One aspect was "reorganizing the navigational links on your site (as necessary) so that each page is linked to every other page on your site (which is important because the search engine spiders need to be able to 'crawl' throughout the different pages of your site in order to index them properly)." Which tells me that way back in 2000 I already realized the importance of site architecture when it came to SEO. That was somewhat surprising to me, because it seems that many SEOs still haven't figured that aspect out today!

Without question, site architecture remains important today, but unless you're dealing with a very small site, I doubt many would advise to make sure "each page is linked to every other page" anymore.

I doubt many would advise to make sure "each page is linked to every other page" anymore.

Hi Jill - your story rings bells with me. Though I was practicing SEO 96 to 99 [Oh yes, those days when different SEs recognized keywords in upper and lower case, singular and plural] by 2000 I had switched to training/teaching.

I find that most of the content and slides etc I used then are still relevant now. My key issues have always been (1) spend time on the textual content, the SE will always try to serve up relevant pages to what the searcher is looking for, and (2) get the keyword[s] right - pretty pointless putting them anywhere on content or code if its not what the punters are typing into search boxes. Of course, link popularity has grown in importance more recently, but it was always an issue.

Other things come and go [meta tags etc] but tend to be fashionable or even trendy.

Final point on directories. The ones you mention have lost their appeal/importance - but I still endorse looking for and joining others [eg hotel registering on local tourism directory or small business on local Chamber of Commerce] - not only are they another in-bound link, but they do generate direct traffic as well.