Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 39
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: March 5, 2008 - 10:19 pm
Posted By: onreact 186 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.unitedworx.com)
Category: SEO
63 Comments
Went Hot: March 5, 2008 - 10:19 pm
Posted By: onreact 186 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.unitedworx.com)
Category: SEO
63 Comments
Comments
Very informartive list of SEO myths. From the page: "No one other than the search engines themselves can guarantee any ranking. Don't believe it. Trust their results for other clients and make your decision from actual client successes, not empty promises and guarantees."
This "TheTruth" dude creates myths too. At least this "truth" is extremely imprecise oversimplified to a degree that counts as new myth.
Btw.: The greatest SEO Myth: Google PageRank.
This is a short overview, list kind of article for newbies, I don't think it has to explain everthing in one sentence. Is this a reason to downvote this? Certainly not!
This isn't news or a guide... this is a sales pitch. That whole "article" is a "why you need to hire us to do your seo" script, written as if it were designed to function as some telemarketers rebuttals.
Yeah, I'm such a nitpicking egghead. I'll tell you how I really feel.
Spreading half-assed pseudo-SEO crap is not helpful, not even and especially not with noobs in the audience. There are so many ways to simplify things without putting plain false statements. Example:
SEO Myth: The more reciprocal links to other sites you have, the higher your Google page rank goes.
The Truth: The "I link to you and you link to me" method doesn't fly with Google anymore. The effect of most link exchanges gets nullyfied in Google's ranking algos, and might even attract the attention of linkspam filters.
That's a good answer, providing enough facts. No need to discuss PageRank and
unproven SEO theories without the necessary context. And that's exactly your point, Tad: "I don't think it has to explain everthing in one sentence". Less is more, sometimes. :)
Ok, I'm in a bad mood today so I've downranked the story just because of this crap. I didn't bother reading more. And why should I? I was disappointed, that's a good reason to downrank it. On any other day I would have just moved on, voting with a "close tab" click.
Couldn't resist to click the link again. Here's another pile of bullcrap from the page:
There's no such thing as an optimal keyword density (per engine).
I seriously do consider a DEsphinn campaign. ;)
A myth spread by SEO workers is that a # 1 ranking cannot be guaranteed. Why not? After all someone must be # 1 in any list of results representing skill, number of workhours and other linear resources.
Well... actually, no, it can't be. That one happens to be right.
@Sebastian Dearest! Wisdom is normally gained through years of "trial and error". Much of our lifetime can be wasted trying to learn through trial and error but sadly, this is the only way many people gain wisdom, and that only if they survive their "errors" ;) So, give noobs a try :)
I'm with Emanuel on this one. Any decent SEO can be No.1 for any phrase, given the appropriate budget and time. However the budget and time maybe completely out of the question for the client (i.e. I'll need a team of 6 working full time for the next 3 years with a budget of X to get you No.1. for 'Poker').
This is exactly why voting down sucks. I don't care for keyword density either but this doesn't matter here. It's not a post about details, it's a post about overall misunderstandings, so it's 98% right and you vote it down for the 2%. This stinks.
In this case the current # 1's relevance score most probably rises at a rate that is higher than the rate your can increase your client site's relevance score trying to catch up with him and overcome him. Conclusion: the budget of most clients cannot guarantee # 1 rankings. Mostly because they're asking for price quotes and choose the cheapest or because there often is absolutely no relation between the 'customized' price quote and the difficulty of the task.
On a side note, guys: This is not how social media work.
Subduing content that is very helpful for people new to SEO because it's not meant for SEO pros is just wrong. The reasons given are elitist and vague:
===Sebastian
The "truth" provided is extremely imprecise oversimplified to a degree that counts as new myth.
mphung
Not really Sphinn-caliber stuff. Article is amateurish and not entirely correct about a few things.
NickWilsdon
===Desphunn for mentioning KWD and some other questionable material.
Based on these you can desphinn any article on Sphinn as none of them is 100% accurate, especially as SEO opinions tend to differ.
Hey Tad, that's 20% crap, at least. I don't think desphinning such articles stinks. I think publishing crap stinks. ;)
I'm not desphinning you as the submitter, just the low quality of the story. I'm sure I've voted for a lot of crap too, just because I've skimmed posts or so. Shit happens. When you reread the story you'll agree.
Seb, you certainly never posted accidentally someones post with a small blunder in it (it's the only one), the Pagerank thing is debateable (but I won't debate with you as I don't care for PR), because you never submitted anything else besides your own stuff!
http://sphinn.com/user/page/1/history/Sebastian
So don't teach me about submitting "crap".
Tad, this article is NOT helpful for newbies, because it's inaccurate and contains plain wrong statements. That's not a question of how SM works, it's a question of editorial responsibility. It is, of course, also a great example of how to handle misleading stories that got submitted and sphunn by accident. What's "the right thing to do":
- Despinn it?
- Sphinn it for the entertainment?
- Sphinn it for the discussion?
- Comment / vote for comments but don't sphinn/desphinn?
- Vote with the feet, er ignore the submission and let it go hot even when you disagree?
- ...?
Tad, again, please don't take it personally. Actually, I've clicked through because I've expected a good article solely based on the fact that you've submitted it. Then I was disappointed, and expressed my opinion. What's wrong with that? I'm not trying to teach you anything. When you've calmed down and reread the article tomorrow you'll certainly unsphinn it. Sorry when I've offended you, getting you pissed was not my intention.
Hey Tad - like Sebastian says, I'm not voting you down - just the article.
The KWD paragraph was rubbish but other points in the article are also way off the mark:
SEO Myth: In-House SEO Is Cheaper.
The Truth = outsourcing your SEO saves you time and effort at a cost you can afford.
- there are plenty of people who will argue building an in-house SEO team is a longer term but more cost effective policy. Amazon for example. We do a lot of specialist outsourcing for people targeting Russia as it's hard for them to find those skills locally. There are different circumstances though for each company to make blanket statements like that. As Michael says, it reads like a sales pitch.
SEO Myth: Simply inserting keywords in the keyword meta tag will help list your site for that keyword
The Truth: Most major search engines do not spider or index the keyword meta tag
Well we know that META keywords are useless for Google but Yahoo! is still using them for misspellings. Useful if you want to capture this traffic without looking illiterate.
Plus the comments made by Sebastian - all in all - not great material sorry.@onreact - please tell me that you didn't just say that because Sebastian submits his own stories he is inherantly submitting crap...
mv: I told Seb not teach me a thing that he never does. Of course you are on the secure side if you will never submit anything beside your own stuff.
Nick: Here, again, is an debateable opinion. No reason do vote it down just because you disagree.
In house SEO only makes sense if you are big enough to pay a full time SEO employee or rather a whole SEO team, which most businesses aren't. You can't let it be done by a "web designer" or programmer among other things.
Seb: I reread it and I won't analyze each syllable. If you're bored, OK, but don't make me lose my time on such pedantic endevours. If you disagree, don't vote for it but for voting it down it must be downright wrong, which it is not.
SEOelitists and not so :) Can we just calm down and quietly bury this article? May it rest in peace :)))
Dude, none of what you are saying changes the fact that this is a sales pitch, not a resource.
@onreact
I can name you several small companies, especially in the more competitive areas such as adult, where they have one dedicated in-house SEO. This is the reason they can compete online. These people usually have a stake in the business and put in the sort of dedication and hours which make it work. Out sourcing in these circumstances would be prohibitively expensive and/or uneffective.
All I am saying here is that the point is debatable - depending on specific circumstances. The article here presented their conjecture as 'truth'. Maybe if they had titled the article, "10 SEO Opinions" - I would be more forgiving.
BTW Warning to all who are willing to write about SEO myths - hide your article from Sebastian - terrible, terrible, terrible elitist and perfectionist :)
Lora, that's unfair! :)
Tad, I can't agree: "If you disagree, don't vote for it but for voting it down it must be downright wrong, which it is not." IMO this piece is downright wrong. 2 out of 10 items totally and utterly crap, not to speak of the other imprecise statements, doesn't qualify it for a recommendation. Even 1 crappy paragraph out of 10 would qualify for a desphinn, because the article addresses noobs. When you recommend (sphinn) such a low quality piece by accident, then you must live with the unavoidable critique.
Sphinn is not a tool to please our egos, at least not in my opinion, and I don't understand/use it as a popularity contest. Hence downranking your submission is not a negative vote for you. I may be a more taking than giving user, but I think (hope) there's room for my user profile, or usage of Sphinn as an interested user, not professional voter. Thanks to you and others there's a lot of great stuff to read at Sphinn. I appreciate your efforts very much, but I don't sphinn or desphinn contributers, just stories. BTW that's the reason for my replies at all, I really can't understand why you're so angry, but I'd like to know.
Whether or not I was bored plays no role. When I dislike crap it's perfectly ok with the intent of the desphinn functionality when I vote it down. As I said above, usually I would have ignored the story, but today I was in the mood to desphinn it. And that's perfectly legit and in no way making you lose your time on such pedantic endevours. I mean you could have read the article beforehand. It's neither my fault that you've submitted it, nor that you've stolen a fair amount of my valuable time to comment on a crappy sales pitch. ;)
Peace
Get on with your work :)
More than 2 out of the 10 are wrong, imo.
1. SEO Myth: Your top ten search engine ranking can be guaranteed.
Why not? Why couldn't a company agree to give your money back if they didn't reach the top 10 of their guarantee?
2. SEO Myth: In-House SEO Is Cheaper.
It seems to me that one person focusing on one site could do some killer stuff if they were devoted to it. Could be definitely more cost effective than hiring an agency.
3. SEO Myth: Websites are optimized while they are being developed.
Well, they certainly should be. Had this myth said "most" websites are optimized when they are devleoped, I'd agree that it's a myth. But the way it's worded makes it sound like none are. And where did this stat come from: "As many as 60% of all sites are not properly optimized to rank high in the search engines"? If that's an actual stat, then please cite the source. If it's made up, then please, don't use a real number for goodness sake!
4. SEO Myth: Hidden links or text in a page can get your page ranked higher.
I see pages all the time that rank well which have hidden links or text. It is true that they run the risk of being penalized or banned, but to categorically say they won't get your page ranked higher is simply untrue. It may indeed, sadly enough.
5. SEO Myth: You don't need to update your site to keep your rankings.
You actually don't. I know many sites (ones I've optimized, in fact) that have not been touched in many, many years, and they have kept their rankings just fine. Better than ever, in fact.
6. SEO Myth: You can achieve higher rankings on a keyword without changing the code or content of the pages in your site.
Of course you can! It's not recommended, but it can be done and is being done by many companies around the world.
And fixing broken links on your site? How does that help your rankings? That one was really confusing.
Top 10 SEO Myths: the new World's Record for Desphunn?
It's good to see people using the desphinn in the manner for which it was intended.
this thread was the best thing i've read the sphinn for some time. thanx! =)
@ Jill - a # 1 ranking can be guaranteed in the strong sense (it will be achieved and maintained for most of the time), not only in the weak (money back) sense.
@Shaun :D
Should an article that has been desphunn like this one be appearing in the Top 10 What's New?
@Baiduyou
Yep the system still treats the article as having 17 votes, not 13 (doesn't count the DeSphinns). We saw the same thing when I did that test. It's not great, as the submitter will feel slammed for 3 days until the post dissapears (unless it goes hot, which is unlikely).
The drama continue here; http://sphinn.com/story/32495
Since I was called out for desphinning, I'd like to add my two cents: I desphunn because the post is not Sphinn-caliber. Even if there weren't legitimate criticisms about the accuracy of some of the items ... it just wasn't that good of an article. Sphinn is supposed to be the best of the best. Not good --> desphinn. Get over it.
Lots of interesting commentary. Perhaps we need an "unSphinn" option as I would probably retract my vote. I think this is also an example of how one can Sphinn an article based on the reputation of the submitter without spending enough time to read the finer points of the article. Most of the points I thought were reasonable, but I did ask myself why I was promoting someone who could be perceived as competition.
@oldschool - actually there is an unSphinn option already. Go to your profile page and then click the tab for your sphinns. You can then unsphinn from there.
Interesting bug. I sphunn it to test if it would go hot and it did. It only had 17 votes before I sphunn it. 21 and 9 negative ones. The counter moved to 21 and went hot.
Hamlet, just as an experiment, when you unsphinn (not desphinn) it now (hot with 22 sphinns + 9 desphinns) it should disappear from the front page. Would it? If so, then when you sphinn it again will it come back? Curious ...
@Seb - it's too late now, it went hot with 22 so 1 other person has sphunn it since then.
You could test this with the stories in the upcoming list - there are two there now at 21. The system seems to be ignoring the DeSphinn points so you'll probably get the same result?
Ah UnSphinn seems broken actually - just getting this:
Warning: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ' link_karma=1.00 WHERE link_id=32864' at line 1 in /var/www/html/sp/sphinn.com/libs/db.php
Desphinn is just a placebo! Ya Suckas!
That's sad news John, I so live off placebos ;) It's a shame we can't test it to compile a bug report that Michelle could find in her email before breakfast.
Wow, this went hot. I'm looking at those who Sphunn it, you mean you guys agree with everything on that page?
I'm looking at the last in the list,
"SEO Myth: You can achieve higher rankings on a keyword without changing the code or content of the pages in your site. "
Yes you can, by getting authority links. I see a few of my pals sphunn it, and I can only think they did it without reading the article. Guys, think about how it seems when you shinn rubbish like this.
I added the 10th desphinn and it dropped down to 22 from 23, if that helps in your bug report. So the 1/5th negative sphinn works while hot, they just need to make the -1/2 sphinn value while not hot do something other than just change the little black number in the gear looking thingy, maybe have it affect the actual count in the database?
Desphinn is a joke.
It's been an emasculated feature from its inception - 2:1 ratio for non-hot, 5:1 for hot items... come on.
And it's not even working in this ridiculous version, either.
Sphinn's current approach displays a complete disregard for people who come to social sites not for making a hundred "Awesome" remarks, but who actually read stuff and use their brains.
Unfortunately, they are second-class citizens compared to "play-it-nice-all-the-time" "let's-not-hurt-anybody's-feelings" sphinn-happy idiots.
Im a little bored of these "myths" they keep poppoing up all over the place with very little new information if any at all.
For me I got here via twitter, sphunn it, then read it, thought "oh hum", and carried on with my day rather than going back to unsphinn. I'm only back because of the conversation on twitter and wanted to see the comments.
It's not a good aticle, but it's not so bad to merrit all of this discussion.
Lyndon - no I don't aggree with everything on that page, can one ever read a SEO page and agree with everything on it? ;-) What i didn't agree with brought a wry smile and that was fine by me.
Good post, thanks for that.
"Websites are optimized while they are being developed."
You are right when you say that in most cases webmasters develope and than think about the optimization but in the ideal case optimization is done before/during the development. Onpage optimization can be a pain doing it after a website is developed.
"SEO Myth: You can achieve higher rankings on a keyword without changing the code or content of the pages in your site. "
Indeed, this is wrong. You can do this simply with links - any links - and not simply authority ones.
Also:
"This is not how social media work. Subduing content that is very helpful for people new to SEO because it's not meant for SEO pros is just wrong. The reasons given are elitist and vague: "
If it's wrong, it's not helpful. Fin.
Well, I'm half tempted to pull the article because of the sheer amount of desphinns and am wondering myself why they haven't pulled it down. It's harder, because the story did go hot, so it takes more desphinns to pull votes away. And don't forget -- a portion of a story's score to go hot is based on the comments. Disagree with the story or not, there's been some useful comments. Anyway, I think this is the first ever story to go hot with lots of desphinning, so at the very least, I'm viewing it as an interesting test case.
@Sebastian - I was hoping to unsphinn it if the test was successful as it did, but unfortunately it does not appear in my list of sphunn articles. I guess I uncovered another bug in the system.
I personally think there is a lot to learn from the ocnversation in the comments. The article is not front page material and unfortunatelly it will be syndicated without the critical comments. I apologize for my test.
@Danny - I think it is a good idea to pull the article.
Another bug. At 27 Sphinns and 13 Desphinns, my attempt to DeSphinn was unsuccessful despite going well over the 50 characters required.
This article is nonsense. Onreact - I have alot of respect for you and can't imagine why you would not only Sphinn this, but then go on to try and justify it as being Sphinn material. Why is it that some marketers simply insist on going down with their broken down old ship?
Desphinn doesn't work well because the ratios stop it from being effective.
After browsing around the site since desphinn has been released, I think it might be better to adjust the ratios to a 1:1 ratio for HOT and Upcoming articles.
I've only seen responsible use of the desphinn button so far and this would be a good step to take. After all desphinns are transparent so you'll easily know who's desphinning and why.
A 1:1 ratio would actually make the desphinn button effective, particularly in this scenario.
Sheesh! Lots of attention and comments about an SEO sales pitch. C'Mon guys, lets submit real articles from now on. Having been on both sides of an agency, these pitches are pretty transparent to anyone who's been around SEO a year or two - lets show some quality control. Hot? hardly!
+1 for removing this. It doesn't deserve a link and most people are not going to read all the comments. They will just assume (as above) that this is Sphinn quality.
Perhaps as a still small voice, I can repeat that it shouldn't be a battle to remove items from the hot list. If an item has 25 Sphinns and 35 Desphinns, then it's an item worth looking at just to understand and explore, if you wish, what the discussion was all about. If the Desphinn process had the same visibility as the Sphinn process with a single set of comments, then you would have the ideal information to see all that. So let the Sphinn button show the Sphinn score and immediately underneath the number of Desphinns.
Perhaps I should start a campaign for a Desphinn button not just a link. Would that make it a Hot Button issue?
@ Nick - Thanks, I tried to desphinn and got an SQL error.
@ Anthony No problem, I got the same error so it looks like another bug. I've sent the mods a note.
From http://sphinn.com/story/27933 "If the number of Sphinns for any story reaches -10, the story is removed"
Apparently that is wrong, unless if by "any" they actually meant "some" or "not hot"
What would be more helpful on the Desphinn feature is if it could simply act as a vote - at present, having to comment, makes no sense.
If someone wishes to comment, they can post a comment in the normal area.
And while Desphinns require a comment, all that creates is a second level of dialogue, without the normal dialogue features.
Please - just let desphinn act as a vote, and not require a comment.
two things:
1) is it me or is SPHINN as slow as molassas?
2) about this article...
well, everyone who notices my name probably knows that I am big fan of calling out all the phonies in our industry. The talking heads that TALK a lot about SEO, but spend little time SEOing.
This article is so bad an SEO talking head wouldn't even write it. While I know top 10 this and that is so enticing to you generic information junkies, this is just plain garbage.
More of the same - rationalized as "it's for newbies, not you experienced people"
egad.
Said it once, I'll say it again - people like this dude, and all the talking heads, are what make our industry look lame.
Responsible SEO is so very basic and you fools try to make it a major headline every day to rationalize your worth in technology. Unless you've got real techie skills, in my opinion, you have no worth in the technology industry.
SEO is simple logic.
SEO is usability
SEO is structure
SEO is content
SEO is links to that content as well as to other relevant and useful content
Secrets? yea, they exist, and there are dudes making a killing working the system - but that won't work for big companies and repuatable businesses. They just want a fair shot.
Chill with the useless top 10 lists - save 'em for your chance at the podium or at the roundtable when you want to feel important.
Real SEOs don't care.
Started a discussion thread for 1 to 1 ratios between Sphinn/DeSphinn to see what everyone thinks.
http://sphinn.com/story/33339