mike.tekula
from mike.tekula 945 Days ago#
I think Tamar is being generous in calling this "strike two." This kind of behavior should result in the accounts being disabled forthwith. We don’t need this kind of spam on Sphinn.
from mike.tekula 945 Days ago#
Desphunn in the spirit of Rae’s intent with this post.
from mike.tekula 945 Days ago#
I agree with the other disphinners. This should not be on the front page of Sphinn. This is more or less a worthless promotion. Desphunn.
from mike.tekula 1161 Days ago#
Google would need to calculate bounce rate in the algorithm on a query-to-page basis. Up until very recently Matt Inman’s SEOmoz profile page ranked close to #1 for "oatmeal" (it’s on page 2 now). I’m sure every user who was actually looking for information on oatmeal the food bounced right off that SEOmoz page. That page, for that query, probably is not relevant for the majority of users. That doesn’t suggest the page or site lacks relevance or value otherwise.For the "long tail" of search, I don’t see it to be in Google’s interests of resource conservation to calculate bounce rate. I’d be surprised if they weren’t already incorporating it, but I’d expect it to be for a percentage of most-used queries - both because of the availability of statistically significant data and for resource efficiency.
from mike.tekula 1175 Days ago#
I was waiting for the "what is Google’s goal" question - and dissatisfied with the answer, as I could have expected."Empowering users" sounds nice, but I really don’t see how SearchWiki improves the user experience. I want to know how Google sees it fitting into building more profit for the company. I’d be surprised if it increased market share at this point - so what’s the real reason?
from mike.tekula 1255 Days ago#
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve worked for several small agencies who made this mistake. It just saps your motivation as an employee when you realize that management not only isn’t interested in helping you get your name out there - but they’re actually <i>opposed</i> to it.Andy Beal made a nice mention of this in his post from a while back at Marketing Pilgrim titled Top 10 Business Mistakes Search Marketing Firms Make. Namely, his last point, "10. They’re Scared of Losing Their Top Talent." I can definitely vouch for that being a major mistake. It was a big part of why I left two jobs.
from mike.tekula 1285 Days ago#
I think Rand’s point in this post was to argue FOR linking out to other sites...I thought that was obvious in his two supporting points for not linking out versus nine points for linking out, the former being thin at best, the latter well argued and with supporting citations. In other words, I don’t think he was trying to really give "reasons for and reasons against." He’s making an argument by showing heavy support on one side versus very little on the other - in order to drive in that "final nail," as it were.
from mike.tekula 1319 Days ago#
I think quite often what people call "SEO Copywriting" IS keyword stuffing. These terms have no objective definitions, so it’s an impossible argument to have, rationally speaking. The case I’m trying to make is that there is a point of diminishing returns at which it makes more sense to focus on publishing high-quality content geared for users than it does to find a few more places to work your keywords in.
from mike.tekula 1319 Days ago#
I don’t think we should ever be writing copy to "strategically place keywords" in body text. So much of SEO occurs off-site, primarily in the form of inbound links. Unless you’re writing some stellar content, you’re not going to get the strong, editorial links that hold real value. All the keywords stuffed into every corner of your page aren’t going to squat if nobody actually likes your site and content. In my opinion: write for users, not for engines. Educate yourself on the keywords beforehand, but if you’re spending hours trying to find places to stuff keywords into your copy you’re not only wasting time, you’re muddying up what otherwise might be compelling reading. Write well - and build links. Many will come on their own. Links are the reason SEOmoz.org has the power to rank Matt Inman’s profile on Google page one for the word "Oatmeal." Not because he went around stuffing "Oatmeal" into every corner of the page he could.
from mike.tekula 1332 Days ago#
Kudos, Nick. This is spam in the worst sense of the word. Shameful.
from mike.tekula 1349 Days ago#
Quick fingers, planetc1. Beat me by one minute on this one.Great article as usual from Adam. His last few blog posts have read like chapters in a book on Internet Marketing that would be a "must buy" for anyone interested in the topic.
from mike.tekula 1350 Days ago#
I’d like to think this is the case, but I’m afraid the root causes of our economic instability as of late outweigh the possible positive impact of SEM. At some level the demand for just about every service is beginning to falter as consumers just have less in their pockets. Less money is being spent across the board - even the businesses that are doing a good job of marketing online are going to feel that. Smaller pie, smaller slice (even if it’s the BIG slice).SEM alone can’t save the economy...I think the best we’re going to do is save ourselves.
from mike.tekula 1371 Days ago#
These tools were not built for "social networking experts." They were built to be used by everyone interested, however we see fit individually, to satisfy our own needs/wants for social networking. Everyone decides their own level of involvement. If a user decides to be less active than some others that doesn’t mean that user "doesn’t get it" - it means they’ve decided it isn’t a top priority for them.
from mike.tekula 1374 Days ago#
I feel like everyone’s just sitting until someone comes along and says "SEO stinks!" again. Then we have responses springing up feverishly from all corners of the blogosphere. Meanwhile, the instigator enjoys all the fresh new links to his/her website. Here’s a thought: if we’re all so secure in our belief that SEO is, in fact, going nowhere, and that we’ve all got a great amount of job security based on the demand for our services, why do we feel the need to respond so passionately to claims that ought to be just baseless and laughable? Rather than play in to the chaos and help make a half-assed blog post into the center of attention, wouldn’t we do better to just ignore it and go on with our work/research? Arguing publicly for your own value doesn’t scream of self-confidence.
from mike.tekula 1375 Days ago#
I did sphinn this earlier in the week (http://sphinn.com/story/43882), but the title was subsequently changed to "The SEO Guide to Information Architecture." Adam was understandably trying to avoid throwing the oft-misused term "SEO" in there if it didn’t need to be, but alas, you can’t argue with the results of adding "SEO" to a title/heading; this submission went hot (mine didn’t).
from mike.tekula 1382 Days ago#
I printed this out as soon as I downloaded it. I’m going to hand it to the developer I work with this afternoon. Simply put: awesome resource.
from mike.tekula 1390 Days ago#
<div><font><font face="Arial" size="2">This all is very ridiculous to me. I’m sorry, but who cares what Calacanis says about SEO. Sure, it might not be a good idea to invite him to SMX if the audience dislikes his speaking - that’s just common sense for those who run the show. But why everyone is up in arms over his comments I just don’t know. In my opinion, this guy couldn’t matter less to me and my daily life. Sure, I know who he is, I know what he’s done. He’s not exactly the least successful guy I can think of. So he’s got some volatile things to say about SEO. I have worked at a few agencies, and honestly all I’ve seen is the worst in people selling SEO services. So he’s not way off base in bad-mouthing SEOs. There are a lot of dishonest people selling it out there. That’s why I appreciate those of us who do honest work for our clients and strive to get them results. Those of us who make money performing SEO on our own properties - well, your income should tell you just how full of crap this guy is, and his opnion shouldn’t matter.</font></font></div> <div><font><font face="Arial" size="2">Jason’s recommendation to focus on creating valuable content is right on the money. But is SEO just "spinning your wheels?" Absolutely not. I’ve seen technicial revisions at a site for SEO purposes increase organic traffic by 75% virtually overnight with not a single change to content. We all know SEO is valuable, crucial even, so why get angry because someone says otherwise? Seems to me we all should stop worrying about this and get back to work finding ways to create real value for our clients - and prove it to them. Or get back to building up our own properties and growing our income.</font></font></div>
from mike.tekula 1391 Days ago#
@DarkMatter, I definitely agree - it’s funny, I was just telling someone who was confused about what I do that "it’s not rocket science." I wouldn’t even say SEO is as complicated as an automotive engine. However, what clients really want when they hire an SEO firm is the technical knowledge along with advice - advice on where to put their limited resources to achieve the best ROI. With that in mind, holistic SEO is clearly not just about "optimizing pages" or "building links" but about serving as an extended marketing department for your client - you need, in other words, to make them more money through search engine traffic. You have to justify your existence with real, positive numbers. Otherwise, no matter how good a game you talk, they’ll end up chopping you off as dead wood.
from mike.tekula 1396 Days ago#
^ Same here, PocketSEO.I’m definitely not worried about Mr. Gamberts aspirations to trademark the term ’SEO.’ He’s taking advantage of the fact that those in control of the situation are under-informed. It’ll never stick, he’s wasting his time/money. If I were him I’d put my efforts to more fruitful pursuits, like building a website that isn’t entirely Flash-driven and tacky.
from mike.tekula 1407 Days ago#
This post follows almost to a T the section from Gladwell’s The Tipping Point covering this very topic. I think Gladwell does a fine job of offering this research/information and its utility.
from mike.tekula 1410 Days ago#
Hmm, in light of the fact that Matt Cutts himself linked to Danny’s open letter I feel I should temper my statement above. I would hope, though, that Google would have come to this decision on their own. The "trust us, we’re not cheating" bit wouldn’t have sat too well with anybody.
from mike.tekula 1410 Days ago#
@LanceLoveDay I’m certainly not one to discount Danny’s influence, but I think this was how Google was going to go from the very beginning. There wouldn’t be much of a defense on their part if they went forward offering SEM services through Performics. I think you’re right to say that the timing was significant. I would liken this to some degree to President Regan demanding that Gorbachev "tear down this wall" - when it was clear the Berlin Wall was coming down in short fashion. A well-timed statement, but the causality is something of an illusion. I will say that search marketers as a whole and their potential outcry probably influenced the decision, and Danny is arguably the most prominent member of the group...I just can’t imagine that his open letter by itself foiled any plans on Google’s part to start offering SEM services. This had to be the way they were going from the beginning.
from mike.tekula 1411 Days ago#
Danny’s original call was indeed correct. This is the right move on Google’s part - the only move, really, that they could have made. I have to think this was the plan from the beginning - it would have been naive of them to think the continued operation of Performics could go on without a ton of negative press. I can’t buy that Danny’s open letter was the cause of the decision as the post seems to imply, but his outcry at the onset of the DoubleClick decision was insightful and spot-on.
from mike.tekula 1411 Days ago#
I agree - Rand’s modesty is part of his charm, but this is definitely a valuable post. There’s a lot of discussion in the SEO community centered on how important it is to be spam free, informative and authoritative if you’re going to attract any decent links...but here we have a few examples of the explicit recommendation of these criteria on authoritative/trusted pages written for those who do the linking - people outside the sphere of SEO for the most part, perhaps even unaware of what "SEO" is. If nothing else it lends itself to the argument we need to make to some clients about the importance of building authoritative and informative pages before there’s any likelihood of gaining quality inbound links. Some of my clients have come to me saying, "well company XYZ said they’d get me 500 directory links for $350" (yes this still goes on). This is the perfect reference to point them to as a way of reminding them that rational human beings do the most powerful linking, and they’re not going to link to a website that is spammy or doesn’t offer remarkable content.
from mike.tekula 1412 Days ago#
Absurdly expensive? It can seem that way at first, but consider the math. There’s an estimated 300 million people living in the United States. If you pay each one $1 million for the next three years, that’s just under $1 billion. That saves Microsoft $39 billion compared to what it was going to spend on purchasing Yahoo.That is some seriously flawed math right there.Humbug to this April Fools thing. Humbug, I say.
Story: Strange SERPS for “bisexual” in Google.co.uk