Forum Moderators: open
Fred you should stop posting if you don't know how Google works (and you don't). Outgoing links has nothing to do with being indexed or being ranked. Google only uses Outgoing links to detect if you are part of a link farm (in which case you could be punished).
I'm not sure what you were doing there as "How to submit to Google?" is the most frequently asked question and therefore it is way below someone with a six figure income. But, hey, with those hours what else do you have to do?. Fred has been very helpful to me on several occasions when I was posting there. I'm glad he didn't take your advice. I hope all the amateurs and novices that read your article don't take your advice either. If they do they won't ever link to anyone because they think the pr passed on by linking to someone is found by 'PR of the source page, and divide it by the number of links on that page.' That would mean all their internal links are now worth much less because they decided to link to someone. I know this is probably not what you meant but it is what you wrote.
Outgoing links has nothing to do with being indexed or being ranked.
You believe otherwise?
Thanks to both of you for dropping in.
Chris's article is a good example of what I enjoy finding & reading. Just like reading a bunch of mostly redundant threads here helps to burn in some of the basics, articles like this serve a similar purpose. And I often get a new thought or perspective from them.
After a couple dozen posts going around the bushes, I don't see how anyone can take direct issue with anything other than a few of his article's opinions unless you take them completely out of context.
Chris is right that WebmasterWorld's got some problems that stem from our popularity. The biggest one that bothers me is exemplified in this thread. This thread took a nose dive after the first negative post and then came the piling on. I've been guilty of it before, especially when I was new here & new to SEO. If I saw a negative or positive comment in a thread, especially from a more senior member, I'd be more inclined to chime in with a "me too" post. The recent Google SEO pages are a good example. Here, mostly negative slant. The ihelpyou board brought up the same issues (money back, small/large, years in biz…) but kept a positive spin. Both threads felt like they were (unintentionally) shaped by the Forum Admin & stayed (mostly) true to the admin’s comments. So maybe it’s inherent to any forum. Mob mentality. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Sometimes it doesn't matter but in this case it just feels like the whole community is bashing Chris's article. In my earlier posts, I was trying to get across the message: "Lighten up, it's a worthwhile article to read & digest."
Chris, sorry to hear you don't like it here. I'd bet you opinion would be different if you spent more time with us. I don't have a particularly favorable opinion of your regular haunt (or Jill's) but I'd expect that would change if I spent more time there.
One thing we can probably all agree on is that there's a lot of conflicting info regarding SEO available anywhere you look. I think one of the most important components of being an expert is the ability to know what info (and sources) is more credible and what info/sources to question. I think you're wrong about WebmasterWorld being a particular source of misinformation. On the contrary, I think the more knowledgeable members are quick to jump in when someone posts something that's dangerous. I'll echo steveb's (post #50) challenge to find 10 posts that present incorrect info and was not addressed/corrected by another member.
Jill: I'm sure you must all have the same kinds of problems with my articles too.I'll give Chris's article the same I gave you a while back, 90%. That's still an "A" in my book. ;)
I hope you both will drop in more often. And not just when we’re raking you over the coals. :)
rmjvol
Outgoing links has nothing to do with being indexed or being ranked.You believe otherwise?
GoogleGuy's comments [webmasterworld.com] seem to imply that outbound links do have *something* to do with ranking. Maybe not much, but more than "nothing" to do with ranking.
I hope you both will drop in more often. And not just when we’re raking you over the coals.
I'm mostly here this week cuz the whole Internet is boring with everyone on vacation...bunch of wimps. I needed stuff to read that I hadn't read a million times before. Always nice to check up on what the other forums are doing and saying! Of course, when I read here or anywhere, I just can't seem to keep my mouth shut, so you'll pretty much always know when I'm here because I don't know how to be a lurker!
You believe otherwise?
<added>I know text doesn't help you get indexed, but it helps with rankings for that text</added>
Writing the odd contraversial article is fun huh? -- I got torn apart when I wrote about Flash recently ;)
Hope you're enjoying your trip to WebmasterWorld and that you stick around...
Nick
Nick_W wrote: Hi Chris, welcome to WebmasterWorld
Writing the odd contraversial article is fun huh? -- I got torn apart when I wrote about Flash recentlyHope you're enjoying your trip to WebmasterWorld and that you stick around...
Hi Chris & welcome to WebmasterWorld.
I second Nick's comments... I to have been trashed in both directions... forward thinking as well as somewhat behind the times!
In any case, the trashing isn't malicious, nor reduces "fact" or "opinion" to a lesser degree of accuracy. The greatest challenge we all face is that we are stuck with merely observing, vast unknowns to observe sometimes extensively, sometimes not so adequately but rarely does observations resemble the whole truth.
At one time Earth was the center of the universe... observations eventually proved otherwise, but betwwen the original excepted truth and the truth known today, there was substantial tweaking to get all of those unknowns to fit perfectly into place.
Keep looking forward... fathom
Certainly as a newbie member of WebmasterWorld, i think we have all stuck our heads up in conversation trying to vindicate a particular viewpoint and got it shot off.
Comes with the territory, but once it all dies down, i am sure yourself and the individuals that you do respect sharing information with, will continue.
Once again Welcome
However I just want to mention one thing.
I know otherwise. I have a site where certain keywords only show up in the alt text of an image link. It ranked quite well for this phrase even though the owners didn't want it too. I don't know how much it helps but it has AT LEAST the same value as regular or alt text. Text helps you get indexed. I believe it has more value but those are just unsubstantiated beliefs. But the content of Chris's post was not the point I was trying to make. It was the way he was talking down to Fred as he has done here.
That doesn't mean that outgoing links help. That means that image alt text helps. When people say that outgoing links help they generally mean you get some sort of bonus for linking to another site, usually a popular site, on your same subject.
Using outgoing links in a search engine algorithm like that is unintuitive and it only degrades search engine results. Its like the search engine saying "Instead of sending you to the page with the answer I will send you to a page that links to a page with the answer." It is a step backward for the end user. They only way to do it would be how Teoma does it and make it a seperate result set.
Additionally there are technical issues involved. Google currently looks at links on a page by page basis. How could they do it on a site wide basis? They'd need to do it on a site wide basis to differentiate between external and internal links, otherwise all they'd see are external links. The problem is there is no artificial site boundary, domains don't cut it. Geocities is one domain that has thousands of sites. Sitepoint is 4 or 5 domains that make up 1 site. I myself own a network of 3 related and cross linked sites on 3 domains. There is no good way to look at links on a site wide basis, without manually specifying the boundaries of every site each month (afterall they could change monthly).
The problem with people who claim, or wish, that outgoing links were counted is that they are thinking from the standpoint of a webmaster. Counting outgoing links would be fair because it would penalize "link hogs" right? No one likes someone with alot of incoming links but no outgoing ones (nevermind that I think actual link pages look somewhat unprofessional). What they fail to do is look at the situation from the standpoint of the end user and of the search engine. Giving a page a bonus for who they link to just doesn't make sense.
Now I do like how Teoma does it, I wouldn't mind if Google did the same thing but I think they might run into legal issues if they copied Teoma too closely. In anycase they need to keep the "hub site search results" seperate from the "authority site search results."
> The problem is there is no artificial site boundary, domains don't cut it.
I completelely agree. Although anchor text from a different domain carries more weight, PageRank doesn't.
The problem with people who claim, or wish, that outgoing links were counted is that they are thinking from the standpoint of a webmaster. Counting outgoing links would be fair because it would penalize "link hogs" right? No one likes someone with alot of incoming links but no outgoing ones (nevermind that I think actual link pages look somewhat unprofessional). What they fail to do is look at the situation from the standpoint of the end user and of the search engine. Giving a page a bonus for who they link to just doesn't make sense.
DMOZ is a good example where outbound links out-perform inbounds - more PageRank is distributed than received, but inbound links tend to have far superior "on-topic" link anchors, and most repeating the exact same themes. Linking to authority produces much more than 1,000 links out to "Joe who sites", but the general "myth" - don't link out unless you need to means the Internet is less connected that what it could be.
Not linking to primary "web nodes" limits your ability to be integrated into and within those nodes -- such that you will never, ever become an authority on anything yourself.
<Added>You can't get sustainable credibility without acknowledging credibility (authority). Like everything else, linking has to go both ways to work. </added>
I'm not "known" as a professional SEO person because I don't run an SEO site.
I am a professional SEO because I don't have a SEO site; a bit of a paradox don't you think.
[edited by: fathom at 3:38 pm (utc) on Dec. 30, 2002]
The ironic thing I have found is that if I have recieved criticism from a journalist in print, I have either not been given a right of reply, or the newspaper has not been prepared to offer the same space for a reasoned reply as the journalist had for their original article.
The press are/can be very one sided in rights of reply :(
Journalists almost always get it wrong one way or another. Not to mention that they usually print the most dumbest of quotes that you might tell them in an hour-long conversation!
But Chris is not a journalist. He wrote an article based on questions he hears a lot, and his knowledge of the search engines, as he knows it. Someone mentioned early on in this thread that he should have gotten some other opinions from "experts." That's just silly, imo, as he's not a journalist.
How many of you have written SEO articles?
Nick
An overgeneralization. Everybody hates journalists as well as lawyers, politicians and cops. That is until we think we can use them or we need them.
I wrote that before he replied on this board and I learned more of his background. Still, I see absolutely nothing wrong with talking to others for their opinions and including it in an article whether they contradict or validate. And I still think it would have made his article stronger. I never debated the points he made, I only thought it would have been a better article if he had talked to others.
I only learned recently he is not a journalist. Now that I know he is not a journalist or a pretend journalist, I probably wouldn't have written my viewpoint and instead, looked at his article as more of a personal opinion and experience piece.
Even so, I don't think he handled the criticism here as well as he could have. GoogleGuy is a good model for someone who handles himself professionally in the face of some viscious criticism I have seen here. If you are going to put yourself out there like that, the criticism is going to come at you. And yes, it can hurt. It obviously hurt Mr. Beasley if his condescending remarks are any indication.
I was a journalist once. Are you telling me I always got it wrong? That I am a total screw up?
I did get it wrong sometimes from plain human error. But about 96 percent of the time I got it right. I felt bad when I made mistakes and good when I got it right and people were grateful.
Nevertheless, I left the profession because everybody hates journalists no matter what. Your statement reminded me of that. And I was tired of being hated for what I did for a living. When I got criticized, I just took the bullets as amicable as I could. I would also try to make amends to undo any damage I might have done.
However, when I realized my bullet proof armor was wearing thin, I got out.
From personal experience, when you put yourself "Out There" - you have to be ready for the criticism that comes with it and handle it in a professional manner.
I do admire someone who isn't afraid to say what's on his mind, however. But Chris could certainly do well to learn some "people skills"!
As to journalists, of course it's a wild exaggeration to say that all journalists always get it wrong. But since I've recently been dealing with them over the past year, I've been really surprised at just how many times they do get it wrong. Not so much that they get it wrong, but how they go for the sensational quotes instead of the meat. I guess they think that's what the public wants to hear (and maybe they do). But I suppose that would be another topic for another thread.
Nevertheless, I left the profession because everybody hates journalists no matter what.
How ironic that you chose SEO! The used car salemen of the web! ;)
[edited by: webwhiz at 5:25 pm (utc) on Dec. 30, 2002]
And NO! I am not in SEO. Just a lowly webmaster.
That doesn't mean that outgoing links help. That means that image alt text helps. When people say that outgoing links help they generally mean you get some sort of bonus for linking to another site, usually a popular site, on your same subject.
You are correct but in many cases the alt text couldn't be there without the link (or the image would look foolish on the page if it weren't a link). Visible text links are also examples of places where you can add keywords in the exact order of the phrase you are targeting without looking silly. Personally, I believe that outgoing anchor text is more important than <p>. Perhaps along the lines of <h1> or something like that. Also, when I say outgoing anchor text I am referring to internal as well as external links.
...SEO! The used car salemen of the web!LOL - ROTFLOL Come on Jill we are all not that bad!
Back to the subject - The only objection I had to the article was that the author chose to state his OPINIONS as fact.
LOL - ROTFLOL Come on Jill we are all not that bad
It's not MY opinion, but it's the common perception by the general public. Mostly due to the spam we all get for search engine submission -- only $39.95! All 3000 engines included!
Pardon me - wrong. That is the common perception of the search engines - not the general public. Don't you dare let them talk you into beliving that stuff. If you did a survey of the general web populace, they would regard seo's as marketing guru's practicing an art. Take off the blinders and look at the much much bigger picture. There is a whole wide range of web savvy people that are envious of what we do. The general public? They don't have a clue. Their only clue is coming from the tainted stuff the se's are putting out.
It's not MY opinion, but it's the common perception by the general public. Mostly due to the spam we all get for search engine submission -- only $39.95! All 3000 engines included!
I have to disagree, most people have no idea what SEO is and that it can be used to improve a sites ranking on the search engines. So if they don't know what it is, how can they label it?
Heck, even most web site owners have no idea what it is either
Because those with the money have defined the agenda.
I'm the author of that article.
I am Chris Beasley.
I feel so much hurt for you I'm feeling sorry for those of us who jumped on the bashing wagon.
I have been thaught by people with so much experience in dealing with humans in general,(that I firmly believe in the concept of taking everything with a grain of salt) should not be taken lightly.
I wont say who I have been schooled by, but thrust me they would turn many heads.
Chris you did what you thought would benefit us, but as usual there are some of us who believe we are more experienced than you, perhaps we are, but there is a right way and a wrong way of addressing an individual feeling or conceptual beliefs of what is and what should be, on both sides of the fence.
Most of us cant see the forest for the tree. That's unfortunate.
Pros and cons aside, in life whatever you say whether it is with good intention or otherwise, someone is always waiting to pounce on anything and everything we disagree with, to show or prove our superiority, whether informative or opionated .
How many Females have participated in this thread? I wonder why! Macho Men?
Some things I will address to you in a personal note, just to keep the waters calm. No need to stray from the intent of the post.
One thing publicly I ask here, hang around and you'll see that this site is more than your first knee jerked reaction of the pure intent of the respondents on this board. We may go about doing so in a pompous way, but the intention I believe, is meaningful and with the purpose to serve the public well.
To be informed is to be enlightened.
Jaybee
