Calendar
Network
Feeds
Chatmaster
I have been reading these link bait posts by Michael and Skitzzo and thought for myself, what one earth?
Rand definitely did the wrong thing to call these websites by name, why he doesn't he just admit to it and get on with it, is above me. What makes me absolutely furious is the fact that both of you have done the exact same thing as he did. Rand I see as a youngster in the industry that made headway very quickly. He is becoming like an icon in the SEO world and in my opinion he has just learned another lesson in life. He surely must understand by now where the boundaries are.
I just want to point out that Google is the real issue here. Google has clearly started an issue about paid links, which imo is completely stupid! HOW on earth can Google say beyond any reasonable doubt that a link is a paid link? How on earth can Rand say this as well? What is wrong here?
Google first of all, you are the masters of selling links! So ban yourselves and get it over with. I have never sold any links in my life, but my websites are key to what I believe my visitors would get value from. I regularly change links on existing pages, if I feel that the pages I linked to, lowered their value in information or if I find a more valuable source. I do not rewrite an entire page about the exact same topic just to do that. I also will use the no follow sometimes when I reference a bad site and I will not use it if I feel the site I link to deserves full value. I am not stingy with giving links to others and feel that in this way I offer value to my visitors.
My issue is this, instead of taking on Rand, who is no angel, but who has been a great contributor to our SEO family, just because he is high profile and definitely worth hitting on for link bait purposes, WHY not take on Google for their clear stupidity in starting this whole debacle in the first place.
Skitzzo
I think my point is that Rand did nothing out of the ordinary. Calling sites out is something we have done for a very long time. I remember the good old days on SEOChat where we did exactly that. Also I believe, this is just my opinion here, the real culprit is Google. There is absolutely no way for them to be sure that link is a paid link or not. Nor should this be important to them. Purchasing links on websites is an old advertising method that has been around before they even existed. They also can’t say, well if you want to be listed on Google, do as we say, because allot of great contributors to the web doesn’t care about what they say, because they are not SEO specialists. They also cannot just decide that they will rewrite the online marketing rules because the all powerful Google says so.
Rand should agree that he stepped over the line sure, because it is clearly a sentiment shared by individuals within the community at this stage. Although these rules frequently changes, at this stage this is the rule. I honestly do not see any other reasons for yourself and Michel to continue these attacks on Rand, other than a great opportunity for link bait, and this is imo the ONLY reason you take the routes you do to point out what has happened here. When DD pointed out that he made a mistake he fixed it and used the alternative, he fixed his mistake. You decided to make this a huge issue, why? The only reason imo is linkbait, taking on the “golden boy” of SEO?
@Skitzzo
Sorry for not replying sooner, but I had electricity issues to attend to.
To get back to my original response. I have allot of respect for both you and Michael. You guys only write facts and if you write something it is usually worth a read.
The issues I have here is that Google can in no way go and penalize a site because Rand pointed to them and said they are selling links. How on earth can Google do that to ANY site? I mean surely it is crazy for them to think that they can state that a site is selling or buying links beyond any doubt. Linking to each other has been the way of the Internet even before Google came along. It is the way of the Internet and will remain so for most, especially quality information sites. In my mind this is a logical assumption and that Google with all their talk about the subject just created confusion amongst our community.
Michael's first post a few months ago, was completely out of line and clearly a personal attack. Once again he made some strong points backed by facts, but it was filled with punches of venom that made the attack very personal. My thoughts at that stage was that he was clever from a link baiting point of view and I decided I would leave it as most respected SEO's would probably see past the obvious. Then he made another post and yours came next! Well I had to give my opinion on the subject. I know DD and Egol (also 2 people I have the world of respect for) raised the issue and pointed out that Rand took it to far this time. But they did so on his blog and without smelly punch lines. Rand clearly reacted possitively to that.
I just do not feel Rand did anything wrong but being young and inexperienced. I see Rand as a talented young guy, who has done allot for SEO since he arrived at SEOChat in 2004. He is impressive in that way as he has picked up the industry in a very short period of time and became one of the high trees relatively quickly. I hope he has learned from his post that the roots of the community do not trust Google to act sensible and that he will respect others in future, but a personal email or a similar post on his blog would have had a much better effect.
Story: Should Designers Know SEO?
The basic onpage factors should be required. If a designer considder themselves a specialist in designing web sites, they should at least design a site that can actually work online. What is the use of having a website if it is not even visible online? There is no doubt in my mind that they should at least know the basics, SEO is much more than just modifying a few metas or onpage factors like page titles and headers. Knowing all about SEO is however not required.
« previous1 next »
Story: Rand & SEOmoz: Unprofessional and Irresponsible Actions