Mine are 14 and 12, the oldest has a Facebook page but not the youngest.  Neither seems to be too into social media sites or wanting to know more about SEO but they live and breathe for their iPhones.  The other day my youngest asked the guy in the Apple store if they made a water proof case, she "needed" one for the shower.  As I rolled my eyes he replied, with a total straight face, he didn't think so and finds propping the phone on top of the toilet at a slight angle does the trick for him.  ;)-

While neither of my kids are interested in SEO or making their own blogs, they are aware of my SEO friends and their kids.  Over the years I've brought them to shows, had people visit and live chat with many to the point we're as friendly with them as we are our neighborhood friends.  When they see me on Skype or Gtalk with one they'll ask how their children are or about them in general.  To this day they call Jill "the other Jill" since our neighbor has the same name and it's how we keep them apart.  :)

Thanks for the Sphinn Matt and the tweets you all :)

Check out the comments, they're the best part of the post!

@Michelle  Any SEO who feels sabotaging a client's site like that is "justified" or feels the client should "no longer benefit" from their work is a scumbag.  Hello... the client PAID for that work so it should be left alone.

We get clients all the time who've tanked/been removed from the serps as a result of paid links, networks, hidden text - etc and require reinclusion requests.  I've never named the previous SEO company and wouldn't, I can't be absolutely sure (for a fact) they were the ones who put the links there.  Sometimes, webmasters will say anything to get fresh links or a new linking service for their sites.

I don't believe in outing.  Period.  And I don't believe in using sites in blogs and slide presentations for the purpose of showing what "not to do" without permission.

My .02  :)

I find it ironic an article on usability has a BIG rotating ad in the beginning of the post and another smaller one after the main opening.  Those ads are distracting and don't fit with what's being shared.  I didn't read through the rest of the post after seeing them, didn't want to take the time to figure out what's a screen shot and what's an ad.  :( 

Bumped hot.

Good step by step guide outlining how you can set up and use Google analystics to track Google Instant

All three articles were pulled to make it easy to read this excellent series. 

I sent this one hot because he had me at: "That’s a lot to hang on the humble link, which — in today’s Flash-addled, widget-laden, real-time-streaming environment — seems more like an anchor of stability than a force for subversion"

Well said.

Here. let me make it easy for you Jordan :)

Jill can be bought with red wine and chocolate.

Me - rum & diet coke and wild flip flops

Matt S - will take Cardinal tickets 

Matt M - Seahawk tickets

Tamar - anything as long as it's kosher

Keri is partial to chocolate liqour drinks and Costco gift cards

Sebastian - anything crabby

Nick W - best to send gift cards to any baby store online

Todd -  Complete set of Marvin Gaye tunes

Glen - airline tickets

Michelle - see above ;)

Danny - a new Dell.  With 3 screens

Moved this to the front page, great content and infographic examples.  This from a girl who thinks they're (infographics) on their way out....  ;)

If I could Sphinn this article twice I would.

While I appreciate your interest, you can't reprint anything off Search Engine Land without their written consent.   What you can do however, is a paragraph intro with a link to the source.  I did it today on my blog the LinkSpiel.com if you want to look and do something similar.

Thanks for Sphinning this Donna. Seems  Donna followed one of the tips in the article...  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100621234056AAb05YP  :)

Rand, you wrote:

"I think it's great to do this kind of thing regularly over time. I'm saddened that you'd criticize us for such when, in fact, that's precisely what we've done (see prior work here - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/googles-algorithm-pretty-charts-math-stuff"

I'm not criticzing what you've written in the past Rand, I'm pointing out the fact you can't create a "study" over three days between two engines with m/billions of links using a handful of the 200 variables one of the engines professes to use to rank pages. You can use any correlation coefficient you want but the fact remains you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle to compare to make it factual.

I do not agree that only

"Non-brain-damaged web design and link building are 100% of SEO"

he left out two additional little factors (grin) BUT totally support his comments and am sphinning for what he said here:

That is not how science works. You can't discount data just because you feel like it.

Amen. You also can't present research as fact when it was done over the weekend. (At SMX where the study was presented, it was mentioned the research was done the weekend prior so the info was "fresh") Comparison studies need to be done over time and incorporate variables we don't have access to.  Besides, as search marketers, do we really need a "study" between Google and Bing?  What will I do with that info?  Seriously - who optimizes for Bing???

I think the percent is high and don't think they disappear but do agree links/link pop passed fades over time as the algo changes.

 Resonates with me :)  Sphunn for the onpage link analyzer tool, good one!

Sphunn because Terry wrote this and hopes he does more!  Come back to the five and dime Jimmy Dean Jimmy Dean!

I wonder if Bernays ever met and talked with David Ogilvy, can you image what that convo would have been like?  :)  Great article.

@Strongwordia  Thank you :)

Thanks for sphinning this Ethan. :)

Description in English, post not in English (Russian??)

Description in English, post not in English (Russian??)

Sphunn because I like Everett's hair.

The "Scott" mentioned in the article doing the last presentation is Scott Polk of Searchand Social.com  :)