Talk:Search engine optimization

My apologies for knockin out all the external links. There was some discussion in comments (and comments only) , without any signatures. Forgive me for not wanting to try and trace back *every single* line to see if it originates from an SEO or not.

If we feel there should be external links here anyway, please put them back, and motivate each addition here. Sorry to be so With Extreme prejudice about this, but I've been fwapping SEOs all day, and I'm losing my patience. :-P Kim Bruning 23:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The issue isn't who put them here, it's what they link to. Most of these links to informative, non-commercial sites. I think there were more than needed, but still... -- Jmabel 00:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right to a degree. Maybe I'm too paranoid. OTOH, see Nigritude_ultramarine. Kim Bruning 00:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure. But as the article discusses, there is ethical and unethical SEO. I agree that such a competition (further) encourages unethical SEO. However, at least one of the links you deleted was to Google's statement on what they consider unethical! -- Jmabel 00:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

*nod* Mainly because the list of links was growing too long, and no fast way to check if it had been tampered with. So the baby got thrown out with the bathwater (to quote a saying). I posted one possible solution to prevent this in future here. I'd be interested in hearing other ideas.

Incidentally one of the links you reinstated was actually an advertisement anyway. Kim Bruning 00:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The Ethical SEO paper you put back is probably borderline. In fact, almost everything to do with SEO is borderline. Ugh. I'll stop editing for now and cool down first. Kim Bruning 00:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Subtle Adverts 2 Title Change 3 Problem with the search engine 4 Ethics 5 SEO Glossary 6 Didn't we reach consensus against these? 7 Observation (worth including?) 8 External link 9 Who Invented the Term: SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION 10 SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION 11 Linkspam? 12 Ethics 13 AdSense 14 External Link Spam, Again

Subtle Adverts

Keep your eyes open, SEOs sometimes have websites which at first glance seem to be a reasonable tutorial or text, but in the end it turns out they're advertising anyway (after you've clicked through page after page after page). Kim Bruning 17:50, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Title Change

What's with the title change? "Search Engine Optimization" or "SEO" is almost universal usage, over 10,000,000 and 7,000,000 Google hits, respectively. "Searchability optimization" seems like a completely novel coinage, never used by anyone. -- Jmabel 06:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I asked Hfastedge the same question on their talk page, and am awaiting their answer. Kim Bruning 08:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I asked on Hfastedges' talk page, discussion copied to here:

Hmm, why did you move Search_engine_optimization -> Searchability optimization ? Kim Bruning 01:19, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Basic english. I strongly care that the term be corrected. the search engine itself is not being optimized. The pages that are being optimized. Hfastedge 02:40, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah right, well, if you'd be so kind as to explain that to the other folk(s) on Talk:Searchability_optimization, I'll copy your comment there and reply there also. :) Kim Bruning 09:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

---

It's nice that you're trying to correct basic english :-) Unfortunately these SEO folks seem to have coined a new term, and they're sticking with it. It might be wiser to use the actual term these folks are using in their adverts and so, else things get rather confusing. Kim Bruning 09:24, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia is supposed to follow common usage rather than invent new terms where common terms exist. It's not our job to be prescriptive grammarians. Please let's move this back. -- Jmabel 02:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to bite the bullet and move this back. -- Jmabel 23:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

---

A long standing link to a non commercial site was cut. admittedly it was initially part of a search engine optimisation competition, but that competition is now long over and the page in question is a perfect example of SEO in practise. I will restore the link, please explain why you feel it is out of place before deleting, thank you Serps 21:50 17 May 2004 (GMT)

Of all the nerve! Kim Bruning 22:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I cannot understand why this disturbs you so much. The topic of this wiki page is search engine optimization. It provides a little basic information on the subject but does not explain the tactics often used by SEO's,

The page I provided the link to, is an example of a web page that has been optimized for a set word. This is a practical example of search engine optimization. The page in question is a perfect example of search engine optimization and as such the link to it is not out of place here. You may not be interested in the subject of search engine optimization, but I can assure you thousands of people are, and may like to see an example. I have not restored the link, but would like to here your justification of why it should not be restored. Serps 19:20 18 May 2004 (GMT)

OF ALL THE NERVE! That page was link-pushing Nigritude Ultramarine, at the freaking top of the page even. And why haven't you been banned from wikipedia yet? Kim Bruning 18:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

"Link-pushing" as you describe it, is a tactic used in search engine optimization. As this wiki page is about that subject it is appropriate to provide an example of this. As I mentioned earlier the page in question is deliberately optimized for search engines, the fact you don't like it is irrelevant. The reason I am not banned from wikipedia, is because I can have sensible discussions without shouting or resorting to abuse. I write on-topic, and provide links that are on-topic. If you do not like discussing the topic of search engine optimization, why are you contributing to this page? Please feel free to email me, if you would prefer to carry on this discussion away from wikipedia. Serps 21:20 18 May 2004 (GMT)

A discussion on unethical behaviour is one thing. Actually contributing to that unethical behaviour is another.

Alright. While I quite frankly have quite grave doubts as to your sincerity, let's assume for the moment that you are indeed sincere.

If you'd like to present a demonstration page, how about creating a page with a fictional term that's not actually used in any serps-based competition past, present or future, and then linking to that?

Note that at no point in time should you link to sim64 on wikipedia, since that site is abusing google ranking at this point in time. I do not believe wikipedia should be contributing to that abuse.

Kim Bruning 22:27, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Problem with the search engine

I don't know it this is the right place to post this, but I have discovered a problem with the search engine when searching for "History of Greenland". The History_of_Greenland article doesn't show up, in fact I have to use Google to find the page, but it doesn't work either. The first hit is just the Greenland article, where I can access the History... article, but it's the error that's important.

--FePe 22:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll explain on his user talk page about search being turned off. -- Jmabel 01:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Ethics

The article currently says, "[V]irtually all SEO methods are considered to be unethical by a significant group of people." I think that is (1) vague and weaselly: "a significant group of people" and (2) probably wrong, in terms of any actually significant group of people. Certainly it is ethical to create a content-rich site and submit it to search engines, which is SEO recommendation number one, exactly what (for example) Wikipedia does, a very effective SEO strategy. One step down from that, I don't think any "significant" number of people think it is unethical to research what vocabulary people tend to use in searching for the topic(s) you are covering and try to stick to the wordings that are more normal, hence more likely to get your site found in actual searches.

Unless someone can make a case to the contrary, I would like to drop that phrase and replace it with discussion of the ethics (or otherwise) of particular SEO methods. -- Jmabel 23:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's been 3 days. No one has responded. I'm editing accordingly. -- Jmabel 02:57, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

The ethics section was pretty appalling, and obviously written by someone without any grasp of the SEO industry. I've since added what I hope is a more balanced middle grounds.

One of the "names" here may not like that there are anonymous people who contribute to the Wiklipedia - but tis done nonetheless.

The rest of the page is relatively reasonable, but could be improved upon. The paid placement section could probably go as this is not SEO but SEM (search engine marketing) territory, and has nothing to do with natural organic search, which is what SEO is focussed on.

I've also returned the external links - there is always a danger of abuse, especially on a page like this - but each of those sites should have some merit. If you think not, it would be great if you could formulate a list of what is considered reputable and disreputable sites on SEO - I have tried to simply list resource sites, though I know there are a number of others. Those listed are generally with merit, though of course subject to further editing.

NOTE: I've also removed the section on "Reconcillation", because it is absolute rubbish. Whoever wrote these original sections knew about as much on SEO as a Creationist knows about Evolution. (anon 14 April 2005)

SEO Glossary

Link to http://www.seo-glossary.com/ placed by User:82.92.150.45 , looks clean so far. We'd probably want to make a wikipedia 'list of SEO terms' sometime. Site looks like a good guide to start with. :-) Kim Bruning 15:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Didn't we reach consensus against these?

[On the basis of Kim's remark that follows, I've edited the following comment, to remove the link even from the talk page. Spaces inserted after "http://" to break the links -- Jmabel 22:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)] The following links were recently re-added to the article. I've moved them here, because I seem to remember we'd reached consensus a while back against including these. They are imaginably slightly useful, but they are not particularly encyclopedic, and they are commercial.

• [http:// www.seomasters.com/meta-tags-generator.php Meta Tags Generator]
• [http:// www.seomasters.com/meta-tag-analyzer/ Meta Tag Analyzer]

-- Jmabel 07:56, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

And thank you for adding an extra point to this persons' google rank, I'd wager.  :-/ . Kim Bruning 08:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Observation (worth including?)

It's now almost impossible to search for a review of any consumer product on Google without about 70% of the results being price comparison sites or sites selling the product in question; invariably actual reviews don't appear until the third or fourth page anyway. Worth figuring out a way of mentioning this consequence of careless SEO? Sockatume 12:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ideally by citing a published article (on the web or elsewhere) talking about this phenomenon. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:31, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'll get on it at some point then. Sockatume 23:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External link

I'm usually very skeptical on the addition of external links to this article by anonymous users, but I want to specifically request the retention of the recently added #1 Search Engine Optimisation Blog (http://www.clickgofind.com:8080/blogs/index.php?blog=3). I was very impressed with the content. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Who Invented the Term: SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION

SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION

Seems to be an unlikely term to have "taken off", and surpass:

* SEARCH ENGINE RANKING
* SEARCH ENGINE PLACEMENT
* SEARCH ENGINE POSITIONING

Initially, these terms were more popular; it is interesting that SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION became the chosen term, and also, SEO become the chosen term to describe BOTH the professionals and the profession.

---

Here are one of the earliest uses of the term:

[[1] (http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22search+engine+optimization%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=1997&filter=0)http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22search+engine+optimization%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=1997&filter=0]

---

--! ! 18:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Recently added "Example of SEO Tool" looks a bit like linkspam to me, although not a useless site. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

More "possible link spam". We seem to have disagreement over these. A statement of the case for and against each would be welcome:

1. http://www.organicseo.org: "Organic SEO Wiki" covering organic search engine optimization techniques.
2. http://toprank.blogspot.com" Daily SEO blog regarding search engine news, resources and tactics.
3. http://www.webmasterworld.com WebmasterWorld SEO forum and news.

Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

1. Non-notable wiki, not yet well maintained.
2. Blog. We don't link to those unless strong notability can be established.
3. forum, ditto as for blog

Kim Bruning 09:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• [WebmasterWorld.com (http://www.webmasterworld.com)] is a non-commercial and advertising free message board that covers many aspects of SEO and web development. The site also contains various articles and tools. It was also the first web site of it's kind in the world.

--83.108.14.136 12:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Taking a closer look at the site I noticed a ad in the top right corner, but that should not alone be a reason for not includign this resource. --83.108.14.136 12:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have strong feelings either way about this one. It looks like a good site; whether it's notable enough to deserve a link is arguable either way; in any event, though, why link from this article rather than from Search engine, it doesn't seem focused on SEO. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a message board, like you stated yourself. Unless it is particularly notable or canonical, there's no reason for us to link to it, that's what google is for. :-) Kim Bruning 00:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry for anon. post, but webmasterworld.com and searchengineforums.com were the two ORIGINAL SEO resources on the net. If you want to ignore them then that is fine, but a lot of the other forum stuff out there is "black hat". Would you prefer to point people to white or black hat sites? (6 June 2005)
      • If this anon poster is right about these being among the first of their kind, and given that neither is particularly egregious, that would seem to justify linking to them. Kim, I'd be interested in hearing from you before we act on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • As usual for wikipedia in general, if anon can provide references to prove it, we'll post it :-) Kim Bruning 18:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethics

The ethics section has been almost completely rewritten by someone who seems to feel that the only ethical question is whether an SEO firm gives their client value for money. There is no notion at all of public obligation to keep searches useful and not to mislead. I don't have time to engage this now, but I recommend that people look at this (and this same anons other edits) closely, see if there is anything worth keeping, and expect mostly to revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• And it's filling up with self-serving links as well. Can someone please take this on, I'm really too busy right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Will some people please weigh in on this matter? If no one replies, I am simply going to revert the ethics section. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Kim Bruning has now reverted all of this, pending discussion. Thank you, Kim. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

AdSense

Recently added: "Despite this, Google's 'AdSense' programs fuels much of the current search 'spam' on the web, creating an internal and external conflict that is still playing out." I don't follow this; perhaps more of an explanation of AdSense would make it clearer. I've left it as is, for now. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the added part. This is an opinion and should not be stated as a fact, atleast not without a noteworthy source.

--85.166.61.79 00:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Adsense allows a site to show adverts that google supplies to them. The site owner gets paid everytime a surfer clicks through one of the ads to the advertisers site. The problem is that many people now build keyword rich websites not to provide information, not to provide a product or service, but simply to rank well so that many people visit the page and then have to click the adverts to get to where they really wanted to get to. The real content sites, and the real product sites, get pushed down the SERPs by these "fake" sites. Everyone loses. These pages are hijacks on the information superhighway.

External Link Spam, Again

• I re-added the Understanding Search Engines (http://www.omninerd.com/articles/articles.php?aid=31) external link as it adheres to Wikipedia:External links (e.g., non-commercial, valuable information, not my private site). --uriah923 12:54, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

• • There is no reason why this site should be prefered over any other site on the subject and this site is not very noteworthy when it comes to SEO. I hope all agree that SEO related subjects are targeted by spammers and that we need to be very carefull about which sites to list afterall this is not a directory.

--85.166.22.1 22:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • This site complies to the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links. Under the "What should be linked to" section: "High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." Also, there is nothing that qualifies this link as 'spam' and you have not given any legitimate reason to remove it. The link should be included until you do so. --uriah923 14:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• • • • I would suggest that external links should not be added without some discussion beforehand, at least for articles like this frequently targeted by spammers. Also, your persistence in trying to add this link is a bit suspicious, and suggests that it is spam, or that you have some personal interest in the site. tregoweth 22:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Agree entirely with Tregoweth's suggestion, and not just because of the recent sprees of spam linking to omninerd. --W(t) 22:16, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• • • • • OK, let's discuss it. My justification: As I said, the site meets the Wikipedia:External links guidelines that specifically say this kind of page should be posted ("High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article"). What is your rebuttal? --uriah923 16:04, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• • • • • • The guidelines says:

1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.

2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.

3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.

4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.

5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

The omninerd article doesn't fit in any of the above categories. If the external link you are advocating is added then there is no reason to add links to the large number of similar articles. The article is even about search engine optimization

• • • • • • • The omninerd article fits perfectly into category 5. As for your other comments, I think you need to correct some typos. --uriah923 12:27, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • The article is not about SEO, so it would not fit as a reference for this article.

--85.166.8.211 14:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Did you even read the article? From the article's header: "Describes how web content can be optimized to increase its visibility on the Internet." This is backed up by the content of the article. Now, compare this to the SEO definition on this site: "Search engine optimization (SEO) is a set of methodologies aimed at improving the visibility of a website in search engine listings." The article is obviously about SEO. Protest #2 shot down. Any more? --uriah923 13:00, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)