News Source: http://www.themadhat.com
Published: Dec 16, 2007 - 05:10 am
Story Found By: jonhenshaw 1521 Days ago
Category: Link Building
13 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.themadhat.com
Published: Dec 16, 2007 - 05:10 am
Story Found By: jonhenshaw 1521 Days ago
Category: Link Building
13 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX West - Feb. 28 - Mar. 1, 2012
- SMX Munich - Mar. 27-28, 2012
- SMX Toronto - Apr. 25-26, 2012
- SMX Sydney - May 1-2, 2012
- SMX London - May 15-16, 2012
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Aug. 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Sept. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 2012
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Marketing Day: February 10, 2012
- Report: iPhone, iPad Now Drive More Web Traffic Than Mac OS
- Drawing Out Your Affiliate Program Marketing Plan
- Is Yahoo About To Make Another Big Mistake — With Its Display Ad Business?
- Google Analytics For The Enterprise: Perception & Reality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- The Inside Scoop on Automating and Optimizing Your PPC Campaigns - February 21, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Google’s Recent Domain Registrations: Labs, Screenwise & AdWords
- Google AdWords Gets Shared Lists To Eliminate Duplicate Data Entry
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, February 10, 2012
- Now, Mitt Romney Has A Santorum-Like Bing & Google Problem
- Search In Pics: Google Sugar Cube, Yahoo Valentines & Chrome M&M’s
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
I think the Mad Hatter has never actually had to do true "link building." If he had, he would know that there are many different factors that go into link building and that Eric’s responses are very accurate. I think the Mad Hatter needs a nap. He’s a little cranky. :)
When I read the Link Factors study, I had very similar thoughts.Eric Ward is probably a great link builder who knows his trade inside out, but when all his answers are "perhaps"-es and "depends"-es, and he constantly hedges his opinion so that in the end he says basically nothing, it’s just annoying.If he really doesn’t want to commit himself to anything, why quote him? We all know SEO is not a clear-cut business. But repeatedly hiding behind this fact is a kind of cowardice.
Interesting and Agreed. If a public/respected consultant doesn’t want to or can’t give general advice I respect that but prefer they’d opt out of the poll/blog/etc.
A little cranky? Possible. I think Eric and Matt Cutts should get together and have a converstaion. They could talk and talk and say absolutely nothing for hours on end.True link building? As opposed to false link building or link spamming? I guess I’m not the "Link Moses" if that’s what you mean ;) but I might know a little...
Man this is TOTAL ’controversy bait’ and Aaron can’t help himself. I mentioned on the original post here on Sphinn that I noticed a great many factors missing. So it is merely an average on some opinions of wise men. Not a definitive outlook by any means....I say huzzzaaahhh to both. Wiep and co for the effort and for starting the dialogue, and to the Hatter for looking at it from another angle. They will likely succeed together in making our understaning on the matter deeper....hehe... feeling profound this evening....
This is pure linkbait. No sphinn from me.
@jillEric may be exactly right and you may be exactly right. But even in an industry where everything "depends" and "there are no specific rules", factor lists and similar BS can entertain and out of dozens of answers given by participants some may actually make you think. That’s the value in such "list of factor things".Then we have a guru, whose answers neither entertain nor make anyone think. Because those answers are hollow in their infinite wisdom.That’s the problem here, not whether Eric Ward is an expert / is right or not. (On a related note, this is also an industry where people receive religious adulation for the fact that they have been toying around SEO since the mid-nineties.) @bwelfordRecent comments get listed in the right-hand column so just by commenting "pure linkbait, no sphinn" you add your bit to keeping that bait alive.
If you look at the SEO blogosphere, there are very few sites which offer any real information. And where it is offered, it’s breadcrumbs for the masses, not shared competitive advantage IMO.
@sza - exactly the point I was trying to make.Like I mentioned, every answer could have been "it depends on if the source site is indexed" but does that really contribute anything? I think it’s okay to make some assumptions in cases like this.@Everyone elseLike I said, just my opinion. Agree or don’t but it is what it is.
I agree he could have been more detailed. However many of those questions can’t be answered in yes/no black/white fashion- and it would take a paragraph or two to illustrate that it really does depend on the circumstance. That’s a lot of paragraphs considering the quantity of questions and the time that would involve to fully illustrate each answer. I don’t fault Eric for keeping the answers brief. For instance, answer #4: 4. Number of links: "It will depend on quality of the source sites."Eric is absolutely right, imo. In my personal experience I don’t need that many links from high quality sites in order to positively affect ranking for a client. The detail that trips people up is in the definition of quality. To rank well with lower quality links takes a more quantity, in my experience. In my opinion, Eric’s answer is correct. Could he have been more detailed? Absolutely. But there were a lot of questions and I think one should give the participants a break if they didn’t write an e-book’s worth of content to answer all of them.
Yes, I agree with the statement that the higher quality links means fewer are required. I also agree none of those questions could be answered in a yes/no fashion. However, for instance on number 4: "Assuming the site is a fairly trusted site, the number of links is less important. Assuming the sites are lower quality then more are needed". That’s not an e-book. It is still fairly vauge, but it has more sustenance that no answer at all. The majority if not all of those questions could have been answered, and were answered by everyone else in that fashion. For instance from Ralph: "There seems to be some indication that links are being treated as potential singularities by the search engines. I.e. if site A points hundreds or thousands of links to site B, the individual links’ value may be demoted. That’s why we wouldn’t recommend going for site wide links though some exceptions apply, e.g. blogrolls." Aaron Wall: "Sitewide would of course pass more PageRank and help you get crawled deeper." Peter van der Graaf: "This factor is increasing in value, because it could indicate link buying and other Google spamming factors." I realize these are all opinions and all are dependent on a multitude of things, but to me these answers were more informed and I could put those statements in context of my experience on the issue.
Linking tip #89: criticize and belittle one of the top professionals in an industry and relax while the incoming link controversy boosts your site.
In defense of Eric (not that he needs it from me), I’d like to point out that there’s a potential misunderstanding at work here: "Truthful responses" to Wiep’s questionnaire doesn’t necessarily imply "helpful answers" let alone "link building tips".Yes, Eric’s responses may seem to be vague to the point of uselessness - but are they in any meaning of the word "wrong"? Not to me. True, I’d have loved to get some more hands-on tips from him, too. But criticize his way of responding to a set of questions worded in a way I didn’t always agree with myself, I cannot.In Asian martial arts, it’s quite common to hear the master advise his or her students in words like: "Always fight in a manner that will ensure your victory." Is this wrong? No. Is it helpful? Yes, provided you’re part and parcel of that specific master’s teaching system. And, more importantly, how advanced you are. Whereas the beginner will typically call for specific, actionable how-to tips and guidance, advanced martial artists will be able to further develop their skills from just such advice considered "vague" or "fuzzy" or even "useless" by the tyro.All campaigns are different, true. Yet, link building factors are anything but arbitrary. What might have been more helpful on Eric’s part perhaps is give some practical examples including his manifest reasoning, as in "this strategy may work for this type of site provided etc. etc., whereas that type of site may find it detrimental if etc. etc. and because etc. etc." However, that wasn’t really the kind of response this survey particularly encouraged.Also, as Michael Martinez points out on MadHat’s blog, the selection and wording of the questions proper could easily be criticized in its own right - no mechanism for this type of feedback was implemented, however.