my 2p* Monkeons 1x1 pixel stuff. Wasn't aware of it and not overly keen but Monkeon has given far more to B3ta than he's ever taken so I'm not annoyed by it. (But if it was something we noticed loads of people doing we'd might put it a stop to it)
* Interested that this has pissed off SEOs far more than social media experts. It kinda suggests that SMEs (if they're called that) aren't actually online enough to notice this link flying around twitter.
* I love Monkeon. Even if loads of SEOs disagree with him. He's da best.
(* Interested that this has pissed off SEOs far more than social media experts. It kinda suggests that SMEs (if they're called that) aren't actually online enough to notice this link flying around twitter.
* I love Monkeon. Even if loads of SEOs disagree with him. He's da best.
rob,
Wed 23 Jun 2010, 21:33,
archived)
I am far from pissed off.I think in some respects, he has a point. I can see that many SEOs servicing the SME (small & medium enterprise, not social media expert) market are not going to be very good and this will leave a whole swathe of bad experiences across a wide spread of business.
And for all of Monkeon's antagonistic tone, his questions and arguments are good. To be honest, a lot more people should be more like this, it might thin the crowd out a little and leave less room for the shit SEOs.
I only really joined in the thread because I know that this isn't the complete picture and that SEOs can be damn good at their jobs and be very beneficial to a company.
We work our nuts off to fight this perception of our industry, by being good at what we do, and I saw this as an opportunity to further that fight just a little. We are not all overpaid, under-skilled shits.
* "Interested that this has pissed off SEOs far more than social media experts. It kinda suggests that SMEs (if they're called that) aren't actually online enough to notice this link flying around twitter"
*cough* Or they can't defend their position, so haven't tried. *cough*
Maybe that is a little mean.
(,
Wed 23 Jun 2010, 21:58,
archived)
And for all of Monkeon's antagonistic tone, his questions and arguments are good. To be honest, a lot more people should be more like this, it might thin the crowd out a little and leave less room for the shit SEOs.
I only really joined in the thread because I know that this isn't the complete picture and that SEOs can be damn good at their jobs and be very beneficial to a company.
We work our nuts off to fight this perception of our industry, by being good at what we do, and I saw this as an opportunity to further that fight just a little. We are not all overpaid, under-skilled shits.
* "Interested that this has pissed off SEOs far more than social media experts. It kinda suggests that SMEs (if they're called that) aren't actually online enough to notice this link flying around twitter"
*cough* Or they can't defend their position, so haven't tried. *cough*
Maybe that is a little mean.
Can I be antagonistic again and askwhich of the people answering on behalf of SEO on this page would you say appear to have the relevent skills from what they have said?
(I would ask the other way round, but it's probably easier to say who seems good than who seems crap.)
You are one of the few who hasn't skirted around questions. As soon as people avoid questions about what it is they actually do ("It's confidential!"), as so many seem to do, it's hard to have confidence in them.
Has any SEO said anything on this page that made you think "bullshit"?
((I would ask the other way round, but it's probably easier to say who seems good than who seems crap.)
You are one of the few who hasn't skirted around questions. As soon as people avoid questions about what it is they actually do ("It's confidential!"), as so many seem to do, it's hard to have confidence in them.
Has any SEO said anything on this page that made you think "bullshit"?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 1:38,
archived)
That is a question with some potential for industry comeback.If I am honest, I haven't read every post. There is too much and it is growing in a tree-like fashion and I gave up reading sub-threads because I couldn't keep track. I have mainly focused on answering specific questions or point made by you.
Nothing Pedantichrist has said would I criticise (apart from that one bit about link building being both better and cheap from an agency - although he broadly has a point). The comment about DDA was a good one as well; you don't co-opt things that are there for other reasons (like ALT tags).
In fact SEO and DDA go together rather well and we often use DDA compliance to reinforce arguments for site changes. I am not sure waxdart is assertion that there should be an "office fight" over the two disciplines.
Some people's arguments do seem very defensive, but saying that, I have been arguing on the internet for about twelve years and I like to think that I am pretty good at it. Some answers could have been better structured or more detailed, but I have read nothing that would make me shout "bullshit" at anyone, but conversely, there are plenty of people defending SEOs that I wouldn't say have demonstrated deep skill.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 18:40,
archived)
Nothing Pedantichrist has said would I criticise (apart from that one bit about link building being both better and cheap from an agency - although he broadly has a point). The comment about DDA was a good one as well; you don't co-opt things that are there for other reasons (like ALT tags).
In fact SEO and DDA go together rather well and we often use DDA compliance to reinforce arguments for site changes. I am not sure waxdart is assertion that there should be an "office fight" over the two disciplines.
Some people's arguments do seem very defensive, but saying that, I have been arguing on the internet for about twelve years and I like to think that I am pretty good at it. Some answers could have been better structured or more detailed, but I have read nothing that would make me shout "bullshit" at anyone, but conversely, there are plenty of people defending SEOs that I wouldn't say have demonstrated deep skill.
.1) I really do sincerely appologise for that as I do feel I let you down by doing it at all. I'd have enjoyed the arguments here so much more if that hadn't come back to bite me.
As I mentioned above, I soon realised that since I felt it was it was dishonest, then it probably was, and so it was a very short lived experiment and I felt much better when I stopped doing it.
I'd justified it to myself via *very* flimsy logic, and was clearly in the wrong.
It was part of a general experiment with SEO, which left me feeling that the whole link building thing is just spamming, which is why that is a side of it that I decided ultimately not to get involved in work-wise.
Interesting that all the people who make the "you do it too, you hypocrite!" are basically admitting to being spammy themselves, as I'll admit that's exactly what I was. You'd think they'd actually try and separate themselves by saying that such a thing has nothing to do with what SEO is, rather than "Look here - you were spamming! That's SEO, you hypocrite"
*Feels reputation has been soiled*
2) I'm interested that people are so unwilling to point to examples of their work when asked for it.
Perhaps next week's "things we'd like to see" - evidence of a well written blog post by an SEO on behalf of a company for their link building campaign and some proof of scientifically valid SEO testing.
3) Thanks. I'm really glad you have commented on this. I was worried that you'd think I'd let you down. Feel free to post me a link to your spammy cunt song. I probably deserve it.
(As I mentioned above, I soon realised that since I felt it was it was dishonest, then it probably was, and so it was a very short lived experiment and I felt much better when I stopped doing it.
I'd justified it to myself via *very* flimsy logic, and was clearly in the wrong.
It was part of a general experiment with SEO, which left me feeling that the whole link building thing is just spamming, which is why that is a side of it that I decided ultimately not to get involved in work-wise.
Interesting that all the people who make the "you do it too, you hypocrite!" are basically admitting to being spammy themselves, as I'll admit that's exactly what I was. You'd think they'd actually try and separate themselves by saying that such a thing has nothing to do with what SEO is, rather than "Look here - you were spamming! That's SEO, you hypocrite"
*Feels reputation has been soiled*
2) I'm interested that people are so unwilling to point to examples of their work when asked for it.
Perhaps next week's "things we'd like to see" - evidence of a well written blog post by an SEO on behalf of a company for their link building campaign and some proof of scientifically valid SEO testing.
3) Thanks. I'm really glad you have commented on this. I was worried that you'd think I'd let you down. Feel free to post me a link to your spammy cunt song. I probably deserve it.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 0:39,
archived)
I'm happy to admit I've pushed limits with link building. Don't think I've ever gone as far as hiding links on a very popular forum hosted by web geeks that would almost have certainly found them sooner or later, but I couldn't honestly say I've never "spammed". Wouldn't do so for my clients though.
However, I wouldn't then go on the very forum I had spammed, complaining about how SEO is mostly unqualified spam based on by own failed attempts at being a spammer. That's the reason it was pointed out - the tests you're basing your assumptions and arguments regarding link building on are inherantly flawed. That, and the fact it's pretty funny to see someone getting called out like that.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 9:06,
archived)
However, I wouldn't then go on the very forum I had spammed, complaining about how SEO is mostly unqualified spam based on by own failed attempts at being a spammer. That's the reason it was pointed out - the tests you're basing your assumptions and arguments regarding link building on are inherantly flawed. That, and the fact it's pretty funny to see someone getting called out like that.
I fail to see your pointexcept that you enjoyed some schadenfreude.
So, please link to some non-spammy link building that you now do for your clients.
(So, please link to some non-spammy link building that you now do for your clients.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 9:58,
archived)
Yeah, the schadenfreude was my point. Also, to make it clear that, for my part, it's not about comparing what you did to what an SEO would do for their clients. It's about laughing that you'd grumble about SEO and spam on a forum you'd spammed. I mean, did you really not see it coming?
And I'm not going to be drawn into linking to links to my clients. If you choose to believe they don't exist it's no skin off my nose!
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:06,
archived)
And I'm not going to be drawn into linking to links to my clients. If you choose to believe they don't exist it's no skin off my nose!
."If you choose to believe they don't exist it's no skin off my nose!"
-What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Interesting that it does seem to be a matter of belief to many. Like religion or homeopathy.
Also, would you say that someone who has had unsucessful attempts at SEO is really not in a better position to ask questions.
If I'm wrong, prove it to me with evidence.
(-What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Interesting that it does seem to be a matter of belief to many. Like religion or homeopathy.
Also, would you say that someone who has had unsucessful attempts at SEO is really not in a better position to ask questions.
If I'm wrong, prove it to me with evidence.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:12,
archived)
Yes you're in a good position to ask questions and my experience of people in SEO is that they love to answer them. They're not quite so happy to see their job written off by someone who tried it once and got it wrong so seems convinced it must be bullshit. I tried affiliate marketing once, made about $3. Doesn't make it bullshit - there's people out there making a buttload from it every day. I could write it off because I only have anecdotal evidence that it works for anyone, and I went into it unprepared and therefore sucked at it. Or, I could read, listen and try to understand what people are telling me.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:49,
archived)
"Or, I could read, listen and try to understand what people are telling me."How am I not doing that?
I am asking questions, I am trying not to resort to mud-slinging and point scoring.
I admit my initial post was deliberately obnoxious, but that was merely to make developers laugh. This is the sort of talk that goes on with developers.
If SEOs weren't so secretive about what it is they do, then surely this myth (if it is) that there is not a lot to it would not exist.
My own experience with working with SEOs was that if you asked them why they were doing something, they could not explain it logically. That is why I am cynical.
"once and got it wrong so seems convinced it must be bullshit." - I got to number one in yahoo, 3 in bing and page 2 of Google for a while, so it can't have been that wrong.
(I am asking questions, I am trying not to resort to mud-slinging and point scoring.
I admit my initial post was deliberately obnoxious, but that was merely to make developers laugh. This is the sort of talk that goes on with developers.
If SEOs weren't so secretive about what it is they do, then surely this myth (if it is) that there is not a lot to it would not exist.
My own experience with working with SEOs was that if you asked them why they were doing something, they could not explain it logically. That is why I am cynical.
"once and got it wrong so seems convinced it must be bullshit." - I got to number one in yahoo, 3 in bing and page 2 of Google for a while, so it can't have been that wrong.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:56,
archived)
."Web Design Leeds" / "Website design leeds"
edit: Can I point out that I am happy to show my own results here when asked. I see that I've gone back up to number one in Yahoo if you want actual evidence. Which seems very different to most people here who are unwilling to point to any examples of their own work.
(edit: Can I point out that I am happy to show my own results here when asked. I see that I've gone back up to number one in Yahoo if you want actual evidence. Which seems very different to most people here who are unwilling to point to any examples of their own work.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:09,
archived)
Wait til you're talking about your clients. They tend to be concerned with confidentiality and not being drawn into internet forum arguements.
And trust me, noone will ever judge your ability as an SEO on your Yahoo rankings. I only ruddy wish!
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:12,
archived)
And trust me, noone will ever judge your ability as an SEO on your Yahoo rankings. I only ruddy wish!
What sort of confidentialityis it?
Sites often list they have been SEOd, with a list to the company. So what sort of thing is confidential?
(Sites often list they have been SEOd, with a list to the company. So what sort of thing is confidential?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:26,
archived)
What is the reasoning fora confidentiality agreement?
( monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:46,
archived)
Well, I have access to a lot of information that my clients, for various reasons, would not want divulged. I'd like to keep that their trust, and I think I'd be risking that if they were to look at their referrals and see visitors from an endless b3ta thread about the merits of SEO. Call me paranoid.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 17:08,
archived)
Before b3ta.com went nofollow?
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jun 2010, 10:50,
archived)
It was always no-follow.So, I suspect that that made no difference whatsoever - which makes it more annoying for it to have been used in so many Ad hominem arguments and for it to have sullied my name.
I sold my soul for nothing!
(I sold my soul for nothing!
monkeon schmonkeon,
Fri 25 Jun 2010, 17:21,
archived)
"Perhaps next week's "things we'd like to see" - evidence of a well written blog post by an SEO on behalf of a company for their link building campaign and some proof of scientifically valid SEO testing."
SEOs shouldn't be writing a client's blog posts, just advising on the desireable elements to include. We do have social media people who do copywriting for blog but only to flesh out briefs that have been thoroughly discussed with the client.
As for scientific proof... not sure how you'd go about that without risking revealing confidential information. I could show you generic graphs that show search engine queries, traffic and conversions going in an upwards fashion in line with the time spent over their SEO campaign if you'd like?
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:01,
archived)
SEOs shouldn't be writing a client's blog posts, just advising on the desireable elements to include. We do have social media people who do copywriting for blog but only to flesh out briefs that have been thoroughly discussed with the client.
As for scientific proof... not sure how you'd go about that without risking revealing confidential information. I could show you generic graphs that show search engine queries, traffic and conversions going in an upwards fashion in line with the time spent over their SEO campaign if you'd like?
So, if everything is confidential,how on earth does anyone learn to be an SEO?
Is there a special school for the chosen few?
". I could show you generic graphs that show search engine queries, traffic and conversions going in an upwards fashion in line with the time spent over their SEO campaign if you'd like?"
I was meaning the optimisation theories. EG if someone said that you should have no more than 2 H2 tags on a page, how would you test that?
(Is there a special school for the chosen few?
". I could show you generic graphs that show search engine queries, traffic and conversions going in an upwards fashion in line with the time spent over their SEO campaign if you'd like?"
I was meaning the optimisation theories. EG if someone said that you should have no more than 2 H2 tags on a page, how would you test that?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:09,
archived)
You learn by either doing it yourself on your own projects and testing the various theories and practices that anyone with the time and inclination can read from the multitude of blogs and websites on the subject. And / or, like I did, you get a trainee position like I did and go from there.
I doubt many pages ever failed to rank because it had more than one H2 tag so I wouldn't bother myself too much with that to be honest. Problems with site architecture, repeated title and meta tags, duplicate content and other issues usually left behind by developers tend to be far more damaging to a site than semantics like that. How do I know without testing? Well, I've seen and fixed problems like these myself enough times and read enough from others who have had similar experiences to draw fairly solid conclusions. Probably not exactly the science you're after but then I'm not a statistical scientist, I just make website rank better.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:28,
archived)
I doubt many pages ever failed to rank because it had more than one H2 tag so I wouldn't bother myself too much with that to be honest. Problems with site architecture, repeated title and meta tags, duplicate content and other issues usually left behind by developers tend to be far more damaging to a site than semantics like that. How do I know without testing? Well, I've seen and fixed problems like these myself enough times and read enough from others who have had similar experiences to draw fairly solid conclusions. Probably not exactly the science you're after but then I'm not a statistical scientist, I just make website rank better.
."anyone with the time and inclination can read from the multitude of blogs and websites on the subject." - surely if the bloggers also have confidential information, it is not going to be on the blogs? You must admit there's some ridiculous theories on the blogs.
( monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:37,
archived)
And that's why it's not as easy as you'd think to get it right first time, because there's a whole lot of bullshit out there. As you've found yourself, you've got to try different things... see what is right, see what is wrong, and see what is going to come back to bite you in the arse.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:39,
archived)
Why does there not seem tobe good trusted reference material out there, or a strong set of standards, as there would be in any other technical skill eg accessibility?
( monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:43,
archived)
Good question - I think it is, at least in part, because the "official" advice given by Google is largely contradictory to people's experiences of what actually works, especially when it comes to link building. So you've got a mixture of approaches, from the blackest of black hat hackers, through your cloakers and spammers through to your white night agencies that want to be best buddies with Google. I think this will probably only stop when Google or the search engine of the day manage to find an unspammable algorythm. I won't hold my breath.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:06,
archived)
Is personalised searching not going to be unspammable afterenough data has been harvested about a user?
"Google is largely contradictory to people's experiences of what actually works, especially when it comes to link building."
Does it not 'work' ultimately by cheating Google's aims. Google's advice is surely to tell you how to make sure that you rank for your chosen keywords.
They see it as their job to then rank in order of relevence, they aren't going to want to encourage people to try and cheat.
A side of SEO I do see as good is making sure that clients remember to do things like mention locations they work on the page, as they often forget, and so are missing out on lots of areas where they may be the most relevent.
Google's idea of SEO is surely this sort of thing?
SEO seems now to mean more to try and cheat the race, rather than just making sure that you start from the best vantage point.
("Google is largely contradictory to people's experiences of what actually works, especially when it comes to link building."
Does it not 'work' ultimately by cheating Google's aims. Google's advice is surely to tell you how to make sure that you rank for your chosen keywords.
They see it as their job to then rank in order of relevence, they aren't going to want to encourage people to try and cheat.
A side of SEO I do see as good is making sure that clients remember to do things like mention locations they work on the page, as they often forget, and so are missing out on lots of areas where they may be the most relevent.
Google's idea of SEO is surely this sort of thing?
SEO seems now to mean more to try and cheat the race, rather than just making sure that you start from the best vantage point.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:18,
archived)
Yeah but I care more about my client's aims than Google's aims. Google want you to rank where they want to rank you. My clients want to rank higher than that. Of course they aren't going to encourage people to do it.
Making sure you're targetting the locations you serve is just part of the initial keyword research and planning, that definitely should be a standard part of any SEO strategy!
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:23,
archived)
Making sure you're targetting the locations you serve is just part of the initial keyword research and planning, that definitely should be a standard part of any SEO strategy!
Is it not a sisyphian task?Any methods to cheat are surely going to be found out if Google want to retain their reputation.
Would you not admit that 50% of doing well is down to this cheating side?
(Would you not admit that 50% of doing well is down to this cheating side?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:32,
archived)
"Any methods to cheat are surely going to be found out if Google want to retain their reputation."
You'd think...
"Would you not admit that 50% of doing well is down to this cheating side?"
I wouldn't like to guess at an exact percentage but you just have to look at the link profiles of the top ranking sites for competitive keywords to know that "cheating" Google, when done right, can help you rank much better than just letting the cards fall where they may. Of course, do it wrong and you'll get shafted.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:55,
archived)
You'd think...
"Would you not admit that 50% of doing well is down to this cheating side?"
I wouldn't like to guess at an exact percentage but you just have to look at the link profiles of the top ranking sites for competitive keywords to know that "cheating" Google, when done right, can help you rank much better than just letting the cards fall where they may. Of course, do it wrong and you'll get shafted.
So you would use the verbcheating to describe much of SEO?
( monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:04,
archived)
Not really, hence the quotation marks.
I'd call it competitive advantage.
Anyway that's more than enough for me for one day, sure we both have actual jobs to be getting on with.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:24,
archived)
I'd call it competitive advantage.
Anyway that's more than enough for me for one day, sure we both have actual jobs to be getting on with.
."competitive advantage" - I had to look up the term, but "Competitive advantage is a position of a company in a competitive landscape that allows the company earning return on investments higher than the cost of investments. Competitive advantage should be relevant, unique, and sustainable."
I don't quite see how this relates.
"Sustainable", when all un-earned links are built on sand and "Unique", when link building is available to anyone.
Why aren't black hat techniques "competitive advantage"?
(I don't quite see how this relates.
"Sustainable", when all un-earned links are built on sand and "Unique", when link building is available to anyone.
Why aren't black hat techniques "competitive advantage"?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:32,
archived)
Would you then disagree withMilt that it comes from having "very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers", or do people not need a strong coding background?
www.b3ta.com/board/10098737
(www.b3ta.com/board/10098737
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:41,
archived)
I'd say, over time, you need to develop a
"very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers"
that's what I've done, and I came into the job as a trainee having built a few sites in dreamweaver. Make of that what you will.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:54,
archived)
"very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers"
that's what I've done, and I came into the job as a trainee having built a few sites in dreamweaver. Make of that what you will.
Could you give 3 examplesof a specific aspect of web development that you need to know deeper than most web developers?
"I came into the job as a trainee having built a few sites in dreamweaver." - depends if you used the code view to build them or not, I guess. Ultimately, SEO is about the code, not the look and feel.
("I came into the job as a trainee having built a few sites in dreamweaver." - depends if you used the code view to build them or not, I guess. Ultimately, SEO is about the code, not the look and feel.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:59,
archived)
Bits and bobs of both. I started constructing using the WYSIWYG interface and then got into fiddling with code to make changes that Dreamweaver was rubbish for.
I can't speak for most web developers but I'll give you the three problems caused or overlooked by devs I come up against most;
1. Duplicate content caused by different URL paths to the same page. This can usually be fixed by reviewing the navigation, redirects and / or canonicalisation.
2. Duplicate title or meta tags - this can kill a site but the amount of devs who are happy to just put the site name as the title of all pages is amazing. Same goes for the description tag.
3. Over reliance on flash, tables, on page CSS commands, java and all sorts of other goodies devs love to drop into the code.
Now I'm not saying that I'm a better coder in any of these departments than the majority of devs. I just tend to recognise their importance more than the developer who put them together first time round and take more care in making sure they're done right.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:18,
archived)
I can't speak for most web developers but I'll give you the three problems caused or overlooked by devs I come up against most;
1. Duplicate content caused by different URL paths to the same page. This can usually be fixed by reviewing the navigation, redirects and / or canonicalisation.
2. Duplicate title or meta tags - this can kill a site but the amount of devs who are happy to just put the site name as the title of all pages is amazing. Same goes for the description tag.
3. Over reliance on flash, tables, on page CSS commands, java and all sorts of other goodies devs love to drop into the code.
Now I'm not saying that I'm a better coder in any of these departments than the majority of devs. I just tend to recognise their importance more than the developer who put them together first time round and take more care in making sure they're done right.
.A dev who builds 2 and 3 is a bad dev. They need training.
However, do tables actually effect SEO, it's messy code for sure, but I've been told that's only an accessibility issue?
I felt Milt was more referring to the likes of the ability to configure server settings and implement these changes on difficult sites, rather than awareness of theory with things like duplicate tags (which is useful knowledge, but not technical knowledge).
If you could make a huge site built on a rickety CMS SEO-friendly (which I suspect is sometimes Milt's job from what he says), then that is a very skilled job.
(However, do tables actually effect SEO, it's messy code for sure, but I've been told that's only an accessibility issue?
I felt Milt was more referring to the likes of the ability to configure server settings and implement these changes on difficult sites, rather than awareness of theory with things like duplicate tags (which is useful knowledge, but not technical knowledge).
If you could make a huge site built on a rickety CMS SEO-friendly (which I suspect is sometimes Milt's job from what he says), then that is a very skilled job.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:28,
archived)
Yeah I wouldn't argue that what I do is half as technical as the devs I work with. They'd laugh at me if I did. But there's still times they need to talk things through with me when they're doing development, just as I need to speak to them when I'm trying to develop a solution to a specific issue on a site.
Perhaps Milt was referring to other elements but I can only speak for myself :)
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:52,
archived)
Perhaps Milt was referring to other elements but I can only speak for myself :)
But that goes straight back to my initial pointMy post was unfair on people who can do all the tricky stuff like Milt. His skills are probably beyond mine, though he could laugh off my joke and wasn't piqued at all.
However, if someone is just selling the well known stuff such as not to duplicate title tags, then anyone can be an SEO.
(However, if someone is just selling the well known stuff such as not to duplicate title tags, then anyone can be an SEO.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:02,
archived)
If it's so well known why do I have to deal with it so ruddy often?
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:12,
archived)
bad devs.You don't get companies existing whose entire sales pitch is to fix work by bad builders. You get bad builders and good builders.
( monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:27,
archived)
."I'd say, over time, you need to develop a
'very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers'
that's what I've done"
"Yeah I wouldn't argue that what I do is half as technical as the devs I work with."
Isn't that contradictory?
('very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers'
that's what I've done"
"Yeah I wouldn't argue that what I do is half as technical as the devs I work with."
Isn't that contradictory?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 13:06,
archived)
No, it just means I'm still developing my own technical skills, and that the aspects that I do concern myself with (moreso than your average dev) are not necessarily that technical.
It seems to me that you consider that to mean that what I do is therefore worth less and I'm not sure you're ever going to be convinced otherwise.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 13:31,
archived)
It seems to me that you consider that to mean that what I do is therefore worth less and I'm not sure you're ever going to be convinced otherwise.
But ifyou need 'very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers' then surely you can't work backwards to achieve this aim?
Otherwise, you have less skills then a web developer and thus fail the criterion of needing the 'very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers'
Otherwise, you'd have to say that SEO requires considerably less deep development skills than a web developer, which is not what you said and not what Milt has successfully persuaded me that a good SEO needs.
(Otherwise, you have less skills then a web developer and thus fail the criterion of needing the 'very deep knowledge of very narrow and specific aspects of web development; deeper than most web developers'
Otherwise, you'd have to say that SEO requires considerably less deep development skills than a web developer, which is not what you said and not what Milt has successfully persuaded me that a good SEO needs.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 13:40,
archived)
It's simple. I work with narrow, specific aspect of web development.
I believe I know how these aspects should be used better than most web developers.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:06,
archived)
I believe I know how these aspects should be used better than most web developers.
Please can youconfirm which specific aspect of web development this is.
What skills are required? As far as I can tell, this is what you do for your clients...
1) Tweak the code more or less according to the Google guidelines [performed once at the beginning of the project]. You might pass this work onto a developer, I do not know.
2) Link building by listing in many directories such as:
www.littlewebdirectory.com, uk.linkedin.com, www.0155.jp
www.whichwebdesigncompany.com, www.counterdeal.com
info.isearchclick.net, www.roask.com www.diverselist.com www.addurl.co.in www.addlink.co.in www.suggestlink.co.in www.webdiro.com www.getlistedrightnow.com www.hotfroguk.co.uk www.tamesidebusiness.co.uk www.fatinfo.com
[sign up taking less than 5 minutes per link]
3) Request reciprocal links sites from relevant sites.
4) Creating wordpress blog and show clients how to use it.
5) Forward free stats from google, explaining what they mean.
I am not aware of anything else. Books, blogs and the above posts I have read seem to confirm this.
I find it hard to see a level of education required for this work and in particular I can't see how this amount of work can justify the monthly fees.
If you could point me to aspects of your work where ability beyond this is required, then that is how you will persuade me otherwise.
(What skills are required? As far as I can tell, this is what you do for your clients...
1) Tweak the code more or less according to the Google guidelines [performed once at the beginning of the project]. You might pass this work onto a developer, I do not know.
2) Link building by listing in many directories such as:
www.littlewebdirectory.com, uk.linkedin.com, www.0155.jp
www.whichwebdesigncompany.com, www.counterdeal.com
info.isearchclick.net, www.roask.com www.diverselist.com www.addurl.co.in www.addlink.co.in www.suggestlink.co.in www.webdiro.com www.getlistedrightnow.com www.hotfroguk.co.uk www.tamesidebusiness.co.uk www.fatinfo.com
[sign up taking less than 5 minutes per link]
3) Request reciprocal links sites from relevant sites.
4) Creating wordpress blog and show clients how to use it.
5) Forward free stats from google, explaining what they mean.
I am not aware of anything else. Books, blogs and the above posts I have read seem to confirm this.
I find it hard to see a level of education required for this work and in particular I can't see how this amount of work can justify the monthly fees.
If you could point me to aspects of your work where ability beyond this is required, then that is how you will persuade me otherwise.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:39,
archived)
Well you completely missed out any form of keyword research or mapping right there, which is pretty essential before you move on to any of that stuff.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:52,
archived)
Again, there are simple tools forkeyword research, and is relevant to anyone.
Keyword mapping increases the time taken in the initial cost of optimising a site (if the site is particularly large), but why should someone then pay a premium monthly fee when this should be done in a single go, especially if it is a static site?
(Keyword mapping increases the time taken in the initial cost of optimising a site (if the site is particularly large), but why should someone then pay a premium monthly fee when this should be done in a single go, especially if it is a static site?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:01,
archived)
Yep, everyone has access to the keyword tool... mind you, most people don't even know to turn broad match off to get an accurate number figure, let alone how to use it to determine the best keywords for a given page on their site.
If it's a static site then yeah you'd hope to get the keyword mapping right first time but business aims can change over time, and keywords with them. Other than that you might find you overreached yourself with your original targets and go back and refine them further. But yeah, keyword mapping shouldn't be the major focus in the ongoing work, unless it very active site with content changing on a regular basis.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:21,
archived)
If it's a static site then yeah you'd hope to get the keyword mapping right first time but business aims can change over time, and keywords with them. Other than that you might find you overreached yourself with your original targets and go back and refine them further. But yeah, keyword mapping shouldn't be the major focus in the ongoing work, unless it very active site with content changing on a regular basis.
Again, I have no problemwith reasonable initial costs.
It is the on-going side of it which I feel there isn't much skill in.
Could you break down what is involved in the work clients get for a monthly fee?
(It is the on-going side of it which I feel there isn't much skill in.
Could you break down what is involved in the work clients get for a monthly fee?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:43,
archived)
Not really, we charge an hourly fee budgeted to whatever the client is happy to spend. We only set a fee for the setup as that will take a finite amount of time, wheras we can do as much or as little monthly work for the client as they need or are happy to pay for - although obviously the more work we do, the more of an effect we can have. The hourly fee is the same as we charge for dev work, we don't discriminate. It's probably multiples of what you'd charge but then that's just the difference between agencies and freelancers in any profession.
So, we'll have a set number of hours to work on a client so we'll often have to prioritise at the start of the month what needs doing - if there's been some new products or content adding we'll make a point of ensuring it's all in order and the right keywords are on there. If the site's remained static we'll work on link building - sometimes just carrying on trying to improve rankings for the clients main phrases, or we might target some specific pages to help a client promote a particular item, for example. In some cases we work purely on a consultancy level regarding on site work, so we have to spend that time guiding the client's developers through any work that needs doing.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 16:47,
archived)
So, we'll have a set number of hours to work on a client so we'll often have to prioritise at the start of the month what needs doing - if there's been some new products or content adding we'll make a point of ensuring it's all in order and the right keywords are on there. If the site's remained static we'll work on link building - sometimes just carrying on trying to improve rankings for the clients main phrases, or we might target some specific pages to help a client promote a particular item, for example. In some cases we work purely on a consultancy level regarding on site work, so we have to spend that time guiding the client's developers through any work that needs doing.
As long as the client is aware of what they are gettingfor their fee, and understand why things are being done, then an hourly fee actually seems far fairer than most I've come across.
So, fair enough.
Going to bow out of the debate now, as it's rather too time consuming.
And I never even got on to ranting about the sheer amount of spam I get from people asking for text links and link building scams...
(Although I suspect that no one is going to come on here and admit to sending them)
(So, fair enough.
Going to bow out of the debate now, as it's rather too time consuming.
And I never even got on to ranting about the sheer amount of spam I get from people asking for text links and link building scams...
(Although I suspect that no one is going to come on here and admit to sending them)
monkeon schmonkeon,
Fri 25 Jun 2010, 10:20,
archived)
"It seems to me that you consider that to mean that what I do is therefore worth less and I'm not sure you're ever going to be convinced otherwise."
I don't know what you do - you rarely give examples. If you can point to work which is as skilled as the work Milt seems to do, fair enough.
If, however, you cannot, then my original point stands that the skill base is very small.
I have conceded loads of points to Milt - so I am able to be convinced by a convincing argument. You seem to just fall into the logical traps of Special Pleading and Straw Men.
(I don't know what you do - you rarely give examples. If you can point to work which is as skilled as the work Milt seems to do, fair enough.
If, however, you cannot, then my original point stands that the skill base is very small.
I have conceded loads of points to Milt - so I am able to be convinced by a convincing argument. You seem to just fall into the logical traps of Special Pleading and Straw Men.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 13:45,
archived)
Okay I have a question for you.
How do you think you'd do, working as an SEO? Do you think your current knowledge and skill base covers everything?
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:10,
archived)
How do you think you'd do, working as an SEO? Do you think your current knowledge and skill base covers everything?
I'm scared off by the link building side.If I wasn't, then I do believe my knowledge and skill base covers everything (in your definition of an SEO, not Milt's)
I have read books on SEO as that is how I would learn a new development skill. If you don't think this is enough, what are the available books missing?
The fact that the books are so sparse on knowledge in an area which has existed for ten years suggests to me that there is not much more to learn.
(I have read books on SEO as that is how I would learn a new development skill. If you don't think this is enough, what are the available books missing?
The fact that the books are so sparse on knowledge in an area which has existed for ten years suggests to me that there is not much more to learn.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:44,
archived)
And when you consider that, at the end of the day, an SEO (or at least the amount they're worth paying) is judged by the rankings he or she has achieved and maintained in the past, what level do you think you'd enter at?
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:07,
archived)
As I mentioned earlierI believe it should be performance related pay if it is going to be judged on rankings alone.
You know the industry better than me, so what skills do you think I'd be lacking from books and blog research?
I'm not arguing that I am better at SEO than you, or that you don't get results. I'm sure you do. I'm just interested that people seem to suggest there is a big skill base in the monthly cost side of it, then not pointing me towards what any of these skills lie.
If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?
(You know the industry better than me, so what skills do you think I'd be lacking from books and blog research?
I'm not arguing that I am better at SEO than you, or that you don't get results. I'm sure you do. I'm just interested that people seem to suggest there is a big skill base in the monthly cost side of it, then not pointing me towards what any of these skills lie.
If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:41,
archived)
"You know the industry better than me, so what skills do you think I'd be lacking from books and blog research?"
I can only go from the work I can see from your site, and really I think all you're lacking really is experience. There's some rooky errors going on that won't effect the site's performance all that much but kind of explain why very few of them have particularly good rankings right now.
I know you weren't arguing who's best, and that wasn't my intention, I just wanted you to think about why your sites aren't ranking when other sites, most likely handled at sometime or another by someone who calls themselves an "SEO", are ranking well. Could it be that they're doing something you aren't? And wouldn't the know how to do that be worth paying good money for? I think so. The problem comes when you get people selling the service without the know how to back it up, which leads us on to...
"If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?"
That's a really good question. I'd consider the following...
- do they offer any guarantees, and on what basis? if it sounds to good to be true, it is
- they should discuss with you the keyword targets / target group rather than dictate what they're going to be
- watch out for phrases like "ranked in 48hrs" or "we'll submit you to 1000 search engines"
- ask them about their techniques... if i was talking to you in person i'd be much less cagey than i am being on this here public bulletin board, and any decent SEO will be happy to talk you through what they'd do
- can they take the work away? i worked for a company once that would actually reinstate the non-optimised version of your site if you stopped paying the monthly fee! Fuck THAT for a bag of chips - i didn't stay for long.
- ask to see work and rankings for existing clients... again, they'll be less cagey in person and if they refuse to show you anything then it's probably not a good sign
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 16:36,
archived)
I can only go from the work I can see from your site, and really I think all you're lacking really is experience. There's some rooky errors going on that won't effect the site's performance all that much but kind of explain why very few of them have particularly good rankings right now.
I know you weren't arguing who's best, and that wasn't my intention, I just wanted you to think about why your sites aren't ranking when other sites, most likely handled at sometime or another by someone who calls themselves an "SEO", are ranking well. Could it be that they're doing something you aren't? And wouldn't the know how to do that be worth paying good money for? I think so. The problem comes when you get people selling the service without the know how to back it up, which leads us on to...
"If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?"
That's a really good question. I'd consider the following...
- do they offer any guarantees, and on what basis? if it sounds to good to be true, it is
- they should discuss with you the keyword targets / target group rather than dictate what they're going to be
- watch out for phrases like "ranked in 48hrs" or "we'll submit you to 1000 search engines"
- ask them about their techniques... if i was talking to you in person i'd be much less cagey than i am being on this here public bulletin board, and any decent SEO will be happy to talk you through what they'd do
- can they take the work away? i worked for a company once that would actually reinstate the non-optimised version of your site if you stopped paying the monthly fee! Fuck THAT for a bag of chips - i didn't stay for long.
- ask to see work and rankings for existing clients... again, they'll be less cagey in person and if they refuse to show you anything then it's probably not a good sign
In other news, I see you did some of the games for the computers episode of Look Around You. I'll happily concede that that is fucking awesome.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 17:09,
archived)
I use a text editor for everything and have built software for major automotive companiesas well as a number of corporate websites before I became an SEO.
I also wrote some crackingly bad caravan sites as a trainee web developer - www.bancroftleisure.co.uk/
Back then I used tables to lay our content. What was I thinking? Well, I guess I was probably thinking that the different browsers were shite, but also that I was a lazy toad.
I can look back at this kind of bedroom web design and, rather than shame, I realise that I should not ridicule those who are not good, because we all shit our pants at some point.
(I also wrote some crackingly bad caravan sites as a trainee web developer - www.bancroftleisure.co.uk/
Back then I used tables to lay our content. What was I thinking? Well, I guess I was probably thinking that the different browsers were shite, but also that I was a lazy toad.
I can look back at this kind of bedroom web design and, rather than shame, I realise that I should not ridicule those who are not good, because we all shit our pants at some point.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jun 2010, 10:55,
archived)
"SEOs shouldn't be writing a client's blog posts"so, you'd disagree with Rhyss Wynne that one of the three jobs of an SEO is to
"2. Write content that both is readable by users, and as well includes a range of keywords that you would like to be ranking for in Google. Again, it's not that hard!" / "3. I cannot divulge client blog posts that I've put out there, but I'm going to link to a blog post that I wrote to promote my blog"
www.b3ta.com/board/10098463
("2. Write content that both is readable by users, and as well includes a range of keywords that you would like to be ranking for in Google. Again, it's not that hard!" / "3. I cannot divulge client blog posts that I've put out there, but I'm going to link to a blog post that I wrote to promote my blog"
www.b3ta.com/board/10098463
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:21,
archived)
Personally I'd rather the client write content for blogs (assuming it's going on their site) as it'll better reflect the nature of that business.
But then Rhyss is a successful blogger in his own right so if he's comfortable blogging on behalf of other people / companies then I wouldn't say he's wrong to do so, just different ways of working I guess. But I'd say he's in the minority and that I probably agree with you that most blogs churned out by SEOs purely for SEOs sake on behalf of their clients are probably going to drek. Better to inform and educate, IMHO.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 10:38,
archived)
But then Rhyss is a successful blogger in his own right so if he's comfortable blogging on behalf of other people / companies then I wouldn't say he's wrong to do so, just different ways of working I guess. But I'd say he's in the minority and that I probably agree with you that most blogs churned out by SEOs purely for SEOs sake on behalf of their clients are probably going to drek. Better to inform and educate, IMHO.
."Personally I'd rather the client write content for blogs (assuming it's going on their site) as it'll better reflect the nature of that business."
In which case, is the client not better being trained in the basic concepts of link building and left to do it themselves, rather than pay a monthly fee.
If the client writes their own content, what does this monthly fee involve (assuming that is your approach - it seems to be the common one)?
(In which case, is the client not better being trained in the basic concepts of link building and left to do it themselves, rather than pay a monthly fee.
If the client writes their own content, what does this monthly fee involve (assuming that is your approach - it seems to be the common one)?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:36,
archived)
Link building from other sources, monitoring, reporting, consulting with the client regarding any updates to the site, new products, new keywords they'd like to target, link opportunities they've been presented with themselves or sometimes even entire site migarations. All sorts really.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:44,
archived)
."Link building from other sources" - you mean directories?
If not, please give examples. This is vague.
"monitoring, reporting," - can be done via simple scripts, wherein daily, hourly or whatever reports can be given.
"consulting with the client regarding any updates to the site, new products, new keywords they'd like to target, or sometimes even entire site migarations." - again, why monthly unless this is a monthy occurance? Most sites aren't updated that often.
"link opportunities they've been presented with themselves" - surely that is doing the link building themselves?
(If not, please give examples. This is vague.
"monitoring, reporting," - can be done via simple scripts, wherein daily, hourly or whatever reports can be given.
"consulting with the client regarding any updates to the site, new products, new keywords they'd like to target, or sometimes even entire site migarations." - again, why monthly unless this is a monthy occurance? Most sites aren't updated that often.
"link opportunities they've been presented with themselves" - surely that is doing the link building themselves?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 11:57,
archived)
Directories are one of them, yes. Perhaps link outreach, where you find a site related to yours and actually ask them if they'd like to link to you, or what it would take to do so (occasionally, shock horror, this might even involve payment, although I can't remember last time I had to do that) or article marketing which I know you've seen.
You can send automated reports but without someone to go through them and explain what all the numbers mean these are useless to a lot of clients.
There are right ways and not so right ways that a client can set up a link. They might fail to use keyword optimised anchor text. They might set up a reciprocal link where the otherside decides to set up a sneaky 302 redirect instead of a direct link. They might agree for their link to go on some crappy buried page while returning it on their homepage. You'd be surprised how challenging something like setting up a link can be for anyone who's just been told how to get them but doesn't know the details and potential pitfalls.
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:11,
archived)
You can send automated reports but without someone to go through them and explain what all the numbers mean these are useless to a lot of clients.
There are right ways and not so right ways that a client can set up a link. They might fail to use keyword optimised anchor text. They might set up a reciprocal link where the otherside decides to set up a sneaky 302 redirect instead of a direct link. They might agree for their link to go on some crappy buried page while returning it on their homepage. You'd be surprised how challenging something like setting up a link can be for anyone who's just been told how to get them but doesn't know the details and potential pitfalls.
.Why not just provide them with a list of directories as part of the consultancy so that a minimum-wager could enter their details?
As for related sites, most companies have many contacts, so why don't they just ask them for links when the concept of link building is explained (including what 'optimised' anchor text to use)?
As for the 302s thing, just tell them not to post on the arse end of the internet where these exist - deal with real companies and clients. Explain to them that any "link building" spam emails are just scams. Or just explain that if there's already 100 links on a site, then it's probably not worth it.
(As for related sites, most companies have many contacts, so why don't they just ask them for links when the concept of link building is explained (including what 'optimised' anchor text to use)?
As for the 302s thing, just tell them not to post on the arse end of the internet where these exist - deal with real companies and clients. Explain to them that any "link building" spam emails are just scams. Or just explain that if there's already 100 links on a site, then it's probably not worth it.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:43,
archived)
."You can send automated reports but without someone to go through them and explain what all the numbers mean these are useless to a lot of clients."
- does this going through them really not follow a set pattern?
When you have explained the results once, what sort of thing do you explain the second time?
Surely a nicely laid out stats page could have enough explinatory text for the layman to understand.
Reports I have seen just involve telling someone where they are in Google and for what keywords. I imagine that if someone is doing well for an irrelevent keyword and badly for a targeted one then it would not be explained to them as to why it is irrelevent, which is the sort of information they need to know.
(- does this going through them really not follow a set pattern?
When you have explained the results once, what sort of thing do you explain the second time?
Surely a nicely laid out stats page could have enough explinatory text for the layman to understand.
Reports I have seen just involve telling someone where they are in Google and for what keywords. I imagine that if someone is doing well for an irrelevent keyword and badly for a targeted one then it would not be explained to them as to why it is irrelevent, which is the sort of information they need to know.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 12:49,
archived)