Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 2

External links, proposed again

Why not links to biggest help forums on SEO. There is WMW, Digital Point, Site Point and many other websites. Comment was made by Dhaliwal on 18 Jan 2006.

Every SEO SEM company, forum, guru, professional would love to have a backlink from this article. The best way to avoid the possilbe flood of spam is to uphold the strict no link policy for this article. Wiipedia is not a directory, community forum or a collection of free for all pages--Synlighet 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as i was quoted here, so i think i should say a word about my comments. I agree to the statement that every SEO guru would like to have a link from such an great resource, but i dont think that big webmaster forum owners would be running after just one link. Just to say about the big ones, I suggested, Webmaster World, Digital Point and Site Point Forums only.

Also, i added them as those are the places a new webmaster or a website owner looking for SEO should visit. Otherwise, all those who have slight idea of SEO, already know about these forums

Thanks, Dhaliwal

A note from Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan, a respected SEO guru, dropped by our article last week and, because he merely added links to the article, I tagged his IP address for {{spam}}. He sent me this note on my Talk page:

You sent me this:

"Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Perfecto Canada 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"

Can you explain why there are commercial links already at the bottom of the SEO entry in Wikipedia then? Last to my understanding, Google, Yahoo and MSN are all commercial companies.

You have an entry on SEO. You are pointing to the search engines which, if you know anything about the industry, are not the only source of SEO knowledge nor necessarily the most accurate. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral ground to educate people. You absolutely should be linking to sources of knowledge beyond the major search engines.

Search Engine Watch and WebmasterWorld are the two largest sources out there, for the reasons I explained in my addition. Yes, one of them is my own site, as I also explained. That doesn't diminish the fact you should be including it.

Of course, the page already isn't accurate. SEO does NOT include paid advertisements. That's search engine advertising. SEO is akin to PR, optimizing for non-paid improvement. Search engine marketing is the umbrella term that combines the two.

Google was not the first to use a new concept of relying on links. It was simply the most popular one to do that. I have no idea where the reference for the official "truce" being discussed comes from. Sure would be nice to have a reference there.

I organized one of the first confernces that connected the two groups in 1999, so I suppose that could have been part of it. I'd send you a link, but you know, that might take you to a commercial web site which apparently is a bad thing. But since I was actually there and involved at that time, I don't recall any particular "truce" like negotiations happening. Rather, the two sides simply had better communication emerge.

As for Googleeating as a black hat tactic, c'mon, someone's having Wikipedia on. No one talks about this as a tactic. Geez.

Further down, you refer people to the W3C guidelines for SEO advice. Um, they advise things the search engines don't even support. Bad place to be pointing people at.

I'd go through and add and contribute, but the entire notion that tomorrow it just gets edited and wiped out by someone who might know nothing about SEO doesn't thrill me. Instead, I'll stick to doing what I've done for the past decade, educating people about SEO on my own web site. It's a pity Wikipedia doesn't find that resource good enough to refer people to. Google, Yahoo and MSN all do.

Danny Sullivan, Editor, Search Engine Watch

I hardly know what to reply to him. I've copied the message here so perhaps someone here can address his concern. I'll email him to come here to read the response. Thank you. --Perfecto 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually read this whole discussion because I could not believe that there were only two references to real SEO knowledge from the experts. I wanted to get Jill Whalen of www.highrankings.com and Dan Theis of www.seoresearchlabs.com added as a reference. But from experience I know that if something is missing from the wiki it is due to controversy. Danny Sullivan, Jill Whalen and Dan Theis are by far the most honest of people that have always and will continue to admonish link myths and black hat SEO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seharness (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 January 2006 UTC

Fair enough - search engines' TOS is just one side of the story, it would make sence to have links pointing at SEO community's most important and educating resources, and Danny Sullivan's site certainly fits in there. I'd also add a link to Rand Fishkin's Beginner's Guide to SEO - a worthy read for anybody starting in SEO. -- IrishWonder | _{Talk to me} 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny wrote, "You absolutely should be linking to sources of knowledge beyond the major search engines." I disagree, because, since Wikipedia may someday see print or DVD publication, we want more content, not more links.

Let me take your SEW articles as an example, since I'm a long-time reader: Do you have an article there with an external links section with more than three links? Do you have an article there with more than three external links going to the same domain? Why not?

I envision Wikipedia as the "Search Engine Watch" without copyrights and that anyone can edit. All Wikipedia asks from all of us is a bit of generosity. Danny, I invite you to write us an entire article on, say, Google Foundation -- and (I dare you!) put no link to your articles in SEW -- and see what happens.

Though we sincerely appreciate them, we want contributions that are more than a paragraph or phrase or a web link to resource/news/fan/advice/free-sample sites. We're growing a free-content encyclopedia, take note, not a web resource. --Perfecto 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to only consider search engines as the only reliable source of information on SEO that would be equivalent to me only accepting Wikipedia Watch as the single reliable source of information about Wikipedia.

You do realize that ALL major search engines sell links and mix other's contents to make profits. They do so and then they set up arbitrary guidelines that are intentionally vague, which try to minimize the profit others can make from their systems while they drive up their share prices. You point to those guidelines as if they did not have any hidden agenda to them. Do you think it is an accident that the Google information for webmasters page has contact the FTC and fraud near their tips for hiring an SEO?

And if you think that search engines are not hypocritical, please note that those same search engines go so far as to monetize the #1 Warez crack site threadwatch.org/node/5107 and still place their ads on sites that they ban for spamming threadwatch.org/node/4995

And for a real hoot, Yahoo! has bought a ton of links and even Google was caught cloaking threadwatch.org/node/1774

When they do not follow their own guidelines why should everyone else? Why should we see those guidelines as the only authoritative text on the topic?

And for those who think Danny Sullivan does not link out, they could stand to get a clue. He has all kinds of sections on various topics such as meta search, legal history, shopping search, search engine comparisons, etc etc etc

Maybe some of us would put a bit more effort into turning Wikipedia into something similar to SearchEngineWatch, but of course we need to pay for the cost of living, and if some power tripping fool who knows nearly nothing about the topic is just going to edit it out is there any point? Your own bias is heavily reflected in the contents of the Wikipeia. Perspective helps.

- Aaron Wall, SeoBook.com

Danny Sullivan may be a popular guy in the SEO community, but he is by no means the final arbiter of what is correct, important, or popular in the community. Articles related to search engine optimization on Wikipedia have included a lot of erroneous information. Before the issue of whose sites get linked to is resolved, the significant content errors should be cleaned up.

Wikipedia is generally a poor resource precisely because it is so easy for people to manipulate the content, and I have found that content manipulation is rampant. Combine that with the lack of expertise that some well-meaning contributors bring to their topic, and the project is severely challenged to provide consistent quality.

That quality is not going to be improved by providing links to 2 or 3 selected Web sites that are highly biased and in one case (WebmasterWorld) criticized and ridiculed across the community. The SEO community has on several occasions wrangled with ethical issues and every time it has come up wanting. This latest brouhaha is just another example of how a very large and expanding community's interests are not going to be served by singling out a couple of high profile sites without acknowledging the wide and varied opinions in the community. Michael Martinez 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

>quality is not going to be improved by providing links to 2 or 3 selected Web sites that are highly biased

True...may as well remove the links to the search engine guidelines then.

- Aaron Wall, SeoBook.com

The SEO article needs a lot of work. It will probably take a year or more to get it into shape, and then who knows how long it will stay that way? Turning this into an "Us versus Them" argument only hurts everyone. Michael Martinez

The us vs them crap was already there before I commented (and it is not in one topic...that flaw is inherent to the Wikipedia across a boatload of topics). Aaron Wall

Aaron, that kind of pettiness doesn't help the situation. Few people in the SEO community have been as harshly critical of Wikipedia as I have but I at least have been contributing to articles and discussion here for some time. Rousing the legions of SEOs to come over here and berate the Wiki volunteers for applying and enforcing a policy doesn't make the SEO community look good in the least.~

The SEO article needs a lot of work. It will probably take a year or more to get it into shape, and then who knows how long it will stay that way? Turning this into an "Us versus Them" argument only hurts everyone.Michael Martinez 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike, that kind of pettiness doesn't help the situation. Few people in the SEO community have been as harshly critical of Wikipedia as I have but I at least have been contributing to articles and discussion here for some time. Rousing the legions of editors to come over here and berate the SEOs for applying decent content and links doesn't make the Wikipedia community look good in the least.~

The SEO article needs a lot of work. It will probably take a year or more to get it into shape, and then who knows how long it will stay that way? Turning this into an "Us versus Them" argument only hurts everyone.Aaron Wall 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, many hands make light work. Pick a paragraph or section and make a pass over it. Any improvement helps. IMNSHO we don't need to link to SEO help sites. People can Google for them! Right? If you can't find an SEO site via Google, it can't be worth very much. Jehochman 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

>IMNSHO we don't need to link to SEO help sites. People can Google for them! Right? If you can't find an SEO site via Google, it can't be worth very much.

I don't agree with that statement. While my site is on the first page of results if you search Google for SEO, a top ranking for such a term may indicated that either a domain is old or that the domain owner wasted money or effort focusing on that term when better rewards may exist elsewhere, with lower cost / effort being required to succeed.

If your selling SEO services it is more about branding than rankings. That is why you see so many people speaking at ALL the conferences. The only spot there is real money in SEO is working on your own sites, recurring subscriptions, or the edges (newbies or high end corporate clients) of the market. Sell newbies software and sell the high end clients consulting at x hundred dollars an hour.

Also, a person can rank near the top of the search results for SEO and still have little idea what they are talking about. If a person is good enough at selling and others believe them to be an expert when they are not they can still do ok. Since most of the market is working on limited knowledge and some of the most knowledgable people stay quiet it may not be too hard to fool much of the market. I ranked in the top 5 of Google for search engine marketing within 9 months of getting online, when I had absolutely no clue what I was talking about.

In reality, for topics that are thought poorly of and / or are deemed controvercial (like SEO) these talk pages will give a truer picture of the topic or industry or vertical than the main pages ever could (due largely to the ability to express or explain mixed motives and reasoning on these pages). Aaron Wall 05:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

I moved the following (and some linkspam) from the article:

Optimize or Perish

Believe it or not, there are still many who are of the opinion that they don’t need to use search engine optimization. Those who are technically inclined, will need very little convincing that search engine optimization is an integral part of any website trying to attract traffic. Advertisers who either haven’t heard of SEO, or don’t understand why they need to optimize their website spend millions on more conventional forms of advertising.

Why focus on achieving a high ranking on search engines?

Because 85 percent of all website traffic is generated by search engines and it has become the second most preferred online activity after email. The majority of all web traffic is driven by the three major commercial search engines – Google, Yahoo, and MSN (AOL’s search engine uses Google for its search results). In fact, these three account for about 80-90 percent of all search traffic. Various studies depict that most people prefer to click on organic search results rather than sponsored results by a very wide margin. And among the organic search or “natural” results, 90 percent don’t go beyond the first 30 results.

This doesn’t mean that ads placed with search engine programs are useless; neither does this mean that this should be the only strategy of a company’s website marketing campaign. Search engine users tend to trust organic results more than paid ads, which means that they’re more likely to click on them – and more likely to convert. A good position in the search engines can’t be bought in the same way as a banner ad or a sponsored listing.

It reads like an advertisement for a SEO-company, but perhaps someone can salvage something from it. Rasmus (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to mattcutts.com

Would links to mattcutts.com/blog be okay? He is a known Google employee and often writes about Search Engine Optimization.

--RainR 11:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Matt Cutts (added for reference) -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 11:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I really want to support the suggestion, but I am afraid this will increase the number of spam attempts. It would be a bad idea to have a section with external links to SEO-blogs since everybody in that industry is a blogger and would demand a link from Wikipedia. The link if it is added should be justified in a way that would make it as easy as it is today to reject SEO-spammers. --85.166.33.218 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is mention of the BMW delisting, there should be a reference. Perhaps linking to an article in the press would be more acceptable than linking directly to a blog. ie [1]. Another possibility is that this is not important enough to be mentioned. After all, companies are listed and delisted all the time. --RainR 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How about just linking to Matt Cutts instead of an outside URL? Something like "When discovered, search engines may take action against those found to be using unethical SEO methods. For example, in February 2006, Google removed both BMW Germany and Ricoh Germany for use of these practices. This, and other similar incidents are often detailed in Matt Cutts (an employee of Google) blog" could possibly work without causing issues with spammers using it as an excuse to crap all over this article.

The Matt Cutts blog information is both very useful and well informed.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 16:43Z

That's another good solution. --RainR 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally disagree about Matt Cutts blog. It is a one sided affair with sketchy google bias information that reads like a riddle. Im glad no link is given.

An Apology

As the original poster of the link to blog.searchenginewatch, I would like to apologize. I have no affiliation with searchenginewatch, I merely was citing that as the source of my information (I was originally linked to it by Google News). In retrospect, I understand that this was a poor choice of source, and will keep that in mind whenever making future edits. I would like to reiterate however that, despite the fact that the action was wrong, it was made in good faith, and not an attempt to promote the blog at searchenginewatch. If it appears to anyone that I am not comprehending this correctly, feel free to reply here or post it on my talk page.

Lordthees 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Add a Consumer Awareness / SEO Scams Sub-section?

Should we add a sub-section about the common SEO scams out there? For example, those SEO's that "guarantee" top billing? I guess kind of similar to the information found in the Google Info for Webmasters SEO page? I'd think this would be an appropriate addition. Chernicky 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I see no problems with that as long as it can be done with a neutral point of view. However this could also be the subject of a seperate article. --85.166.33.218 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Google doesn't detail all the scams going on. They just address what has proven to be a problem for their services. But you'll find that, in the broader sense, one SEO's scam is another's good practice. This article, for better or for worse, is now on the SEO community's radar screen and it should be closely watched for intrusive editing (as has happened with the Google Sandbox article).Michael Martinez 06:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would be fair to say that any SEO agency that "guarantees" top placement on G and/or Y, yet requires payment before this happens, is running a scam. However, maybe seo "scams" isn't quite the right angle. I would like to see something more consumer focused here though, but still with a factual approach. Chernicky 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I like very much this idea -- and there are many places one could go to build up a "top ten signs your SEO might be committing malpractice on you" like over at Apogee's Avoiding Search Engine Marketing Malpractice. That's just one example, but I've heard that talk given at a number of shows. I'm sure there are many others.

Removed advertising

I have removed the following text, since it promotes spesific SEO-forums also this text look at bit unsuited for a encyclopedia.

There is another major issue with SEO. For each website that undergoes Search Engine Optimization, the keyword ranking in Search Engines takes some time and some SEO professionals make use of this for their benefit. They confuse novice internet merchants and give them wrong estimates. There are certain forums on which one can get tips on various issues related to SEO. Highrankings, SEOChat, Digital Point, IHelpYou, Webmaster World, Digital Point, Do Not Confuse SEO. The forums on Search Engine Rankings provide a platform for people to ask questions on various subjects related to their website rankings. One can get advice of various active users on these forums. The advice offered on these forums is of mixed value, as many novice SEOs often share ideas that they don't fully understand. There are also numerous diverse points of view among experienced SEOs regarding the importance of many factors.

--85.166.33.218 01:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusing phrase

"…Flash animation (by placing a paragraph or division within, and at the end of the enclosing OBJECT tag)…" This doesn't make sense. How can you put a <p> inside an object tag? Can someone give an example? - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the W3 HTML specification. You can put any container, such as P or DIV, as the last thing inside an OBJECT tag. This is the alternative content that the browser renders if it can't display the Flash. There is a second method that is popular but not part of the spec: using Javascript to hide the alternative content if a Flash player is available. This method is a hack, and it's not written up anywhere I know, so I did not include it. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you perhaps mean "in an OBJECT element" rather than "in an OBJECT tag? - Jmabel | Talk 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I think that would be more precise. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Acronym not explained

CPM revenue model? What does this acronym mean?

Cost Per Thousand, with "M" standing for Mil (or however it is spelled), latin or somesuch for thousand.

In general it means that one pays for advertising by the impression, that is, by paying to have one's ad displayed a certain number of times, rather than paying by the click. One site I advertise on charged ten dollars for ten thousand impressions, thus it has a CPM of one dollar.

There is also "eCPM", or "Effective Cost Per Thousand", which refers to how much one pays (or earns) for pay-per-click ads. Google AdSense reports eCPM in their ad performance report. While they are paying by the click, tracking the payment in comparison to how often the ads are displayed allows one to make meaningful comparisons with pay-per-impression ads.

My case for my White Hat SEO article link

I just added an external link to my article located at: "goingware.com/tips/search-engine-optimization" White Hat Search Engine Optimization]. I am vividly aware of how this Wikipedia entry has been under attack by SEOs promoting their wares, and I completely understand why you might want to remove my link. I just ask that before you do, please take the time to consider my case for why you should allow it to be there:

I am not in the business of search engine optimization. My article (and the new sections I plan to add to it soon) explains some of what I learned optimizing my own website. I want others to benefit from what I've learned.

I wrote the article in large part to spare others the misfortune that can befall one who hires a Black Hat SEO. Not everyone knows that some SEOs are unethical, and even those who do may not fully understand why it's not to their advantage to hire them. Many an innocent website operator has unknowingly gotten optimized the wrong way, only to be punished by having their site removed from the search engine indices.

It doesn't have to be this way, and you will see from my article that I clearly explain the difference between ethical and unethical SEO, and why one should care even if one doesn't object to being unethical.

I do however earn money through advertising published on some of my other articles. I understand Wikipedia's objection to linking to sites full of ads; I recall reading here a while back that some external links, while not containing advertising themselves, linked to other pages full of ads, and thus acted as surreptitious gateways to advertising. Why should you consider me any different?

While I do earn money this way, if you explore my site, you will find that there are very few ads. I value my readers, and don't want to drive away repeat visitors who might be turned off by excessive advertising. I also value my reputation as an authority on the material I discuss. This led me to track the performance of the ads on each individual page that I once published them on, and then to remove them from each page which didn't earn significant money. The result is that now I have AdSense on just one page.

There are referrals ads for AdSense itself and for the Google-branded FireFox web browser. I keep those not because they earn me much money, but because genuinely I feel they can benefit my readers. There are also affiliate ads for each of the books I discuss in my articles. In a year of publishing these, I have earned less than twenty bucks from them. I keep them now mainly as a convenience to my readers.

I also want to emphasize that those who work full-time writing free content for their websites don't have the time to hold day jobs, yet cannot feed themselves on thin air. My ad revenue allows me to devote more time to doing a better job writing helpful articles, many of which have Creative Commons licenses (not this one yet, though I am considering it). I have another website devoted to a Free Software (GPL) project I'm working on, that again earns money through advertising.

My SEO article has just one ad, in the section called "Grab Their Attention", for Jakob Nielsen's Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed. If you object to it, I will alter the Amazon and Powells links so that they aren't affiliate links anymore, that is, so that I won't earn money if someone makes a purchase through those links. This leads me to say:

If you will agree to keep my article's link, then I am willing to commit to never placing any ads in the article.

Looks worthy to me. Simple layout. Lots of detailed information. Only a single ad at the bottom of the page. No objections from me. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Thanks, GraemeL. To continue:

I had intended to publish adsense in this article, but I quickly realized that many if not most of the ads would be for black hat SEOs, and that there would be no way for me to monitor or control the objectionable ones. Such ads wouldn't serve my readers! Then I considered offerring paid links directly to ethical SEO firms, but then I realized that it would be intractible to determine whether an SEO was really ethical, or to ensure that they remained that way. Thus I decided quite some time ago to just not accept ads on the page, with the exception of that one ad for Nielsen's book.

How did I learn about SEO?

Most ethical SEO methods are neither secret nor any kind of rocket science. However, since even the ethical firms have an interest in keeping their methods a secret, it's difficult to find much genuinely useful advice. At most one finds little snippets of free advice offerred by someone who uses it as a teaser to attract business.

I got my start because I had the idea that writing technical articles would promote my software consulting business, that some who came to read an article might follow up with a sales inquiry. While this worked well, what I didn't realize was that the fact that many who liked my articles gave me links would improve my search engine position. Some time passed between discovering my site's prominence in the search engine and realizing how it got to be that way. This led me to write another article, which advises that the best way to promote one's website is to "post useful and interesting content" on it.

Once I figured this out, I started working to learn more, and began asking questions at online discussion boards. Some of the tips in this article I learned at Webmasterworld, which while valuable, were again hard to find. Also as discussed above in this page, much of the advice at Webmasterworld and similar sites is of dubious value.

After learning of and applying some methods that worked (and some that didn't) I decided that it was up to me to provide a place where others could find it all written down, in one place, and an easy to understand format.

Finally, I want to point out that many people who have legitimate, socially positive reasons to promote their websites don't have the money to pay for SEO, even if it is ethical. Consider, for example Free Software projects and non-profit organizations. The fact that profitable business can pay for SEO keeps their websites ranking ahead of non-profit websites that may offer more useful or more relevant content.

A notable example is that download.com and tucows are google's top two hits for "free software", while the Free Software Foundation, which arguably should be number one, is only number three, I'm sure in large part because it operates on a shoestring budget.

My article offers a solution to such organizations. While there is certainly valuable knowledge to be had from this Wikipedia entry, presenting detailed nuts-and-bolts knowledge in such a way as to reach the working webmaster is not, I don't think, appropriate for something like an encyclopedia. Much of it is ad hoc, learned through observations of particular search engines, rather than general principles, and some of it is speculative: while I'm confident of it, there is no real way to test my assertions, or verify them short of getting the SEs to disclose their trade secrets.

That it. I'm sorry to have gone on at such length. One you reach your consensus, you're welcome to delete my argument above, provided you record what decision you reached.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my case. MichaelCrawford 30 March 2006

After some reflection I thought I should add the following, in the interest of fairness: while I'm not in the business of SEO, I acknowledge that I have something material to gain if you keep my link. I don't want you to think I'm trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

It's not that anyone reading my SEO article might eventually click my ads, as I don't expect it ever to get that much traffic. The top search engine hits for the relevant queries turn up SEO firms that are already of much higher pagerank than a one-man site like mine can hope to obtain.

No, but your link will improve my search position in two other ways: this wikipedia article has higher pagerank than mine, and few links, so it will confer a significant increment of pagerank to my page. The way pagerank works, some of that boost will be passed on to each page that my article links to, and because my site is highly interlinked, each of my articles will improve their position a little.

More significantly, many interested readers will likely follow my link and, because I worked hard to do the best job I could, very likely give me a link from their own websites. I have already found some professional SEO sites linking my article, but not enough to give it much traffic. But I could see how links given me by enthusiastic readers could boost its PageRank (and the corresponding measure calculated by other search engines) a great deal.

As I said, I have only one article earning money through adsense. While it is popular and highly linked, because it's just the one page, my AdSense revenue is highly sensitive to even small fluctuations in its search engine position. I hope to decrease that by developing more deep links into my website, and ultimately writing some other pages that are able to earn significant ad revenue.

Given all this, please believe me when I say that I Believe In Doing Well By Doing Good: all of my content is free to be read, I don't use obnoxous techniques like cookies or popups, I only present a bare minimum of ads, and much of my material, increasingly so lately, is offered under Creative Commons licenses.

I am thinking though that it might be a bad move to offer my SEO article under a CC license. I could see how, even if I chose the noncommercial or no derivative works variants, that by encouraging copying, black hat SEOs could subvert it for dishonest ends. I recall that once someone "revised" the discussion of ethics in this Wikipedia article to describe an ethical SEO as one who produces results for his clients, without any discussion of how he might achieve that. MichaelCrawford 30 March 2006

Hi MichaelCrawford. I've removed your link for now. I think it would've been best to get agreement here before you added it. I believe your intentions are good but I have two objections. First, this is one of the most heavily spammed articles in Wikipedia. If we open the door even a bit, there's going to be a flood. My opinion is that it's best to keep this strict policy in place so we all don't wind up spending more time cleaning this article. Second, why not add your content directly to the article? It would make a great addition and we could keep the external links in check. Monkeyman^(talk) 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article contents wouldn't really have a place in the article as WP is not an instruction manual. If Michael was willing to contribute his information to Wikibooks, we could link to that as a sister project. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Monkeyman, I actually did ask to have my link added several months ago, when I first wrote the article. The response I got was "go ahead and add your link, but it will likely be removed". It's in the talk page Archive 1 (how do I link it?). I made the best case I could once I finally decided to go ahead and post it.

I'm happy to contribute as much of my article as suits the wikipedia guidelines, that is, those which are verifiable facts. As GraemeL points out, my article is really an instruction manual, and as I posted in my User Talk page just now, my tone is definitely not neutral, in that I often write to convince rather than to simply inform.

That all said, I'll have a look at Wikibooks, and see what I can do. But it won't be very soon, as my work on the article was interrupted by some life events, so I want to complete it first, and I have a couple other articles I'd like to publish at my site soon. But in general, I'm happy to contribute what I can.

On final Hail Mary pass I can make though: I bet many who come to read this Wikipedia entry really are looking for instruction manuals, rather than simple information, and I expect many of them are seeking it desperately. I assert my piece might be the best anyone has to offer them, at least for now.

I won't try to restore my link. I'll leave that decision up to you. MichaelCrawford 00:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Every SEO would like to have a link to one of their articles and also the suggested articles does have advertising. It would be best not to link to your article.

So what that the article has advertising? That's the most ridiculous criteria of what gets linked to and what doesn't. The New York Times carries advertising, you know. What matters is whether a page is relevant and useful. And -- surprise! -- that's Google's criteria too! Does Google care whether a page carries advertising? No. It tries to return the most useful and relevant pages, whether those pages carry advertising or not. I suggest that we consider using the same standards.

That said, while the external article proposed above is very, very good, I have to say that I believe my SEO 101 article is way more comprehensive. I won't link to my article because of the rule against self-promotion, but I'm linking to the other proposed article either because I don't think it's the best external article we could link to. But I might eventually change my mind about that. I really object to this "Oh no, that site has advertising!" snobbery. Let's focus on serving Wikipedia's readers, even if that means (gasp!) that some webmasters wind up making some money off their hard work. -MichaelBluejay 03:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)