageRank, but search engines (Google in particular) disapprove of them as blatant attempts to manipulate the rankings and they will penalize sites that use them. Once a site has been penalized, it is very difficult to get the penalty lifted, so avoid all link farms.
Email requests
(a) Search on Google for your main searchterms and find the websites that are competing with you. Then find which sites link to them by searching "link:www.cometitor-domain.com". Email them and ask for a link exchange.
(b) Search on Google for websites that are related to your site's topic, but not direct competitors, and ask them for a link exchange.
Buy them
There are websites that want to sell links. They are usually medium to high PageRank sites, and often the link will be placed on multiple pages, or all pages within the site. It's possible to approach individual sites where you would like your links to appear, but it is much quicker, easier and more reliable to use a middle-man service (or broker).
Link brokers offer links for sale on behalf of other websites (you could use the service to sell links on your site!). With these services, it is usual to be able to choose the type (topic) of the website(s) where you want to place your links. I am not aware of any disreputable practises with link brokering.
Finally, there are even links for sale by public auction, such as the one at LinkAdage Auctions.
What type of links?
Inbound links serve three purposes:-
(1) they add linkpop and PageRank to the site, (2) they send traffic to the site, and (3) if the link text (the text that is clicked on) is good, then the page's rankings can be improved.
(1) for linkpop, either text or graphic links are fine, (2) for traffic, text links are known to be more effective than graphic links, and (3) to positively affect a page's rankings, text links are the best. So get text links and not graphic links.
(1) for linkpop, get links from anywhere, (2) for traffic, get links from related sites, and (3) to improve the page's rankings, get links from anywhere - the higher the PageRank of the linking page, the better and, whenever possible, make sure that the link text is one of your main searchterms (see Search Engine Optimization - the basics).
http://www.webworkshop.net/inbound-links.html
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Ethical" Search Engine Optimization Exposed!
Some seo forums are dominated by people who claim that their search engine optimization methods are ethical, and that the methods of which they disapprove are unethical. Some of them are thought of as top search engine optimization experts, but are they right? In this article, I will explain:-
* what they mean by "ethical" seo
* why they think the way they do
* why their thinking is wrong
* when to use 'ethical' search engine optimization
* which SEO forums are worthwhile and which are best avoided
and I will provide an eye-opening example of the failure of so-called "ethical" search engine optimization by one of its most prominent advocates.
But first I want to make something clear. Just because these people have chosen to use the word "ethical" to describe their methods, with the implication and statements that doing what they don't approve of is unethical, does not mean that it is true. They simply misuse the word "ethical" in an apparent attempt to denegrate people who use methods that they don't approve of, even though all of what most SEOs do is perfectly ethical.
What do they mean by "ethical" seo?
Search engine optimization means doing things to and for a website and its pages in an attempt to gain higher rankings for the site than it would otherwise have. Part of it is modifying a site's existing web pages so that they more closely match a search engine's ranking algorithm, and other parts include creating additional domains and special pages (doorway pages) that are designed to rank highly. Information on some of the methods can be found here.
Self-styled "ethical" search engine optimizers accept certain methods but not others. Those that they accept, they call "ethical"; those that they reject they call "unethical". Basically, they say that a site's genuine content pages are the only pages to perform search engine optimization on in an ethical way, and that it is unethical to create new pages for optimization purposes if those new pages are not incorporated into the site as genuine content pages. Also, they differentiate between the different things that can be done on the content pages so that some methods, such as hidden text, are unethical, whereas some other methods are not.
Their rule of thumb is:- if it can seen by site visitors as a genuine, integral part of the website, then it is ethical; if it is hidden from site visitors, or is seen but not as a genuine, integral part of the website, then it is unethical.
Why do they think the way they do?
For reasons best known to themselves, they simply do the search engines' wishes. There are some search engine optimization methods that the engines don't want to be used; e.g. hidden text, cloaking, doorway pages, etc. Even though the engines care nothing for any website or for any search engine optimizer, these people do the engines' bidding - and they preach it to anyone who will listen. Some of them probably adopted the attitude from others who frequent the smaller forums and, without thinking it through for themselves, they presumably accept that it's the only right way of doing things.
Most of these people won't discuss or debate any of the so-called unethical methods; they simply state that they are unethical, and that's that. When the occassional discussion does get started, they soon find that they have no answers to the opposing points, and they usually either disappear (stop posting) or resort to insults. Their reluctance to discuss the issues is understandable, because they don't have any rational or common sense arguments in their favour, except that it's against the engines' wishes. It's ok for them to follow the engines' wishes but it doesn't explain why they brand some things as 'unethical'. Unethical = wrong in a moral sense.
It is my considered opinion that the self-styled ethical SEOs insist that their views are the only right ones because they are simply incapable of doing real search engine optimization. They are capable of making websites and pages search engine friendly - something that can be learned in 30 minutes - but they have no abilities beyond that (see this example). Therefore, it would be in their best interests if all optimizers came down to their level so that they have a chance of competing.
Why their thinking is wrong
I can't say that their idea of search engine optimization is wrong. If it suits them, that's fine. What I can say is wrong is the way they openly declare that certain search engine optimization methods, of which they disapprove, are unethical. To be unethical is to be immoral, or to be wrong in a moral sense. Even though they cannot explain what is morally wrong with any of the 'unethical' methods, they still make the claims, and they do their best to tarnish people who use them by declaring them to be unethical. That's unethical!
Because the engines disapprove of some search engine optimization methods, people who use them run a slight risk of having the website or page penalised. It would be unethical for a search engine optimizer to use the methods on clients' sites without the client knowing and accepting the risk. 'Ethical' SEOs agree with that, but they don't stop there. To them, any use of the methods is unethical - even if done with full knowledge of the risks involved. To them, it's a matter of principle - the methods that they disapprove of are unethical, and that's that.
An eye-opening example
I call this an "eye-opening" example (of the failure of 'ethical' seo) because of who it is that failed. I'm not going to divulge the person's name, so I will refer to him/her as male, which may or may not indicate the person's actual gender.
He is one of the most prominent of the self-styled 'ethical' SEOs, if not the most prominent. His prominence is due to several things:- (1) he is frequently paid to speak as a search engine optimization expert at seo conferences, (2) he is very active and visible in more than one SEO forum, (3) he produces a regular SEO newsletter which is read by thousands of people.
In each of those platforms he advises the same thing over and over again; i.e. there is really no need to use 'unethical' methods; do it the way that I do it (ethical seo) and the high rankings will follow. Also in those platforms, he is known to use such insulting words as "scummy" and "scumbucket" to describe what he thinks of as 'unethical' SEOs and methods. This person is a shining beacon for the self-styled 'ethical' SEOs, and his advice is continually listened to, and swallowed, by many thousands of people. So it was a great pleasure to me when I received one particular email from him.
In the email, he wrote, "I have one client right now who wants some highly competitive words, which when I took the job, I didn't realize were quite so competitive." and "I can't stand failing with this site, but as it stands now, I've done everything I can do for it." His problem was that his efforts had failed. His 'ethical' seo didn't work - hence the email to me. He was looking for other methods that he might use and, to be fair, he was only looking for methods that would stay within the search engines' guidelines.
The point is that so-called "ethical" search engine optimization can't compete. It only works when there is little or no competition.
My guess is that the search terms that he failed with can't have been all that competitive if a person with his experience didn't realise how competitive they were from the start. When pushed, he has been known to admit that the "ethical" seo methods can't compete when the search terms are competitive, and yet he continues to advise people that there is no need to use 'unethical' methods, etc. in the forums, in his newsletter, and when he speaks at conferences. I've never seen him voluntarily add the proviso that what he says works if the search terms are not very competitive. Instead he continues to advise people to do it his way and the rankings will follow. In my view, he intentionally misleads people - either that or he is so dumb that he hasn't learned from his own failures.
A less prominent example (it was this one that prompted this article)
I received an email a few days ago from a search engine optimizer (a stranger to me). He asked for prices for my search engine optimization services for a few particular search terms for one of his clients. Looking at his website, I found an article which contained a few paragraphs about why not to use spam methods of seo. ("Spam" is what the 'ethical' SEOs call any method that they disapprove of). I don't know if this person is an active 'ethical' seo or not, but the email clearly shows that this person had failed with the search terms and that, once again, so-called 'ethical' seo methods cannot compete.
http://www.webworkshop.net/ethical-search-engine-optimization.html
* what they mean by "ethical" seo
* why they think the way they do
* why their thinking is wrong
* when to use 'ethical' search engine optimization
* which SEO forums are worthwhile and which are best avoided
and I will provide an eye-opening example of the failure of so-called "ethical" search engine optimization by one of its most prominent advocates.
But first I want to make something clear. Just because these people have chosen to use the word "ethical" to describe their methods, with the implication and statements that doing what they don't approve of is unethical, does not mean that it is true. They simply misuse the word "ethical" in an apparent attempt to denegrate people who use methods that they don't approve of, even though all of what most SEOs do is perfectly ethical.
What do they mean by "ethical" seo?
Search engine optimization means doing things to and for a website and its pages in an attempt to gain higher rankings for the site than it would otherwise have. Part of it is modifying a site's existing web pages so that they more closely match a search engine's ranking algorithm, and other parts include creating additional domains and special pages (doorway pages) that are designed to rank highly. Information on some of the methods can be found here.
Self-styled "ethical" search engine optimizers accept certain methods but not others. Those that they accept, they call "ethical"; those that they reject they call "unethical". Basically, they say that a site's genuine content pages are the only pages to perform search engine optimization on in an ethical way, and that it is unethical to create new pages for optimization purposes if those new pages are not incorporated into the site as genuine content pages. Also, they differentiate between the different things that can be done on the content pages so that some methods, such as hidden text, are unethical, whereas some other methods are not.
Their rule of thumb is:- if it can seen by site visitors as a genuine, integral part of the website, then it is ethical; if it is hidden from site visitors, or is seen but not as a genuine, integral part of the website, then it is unethical.
Why do they think the way they do?
For reasons best known to themselves, they simply do the search engines' wishes. There are some search engine optimization methods that the engines don't want to be used; e.g. hidden text, cloaking, doorway pages, etc. Even though the engines care nothing for any website or for any search engine optimizer, these people do the engines' bidding - and they preach it to anyone who will listen. Some of them probably adopted the attitude from others who frequent the smaller forums and, without thinking it through for themselves, they presumably accept that it's the only right way of doing things.
Most of these people won't discuss or debate any of the so-called unethical methods; they simply state that they are unethical, and that's that. When the occassional discussion does get started, they soon find that they have no answers to the opposing points, and they usually either disappear (stop posting) or resort to insults. Their reluctance to discuss the issues is understandable, because they don't have any rational or common sense arguments in their favour, except that it's against the engines' wishes. It's ok for them to follow the engines' wishes but it doesn't explain why they brand some things as 'unethical'. Unethical = wrong in a moral sense.
It is my considered opinion that the self-styled ethical SEOs insist that their views are the only right ones because they are simply incapable of doing real search engine optimization. They are capable of making websites and pages search engine friendly - something that can be learned in 30 minutes - but they have no abilities beyond that (see this example). Therefore, it would be in their best interests if all optimizers came down to their level so that they have a chance of competing.
Why their thinking is wrong
I can't say that their idea of search engine optimization is wrong. If it suits them, that's fine. What I can say is wrong is the way they openly declare that certain search engine optimization methods, of which they disapprove, are unethical. To be unethical is to be immoral, or to be wrong in a moral sense. Even though they cannot explain what is morally wrong with any of the 'unethical' methods, they still make the claims, and they do their best to tarnish people who use them by declaring them to be unethical. That's unethical!
Because the engines disapprove of some search engine optimization methods, people who use them run a slight risk of having the website or page penalised. It would be unethical for a search engine optimizer to use the methods on clients' sites without the client knowing and accepting the risk. 'Ethical' SEOs agree with that, but they don't stop there. To them, any use of the methods is unethical - even if done with full knowledge of the risks involved. To them, it's a matter of principle - the methods that they disapprove of are unethical, and that's that.
An eye-opening example
I call this an "eye-opening" example (of the failure of 'ethical' seo) because of who it is that failed. I'm not going to divulge the person's name, so I will refer to him/her as male, which may or may not indicate the person's actual gender.
He is one of the most prominent of the self-styled 'ethical' SEOs, if not the most prominent. His prominence is due to several things:- (1) he is frequently paid to speak as a search engine optimization expert at seo conferences, (2) he is very active and visible in more than one SEO forum, (3) he produces a regular SEO newsletter which is read by thousands of people.
In each of those platforms he advises the same thing over and over again; i.e. there is really no need to use 'unethical' methods; do it the way that I do it (ethical seo) and the high rankings will follow. Also in those platforms, he is known to use such insulting words as "scummy" and "scumbucket" to describe what he thinks of as 'unethical' SEOs and methods. This person is a shining beacon for the self-styled 'ethical' SEOs, and his advice is continually listened to, and swallowed, by many thousands of people. So it was a great pleasure to me when I received one particular email from him.
In the email, he wrote, "I have one client right now who wants some highly competitive words, which when I took the job, I didn't realize were quite so competitive." and "I can't stand failing with this site, but as it stands now, I've done everything I can do for it." His problem was that his efforts had failed. His 'ethical' seo didn't work - hence the email to me. He was looking for other methods that he might use and, to be fair, he was only looking for methods that would stay within the search engines' guidelines.
The point is that so-called "ethical" search engine optimization can't compete. It only works when there is little or no competition.
My guess is that the search terms that he failed with can't have been all that competitive if a person with his experience didn't realise how competitive they were from the start. When pushed, he has been known to admit that the "ethical" seo methods can't compete when the search terms are competitive, and yet he continues to advise people that there is no need to use 'unethical' methods, etc. in the forums, in his newsletter, and when he speaks at conferences. I've never seen him voluntarily add the proviso that what he says works if the search terms are not very competitive. Instead he continues to advise people to do it his way and the rankings will follow. In my view, he intentionally misleads people - either that or he is so dumb that he hasn't learned from his own failures.
A less prominent example (it was this one that prompted this article)
I received an email a few days ago from a search engine optimizer (a stranger to me). He asked for prices for my search engine optimization services for a few particular search terms for one of his clients. Looking at his website, I found an article which contained a few paragraphs about why not to use spam methods of seo. ("Spam" is what the 'ethical' SEOs call any method that they disapprove of). I don't know if this person is an active 'ethical' seo or not, but the email clearly shows that this person had failed with the search terms and that, once again, so-called 'ethical' seo methods cannot compete.
http://www.webworkshop.net/ethical-search-engine-optimization.html
SEO Copywriting
a.k.a. "search engine optimization copywriting"
or "search engine copywriting"
What is SEO Copywriting?
SEO Copywriting, or to give it its full name, search engine optimization copywriting or search engine copywriting, is the technique of writing the viewable text on a web page in such a way that it reads well for the surfer, and also targets specific search terms. Its purpose is to rank highly in the search engines for the targeted search terms.
As well as the viewable text, SEO Copywriting usually optimizes other on-page elements for the targeted search terms. These include the Title, Description and Keywords tags, headings and alt text.
The idea behind SEO Copywriting is that search engines want genuine content pages and not additional pages (often called "doorway pages") that are created for the sole purpose of achieving high rankings. Therefore, the engines cannot possibly view SEO copywritten pages as undesirable, and the rankings they achieve tend to be as stable as those that are achieved by other search engine optimization techniques.
Practitioners of the search engine copywriting method recommend around 250 viewable words per page, with one, or at most two, targeted search terms strategically placed within the text and other on-page elements.
SEO Copywriting strengths
One thing that can be said about search engine optimization copywriting is that works for suitable websites and for suitable search terms (see below). SEO Copywriting can achieve rankings that tend to do well across the search engines, although no page can do equally well in all engines.
It is sometimes said by practioners of search engine optimization copywriting, that the method tends to maintain its rankings as the engines tweak and change their algorithms, whereas other methods produce less stable rankings. This can't be true. If 2 pages are in the top 10 search results; one getting there by the SEO copywriting method and the other by different search engine optimization techniques, they are both there because they match the engine's criteria (algorithm) quite well. When the criteria is changed, the match that each of them had is necessarily changed. The matches could become closer to, or further from, the engine's criteria. Whether each page goes up or down in the results depends on what changes have been made to the engine's criteria. It is a matter of chance, and not a matter of whether SEO copywriting was used or not.
SEO Copywriting weaknesses
# Competitive search terms
The technique only works for search terms that are not particularly competitive. Competitive search terms are those where many people are trying very hard to gain the top rankings for their sites. Casino, sex, insurance, health and hotels sites are among the most competitive, and there are many other topics where people fight for rankings. For medium to highly competitive search terms, other, more vigorous, methods are needed.
# Suitable sites
Not all websites are suitable for SEO Copywriting. Many simply don't have sufficient text on their pages, and adding text would spoil the design or nature of the sites. Also, some sites that do have sufficient text sometimes don't want to be forced into changing what is written on the pages, just for the sake of the search engines.
# Cost, and the limitation of targeted search terms
SEO Copywriting is a time-consuming process, and professional SEO copywriters are not cheap, therefore the cost of each page is significant. Since each page can target only one or two search terms, it would usually require a good number of pages to be made-over in order to target all the required search terms.
# Tied to a copywriter
What happens when a website owner finds it necessary to alter the text on a page that has been worked on by a professional SEO copywriter? It can't be done without either ruining the costly SEO work and, with it, the page's rankings, or re-hiring a professional copywriter to redo the work once the changes have been made.
# Slipping in the rankings
If a page is successfully optimized by SEO Copywriting, and is ranked in the top 10 search results for its targeted search term, then the optimization was worth the cost. But what happens when someone else decides to optimize a page from a different website for the same search term? If their optimization technique is successful, and the page gets into the top 10, the #10 page will slip to #11 - and off the first page of results. Then suppose another website does the same thing...and another...and another. Sooner or later, the successful page will slip from the first page of search results. As soon as people decide to optimize their pages for the chosen search terms, existing top 10 pages are on the way down. Then what?
If the sliding pages were professionally SEO copywritten, there is nothing else that the technique can do for them, or if it can, the whole costly copywriting process must be redone. Adding one or two instances of the target search terms isn't merely a case of typing them in somewhere, because the final text still needs to read well for the site visitors. Again, the website owner is tied to a copywriter.
http://www.webworkshop.net/seo-copywriting.html
or "search engine copywriting"
What is SEO Copywriting?
SEO Copywriting, or to give it its full name, search engine optimization copywriting or search engine copywriting, is the technique of writing the viewable text on a web page in such a way that it reads well for the surfer, and also targets specific search terms. Its purpose is to rank highly in the search engines for the targeted search terms.
As well as the viewable text, SEO Copywriting usually optimizes other on-page elements for the targeted search terms. These include the Title, Description and Keywords tags, headings and alt text.
The idea behind SEO Copywriting is that search engines want genuine content pages and not additional pages (often called "doorway pages") that are created for the sole purpose of achieving high rankings. Therefore, the engines cannot possibly view SEO copywritten pages as undesirable, and the rankings they achieve tend to be as stable as those that are achieved by other search engine optimization techniques.
Practitioners of the search engine copywriting method recommend around 250 viewable words per page, with one, or at most two, targeted search terms strategically placed within the text and other on-page elements.
SEO Copywriting strengths
One thing that can be said about search engine optimization copywriting is that works for suitable websites and for suitable search terms (see below). SEO Copywriting can achieve rankings that tend to do well across the search engines, although no page can do equally well in all engines.
It is sometimes said by practioners of search engine optimization copywriting, that the method tends to maintain its rankings as the engines tweak and change their algorithms, whereas other methods produce less stable rankings. This can't be true. If 2 pages are in the top 10 search results; one getting there by the SEO copywriting method and the other by different search engine optimization techniques, they are both there because they match the engine's criteria (algorithm) quite well. When the criteria is changed, the match that each of them had is necessarily changed. The matches could become closer to, or further from, the engine's criteria. Whether each page goes up or down in the results depends on what changes have been made to the engine's criteria. It is a matter of chance, and not a matter of whether SEO copywriting was used or not.
SEO Copywriting weaknesses
# Competitive search terms
The technique only works for search terms that are not particularly competitive. Competitive search terms are those where many people are trying very hard to gain the top rankings for their sites. Casino, sex, insurance, health and hotels sites are among the most competitive, and there are many other topics where people fight for rankings. For medium to highly competitive search terms, other, more vigorous, methods are needed.
# Suitable sites
Not all websites are suitable for SEO Copywriting. Many simply don't have sufficient text on their pages, and adding text would spoil the design or nature of the sites. Also, some sites that do have sufficient text sometimes don't want to be forced into changing what is written on the pages, just for the sake of the search engines.
# Cost, and the limitation of targeted search terms
SEO Copywriting is a time-consuming process, and professional SEO copywriters are not cheap, therefore the cost of each page is significant. Since each page can target only one or two search terms, it would usually require a good number of pages to be made-over in order to target all the required search terms.
# Tied to a copywriter
What happens when a website owner finds it necessary to alter the text on a page that has been worked on by a professional SEO copywriter? It can't be done without either ruining the costly SEO work and, with it, the page's rankings, or re-hiring a professional copywriter to redo the work once the changes have been made.
# Slipping in the rankings
If a page is successfully optimized by SEO Copywriting, and is ranked in the top 10 search results for its targeted search term, then the optimization was worth the cost. But what happens when someone else decides to optimize a page from a different website for the same search term? If their optimization technique is successful, and the page gets into the top 10, the #10 page will slip to #11 - and off the first page of results. Then suppose another website does the same thing...and another...and another. Sooner or later, the successful page will slip from the first page of search results. As soon as people decide to optimize their pages for the chosen search terms, existing top 10 pages are on the way down. Then what?
If the sliding pages were professionally SEO copywritten, there is nothing else that the technique can do for them, or if it can, the whole costly copywriting process must be redone. Adding one or two instances of the target search terms isn't merely a case of typing them in somewhere, because the final text still needs to read well for the site visitors. Again, the website owner is tied to a copywriter.
http://www.webworkshop.net/seo-copywriting.html
Search Engine Optimization Spam
Overview
There is a lot of talk as to whether or not certain of the search engine optimization techniques and methods are ethical. In this series of short articles, I will discuss each of the 'questionable' techniques and demonstrate that none of them are intrinsically unethical and, therefore, none of them are intrinsically wrong. Arguments against their useage do not stand up in the face of good, old-fashioned common sense. It doesn't mean that the techniques cannot be used in unethical and unscrupulous ways; it simply means that they are not intrinsically unethical, they are not spam and it is not wrong to use them.
There is a lot of rubbish talked about search engine spam. Some people have even tried to formalize it by laying down definitions as to what is and isn't spam. Two of the main definitions are:-
# Any modifications that are done to a web page or site, solely because search engines exist, is spam.
# Whatever each search engine says is spam, is spam for that engine.
The first definition means that everyone who is engaged in search engine optimization of any kind is, by definition, a spammer - bar none.
What is meant by 'search engine spam'?
The same question comes up time and time again - "Is this spam?". What the question really means is, "Is this wrong or unethical?", although sometimes the question may mean, "Is this going to get my site penalized?".
The fact is that none of the so-called spam techniques and methods are in any way wrong or unethical. A technique or method only becomes wrong or unethical when it is used unethically; e.g. a page that appears to be about one thing but which automatically redirects people to something quite different.
An example of a search engine optimization method that some consider to be spam/wrong/unethical is hidden text. The idea behind hidden text is to show some optimized text to the search engines but not to people viewing the page in a browser. It is done because the text wouldn't make much sense to the viewer or it would spoil the design of the page. But there is nothing wrong with this technique. It doesn't attempt to hide anything from the search engines. The fact that they don't want it is irrelevant. The text is in plain sight to them and their programs. If they don't spot it, that's their problem.
What should be realized about all the so-called search engine spam techniques is that they don't hurt anyone. In fact they help everybody. Unless they are used unscrupulously, they help a page to be ranked more highly for its actual topic than it otherwise would. Surfers find the page in the search results and go to the page's site. There they find what they expected to find, having read the page's search engine listing. The surfer is happy, the search engine should be happy because it sent a surfer to a relevant site, and the page owner is happy because s/he has a site visitor.
The fact that so-called spam techniques were used to get the page high in the search results for its actual topic doesn't matter. Everyone's a winner.
Let me be perfectly clear. There is nothing instrinsically wrong, immoral or unethical with any of the so-called search engine spam techniques and methods. Like many other things in life, some of them can be used in unscrupulous ways but, in themselves, they are perfectly good, moral and ethical. Some of them are so good, moral and ethical that the search engines themselves use them when they auto-redirect visitors to a local version of the engine, and they do it by cloaking - providing different pages to different people according to some criteria; in this case it's the geographical location.
The reason that people use the techniques and methods is to help pages rank highly in the search engine results for their topics. Nobody suggests that there is anything wrong or unethical in trying to do that. Some search engines (including Google) even suggest ways to improve a page's rankings. So people are not against trying to improve rankings, but some of them are against some of the methods that are used to do it.
We have seen that everyone approves of taking steps to improve a page's rankings, so let's look at these search engine optimization techniques and methods that people some find questionable.
Before we do, I need to point out that, even though I will show that these search engine optimization techniques and methods are perfectly harmless, ethical and sensible, some engines don't want some of them to be used and, if they spot them being used, they may penalize the page or even the whole site. Pages and sites are not often penalized. It depends on the nature of the 'offense'. Generally speaking, search engines are down an anything that adversely affects their surfers.
I should also say that search engines are very poor at spotting unwanted techniques and rely on people reporting them. Whether or not you choose to use any of the techniques is up to you but, if you do, it would be wise to hide them from people and not talk openly about them unless you can talk anonymously.
http://www.webworkshop.net/search-engine-optimization-spam.html
There is a lot of talk as to whether or not certain of the search engine optimization techniques and methods are ethical. In this series of short articles, I will discuss each of the 'questionable' techniques and demonstrate that none of them are intrinsically unethical and, therefore, none of them are intrinsically wrong. Arguments against their useage do not stand up in the face of good, old-fashioned common sense. It doesn't mean that the techniques cannot be used in unethical and unscrupulous ways; it simply means that they are not intrinsically unethical, they are not spam and it is not wrong to use them.
There is a lot of rubbish talked about search engine spam. Some people have even tried to formalize it by laying down definitions as to what is and isn't spam. Two of the main definitions are:-
# Any modifications that are done to a web page or site, solely because search engines exist, is spam.
# Whatever each search engine says is spam, is spam for that engine.
The first definition means that everyone who is engaged in search engine optimization of any kind is, by definition, a spammer - bar none.
What is meant by 'search engine spam'?
The same question comes up time and time again - "Is this spam?". What the question really means is, "Is this wrong or unethical?", although sometimes the question may mean, "Is this going to get my site penalized?".
The fact is that none of the so-called spam techniques and methods are in any way wrong or unethical. A technique or method only becomes wrong or unethical when it is used unethically; e.g. a page that appears to be about one thing but which automatically redirects people to something quite different.
An example of a search engine optimization method that some consider to be spam/wrong/unethical is hidden text. The idea behind hidden text is to show some optimized text to the search engines but not to people viewing the page in a browser. It is done because the text wouldn't make much sense to the viewer or it would spoil the design of the page. But there is nothing wrong with this technique. It doesn't attempt to hide anything from the search engines. The fact that they don't want it is irrelevant. The text is in plain sight to them and their programs. If they don't spot it, that's their problem.
What should be realized about all the so-called search engine spam techniques is that they don't hurt anyone. In fact they help everybody. Unless they are used unscrupulously, they help a page to be ranked more highly for its actual topic than it otherwise would. Surfers find the page in the search results and go to the page's site. There they find what they expected to find, having read the page's search engine listing. The surfer is happy, the search engine should be happy because it sent a surfer to a relevant site, and the page owner is happy because s/he has a site visitor.
The fact that so-called spam techniques were used to get the page high in the search results for its actual topic doesn't matter. Everyone's a winner.
Let me be perfectly clear. There is nothing instrinsically wrong, immoral or unethical with any of the so-called search engine spam techniques and methods. Like many other things in life, some of them can be used in unscrupulous ways but, in themselves, they are perfectly good, moral and ethical. Some of them are so good, moral and ethical that the search engines themselves use them when they auto-redirect visitors to a local version of the engine, and they do it by cloaking - providing different pages to different people according to some criteria; in this case it's the geographical location.
The reason that people use the techniques and methods is to help pages rank highly in the search engine results for their topics. Nobody suggests that there is anything wrong or unethical in trying to do that. Some search engines (including Google) even suggest ways to improve a page's rankings. So people are not against trying to improve rankings, but some of them are against some of the methods that are used to do it.
We have seen that everyone approves of taking steps to improve a page's rankings, so let's look at these search engine optimization techniques and methods that people some find questionable.
Before we do, I need to point out that, even though I will show that these search engine optimization techniques and methods are perfectly harmless, ethical and sensible, some engines don't want some of them to be used and, if they spot them being used, they may penalize the page or even the whole site. Pages and sites are not often penalized. It depends on the nature of the 'offense'. Generally speaking, search engines are down an anything that adversely affects their surfers.
I should also say that search engines are very poor at spotting unwanted techniques and rely on people reporting them. Whether or not you choose to use any of the techniques is up to you but, if you do, it would be wise to hide them from people and not talk openly about them unless you can talk anonymously.
http://www.webworkshop.net/search-engine-optimization-spam.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)