101 replies to this topic

[braindead]

If I wanted to really get personal, I might say something like. The only one to have your back is Braindead.

Just trying to be funny.

Ok, took me a minute, but I got it.

Funny

[PhilC]

I'm sure you are taking Jill's emails out of context...

The extracts were not taken out of context. The emails were a conversation about a single topic, which couldn't be misunderstood. At the time, Jill had done all that she could do with her methods for a client, and she had failed. So we were discussing the possibility of new methods for her to use. That's what the email conversation was about. The extracts are not out of context. I have the whole set of emails if you want to judge for yourself.

Jill said that I lied and twisted things. I didn't. I've known Jill (sort of) for quite a while and what she's done and said in this thread hasn't surprise me in the slightest.

I understand the reluctance to believe a stranger over someone that you've come to know a little bit. It's normal. But it doesn't mean that the stranger is wrong and the one who you know a little bit is right. Jill, with her methods, had done all that she could do for the client's site, and failed. It's either true or it's not true. The fact that you don't know me doesn't mean anything one way or the other. As it happens, it is perfectly true.

[compar]

If it sometimes hurts the SE's and surfers and sometimes helps then it boils down to ethics as to who will use them and how.

Not according to Ian. That morals not ethics. Remember morals is the inividual's choice.

I also thought it interesting because Phil rejects the use of the word "ethical" as applied to SEO practices, but when he want to describe good or bad ones he uses the "scrupulous" and "unscruplous" .

Quick, Quick, Ian give us an epistle one the use of this term versus morals and ethics. Is a scrupulous person moral or ethical or are they neither?

I think Phil rejects ethical because it is judgemental, but then isn't his choice of scrupulous also judgemental.

Semantics is a bitch as they say.

[Jill]

Phil, nothing you have said since my last post contradicts what I said actually happened.

I don't claim to know everything about SEO, which is why I hang out in SEO forums. I learn new things every day. That's what's so great about this biz!

I talk to many people every day, both privately and publicly so I can keep on top of the best ways to help my clients. Nothing new there. No revelations! Anyone who doesn't do that, is being foolish.

People all have different ways of optimization. In fact, I have an old article entitled "There are more ways than 1 to Skin the SEO cat" or something like that.

Nobody should ever bury their head in the sand when it comes to discussing every aspect of SEO. We can all learn from everyone else, yes, we can even learn from the spam techniques. I've already stated that I was interested in knowing if there was something I might learn from the spam techniques that I could apply to my legitimate techniques. And yes, the email exchange with Phil did make me think about the fact that I needed to add content to that site. I don't deny that at all. The client had only contracted me for a certain amount of pages of optimization, however, and I was looking for something I might have been able to do on those particular pages that I optimized.

However, I really had optimized them to be the best they could be. The newsletter archive option was a great happy medium, and I even did it for no extra cost to the client since I had not fulfilled my obligation to do everything within my knowledge to get them high rankings.

The email exchange I had with Phil was private correspondence, and although I have nothing to hide within anything I said in it, when I wrote it, I believed Phil to be a trustworthy enough person who would not be sharing private conversations with others. Obviously this speaks to the type of person he is. Live and learn!

I thought you were outta here, Phil? Why still here? Shall I hold the door for you? What will it take? A good swift kick in the ass?



Jill

P.S. I'm truly flattered that you missed me so much that you wanted one more fight with me. But you should really get over it. It's long past time to move on.

[Jill]

Just a little background for those who don't know -- Phil and I started the "Phil and Jill Show" just about 1 year ago, so this is an anniversary of sorts.

Check out the Cre8asiteForum's Anniversary thread for more info.

Jill

[compar]

The email exchange I had with Phil was private correspondence, and although I have nothing to hide within anything I said in it, when I wrote it, I believed Phil to be a trustworthy enough person who would not be sharing private conversations with others.  Obviously this speaks to the type of person he is. Live and learn! 

But Jill, in fairness to Phil you opened up the subject of what was in your email. For him to simply refute this without offering proof is called heresay. I believe that by virtually calling him a liar -- and several other delightful epitaphs -- you left him no choice but to offer hard evidence.

I am frankly dissapointed that we had to wait for Phil to name you as the person he referred to. You could have taken the higher moral ground by declaring right up front that you had had an exchange with him and explaining the nature of the exchange. When you waited until after you were outed your explanation looks a little suspect.

I would also suggest that if anyone of us had attacked a member for any reason like you have attacked Phil in this thread -- name calling doesn't even begin to cover it -- we would be out of here. Is the the divine rule of forum administators? Are you above your own rules?

[Jill]

Bob, from what I understand of the original article in question, the entire thing was based on a personal correspondence I had with Phil. So don't tell me I opened up anything, because that's total bull.

[qwerty]

That's true. He didn't use Jill's name (or her gender), but there was never any question of who he was talking about.

[PhilC]

I think Phil rejects ethical because it is judgemental, but then isn't his choice of scrupulous also judgemental.

I use the word 'unscrupulous', and sometimes 'unethical', to describe people who get pages into the top positions only to redirect surfers to something completely different. I've never said that there weren't any unethical practises in seo. But you're right, I reject the word because it is judgemental on what I consider to be perfectly good practises.

Phil, nothing you have said since my last post contradicts what I said actually happened.

That's ok then. We are agreed that your methods had failed with that client after you'd done all that you could do for it. I'm pleased that they found some old newsletters to help out.

The whole point of the article is that compliant seo only works up to a point. Nobody here has shown any evidence that it can succeed when there is real competition. Therefore, I have to continue with my conclusions that it can't.

[Haystack]

That's ok then. We are agreed that your methods had failed with that client after you'd done all that you could do for it. I'm pleased that they found some old newsletters to help out.

The whole point of the article is that compliant seo only works up to a point. Nobody here has shown any evidence that it can succeed when there is real competition. Therefore, I have to continue with my conclusions that it can't.

Phil, doesn't the fact that Jill was able to achieve high rankings for the site by adding additional Real Content contradict your point?

[Scottie]

The whole point of the article is that compliant seo only works up to a point. Nobody here has shown any evidence that it can succeed when there is real competition. Therefore, I have to continue with my conclusions that it can't.

I think we have seen that it works.

The client in question needed more content. If he had gone to you, you would have generated doorway pages. Instead, Jill found a solution by adding more legitimate content to the site.



It worked. Again, doing things the right way pays off in the long run- without the client having to worry about potential consequences.

[compar]

Bob, from what I understand of the original article in question, the entire thing was based on a personal correspondence I had with Phil.

I read the article and I didn't understand that. Why don't you read it yourself before you make a final judgement?

[Jill]

The whole point of the article is that compliant seo only works up to a point. Nobody here has shown any evidence that it can succeed when there is real competition. Therefore, I have to continue with my conclusions that it can't.

And yet it did work. Compliant SEO and all. Go figure.

J

[market seeker]

I read the article and I didn't understand that. Why don't you read it yourself before you make a final judgement?

I read it and did see it that way.

[PhilC]

Phil, doesn't the fact that Jill was able to achieve high rankings for the site by adding additional Real Content contradict your point?

It would, Ed, if she'd told me what topic the site was about, but she preferred not to say. I had to conclude that it couldn't have been in a particularly competitive area because, if it were, I would have expected someone as experienced as Jill to have realised it before she took it on. I've known her to specifically say that she chooses which clients to take on with competitiveness in mind. Also, I think that can be correctly inferred from one of those email extracts. I think this responds to Scottie's post too.

I have clients in the casino, loans (various kinds), insurance, printer carts, etc. areas - some more competitive than others, and I know that compliant seo doesn't succeed with the sort of real competition in some of those areas. Maybe in printer carts if it's done really well.