talking of SEO "expert"s.....

Thread Title:
SEO "expert" Proposes Unethical Linking Strategies
Thread Description:

Perfectly sensible question, generally good advice, but if you can get past post 6 without starting to laugh you have better self control than I do.



It might gain you some extra PR (nothing much though). However, the other side of the coin is, it might gain you a total ban from Google. Bit like betting $1000 to win $1.00

I would go beyond firing him and tell Google all about him and the SEO company he represents.

That has to be my favorite. More evidence of substance abuse in the search marketing community heh...

On a more serious note, where on earth does such misinformation come from? The amount of utter rubbish being posted as fact out there is really quite astonishing..

Threads are now predictable,

Threads are now predictable, and I find I'm moving away from forum-reading in general. I do scan the topics of several much like I scan Y & G news headlines. Occassionaly, there's a spark of seo intelligence [pun] worth filing away --but it's rare.


Agreed rc, it's just not where good information is coming from these days. There are a few places worth scanning as you say, but more often than not it's a fruitless labour...


>>On a more serious note, where on earth does such misinformation come from?

If you go visit email lists and forums down in the hobby web (ie.: weekend webmasters of Geocities, Tripod etc, talking about getting traffic to their hobby/personal sites) you will find much of the information is 4 or more years old and/or filled with partial information, half truths and outright fabrications.

SEO information takes months or even years to trickle down to these webmasters and along the way it gets distorted.


I'll second the uselessness of reading forums these days. Without Threadwatch and SEOBook, I'm not sure I'd ever leave /. lol

when you get to be an expert

I'm sure everything is pretty boring - I still have definate 'lightbulb comes on' moments and I still love seeing other people have them too :), you lot are just old cynics.

I have the self-made luxury o

I have the self-made luxury of reading online for 4-6 hours per day. It's not only a luxury, though, since it's become one of the ways I support myself. I'm becoming a more and more aggressive forager because of my online lifestyle (not just seo. gadgets, software, finance, etc) and I now notice that I tend to churn through sites and my reading list is always in flux. I'm not sure where all this is leading, except to say that if I represent the bleeding edge of online news consumers then the news producers are in trouble.


>>>On a more serious note, where on earth does such misinformation come from?

I, ummm, happen to know of a few seo misinformation campaigns that were carefully orchestrated from concept to general acceptance.

well half gossip like that's just cruel

now you have to tell us which ones and by who?

To paraphrase WebGuerrilla

To paraphrase WebGuerrilla, 90% of what you see represented as fact is really wishful thinking. IMO, that applies to both the SEs and the SEOs.


Everyone wants to be an expert - and so few are...

The most famous and obvious misinformation is the whole "penalization" thing IMO - In the vast, overwhelming majority of penalization claims on forums it simply isnt true. Usually it's anything from a simple cockup on the part of the webmaster or the usual ups and downs of getting indexed and ranked.

Google, as (again) Webguerrilla pointed out have spent a lot of time and money making people beleive the whole "if you break the rules your site will be banned" myth. Again, in the vast majority of cases, this simply isnt true.

I've not been privvy to any misinformation spreading inside info other than that unfortunately but it's an interesting one and a good example i think..

The case of my my quote earlier on in this thread is a classic - that seed, sowed and nutured carefully over the last few years has so many offshoots and growths that we now have people posting authoratively that Google will ban you for robots.txt'ing a links page.


Agree about that SE who was a

Agree about that SE who was allowed to orchestrate & have some negative comments removed from his threads......

WG has him pegged!

I sorta admire the guy for getting the job done quite well.

So, Gurtie, some of the elder

So, Gurtie, some of the elder exploits still work quite well've just been led away from them.

And some of those that don't now work...

...just need a small tweak in order for them to work perfectly well again.

it's all theoretical

for me anyway - since I do marketing not SEO (marketing aka 'white hat by any other name')

But it's interesting anyway. The politics and the methods

Marketing = white hat ???????????

My experience of marketing professionals is that if it gets their clients name in the news they'll do it - Thats nearer black hat to my way of thinking :)

To quote oldskool79

To quote oldskool79 at wmw:

marketing professionals ..."couldn't care less if the ads were stapled to a dead fish if they convert visitors into customers"

not my argument

oh I'd sell my granny to promote something but the SEO WH argument is that you place links for visitors, get inbound links from authority sites and put the best possible sticky content on the site etc etc.

I'm more whitehat than Doug by his own standards. Until last week I never obtained an inbound link purely for rankings.

Not a new argument

Please don't ask for quotes, as this goes back as much as two years, but on a few occasions I've seen people argue that ROI isn't part of SEO. The point, as it pertains to the good old wh/bh deal, is that an SEO's job is to get rankings, no matter how, and that sales are the job of the marketing people.

So that could be taken to mean black=rankings, white=rankings (albeit not necessarily top rankings) + more.

Not something I can say I fully agree with, but I see the point, and it was a view espoused by black hats, not white.

Now this seems like a contradiction to me

oh i'd sell my granny to promote something
Until last week I never obtained an inbound link purely for rankings

I can only hope that the latter was due to naive ignorance. If not it would show a complete lack of professionalism from a marketing professional.

ROI isn't part of SEO

I'm not one who espouses that point of view

ROI is the entirety of the reason for SEO. Many SEOs I know started in the business because it was a gap in the market that most marketing people had overlooked (designing their website purely for the human visitor). It gave the 'two-bit' player an opportunity to play on even terms with the mega-corps for a short while (and still does if you are willing to put the work in).

no contradiction

>>If not it would show a complete lack of professionalism from a marketing professional.

I mean me personally Kali, we aren't an SEO company and don't sell SEO services because we don't think we have the expertise to do them properly in house. We do work with SEO's (most of whom don't understand marketing at all sadly) so I haven't got inbound links only for ranking purposes but other people have been doing. Equally back when I worked for pure marketing agencies I rarely personally placed an ad but I worked with the ad companies and buyers who knew the right guys and could get better rates than I could. ROI is team effort - whether it's all in one agency or outsourced.

My point was more that I don't tend to do hands on SEO but what I do, in the name of commonsense marketing, is actually almost exactly what 'Whitehats' say you should do, full stop. That doesn't mean all whitehats can market though, although perhaps it should mean if you want to hire a dedicated whitehat ask to see their marketing qualifications.

It's interesting that it's almost come back to the argument that hat colour is about intent. I probably do have a very blackhat heart in all honesty but does that mean that for the last few years when I've been chatting to journalists and getting articles about clients published I've been whitehat but now I know something about SEO the same conversation and article is blackhat simply because I'm asking them if they could put good anchor text on the link and not the company name.

Whichever, no one's ever going to "tell google all about" me because I robots.txt'd a links page. Do you think Google have their own version of the Darwin awards every year?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.