Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Promotional Lang used in desc of Sources of Background Information

"If something happens in SEO/SEM, TW is often the first to report."

If linking to commercail sites isn't enough, why are they allowed to use such promotional language? Has anyone verified "TW is often the first to report" as they claim?

If you check out TW, you will notice, that a) you can turn of Ads, if they annoy you and that b) most posts are simple excerpts and link to the news site, forum or blog source that was cited. It is like a digg.com for Internet Marketing (not just SEO). Btw. None of the Links were added by the Site Owner or anybody who is affiliated with them. They were added by Wikipedians that are interested in that topic or SEO Professionals. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another: "Webmasterworld.com - Leading Search Engine Optimization Forum. WW is one of the few Forums that is watched by Google and posted to anonymously (Google Guy)."

Has anyone confirmed they are the "leading" forum? And then this: "one of the few Forums that is watched by Google", I would like to hear Google, Inc's take on this. Who can really know what Google employees are watching?

Is a direct link by a Senior Google Search Engineer to a specific post in the forum proof enough? Here it is. See chapter "Refreshing supplemental results". They organize the PubCon Conference, look at their attendees and speakers. Not to mention that the forum has a page rank 7, gets mentioned in magazines and radio (WebmasterRadio). Need more? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And another: "SES Search Engine Strategies Most important Conference and Expo of the SEO Industry" Can anyone confirm they are "The MOST important"?

You disagree? which one is the most important in your opinion? and explain why. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it when I remove promotional text to these commercail sites, I get warnings for spam? How exactly is that spamming? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.60.88.59 (talk • contribs) 16 May 2006.

Of course, you're free to edit any language you feel is promotional in nature. I don't know why anyone would be warning you about spamming for doing so. I'm not familiar with all the sites and conferences, but I'm very familiar with WebmasterWorld. You ask if "anyone" has confirmed that they're the leading forum, and one of the few watched by Google. Uh, I think several thousand people familiar with the site would back that claim, including me. You'd "like to hear Google's take" on this, and wouldn't we all. Google doesn't communicate with anyone who wants an audience. But GoogleGuy's participation at WebmasterWorld is no secret, it's been an important part of the industry for years. Do a search on "googleguy" and see what you find. Hope this helps. -MichaelBluejay 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The user in question has never even received a warning for spamming so unless he is a sockpuppet I am not even sure what he is on about. I gave him his first warning today and that was for deleting users talk pages (including mine) to give them misplaced spamming warnings (all I have ever done is remove external links from this article). I am assuming good faith when I question whether this guy may just be trolling... - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the current version of the Background Information links, with less verbage, less promotional. If there is any question about deleting or adding to the list, please post here so we can discuss. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to change the verbage. I added most of the links and Jehochman fixed some of my wording among other things. If you would do a poll about what is the most important "what" within the whole SEO community, I am certain that the sites that are already listed would come out on top. There is unfortunately no such data today. The problem is, that if you change the wording to a simple "a Forum" or "a Conference", it will be an open invitation to add any and every seo forum, article collection or conference to the article. Needless to day, the list is not engraved in stone. Suggestions can be discussed here at the talk page. If a "fight" breaks out without reaching a consens, a Link to a directory (for example to Yahoo! as I mentioned earlier) will become the only solution. That resolved the same problem for the article about affiliate marketing. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is value in explaining why the resource is noteworthy. However, we need to be careful about promoting. The best way to avoid spamming is to delete any external link that is added without prior discussion. This article is unique in the way it attracts so much linkspam. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm the only one who finds the phrase "If something happens in SEO/SEM, TW is often the first to report." sounding too much like something you would here in a 6 o' clock News promo. I understand SEO is a highly competitive, money making industry, but the Wiki is not the place for advertisments, or ad-sounding entrys.

Bill S. cleaned up the wording nicely and GraemeL reverted some stupid comments by Mr. 65.60.88.59. BTW. The Forum is free for the most part, only some sections are for subscribers of WW, a subscription is in affect a donation (yes, you can write it off). They decided for that route to be able to keep most of the forum open for the public and Advertisement Free (See Donation Form).
The Benefit is IMO, that discussions in the Subscribers only forum are much more professional and peaceful. I decided last year to pay and this year did I do the same in another forum. I still read public forums, but some discussions turn out better if not every Joe that surfs by can post and litter the thread. It also separates the Hobbyist from the Professionals a bit. But that's just my opinion. I know that many disagree
Regarding TW. Most Articles are only Digg.com like News with a link (but much more commented than most News submit to digg.com). They have also full articles posted by TW Users but that is not making up the majority. I only subscribed to 2 Topics or Subjects to get alerts and its still multiple per Day. It's a news alerts/news discussion site with some own News Stories/Articles. I don't know how else to describe it. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


I stumbled on this article as I was researching something else... I have to say that I was suprised at the promotional language used in the entire entry. The section about Black Hat methods is a joke, it doesn't treat the subject at all, it is mrerely the "what happens if you go to the 'other guys'" part of the ad. I seriously question the objectivity of the entire thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.240.230 (talk • contribs)

Go for it. Edit the article and fix the problems. You don't need permission. Be sure to sign your posts with four tildes '~'. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Sources of background information

No other Wikipedia article needs Sources of background information, so why does this one?

As we say, Wikipedia is not a link repository.

Who is we? The Name was choosen to reduce the atraction for spam. Regarding your question; read the talk page. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The "we" is the official policy that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links or Internet directories --mtz206 (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The only authority listed was searchenginewatch. If you are going to include second tier resources then thenlist will be 20 pages long. And user Cumbrowski seems to be including and removing sites with no consistency. HighRankings gets a mention, but DigitalPoint is called spam? DP is the highest traffic SEO forum on the Internet. And same there are dozens more. Why not just link to a directory category, instead of turning Wikipedia into a directory itself.
Please sign your posts. Please don't delete previously discussed links without discussing first. We've listed the background sources to establish where the info in the article came from. SEO is a unique field of study because it moves quickly. Almost all reliable information about the field is published on several moderated (editorially reviewed) web sites. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Jehochman, et al,
I'd like to address several points. First, you state:
"We've listed the background sources to establish where the info in the article came from."
I am talking about the sites listed under "Sources of background information", not "References".
If any of those sites are sources of information, they should IMO be credited with a citation in "References", to the page which provides the information, not a nondescript link to the home page.
And before we make Wikipedia into a link repository, shouldn't there be a consistent and coherent criteria for adding the links?
As it stands now, there is no rhyme or reason to the inclusion or exclusion of the links, other than the fact that somebody liked it. That is entirely subjective and nonsensical.
There are more objective metrics out there to base inclusion or exclusion upon. Alexa ranking does a moderately good job of indicating how much a resource is used. Backlink counts also give a better indication than the simple statement that some Wikipedia user heard of the website before.
But why turn Wikipedia into a web directory? If you folks bother to read the guidelines on external links, you'd know why those links do not belong there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
Under "Links to normally avoid":
12. Blogs, social networking sites and forums should generally not be linked to.
HighRankings is a forum. WebmasterWorld is a forum. Matt Cutts blog is a blog. ThreadWatch is a blog, and Search Engine Strategies is a highly commercial offline conference.
Read the guidelines on external links and I am guessing you won't find anything to support those links. You will find plenty to tell you that they do not belong.
And even if it were in Wikipedia's guidelines to include lengthy lists of authorities, those site with the exception of Matt's blog are not authorities.
Do we plan on reviewing each and every SEO resource site? Because I was under the distinct impression that Wikipedia in not a web directory, nor a link repository.
Now compare to other Wikipedia articles such as Online Marketing or Affiliate Marketing. Those are much cleaner and much more representative of Wikipedia's policies and goals.
If the linking contingent wants to provide links to relevant resources, the most logical thing would be to link to the most relevant DMOZ category or Yahoo Directory category.

Just my 2 cents. - 60.45.238.117



Mr./Mrs. 60.45.238.117:

1. Incomplete citations to only get the part in favor to ones cause is the worst you can do in an argument. If you cite item 12 of Link to normally avoid (WP External Links Policy), make sure you don't miss the important parts: "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. ". IMO fit all sites listed under Sources of background imformation all the criterias, except the "being the website itself" one, for making an exception to rule 12.


2. Post with your Wikipedia user here or I will be forced to file a request for Checkuser to find out who's Sockpuppet you are. Using just the IP implies that your are just an anonymous Wikipedia Reader and not a Wikipedian who is taking an active part in contributing to Wikipedia and it's Cause.


3. Article Affiliate marketing is currently being disputed because of the fact that the article lags the support of further external resources. I am not talking about citations here. There are Articles that can do well without those further reaching references and there are Articles that can not.


4. Wikipedia is not a link repository or Web directory. This fact is absolutely clear to any of us and we also agree on that. For that reason did we created the additional work for us to only list One Site for each Site category (or type of site) that can not be replaced by Wikipedia and is considered to be the most Important in its category. That limits the number of Links to a very small number and is not making a Web Directory out of Wikipedia.


You could argue (what you do not) that the listing of WW and HR violates this rule and you would be right. WW, although overall the more relevant forum, is going much further than being just a forum about SEO. HR on the other Hand is specialized and ONLY about SEO. This dilema is not solved yet. WW should probably be the External Reference for a merged Online marketing and Internet marketing article (which is also still outstanding).


5. You and everybody else has the right to dispute that the external resource listed as foremost for SEO is actually the foremost. You should state (here at the Talk Page) which Site you consider to be more relevant and important and WHY. This would then be discussed by the Editors of this Article and Readers that want to state their opinion. If a consensus is reached will the old resource either be replaced by the new one or the existing one remains listed.


This is not about personal likes and dislikes. WP:NPOV has precedence and everybody is doing its best to remain true to this policy to the best of each ones abilities.


p.s. Just FYI. ThreadWatch is not a blog. This is not important for this discussion, but shows the quality of your diligence work prior making your argument. I don't question your motives and good intent Mr./Mrs. 60.45.238.117, but I question the methods employed to achieve your goals.


--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Note on the side regarding DMOZ or YAHOO Links: Just linking to DMOZ or YAHOO is a "cheap" solution and should only be done, if no consensus is reached. In case of this Article and its active Editors, a consensus was reached. See my comment from May 14.

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)

I stated before I made the statement above, that DMOZ has no matching Category and would require to add as much links to the article as we already have. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


I added the {{Content}} Template to the "Sources of background information" Section of the article to make it an officical discussion. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy, in regard to your threat
"Post with your Wikipedia user here or I will be forced to file a request for Checkuser to find out who's Sockpuppet you are."
Please feel free to file a request for Checkuser if you feel it is necessary. Also feel free to peruse the Wikipedia guidelines. Login in not necessary to edit, nor is it required to contribute to discussions.
Since you don't want to reveal your name nor Wikipedia User is it impossible to verify anything you say you do or did.
If you insist on listing websites, please state the criteria upon which you wish to make those decisions. SearchEngineWatch.com is pretty much an indisputable authority. HR, WMW, TW are not even close. Matt Cutts, as a Google employee, probably deserves a listing as well.
SEW an indisputable authority. I agree although some people had different opinions (see older entries at this talk page). "HR, WMW, TW are not even close". Thank you for your personal opinion. You made in previous comments clear how much you favor SEW. You seemed to have changed your opinon about item 12. of the External Links Policy and I agree that Matt Cutts deserves a listing.
SearchEngineStrategies however does not warrant a listing on any basis. The website is nothing more than an advertisement for the highly commercial SES conferences. I have attended SES and considered it to be nothing more than a social networking tool. I doubt that anybody actually learns anything at SES.
It is listed as Formost Event of the Industry (organized by Search Engine Watch hence also called SEW Live, an "indisputable authority" in SEO). Due to the nature of the business can a conference about SEO nothing be, but commercial.
In regard to your assertion that ThreadWatch is not a blog, I will have to disagree. I post on ThreadWatch and read there on a regular basis. According to Cnet Threadwatch is a "Top 100 Blog". ( http://news.com.com/2311-10784_3-119338.html )
Oh Cnet says that, mmhh. Based on wikipedia's definition of Blog is it not looking good for Threadwatch. Anyhow, what people call nowadays a blog, is unbelievable.
For what it's worth, I am also a member of HR, WMW, SEW Forums, DP forums and have been active in the SEO community for over 4 years. I link to most of those resources myself, but this is Wikipedia. And the only recognized authorities on that list are SEW and Matt Cutts.
You have to forgive me, but I can not just take your word for it. You made clear that YOU only recognise SEW and Matt's blog as authorities. I disagree, lets hear what others have to say.


A link to Yahoo's Search Engine Optimization (SEO) would be in the best interest of Wikipedia users, while maintaining adherence to Wikipedia guidelines on external links.
I like the Idea to add the Yahoo Directory to the lisr of existing links. It would be a valuable addition that make sense IMO.
Again, just my 2 cents. - 60.45.238.117
Thanks 60.45.238.117. -roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's time to re-open this issue (and I can't quite discern what was decided in June). I think this section is essentially a magnet for linkspam. If certain reliable sources were used in the creation of content for this article, then they should be cited in a References section. Otherwise, simply providing a laundry list of links for "background information" is clearly not what Wikipedia is for. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing phrase/PageRank

Another confusing phrase is the term page rank mentioned in the subsection entitled "organic search engine". As you all know, there is considerable confusion amongst the general public regarding what is known as the google displayed toolbar pagerank and the actual hidden pagerank known only to google. I entered a two sentence edit which was removed this morning. I have since had discussion with the editor who removed the edit and he suggested I discuss the proposed edit here prior to re-inclusion.

The proposed edit was a simple two sentence edit which noted the difference between displayed toolbar pagerank and actual hidden pagerank. I believe the public would benefit greatly from a short addition noting the difference between the two, namely that they are two different things and displayed toolbar pagerank is not to be confused with actual pagerank. Are there any objections to my reincluding this short edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arteworks (talk • contribs)

Such an explanation already exists in this article: "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." This is sufficient. --mtz206 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe this is sufficient, as toolbar PageRank is one of the "more than 100 factors"; whereas actual pagerank is the congealed mass that is the 100 factors. The term pagerank is still being used in this article in an unclear and interchangeable manner that results in confusion and inaccuracy.ArteWorks Business Class 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you are correctly characterizing PageRank. It is one (complex) calculation, but there are a multitude of other factors - that are not components of PR - which help determine a site's ranking for a particular search query. See PageRank, where much of this nuanced discussion belongs, not in this article. --mtz206 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think defining the difference between the pagerank displayed on a toolbar and pagerank used to rank pages, and determine crawler activity is a good idea. But I also think that it may be something better done on the wikipedia entry for pagerank, where pagerank is the focus of the whole entry, and distinctions may be made more completely. We know that a lot of factors are considered in ranking pages beyond just pagerank, such as hypertext analysis and an analysis of term frequency and term weight. Things like a local reranking based upon hyperlink connections between top results may also play a significant part, so the fact that rankings in search results don't match with the displayed ranks in the toolbar isn't an indication that the toolbar is wrong in what it is showing as pagerank. But the fact that we have it on record from a Google employee, Matt Cutts, that the pagerank display on toolbars is only update four times a year or so tells us that there isn't a complete match between displayed pagerank and actual pagerank.Bill Slawski 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree and am only proposing a short two sentence, or even one sentence, clarification of the difference, with a link to the wikipedia pagerank page, which itself I believe needs some substantial revision to include a good discussion on the differences between the two. ArteWorks Business Class 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, the article already notes that there is a proxy for the PR in the toolbar, and that PR isn't the sole determinant in a page's rank on a SERP. A link to PageRank is already provided as well. That is sufficient. If people want more info, they'll follow the link. --mtz206 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Arteworks has contacted me and appears discouraged by this discussion. I've urged him to continue making his case here in the Talk page if he feels so strongly about the inclusion of his edit. --mtz206 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I completely agree with Arteworks proposed addition: "It is important to note that actual Google PageRank is not the same as the PageRank displayed within the Google Toolbar. Performing a Google search for most any term will demonstrate this in that the results of the search query are not displayed in order of descending Toolbar PageRank." The second sentence seems to simplify things a little too much because there are other reasons that pages are not displayed in order of descending page rank.
I'm also not sure that this statement in the article is all that clear or helpful, and it doesn't let people know that the pagerank displayed in the toolbar may not actually be the pagerank of the page being displayed: "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." Maybe we can work together to come up with something better? Bill Slawski 03:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the way you put it, Bill. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 07:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Bill. People are just using one Term that is ambiguous. You can see this here in this discussion. Mtz206 and Arteworks are both right and should not even have a dispute. Mtz206 talks about the generic term "Page Rank" (I rather make 2 words out of it), referring to the calculated Ranking Value a page has for a specific Search Term. "Page Rank" incorporates ALL Ranking criteria and is a part of EVERY Search Engine that displays search results by "relevance" and not just alphabetically. Arteworks on the other hand talks about "PageRank" (tm) - the Google PageRank, which is numeric value that represents how important a page is on the web. Google figures that when one page links to another page, it is effectively casting a vote for the other page. PageRank is a trademark Term of Google and the algorithm named PageRank is patented by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. The Google PageRank is only one criteria for Google to determine the "Page Rank" of a Page in Google's Search Index. What Arteworks points out is, that the Google PageRank(tm) displayed in the Google Toolbar (the value between 0-10) is a) not the value used by Google Internally which means, that a Page where the Toolbar shows "0" as PageRank might has internally a much higher PageRank between 3 and 4 as example. The reason for the difference is not clear and people can only speculate. Even if the display would be somewhat accurate, is it not the exact NUMBER, Google is using. The actual calculated number using the original algorithm is a floating point number with a lot of digits after the decimal point. A site with PR 1 could have an actual PR of 1.298245 another one with PR1 might only has an actual PR of 1.00123. This is important, because this invisible difference is making a huge difference the higher the Pagerank of a site (in the hundreds of thousands of difference in inbound links). Furthermore. The "Google PageRank(tm)" is a number/value assigned to a PAGE by Google, independent from the Keyword Phrase. "Page Rank" on the other hand is the number/value assigned to a page in combination with a specific Keyword Phrase. I believe this should become part of this article as well. ....


Summary 1.) "Page Rank" <> "Google PageRank(tm)" , 2.) "Google PageRank(tm)" in Toolbar <> "Google PageRank(tm)" actual number used by Google to determine the "Page Rank" of a Page for a specific Key phrase and 3.) "Google PageRank(tm)" # - Page , "Page Rank" - Page/Keyword Phrase combination. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay so who's gonna do this? I don't have the time to invest in it to just get it summarily deleted. ArteWorks Business Class 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just do it! We'll watch the edit and do whatever we can to improve the article.Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
After my "sloppy" comments (that's what you get if you think faster than you type ;)) did I write it up a bit nicer and decided to make a little article out of it [1]. I would add the paragraph, but I hate to cite myself. I did it once and still feel shitty everytime I see it. Well, it offers at least some basis for any of you guys to add a paragraph about it here. You have my permission to use whatever you see fit from the article to make something useful out of it for this article here :). And as Jehochman alreay said, we will watch the edit and improve on it where necessary. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Arrgh. I did write an article about this topic as well on 25 Jan 2006. The URL is here: http://www.arteworks.biz/2006/01/google-pagerank-explained.html and could also be cited as a resource, but I have the same concerns as Cumbrowski re: citing own article. Look I'm willing to give it a shot but I request at least some assistance here. So how about I start with an outline of major points here - then if everyone agrees these are the points to be covered then I'll write some proposed language and post it here for discussion prior to going live. Is that cool? Okay: suggested major points: (1)Page Rank vs. PageRank vs. displayed toolbar PR - definitions (2) Source of confusion (3) application of Page Rank (4) Application of PageRank (5) Application of displayed toolbar PR ArteWorks Business Class 15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Arteworks, we can't cite your article because it isn't authoritative enough. Your point that PR and Toolbar PR is correct, and has been stated many times in the "Background Sources" that are listed on the page. I think it would be more appropriate to add this content to an article about PageRank or the Google toolbar. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Arteworks, I believe you missed the point a bit. What needs to be added IMO is not an explaination what the Google PageRank is in Detail. How Jehochman already said, for that exist already an article: PageRank .


Okay... Let's do this together. It's late and I am tired :)
Here is a very rough stub that could be used as basis for the actual paragraph after it was improved (wording) and corrected (grammar).
----------------- Stub Start---------------------------
"Page Rank" is not the same as "Google PageRank(tm)". The "Google PageRank(tm)" is a value/number calculated by Google for a specific Page or document on the Web. The Phrase "Page Rank" on the other hand is plain English and not a trademark term. It refers to the value/rank/position calculated by Search Engines for a specific Web Page/Document and Keyword Phrase combination compared to other documents in the index of a specific Search Engine that match the same key phrase.


The "Google PageRank(tm)" number (0-10) shown in the Google Toolbar is not the same as the actual "Google PageRank(tm)" number/value used by Google internally to determine the "Page Rank" (Position in the SERPS) of a specific Page for a specific Key phrase. The actual PageRank Number calculated has many digits behind the decimal point.


It is also assumed that the PageRank displayed at the Browser Toolbar(s) is not even the real PageRank value rounded to a full number due to discrepancies between shown PageRank and actual Ranking in the Search Results for matching Key Phrases.
This leads to the speculation that the PageRank value used for the determination of the actual Ranking of Search Results is not coming from the same data source (Database) as the PageRank Value displayed at the Browser Toolbar. Webmasters should not give the displayed PR value too much weight or "value". It can probably being treated as a very good estimate and being used to get a basic idea about the general importance of the document you are looking at.
----------------- Stub end ---------------------------
--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It is suddenly so quiet. Did anybody look at my stub above? What do you guys think? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It got quiet because I tired of debating with people who are wrong and refuse to allow the post to be corrected. As I previously stated, I don't have the time or inclination to make changes which would benefit the public only to have them summarily deleted. That all being said, I think this is a good edit overall. My only suggestion (and that is all it is), would be to change the final paragraph you wrote above to the following -
Therefore, the PageRank value used for the determination of the actual ranking of search results is not the same as the displayed Toolbar PageRank. As such, displayed Toolbar PageRank should not be accorded much weight or "value" in terms of search engine placement. Displayed Toolbar PageRank is a general indicator of the overall "importance" of a web page in the grand scheme of things, however is not an indicator as to how the page will perform for any given search query. This can be easily demonstrated by performing a search query for any term and analyzing the results. Analysis will demonstrate that the results are not ordered in descending order of displayed Toolbar PageRank. ArteWorks Business Class 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Just edit the darned article. You don't need permission! If you disagree with somebody else's edit, start a talk thread and explain why, rather than just reverting. We'd like to avoid edit wars. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 12:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay Jehochman done per your suggestion. Incorporated Roy's language with final paragraph modifications suggested above. ArteWorks Business Class 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

<------- Again, adding this large chunk of content about PageRank is inappropriate for this particular article [2]. 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)

Is this a typo which should be corrected? Notice the brackets and carrot at the end of the sentence...should the term SEO'd be in quotes instead? --> Negative scoring for on-site factors (for example, a dampening for websites with extensive keyword meta-tags indicative of having been optimized [^SEO-ed]) ArteWorks Business Class 12:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

{content} Template removed

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)

I would like to add my link to the main page, but want to present what I do and why I believe it is a justified request. Please have a look at http://www.rue-de-geneve.ch. It is a place for people to discover how to do SEO and as such maybe of value. -Ardan Michael Blum - Geneva, Switzerland.

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)

Link spam/advert?

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%7C Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case, is http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/downloads/files/search-engine-optimisation-accessibility2.pdf%7C 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)

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)

Adding a few links for some SEO Firms?

What do you guys/gals think of adding a link section that has a few links to some respected SEO Firms?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtflash (talk • contribs)

This article already has too many external links. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, this is wikipedia not DMOZ. This probably isn't true of anything else, but if you want a list of good SEO companies is to put it into Google - by definition, the list you get back is the the SEO'ers currently at the top of their game. As for reputable ones - well that might be a contradiction in terms? You wouldn't put a list of plumbers on wikipedia, so why SEO'ers?
No, no, no, unless you plan to list me. ;-) Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 10:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not an SEO expert but i have read many of this company's articles and they are a good resource for people wanting to learn more advanced SEO stuff, have a look and see if it is worthy :) http://www.ez-net.co.il/index_eng.asp. This is just to continue on previous comments, hope this helps some of you regardless if we choose to add it to the external links. Davidoff 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (Talk/Contrib)
I don't see how this link adds any new content per WP:EL. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Have a read of some of the SEO articles they got there... Davidoff 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If they qualify as reliable sources, feel free to add content to the entry and cite these articles. Otherwise, just adding links does little to improve the encyclopedia. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
no worries will do that :) Davidoff 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PageRank and Page Rank Clarifications

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)

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)
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)
Lengthy discussions about misconceptions of PageRank don't belong in this article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
[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 [3]. 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)
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)

Courage

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)

Highrankings Forum (Pros and Cons of Citing)

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)


Sorry about that... I am affiliated with an SEO company, In fact I am an Editor / mod at two of the listed 'authority sites'.. and I do own an SEO firm. But my point is that if an SEO company can get a /forum listing as an authorty, then it opens pandora's box in terms of everyone wanting their semi or even moderatly popular /blog or /forum being listed.. user:wehberf

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)
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) P.S. Links aren't there by popularity, they exist to document the sources.
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)

user:wehberf hehe.. I go by 'the founder' on threadwatch :) I agree with all of the links there for the most part other than highrankings, simply because it's an SEO company with a /forum off an seo firm.. there are several SEO forums that in my opinion deliver expert advice, such as searchguild.com by Chris Ridings.. as well as others that deliver good advice. It's not that I dislike highrankings .. I dislike the fact that it's a company with a /fourm .. the entire concept doesn't make sense from a wiki standpoint.

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)

user:wehberf I need a few pints! hell at the next convention I will buy you a dozen! :) heh.. seriously, I do vote to include only non-seo firm sites/forums. For example (hate to push it again) but Searchguild for example has a solid reputation in the industry, is well liked and respected thoughout, plus honestly the entire entry is dominated from US only sites. I myself am based in the US, but some of the best SEO's are in the UK and I feel that they should have a voice in the industry. Regardless of Country however, searchguild could stand on it's own just from the quality of the advice given there.

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)
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)

user:wehberf ok for example, in 2004 Search Guild was the first progressive forum to launch an SEO contest for 'nigritude ultramarine' now that has been played out 1.5 million times since then with several other forums using the same idea to try to create the buzz that searchguild initally made. Many of the mods there are also mods at other authority forums, Aaron Wall, Gurtie, Myself. I don't know how else to say it, I guess Aaron says it best on his blog, seobook, where he lists searchguild as the top ranked forum in his book.

http://www.seobook.com/archives/000161.shtml

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)

Hats

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)
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)
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)

Sock Puppets

I am concerned that we have a problem of Sock Puppets fiddling with the external links. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppets have to follow the rules like everybody else. There is a community watching and working on this article for a long time. Working together with the Wikipedia Anti-Spam force to keep spamers out (which is not an easy job, because this article is a popular spam target). Somebody has to come with an Army of Sock Puppets to attempt anything fishy. Creating a real looking Sock Puppet is already touch and requires somebody with a lot of time available. Creating many, unique and believable sock puppets is almost impossible and it will be easy to disguise them. Most of us here know a thing or two about Internet traffic, trails and tracks so the puppet will better be "perfect" --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Please can you specify which user/edits concern you and your supporting evidence to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and post a reference to it on this page.
Thanks for the suggestions. Please sign your posts. The disruptive edits seem to have stopped, so I will not spend the time unless it becomes a problem again. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed external link: Series of articles on SEO basics

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)

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)
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)

External link removal

I would like to remove the second "References" section (the one under "External links") since it is non-standard and its links are not in line with WP:EL. Specifically:

  • HighRankings should be removed.
  • Matt Cutts' blog is already referenced twice in the text.
  • Search Engine Watch can be moved to the "See also" section.
  • Threadwatch should be removed.
  • Webmasterworld should be removed.

Anyone objects to the removal? Mushroom (Talk) 22:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object to the removal of references that were previously discussed and agreed. Before you remove, we should discuss again to promote harmonious editing. If you would like to add a standard references section, very good, go ahead! How do we cite authorities in the space? This is a real problem. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, you say "this should be removed" but you don't state any reasons. To promote rational discussion, please state the reasons so we can understand your position. Thanks! Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, but I stated a reason: HighRankings, Threadwatch and Webmasterworld are not in line with WP:EL. Specifically, they should be removed because of:
2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.
On the contrary, Matt Cutts and Danny Sullivan are "well-known, professional researchers writing within their field of expertise" (see here), so links to their sites could be kept (or made into internal links in the "see also" section). Mushroom (Talk) 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

user:wehberf I don't mind removing them as well. I would rather have none there, then get into pandora's box of everyone there... If it were up to me, I would have threadwatch, searchguild, mattcutts... I am sure someone out there would say I want highrankings, webmasterworld... someone else would say I want digitalpoint... the point is that this is perhaps the best way to do it.. just remove them all.. I know initally I was like 'I want Searchguild' .. but then if I allow searchguild.. then I have to allow digitalpoint.. then I have to allow webmasterworld.. I don't own wikipedia.. but I do consider myself vested overall in this discription because I do work in the industry. If we get into this discussion (which isn't bad overall for everyone to discuss this) .. we however will start picking sides.. mostly on what corner of the internet we hang out on.. this way it even's the playing field of quality forums and blogs.. virtually all of them filled with good people.. the only way to end this discussion is to not play the game.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehberf (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 August 2006

How about allowing specific citations to any of the above when a particularly useful fact is gleaned and added to the article? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that, provided that they are reliable sources. HighRankings, Threadwatch and Webmasterworld are not. Mushroom (Talk) 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Mushroom, why do you deam these to be unreliable sources? I am not convinced by conclusory statements. In the world of SEO, the usual "reliable sources" are likely to be very unreliable. Main stream media is notoriously misinformed about SEO. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying they are not reliable, maybe they are. I'm just saying they are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia's official policy, since they are self-published websites. Mushroom (Talk) 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not link to specific sections? WMW SEO forum, etc. Tht way people get the specific info they need. WMW SEo forum makes a lot of sense, because a lot of the "research" is anecdotal, by neccessity of the target moving. Why are any of the elements in the reference section if tey weren't specifically referenced? Shouldn't they instead go into the "External Links" section? 202.7.166.166 02:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we want to get away from having External Links with this article. It would be better to have specific references tied to various facts so people can check them. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Having specific references (using <ref>) would be better. Mushroom (Talk) 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's move in that direction. Once we get some more specific references in place, we can blow away the "background" sources. Still, I wonder how do we reference a thread in a forum? This article is unique because the knowledge does not exist in mainstream media. Many here will agree that online forums, blogs, and perhaps conference proceedings, are the best source of current info on SEO. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Jumping in, I agree that moving towards <ref> formatting is much preferable than just listing an arbitrary collection of references. While forum discussions likely fail WP's reliability test, I think conference proceedings, articles in trade journals, or similar content should qualify. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is somewhat unique because there are virtually no respected trade journals about SEO. The only one I know of, 'Search Marketing Standard', is much less reliable than any of the forums. A citation to a SMS article is worth a lot less than a citation to Threadwatch were the top experts in the field have all commented on an issue. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 23:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Mushroom. The Section is very much conform with the GUIDELINES written in WP:EL, Item 12 of Link to normally avoid (WP External Links Policy): ... "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. " ... IMO fit all sites listed under Sources of background imformation the criterias ... Ooops.. I cited the guidelines from June 2006 when a Socketpuppet argued the same way you do now. Lets see the WP:EL Guidelines today.... "Links normally to be avoided" .. All but item 9. are okay and can not be applied to the links in question. Now 9. "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.". I argue that unless mandated by the article itself. applies to the Links to the Sites that are Blogs or a Forum (or have a Forum). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Also Linking to the Individuals as suggested is a bad Idea. We do not want to promote individuals. As for Danny Sullivan. The Link is to Search Engine Watch and not to Danny Sullivan (In that case would the link point to this site [4] which it does not (obviously). I don't understand what you mean by refering to item 2. of the "Links normally to be avoided" section of todays WP:EL. BTW, I agree with Jehochman regarding the uniqueness of this articles topic. General Media coverage is little and I have not seen anything about it on TLC or Discovery Channel. This is true for a lot of other topics, true, but most are not of such significant importance for everybody on the internet, especially for somebody that does business on the internet. This will certainly change (it already does) which will impact the content of this article, which will probably become one day an historic article about things that existed in the past and disappeared almost entirely like this one. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the addition of the links to the References is a good idea and should settle this. Because they were references in the first place. Most stuff in the article derived in one way or another from those references. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The only links should be converted to citations are the ones that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, which I'm not convinced most of the ones above do. Per WP:V criteria, if material doesn't have reliable (by WP's definition) sources, it shouldn't be present. Thus, if the mainstream media doesn't "properly" cover the topic, then it shouldn't be covered here -- we shouldn't lower our standards to include sources that would be dismissed (or considered dubious at least) on a topic that is well-covered by mainstream media. Matt Cutts and SEW are the only 2 in this list that I can see passing the muster of WP:RS. The rest should not be included. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous SEOs

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)

I deleted Bruce Clay for now. Redlinks are an open invitation to spam. Bruce might qualify for the list. If you think so, create a page about him that passes the notability criteria of WP:BIO. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Cool Thx...

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)

I removed names listed without articles. If the person isn't notable enough to have an entry, there's no need to list them here. This isn't meant to be a "who's who" list. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Noteworthy SEOs Use Google to find Good SEOs. If they are good, they will be towards the top." Is that really needed? I mean, is it the job of wikipedia to make hiring suggestions? I vote that be ditched. 60.242.31.9 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Good Idea with the Template

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)

Further Discussion of External Links

This article is controvers and subject to heavy spam. Thankfully are a number of editors willing to spend countless hours on just keeping this article clean. ANY major change can not be done without discussion, here at the Talk Page. The nature of the topic makes this unfortunately necessary.


Now. The professional SEO opinions section was agreed upon after long and painstaking discussions in May 2006. Since then was each listing at least disputed once and had to proof again its relevance. Only one item was added since May in August 2006.


I added the following comment to the paragraph in the article



I also added the "Date Agreed" to each approved and validated reference in that section.


  • HR Agreed upon 8/27/2006
  • Cutts Agreed upon 5/14/2006
  • SEW Agreed upon 5/14/2006
  • TW Agreed upon 5/14/2006
  • WW Agreed upon 5/14/2006


The Links followed WP:EL in May 2006, they followed it in September and I am sure they will follow the current version of WP:EL as well. This article requires due to the nature of the subject sites like forums and blogs as reference to ensure WP:NPOV which is IMO more important than any interpretation of WP:EL. Regards, --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You say "agreed" but I cannot see that in the archive. I do see that you argued vigourously for their retention though. I am guided by WP:EL and cannot think of a good reason why we should make a special case in this article to include blogs when it is agreed by consensus that they are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. "SEO professionals' point of view" is hardly encyclopaedic — Moondyne 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Moondyne, if we cannot use reliable references, it's impossible to create an encyclopedic article at all. The references cited are the best ones available. One of the rules of Wikipedia is "Break All the Rules" to make Wikipedia a better place. For this article to be any good at all, it has to rely upon info published by people who actually know something about the topic. For this topic, people do not read books. They read blogs and discuss on forums. The media used to collect and distribute knowledge is IRRELEVANT. We should be NEUTRAL with respect to blogs, printed books, or TV programs, for example. The forums cited are MODERATED, which is exactly like EDITORIAL control, probably better than many paper publications. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:EL is a guideline not a rule. It even says "Links normally to be avoided." Matt Cutt's blog is definitely an exception. Any article on SEO that does not reference Matt Cutts' posts, for instance, would be severely incomplete. Matt speaks "off the record" for Google, but he is their primary link to the web marketing community. How can we possibly disregard when he says "Google works this way..."? With all respect Moondyne, you need to approach this article with an open mind. It is very different from most articles, so the normal guidelines don't work very well. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 03:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Matt Cutts and Search Engine Watch can be used for cites, I think we can agree on that. I don't see a reason to link to their websites with any kind of general external link. If you wish to present their points of view on SEO, add content and cite them. The remainder of the sites do not constitute links that pass WP:EL criteria for inclusion. Yes there is of course the policy WP:IAR - but generally there ought to be a compelling reason to ignore the rules in favor of some other course of action. It's being suggested is that we IAR in order to include what, forums and other non reliable sources? That's not a compelling argument. Remember, WP:V is policy just as much as WP:IAR, and that makes a strong case for including sources that are reliable. If we have to pick one here I'd say we ought to err on the side of WP:V.
Besides, I see above that this article is frequently a target for spamming. Why leave a section in place that only invites spamming? With such a section, any "SEO professional" could drop a link to his/her own site with his/her own point of view. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Dan, yes there's plenty of linkspaming here, but not so much as with other articles. Roy, ZimZalaBim and I patrol heavily. Since we do most of the spam cleanup, along with some others, we would be the first to remove any spam magnets. We appreciate your help.Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 12:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the usefulness of the article to readers, the aim for any article worthy of being here should be for it to become a featured or at least a good article. At present this article would fail quickly due to the lack of inline citations. I never suggested that weblinks are not valid citations and I assure you that I do have an open mind and am unafraid of bending rules when approriate, its just that references need to be relevant to the particular part of the text. Matt Cutts need to be cited accordingly - see WP:CITE. General lists of links to discussion boards do not add to the verifiability of the article - they just add clutter and invite further spamming. The irony of us having this discussion over this particular article is amazing don't you think? — Moondyne 05:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
We're in the process of rewriting the article, but it's a lot of work. Let me assure you that the listed sources are the sources I've used when writing some significant parts of the article. As we go through and revise sections, we are adding references. This is an ongoing process. (You can help too!) Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 12:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


>>>Can I request that a link be included in the resource list for www.searchengineforums.com? They've been online for a long time and are a starting point for many folks new to white-hat SEO. As full disclosure, I'll note that I am a moderator at SEF, though I also post at SEW.

Further to this, I did not see any reference to SEMPO in this section. The Search Engine Marketing Professionals Organization might be a useful addition to the resource list as well. Again, as full disclosure, I'm a SEMPO member, and Co-Chair for their In-House SEM Committee. Not sure if SEMPO was mentioned and maybe I missed it, though. Thanks for the efforts folks.

Non Standard External Links Section

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)

Search engines' guidelines
SEO professionals' point of view (WP:NPOV)
  • HighRankings Forum - A very active forum for experienced SEOs and those new to the field.
  • Matt Cutts Blog - Matt Cutts is a Senior Engineer from Google who communicates with the SEO/SEM community. His blog represents personal views, not those of Google.
  • SearchEngineWatch.com - Search Engine News and Forums. Organizer of SES (Search Engine Strategies) Conferences.
  • Threadwatch - Open Internet Marketing Community - News, Alerts and Articles.
  • Webmasterworld.com - Includes an active search engine optimization forum.

I've restored the "Search engines' guidelines" subsection because the current controversy seem to be surrounding "SEO professionals" only. Anyway, the former section are official sites and can be referred to as primary sources of information. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved these references to the references section, and added inline citations. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
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)

The inline citations are much better now. 'Good job' to the editors concerned. -- — Moondyne 13:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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 [5]. 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)

{ { Spamming } } template

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)

Read the article. It discusses how some SEO techniques are considered spamming. The template should remain. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Template:Spamming --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Search_engine_optimization/Archive_4&oldid=1137177964"