Talk:Search engine optimization

Archives

Archive 1 , Archive 2 , Archive 3

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 ^T_C (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)

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)

Possible Addition to External links

Link Building Resources

• linkMarket.net - Directory of Sites willing to trade links.
• google.com/trends - Google Trends - Use Google Trends to choose your anchor text wisely.
• EzineArticles.com - Ezine Article Submission - Submit Your Best Articles For Massive Exposure.
• getyourcontent.com - Post Free Articles - Post your articles at Getyourcontent.com. Allows authors to post unique content with Adsense code.

Voting

I vote no. We're not creating a directory here. Those sites may indeed be very useful, but they aren't sources of info for the article, nor are they among the best available sources of info about SEO. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• No is my vote as well. Primarily because the sites are not about SEO, but are tools and methods employed for different SEO Techniques and Research. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• No for the same reasons as above. I'm not link-phobic, I've pressed for this article to contain more external links back when it had almost none, but these particular links are not worthy. -MichaelBluejay 09:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Link Suggestion for SEO

Shouldn't we include a more direct link to a page that contains the rules.

like: seo.rules.nl; so that they can choose their favorite format (http coming soon, RSS, Blog)?

I couldnt find these things easily on those big sites, especially the forum... I think this is more what people are looking for at wiki; fast, easy info ontopic. This page disrecommends spamming.

Koen

Koen, Wikipedia isn't a directory that facilitates search. It's a compilation of knowledge. We don't add links, we add content, then cite the most authoritative source so users can verify the information they find in Wikipedia. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

{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)

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)