Do We Need SEO Standards?

[janeth]

Bruceclay.com - We Do Need SEO Standards

We Don't Need SEO Standards!

I would have to disagree with Lisa and agree with Jill on this one.

1. There are too many ways of skinning the SEO cat.
2. We can’t even agree on the definition of search engine optimization.
3. There are already laws to protect people from SEO scam.
4. There’s no such thing as “cheating” in SEO.

Even if you did set up standards how in the world would you make them mean anything.

[incrediblehelp]

Janeth I agree with Jill as well. I wouldnt mind seeing it attempted though so we all can start discussion about it and pick apart why it doesnt work to learn more about the overall process and to see if it is truly impossible.

[janeth]

I was reading through some of the comments over on Bruce Clay’s blog and a couple things hit me. One was by Brian. Brain was saying that if the SEO industry does not come out with standards the U.S government would. A lot of work in the U.S is already being outsourced to other countries due to the government’s involvement in how one runs their business. And I am not sure that the U.S government would even be able to enforce such standards but it would take a lot of U.S companies out of the game.

If the U.S put standards on the SEO companies they would put junk in that would cause U.S companies to raise their prices and they would no longer be able to compete on the internet.

But the best reason for not doing it came from Kalena. She claims the industry needs standards because there are too many people loading up blogs with nonsense about "rel='nofollow'" and sculpting PageRank.

I don’t want to get into a debate about sculpting PageRank but can you imagine how long it would take the U.S government to decide rather something like sculpting PageRank was good or not. It would take U.S companies years before they would be able to get into something new because they would be waiting on a government organization to decide rather what they were doing was good or not.

[kevsta]

lol @ governments setting standards for seo.

this has got to be an april fools attempt

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kevsta

lol @ governments setting standards for seo.

this has got to be an april fools attempt

It does seem strange that SEO's would be calling for standards, unless they were unable to compete and wanted to level the playing field.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by janeth

It does seem strange that SEO's would be calling for standards, unless they were unable to compete and wanted to level the playing field.

I really don't get it!? How can you possibly set standards for something like SEO?!

Everybody does it differently, has different ideas, and has different methods - therefore it would never work. The playing field is already level. There is nothing to stop one SEO doing exactly the same as an other. The only thing that separates the two is knowledge.

[kgun]

Do you know.

It is possible to make a life jacket following ISO standards and fill it with concrete

Compare it with the financial industry in USA today. If you watch Cnn, you will see that there is much talk about giving more power to the FED and the SEC. The exellent commentators there say that

1. This is the largest regulation since the great depression.
2. It will reduce CEO's to accountant's. I partly agree.
3. As a minimum it will not be effective before after the election.

SEO can in my view be reduced to:

1. Science. You need a minimum statistical / mathematical / alogorithmic background to understand the Bot's (software).
   
   "Actually, "contextual" indexing and retrieval has been part of the algo at the "theme-based" engines (Google, Alltheweb and Lycos) for a couple years now at least. Some of the components are Latent Symantic Indexing and Term Vectoring. If you've got the patience and time, Study those subjects. My Clients and I have been prospering from knowledge of how this works for almost two years now. And I agree that this area is the most interesting and where many of the coolest innovations of search marketing are and will be appearing".
2. Art (The different hat operaters are part of that category).

[kevsta]

at the high end, the forefront of seo knowledge i am sure youre right Kgun, but am also sure there are very many excellent SEO's out there without such background, earning good money for themselves and their clients as we speak.

[janeth]

Why do SEO for someone else at all when you can do SEO for yourself and make all the money?

[inertia]

Originally Posted by janeth

Why do SEO for someone else at all when you can do SEO for yourself and make all the money?

That's something that people ask me all the time! "Instead of making someone else loads of money why not make yourself loads of money?"

I always answer the question like this - like many companies i am in my (SEO) infancy and (like most new companies in their infancy) not earning a huge amount of money.

As i progress and my knowledge/experience/achievements/reputation improves. I will be able to demand more money for my services. Hopefully i will get to a point where i am earning as much money as some of the top end SEO consultants I've spoken to and heard of.

When I'm at this point i will be glad that i didn't copy the (last client i did SEO for) "sports nutrition guy" who i made loads of money for in the noughties!

Its a long winded explanation but you get the idea!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

Why do SEO for someone else at all when you can do SEO for yourself and make all the money?

Like having two mobile phones talking to yourself. That may even be free here if you are on your own family list.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

That's something that people ask me all the time! "Instead of making someone else loads of money why not make yourself loads of money?"

I always answer the question like this - like many companies i am in my (SEO) infancy and (like most new companies in their infancy) not earning a huge amount of money.

It's not just about making money. You have to make the client enough money that they think it is worth paying for your services.

Another words...if I am paying you $4,000.00 a month I should be making $8,000.00 or more.

So you never make as much as the client plus you have to answer all their stupid questions.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Like having two mobile phones talking to yourself. That may even be free here if you are on your own family list.

Sounds about like SEO to me. lol

[inertia]

Originally Posted by janeth

It's not just about making money. You have to make the client enough money that they think it is worth paying for your services.

Another words...if I am paying you $4,000.00 a month I should be making $8,000.00 or more.

So you never make as much as the client plus you have to answer all their stupid questions.

But what if i have 10 clients?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

But what if i have 10 clients?

Then you have to make all 10 of them more money then they are paying you.

[kgun]

You may lay with your head in the refrigerator and your feet in the oven and on average "feel comfortable".

[Zombie Master]

I've probably been at this game longer than most... worked on ICM computers on Phantom jets in the '60's, AOL coding RAINMAN in the early 90's and wrote coding tests for employers in the late 90's but I wouldn't qualify for any SEO standards because I've never taken a class on it.

However, my clients always see a tremendous rise in SERP's when I take over an account and I never use black hat techniques.

I agree there should be standards but who would write them?

I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell (America's foremost philosopher in the latter part of the last century) who was given the suggestion he should get his PhD.

He responded, "Who would teach me?"

[advancedmerchant]

Standards - no, but some should:

Compile a list of "Black Hat" Techniques, SEO tactics that violate Google, Yahoo, and/or MSN guidelines, and "just bad" tactics, so that SEO companies can certify that they do not use any of these.

Would help seperate the wheat from the chaff.

If a company can get your rankings up without using any techniques on this list, then you know at least you are safe from the "smash-and-grab" SEO sharks that use Black Hat for a quick jump, cash your check and run.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Zombie Master

I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell (America's foremost philosopher in the latter part of the last century) who was given the suggestion he should get his PhD.

He responded, "Who would teach me?"

lol, I like that.

[kcire]

Originally Posted by janeth

I would have to disagree with Lisa and agree with Jill on this one.

1. There are too many ways of skinning the SEO cat.
2. We can’t even agree on the definition of search engine optimization.
3. There are already laws to protect people from SEO scam.
4. There’s no such thing as “cheating” in SEO.

Even if you did set up standards how in the world would you make them mean anything.

1. That way there is room for everybody! Sort of...Because in the realworld-end there will be but one exclusive shoestore owner from Paris at the top of the search results when looking for 'exclusive shoes in Paris'. Or am I wrong?

So setting up standards might work for a couple of weeks and then it's use is getting less and less meaningfull and somebody will think of a new way to get your website a number one position. You are right about that. Ain't the web fun?!

2. I have my own little approach and try to stick to this when the design and development is totaly up to me.

3. SEO scam?! The trickery that some individuals do to get their clients nr.1 positions? Isn't Google and the likes getting better and better at seeing through this kinds of schemes? So not a workable problem for me and the projects I work on...?

4. So? What do you exactly mean with this?

In short...To me 'SEO' sounds so..So...Heavy. Why not just say 'I will make the website searchenginefriendly' and leave it at that?

A client demanding a number one position will just get a explanation that this isn't as easy as it sounds, because there are more 'exclusive shoestores in Paris' with the same idea. So unless there is a big budget to help get this done, this is a time consuming if not impossible task.

Also little story about the evolution of a website in due time could do the trick I guess and I know 'time is money', but getting a nr.1 position also! But sometimes this just is impossible...

Client not happy? Then nicely send these kind of clients to those individuals that pretend they can get a nr.1 position without any problem and just stick with the design part of the website (to not totally lose a client of course!).

Anyhoe...I kind of like being busy with 'SEO', which I actually call 'keeping the web in mind when developing a website'.

When I have to create a website from scratch I always explain this 'SEO crap' to my (mostly unaware of this) client and ask them to keep this in mind when writing texts, or even ask them to re-write the texts with 'SEO' in mind...Is this bad?

I am convinced it helps! ...A little bit...

[Zombie Master]

Good points, Janeth. When asked what I do by people who don't know me, I usually respond, "I see dead websites."

[magnets]

First, this whole "SEO standards" thing is an April Fools joke. No one in their right mind would talk about government and SEO in the same breath. Those guys in Washington are Fools 365 days a year. For over a decade, they haven't been able to do tax reform and solve the Social Security crisis. I want to take it out of their hands by passing a national sales tax on new goods.

Second, there is an SEO standard! It's just the folks at Google refuse to tell us what it is. All we know are certain general basics like, quality in-bound links that already have high PR are good. If a known SEO standard existed, we would be able to run a list of URLs through a piece of code that told us which URL owners would be best to hold negotiations.

ALL the good SEO today is simply from folks that are lucky enough today to be in tune with Google calculations. Tomorrow that could all change.

Personally, I've just given up on SEO and PR. My AdSense revenues have risen 20% while my PR has continued to go down. And, now I'm focused on adding a membership fee that looks like it will generate 10 times as much as AdSense anyway.

Just focus on your customers and let Google play with its own SEO standard. Anyone that tells you they know more about SEO than the average Joe is lying and probably lying to themselves.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by magnets

First, this whole "SEO standards" thing is an April Fools joke. No one in their right mind would talk about government and SEO in the same breath. Those guys in Washington are Fools 365 days a year. For over a decade, they haven't been able to do tax reform and solve the Social Security crisis. I want to take it out of their hands by passing a national sales tax on new goods.

I'd love to see that here in Colombia but the government never gives back any power it has already taken.

Originally Posted by magnets

Second, there is an SEO standard! It's just the folks at Google refuse to tell us what it is. All we know are certain general basics like, quality in-bound links that already have high PR are good. If a known SEO standard existed, we would be able to run a list of URLs through a piece of code that told us which URL owners would be best to hold negotiations.

ALL the good SEO today is simply from folks that are lucky enough today to be in tune with Google calculations. Tomorrow that could all change.

Personally, I've just given up on SEO and PR. My AdSense revenues have risen 20% while my PR has continued to go down. And, now I'm focused on adding a membership fee that looks like it will generate 10 times as much as AdSense anyway.

Just focus on your customers and let Google play with its own SEO standard. Anyone that tells you they know more about SEO than the average Joe is lying and probably lying to themselves.

I agree 100% I focus on my sites and don't worry about Google.

[jtracking]

Isn't google becoming an seo?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by jtracking

Isn't google becoming an seo?

Not becoming but I believe they already own an SEO company.

[bj]

I'm with Jill on this one, and she's explained it much more succinctly than I could. I can't really think of anything to add.

SEO can in my view be reduced to:

1. Science. You need a minimum statistical / mathematical / alogorithmic background to understand the Bot's (software).

"Actually, "contextual" indexing and retrieval has been part of the algo at the "theme-based" engines (Google, Alltheweb and Lycos) for a couple years now at least. Some of the components are Latent Symantic Indexing and Term Vectoring. If you've got the patience and time, Study those subjects. My Clients and I have been prospering from knowledge of how this works for almost two years now. And I agree that this area is the most interesting and where many of the coolest innovations of search marketing are and will be appearing".
2. Art (The different hat operaters are part of that category).

I'm on the "Art" side of the equation, so Kgun, it sounds like we should team up and have the best of both worlds!

there is an SEO standard! It's just the folks at Google refuse to tell us what it is.

Well, they do, it's just that people don't listen, and sometimes (like in the case of nofollow) don't want to listen. What does google say? Forget about building a site for Google, build it for your VISITORS.

[nelsonez]

Originally Posted by janeth

4. There’s no such thing as “cheating” in SEO.

Hi Janeth I am baffled by this quote of yours? I could definitely write code for a website that would fool the search engines and would get a top ranking for a website and the search engines would never figure this out. How would this not be cheating? This is precisely why Google has initiated the self-policing human editorial options for the SEO community.

I can drive 70 mph in a 55 mph speed zone and as long as there is not a cop in the area I will of course not get pulled over. But I was still speeding and this is still considered illegal in terms of the guidelines that our society has setup to maintain some type of order. And just because I didn't get caught that time does not mean that I will never be caught.

I don't see any reason why SEO is somehow different and has an exclusive license to only be white-hat. As long as there is money to be made in anything there will always be some degree of cheating.

Of course if any SEO company expects to stay in business for any length of time and maintain a good reputation they have to follow the general rules that have been set by the search engines and the entire SEO community as a whole.

[dburdon]

Surely there are already real standards for SEO. Does the money you charge your client earn a return?

Great SEO pays for itself many times over.

Good SEO earns a return above and beyond most other marketing investments the client makes.

Satisfactory SEO earns a return in line with most other marketing investments.

Weak SEO earns a return lower than most other marketing investments.

SEO is not about science. SEO is not about art. SEO is a business discipline. Judge it like one. And by the way, never, never, never let the government interfere.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by nelsonez

Hi Janeth I am baffled by this quote of yours?

Those were Jill's quotes. I just could not figure out how to make the forum put them in quotes.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by bj

" there is an SEO standard! It's just the folks at Google refuse to tell us what it is." . . .

Well, they do, it's just that people don't listen, and sometimes (like in the case of nofollow) don't want to listen. What does google say?

Sounds like you're dealing in Clinton-speak here. If you are dealing in science, please provide a link to the software that implements the Google calculations. That would be enormously helpful. Thanks! . . .

Originally Posted by bj

Forget about building a site for Google, build it for your VISITORS.

I agree 100% on this point.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Surely there are already real standards for SEO. Does the money you charge your client earn a return?

Great SEO pays for itself many times over.

Good SEO earns a return above and beyond most other marketing investments the client makes.

Satisfactory SEO earns a return in line with most other marketing investments.

Weak SEO earns a return lower than most other marketing investments.

SEO is not about science. SEO is not about art. SEO is a business discipline. Judge it like one. And by the way, never, never, never let the government interfere.

There is no conflict there. Of course, SEO as business is just that.

[deepsand]

Guiding principles, perhaps; standards, no.

SEO is, like architecture, interior design, landscaping, ad infinitum, a fusion of knowledge and artful vision, one that cannot be empirically quantified and measured.

The knowledge portion alone would prove difficult to gauge, given the differences between data, knowledge and understanding, as witnessed by the many and sometimes contentious debates here on this forum.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by janeth

Bruceclay.com - We Do Need SEO Standards

We Don't Need SEO Standards!

I would have to disagree with Lisa and agree with Jill on this one.

1. There are too many ways of skinning the SEO cat.
2. We can’t even agree on the definition of search engine optimization.
3. There are already laws to protect people from SEO scam.
4. There’s no such thing as “cheating” in SEO.

Even if you did set up standards how in the world would you make them mean anything.

SEO standards is the same thing as Search Engine standards. All search engines performing search based on a set of standards.....? For them that's like sharing their search technology secrets. The same applies to SEO. Not saying my SEO techniques should be held in secret though, but to enforce everybody to do the same thing is at best a rediculous idea.

The real power of SEO isn't in the HTML code or links anyway.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

SEO standards is the same thing as Search Engine standards.

We already have standards set by the search engines. The unfortunate thing is that they don't seam to be enforced. Quite regularly on this forum we have people posting up threads about why their site is being out performed by a site with black hat techniques in place. If the search engines responded to complaints made by webmasters then we'd have a lot more regulation.

[tamecrow]

Surely SEO by its very nature has to conform to standards - the algorithms. Of course, the algorithms as they currently stand are open to exploitation by blackhats, but that's down to the search engines to combat. In order for a site to rank well, it has to be a top quality site in the eyes of the search engines. To me, that's a pretty strong set of standards.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by tamecrow

In order for a site to rank well, it has to be a top quality site in the eyes of the search engines.

Well, of course.

Originally Posted by tamecrow

To me, that's a pretty strong set of standards.

This just doesn't follow. Even though you can use a software tool to look at a website just like a search engine might, that says nothing about the conclusion the search-engine draws. Standards are nothing unless they define something relevant to the matter at hand. With search-engines the formulas are hidden so the definition of what a "quality website" is limited at best.

Just try putting links you believe your customers might find useful or entertaining without considering that one of those websites might be on Google's blacklist. Two quality websites pointing to one another might harm one another if the search-engine does not agree that they help one another. Or, one might improve and the other go down. Or, both could go up. The critical question is Why? And, the answer to that question is never revealed. If it were revealed we could do something about it. Since it is not, we are left to guess - that is a waste of time.

The best thing to do is build your website for your visitors and forget about the Google and other search-engines.

[root123]

I feel SEO resembles a government run by a dictator.....!!!!!

If you try to be too smart, you have nothing to gain but will soon be isolated.....

[dawilliams]

SEO Standards in the hands of the government? No.

I can't even begin to imagine the mess they would make of it - by the way, we'd be paying them to make that mess.

I'm with Jill on this.

Good SEO is all of the things previously mentioned; Art, Science, Math and more...

In many ways it is like a never ending chess game - tactical, calculated and with measureable results. As the tide of the game shifts - so do the strategies.

SEO Standards? They are already in place... and they're evolving on a daily basis in the capable hands of private industry. A private industry that contributes to our economy through jobs and investments and evident sustainable growth - the Search Engine companies themselves.

SEO Standards in any other shape or form would be detrimental.

Anyone for a game of chess?

Dave

[MarkGatESS]

I've tried to read through and understand what's going on - I think I have a tiny, hair's diameter grasp on what it is (maybe.)

Anyway, my two-cents worth would be that - if it doesn't already exist - would be to create a non-profit-type SEO group that gets contributions from the entire Internet of web programmers to decide on what are the best practices, solutions, and a definition of minimal development techniques to produce genuine high ranks across any search engine.

There's the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that is available free to web developers around the world that tries to create "standards" for websites and how they're displayed in web browsers.

Taken from the W3C website:

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops interoperable technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to lead the Web to its full potential. W3C is a forum for information, commerce, communication, and collective understanding.

For the most part, website developers use the standards set forth by the W3C because they know that most browsers out there will interpret the W3C standards and thus display their contents properly. It's not perfect, but at least it's a starting point for web developers to work from.

Perhaps a "Search Engine Optimization Consortium (SEOC)" should be created so that web developers can get information - at least a "base" to work from - on how to best create an search engine optimized website.

1. It will be a group made up of people "in the biz" of SEO, and could also include input from the search engine companies themselves.
2. It will be a proper resource for those trying to optimize their websites and will, in effect, set some kind of "standards" that everyone on the web can use.
3. It can and should keep the government out of the hairs of the Internet (there's no reason whatsoever for the government to get involved).
4. It should be a tool as well as a central resource for professional SEO coders (as well as amateur/beginner/personal-home-page coders) - as with the W3C. There shouldn't be any loss of income/profits with having some organization setting some form of standards that coders can work from.

Someone had stated that we shouldn't create websites for search engines, but for those that will be visiting and using the website. That would be great if that's all that was needed to get people to visit your site. Unfortunately, most people that are looking around on the web for a site for what they're interested in use search engines to FIND your site - in most cases, they "google it". They also will only look at the first two to three pages of results (mostly the first page). If your site doesn't rank in the top 10 to 20 results, you don't get traffic to your site and that is especially problematic for companies looking to make money off of their website: no visitors = no profits/business.

If there were some basic standards set (by the SEO community) I can't see it impeding on SEO coders, rather it should make their job easier (and their clients happier).

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[janeth]

Brian just sent me an email telling me that I had mis quoted him.

I am very sorry about that Brian.

Here is what Brian said below.

Originally Posted by janeth

I'm in total agreement with Lisa, but I would have to go further in that the se's would have to be a part of things.... right along with their guidelines for webmasters, etc. In my mind, blackhats cheat the rest of us. I know I know, you hate me for that but it's the truth. Any kind of standards would have to include spam,.. email spam by SEO's as well.

The only way something will work is if an independent body set the standards with zero conflict of interest involved. As it is right now, too many in the industry have vested interest in their being no standards whatsoever. Too many make lots of money off the blackhats, and that includes google.com as well.

Putting it this way; we either figure something out, or we simply do nothing and let the US government figure it out for us. Other countries would do the same. If you want no standards, you pay the price for that attitude later.... in about 3 more years or so is my guess.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by MarkGatESS

Someone had stated that we shouldn't create websites for search engines, but for those that will be visiting and using the website. That would be great if that's all that was needed to get people to visit your site. Unfortunately, most people that are looking around on the web for a site for what they're interested in use search engines to FIND your site - in most cases, they "google it". They also will only look at the first two to three pages of results (mostly the first page). If your site doesn't rank in the top 10 to 20 results, you don't get traffic to your site and that is especially problematic for companies looking to make money off of their website: no visitors = no profits/business.

But you are missing a key point here. What the search-engines want you to do is inexplicable. It is only stated in generalities and the actual implementation is in proprietary Google code and databases.

I and other folks have thousands of web pages indexed in Google that come up on PAGE 1, often position 1 thru 5, results. Yet the PR for the website continues to drop (went from PR5 to PR2). And, the revenue went up from AdSense ads.

I didn't get those results by trying to fathom what Google wanted me to do. I got those results by thinking about all the details my website visitors might want. Now, I have a varying number (10,000 to 30,000) of mostly dynamic web pages indexed by Google. The more I think, the lower my PR goes - but I don't care! The results are the only important part of the equation.

I read somewhere earlier in this thread that Google does or may be developing an SEO service. That organization would be just about the only one with a possibility of being able to offer a valued SEO service. Even they would be useless if they have no access to the SEO definition embodied in the Google proprietary code and databases. There, and at other search-engine owner locations, is where the true definition of the "SEO Standard" exists.

[janeth]

A link to information on Google buying an SEO company

Google Buys SEO Company Performics | Threadwatch.org

[janeth]

Brian is really upset. He's been sending me emails saying that I misquoted him but it is the way I read it on the blog. Seems to me he should be able to post here on the forum but maybe he does not like us very much.

Either way if someone could check Bruce's blog and see if I'm going crazy it would really be nice.

ADDED:

I made a mistake but in my defense the comment section on Bruce's blog is very misleading. Brain did not say what I thought he said and at this point I could careless what he said. I am now going to rant on my blog about Brain .

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Not becoming but I believe they already own an SEO company.

Quite correct; when they bought DoubleClick, they also acquired its SM company Performics.

What Will Google Do With Performics?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Quite correct; when they bought DoubleClick, they also acquired its SM company Performics.

What Will Google Do With Performics?

Google just posted this on their blog.

Official Google Blog: Selling Performics Search Marketing

It’s clear to us that we do not want to be in the search engine marketing business. Maintaining objectivity in both search and advertising is paramount to Google’s mission and core to the trust we ask from our users. For this reason, we plan to sell the Performics search marketing business to a third party. We believe this will allow us to maintain objectivity and the search marketing business to continue to grow and innovate and serve its customers. While we have not yet identified a buyer, we’ve received preliminary interest from a number of our current partners. Search Marketing will continue to run as a separate entity until the division is sold.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by inertia

We already have standards set by the search engines. The unfortunate thing is that they don't seam to be enforced. Quite regularly on this forum we have people posting up threads about why their site is being out performed by a site with black hat techniques in place. If the search engines responded to complaints made by webmasters then we'd have a lot more regulation.

That's not fair... And it's like saying that if the police would respond more if people called them there would be less crime. (which is not true unless you want to live in a police state)

And you also didn't really get what I meant,.. I'm not talking about html standards, which aren't set by the search engines anyway, but about standards as to how to do a search. That would be like setting a standard on how to program HTML and not leaving that to the webmaster.

The whole problem is caused in the first place by the fact that HTML is such an open language. You have all the freedom in the world on how to build a webpage. If they used more strict language then you have your regulation done for you. Which would make websites a lot more expensive because in that case you'll need a 4 year education and experience in order to put a webpage together.

I like regulation and standards, but only if they are there to encourage and make things work together. When it is about controlling how you'd choose to do something, then they´re not regulations or standards. Going that way is just to make the lives of a few easier and the lives of many more difficult.

[janeth]

Any white hat site can out rank a black hat site if the time and energy is put into it.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Google just posted this on their blog.

Official Google Blog: Selling Performics Search Marketing

One can hear the sighs of relief all over the world!

[bj]

Sounds like you're dealing in Clinton-speak here. If you are dealing in science, please provide a link to the software that implements the Google calculations. That would be enormously helpful. Thanks! . . .

I was paraphrasing Google's Webmaster Guidelines. Google SAYS:
"Make pages for users, not for search engines."

There are other guidelines there. Follow them and you will achieve decent ranking. IMHO, the quote above is one of the most important, as you seem to agree.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by bj

I was paraphrasing Google's Webmaster Guidelines. Google SAYS:
"Make pages for users, not for search engines."

There are other guidelines there. Follow them and you will achieve decent ranking. IMHO, the quote above is one of the most important, as you seem to agree.

"Make pages for users, not for search engines."

That really should be quite obvious, given that SEs are designed for users and not for SEs.

I've never really understood how so many either miss or loose sight of that fact. Perhaps for some it simply becomes a game of one-upmanship, such that they forget what the original goal was.