Silly Stupid SEO

[LD]

I have just read a kind of 'light hearted' article that I think many might appreciate. This article is centered on how bad SEO advice gets started (http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2011/jun/20prt.html). Part of that article refers to how bad advice on Forums can spread to the point where that particular bit of advice is taken to be the truth. WPW is moderated so well, the spreading of bad advice is minimized, which is why I like this forum.

I think it's a great article. What do you think?

[deepsand]

While I know that some will reject that article out of hand owing to the author, it's really spot on, particularly the part about the blind leading the blind on many forums.

[LD]

There was nothing in the article about sock puppets though. A little disappointing. ;-)

[deepsand]

Perhaps because they are not confined to the realm of SEO, but ubiquitous in nature. They are, for example, most common at PhysOrg.com and Military.com; and, have seen a few over at TechRepublic as well.

[LD]

I'm wondering if this topic is scaring off those that propagate the questionable information.

[deepsand]

Fundamental barrier: They don't read. :lol:

[webmaisterpro]

From my experience I can say that most guides or "make money quick" on internet are misleading. There are also many writers that sell their systems in ebooks, but those systems have never been tested in real conditions. Probably there are 4-5 good guides in the last couple of years.

[deepsand]

The "make money quick in (insert just about anything here)" come on is as old as the hills.

At this very moment, I can guarantee that their are countless infomercials being broadcast on TV selling books and "programs" on how to get rich while sitting on your ass.

The 'net simply provides the snake oil salesmen with yet one more channel in which to peddle their wares.

[AboutWeb]

There are lots of scam pages where they sell some kind of ebook and they promise you something that looks too good to be true, a long page where he tries to convince you to buy his ebook/cd/video, etc.
I call this internet marketing scam pages, scam because there is no real useful information on the products they sell.
Many people still fall for those scams, like How to have income from home, How to date hot women, How to lose weight, etc.

[deepsand]

IMO, the greatest single problem is those, like many of the drive-by posters here, who simply seize onto something that sounds halfway reasonable and repeat it countless times.

[LD]

...How to date hot women.

You mean it doesn't work? Dang it all! :wink:

[deepsand]

For that you first need to buy "How to Find Hot Women." :shock:

[alphaomega]

I find on line business is like any other business. You have to work on it and have something that people need or want. It requires investment of time and effort. Somehow people think because they could have the business exposed to millions of people that it will make them rich. The dot com bubble burst many years ago.

[LD]

For that you first need to buy "How to Find Hot Women." :shock:

How much is it? :lol:

[MrGamm]

Yeah, I don't know. I can't say I have never been bitten believing the wrong thing, because I have. However I have certainly tried to avoid the grey areas with absolute, or definitive SEO rules or solutions. Maybe bold, or positive... which is something different.

SEF is a technique, why make it something it's not.

SEM is a strategy, why not practice it?

SEO is a science, and anyone who claims they know how the earths moon formed, is just following a theory.

I am not scientist, let alone a nobel prize winner. But most SEO's are.

[deepsand]

SEO is a science, ... .
Far from it.

It's an art, that of discerning which way the wind is blowing and the currents flowing, and at what velocities, so as to sail to the desired port.

[deepsand]

How much is it? :lol:
Not sure; I think it's out of print.

[MrGamm]

Well... I am sort of in the boat that science is an art... but not too many people see it that way. Like I said... I am no scientist.

[LD]

Not sure; I think it's out of print.

Carved on a rock somewhere?

[deepsand]

Carved on a rock somewhere?
Limestone; badly weathered now.

[morestar]

Thanks for the post LD:

I like Jill's response to the emails about "search engine submissions":


"I honestly can't believe that there could still be, in 2011, someone who would speak to an audience on any form of
Internet marketing who would recommend submitting to search engines, let alone one that would recommend spending $99 (or
even 10 cents) a month to do so. In fact, it enrages me. That person who spoke must be a sales rep for that [submission tool]
company, and he or she should be thrown out of the business and not allowed to speak on the topic ever again."

I'm bookmarking this thread and sharing it for future reference - the very near future to be honest...

[morestar]

While I know that some will reject that article out of hand owing to the author, it's really spot on, particularly the part about the blind leading the blind on many forums.

So I'm reading further on. I wouldn't dare insult and say she's not a successful SEO but I could say her mockery isn't too spot on...


Another one of my pet peeves that has been common since the beginning of SEO time. Just because you changed the positioning of a word in your title tag and the next day you ranked one place higher in Google doesn't mean that your change is what caused it. It may have, but it may not have.

We used to joke on the High Rankings Forum (highrankings.com/forum/) that if you keep a cabbage on your monitor it will increase your rankings. Why not? It's as likely as some of the silly SEO theories that are based on poorly drawn conclusions that mix up cause and effect.

She ties in "SEO theories" with facts and common SEO practices. We do KNOW that changing the title tag of your pages can influence you're rankings, up or down. According to this years Search Engine Ranking Factors report, the top 5 ranking factors (http://searchengineland.com/search-ranking-factors-shows-how-little-seo-has-changed-24363), Keyword Use in the Title Tag came out in second. Cabbage on your monitor didn't even make the cut.

So at best, she's (Jill) asking (in the above quote) for SEO's not to come into her forum as say "hey, I changed the keywords in my title and my rankings went up" because they "may have" or "may not have"?

I see no point to that quote, but correct me if I'm wrong...

[LD]

Thanks for the post LD:

I thought it was a good topic and figured although it might not get too much action, those that are in effect part of the topic (propagating opinions as truths), might get the hint to think before typing.

In terms of SE submission, I still do it as part of the service, but in time perhaps, I just might omit that step. I wonder if submission is still worth doing if it's a brand new domain and site being launched? In other words do the on-page steps, then the submssion, and finally apply other off-page strategies. I'm usually waiting for $ for the a next step in the process, so I just submit the sites anyhow. The clients usually like seeing the report too!

What do you think about a new domain/site and SE submission - worth doing?

[morestar]

In terms of SE submission, I still do it as part of the service, but in time perhaps, I just might omit that step. I wonder if submission is still worth doing if it's a brand new domain and site being launched? In other words do the on-page steps, then the submssion, and finally apply other off-page strategies. I'm usually waiting for $ for the a next step in the process, so I just submit the sites anyhow. The clients usually like seeing the report too!

What do you think about a new domain/site and SE submission - worth doing?

Well I never worry about search engine submissions, my sites get picked up pretty quick - although when I concern myself with some other search engines, then I'll submit the sites there...

I still do directory submissions because it doesn't take long to do the job with good software and even if I get only a portion of the links to actually have effect, that's still good, you know what I mean...

[LD]

Well I never worry about search engine submissions, my sites get picked up pretty quick - although when I concern myself with some other search engines, then I'll submit the sites there...

Makes sense. I just blast them out to about 75 NA and other inernational SEs anyhow.



I still do directory submissions because it doesn't take long to do the job with good software and even if I get only a portion of the links to actually have effect, that's still good, you know what I mean...


Yes, I know what you mean. I'm having a little trouble justifying these submissions lately because with quite a large number of successful submissions in the last 2-4 months, most, if not all of those successful submissions are still not showing up in GWT. And GWT usually shows thousands of extraneous and minor IBLs that the SEs or even using other data mining tools, don't dig up.

I duno, maybe I'm just impatient. :neutral:

[deepsand]

So I'm reading further on. I wouldn't dare insult and say she's not a successful SEO but I could say her mockery isn't too spot on...



She ties in "SEO theories" with facts and common SEO practices. We do KNOW that changing the title tag of your pages can influence you're rankings, up or down. According to this years Search Engine Ranking Factors report, the top 5 ranking factors (http://searchengineland.com/search-ranking-factors-shows-how-little-seo-has-changed-24363), Keyword Use in the Title Tag came out in second. Cabbage on your monitor didn't even make the cut.

So at best, she's (Jill) asking (in the above quote) for SEO's not to come into her forum as say "hey, I changed the keywords in my title and my rankings went up" because they "may have" or "may not have"?

I see no point to that quote, but correct me if I'm wrong...
She is addressing the fact that very, very few have even heard of, let alone know how to do multivariate testing; which, when dealing with an algorithm having 200+ input variables, most of which are publicly unidentified, only one, PageRank, has had its means of determination revealed, and none of the coefficients are known, is an absolute necessity for determining causality.

The overwhelming majority, as is continually evidenced on this forum, assume that any correlation demonstrates a cause and effect relationship, thus leading to fallacious conclusions.

Away and by far, this is the greatest and most common mistake made by so-called SEOs.

[morestar]

The overwhelming majority, as is continually evidenced on this forum, assume that [b]any[b] correlation demonstrates a cause and effect relationship, thus leading to fallacious conclusions.

Away and by far, this is the greatest and most common mistake made by so-called SEOs.

In laymen's terms please...

[deepsand]

Meaning that just because you snapped your fingers moments before the bolt of lightening appeared doesn't mean you have supernatural powers.

[morestar]

Meaning that just because you snapped your fingers moments before the bolt of lightening appeared doesn't mean you have supernatural powers.

and so with that, I don't really see the correlation between what you said and Jill's statements - the act of editing one's title can affect rankings. What am I not reading right there?

(P.S. I have nothing against Jill, I think she's a brilliant SEO writer)...

[deepsand]

That one altered the Title and observed a subsequent change in SERP rank does not necessarily mean that the former was the cause of the latter.

Jill's point was that too many wrongly make the assumption that an observed correlation evidences a causal relationship.

[MrGamm]

and so with that, I don't really see the correlation between what you said and Jill's statements - the act of editing one's title can affect rankings. What am I not reading right there?

(P.S. I have nothing against Jill, I think she's a brilliant SEO writer)...

The problem for the most part is that people fall into the trap of believing that a trick here and a trick there is all that it takes.

So, if a popular rumour spreads that loading up your domain name with keywords is the way to go, then we end up with thousands of useless and easily forgettable brand names all in the name of a trick. And its a trick not a tactic because once it's done an over with, its forgotten and never invested into again.

So while anything you do when creating a website will be the ultimate deciding factor as to how well you and your business do, its worthless to rehash tips and techniques to people who are not focused on the things that really matter.

Try and explain to someone with no degree in physics why the plum pudding model falls apart. I don't truly know why, but if you tell me, I'll assume I have the right answer and spread the word, whether its correct or not.

So while any single thing might matter, without a full and comprehensive understanding, preferably combined with multiple disciplines and specializations, there is no point to SEO. It's the entire package that matters, not any checklist of things to do.

SEF is the way to go. A focus on compatibility, and accessibility, versus a focus on tricks sans la strategy.

[dominicyordz]

Thanks for sharing that interesting article. Indeed, there are a lot of false information about SEO circulating out there. There's also a lot of pretend gurus taking advantage of newbies.

[deepsand]

Indeed, there are a lot of false information about SEO circulating out there. There's also a lot of pretend gurus taking advantage of newbies.
There probably even more who are unknowingly doing their clients a disservice, owing to their simply believing what others have said, rather than having done their own independent research and studies.

[MrGamm]

There's also a lot of pretend gurus taking advantage of newbies.

They outnumber the people who might actually be writing a line of code, or making an actual website, or a even writing an article and promoting it, by far... jmo...

I mean I don't really know that, but it is not a far stretch of the imagination.


There probably even more who are unknowingly doing their clients a disservice, owing to they're simply believing what others have said, rather than having done their own independent research and studies.

Agreed...

There are like maybe one to three authoritative resources on the web that are actually trustworthy for semi-relevant information. I just don't trust a single piece of it, coming from anyones mouth, even if they are rehashing from a trusted authority, as their interpretation is usually off base from the way I have interpreted it. Or it is just _not_ a catch all solution that requires "enforcement".

[deepsand]

They outnumber the people who might actually be writing a line of code, or making an actual website, or a even writing an article and promoting it, by far... jmo...

I mean I don't really know that, but it is not a far stretch of the imagination.
Probably a very short stretch.

[LD]

There are like maybe one to three authoritative resources on the web that are actually trustworthy for semi-relevant information.


IMO, there are several here at WPW that I trust as authoritative sources for "good information" as many have tested and have logical conclusions to issues and situations with respect to to the OP's questions. It doesn't take long to figure out who they are. However, it's up to the individual to derive their own conclusion on who to trust for that good information, as well as "if and how" to use it. Because really, its all advice and advice is free.

There are some sources on other forums that I'm sure are trustworthy sources as well, but the blatant "drive by" posts that lack any credibility whatsoever, are more rampant on other forums.

[MrGamm]

IMO, there are several here at WPW that I trust as authoritative sources for "good information" as many have tested and have logical conclusions to issues and situations with respect to to the OP's questions. It doesn't take long to figure out who they are. However, it's up to the individual to derive their own conclusion on who to trust for that good information, as well as "if and how" to use it. Because really, its all advice and advice is free.

There are some sources on other forums that I'm sure are trustworthy sources as well, but the blatant "drive by" posts that lack any credibility whatsoever, are more rampant on other forums.

Yes I agree, I should clear it and say that typically on some other forums there have been week long battles over SEO "tips". Or floods of the same information recycled over and over again whenever someone posts something. Like a generic answer for every single question.

Q: "Why is my site not ranking well"

A: "It won't validate, so run it through the validator and fix all the mistakes. All of them."

Or when people get militant over XHTML versus HTML, vice versa

I haven't really experienced or seen any of that on this forum, at all really.

Not that validation isn't important, because understanding where different html parsers might throw different errors has value.

[dominicyordz]

There probably even more who are unknowingly doing their clients a disservice, owing to their simply believing what others have said, rather than having done their own independent research and studies.

Yeah, it's tragic. I think there are a lot more SEO "rumorists" than SEO "specialists" out there. If you go to forums or online freelance job sites, everybody seems to be a master of some sort.

[LD]

Yeah, it's tragic. I think there are a lot more SEO "rumorists" than SEO "specialists" out there. If you go to forums or online freelance job sites, everybody seems to be a master of some sort.

People are becoming more educated and are more often, asking more of the right questions. In fact I've been called and asked what I'd suggest this one company should ask of a local SEO company they were thinking of hiring. Although a little awkward, I offered a couple of suggestions in terms of questions they might ask. The short version is, they came back to us without my having to "sell" them on our services.

[Doc]

There is never a shortage of bad advice to be found in SEO circles, to be sure. I'm fairly certain that the majority of that is caused by noobs, parroting what they're read/heard, to make themselves sound knowledgeable, rather than knowingly pumping out wrong information. Unfortunately, the damage is still done, both to the client, and to the reputation of SEOs in general.

I rarely find myself agreeing with Jill anymore, but in that article, she was spot on. BTW, there are some amplifying comments on that piece on her blog: http://www.highrankings.com/silly-stupid-seo-308

Great post, LD. I agree with you... there are a number of reliable sources of information in the field... you just have to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[AboutWeb]

Jill is very wrong in many of her assumptions. Her articles might be interesting to read, but it's dangerous if you believe everything you read :???:

[deepsand]

Jill is very wrong in many of her assumptions. Her articles might be interesting to read, but it's dangerous if you believe everything you read :???:
Precisely what in the in article under discussion is an assumption?

[rebecca-may]

There is a lot of old advice out there... at a recent copy writing course (for web copy writers) stuff like "a minimum keyword density" was still referred to as part of "the bible" of minimum requirements.

It's all changing so fast in the real SEO, no wonder there are so many left behind. It's becoming harder to keep up with all the change and working out what is real and delivering, and what is just "the latest buzz" for those not looking for results but something new to talk about before they move on to the next one...

[AboutWeb]

Precisely what in the in article under discussion is an assumption?

http://www.highrankings.com/useless-seo-tactics-303 She linked this on her article, so it's a reference.
She says that header tags are useless.
"Linking to Google or Other Popular Websites: It's the links pointing to your pages from other sites that help you with SEO, not the pages you're linking out to. 'Nuff said."
- again wrong. Linking to relevant pages makes your article complete.

[LD]

"Linking to Google or Other Popular Websites: It's the links pointing to your pages from other sites that help you with SEO, not the pages you're linking out to. 'Nuff said."
- again wrong. Linking to relevant pages makes your article complete.

So are you are saying linking out is good SEO and, conversley, having links pointing to your site is not good SEO?

[AboutWeb]

So are you are saying linking out is good SEO and, conversley, having links pointing to your site is not good SEO?

Nope. They are both good. Take Wikipedia, on every page they have references. Look on the bottom of a wikipedia page and you will see "External Links".

[LD]

Nope. They are both good. Take Wikipedia, on every page they have references. Look on the bottom of a wikipedia page and you will see "External Links".
Your post inferred you were disagreeing with Jill who stated that IBLs are where you get PR, therefor helping with SEO. Perhaps you were just disagreeing with her statment about linking out. I'd say link out to anywhere if you feel it will enhance your site visitors experience. But you won't increase your PR by doing so.

[deepsand]

Precisely what in the in article under discussion is an assumption?


http://www.highrankings.com/useless-seo-tactics-303 She linked this on her article, so it's a reference.
My question was specificlly re. your claim that the article under discussions contained assumptions.


She says that header tags are useless.
"Linking to Google or Other Popular Websites: It's the links pointing to your pages from other sites that help you with SEO, not the pages you're linking out to. 'Nuff said."
- again wrong. Linking to relevant pages makes your article complete.
She makes no such claim in the article under discussion.

This thread is not about what Jill may have said in another place and time, but what she says in this specific article.

Does the article that you reference negate anything in the present one?

[AboutWeb]

This thread is not about what Jill may have said in another place and time, but what she says in this specific article.

This thread is about anything, if you read previous posts.


Does the article that you reference negate anything in the present one?
That article is linked inside the article you're discussing here.
LD said it better than I could, due to my limitations in english language (still learning).
IBL's increase PR, but I were disagreeing with Jill about the vice versa - Linking to sources will help your article and give something to read after the visitors finished reading the article.

[deepsand]

This thread is about anything, if you read previous posts.
The subject of this thread is not so great as you may infer from the Title. Neither is it defined by the wishes of those who follow.

This is not, and will not become, yet another bashing thread.

Now, since you have evaded the question "Does the article that you reference negate anything in the present one?", I will conclude that your answer is "No, it does not," and ask that you please move on with matters regarding the subject set forth by the OP, "how bad SEO advice gets started and perpetuated."

[C0ldf1re]

While I know that some will reject that article out of hand owing to the author...

Jill seems to write sensibly. Does she have a bad reputation?


There was nothing in the article about sock puppets though. A little disappointing. ;-)

What have sock puppets got to do with SEO? (Or am I mistaken as to what the phrase means?)

[Doc]

Jill has been around the SEO arena for many years, and has paid her dues. Some feel that she's lost touch, as she seems to often make statements (as if they are fact) that while once true, are no longer the case. She also ruffled a lot of feathers by hosting a page to report sites for practices that conflict with the Google standards.

Sock puppets are a pet peeve of hers, and seem to be mentioned in about half or more of her posts. ;)

[C0ldf1re]

For that you first need to buy "How to Find Hot Women." :shock:

How much is it? :lol:

1. Learn SEO.
2. Get your pharma site to the top of serps for the phrase, "Buy v14gr4 online".
3. Become rich.
4. Hot women will find you.

[C0ldf1re]

... She also ruffled a lot of feathers by hosting a page to report sites for practices that conflict with the Google standards...

Thanks, Doc. The stool-pigeon page sounds very wrong in principle, although it is hard to put into words just why. I'd be interested in seeing her ethical justification for doing that. Do you have a link to her page, if it still exists?

[deepsand]

Thanks, Doc. The stool-pigeon page sounds very wrong in principle, ...
In this instance, perhaps a better description would be blowing the whistle on evidence tampering.

[kenalsworld]

The best SEO persons or gurus have been doing SEO for a while. I think Experience, Time is a major factor in becoming and practicing good SEO-techniques. I also thought it was a good article.

[deepsand]

The best SEO persons or gurus have been doing SEO for a while. I think Experience, Time is a major factor in becoming and practicing good SEO-techniques.
As is the case with all art forms, which is what SEO really is.

[Jill Whalen]

Just found this thread. @deepsand, thanks for keeping it on track. You appear to be a very intelligent and sensible person. I'm wondering if we know each other from other online venues?

@Doc, I don't even know what a sock puppet is, let alone do I mention it in all my posts. I don't believe I've ever used the phrase until this very post, in fact. I've seen you around Twitter and other places. Didn't realize you don't usually like anything that I write. That's too bad. I'd be interested in what specifically you haven't liked or what particular things you've taken issue with. I'm certain not 100% right all the time, and most of the time do couch what I say as my personal opinion based on my own experiences.

As to the rest of you...nice to make your acquaintance!

[LD]

@Doc, I don't even know what a sock puppet is, let alone do I mention it in all my posts. I don't believe I've ever used the phrase until this very post, in fact.

Hi Jill. I'm sure it's been used elsewhere, but I think the first time I saw the phrase used here was in a post from deepsand, and every once in a while I mention the sock puppets, when appropriate, for a chuckle here and there.

[C0ldf1re]

... I don't even know what a sock puppet is, let alone do I mention it in all my posts... As to the rest of you...nice to make your acquaintance!

Hi Jill! Yes, I was so intrigued by your alleged obsession with sock puppets that I Googled "Jill Whalen" +"sock puppets"! But it did indeed transpire that you had not posted on the subject. Never mind, at least you are still famous enough to be talked about!

[deepsand]

Just found this thread. @deepsand, thanks for keeping it on track. You appear to be a very intelligent and sensible person. I'm wondering if we know each other from other online venues?
Welcome back. Feel free to kick up the dust here now and then when you've the chance.

Doubtful that we've crossed paths elsewhere, unless you've spent some time in the past perusing either TechRepublic or Military.com, both of which have seen little of me for quite some time. I've precious little time for reading, let alone for posting regularly to more than this forum and v7n.


@Doc, I don't even know what a sock puppet is, ...
In the off chance that you've not already researched it, that's a term used to describe the multiple aliases employed by some on a given forum.

PS: I am not the fellow pictured on the page linked to in my Signature. :cool:

[LD]

PS: I am not the fellow pictured on the page linked to in my Signature. :cool:

Nice coat. ;-)

[deepsand]

Nice coat. ;-)
He likes it; and, it has served to make him a Penn State Football icon second only to Paterno himself.

Students line up a home games to get their picture taken with him. And, he was the subject of a TV special aired during half-time of one of last year's games.

[Sweet Tooth #3]

Though it's true that many people on forums do spread seo myths for various reasons. Forums are still my favorite place to find seo information. Whenever I do a Google search for an seo related topic, I always look for forum threads (some sites more than others).

In a decent forum, the person posting the junk will be called out. For subjects that are still under debate, you can read both sides and make your own decision. Many times, the correct answer is the one that just makes sense.

But on seo blogs, it can really be a crapshoot. I'm looking for some reputable ones that I can read on a regular basis.

[weegillis]

I'm looking for some reputable ones that I can read on a regular basis.

I'm betting that you'll find trails to them from non-SEO sites, like Jared Spool's, et al. People in user interface and design industries are probably better plugged in than many SEO firms. That would be my intuition, anyway.


Addendum:

Try starting here:

Stephanie Sullivan Rewis: Fleeting Epihanies :: realizations on life, the web, and everything (http://blog.w3conversions.com/)

[commodityman]

Excellent article by Jill and spot on. I would agree that there is too much Seo nonsense.

[mjtaylor]

And too many comments in threads that have little substance - a similar sort of nonsense. I call them one line drive bys.

[CeceMHill]

It's all about checking your resources on the web. There are so many "facts" out there that can not be substantiated, but they are taken as the truth until someone actually checks in to the validity of it. How many of us actually have time to qualify every suggestion we get? I too am glad to have a place like WPW to get GOOD advice from!

[deepsand]

It's all about checking your resources on the web. There are so many "facts" out there that can not be substantiated, but they are taken as the truth until someone actually checks in to the validity of it. How many of us actually have time to qualify every suggestion we get? I too am glad to have a place like WPW to get GOOD advice from!
But, even here, with so many false beliefs being blindly repeated, how do you know who is the more likely to have the correct answers; or, at least, the correct questions?

[weegillis]

The usable facts are out there, in plain language. The only proviso is, though, one has to READ them. What I see happening the most in junk threads is people expecting someone to just spell it out for them in answer to some lame question that could just as easily be typed in a search bar. Just reading the snippets in the SERPs is often enough to get a clear picture or a direct answer if the question is specific enough. But reading the content on quality sites is the way to get the overall picture, and some application practice, as well.

I find it amazing that folks who want to learn how to optimize a site for search don't even know how to use search, themselves. Maybe it's a language barrier, or maybe it's just a complete lack of appreciation for what they're setting out to accomplish, and for whom? How many OP's have been responded to with a search phrase (not just on this forum, on all of them)? In 90% of the cases, the OP never returns to the thread. They simply don't want to search. So they will never get the complete picture, or have any marked success; of this we can be sure.

[deepsand]

With high speed communications in gneral, and those that provide access to information in particular, far too many people want instant gratification, failing to make and accept the distinctions between data, information, knowledge and understanding.

This is why Google's SE is so wildly popular; it provides a plethora of results, thus impressing the lazy, the gullible, and all other unwiliing and/or unable to discern between the good, the bad and the ugly.

[Ne0]

I heard if you put the 'Google revisit after 1 day' meta tag in your code you'll rank #1 fast!

Man I miss all the good threads... I know this is old but after reading all the way through it I had to pop in and leave my .02!

Jill is a great SEO, I've had the pleasure of meeting her a few times over the years now... she knows her sheeot!

Quick funny story about the SEO information - If memory serves it was Matt Cutts that brought it up at an SES conference yrs back... Jeremy Shoemaker (shoemoney.com) was convinced that some guy was stealing his code (long time ago 2003-2004 era) So to prove it Shoe made up the Googlebot revisit meta tag. That was never a real tag... just a trap to catch the sneaky bastards stealing - it worked... and then it spread like wildfire! Think about it... a tag controlling what googlebot does? HA! he'll be around when he wants, keep pushing out good content and he'll visit more often... Anywho - had to add that to the thread!

[deepsand]

Welcome back.

Feel free to serve up any other such recollections that you have; they serve to put things in perspective.

[LD]

I've read the article and found nothing special, sorry

Well, with that response, you have just supported the basis for the article.