WebProWorld's Guide to being a Proactive SEO

[fathom]

please delete

[writergrrrl48]

thanks for the overview - yes, I admit I have been overwhelmed since I started looking into SEO and this gives me an excellent starting point. And this is very timely, I am helping 2 friends to launch their business sites this month and I needed to know more ways to help them.

I'm still uncertain about putting my focus on Google and its PR numbers and such. Partly because I still just don't quit understand the importance of PR...

Appreciate your post,

Cheri
http://www.web-income.com

[fathom]

Thanks writergrrrl48.

In the coming weeks it is my intention to detail each step as sub-threads.

These are quite broad overviews.

[writergrrrl48]

wow, that's good news. I'll be watching for your posts on this.

I appreciate the time you and other people are taking to share knowledge and help us newbies learn. Although there are books and courses abounding, learning through the experience of self and others seems to be how I learn best...

Cheri
http://www.web-income.com

[Panky]

Cool post fathom

[Anita Campbell]

Fathom, thank you for sharing your knowledge!

Even though I am not in the SEO business, I have been checking the forums and boards for low-cost advice on how to improve my business weblog's position. You are so right about PayPerClick and the need to do that early on!

I experimented with a low cost PayPerClick campaign for my business weblog, and have had more traffic, links to my site, and quotes about my posts that I ever dreamed when I started my little experiment.

It has really primed the pump for all the other SEO activity you mentioned. I feel I have gained lasting benefit from that campaign. That benefit will be around long after I stop the ad campaign.

[MrBits]

Very good commentary from fathom... especially the "e-marketing perspective. More SEO/SEM "experts" should be examining the client business model and running the numbers, rather than taking the money & running.

The potential profit margins must support cost-of-service, otherwise it gives the industry a "black-eye", as do the comments like:

"You shouldn't look at this as ROI, keep the cost high (the same) no matter the outcome then the client will have no recourse but to use you or someone else at fair market value".

We are developing "performance-based" compensation models, and contractual relationships where our payment hinges upon percentages of gross online sales. By putting time (money) where our mouth is, it helps counteract many of the "snake oil" promises made by some firms (followed by a ** and -4 pixel text at page bottom)

Great contribution Fathom!

www.misterbits.com

[fathom]

Please delete

[andyfreefly1]

Fathom,

Thanks for the insight. Your logic makes a lot of sense.

I have extensive marketing experience, but am fairly new to web design/development. I would appreciate if any forum members could offer some basic information on how and when to validate code, and specifically how validation provides benefit from an SEO or SEM perspective?

Many thanks!

Andy

[mushroom]

[quote="fathom"]Target Audience - New to SEO - and wish to be successful.

W3C Validation

You can argue a waste of time and the benefits are limited thus open for debate. What isn't open for debate is that validating a websites code gets you directly inside the website itself; it makes you appreciate what the site is about (from the bots perspective). Once validated not only do you have a better understanding of the website itself (as a unique entity) you are more in-tune to how to improve it. Also validation provides a link (once validated) and your link back ensures that bots see that link (admittedly W3C) through the robot.txt disallows these pages from being crawled from their end - notwithstanding on every site I have validated I see PageRank appear on the W3C page where none should exist according to Google's (if not part of the archive) thus the lost/gain risk in my opinion is in favor of the client.

W3C Validation Interesting that you mention in
regareds to search engine placment, when I have yet to find at search engine page that will Validate.

[Mel]

You can validate your code any time you like at http://validator.w3.org/check and while there are benefits in validating your code in the areas of reducing code bloat and insuring compatibility with older browsers, possibly the bigest benefit IMO is the possibilty of catching errors which may cause spidering problems.

BUT IMO there is no ranking benefit to be gained by compliant vs non compliant code especially since I do not believe that W3C provides a link back to your site.

[andyfreefly1]

Mel,

Many thanks for the information.

Regards,

Andy

[fathom]

Please delete

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Mel

BUT IMO there is no ranking benefit to be gained by compliant vs non compliant code especially since I do not believe that W3C provides a link back to your site.

hmmm... Backlink to Spherica

I could be wrong though! :-)

[fathom]

Originally Posted by andyfreefly1

I would appreciate if any forum members could offer some basic information on how and when to validate code, and specifically how validation provides benefit from an SEO or SEM perspective?

Expanding on the original post should be ready in a few days.

[fathom]

Please delete

[Najoba]

A visit to "Bobby" certainly made me very aware of what changes needed to be made to my site for W3C validation:

http://bobby.watchfire.com

[Mel]

Originally Posted by fathom

hmmm... Backlink to Spherica

I could be wrong though! :-)

Problem is this robots.text file at validator.w3c.org:
#
# robots.txt for validator.w3.org
#
# $Id: robots.txt,v 1.3 2000/12/13 13:04:09 gerald Exp $
#

User-agent: *
Disallow: /check

which does not allow the spidering of that directory.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Mel

Problem is this robots.text file at validator.w3c.org:
#
# robots.txt for validator.w3.org
#
# $Id: robots.txt,v 1.3 2000/12/13 13:04:09 gerald Exp $
#

User-agent: *
Disallow: /check

which does not allow the spidering of that directory.

Commented on this already - your conclusion was my first as well.

Just the same - if a spider can't crawl, and the page isn't indexed how can it demonstrate PageRank?

[fctoma]

Vote: Validation is a waste.

Yes, one can argue, it will never stop.... who is right? Well, everyone has their opinions on validation. I can say that I've created and maintained 20+ sites over the last 7 years:

1. every single one still ranks 1-10 in ALL the major engines.

2. every single one displays just fine on all MS and NS browsers 4.X + higher.

3. never have run into validation problems, not once, never in 7 years.

So, my only question is by validating, what can I gain that I already to not have???

[fathom]

Originally Posted by fctoma

So, my only question is by validating, what can I gain that I already to not have???

Nothing I guess... since you can't improve on anything.

[fathom]

Please delete

[Chatmaster]

Fathom, I havent said it before but you deserve a compliment. You have allot of insight in SEO and it is a true pleasure to read your articles. You are putting SEO on the right track and has certainly cleared my mind on a few facts.

From the validation point, there is one thing everyone seem to forget. A search engine's Algo has to be set to a specific standard! It cannot just grab rules and set rules as it likes. What is clear though is that Google certainly has used W3C standards!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Chatmaster

Fathom, I havent said it before but you deserve a compliment. You have allot of insight in SEO and it is a true pleasure to read your articles. You are putting SEO on the right track and has certainly cleared my mind on a few facts.

From the validation point, there is one thing everyone seem to forget. A search engine's Algo has to be set to a specific standard! It cannot just