ppedersen
@SeoRabbit: I dedicated a paragraph to it in #1, but you’re right. That is definately important enough to be a seperate bullet. I wasn’t really trying to hit the article from that angle."As an SEOer, you should never stop studying these factors and testing different tactics on your own. And if you want to be really great at understanding these factors, you’ll need to become good at analysis and documentation. What changes did I make? What impact did those changes have? Were they good? Were they bad? Where else can I test them?"
Glad you read it. I know what you mean about the avatar, but I’m not gonna bit the hand that feeds me ;-)I know what you mean about that’s "something dev is responsible for." I’ve heard it myself. Of course you and I know that dev doesn’t care. They’ve got other things to worry about.
@g1smd - Just searched Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22As+a+marketing+strategy+for+increasing+a+site%27s+relevance%22815 results. Sad, yet funny.
I agree with justin’s two points.The way confrences are evolving (vendor showcases), I’m getting much better info in my RSS feed reader. You just have to know the right feeds to add ...there’s a lot of crap out there.I’ve been doing SEO since about 1996 and I also agree that one hour per day is excessive. If you’ve got the right sites in your RSS feed reader, one hour per week is plenty.
@scottclelandWhat? This is threat to publishers of timely articles and not to static informational sites like Wikipedia & about.com?? Static competes with static, dynamic competes with dynamic, and timely competes with timely. IMHO, you couldn’t be more wrong.Do you seriously think knol.google.com will be full of updated Knols reporting on todays plane crash or stock crash? I don’t think so. It will be full of static content like "How to backpack" or "Best Scenic Overlooks on the Blue Ridge Parkway"...Nice job on the shameless linkingbaiting using rediculous claims, however.
Story: Google ’Leaks’ Search Volume
@g1smd: Yes, you’re right. Quite forgetful of me. I have remedied this.
What did they say in Taladega Nights? "If your not first, you’re last!" I guess that’s me ;-)
Article Moved Here:http://www.dmnews.com/SEM-agency-vs-in-house-team-lets-get-the-facts-straight-folks/article/98835/
It could apply to any perspective. As an in-house marketing manager, however, your job hardly "depends" on whether you allow an agency to manage your campaigns or you hire internally. Dave’s job, however, completely depends on this.If Dave had simply said that there are a lot of bad in-house SEM people, I would have totally agreed. There truly are. However, since he’s made a difinitive statement that pretty much translates into "all in-house managed campaigns suck and all agency managed accounts are awesome", he’s made Did-It look like a ship of fools (since he’s their captain) ...which is sad becasue I consider them one of the top agencies in terms of quality. Quality that has, unfortunately, made their leadership arrogent and contemptuous.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his job depends on his not understanding it."- Upton Sinclair
It’s important to note that Dave Pasternack (the author) works for an agency. Biased?"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his job depends on his not understanding it."- Upton Sinclair
Some joker just convinced me to join facebook we’ll see how that goes ...I hope it’s better than myspace. ;-)
As long as it links to my own site using "search engine marketing n00b arrested for child murder", I am happy ;-)
Even bad reputation can turn into good rankings. I’d love it if 1,000 people would link to my blog using "search engine marketing n00b" ;-)...Please do!!
I still read SEOLoser, although it doesn’t look many others do. Also, nobody reads my blog, but I read it daily ;-)
Nice! I wonder how much MSN dropped in comparison. I have a feeling it’s the same percentage that Live rose. Or are they officially calling the combined of both "Live"? ...even though searches still occur on msn.com: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=sphinn
Curious...
It’s all a conspiracy, man!! ;-)
Feydakin makes a good point. Besides, I try not to try these "new" things that can only hurt you if you screw it up ;-)
Once I hear that my page rankings will drop if I don’t use it ...then I will use it.
I liked this article but disagree that "because the big named marketers are already ’big named marketers’ it’s hard for anyone new to SEO or marketing to stand out from the crowd."
I think the real issue is that it is more difficult to be noticed as being talented when you are in a big pool full of talented people. This is why, as a man, I thought it might have been nice to attended high school at an all girls academy. ;-) You’re sure to get noticed in a situation like that.
But people can be noticed, and quite easily at that. Look at what SEO Loser (http://www.seoloser.com/) did last year. He went from a name nobody heard of, to the buzz of the SEO community ...and to be honest, he appeared to have a strong grasp of SEO and is a really talented writer. He is still in my blogroll to this day. If he had kept up the momentum after that first great post, rather than posting once a month, he would probably be recognized as one of these "big names" today.
P.S. Danny: Please add "SEO" to your spell check dictionary. The spell checker didn’t recognize it :)
I like your tagline ideas, Danny. How about "Sphinn - Because it’s easy to rank for"
If Danny says we can pronounce it however we’d like ...In the tradition of Wayne’s World, and all this pronunciation entails, I’m going to pronounce it as "Schwing!"
Story: The 4 Core Elements of Great SEO