Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Is It Just Me . . .
Posted 04 May 2009 - 03:49 PM
Posted 04 May 2009 - 04:01 PM
Posted 04 May 2009 - 04:07 PM
Posted 04 May 2009 - 05:24 PM
The funniest part is all of 'em make some mention of getting me 1st page rankings. My sites all already have 1st page rankings, so why would they bother me if they'd bothered to look?
Posted 05 May 2009 - 05:14 AM
Though I have been getting those, phishing emails saying i've got some long lost cousin who is some leader of some african country that doesn't exist who wants to deposit millions of dollars into my account as they are fleeing persecution.
I can't wait for these mysterious rebel forces to catch up with them, hopefully they'll shoot him and he'll stop sending me those bloody emails!
Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:10 AM
We would like to get your website on first page of Google. All of our processes use the most ethical "white hat" Search Engine Optimization techniques that will not get your website banned or penalized. Please reply and I would be happy to send you a proposal.
Do you wish you could increase your online leads? Getting a GUARANTEED 1ST PAGE GOOGLE RANKING is easier and more cost-effective than you might think. We have helped a lot of businesses thrive in this market and we can help you! Simply hit reply and I'll share with you the cost and the benefits.See you at the top!
And people wanna jump on me for calling them wannabes and ignorant!
BTW, any ideas on how we can combat this aggressive campaign of thieves? I'm not talking about stopping the emails, but doing damage control from these shysters. How many companies are going to fall prey to these panhandlers? I think a lot will because of the desire/need to rank highly in the SEs during this economic downturn for those companies just getting on the NET and those finally recognizing a need to optimize their sites. Maybe it's time for a SEO certification board.
Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:23 AM
But in short, there needs to be something in place, I'm too afraid to approach any SEO to do some work as I know if they are shysters they will do more harm than good, and it aint worth the risk.
Any SEO that is any good , I can't afford anyhow
Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:14 AM
Maybe we should all start requesting quotes, as long as they are busy making quotes they can't send spam emails
Posted 05 May 2009 - 11:30 AM
Education, education, education.
Not a standards org as all the bad SEOs will join and it will be worse.
Posted 05 May 2009 - 03:56 PM
As to your question, you can't save everyone. The customer must take some responsibility.
In the meantime I won't be seeing 'em anymore since I've stopped the email from reaching me I added another little regex filter to my contact forms that keys in on the text strings (1st|first) page (of)? google since they all seem to use one variation or the other, most using both. So they won't be bothering me anymore.
Posted 06 May 2009 - 04:12 AM
Or a customer who bought a holiday through an industry protected agency such at ATOL, and got burned it's partly the customer to blame?
Just because a customer may be a dumb ass, that doesn't give someone else the right to ripp them off!
Standards and governing bodies are a good thing!
It gives everyone the same standards to aim for, know what is acceptable and gives the customer peace of mind that they will receive a pre-determined level of service / standards.
And anyone found flaunting the 'accreditation' should be prosecuted under the law as the criminal that they are!
without standards, accreditations, govenring agencies and a body for which to complain to, it would be nothing more than anarchy, which is what we currently have.
You're not advocating anarchy surely?
Posted 06 May 2009 - 04:28 AM
Still, it is amazing how many times old clients of mine who I used to work with send me these asking if they should go with them, and the dumber ones often do!
I want one to tell me the secret!
Posted 06 May 2009 - 06:24 AM
Some think it's a sad thing to say the world is filled with scammers and rip off artists. The real sad thing is that for every one of these rip off artists there are at least 1,000 people who will fall for their ruse without ever asking any simple, sensible questions.
Posted 06 May 2009 - 09:52 AM
In most cases, I would say yes, the consumer should bear some responsibility. Personally, I wouldn't think of spending the kind of money a car costs without doing at least some basic research. I would check the Kelly Blue Book, consumer reporting magazine ratings and at least test drive the car (and probably have my mechanic give it a once-over). I'd also check the dealer's reputation, talking to others who have done business with them and/or querying consumer reporting agencies. It's called due diligence.
Does this guarantee I won't get burned? Of course not. But it certainly reduces the chances.
And if I do run into problems, there are existing consumer protection laws that give me recourse if the dealer actually commits fraud in some way or refuses to make good on a "lemon." (And, of course, there are also protections for dealers against con artist consumers who try to get "something for nothing." The street runs two ways on this issue.)
I'm not a big fan of free-for-all deregulation. There are too many shysters and con artists out there (vendors and consumers) who will take advantage of any "total free market" situation. I support rules that rein in abuses and protect the rights of consumers (and vendors) to seek recourse in the event they feel they've been wronged.
But I also believe strongly in personal responsibility. As consumers, no matter what we're buying -- but particularly when it's a big-ticket item, like a car or a house or SEO services -- we have a responsibility to educate ourselves and to enter into the buying process with our common sense on high alert.
Nobody's saying anyone has a "right" to rip anybody off. But customers have to take some initiative for investigating the claims made by potential service vendors before they leap to sign on the dotted line. They can't use their own laziness and stupidity as some kind of real-life "get out of jail free" card that absolves them of any responsibility.
Sure, when there are generally accepted standards that have some validity and purpose in the real world. Accounting is a good example (and one I'm particularly familiar with). In order for financial statements to be meaningful, different companies have to account for similar transactions in the same way, so that people can compare one set of financial statements to another and have some reasonable expectation they are looking at an apples-to-apples situation.
So there are standards to which Certified Public Accountants have to adhere. Standard wording for opinion letters, standard methods of accounting for various types of transactions, standard ways of presenting information. In the USA, there's a Financial Accounting Standards Board and a formal certification process. Anyone who wants to call themselves a CPA has to go through rigorous testing and ongoing education in order to obtain and maintain their certification.
On the other hand, there are no governing bodies setting mandatory standards for things like art or music. Who's to say what's a "bad" song, or what the penalties should be for someone who records a tune that doesn't meet the "standards" of good music? Nobody's hauling off to jail painters who create banal or trite paintings. (And who's to decide what's banal or trite in the first place?) It's up to the artist and the patron to negotiate.
SEO is a marketing function -- an art, not a science -- where "success" is in the eye of the beholder. One client might consider getting page one rankings for a "vanity" search phrase to be "success" -- even if that search phrase brings no actual traffic to their site. Just the fact that they can brag to their buddies about ranking number one for that phrase is all they want. Another customer might consider that an abject failure, and only be satisfied with a significant increase in traffic to their site. A third might not care about traffic or rankings, only about increasing sales.
There are already laws in place that cover the situation where an SEO (or any other service provider) makes promises and doesn't deliver. But there's no reasonable way to mandate what those promises should be in the first place. Customers are free to be stupid and focus on rankings while ignoring traffic and sales. While a top-tier SEO will probably try to educate them as to why that's a bad idea, it's not illegal for an SEO -- or any other service provider -- to simply give the customer what they ask for.
It's up to the customer to make sure what they're asking for isn't dumb.
Thus endeth the rant for the day...
Posted 06 May 2009 - 10:05 AM
Sorry but I totally, unequivicably disagree.
Should i take my own weights to shop to make sure i get the correct amount?
Should I take a mechanic to the dealership to make sure it's cosher?
Do i now need to take a quality craftsman with me on everything I buy, it's rediculous, not to mention you can't expect the average person to know everything about everything!
That's why we have standards and laws , which are expected to be followed and if you don't it's a crime and Rogue Traders or Watchdog will be after you.
If someone is in business, part of the LAW to be in business is to follow rules and regulations, and so if i make a purchase from someone , I expect to get what i paid for, end of! no discussion, no excuses, period!
and to think you consider SEO purchase in the same ball park as buying a house, well it just goes to show how much money and a rip off most SEO is!
Buying a house is supose to be considered the most important & expensive purchase anyone will ever make, well excpet for getting a few KWDs and some IBL's according to that statement!
we have serious laws covering buying / selling / mortgaging / building houses, you put SEO in the same ball park but argue for there to not be any governing laws or standards for it.
I think you're great Torka , but my sides are killing me
Infact I've just won a case with the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) , where even the credit card company tried to shaft me and the missus of @ £3,000, we proved, through the governing bodie, that they broke the law and failed to honour section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, we got our money back after 18months of fighting!
If it wasn't for regulations / laws and standards in place where then a judgement can be made whether you recevied the 'expected standards' we would have lost our money , and you would have said "tuff titties, it's you're fault, buyer beware!"
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users