Calendar
Network
Feeds
peteyoung
Got to say John, no your not the only one - and unfortunately I would suggest many commercial organisations may agree with you.
Surely on that basis a sitewide command has to be the only viable option moving forward (as Netmeg mentioned), as this seems reactive rather than preactive activity with little or no commercial benefit (from a client perspective) - and on that basis no commercial entity is going to want to pay for activity to 'manage'.
Looks like the same handiwork as the bloke who emailed Aaron Wall.
From a personal perspective, its the lack of concern for potential impact. As Google themselves say
"Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such."
However the fact this has not been highlighted obviously denotes intent and thus completely agree with Danny's response.
Continuing Ciarans brilliant analogy.
If I were selling dodgy goods, who am I likely to talk to
1) Other likeminded individuals who sell dodgy goods
or
2) Go to Watchdog/Rogue Traders etc. (aka Danny)
Personally if you are silly enough to go for option 2 - then you really deserve to be outed in such a way. Google have said such a practise (particularly where no risk has been highlighted - and no mention made to nofollow the link) is against their guidelines, and by openly flouting this rule, they leave themselves open for critisism.
One of the most underated parts of SEO, and I would suggest one often forgot. Having a thorough backup plan in cases where
1) The site goes down
2) The DB goes down
3) DNS Fails (OK can't do much here - except get it fixed ASAP or have a more expansive solution)
is often forgotten during expansive offsite and onsite SEO campaigns.
Whilst the issue in question hasn't happened to me previously, the issue of site downtime is an essential part of modern day SEO
Interesting debate and certainly brings back into focus Google's approach to the whole Paid Linkage debacle. I have previously stated on my blog, my personal thoughts on paid links, and whilst professionally I would never condone going against Googles guidelines, I can't help thinking some further brainstorming and thinking of the bigger picture may have presented Google with some of the issues currently facing webmasters such as the woman in Neil's article.
As everyone involved in this Sphinn has already stated, Googles education of the wider public on this matter is limited, and it is that lack of education that serves to continue to flame this conversation, and probably will continue to in the future.
AT the end of the day it is hard enough to educate users about the benefits of SEO, never mind the finer details of search engine management.
Is this the start of a new Interview style for you Rand???
Absolute class
Spot on Bwelford - think its that transition that some traditional agencies are being slow to react to in todays market.
I think there is one point missing here as well - much of the conversation here seems to be whether there is a market for it - however this seems to be purely biased to the SEO market in particular.
Surely however - any such certification is only going to gain popularity if there is demand from the wider public - ie clients which as yet there is not and I would suggest most commercial decisions regarding SEO in particular are based purely on experience/results or price (often I would suggest not the best metric to base such a decision on).
I have tackled this issue here based on the original Net Magellan post
Have to agree with Brian. I don't know Andy personally, and he seems to talk a lot of sense, however as has been said people come and go, and I am sure Sphinn will survive.
Andy's tone does seem somewhat concrete in tone - but I personally am impressed by your approach to the issue Danny, and I can't help thinking that your personal response in this issue should stand you and SMX/Sphinn in good stead
Where is it going to end ... Perhaps Google should heed previous warnings. Just look what happened to Yahoo/Altavista etc.
Whilst I understand the thought and ideals behind much of what they do - I do have some doubts as to whether all of the current 'improvements' are indeed in the best interests of the user
Another one who missed the 'shenanigans' this weekend. Was going up until two days before.
May have to try and make the LondonSEO meetup instead
It certainly doesn't, and as an industry, SEO comes in for more flack than many, so any negative PR I would suggest is not good.
Story: SEM/SEO Ethics
Think you hit the nail on the head Jill. Unfortunately it only takes a couple of bad stories to undo a couple of years of hard work, and really its in our own interests to try and portray our industry in the best light we can.
White hat/Black hat make sense from an implementation perspective, however clients look far wider than that, and unfortunately there are some (in my opinion too many) clients (probably more so in the SME market) that have had bad experiences from SEM agencies as regards their SEO services - whether it be in terms of not managing expectations, or bad management of the site in terms of SEO. This I would suggest lies out of the remit of the 'hat discussion' and more in line with business - however as an industry where pretty much anyone can do it - we have no real control over standards or quality of work.
However I will counter my above argument - with the fact that web design industry is much the same in terms of structure - however they do not seem to have the same problems regarding reputation as we do. Maybe theres a place to start.
I again would suggest as Jill has said, it is a case of educating the wider public of search marketing, and show it is not merely a case of Search engine spam, and indeed a valuable, vital and technical part of the marketing mix
Have to agree with Halfdecks comment, however there is no reason why the smoke and mirrors about paid linkage doesnt have to be removed.
I personally have no problems with Google clamping down on paid linkage to a certain degree IF they were more clear in their motives and what is and what is not OK
At present the 'paid links are bad' is just too ambiguous in implementation.
« previous1 next »
Story: 10 Different Types of Clients