Visiting the "Over-Optimization Penalty" Monster

[greeneagle]

There's no such thing!

Show me any Site that you think has been penalized due to over-optimization!

There is no such monster!

IMO - It only lives in overactive imaginations and people looking for failure excuses!

Show me different, and I'll be glad to back off my position here!

Ken

[wrmineo]

You're glorifying a monster that does not exist obviously. Rather, for me at least, it is simply a nice way of telling someone that they've gone overboard. There can be little doubt that some webmasters' attempts to optimize their site goes beyond good optimization and goes into spam. This would be a case, in a "PC" term-way, of over-optimizing IMO.

[greeneagle]

You are right on there Rob, and that is exactly where I intend to go technically with anyone that wants to bring it on!

It's way past time someone broke this myth!

Ken

[Evic]

I posted this in the previous topic (which forwards over to this one).

I agree that a penalization doesn't exist, there are very few penalizations in the SEO world period. What I do believe exists, and is used effectively, is the "silent treatment."

If you (for lack of a better term) "over-optimize" a certain element on your website (such as IMG-ALT tags), I believe that element will simply be ignored.

Google, or other reputable engines, will not penalize you per say, you are penalizing yourself. You are causing a very effective SEO element to be ignored, when it could generate a much more successful index for you.

[bhartzer]

There is no such monster!

Ken, you obviously haven't pushed the limits enough with your own optimization efforts to have experienced the joys of running into the OOP (Over-Optimization Penalty).

I'm sure you're probably thinking: "prove it". If that's what you're thinking, how about this:

Over-Optimization penalty because of too much anchor text. You decide that your site is not ranking well. So, you change the navigation on your site so that all the home page links say "keyword keyword home" instead of "home". A few days later you lose your rankings, which is a serious blow to your traffic. Since that was the only thing you changed on your site you change those links to your home page back so it says, "home" instead of "keyword keyword home". BINGO! All of your lost rankings and your lost traffic comes back a few days later.

If that's not proof of an over-optimization penalty then I don't know what is--I would call that an OOP: you do something to try to boost your rankings by over optimizing some element of your website, something that backfires and causes a loss of rankings.

I personally can name tons of other examples just like this that prove that there's an OOP.

One more thing--I think that you can over-optimize a web page or site without going as far as actually spamming. In the example above, I truly believe that having too much of the same anchor text isn't spamming, it's just over-optimization. Spamming, in my book, would be something like keyword stuffing or something like repeating a keyword over and over again. Over optimization is different than spamming.

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Ken, you obviously haven't pushed the limits enough with your own optimization efforts to have experienced the joys of running into the OOP (Over-Optimization Penalty).

I'm sure you're probably thinking: "prove it". If that's what you're thinking, how about this:

Over-Optimization penalty because of too much anchor text. You decide that your site is not ranking well. So, you change the navigation on your site so that all the home page links say "keyword keyword home" instead of "home". A few days later you lose your rankings, which is a serious blow to your traffic. Since that was the only thing you changed on your site you change those links to your home page back so it says, "home" instead of "keyword keyword home". BINGO! All of your lost rankings and your lost traffic comes back a few days later.
If that's not proof of an over-optimization penalty then I don't know what is--I would call that an OOP: you do something to try to boost your rankings by over optimizing some element of your website, something that backfires and causes a loss of rankings.

I personally can name tons of other examples just like this that prove that there's an OOP.

One more thing--I think that you can over-optimize a web page or site without going as far as actually spamming. In the example above, I truly believe that having too much of the same anchor text isn't spamming, it's just over-optimization. Spamming, in my book, would be something like keyword stuffing or something like repeating a keyword over and over again. Over optimization is different than spamming.

Again, just present a verifyable and well documented
example and I will believe you.

I purchase a domain about 6 weeks ago built and published the site 3 weeks later. I then properly submitted to the search engines (including a Google XML site map)

This is an all Flash site so I made it easy for the search engines to index it by adding RELEVANT keywords to the title and behind the Flash.

As of last week it ranks well with Google and Yahoo for my target keywords.

#2 on Google for "myspace resources"

#11 on Yahoo for "cool myspace stuff"

[Steve W]

Isn't 'hiding' relevant keywords behind your flash (black text on black background) cloaking, which is a bad thing?
I'm no SEO expert so am looking to Greeneagle or the like to say this definitively, but your code :looks: like cloaking to my untrained eyes.

No offence intended, just wondering why you used flash to create that site, it looks like plain HTML?

Also, 'myspace resources' is unlikely to be a commonly searched term, which makes it easier to rank well, no matter how young the site IMHO.

[bhartzer]

Isn't 'hiding' relevant keywords behind your flash (black text on black background) cloaking, which is a bad thing?

That's not cloaking. Cloaking is when you purposely identify the search engine spiders and present them with different content than what you give to regular vistors. Usually this is done by identifying an IP address or user agent of the visitor.

All Mtheory is doing is hiding text. The example that Mtheory gives really has nothing to do with the Over Optimization Penalty. There's no OOP for what Mtheory is doing because it's not over-optimizing--it's just helping the search engines understand what is presented in the Flash content. They don't have a problem with that.

As far as proof goes, I thought I explained it in my previous post. If you over optimize a site or page then you'll suffer a ranking penalty--remove it and you will get your rankings back. To actually prove this it would take at least a week or two--which is not feasible for this topic/thread right now.

[Steve W]

I think I have over optimized (spammed up) a page on the OCM site.

Most changes I made to the site really pushed it up the ranks, but one phrase in particular is lounging around page 2 despite looking like it has more key phrase content than those above it.

I've been thinking for a while too much key phrase density - I'll knock it back and see what happens, since it's page two anyway, that page can't do worse so it's worth a go... if it drops further, at least I'll know I hadn't gone overboard (reading it a few weeks after writing it, I think I did...)

[randfish]

I actually have a client I can share who was banned by Yahoo! for over-optimization. Specifically it was for www.avatarfinancial.com who had too many backlinks from sources Yahoo! felt were 'funny'.

I asked for re-inclusion and was being ignored so I signed up for Sitematch. Once I was in that, I compalined to the editors there who talked to some folks over at organic and now the site is back in without paid inclusion. They recognized that the sites who were linking weren't under my control and that I couldn't, in fact, control who linked to it. Many, many hundreds of scraper sites were to blame!

I've seen plenty of direct, real evidence of OOP and I think categorizing it as a myth is a way to get a lot of folks hurt. I've seen sites banned for keyword stuffing, stacked title tags, hidden text, cloaking and dozens more. OOP is as real as the nose on my face and its a very logical, realistic part of SEOs.

[freehits]

Seems like we are just perpetuating this "myth" by discussing it, since no G engineers are available here to "break this myth" what do we really stand to prove?

Anyone else attemting to state whole-heartedly for or against the concept is just glorified guessing.

Since this is one of the alledged triggers of a "sandbox" effect, we are pretty much just reliving that same arguement.

We are again approaching this completely backwards. To show examples of sites that appear penalized for "too much optimization", then to have people guess at what a "real" reason is, really proves nothing, since once again nobody here really knows sure enough to make definate claims.

The only true way is to isolate a variable which is what Bhartzer does in his post.

Change just one variable and witness a distinct effect, then change it back and notice the effect of that as well.

From that you can draw reasonable conclusions, anything else is just based on assumptions and guessing.


I just changed the navigation text and alts on one of my 'sandboxed sites' to not include keyword repetition, So I will monitor the effects of changing just that one variable while everything else stays the same.

Nothing else to lose for a site that is
#1 MSN
#1 Yahoo and
<1000 in google

[spronger]

The over-optimisation penalty is no myth. It exists and it makes perfectly good sense that it does. Here's my real-world non-mythical example:

My main targeted keyword is "create website". This usually ejoys page 1 status on G. But every now and then I was finding that I would disappear from the SERPs. Not just a fall in ranking, but disappear all together. This usually happened when G picked up a new link which contained those keywords in the anchor text. The solution? Reduce keyword density on-page or add some new links that didn't contain those keywords. In other words, de-optimise.

When I did that my ranking would return, usually within hours. If you find that you're not ranking on keywords that you've really put a lot of work into, and gosh darn it, you really should be ranking well on but are off the radar, try de-optimising.

Agreed, there are a lot of myths out there. This isn't one of them.

Steve

[greeneagle]

I have been wanting to get my hands dirty in this discussion for a long time here! It just didn't seem right until the thrust of this Forum became more "Optimization" defined.

Here is how "googleguy" is quoted in response to the "OOP":

"It's the second one. People post around here about filters, blocking, penalties, etc. etc. A far better explanation is "things which used to work before don't receive the same amount of credit now." It's natural for people who are way out there with their linking strategies or their page-building strategies to think of a drop as an over-optimization penalty, but it's more realistic to conclude that Google is weighting criteria differently so that over-optimized sites just aren't doing as well now."

We can draw some paralells to the sandbox issue here, but this is indeed a different topic altogether.

Many SEOers push the limits, which helps form difinitive boundaries between optimization and over-optimization. "Over optimization" is simply a nice way to say: YOU HAVE NOW ENTERED THE SPAM ZONE!

I can't help but to be reminded of the television series; "The Outer Limits" here.

Personally I am grateful to those "gray hat" SEO'rs that push the limits, so that I know where not to transgress!

I had much rather learn from someone else's mistakes.

Ken

[greeneagle]

bhartzer:

"Ken, you obviously haven't pushed the limits enough with your own optimization efforts to have experienced the joys of running into the OOP (Over-Optimization Penalty).

I'm sure you're probably thinking: "prove it". If that's what you're thinking, how about this:

Over-Optimization penalty because of too much anchor text. You decide that your site is not ranking well. So, you change the navigation on your site so that all the home page links say "keyword keyword home" instead of "home". A few days later you lose your rankings, which is a serious blow to your traffic. Since that was the only thing you changed on your site you change those links to your home page back so it says, "home" instead of "keyword keyword home". BINGO! All of your lost rankings and your lost traffic comes back a few days later."

I don't normally make such a long quote in my posts, but you had quite a bit to say.

If a lost traveler pulls up to me on the side of the road and asks for directions, they would think that I had a disjointed headbone if I repeated the same directions several times in a row.

Or, what if I purposefully gave more than enough (too detailed) a direction...GOOGLE doesn't particularly like "excessive" intra-page linking on a site like I have done (and will continue to do) on one of my Sites!

In this client's case GOOGLE rankings mean nothing at all. I have not and don't ever intend to promote them whatsoever! There is no reason too. It cannot garnish another dime!

I like using this site as an example that way, because it is different. I don't need to worry squat about the SE's, even though I do monitor statistical progress.

It is easy to administer this particular site with the main foci being centered around public relations, information provision, and value associated with administrative time reduction.

Is it "over-optimized" for GOOGLE? Yes, and it needs to be! On many of the pages I placed several intra-page links (same url) using anchor text at the top of the page to assist visitor navigation and experience.

YAHOO continues to beat the pants off GOOGLE in the SERPs. Even GOOGLE Images places more visitors than GOOGLE.

I have no problem with that... I walked into that "over-optimization" wide-eyed for the client's customer... not the SE's.

YAHOO delivers visitors from all over the world and we are ranked highly there for several keyphrases.

www.dpwater.com

IMO - This is an isolated case... most are just spam transgressions.

Ken

[khurramali]

Well, i assume that over optimization does exist unless it is proved overwise.

And my observation shows that Google is the closest thing you can call AI (Artificial Intelligence) so it is just possible that there are Algorithms we are not yet aware of at work here.

[DrTandem1]

Firstly, you must believe in SEO to believe it is possible to over-optimize a site. As an example, one poster questioned another's use of HTML/text hidden behind a Flash image. Stopping the Flash from loading you will see nothing, except keyword spamming (the main term 26 times) on a gray background. I suspect this was done because Flash really isn't content in the eyes of search engines, even Google. In any event, the search terms are ones that are unlikely to ever be used by an average visitor.

It appears that Yahoo and MSN were less impressed with the spam than was Google. Linking does not seem to be a factor in this specific example, but if it was, the vast majority of the links are here from WebProWorld.

Personally, I think SEO is bunk. Yes, I agree there are things one can do to make a site more popular with the search engines and thus rank higher in the SERPs; however, my point is these are things that should have already been done as a matter of course when designing a web site for the visitor.

There is no reason to pay a firm gobs of money to add descriptive alt tags, descriptive page titles, easy navigation including a site map, use real text rather than images of text, etc. All of this should be part of a well-designed site that focuses on the visitor, not an afterthought. Also, I don't consider linking campaigns as "optimization." Anything that appears on another site is not optimizing the target site.

So, I agree that there is no penalty for "over-optimizing" as I don't believe in the argument's faulty premise. There is a penalty for doing stupid things and many of these things are done in the name of optimization. If one considers SEO as removing spam and the like from a site, then I might change my opinion of it. However, SEO has become synonymous with cheating, not designing with the visitor in mind.

[KeithO]

My question becomes, what constitues over optimization? Excessive keyword density, ALT tag abuse, TITLE tag abuse, hiding text, etc...?
If it was possible to pinpoint an exact variable of what would trigger any penalty, the whole picture would be clearer.

I'm approaching it in this light: theory of relativity as a whole or E equals M C squared with 3 variables.

[phunklord]

All questions of over-optimization aside, what are some sites that you guys feel are really well optimized? (Bigger the site, the better) These do not have to be sites that you have worked on yourselves, but ones that you've noticed have done a really great job of establishing a solid presence in the search engines through SEO.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by KeithO

My question becomes, what constitues over optimization? Excessive keyword density, ALT tag abuse, TITLE tag abuse, hiding text, etc...?
If it was possible to pinpoint an exact variable of what would trigger any penalty, the whole picture would be clearer.

Before you can know what "over optimization" is, you need to first know what is optimum for a web site. Since this is going to be different for every search engine, you would then need to decide which search engine you want to target.

Say you select Google as your target. You then need to know what Google deems as optimum. Unfortunately, unless you have some inside information which would constitute a conflict of interest or theft, there is no way to know what Google deems as optimum at this particular moment. Therefore, you must simply guess. If you think you are a good guesser or at least can make other people believe that you are a good guesser, you call it SEO.

One poster mentioned changing variables on your site. The problem with this tactic is you have little way of knowing when the search engines will reevaluate your changes. So, cause-and-effect is not real time. Not only that, but your site's position in the SERPs is relative to all other sites on the internet, especially ones that are similar (relevant) to yours. If these sites are changing, and it is likely that many are at any given moment, they may be the actual cause of any perceived changes to your site's position in the SERPs, not something that you may have done.

Now, I will grant you that there are certain things you may try that will cause very negative results regarding your site and the SERPs. Once you discover those, you may be hard pressed to climb out of that black hole.

That brings us to the logical conclusion of designing a site for your visitors, not the search engines.

[bhartzer]

Whether or not you think the OOP exists depends on what type of "hat" you wear.

If you're a true "white hat" SEO that won't dare test the limits then you're going to believe that the OOP doesn't exist. After all, you'll never experience any over-optimization penalties because you won't dare do anything that would possibly have a negative effect on search engine rankings.

If you're a true "grey hat" SEO then you've definitely experienced the OOP, just like I've described in a previous post. For example, you've gone a little too heavy on your anchor text so you have to "back off" on using your keywords in the anchor text. Or, you realize that your keyword density on a page is too high--OOPS! you've just experienced the over-optimization penalty (OOP).

If you're a true "black hat" SEO then you definitely know that there's a difference between an over-optimization penalty and being a spammer. If you've never had a site banned in a search engine then you're not a true "black hat" SEO. And if you've experienced rankings that have suddenly vanished because of too much over-optimization then yes, you probably believe in the OOP, just like I do.

There is a very big difference between over-optimization and spamming. Spamming will get your site banned. Over-optimization will not. The "penalty", if you will, is a loss of search engine rankings due to over-optimization. Thus, that's what gray hat and black hat SEOs call the OOP.

[greeneagle]

In my personal SEO/SEM experience...

You have to know where the dividing lines are between the various hats "white, gray or black" or you are going to take a fall.

I and my clients had much rather me bash my own site on those slippery rocks than theirs.

With the continuing development of LSI/LSA SEO may well die some day, but SEM will not.

DrTandem1, I concur completely that SEO has become just another aspect of web design and development as the SEs have better defined good practices.

The problem remains though, that many web designers are "fly by night", newbies and worse. I have seen atrocities produced by Ivy League Graduates...

The fact is this business takes a great deal of continuing education and many don't pay the price... but they keep hammering out garbage.

Everything in our world here (Internet Geekdom) is a moving target. Technologies are continually changing, best practices are redefined frequently...and there are a lot of sites out there that just don't pass the latest revised profile standards dropping out of the SERPS like flies!

It doesn't take much time loitering around the Forums here to witness that, first hand. How many Site Owners and Webmasters come in with related topics daily here and in other forums?

It's a flood....Site ownership requires constant update and it just isn't being done at the pace that GOOGLE and other leaders are driving the technology and redefining "good practice" parameters.

At the same time we have many new posters lately that are walking straight into the confessional here, seeking forgiveness from the Internet gods...

bhartzer, it sure is good to see your increased participation answering many of these poster's questions with the precision and skill you bring, lately. I really believe that if we have any differences in opinion it lies at the feet of personal spam definitions. You are right on about experience helping define those parameters.

White hat - Gray Hat - Black Hat....Thank God some know the dividing lines!

I just don't see the fog there!

IMO-Any good SEO/SEM provider should know when they are knocking on SPAM's door.

Ken

[bhartzer]

I and my clients had much rather me bash my own site on those slippery rocks than theirs.

It sounds like you have white hat clients. There's no problem with that. Some of my clients want top rankings--and they're in very competitive fields. Therefore, they're willing to do anything it takes. To each his own.

Ken, I fully expect you to take the position that there's no OOP--that's perfectly reasonable considering that it sounds like you're a true "white hat" SEO--which is a good thing. ;)

[greeneagle]

bhartzer;

"It sounds like you have white hat clients. There's no problem with that. Some of my clients want top rankings--and they're in very competitive fields. Therefore, they're willing to do anything it takes. To each his own."

You do bring up a very valid point and seem to want to go there, so let's do!

In the grand scheme of things, yes there are all kinds of ways to market around or in despite of the SEs... and I have no doubt that many of them make a great deal of money for a short time.

I personally haven't dealt with a client demanding "gray or black hat" services, and I am not sure that I care to. No doubt about it, money is made there every day, and it is a skill set all in it's own.

I just don't know that I need to acquire those skills or promote them in an open forum here by discussing those techniques.

Ken

[bhartzer]

I'm not sure if it's all about gray hat or black hat techniques. Certain industries, just by their nature, are more competitive than others. Therefore, certain clients, if you choose to work on their accounts, will require more "darker" SEO techniques than what is required for a site whose topic would only require white-hat techniques to get top search engine rankings.

For example, I would say that the search engine optimization techniques required for a highly specialized industrial equipment manufacturer would require more of a white-hat approach than a mortgage broker would require.

Like it or not, there are website owners out there that want top rankings--no matter what. And if they know what is required to get top rankings some of them are willing to pay top dollar for that service. After all, top rankings will make them a LOT of money.

A good organic SEO should be very familiar with all the white hat, gray hat, and black hat techniques, whether or not they choose to practice those techniques or even recommend them for their clients' sites. If an SEO doesn't know those techniques and how they're used, then they just cannot be effective in certain industries--and won't be the best SEO for their clients.

I'm not advocating that you use certain SEO techniques. What I want is to be able to discuss all the techniques, whatever color hat or category they fall into--so that the members here can determine for themselves whether or not to use a technique. We have all sorts of members here, from newbie website owners to extreme black hat SEOs. We can easily see that based on the responses in this OOP thread. If you can personally prove that the OOP exists then guess what--you might be a gray hat or black hat SEO.

A great SEO who offers SEO as a service to his or her clients must be able to wear all the SEO hat colors--clients deserve to be given the advice that suits their individual website needs. An SEO who is not aware of the latest techniques (gray hat or black hat) cannot do their client justice. A great SEO needs to know exactly what a client's competitor is doing to get top rankings--so they know what "white hat" techniques to employ in order to beat out even the blackest of black techniques. (Trust me, it's very possible to use white hat techniques to beat out a black hat SEO.)

<< OK, I'm off my soapbox now >>

Back to the OOP. Yes, the OOP definitely exists.

[greeneagle]

bhartzer;

"A great SEO who offers SEO as a service to his or her clients must be able to wear all the SEO hat colors--clients deserve to be given the advice that suits their individual website needs."

I do see and respect your position there, as long as the client knows which "hat" you are both wearing, understands the risks and accepts full responsibility for any potential negative consequences.

This is not usually the case, when taking a walk on the "darker side"!

As long as everyone is fully cognizent of their position... that's a whole nother story.

This discussion has grown a shade "darker"...

I don't know that there is really any reason to hold back as long as we mutually establish the parameter that the client should always be fully aprised of their position and the associated potential risks involved.

It may even be fun to review some "black hat" sites, techniques and speculate on the marketing strategies utilized there. How far do you want to take it?

I do question the morale of essentially teaching these techniques here as a MOD.

Tossing it in the other hand, though ... knowledge can be used like any other tool, both for good and bad.

If we go there, I must insist on your agreement with that one prevailing parameter though.... The client should ALWAYS know where they are at, what techniques are being deployed and any associated risks involved!

Ken

[Steve W]

Very interesting thread guys,

Given the power of 'gray/black' SEO to raise almost any site to the top of the rankings, does that devalue the SERPs since the results are skewed to the black sites which may not be relevant?

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Very interesting thread guys,

Given the power of 'gray/black' SEO to raise almost any site to the top of the rankings, does that devalue the SERPs since the results are skewed to the black sites which may not be relevant?

Given your false premise, in short, the answer to your question is yes. However, I think you are giving too much credence to the belief that the search engines, especially Google, can be easily manipulated by techniques labeled as SEO.

Using a company whose service is SEO is a risky proposition. Google has devoted a lot of space on the subject:

http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

The stated goal of modern search engines including Google is to provide relevant search results for the searcher. That being said, their algorithms attempt to determine which sites are relevant to search terms being used.

At the same time they also may attempt to detect fraud. The penalty could be in the form of being banned from the SERPs.

Following the stated purpose of the search engine attempting to find results that are the most relevant results for the search, wouldn't it be smarter to simply create a site that provided relevant content for your visitors? Put another way, what good is being number one in the SERPs, if your site sucks?

[bhartzer]

However, I think you are giving too much credence to the belief that the search engines, especially Google, can be easily manipulated by techniques labeled as SEO.

Absolutely not. Google, Yahoo!, and MSN's rankings are still easily manipulated. Granted, it's getting tougher, but a good SEO can easily manipulate their rankings--if that SEO knows what they're doing and has enough money to buy links, buy websites, and hire someone to write great content.

Using a company whose service is SEO is a risky proposition.

That's a pretty strong statement. SEO is not risky in itself. Hiring an SEO without doing your homework is risky. Just like a lot of consultants and other service-type of businesses, there are shady ones and there are honest ones. Google tells us that you have to do your homework by checking up on an SEO firm before you hire them. That's just being a good consumer and a good buyer. Google doesn't say that you should not hire an SEO, an SEO Consultant, or Internet Marketing Consultant.

If you're going to venture into any area related to helping you promote your business then you need to hire a specialist. If you want top organic search engine rankings then hire the best website optimizer. If you want someone to manage your PPC campaign then hire a PPC specialist. If you want to do a tune up on your car then hire the best mechanic. Sure, you might be able to do it yourself, buy why should you get your hands dirty when you can hire the best at what they do, someone who does it for a living?

To say that "using a company whose service is SEO is a risky proposition" is just flat-out wrong.

There are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers. Are you going to tell me that hiring someone whose service is representing someone in court is a risky proposition too?

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Absolutely not. Google, Yahoo!, and MSN's rankings are still easily manipulated. Granted, it's getting tougher, but a good SEO can easily manipulate their rankings--if that SEO knows what they're doing and has enough money to buy links, buy websites, and hire someone to write great content.

That's a pretty strong statement. SEO is not risky in itself. Hiring an SEO without doing your homework is risky. Just like a lot of consultants and other service-type of businesses, there are shady ones and there are honest ones. Google tells us that you have to do your homework by checking up on an SEO firm before you hire them. That's just being a good consumer and a good buyer. Google doesn't say that you should not hire an SEO, and SEO Consultant, or Internet Marketing Consultant.

To say that "using a company whose service is SEO is a risky proposition" is just flat-out wrong.

There are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers. Are you going to tell me that hiring someone whose service is representing someone in court is a risky proposition too?

As lawyers are regulated by state bar associations and have law licenses to protect and must follow the law, which includes allowing you to fire your current lawyer and have another one represent you without paying the first one for their mistakes, you're comparng apples to oranges.

Since Google has deemed it worthy enough to spend six or seven screen lengths on the subject warning people, I think my statement stands.

Here's the deal, no SEO can honestly guarantee you anything regarding organic SERPs for search engines such as Google. It is quite possible that they could get a site banned for, how shall I put it, their over-zealous pursuit of a top ranking. Therefore, as there is absolutely no guarantee that a SEO can perform, it is a gamble. Since not only the client's money is at stake, but also their site and very possibly their business, I would call that risky.

A SEO firm at the number one spot on the three major search engines at the same time is a lot like seeing the headline "Psychic Wins Lotto!"

By the way, linking campaigns are not SEO as they are not optimizing anything on the client's site. Although, I realize SEO firms want to include that in their repertoire.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what an "optimum" site is before I worry about over-optimizing one.

[bhartzer]

bar association

Although they're supposedly "regulated" there's still good lawyers and shady lawyers. Some lawyers still chase ambulances.

no SEO can honestly guarantee you anything

I never said anything about guarantees. I agree that someone should never hire someone who will guarantee any organic search engine rankings. If someone hired me to do SEO (although they can't) I wouldn't guarantee them top rankings--I would guarantee them a return on their investment.

All SEOs do not practice "black hat" SEO techniques. It sounds like you're saying that performing any SEO is risky and done with "black hat" techniques. It's not. There are many "white hat" techniques that are perfectly acceptable even by the whitest of white hat SEOs--like optimizing a title tag and writing a good DMOZ and Yahoo! Directory description.

linking campaigns are not SEO

I apologize, but that's the one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in a long time. SEO is a lot more than just on-site optimization. Any organic SEO worth his or her weight knows that you cannot get a top organic ranking by optimizing only the pages on a website. Linking campaigns, writing and optimizing press releases, and other SEO "techniques" are very much a part of SEO nowadays. And I would fully expect someone hired to do SEO for a website to include that in their repertoire. If they don't do more than on-page optimization then they're not fully optimizing a website, they're not doing the client justice, and they're not properly optimizing the site.

tell me what an "optimum" site is

An optimum site is where the website owner is seeing ROI from it.

[greeneagle]

I can't just let this one statement slip by Bill:

"It sounds like you have white hat clients. There's no problem with that. Some of my clients want top rankings--and they're in very competitive fields. Therefore, they're willing to do anything it takes. To each his own."

All of our clients want "top listings", but it is just not fact to make the inference here that higher rankings only come with "shady practices". Higher levels of competition DO NOT MANDATE questionable practices for a client to become competitive in the SERPs!

It may or may not happen faster, but it comes with a great deal more risk and is often shorter lived.

If you have a "black hat" client with a disposable URL and business... that's another story.

Ken

[greeneagle]

Let's keep SEO and SEM separate here. They are two vastly different animals.

IMO - Linking campaigns, on-Line press releases, article submissions, establishing Blogs, recomending Forum participation, or even setting up a customer froum, opt-in mailing system, an XML or RSS product push or podcasting are SEM, not SEO!

Night and day there for me, just like an intranet and extranet.

There are numerous "White Hat" digital doors to walk through at our disposal. It just doesn't require shady practices to get a legit client ahead of the gang.

Then on the other hand, I am not sure many proclaiming SEO skills even know how to do a competitive analysis and determine what's required to get there.

In my mind SEO is simply doing the laundry and taking out the garbage on a poorly designed site any more. Cleaning up the dirty little nasties the original designer left behind, or ensuring that a newly designed Site meets today's alg standards, as well as we know them.

Ken

[Steve W]

As the well-known phrase goes, '50% of the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The trouble is, I don't know which half.'

Why do we expect to be able to nail exactly what works and doesn't when dealing with SE's?

SEO's second guess SE's just like marketing execs second guess target audiences for an ad campaign. And between algo revisions, SEO's can and do identify known techniques that guarantee gains.

Also, many offline marketing campaigns bomb or worse have negative effects on the very companies they intended to promote. Usually the riskier the marketing campaign, the bigger the reward and the bigger the risk of damage if it doesn't come off... I see a strong correlation between offline and online marketing there. Not that I'm advocating gray or black SEO, but it works.

Also, nobody questions Ford when it places adverts in popular car magazines vs less popular niche publications. Why is it so different to target specific keywords that are known to be regularly searched and will hopefully attract targetted audiences from SE's?

Lastly, @ DrTandem - what false premise?
As a user of the web I am forever 'adjusting' search phrases to try and avoid the mostly irrelevant directory sites, dead links and portals that Google throws up... if more genuine sites were sensibly SEO'd, it'd make the SE's jobs a LOT easier.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Although they're supposedly "regulated" there's still good lawyers and shady lawyers. Some lawyers still chase ambulances.

I never said anything about guarantees. I agree that someone should never hire someone who will guarantee any organic search engine rankings. If someone hired me to do SEO (although they can't) I wouldn't guarantee them top rankings--I would guarantee them a return on their investment.

All SEOs do not practice "black hat" SEO techniques. It sounds like you're saying that performing any SEO is risky and done with "black hat" techniques. It's not. There are many "white hat" techniques that are perfectly acceptable even by the whitest of white hat SEOs--like optimizing a title tag and writing a good DMOZ and Yahoo! Directory description.

I apologize, but that's the one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in a long time. SEO is a lot more than just on-site optimization. Any organic SEO worth his or her weight knows that you cannot get a top organic ranking by optimizing only the pages on a website. Linking campaigns, writing and optimizing press releases, and other SEO "techniques" are very much a part of SEO nowadays. And I would fully expect someone hired to do SEO for a website to include that in their repertoire. If they don't do more than on-page optimization then they're not fully optimizing a website, they're not doing the client justice, and they're not properly optimizing the site.

An optimum site is where the website owner is seeing ROI from it.

Still, that is no answer for what an optimum site is. There are plenty of those sites that never used SEO that have an good ROI and the most popular one I would cite is Amazon.com. Yes, they took a long time to turn a profit, but their business was built largely upon radio advertising, not SEO of their site.

Again, by strict definition, SEO is not a linking campaign. Also, I mentioned that SEO firms use it as part of their service.

Yes, I do understand the difference between an ethical lawyer and an ambulance chaser. One has a client, the other a victim. I am not saying that all SEO firms are unethical. All I have stated is that using one can be risky and I pointed to an internet authority, Google, which has given good information on the subject.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by Steve W

As the well-known phrase goes, '50% of the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The trouble is, I don't know which half.'

Why do we expect to be able to nail exactly what works and doesn't when dealing with SE's?

Steve, with advertising the buyer usually knows the demographics of the audience. They also usually know how large that audience will be. For TV and radio, there are rating books. Magazines have subscription statistics, billboards can show you vehicle traffic studies, etc. So, let's not confuse SEO with advertising.

Using SEO is an attempt to increase the visibility of a web site by raising its ranking in the SERPs for certain search terms. Yes, we can see how many times someone searches for something like "amazon," but are they looking for the giant on-line retailer or a warrior woman or the river in South America?

For other searches, it's a bit more clear cut maybe even crystal clear, yet there is no guarantee what position in the SERPS the web site receiving SEO will be after the job is finished. With TV and radio, I know when and on what channel my ad will run and for how long. With a magazine or newspaper I know how many will be distributed. The traditional advertiser will have received a guaranteed opportunity of visibility.

Yes, I agree, many people may not be moved by the ad to buy the product or service. However, the exposure was guaranteed by statistical sampling. With SEO, we don't know when or even if the exposure will occur. So I don't think you can compare advertising/marketing to SEO on the same level.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Lastly, @ DrTandem - what false premise?

Your false premise is, "Given the power of 'gray/black' SEO to raise almost any site to the top of the rankings..."

If you had said, "Given the possibility of 'gray/black' SEO to raise almost any site to the top of the rankings or to be banned altogether...," (which is probably a true), you would have seen that your conclusion, "the results are skewed to the black sites which may not be relevant..." as being incorrect. Your statement originally assumed that SEO will always result in a positive outcome in your question. That was the false premise. It's as if I asked you, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Now, I will leave you with a cliche', "Advertising doesn't cost, it pays."

[bhartzer]

Ken, I truly believe that there's such a thing as an ethical black-hatter--someone who practices ethical "black hat" techniques. I don't think any of us around here advocate shady techniques, which is something completely different than black hat techniques. There's a difference between a black hat technique and search engine spam. Search engine spam will get a domain banned in a search engine. There are plenty of black hat techniques that won't get a domain banned--ever--so there's absolutely no risk involved.

Tandem--A linking campaign is very much a part of SEO--especially when the person performing the SEO specifically requests and carefully chooses the anchor text of the links that are a part of that linking campaign. Not to mention the fact that many good SEOs perform their best work without ever touching a client's website. It's not even necessary, especially because good organic optimization has nothing to do with on-page factors.

We're dealing with three words here, so let me describe my definition of them (before I hit the road for the long weekend):

SEO - organic search engine optimization, which includes both on-page optimization and off-site optimization.

PPC - pay per click advertising, which has absolutely nothing to do with organic search engine rankings.

SEM - search engine marketing, which encompasses both PPC and SEO/organic search engine ranking techniques.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Ken, I truly believe that there's such a thing as an ethical black-hatter--someone who practices ethical "black hat" techniques. I don't think any of us around here advocate shady techniques, which is something completely different than black hat techniques. There's a difference between a black hat technique and search engine spam. Search engine spam will get a domain banned in a search engine. There are plenty of black hat techniques that won't get a domain banned--ever--so there's absolutely no risk involved.

Tandem--A linking campaign is very much a part of SEO--especially when the person performing the SEO specifically requests and carefully chooses the anchor text of the links that are a part of that linking campaign. Not to mention the fact that many good SEOs perform their best work without ever touching a client's website. It's not even necessary, especially because good organic optimization has nothing to do with on-page factors.

We're dealing with three words here, so let me describe my definition of them (before I hit the road for the long weekend):

SEO - organic search engine optimization, which includes both on-page optimization and off-site optimization.

PPC - pay per click advertising, which has absolutely nothing to do with organic search engine rankings.

SEM - search engine marketing, which encompasses both PPC and SEO/organic search engine ranking techniques.

Sorry, nothing you can do to another site optimizes anything on your client's site. That includes selecting anchor text that will be placed on an external site. If that were not true, I could easily "optimize" my competitor's sites to fall off the face of the Earth in the SERPs. I see that a new term is now needed, "OSO," off-site optimization. LOL.

Originally Posted by bhartzer

There are plenty of black hat techniques that won't get a domain banned--ever--so there's absolutely no risk involved.

Please tell me how you know this to be true. Obviously, I missed crystal ball training in my education.

[Steve W]

DrTandem

You're missing my point - with SEO the audience is the SE's. It is called search engine optimization after all, not user or visitor optimization. It is a necessary link in the chain to reaching your final audience.

Choosing which TV station to advertise on as you say is like choosing which SE you wish to target most. We know the market share of each SE etc... I think you're missing the point here.

So in common with offline marketing/advertising where you guess what will inspire a prospect to buy into your idea based on stats/gut feeling, you guess what the SE's will want to push your site higher for a search term that you know is popular and hope/know is relevant to your business.

The imbalance being the number of useless sites that occupy many page one search listsings, which if you examine how they got there, is often gray/black SEO.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by Steve W

DrTandem

You're missing my point - with SEO the audience is the SE's. It is called search engine optimization after all, not user or visitor optimization. It is a necessary link in the chain to reaching your final audience.

Choosing which TV station to advertise on as you say is like choosing which SE you wish to target most. We know the market share of each SE etc... I think you're missing the point here.

So in common with offline marketing/advertising where you guess what will inspire a prospect to buy into your idea based on stats/gut feeling, you guess what the SE's will want to push your site higher for a search term that you know is popular and hope/know is relevant to your business.

The imbalance being the number of useless sites that occupy many page one search listsings, which if you examine how they got there, is often gray/black SEO.

No, I'm not missing your point. However, the reason you are attempting to optimize a site for the search engines is an attempt to manipulate them into listing your site higher in the SERPs for prospective visitors, correct? The spin on the the term SEO is incorrect. You are not optimizing search engines or visitors, you are optimizing a web site.

The big difference between SEO and advertising is it is not advertising. It is tweaking a site in hopes that a search engine will advertise your site for visitors searching for a specific term or terms. With SEO, you are paying someone else for the hope of an advertisement being presented by a disinterested third party. No one will (honestly) guarantee if or when your site will be advertised in the organic SERPs. Can you not see the difference?

[Steve W]

I totally agree there's no guarantee that SEO will achieve anything, but the same goes for any kind of advertising.

I would prefer not to SEO websites (I much prefer to design, work on accessibility & write good copy), but that's like saying I would prefer work to fall at my feet without advertising my company. If you want to raise non-referred business, you have to advertise or market and SEO is a cheap way to advertise your company if you can get to page one for a relevant term or three.

Obviously, the objective of SEO is to get to page one of Google or MSN or whoever. If getting on page one of Google isn't good advertising, then why do people pay to be there? A newspaper is as equally disinterested in your company as Google, you can pay for a newspaper ad, but they may publish a press release you write for free because it suits them some how - both may benefit your company, a press release is free... appearing on page one of an SE is free - if you turn up in the results...

Why do people pay for SEO? Because it's cheaper than paying Google to be on page one (even paying Google doesn't guarantee page one unless you write a blank cheque).

I don't want us to get hung up on a discussion about whether SEO is advertising or not, or money well spent - we can each have our beliefs. You have right to reply of course, but I'd be more interested in listening to and discussing the quantity of black/gray techniques aiding sites in the average top ten of a set of results from the major SE's which is more on topic for this thread and my original post.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I totally agree there's no guarantee that SEO will achieve anything, but the same goes for any kind of advertising.

No traditional advertising provides you with specifics that are industry standards.

Originally Posted by Steve W

If getting on page one of Google isn't good advertising, then why do people pay to be there?

Hype and perception, the same things that drove the dot com bubble.

Originally Posted by Steve W

A newspaper is as equally disinterested in your company as Google, you can pay for a newspaper ad, but they may publish a press release you write for free because it suits them some how - both may benefit your company, a press release is free... appearing on page one of an SE is free - if you turn up in the results...

No, a newspaper is not a disinterested party. You pay them directly for advertising. Yes, press releases are often printed by a paper at no charge. There is the closest you have come to seeing a similarity. However, you were comparing paid advertising to SEO, not press releases.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Why do people pay for SEO? Because it's cheaper than paying Google to be on page one (even paying Google doesn't guarantee page one unless you write a blank cheque).

No, you can not pay Google to be in the "organic" SERPs. You can pay to be at the top of their clearly marked sponsored SERPs. At least with a sponsored ad, you get exactly what you have paid to get. In that scenario, Google is no longer a disinterested third party.

As for it being cheaper, I would have to ask someone who has had their site banned, if they look back and think it was cheaper.

Originally Posted by Steve W

I don't want us to get hung up on a discussion about whether SEO is advertising or not, or money well spent - we can each have our beliefs. You have right to reply of course, but I'd be more interested in listening to and discussing the quantity of black/gray techniques aiding sites in the average top ten of a set of results from the major SE's which is more on topic for this thread and my original post.

Okay, yet no one seems to want to list those techniques or at least label them with a moral judgment. The reasons for this may be trade secrets or for fear of being labeled as a "black hat" or not wanting to give someone a stick with which they will promptly be beaten over their head.

Still, I am waiting for someone to tell me what constitutes a site as optimum. This will quickly result in people saying this or that is over-optimizing. Others will counter that a certain SE doesn't index this or that, etc. The fact is, only the people at the various search engines can tell you what will be considered acceptable or not. Even if you knew that, it could change at a moment's notice.

[Steve W]

@DrTandem You must have a fine scalpel for all this hair splitting... ;) Google page one is page one whether its paid or organic - the less web-savvy general public (read majority) doesn't seem to understand the difference.

Suffice to say I disagree with your analysis and your insistence that SEO is markedly different to other types of marketing.

Lets see if anyone else adds to this thread as I don't want us to go off on another tangent that will end up nowhere.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by Steve W

@DrTandem You must have a fine scalpel for all this hair splitting... ;) Google page one is page one whether its paid or organic - the less web-savvy general public (read majority) doesn't seem to understand the difference.

Suffice to say I disagree with your analysis and your insistence that SEO is markedly different to other types of marketing.

Lets see if anyone else adds to this thread as I don't want us to go off on another tangent that will end up nowhere.

Sounds good to me. I think I have stayed focused like a laser beam.

[bhartzer]

Sorry, nothing you can do to another site optimizes anything on your client's site.

Have you ever heard of the term "Google Bombing"?

I'm curious, as well, as to why exactly you chose to include the link text of "San Diego Web Page Design" in your signature right here in this very thread? Wouldn't that be something that you're doing on another site to optimize your client's site (well, actually, your site)? It's called off-site optimization, which is very much a part of SEO.

Let's quick bickering and laser-pointing at tiny hairs here and get back to the subject of this thread, which is whether or not an over-optimization penalty exists.

I can tell you from experience that if you get too many links to your home page with the phrase "San Diego Web Page Design" then you will actually stop ranking for "San Diego Web Page Design". That, in my book, would be over-optimization. Too much of the same link text is a prime example of the OOP.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Have you ever heard of the term "Google Bombing"?

I'm curious, as well, as to why exactly you chose to include the link text of "San Diego Web Page Design" in your signature right here in this very thread? Wouldn't that be something that you're doing on another site to optimize your client's site (well, actually, your site)? It's called off-site optimization, which is very much a part of SEO.

Let's quick bickering and laser-pointing at tiny hairs here and get back to the subject of this thread, which is whether or not an over-optimization penalty exists.

I can tell you from experience that if you get too many links to your home page with the phrase "San Diego Web Page Design" then you will actually stop ranking for "San Diego Web Page Design". That, in my book, would be over-optimization. Too much of the same link text is a prime example of the OOP.

Again, nothing you do on another site optimizes your site. In other words, nothing has changed on your site. It has not been optimized. External linking campaigns are not optimization. They are linking campaigns.

I don't care what euphemism you use, nothing is being optimized with a linking campaign on or off-site. Instead of trying to shroud what you doing as some high-tech endeavor, just call it what it is. A link can be optimized by selecting specific anchor text. However, this does not optimize the target site. Saying it does is kind of like a sniper adjusting his target rather than his sights and claiming he is optimizing his rifle.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

A link can be optimized by selecting specific anchor text. However, this does not optimize the target site. Saying it does is kind of like a sniper adjusting his target rather than his sights and claiming he is optimizing his rifle.

I love how these discussions go round and round.

The sniper, in this example, is optimizing the performance of his rifle. Just like specific anchor text optimizes the performance of the target site for said anchor text. Whether or not one wishes to call such changes site optimization or site performance optimization, is really a matter of semantics and hair splitting IMHO.

Dave

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I love how these discussions go round and round.

The sniper, in this example, is optimizing the performance of his rifle. Just like specific anchor text optimizes the performance of the target site for said anchor text. Whether or not one wishes to call such changes site optimization or site performance optimization, is really a matter of semantics and hair splitting IMHO.

Dave

Sorry, Dave, it's not just "semantics" and "hair splitting." If I take my car to the mechanic and tell him there's a squeak coming from the engine, I expect him to work on the engine, not turn my car's radio up louder so I can't hear the squeak and tell me that he has optimized the engine.

I will agree that they have come (as expected) from all angles to rationalize SEO. Remember, I'm in the web business, not a gullible client.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Sorry, Dave, it's not just "semantics" and "hair splitting." If I take my car to the mechanic and tell him there's a squeak coming from the engine, I expect him to work on the engine, not turn my car's radio up louder so I can't hear the squeak and tell me that he has optimized the engine.

I will agree that they have come (as expected) from all angles to rationalize SEO. Remember, I'm in the web business, not a gullible client.

I know you're in the web business and am certain you're not gullible. That was not what I was trying to infer. Unlike you, I'm not in the web business but like you I'm not gullible either.

If you take your car to the mechanic because the engine has lost power, and they work on, and fix, your AC switch, which is stuck in "on" position, and hence your engine power returns, have they not optimized your engine performance without working on the engine?

I'm unaware of any webmaster or site owner who's goal is not increased performance, however they individually define performance. I think it's universally accepted and expected, that this increased performance is the goal no matter what you call it. Whether the "optimization" is done directly to a site or externally to increase the sites' desired performance, the expected results are the same no matter what you call it.

Dave

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I'm unaware of any webmaster or site owner who's goal is not increased performance, however they individually define performance. I think it's universally accepted and expected, that this increased performance is the goal no matter what you call it. Whether the "optimization" is done directly to a site or externally to increase the sites' desired performance, the expected results are the same no matter what you call it.Dave

Dave, there is a distinction between a site's position in the SERPs and its performance. Now, if you speak of "performance" as where it places, there are several avenues of attack. However, the site itself may not perform well for a visitor regardless of its position.

If a site is properly designed, it does not need "optimizing." That is not to say that there are not other actions, such as linking campaigns, that can increase a site's position in the SERPs.

Ask yourself this, "Does Amazon.com rely on the SERPs?" I think you'd realize that they do not. They never did. Why? Because most everyone already knows their URL and that was not due to SEO or the SERPs. If your business relies on the SERPs to stay in business, then your business' success is out of your control.

[DrTandem1]

Here is an interesting article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...zbriefs12.html