285 replies to this topic

[Hyperformance]

Hi BWgroup,

I do agree with handles, etc. It was the lack of a link I guess - I tend to rate some information by it's source -

That's my problem - I 'll accept that.

- Scott

[Kev]

I do agree with handles, etc. It was the lack of a link I guess - I tend to rate some information by it's source.

But as has been pointed out quite a few times, this is a thread about opinions and hypothesis, not evidence to be backed up.

Nam'es Kev by the way. Maybe its time I changed bwgroup

[OldWelshGuy]

Chill out OWG.

I have just completed a nice jam filled Welshcake and a cup of tea, and I am chilled to the bone

Thanks Jill for agreeing and saying in half a dozen lines what it took me 50 to say lol

[Jill]

Don't make me slap you guys for taking this offtopic...

Back to your regularly scheduled sandbox debate...

[OldWelshGuy]

Anyhow, Google has got its new bots and old bots running round taking thousands of pages from sites at a time, so we can look forward to an almighty change at any time. They went public, they passed their trade after date, and stock rose, so they are pretty much ok to fire at will now

I think in a few weeks time, the sand box will be mainly used by all the ostrich heads who are screaming 'my site has gone - Google is the devil'

[Hyperformance]

Thanks Kev -

I can't comment on hypothesis - I am still picking myself up off the floor -


Man has Jill got a left hook or what?


- Scott

[amabaie]

The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with doing what one can to get high rankings. If some people call that spam, so be it, but that does not make it wrong.

However, I do believe it can be short-sighted, because the search engines have a responsibility to avoid being gamed, or else the quality of service to searchers will be compromised. Therefore, building a site's marketing strategy around elements that the engines will try to neutralize is not the wisest strategy.

Buying and advert on a non relevant site with no copy to attract the visitor and encourage a clickthrough = spam

Hmm. Maybe. But buying links for PR alone is not wrong. It is a form of marketing and it is a form of advertising, just as paying a distribution service to send out an invitation to a news conference is a form of advertising...not because you expect journalists to buy your product, but because you hope to influence the content of their newspaper.

Since purchased links are short term, they are not as short-sighted as some SEO techniques. When Google figures out a way to neutralize them, a webmaster can stop paying.

Where is the ROI there? I put it to you and everyone else that the ONLY ROI is in the benefit of the link being there, and nothing else.

Bingo. As a searcher, I agree 100% with OWG. I am constantly frustrated that Google lets people buy their way to the top of the ranks, whether this way or through PPC. As a searcher, I don't want to see any commercial sites when I search, because I am searching for information. In fact, having commercial sites infiltrating my searches is what I as a user would define as spam.

But an SEO would be irresponsible not to use the most effective ways to market his clients...and right now Google is saying that links count - the number, the "quality", the relevance, etc.

I actually haven't bought any links for my clients yet, because I believe I am still getting them better ROI with other link-building strategies. But if I believed otherwise, I would not hesitate. It is not the buying of links that is "wrong", but the artificial creation of links. However, that is only "wrong" in the theoretical world...it would be wrong to let my clients drown while the competition is creating articfical links to get ahead of them.

There are too many high horses in SEO, a field which can best be described as trying to manipulate another busienss's content.

[Jill]

Man has Jill got a left hook or what?

Geez, it was just a little slap... wimp! :hehe:

:slap:

[Kev]

Geez, it was just a little slap... wimp! :hehe:

I kinda liked it

[OldWelshGuy]

Buying and advert on a non relevant site with no copy to attract the visitor and encourage a clickthrough = spam

OWG

Hmm. Maybe. But buying links for PR alone is not wrong. It is a form of marketing and it is a form of advertising

Amabaie

Naw I aint buying that. next you will be telling me that flash frames in films are acceptable and so are all forms of sumliminal advertising

lets go sell some snake oil

[Hyperformance]

I fell off my horse...

I disagree with many of those comments amabaie -

-Scott

[Hyperformance]

I kinda liked it

She meant to hit you in your face Kev -

[Jill]

I do agree with Amabie for the most part (cept the high horse thingee!).

If you want to buy PR for PR's sake, then what the heck, go for it.

Just know that it may or may not help. And it's probably not a long term strategy.

[amabaie]

Naw I aint buying that. next you will be telling me that flash frames in films are acceptable and so are all forms of sumliminal advertising

Interesting analogy OWG. I'm playing it over in my mind, but I think that hidden text would be better compared to subliminal advertising in movies.

Buying text links is more like paying the director to supply all the actors with a T-shirt of your product, not because you hope the actors will buy more product, but because you hope that Entertainment Tonight will catch a snapshot of the t-shirt on the actor and spike your sales. This strategy *could* make your product a smash success. But in the absense of a "real" marketing strategy, the success will be just a flash-in-the-pan.

Of course, I agree with you that it is totally unethical to provide free T-shirts to actors, just to try to manipulate the content of Entertainment Tonight. The proper way to do this is to send out a news release, and let the actors worry about finding their own clothes...like from your client's competition.

[amabaie]

I do agree with Amabie for the most part (cept the high horse thingee!).

Don't let that disturb you. Giraffes are my favorite animals. I wish I could ride one.