News Source: http://www.searched-designed-developed.co.uk
Story Found By: welshy 1406 Days ago
Category: SEO
This one’s quite controversial and worth a read
43 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.searched-designed-developed.co.uk
Story Found By: welshy 1406 Days ago
Category: SEO
This one’s quite controversial and worth a read
43 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 Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Yahoo Shutters Livestand iPad “Living Magazine”
- Marketing Day: May 25, 2012
- Marketing Biz: Tracking Google’s Dune Strategy
- How Performance Marketing Is Influencing The Next Generation Of Internet Startups
- New Google+ Android App Adds Vivid Imagery & Additional Functionality
- - 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:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 25, 2012
- Search In Pics: SEO LEGO, Facebook Cooler & A Happy SEO
- Google Disapproved 134M Ads And Disabled More Than 800K AdWords Accounts In 2011
- Microsoft Integrates More Nokia “Infrastructure” (Traffic, Geocoding) Into Bing Maps
- What Trademark Search Data Can Reveal About User Behavior
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
-- deleted --
The truth hurts, so this won’t get many votes...<div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Problem is, is that without all that stuff this site couldn’t exist.</div>
g1smdSphunn :-)
Great points about writing with passion, writing about something that means something to you, and not just writing something because you have a deadline.
I agree with the post. Still, I don’t see Jill’s post as link bait (if anything, SEJ posts are playing by the numbers and succeeding). What Jill said really needs to be drilled into clients’ heads. There are new webmasters out there who:- refuses to write posts that link out to other bloggers, instead linking to places like cnn.com or Wikipedia.com that won’t link back.- refuses to express personal opinion or take a stand on a controversial issue, fearing that doing so will damage their brand; so instead they write boring, newsy posts that no one will want to link to.- refuses to target an audience of bloggers and instead tries to write "sales-pitch" posts to buyers, because they think the right strategy is writing SE optimized posts that rank high on Google and then convert that Google traffic into sales. That’s fine if you don’t want backlinks.- insists on linking constantly to themselves using keyword stuffed anchor text, using blog posts merely as another way to "build" links, destroying a blog’s credibility in the process- do not understand that its more rewarding to focus on increasing reach than to focus on pulling Google traffic and converting (how do you consistently rank on Google for decent keywords if no one is linking in?)I have a few splogs myself that have made me decent money. If you’re working the long tail and don’t need a whole lot of backlinks, splogs work. But without a solid link profile you’ll never get beyond more than 100 pages in Google’s main index.
The author of this article has completely missed the point. Sure, this person might understand that those types of blogs suck and didn’t need to be reminded.But unfortunately, there are zillions of others out there who see thousands of those sucky blogs and blindly assume that it’s what they’re supposed to do. And I know this for a fact because we get questions and comments that speak to this on the HR forum all the time.My goal in ALL of my articles is to constantly educate the general public who might be thinking of optimizing their websites to understand how to make their sites better for search engines and people. People are so confused due to so much bad information out there that it’s critical to constantly remind people of the right way to do things.I write about the bad things I see happening in the industry in the hope that it inspires others to do things that make their websites better rather than worse. Nothing pisses me off more than people thinking SEO is all about tricking search engines and creating boatloads of crap in the hope that some of it might stick.
There are opportunities in a place like Sphinn is to spur discussion, to help us grow, to introduce us to new ideas, maybe even to help us become better writers, more informed marketers and consumers.Jill, it’s sad to hear that you have people constantly asking if a splog might be helpful to their business, because I find it hard to believe that a person who wants to add a blog to their business site, or to create a personal site to share their thoughts about the world or their industry or their hobby would even consider creating a splog to do so. Or a set of autogenerated text pages that use in-context advertising, to attract search engines and clicks. It’s surprising that you are even being asked about those kinds of blogs from people who are working on making their websites better for search engines and people. I read this post earlier this morning - A big free clue for Google, and I have to agree with the author that "Like many bloggers I can spot a splog in less than 10 seconds."It upsets me to see the same thing, that people think SEO is about tricking search engines. People creating splogs may be using blogging tools, but they aren’t blogging. They are spamming. People throwing words in a blog post only to create fodder for in-context advertising also aren’t blogging. I think you identified a topic in your post that is worth exploring in a lot more depth and detail - in the third type of blog that you identified, about so many blogs being written by people who aren’t professional writers. It would have been great if you had provided more information to the writers of those blogs on how they could work to improve their writing skills, to help find ways to empower them. I’ve come across an incredible amount of fascinating blogs by people who don’t have polished writing skills, who may even be using their blogs to help them learn how to become better writers.I’ll confess that when I started reading your post, I cringed at the "sliced bread" cliche with which you started the post. In all honesty, the word that entered my mind on seeing that was "lazy," before I even got to the meat of the post. One of my favorite writings about writing is George Orwell’s article Politics and the English Language (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit ). A snippet from that article that I love is this one, which lists a nice set of rules about writing:Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.Never use a long word where a short one will do.If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.Never use the passive where you can use the active.Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Bill, I agree with much of what you wrote, however, I really wasn’t talking about "splogs" or the very obvious spammy blogs.Worse to me are those that attempt to pretend to be real blogs, and perhaps even do contain some good content.I must confess that my original article was blogs that KINDA suck, as opposed to TOTALLY suck, because some of them do have some value. But Chris Sherman and I discussed it and decided that the word totally was stronger and would spur more discussion.Looks like he was right! :D
I started to the read the post and then became sick to my stomach because it turned into a personal attack against a post written by an individual. It lost credibility after that. Would have been a nice topic otherwise. Desphunn.
Disagreement is often considerd a foreground to healthy debate if addressed with a sensical/professional response. Credibility should not be considered ’lost’ simply because the content contained ’free speech’ that is not supported by a reader, nor should content that contains such ’free speech’ be said to have no informative value, simply because we differ with an analogy used.**Jills comment, in essence, validated the original concept of the article in question, btw.
SpostareDuro, not really sure what free speech has to do with this article or any of the comments here. Could you please explain further?Are you saying that personal attacks are a form of free speech? Because if so, I don’t think that’s true. As I just mentioned in a different thread, free speech has nothing to do with private entities, only government ones as far as I know.Of course anyone is allowed to post personal attacks in their own blogs or anywhere else that the owners allow them, but I’m still confused as to what that has to do with this thread, the article I wrote, or the article in question here on Sphinn.
Jill, I agree that using "totally" in the title to the article is stronger, and it has spurred discussion, but it looks that choice was what inspired the post that is the topic of this Sphinn, a criticism of "linkbaiting." That’s not a bad thing, in that it has us talking about blogging, thinking about how a choice of a title might inspire more looks and links (the "linkbaiting" criticized in "Stop linkbaiting and stop imitating"), but may also provoke criticism like that found in the article.As Kimberly notes, disagreement can lead to healthy debate, and here it has us talking about the nature of blogging. I think that’s an opportunity to advance the topic of what you wrote originally within your post.There are kinds of blogs that totally suck, such as splogs, blogs that are so heavily covered with contextual ads that you can’t read the content of those pages, and blogs where the writers aren’t making any effort at all to hold an actual conversation with their readers, but are just throwing words on a page to attract search engines.But those blogs where authors actually are trying to be meaningful, that have some value, those are more interesting in many ways, and maybe instead of calling them out as blogs that "totally suck," to provoke discussion, I would love to see an article that focuses upon helping them become better.
Hey Bill, I’m sure I have some articles already out there that focus on them becoming better. Most of my High Rankings Advisor articles are in fact on topics such as that.When I write for Search Engine Land, however, it is to a different target audience than those of my newsletter. I believe that the SEL audience is more knowledgeable about SEO in general, or at least they think they are. Because of this, I purposely try to smack them around a bit to get them to really think about what they’re doing and their reasons for doing it. If some people don’t like that, they’re certainly welcome not to read my articles. Me thinks that many who don’t like that sort of article is because it may hit a little bit too close to home. But that’s okay, as long as it makes them think it’s all good. I’m not out to write articles that everyone agrees with. What’s the fun in that?
Are you saying that personal attacks are a form of free speech? Because if so, I don’t think that’s true. As I just mentioned in a different thread, free speech has nothing to do with private entities, only government ones as far as I know.When you put words out into the public, into the market place of ideas, chances are that you are going to have people respond, to raise their own voices and ideas, to even criticize yours, and the way that you expressed them. Freedom of speech goes beyond the ability to criticize government, and can include private entities within some limitations. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a thoughtful article about Freedom of Speech:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/A great resource for people who blog, on issues such as freedom of speech is the EFF legal guide for Bloggers, at:http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/I’d consider it recommended reading for anyone who blogs.Criticism can be something that we take personally, or it can be an opportunity to learn something new about ourselves, or about others; it can be an opportunity to discuss ideas; it can be an opportunity to draw attention to a topic that we care passionately about and that we want others to think about.When you write something that intentionally sets out to smack someone around, like you say you may sometimes do with your SEL posts, one reaction might be to not read what you write, but another might be to respond - that’s always a possibility, and one we should all probably keep in mind. That’s free speech, entering the marketplace of ideas, the democracy of individuals to respond to other individuals and voice their opinions.I’m writing here, in a thread about a post that uses your post as an example, not to attack you, or to defend anything that I’m doing (I agree with the ideas in your original post, but I also agree with the author of the post that is the subject of this sphinn), but to use this forum to discuss the ideas in both. It’s important and essential for fresh and new voices to be allowed to enter into an industry, and into the conversations of that industry, to help keep us fresh and thinking, and even challenging and questioning ourselves.
When you write something that intentionally sets out to smack someone around, like you say you may sometimes do with your SEL posts, one reaction might be to not read what you write, but another might be to respond - that’s always a possibility, and one we should all probably keep in mind. Yep, absolutely. That’s the whole point, and I certainly don’t have a problem with it!
There are no personal attacks in this attack bait post. I think the worst the blogger said is "veterans get lazy" which is just a generalization not a specific attack on Jill. Attacking someone else’s viewpoint isn’t a personal attack.I recently noticed someone desphunn a post, commenting that the author may have mental problems. There was also a recent post claiming a particular SEO’s "brain is cooked." That’s the kind of crap I’m tired of seeing on Sphinn. When someone does that they lose all credibility with me.
As someone who is really an outsider looking in (and staying that way since there is too much bullshit in SEO) I find that what people even in this thread don’t realize is that everything ’is’ as the group says it is regardless of the facts. There are people in this thread speaking of fairness in their posts and online reputations, but guess what? I’ll be specific and on topic Kimberly ( SpostareDuro) has an article on her site ( http://learningseobasics.com/archives/588) where she speaks of a friend. Her description was ’This weekend, a very close friend of mine was penalized and treated unfairly by someone he had considered to be a ‘friend’ - professionally and otherwise.’ That sounds familiar. Here’s my litle SU blog that is pretty free thinking, yet Kimberly is the only review out of like 40 that calls me some bad names and does everything that she says was done to her friend. Here is the page where she calls me a racist. http://www.stumbleupon.com/urlarchive/30/manthony007.stumbleupon.com/She is the only negative review that I have on SU and it happens to be because of not what I wrote, but what a member of my site earthfrisk submitted. It is an article that looks to be word for word from snopes and the words are a speech by the Australian Prime Minister. Let’s understand this then, Kimberly and others speak of fairness and internet personas and so on as well as having a bad rep, yet many of the people on this board do the same exact things. Whether with their own blogs or on other people’s blogs like Kimberly did to me, or with the various multiple personalities that everyone has. They bad mouth others for no reason and throw charges around then get a chorus to clap for them behind the scenes. If there is anyone here that thinks I am wrong in this, please enlighten me as to how I am a racist for this article by the Australian Prime Minister ( not even on my little SU blog) http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=77The link of the original article is in that article. It is from snopes. Anyone with feedback? To me it is just the same crap ( and I’m not picking on Kimberly) . She calls me a racist among other things and for what the Australian PM said on snopes!) Yet she and others complain about free speech and how others hurt reputations on the net. How the hell is anyone outside of SEO and Social Media supposed to take anything seriously when members here speak of fairness and online reputations, yet at the same time bad mouth others not even for what they say, but for what a politician has said. Why not talk badly about snopes.com then? Are they racist and what of ABC, NBC and CBS and most of the media that also told of this guys comments. Take all of this into account and still to this day I have stumbled Kimberly’s posts, have admired and commented on her poetry and so on. Hey if a ’net friend’ can do that to me, is there anyone here who actually thinks that others wont do the same to you? As for me, I might have a thick skin from many years as a stockbroker, but every now and then when I run across an article and post and comments like this and see the participants, it irks me, I think justifiably. I hope you guys agree if you even bother to read the article. Or better yet just go to snopes - here - http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp - read this and you tell me if snopes is racist. Since I didn’t write it and just allowed it to be posted in the artcile above, what am I missing then? Maybe I should stop supporting such people is all I can say. Should I judge Kimberly by how she has treated me, especially considering that it wasn’t even me? Whatever, it’s all BS to me and I just had to rant a little. I will dive back to being a lurker here now. Just note that people do read what is said on these boards.
Michael, the whole point of this free speech conversation is to show that we each have a right to our opinions. The article was bigoted, in my opinion, and it seems I am not the only one who thought so, as can be found in the review area http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.earthfrisk.com/blog/%253Fp%253D77BluePeriphery also wrote, "The only good thing about this is that shows Americans aren’t the only ones with bigoted, self-righteous idiots who don’t know their own history." In my opinion, you are responsible for your sites content, and you seem to agree with the blog post personally as can be seen in your "thumbs up" for the post in the review area (Stumbleupon) So, in essence, you were saying America needs a leader like the guy in Australia who wants to kick people out of the country for voicing their opinion and religious beliefs. I can’t/don’t agree with that. When I realized that you supported that mindset, I reviewed you accordingly.Also note: The posts claim to have been posted by "Admin"
"I find that what people even in this thread don’t realize is that everything ’is’ as the group says it is regardless of the facts."Just because it hasn’t been mentioned doesn’t mean we’re not aware of it - though you make a valid point (I haven’t had time to follow those links though; I have no idea whether Kimberly’s charges are unwarrented or not).What often happens here and elsewhere is people will take different positions depending on who is involved. If someone bad-mouths someone I don’t like I might say "who cares"; if someone bad-mouths a friend I might change my tune and say "personal attacks don’t belong on sphinn." Hypocritical? Absolutely. People who does that are the types that often puts politics first principles second. They will sometimes say things that will benefit them or their friends the most not what’s in their hearts. Those people can’t be trusted.
Halfdeck, "Mental problems"? Hey, I resemble that remark! :-)
lol
Regardless of what you think of the Prime Minister of Australia, the point is you didn’t call ABC, CBS, Snopes etc a racist, just me. That is wrong, no other way to look at it. And you called me a racist on my stumble blog that doesn’t even have the article’s contents. If you are worried about baseless attacks and online reputation, the last thing in the world I would do then is call CBS or me a racist for the comments of the Australian Prime Minister. Does this not make sense to you?
Yeah Bill it’s all lol when you look at it and think about it. The comment is like months old and I was in the mood for a rant. All success to the two of you though in your own little business venture, for the rest of your lives.
@Michael: After reading the article, I agree with Kimberly that the article is ridiculously closed-minded to say the least and that negative vibe rubs off on you since you voted it up. She also said: "he’s been blogging with bigotry and racist crap." In my book that’s not a personal attack.Your best counterattack would have been to explain exactly why you stumbled that article. Did you stumble it because you think people who don’t want to worship Jesus should leave Australia?
"Hey, I resemble that remark! :-)"Nah he wasn’t talking about you :D
The whole point of the crappy rant of mine is if anyone complains about online reputations and others saying ’unkind’ words then in fact is it not ridiculous to call the editor of a blog or a manager of a TV station a racist for showing what the man said? Is it? Also add to that making the comment on a personal blog that doesn;t show anythign even remotely related to anythign racist. Tomorrow or tonight if I see a report on CNN on some idiot in the KKK, would it be right for me to go to the personl blog of the editor at CNN for that night and call him a racist and anti-semite and so on, for merely reporting word for word? I really don’t see it and in light of the conversation, I would call that a bit out of line, wouldn’t you?
In the past few weeks, I’ve come to learn that my previous ways of stating my opinions needed to be revised Michael. We all make mistakes. I’ve made quite a few.I am not the type of person who cannot practice what I preach. I am the type of person that is more than willing to admit the necessity for change. Change is a focal point for me nowadays and I hope it remains to be so. It would be nice to see the same in certain others, but I am not God and cannot make that happen. The review was worded immaturely, I originally said, "I had originally liked Michael and his Stumbles. I take it back. He’s been blogging with bigotry and racial crap."Notice that I have changed your review (just now) to say, "I originally enjoyed Michael’s Stumbles and blog, but have since realized there are points of view I disagree with that may be harmful to others mindsets."I apologize for the original wording.
Michael, reporting news about KKK activity and promoting a backward-thinking idiology are two different animals. Anyway, there’s a line in 3:10 to Yuma: "every way of man is right in his own eyes." A great thing about social platforms like Sphinn is we get a chance to look at what we do from multiple perspectives and grow from that experience.
Hi Michael,The link to the post from Snopes is broken, though it works fine on your page. I’ll post it here again:http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.aspWhat bothers me about the post is that it appears to be an endorsement of the words of the former Prime Minister, by stating, that America (and Canada) needs a leader who has enough of a backbone to kick immigrants out of the country because they practice a different religion, and because they are voicing their opinions.The former Prime Minister has had more than a few charges leveled against him as being racist. Here are a few:Amnesty Internationalhttp://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA12/002/2000/en/dom-ASA120022000en.htmlUnited Nationshttp://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=290 New Zealand MP Hone Harawirahttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10450623The post simply states that it is written by the administrator of the site, and there’s nothing on the page that states who the author might be, if it is anyone other than the administrator.There’s nothing on the page in the way of a disclaimer that says that the posts are the opinions of their authors, and not upon the site itself. It really does appear to be an endorsement of the idea that Americans would be best served by a leader who would take that kind of action. :(The Snopes article doesn’t take a stance like that. I’m not sure about ABC - I did look around to see if they had positive things to say about his stance on Muslim immigrants, but couldn’t locate any.Take a look at your page from an objective stance, if you can, and ask yourself what others might think about the article and the way that it is presented.
ps., Micheal, the lol wasn’t directed at you, but at Kimberly’s post about "resembling that remark."
Thanks for the re-wording Kimberly. I appreciate it and have made plenty of mistakes of my own. We all live and learn. In terns of the whole online reputation thing and my rant, it reminds me of of a scene in Casablanca that I think you guys would like. You can apply it to lots of situations. Imagine SEO people talking about reputations and others who hurt the reputation of others. They are the Captain in this video. I bet a few get a laugh out of this. The best part is 39 seconds to 45 seconds. He says " I’m shocked that there is gambling here" then someone comes over to him " here are your winnings". Here’s the video at Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4SkusroThat’s SEO people getting upset about online reputation and how others speak ill of them. While at the same time they are doing worse or at least equal. I’m cool with you Kimberly, I’ve mellowed out over the years and like I said it was a rant.
Bill like i said it was reprinted in hundreds of articles and websites all over the world. If I read it at ABC I would never think of going to the personal blog of the editor and clalign him a racist for daring to print what a leader of a western nation has said. That is what I was gettign at. For anyone in SEO or social media to say anythign about others making remarks, and then at the same time appear to be doing far woirse and for no reason, it seems abi t odd and caused me to rant. It’s all just another nutty day on the internet.
LoL, on the video Michael. Uhem, even Stumbled. :-)Sometimes, a persons history (no matter how recent or ago) is less favorable than their present. It’s one thing to be a hypocrit and another to have made mistakes.
This is the most entertaining discussion I have ever seen on Sphinn.
OMG OMG ZOMG ZOMG this article is like so totally the most anmazing thing I have ever experienced. Let me bullet point this article for you:Someone, with a "name" (As oppossed to the horse I went through the desert on, apparently) writes an article.This is seen as not very good, because, actually, the article is so poorly structured, it doesn’t match the introduction’s point the later points, so I am gonna go ahead and say the reason is because the "name" is telling the author something she already knows. Good on her for being an expert - this Mindy whom I have heard so very much nothing about :)Mindy writes an article that, well, adds nothing to the conversation, is just a winge actually, and takes freakin’ a thousand words to say it. Is there a chase, and can you learn to cut to it puuuu-lease?Now, I am not an English major, and my niockname inh school was "super-thick mcthicky can’t get anything cause he’s a thick stupid head", but even I can occassionally smell what The Rock is cooking, and this reeks of.....IRONY! "Someone wasted my time, so now I am gonna pay it forward to the devillishly handsome man from Australia who is currently single and has two standards: female and breathing because, well, why is that again?" (BTW, the devililishly handsome man is me - in case you were wondering.) I mean please, did anyone find that article worthy of reading? And some of y’all VOTED for it?Really? What, were reddit AND digg AND Fark all simultaneously down today or somethiong? Or do you people that voted do nothing other than read SEO stuff 24/7/365? Cause honestly seriously folks, out of all the articles I have read, that would be in a VERY, VERYT, VERY low as a recommendation. I personally feel 15 IQ points lower for having bothered, and 10% less sexy as well.Having had my cranky sook as well, can I ask a favour? Can we all go back to being friends who like what we do and like talking about it and like helping people and like to share, not only our knowledge and passion, but the love as well?All this gossipping and carry on is like crap vinegar: it gets more repugnant as each day goes by, and leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.So I’ll go first: I love you people, I really do. So lets all sing this togther:"There’s no article you can write that can’t be wrote, nothing you sphinn that can’t be de-sphinn, Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be a better SEO in time, It’s easy...All you need is love (everybody now....) All you need is love (Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba) All you need is love, love, love is all you need"
Well said, Mike. All you need is love. :)
Buy the world a coke. I’m thirsty.<font face="verdana" size="2">Chorus: I’d like to teach the world to sing In perfect harmony I’d like to buy the world a Coke And keep it company That’s the real thing.</font>
Mike that’s one for ISOS for sure! :D
Wow, put up a post on Friday afternoon, come in Monday morning and it’s turned into a debate about free speech!This is a rather belated response, and I haven’t had time to read all the comments thoroughly but that post was not intended to be a personal attack on Jill. Her High Rankings newsletters were some of the first stuff on SEO I read when I got started.The point(s) that I was trying to make is that:1) There seems to be a lot of regurgitation on SEO blogs rather than real commentary/opinion/etc. It’s great to retread the basics if you’re blogging for your clients, but lately it seems that most of the stuff that comes through Sphinn is material I’ve seen again and again and again. I’m not sure why it gets to the front page of Sphinn again and again. Isn’t once enough? (Or even once a year?)2)That even sometimes the best sites are guilty of the same thing - just retreading stuff rather than really explaining it. Jill, that post would have been so much better if you’ve gone into detail of how those sorts of blogs are likely to *hurt* a site’s long-term SEO rather than just saying those sorts of blogs are crap. Lots of people use that stuff not because they think it’s good content, but because links are hard to come by, especially when Google’s telling us not to pay for links. In some industries building up those sorts of blog networks is the most cost and time-effective way to get a site ranking - especially because everyone else is doing it. While I appreciate your reader’s perspective that you don’t like finding those blogs, the article never actually says why they’re bad for SEO which leads me to wonder why it’s on an SEO site aimed at educating people about good SEO practices.I also have to admit though that what spurred me on was the comment at the end that you (mostly) only read top-tier blogs. All bloggers have to start somewhere, that’s generally at the bottom. You don’t get to be a top-tier blog without being around a while and producing reams of content - and getting people to read it. There are actually a lot of non-top tier blogs and smaller outfits - people who blog becuase they want to participate in the conversation rather than because they want to hit the conference circuit - whose opinions are well-written and worth reading and who may, in a few years, be those top-tier bloggers themselves.
Mindy, thanks for your explanation. I wish your original article was written in a similar fashion. Regarding your point that I mostly read top-tier blogs, that’s not it at all. What I was saying is that those top-tier blogs are top-tier for a reason -- they are good! They are written because the bloggers don’t have any agenda other than getting their opinions out, and they do so in such a way that is readable, enjoyable, not repetitive, and interesting.Those are the things that any blogger should strive to do. Unfortunately, so many people mistakenly believe that SEO is all about trickery and deception, and because of that they create their blogs in the same way (the first 2 types I mentioned). The 3rd type (poor writing) is more of a pet peeve and has to do with most of the writing I see online in general. While the Internet has provided a way for anyone to become a writer, the Internet has provided a way for anyone to become a writer. It’s a double-edged sword.That said, learning how to write well does take time. I have looked at some of my older writings online and cringed. Part of my goal with the article was to try to get people to review some of their own writing and try to be more critical of it. Learning how to self edit is an extremely important skill to have if you’re going to publish anything.
"1) There seems to be a lot of regurgitation on SEO blogs rather than real commentary/opinion/etc."Which, IRONICALLY, you choose to alos become guilty of. Bravo! Seriously, reread your article, and try to extract a new thought / idea / point."2)That even sometimes the best sites are guilty of the same thing - just retreading stuff rather than really explaining it."Jill’s article, whilst hardly a gold standard in terms of historical significance, was certainly extremely clear."Jill, that post would have been so much better..."No, it was perfect as it was. The only way it could have been better would have been if it was about a paragraph long: "If you aren’t interested in creating a valuable, long term addition to the Internet, don’t bother". "the article never actually seays why they’re bad for SEO"That’s kinda missing the point. "Bad" in what way? Is spoending 18 hours to get 10 clicks worth it? Something can be a waste of time not because it is "bad", but because it isn’t good enough. A business that makes $100 a week is not enough for me to live on, as an example.I think the articles issue was that it didn’t really have anything of substance to add, and chose a poor medium (piggybacking someone with a bigger name) to do so. I’m all for throwing stuff out there, but try to make it:1. Clear.2. Useful.3. Well structure and reasoned. If it doesn’t pass that test, don’t send it live!
What would have been an informative post turned into a personal attack on an individual.
this article is basically flaming Jill Whalen and what she wrote, come folks this stuff has got no place on sphinn