Where to 'place' the SEO profession?

[MJW]

Hello again,

I just arrived at work after a long, sunny weekend to find loads of replies,
some more relevant, valuable and/or sensible than others.
Thank you all for your thoughts, they will help me form my own view on the matter.

One thing I can tell you is that I'll stick around to learn what I can,
perhaps even dabble in SEO practices from the comfort of my home.

Cheers,

MJW

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

No. I mean # 1 in the organic results for any search query.

The page that ranks # 1 for coke (the homepage of Coca-Cola's official site at this moment) has the highest relevance score, as measured by Google's ranking algorithm, for this particular search query in comparison with any other page indexed by Google.

I (and my team, and extra staff if needed) only have to increase the relevance score of any other suitable web page (that has not been punished, for instance) to close the relevance score gap between the two pages and become # 1. We don't have to break into Coca-Cola's headquarters, or into Google's.

I am surprised again and again why SEO workers prefer to quote Google's logically false statement.

What exactly do you consider a relevance score? You talk about it as if you read it in a book. The reality is that Google looks at factors that can't be found on the page. The positions of websites depend in part on what is found all over the internet. And in the case of coca cola, their first position is the result of only what was found on the internet. (i.e. The word coke can not be found on the home page of coca cola.)

That means it's not really about some sort of "relevance score", but more about how well you´re known. And I seriously doubt that you can build a brand that will become better known than coca cola.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by MJW

Hello again,

I just arrived at work after a long, sunny weekend to find loads of replies,
some more relevant, valuable and/or sensible than others.
Thank you all for your thoughts, they will help me form my own view on the matter.

One thing I can tell you is that I'll stick around to learn what I can,
perhaps even dabble in SEO practices from the comfort of my home.

Cheers,

MJW

Feel free to participate in many threads,... It's fun and you'll learn even faster that way...

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

What exactly do you consider a relevance score? You talk about it as if you read it in a book. The reality is that Google looks at factors that can't be found on the page. The positions of websites depend in part on what is found all over the internet. And in the case of coca cola, their first position is the result of only what was found on the internet. (i.e. The word coke can not be found on the home page of coca cola.)

That means it's not really about some sort of "relevance score", but more about how well you´re known. And I seriously doubt that you can build a brand that will become better known than coca cola.

Peter, it seems that you've missed the first SEO lesson - relevance score is what the search engine measures for a web page versus a given search query. SERPs show results (web pages) by the descending order of their relevance scores. The relevance score calculated by Google's complex algorithm is a consolidated score, with no upper limit, of partial scores, some representing qualities of the page and some representing the qualities of inbound links.

So before you teach us "the reality of what Google does" read at least the relevant page in Wikipedia, or better still read an introductory course to search technology.

Being # 1 at Google for the search query coke is determined by being associated with a number that is higher than anyone else's. That number goes up constantly in indirect response to the number of new links and, if someone at Coca Cola wishes so, the inclusion of the word coke in the page's text or metatags. (It can also go down, as a result of the harmful work of some SEO technician.) But there is absolutely nothing in principle that can prevent any other page from achieving an even higher number by all available means.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Peter, it seems that you've missed the first SEO lesson - relevance score is what the search engine measures for a web page versus a given search query. SERPs show results (web pages) by their descending order of their relevance scores. The relevance score calculated by Google's complex algorithm is a consolidated score, with no upper limit, of partial scores, some representing qualities of the page and some representing inbound links.

So before you teach us "the reality of what Google does" read at least the relevant page in Wikipedia, or better still read an introductory course to search technology.

Your telling Peter to learn SEO from Wikipedia, sorry that is just not right, LOL

You still haven't explained what or how this "relevancy score" is figured out.

Please tell me your not talking about keyword density?

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Your telling Peter to learn SEO from Wikipedia, sorry that is just not right, LOL
You still haven't explained what or how this "relevancy score" is figured out.
Please tell me your not talking about keyword density?

Relevance (not relevancy) score is the most basic term of SEO. But I'm not surprised to find out that so many practicing SEO technicians have never heard of it and cannot therefore imagine the hidden reality behind what the eyes can see.

What makes it easy in one case (search query) to advance from # 11 to # 10 in Google and practically impossible to advance from # 11 to # 10 in another case? The invisible relevance score gap! It might be one point in one case and ten thousand points in the other, though the gap in rankings is one number for both cases.

Moreover, the pages shown above yours may raise their relevance scores at a rate that is higher than the rate at which you raise the relevance score of your page, and you'll never catch up despite all the work invested. All rankings stay the same but the client is told stories about a recent algorithm shift.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Relevance (not relevancy) score is the most basic term of SEO.

Again please explain what relevance score is and how it is figured out since none of us here know what you are talking about. So far you have just stated how important it is and no one but you know what it means.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Peter, it seems that you've missed the first SEO lesson - relevance score is what the search engine measures for a web page versus a given search query. SERPs show results (web pages) by the descending order of their relevance scores. The relevance score calculated by Google's complex algorithm is a consolidated score, with no upper limit, of partial scores, some representing qualities of the page and some representing the qualities of inbound links.

So before you teach us "the reality of what Google does" read at least the relevant page in Wikipedia, or better still read an introductory course to search technology.

Being # 1 at Google for the search query coke is determined by being associated with a number that is higher than anyone else's. That number goes up constantly in indirect response to the number of new links and, if someone at Coca Cola wishes so, the inclusion of the word coke in the page's text or metatags. (It can also go down, as a result of the harmful work of some SEO technician.) But there is absolutely nothing in principle that can prevent any other page from achieving an even higher number by all available means.

That first SEO lesson I know just fine. I usually give that lesson to people that aren't on a level yet that they can understand the link structure of the web, pagerank, anchor text relevance, aging factors, internal link structure of a website, etc. etc. etc.

And to give you an idea, after understanding all the technical factors, which basically means having an understanding of how a search engine works, the next step is understanding why they work the way they do. That's where a lot of people get lost.

[inertia]

Just jumping in on this "relevance score" thing.

Originally Posted by emanuelh

And not only the algorithm is secret, so are the relevance scores of each listing in its SERPs. SEO workers can only watch the rankings, a reflection of the descending order of relevance scores that contain no information on the size of the relevance score gap between two adjacent listings

What you are saying is - Google judges search engine positions on relevance. The number one site in the SERPs is the most relevant (in Googles eyes) for the search phrase. If thats what youre saying then thank god ive been building relevant content and links for people! Phew! That is, after all, the basic of basics.

When describing "relevance score" you summed it up nicely in an earlier post. Our "relevance score" comes from our ranking. If we are 5th then (in googles eyes) we are the fifth most relevant site.

[SEO]

Here is a quote from Dave Taylor regarding "Relevance Score" (Dave Taylor is a lecturer with "Stompernet"): Site reference: Tech Support Questions? Ask Dave Taylor!

QUOTE :
Position on the search results page is based on what I call your Relevance Score, a formula that's calculated by Google's search engine to figure out in quantified terms how relevant your Web page is to the given search term and how authoritative your site is overall (to break ties). Note that this is different, and pretty much unrelated to your PageRank, though most SEO people are pretty obsessed with their PR scores, unnecessarily so in my opinion.
Given the existence of Relevance Scoring, it's clear that if you knew exactly what formula Google used, you could create Web pages that were perfect matches, with the right words in the right places, the right ratio of key words to non-keywords, the right HTML tags, etc. Then, though you couldn't guarantee the #1 spot, you could certainly move to the front of the pack, far ahead of sites that aren't paying attention to what Google's looking for.
The sad news is that no-one outside of Google knows how they calculate Relevance Scores (even if they say otherwise) so we're left guessing and experimenting. And that's where things get a bit dicey...
END QUOTE:

"Relevance score" takes into account many factors... A few which may or may not include:
Relevant keywords, Relevant keyword density, Relevant title tags, Relevant description, Relevant H1 key words and phrases, Relevant bold key words and phrases, Relevant italic key words and phrases, Relevant keywords and phrases used in site wide links, Relevant websites linked to and from, Relevant keywords in both inbound and outbound links...

Relevance may also be calculated by; the amount of time a visitor spends at a website, what the visitor does at the website, where the visitor goes after visiting the website, the country of origin of website and browser, the name of the domain, the name of the page, and many, many other factors come into the "so called' relevance equation....

Some of the worlds top SEO's claim that for every piece of the algorithm puzzle that webmasters manage to "please Google algorithms" with they get a "point" in their "relevance score".

So... theoretically...

It would be possible to outrank "Coke" for the search term "coke"...
(although... in my opinion... it would be stupid to try...)

[incrediblehelp]

LOL, not sure where everyone is going here with this relevance score crap, but websites that are NOT relevant rank higher than those that ARE relevant ALL OF THE TIME on Google.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

websites that are NOT relevant rank higher than those that ARE relevant ALL OF THE TIME on Google.

But doesnt this mean that Google has decided it to be more relevant?

[Peter (IMC)]

It seems that few realize (or understand) that popularity is used in the so called "relevance score".

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Again please explain what relevance score is and how it is figured out since none of us here know what you are talking about. So far you have just stated how important it is and no one but you know what it means.

I repeat: it is the basic concept of search technology! Think of a simple search algorithm that reads one hundred text documents and counts the number of occurences of each word in each document. The results are stored in an index.
Input comes in the form of a search query. The search algorithm compares it with the index and creates a search results page that may look like:

search query = widget
# 1. document # 12 = relevance score 7 (7 occurences of widget in document)
# 2. document # 96 = relevance score 5 (6 occurences of widget in document)
# 3. document # 4 = relevance score 4 (5 occurences of widget in document)
# 4-100 documents # 1-3, 5-11, 13-95, 97-100 = relevance score 0 (0 occurences of widget in
document)

Note that the documents are arranged by the descending order of their relevance score.
Note that the relevance score gap between the documents ranked # 2 and # 1 is two points, the relevance score gap between the documents ranked # 3 and # 2 is one point, and the relevance score gap between the documents ranked # 4 and # 3 is four points.

A real search algorithm such as Google's does not show documents of relevance score zero; it does not show the number of the document in the index (because the user does not need this information); the consolidated relevance score of each page is calculated by the very complex and secret search algorithm from in-page qualities and from qualities of inbound links.

Most important: real search engines do not show the actual relevance scores because by observing their fluctuations in response to optimization one can understand how the secret search algorithm works!

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by inertia

But doesnt this mean that Google has decided it to be more relevant?

Google likes to leave a lot of these decissions to the "democratic nature of the internet". The Google search results are a reflection of the public opinion about a website. Of course this public opinion is based on the related links that point at it. And related is based on the combination of the search query, the content, the anchor texts, the content of the pages that contain the links, age factors, and some other things.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

LOL, not sure where everyone is going here with this relevance score crap, but websites that are NOT relevant rank higher than those that ARE relevant ALL OF THE TIME on Google.

It's surely going towards raising grave doubts about the competence of the moderator.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Google likes to leave a lot of these decissions to the "democratic nature of the internet". The Google search results are a reflection of the public opinion about a website. Of course this public opinion is based on the related links that point at it. And related is based on the combination of the search query, the content, the anchor texts, the content of the pages that contain the links, age factors, and some other things.

Google's complex algorithm has to maintain compromises between "pure" relevance and resistance to manipulation by SEO workers. For instance, popularity, the number of visitors of a website might reflect its relevance as judged by human minds but it is also a factor that is so easy to manipulate.

For an illuminating interview read http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/bu.../03google.html .

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

It's surely going towards raising grave doubts about the competence of the moderator.

Take it easy now, you´re new here and are behaving like you know everything. When being asked a real question about what you consider what a relevance score is, you seem to avoid answering it. And when you finaly do you say:

... relevance score of each page is calculated by the very complex and secret search algorithm ...

Which basically means you don't know, and you automatically assume that just because you don't understand it, nobody can understand it.


You claimed in the first post you made in this thread that SEO is not a technical job. Yet, you seem to treat it as such very strongly.

Let me give it one more try. It is extremely difficult to rank higher than coca cola for the keyword "coke" because coca cola is such a powerful brand which has coke as it's nick name. It is practically impossible to create a website and optimize it to rank higher for that keyword. Technically and theoretically it is possible of course.

By the way, did you notice there are sitelinks as well in that first position for the keyword coke? What does that tell you?

[inertia]

Bloody hell! I don't know whether I'm coming or going now!?

I know what emanuelh is saying about relevance. It seams plausible to me that you do accrue some kind of relevance score. But I'm not buying the formulaic approach.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Google likes to leave a lot of these decisions to the "democratic nature of the Internet". The Google search results are a reflection of the public opinion about a website. Of course this public opinion is based on the related links that point at it. And related is based on the combination of the search query, the content, the anchor texts, the content of the pages that contain the links, age factors, and some other things.

So what we can conclude is that the SERPs are decided on 100s of factors, which in turn can be grouped into categories such as relevance and popularity (what others do you reckon as a sideline discussion?).

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Google's complex algorithm has to maintain compromises between "pure" relevance and resistance to manipulation by SEO workers. For instance, popularity, the number of visitors of a website might reflect its relevance as judged by human minds but it is also a factor that is so easy to manipulate.

For an illuminating interview read http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/bu.../03google.html .

Popularity is not about the number of visitors a site has. Popularity is just a word that reflects backlinks.

[inertia]

You claimed in the first post you made in this thread that SEO is not a technical job. Yet, you seem to treat it as such very strongly

Good point...

[SEO]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

LOL, not sure where everyone is going here with this relevance score crap, but websites that are NOT relevant rank higher than those that ARE relevant ALL OF THE TIME on Google.

You asked a question

I just tried to give you a definitive answer...

If you don't want an answer... why ask a question...?

When you want a site to rank for highly competitive keywords you need every advantage you can get... Knowledge is power.

Maybe it sounds like a load of crap to somebody who isn't interested in perfection... But for somebody who is pedantic like me... My goal is to completely dominate the first few pages in Google for my top three search terms.

I don't really see the point in doing SEO unless your desire is to get At Least within the top 3 spots for competitive search terms... Especially if you are charging people money to do it...

In my opinion... a good SEO wouldn't contract himself out for less than $250 hr... (He also wouldn't hand the job over to hired help).

Why would a good SEO work for somebody else for $50 an hour when he could easily set up half a dozen adsense websites of his own that will generate $5-10,000 a month while he is off playing golf or fishing...?

You get what you pay for.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by SEO

So... theoretically...
It would be possible to outrank "Coke" for the search term "coke"...
(although... in my opinion... it would be stupid to try...)

Not theoretically. And as I said, I and my team can bring a suitable (unpunished, etc.) website to # 1 at Google for any search query. Which seems to leave me alone on the SEO playground.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by SEO

You asked a question

I just tried to give you a definitive answer...

If you don't want an answer... why ask a question...?

When you want a site to rank for highly competitive keywords you need every advantage you can get... Knowledge is power.

Maybe it sounds like a load of crap to somebody who isn't interested in perfection... But for somebody who is pedantic like me... My goal is to completely dominate the first few pages in Google for my top three search terms.

I don't really see the point in doing SEO unless your desire is to get At Least within the top 3 spots for competitive search terms... Especially if you are charging people money to do it...

In my opinion... a good SEO wouldn't contract himself out for less than $250 hr... (He also wouldn't hand the job over to hired help).

Why would a good SEO work for somebody else for $50 an hour when he could easily set up half a dozen adsense websites of his own that will generate $5-10,000 a month while he is off playing golf or fishing...?

You get what you pay for.

Stay on topic dude! I was enjoying this relevance discussion and thats just a rant!!!

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Popularity is not about the number of visitors a site has. Popularity is just a word that reflects backlinks.

Popularity has this double sense.

[SEO]

Originally Posted by inertia

Stay on topic dude! I was enjoying this relevance discussion and thats just a rant!!!

Incredible help asked a question... I answered... He said it was crap... I explained why he thought it was crap...

Whatever...

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Not theoretically. And as I said, I and my team can bring a suitable (unpunished, etc.) website to # 1 at Google for any search query. Which seems to leave me alone on the SEO playground.

Could you show a site that you got to rank #1 for a search term like coke? (pm me if you don't want to do it publically). I'm not trying to embarres you here, but if you really are capable of something like that I would like to see. It's always good to see a master's work.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Not theoretically. And as I said, I and my team can bring a suitable (unpunished, etc.) website to # 1 at Google for any search query. Which seems to leave me alone on the SEO playground.

Please refrain from acting self-promotional. If you have nothing else to offer this thread than "my team is the best" then this thread is heading towards being closed.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Please refrain from acting self-promotional. If you have nothing else to offer this thread than "my team is the best" then this thread is heading towards being closed.

I believe that I have offered much more than that.

[Feydakin]

Then you should re-examine your beliefs..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Google's complex algorithm has to maintain compromises between "pure" relevance and resistance to manipulation by SEO workers. For instance, popularity, the number of visitors of a website might reflect its relevance as judged by human minds but it is also a factor that is so easy to manipulate.

For an illuminating interview read http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/bu.../03google.html .

I think you are getting offensive here. SEO Workers we do not try to manipulate search engines. We try to conform to their algorithms.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Could you show a site that you got to rank #1 for a search term like coke? (pm me if you don't want to do it publically). I'm not trying to embarres you here, but if you really are capable of something like that I would like to see. It's always good to see a master's work.

This is an issue clients never understand and even veteran SEO workers rarely do. That's why they are impressed by demonstrations of success in getting top rankings.

As you have pointed out yourself the SEO worker at Coca Cola (if there is one) had absolutely nothing to do with bringing the site to # 1 for coke - this keyword is not to be found in the site!. The work has been done by all those people willingly creating links to the site and expecting nothing in return. Not even a bottle of coke! However, anyone else trying to overcome their site will probably have to invest an amount of work that cannot even be estimated in advance. It is a matter of finance and given sufficient funds a competent SEO firm must succeed while an incompetent one will not increase their site's relevance score at a rate that is higher than the rate at which Coca Cola's site is increasing and will thus never catch up.

Now suppose we were trying to accomplish this feat without success. Whose failure is it? Our professional failure, or the failure of the client who did not allocate us sufficient funds?

And suppose we have success. Is it only our professional success or also the success of the client who was wise enough (or adventurous enough) to allocate us the sufficient funds?

I've understood it a few years ago after we brought a client's site to # 4 at Google for mesothelioma. At that time the cost per click for being # 1 in Adwords was $80 and you could expect 200 clicks per day. So if being # 1 in Adwords had a price tag of half a million dollars per month, the worth of a top ranking in the organic results was much more (and you wouldn't pay for false clicks). However our client did not finance the full amount of work required to maintain that ranking (and possibly improve it) versus the much higher budgets his competitors paid to their SEO firms.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Let me give it one more try. It is extremely difficult to rank higher than coca cola for the keyword "coke" because coca cola is such a powerful brand which has coke as it's nick name. It is practically impossible to create a website and optimize it to rank higher for that keyword. Technically and theoretically it is possible of course.

By the way, did you notice there are sitelinks as well in that first position for the keyword coke? What does that tell you?

couldnt agree more. anyone saying they could outrank a PR9 site like coca cola for their nickname "coke" raises grave doubts about their competence IMO.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I think you are getting offensive here. SEO Workers we do not try to manipulate search engines. We try to conform to their algorithms.

Come on. So you don't. But what about links exchange, buying links, etc. as done by so many others?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

Come on. So you don't. But what about links exchange, buying links, etc. as done by so many others?

1. You are talking with me and not with others.
2. Many members here know very well and can confirm that I do not exchange or buy links.
3. I am still waiting for you to answer the question of Peter. Can you show a site you optimized and had that incredible success?
4. I have been invited to this thread and I came even if I did not have the time. So let please keep it short and good.

Thanks.

[Feydakin]

Uh Webnauts, I really don't think that when he said SEO Workers he meant YOU specifically.. It's probably more likely that he meant people who work in the SEO industry.. But it is nice to see that you are still easily offended by things..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Uh Webnauts, I really don't think that when he said SEO Workers he meant YOU specifically.. It's probably more likely that he meant people who work in the SEO industry.. But it is nice to see that you are still easily offended by things..

I know he did not only mean me. He met all Ethical and Professional SEOs.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

....

Now suppose we were trying to accomplish this feat without success. Whose failure is it? Our professional failure, or the failure of the client who did not allocate us sufficient funds?

And suppose we have success. Is it only our professional success or also the success of the client who was wise enough (or adventurous enough) to allocate us the sufficient funds?

...

Thanks for that reply. Blaming the client when you can't get something done explains everything.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Thanks for that reply. Blaming the client when you can't get something done explains everything.

Not at all - I've also praised him for allowing sufficient funds when we do get it done.

I think that getting so sensitive obscures clear thought. Or perhaps all those irritated by my presentation of the facts work alone as freelancers, think in terms of personal ability, and find it hard to imagine adjusting to an SEO budget that requires 18,000 workhours per month, while for a firm it simply means hiring and training additional staff.

If we are allocated sufficient funds for bringing a client's site to # 1 for coke I know that we are able to do it because it is a matter of numbers. I don't know how we will do it because this is a matter of planning and ingenuity, and it may take us hundreds or thousands of workhours just to plan the course of the work or to experiment with several alternative tactics invented for this project alone.

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by kevsta

couldnt agree more. anyone saying they could outrank a PR9 site like coca cola for their nickname "coke" raises grave doubts about their competence IMO.

A website that, hypothetically speaking, will show scientific evidence that drinking Coca Cola is the main cause of male impotence and female breast cancer might divert to it enough links to outrank Coca Cola's official site after a while.

[Peter (IMC)]

It gets a bit unrealistic that way don't you think. Most people here think of SEO in practical terms.

18,000 work hours per month even at a cheap rate would cost like 10 million dollars per year..... There's no realistic discussion possible if you allow such theoretical assumptions. Imagine that it would probably be 3 years before you get even close to the top 10.... 30 million dollars?

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

It gets a bit unrealistic that way don't you think. Most people here think of SEO in practical terms.

18,000 work hours per month even at a cheap rate would cost like 10 million dollars per year..... There's no realistic discussion possible if you allow such theoretical assumptions. Imagine that it would probably be 3 years before you get even close to the top 10.... 30 million dollars?

I have mentioned earlier that the cost of being # 1 in Adwords for mesothalioma was half a million dollars per month, which is 6 million dollars per year - a few years ago (unlike most other arenas the price has gone down since). Consequently, the worth of a top ranking in the organic results was even higher because the profit was higher.

As online commerce through search engines grows, the worth of top rankings for commercial search queries will go up too, and with it the sums website owners will be ready to pay. I guess that few will pay millions for three years without results but some will pay such sums to maintain their rankings
by constantly increasing relevance scores, and they will pay it from the profits produced rather than from capital. They will have to turn to large firms that can provide the large amount of work required.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

I have mentioned earlier that th
e cost of being # 1 in Adwords for mesothalioma was half a million dollars per month, which is 6 million dollars per year - a few years ago (unlike most other arenas the price has gone down since). Consequently, the worth of a top ranking in the organic results was even higher because the profit was higher.

As online commerce through search engines grows, the worth of top rankings for commercial search queries will go up too, and with it the sums website owners will be ready to pay. I guess that few will pay millions for three years without results but some will pay such sums to maintain their rankings
by constantly increasing relevance scores, and they will pay it from the profits produced rather than from capital. They will have to turn to large firms that can provide the large amount of work required.

this gets stranger by the minute. Google search for mesothalioma - 646 results

now theres a search anyone couldtake #1 in a day or two..

ok it was a typo. still no-one optimised for that?

[deepsand]

Definition of an SEO: A publicist for a web site.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by kevsta

ok it was a typo. still no-one optimised for that?

The fact he doesnt know how to spell it should explain a lot. I have a feeling this thread is turned very baity for him

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by kevsta

this gets stranger by the minute. Google search for mesothalioma - 646 results

now theres a search anyone couldtake #1 in a day or two..

ok it was a typo. still no-one optimised for that?

What I would deduce from those results is that Google has probably taken a special interest high paying keyword misspellings and removed the majority of sites trying to monopolize on the misspelling to falsely inflate traffic and AdSense revenues for the offending sites.

Leads me to believe that purposely optimizing for misspellings may not be a prudent SEO move.

Sorry for throwing all of the SEOOCD'ers into a state of spell checking panic.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by mtheory

What I would deduce from those results is that Google has probably taken a special interest high paying keyword misspellings and removed the majority of sites trying to monopolize on the misspelling to falsely inflate traffic and AdSense revenues for the offending sites.

Leads me to believe that purposely optimizing for misspellings may not be a prudent SEO move.

Sorry for throwing all of the SEOOCD'ers into a state of spell checking panic.

Why:

1) Label this particular misspelling as a "high paying keyword?"

2) Characterize the traffic from misspellings as "falsely inflate(d)" traffic?

3) Assume that Google would needlessly forego revenues from AdWords and/or AdSense traffic merely because it results from misspellings?

4) Characterize those sites which capitalize on misspellings as "offending" sites?

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Why:

1) Label this particular misspelling as a "high paying keyword?"

2) Characterize the traffic from misspellings as "falsely inflate(d)" traffic?

3) Assume that Google would needlessly forego revenues from AdWords and/or AdSense traffic merely because it results from misspellings?

4) Characterize those sites which capitalize on misspellings as "offending" sites?

1. It IS a misspelling of a high paying keyword.

2. A true and honest site will most likey have correct spelling in regard to what their site is about.

3. Falsely inflated traffic to an obvious built for AdSense site? Did somebody say click fraud.

4. See #2

[emanuelh]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

The fact he doesnt know how to spell it should explain a lot. I have a feeling this thread is turned very baity for him

You can do better by trying to think about the issue discussed here, instead of calling it "crap" and instead of trying to draw conclusions from a spelling mistake. BTW, I've spelt it correctly in a previous reply to Peter above (Yesterday, 10:06 PM).

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by emanuelh

You can do better by trying to think about the issue discussed here, instead of calling it "crap" and instead of trying to draw conclusions from a spelling mistake. BTW, I've spelt it correctly in a previous reply to Peter above (Yesterday, 10:06 PM).

emanuelh since you have joined this thread nothing of value has been gained by me and suspect by any other reader of it. Simply saying my team can rank high for any keyword as long as we get 30 million dollars means shit to me.