Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: mademetop
Not really. If you are ignorant you may make stupid errors like not intentionally duplicate content, too much Java Script, too few keywords in the links (“click here” link type) etc.
So optimization is actually is necessary. However, it becomes less straightforward.
The only thing that I am sure of is that, the optimization that users clearly have no benefits from is considered as spam.
Google want you to seo or they can't find the pages.
We have clients with lovely clean content real sites and they do rank with lots of nice real links. Then we have friends who do every dodgy trick, they both make cash.
Links and content anyway you can do it. Hand written lovely stuff with nice links, auto generated rubbish with auto generated links.
Whatever you give them the search engines make money
The Best SEO Tactic is to do Nothing at all?
Clearly, with respect to the original question, the answer is.....Figure out what works best for you. That includes both ethical and technical/professional considerations. Your total skillset.
To imply that any one way is 'Best' is silly. People are making tons of money from one end of the spectrum to the other.
The question of whether certain approaches are ethical or not - while valuable - does not pertain to a question about what is "Best."
Don't do your navigation in Flash. That'll be a disaster.
I think he was being facetious, but good to point out for those that might have taken it literally :-)
Yup. And thanks caveman for summing it up. I didn't have the patience to try, and I would most certainly not have been so gracious.
This is not the first time it is being discussed, but I decided to do an experiment and see the results myself.
On 23rd feb ( thats two days ago ) i registred a domain ( branding rich and not keyword rich ). the brand word ( domain name i used ) had a remote conection with the topic of my site.
By 23rd night, i made a single ( php - mysql ) coded page with a simple design. All links were dynamic. i entered the database with 40 pages of data which was about 150 to 200 word of relevant content to page title. All pages were linked by page title worded links.
I used title, keyword and description thru dynamc data
I put the link of the site in one of my already popular sites, with a single main keyword .
Result: By 24th afternoon, I got the bot visits (both G and GMP ) and was indexed in G and some unknown position.
I havent yet figured out if any have any position even in first 10 pages. I dont think i have any poitions at all as yet.
By 25th ( right now ): ( stats data ) i recieves 10+ visites (non-bot) thru G .
I used simple web design packages ( not notepad ) and avoided all SEO techniques except for content and good navigation.
This was for experiment sake and i this this was my fastest site to be crawled and indexed. I shall continue my tests and post more results.
I think best seo practices is 'no seo quick tricks', get one good link to start with for indexing, and good content which is upgradable.
Go to a library and study the index created by the library. Things become obvious title, keywords, description and location of the referenced matter. "<title>", meta "keyword", meta "description" and search engines add the location (URL).
Is SEO just the Internet translation of the Dewey Decimal System?
No, but one heck of a starting point!
My two cents.
This week it seems a new site in the whois is hit by the bots almost immediately, and indexed. That is still a far cry from being returned as relevant in the important SERPs. It justs causes trouble for sale people who have to adjust their seo sales copy ;-)
This week it also appears that a new site will see referrals (esp. from Google) right away, on unique exact-match style phrases. No big accomplishment there.
Let's see where you stand for the popular search terms for your target audience, if you are in an even remotely competitive industry. It will really be news if your new site starts to rank top 25 in the serps for meaningful search terms. If so, there is no need for SEO.
Until, that is, there were more websites about your topic, since your content got into the top 25, there must be less than 25 of them out there, no?
What i was trying to communicate was just that there are areas where doing nothing will get you absolutely nowhere because the competititors use every trick in the book and then some. There are only a few of those areas but they have very intense competition. Most areas are not like that.
So, if you are in those areas you will know it for sure, and the day-to-day reality of those areas is not the same reality that face webmasters in other areas (although most areas have their share of spammers, scrapers and such nowadays). You know the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"? Well.. in terms of car traffic, Rome is a challenge i've heard - you simply have to "adapt to survive". In terms of SERPS i'd say it was hard earned money, as this definitely does not imply doing nothing.
Outside of those particular "very high competition" areas you can really still do well focusing on the basics - a good site might flow to the top eventually if the information is "evergreen" and you manage to get information about it out somehow. Nowadays, building traffic outside Search Engines seems to be more important than ever.
Anyway, this still implies that you have to put in work:
The site still needs to be made, and some basic maintenance should be done in any case. Also, it seems a bit stupid to me to have a good performing site and not build it to become even better, but perhaps thats just me?
There comes a point where it's less about making money than it is about achievement. Making money becomes more a way of keeping score than anything else.
What is most important in my view, is defining the game in your own terms rather than in others' terms (especially when the others are companies).
Personally, I sleep better at night operating in ways that most in here characterize as 'low risk' or 'white/gray hat.' I also have certain personal points of view about what sorts of sites I'm willing to put up on the Web, since I believe that as a citizen of the Web I have certain resonsibilities.
That said, I am always impressed by those whose technical skills and technical knowledge allow them to operate in more high risk ways (my skills are in marketing and algo analysis, but not tech per se). I have not gone to the high risk side, yet, but it is something that I look at from time to time. I have not decided yet if I have the stomach for it. :-}