Forum Moderators: open
If you speak to all the best Internet Marketing Pros they tell you SEO is a waste of time longterm, everyone in the industry has lost their position at somepoint from what I gather - or am I wrong?
I want to hear from anyone who has had long term success with SEO say for 6 months or longer....
If you are good at what you do ...
well yes i am :)
but i still have to waste my time writing
redirect code in pages because googlebot
is too simple to recognise that www and non www
are the same even though www is clearly an alias
to non www AS DISCLOSED IN THE DNS RECORDS
there are a lot of PHD's spinning their wheels
with esoterica when the basics are just plain
not ready for prime time
in other words,
it's about not pissing google off
Huh? You expect Google to check the DNS records of every domain? And, you need to know what you are doing. You can solve this at the server level by redirecting every access to root to the www subdomain. The problem is that you don't know how to configure your server.
As for "share of visitors"; 80% of 50% is 40%, so around 60% of my traffic is not initially from Google, it seems.
What i was trying to state was that having a loyal user base means that SEO and SE traffic is the "cream on top" - not the whole pie.
Although i have 50% non-SE generated traffic (and that percentage may be very high, i suspect so), i'm not quite there yet, meaning; new users still seem to find my site through SE's as opposed to word of mouth, links, or other sources. And of course i want new users as well. So, i'm depending on SE traffic, but not necessarily any one specific SE although the current market leader has an 80% share.
I find it wise to optimize that site for good spidering and indexing (SEO). No doubt about it. I don't question the value of general SEO. The only thing i'm sceptical about is building your whole business on "one specific SE"-generated traffic long term - SE's are good, but users are (still) the ones who pay your bills.
If the market should change so that Google was not the preferred SE anymore, these changes would affect 40-50% of my traffic and not all of it. My best bet would be that any SE that would be good enough to take over (part of) Googles current position would also display my pages for the relevant keywords.
I hope this added some perspective to the numbers.
/claus
[edited by: claus at 10:03 am (utc) on Nov. 21, 2003]
My two or three most valuable and used sites (including this one) I initially found from knowledgeable forum (or groups) posts and from face to face word of mouth (rather than email I mean) from people in that sector.
And you are quite right they now do very well in the search engines but search engines was not where I would have thought to start looking for them.
One of them effectively has replaced all magazine buying I might have come to do in that niche.
Your stats add an interesting reality to the theories expressed in the thread so far.
I am going to have correct that point from claus about any site ever being "...independent of an SE...".
Actually, Claus is absolutely right. We have at least one site which would survive quite happily if it got ditched from the SE listings and would still get plenty of new daily traffic. That site is linked to by over 300 other on-topic sites, most of whom are also in the search engines. As Claus says, links bring traffic.
SE users will find us, through other sites. Not so direct maybe, but at least would survive getting nuked by Google.
WebmasterWorld is a good example of that - this place could quite happily survive being nuked by google. The traffic would just come from other sources which link here - probably originating from google anyway.
TJ
Yahoo does this. Never seemed odd to me at all.
Indeed, but for some people, search engine visitors provide the loyal user base over time.
For an established site, this year's sales may mostly be to people who first visited from a search engine one, two or five years ago. Yes, some search engine visitors purchase during that visit, but often that's not the point. Why are some people willing to get a negative ROI on PPC, or offer over and affiliate commission higher than 100%?
Some bookmark, and revisit in the future. Some purchase, then revisit and purchase again. Some then tell their friends (it's great to see Web based email providers in the referrers, how many email referrers are there in total?). With enough of those visitors, there may be online and offline partnership potential.
That's not to say that newspaper advertising, billboards, television ads or (preferably) editorial (real 'PR') can't be of enormous use. They can, but it is possible to build a business from search engine visitors.
Both SEO and PPC can bring reach and ROI; neither need be a waste of time.
Designing a High Search Engine Rankings Page
By Brett Tabke, June 1997.
I followed Brett's advice and guidance in developing hundreds of web pages. I did not seek out links, just registered in search engines and directories. The pages are simple and strictly whitehat.
Most have survived the top 10 in the SERPs for competitive
keywords/phrases. Some in the top 10 have less than PR4.
I have no idea why so many folks pages are taking a SERP
hit nor really why my pages survived.
I suppose making good content using Brett's guidance is the key.
I sincerely hope all can overcome the disappointments
You are either; a) gloating or b) suggesting that the numerous webmasters who were affected by the recent update do not have good content.
We have had many sites do better in the SERPS, but some were adversely affected. It is entirely unrelated to the value of the content on the pages, but rather the recent algo tweak. Conversely, many of our crummiest sites seem to have resurfaced.
The good "SEO's" will now do better than ever simply because those about to be left behind still refuse to admit that they may need to make changes.
To quote the Grateful Dead, "Comes a time when the blind man takes your hand, says don't you see?...."
Huh? You expect Google to check the DNS records of every domain? And, you need to know what you are doing. You can solve this at the server level by redirecting every access to root to the www subdomain. The problem is that you don't know how to configure your server.
What? Of course I expect Google to be able to
read DNS records. What could be simpler? My point
is the pointy heads are running around inventing
new algos when the basics have not been taken
care of.
And, FYI, the server is redirecting on every page,
*IF NEEDED* to the exact page on the correct host,
not just the root. There is no problem with my
server configuration. There is a problem with
the implementation of the bot. It needs to
attend DNS 101.
And to be perfectly clear, you have made a
a presumption of fact about my skills for which
you have no factual basis.
edit: bolding added
[edited by: plumsauce at 8:44 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2003]
I am going to have correct that point from claus about any site ever being "...independent of an SE...".Actually, Claus is absolutely right. We have at least one site which would survive quite happily if it got ditched from the SE listings and would still get plenty of new daily traffic. That site is linked to by over 300 other on-topic sites, most of whom are also in the search engines. As Claus says, links bring traffic.
actually, if we get right down to basics, the serps
are just another really big link farm, it just
has some different link submission or gathering
mechanisms, and ordering mechanisms.
because of its size/influence, everyone wants in
on the farm.
there is nothing "mystical or sacred" about the se's.
anyone got a link farm to IPO? :)
At least, that's what I read. It wouldn't be the first time that has been suggested. Not enough info at this point to say one way or the other.
have just looked at logs for last week out of interest after reading these posts
Is SEO important in google of course it is but
1. (no referral) 24.44%
2. www.google.com/ 32.12%
3. search.msn.com/ 13.24%
4. search.yahoo.com/ 7.3%
5. others 1000+ total 24%
The stats give an indication of how one of my sites would be affected , no google = big drop but would business survive i would hope so and expect to.
as an aside 12 months ago i made big mistake when rewriting site and deleted navigation route for search engines and lost 90% pages in search engines and 40% traffic
so build site with se's and SEO in mind as part of the equation but hope that what you provide visitors find of use and come back
steve
Didn't have many of these, but i've only recently made an "email this page" feature. Still, on average i had one for every second day - that was more than i expected.
>> pictures, hats, content, etc
Of course, if you don't have spiderable content, it is hard to do well in the search engines. So, either that's not a problem or you will find a way to solve that problem.
Really, the words long term in the title of this thread was what i responded to. It (still) seems to me, that if you want to run any kind of business long term you will have to offer your customers something that is either better, or cheaper, or both, relative to the competition.
Just like brick-and-mortar businesses optimize their visibility on print, radio, television, etc. you will need to optimize your visibility online relative to your marketing budget. There's nothing strange or wrong about that - it's just that these are matters for the marketing department.
You can't really run a firm long term with no products and marketing only. Only exception is if your firm is an ad/media agency and your product is marketing.
/claus
