Talk:Search engine optimization

Notable SEOs not acceptable

What is the justification for this language? Notable SEOs, such as Rand Fishkin, Barry Schwartz, Aaron Wall and Jill Whalen, have carried out controlled experiments to gauge the effects of different approaches to search engine optimization, and have published results through their online forums and blogs.

These people may be notable but they don't carry out "controlled experiments" and their opinions are hardly worth more mention than those of any of dozens of other SEOs in the field.Michael Martinez 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment at the bottom. It's customary to add new threads at the end, not the beginning. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no justification on including a section on notable seos if it excludes smart-traffic.co.uk who have been Googles no1 seo specialist for a very long time and will continue to be so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.120.44 (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That section has been removed; you are commenting on an old discussion. (Now there is an internal link to the category for notable individuals within the SEO industry, but that is a different matter.) The new section you added was pure site promotion. If the company is indeed notable, at some point somebody will presumably create an article about it. You should not do so yourself, and you should not add external links to the company. Thank you. --Bonadea (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spamdex / "Black hat" -- Isn't Spamdex a subset of Black hat?

My understanding of Spamdex, and the Wiki page on it, are very specifically define what it is, while Black hat as defined here includes Spamdexing. Subtitle should be Black hat only. Libertate 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this article to make it better. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to create a page for Jasmine Batra, she's leading the field of SEO here in Australia. She Founded Arrow Internet Marketing, I'm going to place a link to the page in Notable SEO's. She has made SEO more understandable and accessable to everyone. She's also done a heap of stuff on SEO as a way of allowing small businesses to compete with larger competitors. I might also make a page for Arrow Internet Marketing. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napper52 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on SEO

Hello, where would I link this article? The Rise Of The Linkmeisters: a look at the culture of SEO --Jjzeidner (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't, IMO. Seems a random blog post, and not fitting within WP:EL guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the conflict of interest since it is your own blog. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with ZimZalaBim, I don't see encyclopedic value of the article, and being written by you would be a conflict of interest. Not to mention the large amount of advertising on the webpage; I counted 5 seperate ad units. SDSandecki (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Template

I've made and added a template to help bring about the SEO related articles amongst themselves, and accordingly I've inserted it here, since it is clearly a far tidier and more presentable way of presenting these links. WilliamH (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization

Content from a deleted article, that may be useful here:

Web 3.0 Search engine optimization (SEO) is a process of improving the volume of traffic to a web site based on human input and “future web” standards.

Web 3.0 SEO will be based on standardized formats which specify concepts used in web sites and describe web sites’ structure and content. SEO formats will be used by web crawlers to get more accurate data.
Nowadays a few organizations have been already engaged in Web 3.0 search technology standards development process, such as W3C that defined Semantic web concepts with RDF/OWL specifications, OMFICA which developed Internet Content Description Language (ICDL) oriented to Web 3.0 SEO approaches.

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization - Nabla (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Better choice of Words

Please let us start to choose better words and sentences on the Internet.

For instance: "Search engine optimization"

This is a totally wrong use of words. It's trying to take a shortcut that only creates confusion. It leads to unnecessary search hits and search time.

Better use of words would be: "Optimization of Search Engines" and "Optimization for Search Engines"

Which both have a totally different meaning that should be clear and not be confused by our misuse of words.

So, we have to start to be more clear in the basic use of our language otherwise optimization either way will lead to nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also good to put some more efforts and unleash your inner keywords wizard by using WordNet, a lexical database for the English language at Princeton, http://wordnet.princeton.edu/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyGhost22 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Implicit in the phrase "search engine optimization" is the phrase, "of websites." Eg "The search engine optimization of websites is done by adding keywords, improving their navigation, and getting them links." Besides, it's a standard nowadays. - Gab Goldenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.252.21 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate(s) for addition to list of internal links

Please consider adding a link to the orphaned article Exploit Submission Wizard in a new list section "Automated search engine submission tools" (or whatever is appropriate) under the heading "See also". (I made the grammatical number nonspecific -- "Candidate(s)" -- because this one might not be the only one for this talk page section. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible link to orphaned article Authority site

Please consider adding a link to the orphaned article Authority site. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Major search engines

I see the list has grown, and now it includes MSN which surely isn't a search engine. I'd discourage any additions to this list as there's already a List of search engines page. What do other think? --Northernhenge (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed and condenses this into a more standard See Also section. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the quality of this article

I was just casually reading through this article to find out more about the topic. While I was reading, I noticed some issues that should not be present in a featured article. In rough order of decreasing severity:

• The section on the various "hats" of SEO needs work. The last three paragraphs were copied word-for-word from the source until I rewrote it, summarizing the passage. The prose in the whole section still has problems.
• I am also concerned about the source I mentioned above. Is "www.websitepublisher.net" a reliable source of sufficient quality for a featured article? Judging from the proliferation of sentence fragments and unclear wording in its article on white, gray, and black hats, I would be inclined to think that it is not.
• The article's prose overall, while acceptable, in my opinion does not meet the FA standard of prose being "engaging, even brilliant" in all areas of the article.
• Some areas of the article are rather sparse on internal links. I can see quite a few places where links would be helpful to the reader but are absent.

This article strikes me as closer to A-class or GA quality than featured. I am not at all familiar with SEO myself, so I suggest that someone more knowledgeable on this matter and more familiar with the article resolve these issues. Thanks, Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

reference 2 is a forum post, and there are other reference like 9, 11, and 25 which are blog posts. How is this a featured article? LightSpeed (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In the two weeks since I posted the above concerns, the only major improvement to the article has been the removal of much of the unreliably sourced content in the "hats" section. The prose and link issues remain. Also, LightSpeed pointed out some references that don't meet WP:RS that I had missed earlier. I'm nominating this article for featured article review, which will hopefully lead to these problems being fixed. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the contributors to this article's FA drive. I am currently involved in an action before the United States Patent and Trademark Office where this article has been cited as evidence by both the defendant and the plaintiff (me). To avoid real world conflicts of interest, I am not going to make any substantial edits to the article while this litigation is ongoing. I hope that other editors will step in and take care of the article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a good idea if you're in the middle of related legal issues. The featured article review will get the attention of the article's other editors, so there will probably be someone willing to work on it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found out at FAR that the sources are fine, and the internal links aren't a big issue. Since a FAR probably isn't needed anymore, I'll bring up the remaining issue here. I still see some prose issues in some areas. Here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:

• At the beginning of the "Webmasters and search engines" section, the first two sentences don't seem to read correctly to me. The way the first sentence is constructed strikes me as somewhat awkward, and the second sentence's wording seems slightly ambiguous or unclear.
• In the last paragraph in the "History" section, the first sentence is confusing. It states, To reduce the impact of link schemes, as of 2007, search engines consider a wide range of undisclosed factors for their ranking algorithms. Does this mean that search engines considered undisclosed factors only as of 2007, or that it is not known whether search engines used these factors before 2007? As I read it, it could mean either one.
• Under the "Legal precedents" section, the second paragraph doesn't explain what KinderStart.com's rationale was for a First Amendment lawsuit against Google; it only says that it was a First Amendment complaint. This paragraph also needs a source.

After reading through the article again, some of the prose problems I saw earlier don't seem to be much of an issue, but it'd be good if these here could be fixed. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed these details, as they do not affect the subject of my trademark dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

images

i see no reason to post these images
first image is only showing a search result page, not visualize anything in the articel, second is only a Google event shown and the third one is a image of a asian(chinese?) site and is acting like the first picture. First and last picture are fair-use btw. 87.78.112.120 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured article. One of the requirements expectations is that there should be images to illustrate the topic discussed. Removing images could be viewed as damaging the article, though I understand you might have a good faith belief that images are not needed. I suggest not removing them again. I have posted to WP:ANI to get attention from uninvolved editors. Let's see what some of them say. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #3. I believe these images are relevant, and their fair use status was checked when the article passed featured article candidacy. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All three of the images look relevant to my eye: search engine results pages from two different outfits, plus a photograph that illustrates the corporate power of the search engine industry leader. Mr. or Ms. IP, in the future if you object to illustrations please communicate better. The edit where you removed the material contained no summary of your reasons, so it looked like blanking vandalism. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to expect an explanation of why they look relevant (enough to pass the NFCC) to your eye, rather than just the plain statement. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the burden is upon the editor who wishes to change the status quo. This is a featured article; its content has been scrutinized extensively by a variety of editors. If you think the existing consensus is wrong, please make a better case for that and, ideally, propose better substitutes. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Very disappointed with this response. The burden is on the images to pass the NFCC; when this is questioned, we should expect arguments as to how they do, not handwaving and wikilawyering (forgive me, but that's what your attempt to shift the burden is. And if you wish to point me to where the image use is scrutinized extensively, i shall be happy to look.) 86.44.27.95 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles receive the most scrutiny of any pages at Wikipedia. I gather you're already aware of that since you're familiar enough with the site to use the term "wikilawyering". You are attempting to overrule consensus unilaterally, accusing people of impropriety instead of attempting to persuade them, and offering no replacements for the images you consider objectionable. When I first posted to this thread I supposed in good faith that you might have been too new to understand how and why to use edit summaries. Would you please explain how it is that you know site terminology this well, without having supposed that removing all images from a featured article with one edit was the kind of action that calls for an edit summary? I am attempting to determine whether this is a serious and potentially productive discussion; your actions thus far do not have the appearance of good faith. Durova^Charge! 07:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not the OP and have never edited the article. I thought that was obvious from our styles if nothing else. Second, I edit without an account, this does not bar me from any knowledge you are not barred from as an editor. My actions objectively have every appearance of good faith regardless of your determinations. "Comment on the content not the contributor" is a sound principle that we have both heard of, i'm sure. Third, pointing at a discussion which gives no indication image use has been considered does not suggest consensus on the issue, and it is strange to assert so strongly that it does, especially when two discussions are available that explicitly address the issue: this section here, and the ANI thread, suggest that consensus is overwhelmingly with the OP. Fourth, a better alternative is the article minus the two non-free images; i mean this quite sincerely and in several senses (article "better" as in more compliant with policy, and in my view just plain better without images that add nothing, but are on the contrary a distraction if anything). Lastly, making no argument whatsoever, not addressing my post below in any form whatsoever, and then asserting that i need to "make a better case" is a bizarre method of editing. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The google event image is cosmetic eye candy. As it's a free image and people like cosmetic eye candy, i don't see a problem with it. The two non-free images are unneeded. Rationale reason for the first:Educational presentation and critical commentary on search engine results and attempts to influence them. I defy anyone to present a reason why a screenshot of some results significantly increases a reader's understanding of this article. Rationale for the second: Identification and critical commentary in the Search engine optimization. The second is sheer bunk. The first is no justification for a lead image whatsoever; this placement is clearly a result of an irrational feeling that "there should be an image there". The sole sentence in the article body dealing with this is Google attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users, who liked its simple design. Any rationale based on this would be very weak; this is cited to a 2003 article: the 2007 screenshot is not relevant to it.

I'm puzzled that Jechoman has not acted on his beliefs by expending any energy on attempting to justify this image use in response to the edits made by the above IP. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SEO is about improving the quality of a site's appearance in the search results pages. It therefore makes sense to illustrate the article with various pictures of such pages. The article has been reviewed by numerous, experienced editors. One editor with unknown history cannot overrule that sort of consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 07:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are free pics of Google's campus and Israel and China offices on Commons in commons:Category:Google. Wouldn't one of those do just as well to replace the Argentina picture? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Argentina picture is CC licensed and was the one chosen to run with the article on Wikipedia's home page because even at 100px thumbnail size it is still recognizable. Looking at commons:Category:Google, nothing immediately jumps out as more descriptive, but perhaps that's a matter of personal preference. Which do you suggest? Jehochman ^Talk 10:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Might be best to forget I mentioned it. However, I'd say either one of the US campus pics or the China office would make the point that search engines are serious business. Launch shows are less persuasive than bricks and mortar. As for the Google screenshot, I don't see much alternative. Would anyone bother SEO'ing on Sciencenet? I suspect not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like commons:Image:Google Campus2.jpg, but it needs to have some of the brick cropped off the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 10:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SEO is about improving the quality of a site's appearance in the search results pages. Is it? The article does not indicate this. By "the quality of a site's appearance in the search results pages" do you mean the fact that it appears at all, and if so, how high up? I don't see the fact that search engines produce search results as in need of non-free illustration, do you? 86.44.27.95 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is a dispute about that wording, we can look up what the featured article reviewers said. I believe they addressed that. I think there may have been better wording there at some point in the past. Yes, the average reader may not fully understand what a search engine results page is, and an illustration could help them. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the image removals at all, but what is the huge importance of the second image of Google's grand opening at a location in South America? seicer | talk | contribs 13:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We needed something to run on the home page. This image is legible at 100px thumbnail size. I agree it could be replaced if a better image is found. It would be nice to have an image that shows the importance of Google. A suitable image of the Googleplex would be better, if one can be found. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How's this? Durova^Charge! 19:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure an image with the aspect ratio of this crop would do well on the main page, but it's large enough to crop in tighter. I need to get back to an FA drive of my own, so if someone provides info on the preferred thumbnail dimensions I'll see if I can find a recropping to fit the bill. There's enough material here to work with. Best, Durova^Charge! 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed several subsequent trainwrecks at AN/I, and I'm sorry these threads get archived before others can respond. Some input:

1. No, WP:WIAFA does not require an image, nor does WP:TFA; TFAs run without an image when no "appropriate" image is available.
2. Image policy is gradually becoming more clear on Wiki, and only recently has better scrutiny of images for compliance with policy become more rigorous at FAC. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches.
3. No, past FACs did not receive intense scrutiny for compliance with image policy: some received no scrutiny at all, because Image reviewers throughout Wiki are regularly abused of and give up. Because images in an older FA passed FAC does not make them immune to review per current standards.

I haven't looked at the images in question: I am only addressing the misinformation that was propogated (and archived) at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications. I think that the fair use rationales provided by me are acceptable, and unless the copyright holders express displeasure, we should keep the pictures in this article. An article without pictures is boring. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Elcobbola (talk · contribs) and Awadewit (talk · contribs) are good at image evaluation, in case you want to check in with them. I weighed in only because, once again, a thread at AN/I was archived away with incorrect info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, excuse me, but the image of a "typical search results" contains racial slurs about Barack Obama, right after the Wikipedia Link. Just wondering...why this is? And perhaps someone can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.56.31 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now and dropped the uploader a note; it's a complete accident. Kuru ^talk 01:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Link love

I was searching for "link love" and I expected to find a Wikipedia entry but there was none. I see that "Link love" redirects here but it doesn't show in Goggle. And this page has no "link love" in it. I think there should be a page for link love. 88.241.208.2 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GJG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.251.58 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: link love. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary? Unsourced neologism. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally source-able neologism. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Egad! Link love is an entire category on Search Engine Watch. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction on History

Please consider updating the earliest known reference to "search engine optimization" using this new documentation. The Usenet spam posting currently being used for documentation of the earliest reference to SEO is about 6 months later than this proof. thanks! Audette (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia needs to be pruned

I believe this sequence of edits has introduced trivia and violated WP:UNDUE. Could somebody with no business dealings with Mr. Gambert and Mr. Cimring please make a determination. The edits do look like they were made for the purpose of promotion, rather than to improve the article. (I am opposing Mr. Gambert's SEO trademark registration attempt.) Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SEO 2.0

I think the SEO 2.0 page should be merged here.

LinkBuilding Glossary Suggestion

This page should include link buiding glossary. as i was searching and the glossary wasnt found on wikipedia so i htpugh i suggest to add this thing to wikipedia. though there are many ones out but i foung this one to be the best. This one is updated glossary with more terms adding each day. It also has images to explain. Check it here and add it to linkbulding article on wikipedia. -

http://www.linkbuilderz.com/linkbuilding/linkbuilding-definitions-glossary.

Its not mine nor do I am begging you to add it. I just want to help other people who came to this article searching for this thing but foudn nothing. Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.19.18 (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest link to SEO encyclopedia article

I am not conversant with Wikipedia culture, so -- even though I realize one can edit freely -- I am tossing this out there to see if someone more sophisticated cares to add a link to this encyclopedia article, perhaps under External Links: http://www.hastingsresearch.com/net/09-SEO-ELIS-encyclopedia-article.html

ELIS is a production of Taylor & Francis publishers, and this edition was produced under the direction of UCLA's GSEIS (Graduate School of Education and Information Science) to encyclopedia standards: neutral; no unsupported hypotheses; citations of all theories which are not commonly accepted knowledge.

Since the hardcopy of the encyclopedia will be in the USD 2000 range, this may be the only open access version available.

http://industrialwebcenter.com/Articles/On-Page-Optimization--The-very-Heart-Of-Successful.aspx - This link also have menationed some simple techniques to start seo, which I think will be beneficial for new user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifersalerno (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

66.53.121.152 (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals

I propose a link to Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals (WP:O). -- Wavelength (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Other methods

Variety of other methods are employed to get a webpage indexed and shown up in the results. Few methods listed below:

• Cross linking between pages of the same website. Giving more links to main pages of the website, to increase PageRank used by search engines. Linking from other websites, including link farming and comment spam.
• Keyword rich text in the webpage and key phrases, so as to match all search queries. Adding relevant keywords to a web page meta tags, including keyword stuffing.
• Title and url optimisation for a page. Search engines give more weight to url and title match over page text match.
• URL normalization for webpages with multiple urls, using "canonical" meta tag.

Discussion

I removed this suggested addition because it needs copy editing and references for verification:

Each bullet point needs a reference, and I think this should be converted to prose, rather than a list. Additionally, we need to be careful that Wikipedia is not a "How-to" manual, but certainly this article should cover the basic methods of SEO. We also need to check that the above items are not redundant with content in the article already. Jehochman ^Talk 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs ref. Only sentences that are likely to be challenged need to be given ref. And this is not "how-to", but it is list of "commonly used methods". Boated idea s (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when we give wikilink to another article, refs can be found that page. I have added enough refs by now, you may ask for more refs using {{fact}} tag. Boated idea s (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But what if other page gets deleted? Then the references on the wikilinked pages go away. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In such case of deletion I will give external ref. Already i have added enough, now take a look, and place fact tag which you challenge. Regards, Boated idea s (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am challenging the new content (and removing it) because: (a) It lacks proper sources. We cannot cite http://www.netsol.com/ as a reliable source about SEO. (b) The new content is excessively detailed for this article. Perhaps a new article could be created Search engine optimization methods and linked from this one. My concern is that this article is a featured article and thus, we need to maintain high standards of sourcing and copy writing. Feel free to continue to refine your proposed content. I am open to including it once my concerns are addressed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree featured articles needs to be maintained for standards, but the article became featured in 2007. Especially modern topics go out of date very fast, and it is time to move on. Boated idea s (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article is indeed short, and definitely no need of creating separate article as suggested by Jehochman. Boated idea s (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

An article should be as long as it needs to be. If we are going to cover SEO methods, why not do a thorough job and cover all of them, both black hat and white hat? Such coverage, if complete, would be much more than one article could handle. Anyhow, I recommend keeping this article at featured article standards. Any new content can be developed at Talk:Search engine optimization/Draft in rough format, and then moved into the article once it has been polished. Thank you for offering new ideas and updates. I agree that the article should be updated. Jehochman ^Talk 04:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are forcing me to work hard and more? It is supposed to be voluntary "contributions" right? Why not we all do it together? You know if we keep content in talk page it wont be edited by community. And i feel article should give more emphasis on methods used than "irrelevant" black hat or white hat, either you are misguiding me or you dont know about the subject. Boated idea s (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimisation Techniques

Search Engine Optimisation tools / methods are constantly changing.

As the number of websites increase, it will become increasingly difficult to get your website onto the first page of the major search engines.

Say you have an e-commerce website offering a wide variety of gardening related goods. The site and category URL's are extremely important and should include wording that describes the range of products. In a gardening website, you may have categories for Garden Machinery, Garden Furniture, Garden Buildings etc.

The repeated 'Garden' term is useful to let the search engines understand the general nature of the site - however, this term is generic and unlikely to reach the first page on any search engine on it's own.

As you move away from the Home Page the relevence of any term decreases due to dilution amonst other terms and products.

One way to overcome this problem is to restrict the range of products on any website. Therefore instead of a multi range website like 'internetgardener' it will become increasingly more beneficial to have niche websites such as 'BuyGardenFurnitureOnline' that focus the majority of the text and images to 'Garden Furniture'. Follow that logic further down the line and you will end up with 'BuyCastAluminiumGardenFurnitureOnline' to focus text on a particular sector of the Garden Furniture market.

The route described above cannot be considered in isolation. As an example, major search engines will recognise similarities in sites from the same server. It will provide be little benefit if search engines take the combined relevance of all websites from one server and split this by the number of websites promoted - you could end up with the all inclusive 'internetgerdener' website being downgraded with only nominal increase in the relevance of the niche websites.

The website platform has a huge effect on the time taken for the major search engines to recognise and promote a site. Many sites use off the shelf source coded platforms that are adapted to suit each customer. This route is cheaper than commissioning a bespoke website. However, the main consideration has to be for a clean code structure that introduces the least number of obstructions to allow the maximum depth of search by the search engine crawlers.

Rb135 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

ك —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.41.61 (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"See Also" section: Acceptable Links and Additions

I saw a warning in the "See Also" section. It told me to come here to ask if a link is acceptable. So here it is: Search engine optimization methods Is that acceptable? Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, because it is already linked to in the "Methods" section. "See also" should be mostly for links not included inline in the text. Haakon (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"External Links" section: Suggested Addition of free SEO Book

I would like to offer my free SEO Book as a link resource: http://www.seo-book.info

The book is entirely free and I have nothing to gain from any increased traffic or visibility (for the last 3 years I have run a software company Darwin, and no longer provide SEO services).

The book is based on over a decade experience of working closely with clients and leading search search engines. Everything in the book is tried and tested, has examples, and is written in plain english. Turning the clock back, if I had wanted to learn about SEO and visited Wikipedia, I would have liked to have found such a resource - hence my motivation for giving something back to the community.

It is my proposal that a link to the book be listed in the External Links section at the bottom. Comments please.

regards,

M150565 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained to you before why this link is not acceptable. Still isn't, and your attempts to clumsily promote your other endeavor are not appreciated. Kuru (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" |_{- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3}
^{Superscript text} |}

<sup>_{Superscript text}Small Text


_{Superscript text}#REDIRECT Strike-through text[Strike-through text]--61.11.71.226 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[[Link title</sup>

---

Bold text^{#REDIRECT Superscript textSmall Text#REDIRECT Superscript text}

---

Strike-through text^{Superscript text}]]