I have been looking into hiring an SEO company to sort out our site because we get very little in the way of search engine traffic. Our visitors mainly come from recommendations by existing clients.
In this month's edition of Revolution, BigMouthMedia spent a huge chunk of money being highly sanctimonious about ethical search optimisation. Impressed by this, I thought I would do some investigation to see if they are as good as their word...
They quote Google in their booklet, while talking about ethics of your SEO agency saying alarm bells should ring if... "Your SEO provider puts links into their other clients on doorway pages."
BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for the client at all.
On their larger clients, they omit the link at the base of the page, but still place META information with a URL in the META content of the pages. Unless this has been explicitly agreed with the client, this is highly unethical behaviour. Indeed, performing the following search on Google...
...lists Alitalia. This search has nothing to do with Alitalia, is in existence purely because BMM placed themselves in the pages META content and I severely doubt Alitalia are aware of this listing, let alone happy about it. There is even a broken TITLE tag that messes up the page rendering.
On the issue of unethical linking, if you go to Google, and do the following search...
BMM's own search page outstripping Yahoo's search page in terms of this volume of listing is concerning to say the least. It would be interesting to see why BMM state this to be the case.
Try the following experiment.
Go to the BMM search page (http://search.bigmouthmedia.com), do a search on anything. You will get a list of 'elated suggested search terms. Many of these suggested related search terms are irrelevant and unrelated to the search you have just made, some of which have no documents to match. Every one of these that you go to returns another 20 suggested terms. There are lots of common terms in this list, common in every page. This appears to be there only for the benefit of search engines.
Apart from building a huge internal web for search engines to browse (it is difficult to believe that any of these suggested terms exist for the user's benefit), this results in a huge web with lots of pages containing links with keywords in them, that link to pages with the keyword in them, creating a cluster of documents on a site with specific keyword, artificially upping the relevancy of that site for those keywords.
This appears to operate in direct contradiction to Google's guidelines (regarding building pages for search engines rather than users). Their linking back to themselves from client sites, and this inter-site linking also appears to be in direct contradiction with Google's guidelines.
It would appear that either this is an unlikely accident by people who do not understand search engines, or is highly questionable practice by people who do understand search engines.
It is also interesting to note, that despite their mentioning the links to watch out for in their booklet, and Google's guidelines, they advocate getting as many in and outbound links as possible.
It seems that this company does not practise what they preach.
Does anyone have any recommendations for SEO companies that stick to the search engine's guidelines. Our site may not make us rich but it does pay the bills at the end of the month; getting it banned for 'questionable practises' is not something I am eager to do. Is this type of behaviour typical of SEO companies? Or are BMM just a bad example who can afford the glossy adverts?
Replies and advice would be gratefully received.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 01/11/2004
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:27:27 +0000 (UTC), <spam...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>They quote Google in their booklet, while talking about ethics of your SEO >agency saying alarm bells should ring if... "Your SEO provider puts links >into their other clients on doorway pages."
>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller >pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" >tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the >pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves >their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for >the client at all.
[snip]
>This appears to operate in direct contradiction to Google's guidelines >(regarding building pages for search engines rather than users). Their >linking back to themselves from client sites, and this inter-site linking >also appears to be in direct contradiction with Google's guidelines.
Not commentiing about the inter-linking within the company's own site ... but ...
I don't see how a link to a company, doing the SEO, in the footer of every page of the site is any different from a site design firm that also puts a links back to their own site in the footer of a client's site.
In terms of the Google guidelines, in regards to the links you pointed out being on client's sites, I think Google were more so referring to "doorway pages" that were created simply for sharing links to boost the backlinks thoughts. More blatent than one backlink shared in a footer [An example of what I mean would be the doorway pages like the ones Traffic Power created for their clients] ... and some people theorize footer links are not heavily weighted compared to links appearing in the main body of content.
In terms of the clients "not knowing" - you have admitted to not knowing if this particular SEO firm's clients know [and/or agreed] about the META tag or not. So hard call on claiming that was being doing unethically or not.
spam...@postmaster.co.uk wrote: > I have been looking into hiring an SEO company to sort out our site > because we get very little in the way of search engine traffic. Our > visitors mainly come from recommendations by existing clients.
If you tell us what is your site you will find plenty of helpful free comments here.
If you have visitors recommended from existing clients ask them if they have web sites and, if so, if they would consider putting a link to your site, recommending your services.
Best regards, Eric. #1 and #2 for the most sound advice on SEO
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:27:27 +0000 (UTC), <spam...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller >pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" >tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the >pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves >their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for >the client at all.
I think any SEO who does the above cares more about their own sites than their clients. The meta data reference won't have any impact on a pages SERPs, but a link from every page will. The SEO company is basically stealing PR from their clients sites, this means the clients site will not do as well in the SERPs as they could!
Also recently Google appears to be penalising sites for site wide links, not all sites, just some. So far it seems only the site receiving the site wide links gets a penalty (more precisely no boost from the links).
Since these penalties are not on every site that does this, it's difficult to say if this is an automatic filter or a manual penalty. If the latter having a link to a SEO business site tells the person doing the manual review this site is optimised. Considering how negative Google is regarding SEO you really don't want to tell Google you have had your site optimised!
If you check the SEO related SERPs in Google you'll find many of them are there because they use their clients sites to link back to their sites. So it is understandable why they do it, but it's not in the best interest of their clients.
I do the opposite for my clients, I give them some links (enough to make a difference, but not so many to cause a potential problem with Google) since 99% of sites I've looked at need links.
>>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller >>pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" >>tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the >>pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves >>their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for >>the client at all.
>I think any SEO who does the above cares more about their own sites >than their clients.
How is someone, doing work on a site and placing a link to themselves in the footer, any less ethical [SEO wise] than someone buying links that will appear on multiple pages/site-wide within someone else's site?
>Also recently Google appears to be penalising sites for site wide >links, not all sites, just some. So far it seems only the site >receiving the site wide links gets a penalty (more precisely no boost >from the links).
Different angle: Many site designers putting links at the bottom of pages they designed or work on get no perk if what you shared is above it true. Ok, but what if that generally isn't the reason the links are there anyway? So they don't get a boost, SE wise, they may still get some click-thrus and that is also what they wanted.
[snip] Considering how
>negative Google is regarding SEO you really don't want to tell Google >you have had your site optimised!
Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical and what is not. :)
> Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO > thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical > and what is not. :)
This the main thrust of my question I suppose; what is 'ethical'?. I have looked into doing optimisation on the site myself and looked into some forums and newsgroups, but they are so full of contradiction and confused people, it is difficult to draw out any concrete knowledge from them. It was also consuming way too much of my time and detracting from my main duties; hence we are considering hiring a professional to do it.
But when paying for a service from a professional (say an electrician), you don't expect to have to hang a sign on your door saying that the electrics on the premises were done by Bob's Electricals. You pay for the service, if they want to use you to advertise, they can pay you for the advertising space. Unless of course they offer a sizable discount for including these footer links.
But this is it; what exactly is 'ethical SEO'? I don't want to pay for a service that is going to end up delivering traffic and then getting us banned six months down the line for spammy tactics. Every SEO company we have looked at claims to do things ethically, but BMM is quite obviously doing things a little suspiciously. I have received a mail in reply to this posting regarding the Alitalia site I mentioned, by disabling JavaScript in your browser and viewing the site, the neat little nav menu on the left is replaced with a long (much longer than the menu it replaces) & unstyled list of internal links that do not point to the same pages that the menu they are replacing point to. I can see that there are good reasons to have support for non-JS capable browsers (and other forms of accessibility), but this seems a little excessive.
Is this sort of behaviour likely to cause our site problems? Or is this the 'norm' in SEO circles? And what is classed as 'ethical'? I know there is likely to be a fair dollop of grey in the middle, but what is no-argument-white?
> >>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller > >>pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" > >>tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the > >>pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves > >>their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for > >>the client at all.
> >I think any SEO who does the above cares more about their own sites > >than their clients.
> How is someone, doing work on a site and placing a link to themselves > in the footer, any less ethical [SEO wise] than someone buying links > that will appear on multiple pages/site-wide within someone else's > site?
> >Also recently Google appears to be penalising sites for site wide > >links, not all sites, just some. So far it seems only the site > >receiving the site wide links gets a penalty (more precisely no boost > >from the links).
> Different angle: Many site designers putting links at the bottom of > pages they designed or work on get no perk if what you shared is above > it true. Ok, but what if that generally isn't the reason the links are > there anyway? So they don't get a boost, SE wise, they may still get > some click-thrus and that is also what they wanted.
> [snip] > Considering how > >negative Google is regarding SEO you really don't want to tell Google > >you have had your site optimised!
> Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO > thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical > and what is not. :)
> Carol
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 01/11/2004
> Is this sort of behaviour likely to cause our site problems? Or is this > the > 'norm' in SEO circles? And what is classed as 'ethical'? I know there is > likely to be a fair dollop of grey in the middle, but what is > no-argument-white?
Whatever you find in an SE's guidelines not to do is what would be considered bad. If they are doing anything and everything but still following the guidelines posted by each SE, then you will not suffer any penalities.
>> Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO >> thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical >> and what is not. :)
>This the main thrust of my question I suppose; what is 'ethical'?. I have >looked into doing optimisation on the site myself and looked into some >forums and newsgroups, but they are so full of contradiction and confused >people, it is difficult to draw out any concrete knowledge from them. It was >also consuming way too much of my time and detracting from my main duties; >hence we are considering hiring a professional to do it.
>But when paying for a service from a professional (say an electrician), you >don't expect to have to hang a sign on your door saying that the electrics >on the premises were done by Bob's Electricals. You pay for the service, if >they want to use you to advertise, they can pay you for the advertising >space. Unless of course they offer a sizable discount for including these >footer links.
I generally put a link in from the site map. Nothing too fancy, but it's there. I don't get complaints. I don't get any work either, mind, but I don't get complaints.
>But this is it; what exactly is 'ethical SEO'?
Go to the Ihelpyou forums. Be prepared to be overwhelmed by a chorus of "Don't get rich how we did! Oh no! It's unethical, we now realise, when we take time out from counting our dough. So, do as we say, not as we did." and like that and on.
>I don't want to pay for a >service that is going to end up delivering traffic and then getting us >banned six months down the line for spammy tactics. >Every SEO company we have looked at claims to do things ethically, but BMM >is quite obviously doing things a little suspiciously. I have received a >mail in reply to this posting regarding the Alitalia site I mentioned, by >disabling JavaScript in your browser and viewing the site, the neat little >nav menu on the left is replaced with a long (much longer than the menu it >replaces) & unstyled list of internal links that do not point to the same >pages that the menu they are replacing point to. I can see that there are >good reasons to have support for non-JS capable browsers (and other forms of >accessibility), but this seems a little excessive.
>Is this sort of behaviour likely to cause our site problems?
Sounds like.
>Or is this the >'norm' in SEO circles?
Nope. Well, shouldn't be but there isn't any regulatory body and nor is there likely to be.
> And what is classed as 'ethical'? I know there is >likely to be a fair dollop of grey in the middle, but what is >no-argument-white?
No such animal. But then, there'd be those who'd disagree.
Where is this mysterious site? I offer a freebie quick appraisal from an experts (quiet at the back!) page so I don't see why I shouldn't extend that offer to you.
>> Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO >> thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical >> and what is not. :)
>This the main thrust of my question I suppose; what is 'ethical'?. I have >looked into doing optimisation on the site myself and looked into some >forums and newsgroups, but they are so full of contradiction and confused >people, it is difficult to draw out any concrete knowledge from them. It was >also consuming way too much of my time and detracting from my main duties; >hence we are considering hiring a professional to do it.
>But when paying for a service from a professional (say an electrician), you >don't expect to have to hang a sign on your door saying that the electrics >on the premises were done by Bob's Electricals. You pay for the service, if >they want to use you to advertise, they can pay you for the advertising >space. Unless of course they offer a sizable discount for including these >footer links.
When I put the house up for sale, the real estate company put a sign in the yard saying they were handling the sale of the house - I didn't get a discount. The sold sign stayed up during the closing and until the new folks moved in.
Granted the real estate sign was helping me out also - but after the house sold, how was the sold sign helping me? It wasn't - it was helping the real estate company give the visual message to others driving by "We sold another house ... we can do the same for you!" The sign was placed in my yard for exchange of services - I had a house to sell, the real estate company would help me do that.
You tried to compare site-wide links in a footer to the beign the same as the SEO company creating doorway pages on the client's sites solely for the purpose of sharing those links and you felt that was unethical because of Google statement about doorway pages. Then you follow that up with the argumentation of "But if the site optimizer paid for or gave the client a sizeable discount for that link space" - that would somehow be "better" and suddenly "ethical" in your opinion? Now it is the same link - so what is the difference? And why is it better, ethical wise, that someone pays for links on sites?
>But this is it; what exactly is 'ethical SEO'?
A can of worms.
Let's face it, SEO is manipulation of the content - bettering it to appeal better to search engines. You wouldn't consider doing it or hiring someone to do it for you if not wanting to rank higher than you already are in search engines.
Is it ethical to reword your content to insert repetitions of your perceived keywords? That is done for the search engines, by some people at times, more so than the readers of that content - for example:
Like humor? Welcome the best hurmor site around! We have job humor, marriage humor, mom humor, dad humor, in-law humor, political humor .. and more! Why - this site has more humor than you can shake a stick at! If you love humor, you are in the right place for great humor!
Work Humor | Marriage Humor | Mom Humor | Dad Humor | In-Law Humor | Political Humor | Tech Humor
Now how much you wanna bet the word humor is mentioned to appeal to the search engines versus the person visiting the site?
Ethical SEO is generally interpreted to not doing anything "against the SE rules" and not being "harmful to the client's site" . After that ... seems it goes gray.
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:54:20 GMT, from_...@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote: >On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:04:48 GMT, SEO Dave ><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:27:27 +0000 (UTC), <spam...@postmaster.co.uk> >>wrote:
>>>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller >>>pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" >>>tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the >>>pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves >>>their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for >>>the client at all.
>>I think any SEO who does the above cares more about their own sites >>than their clients.
>How is someone, doing work on a site and placing a link to themselves >in the footer, any less ethical [SEO wise] than someone buying links >that will appear on multiple pages/site-wide within someone else's >site?
Hi,
I'm not thinking ethics here, I'm thinking in terms of what is best for the SEO's client site. If you want to bring ethics into this, it would be more suited to business ethics, is it ethical to do something you know will hurt a clients site.
If an SEO firm is hired to do the best they can for a clients site adding a link on every page to the SEO companies site is not in the clients best interest. It takes PR from the clients site and adds words to a page that will dilute any benefit to their SERPs.
Basically they will not perform as well as they should, the SEO company site though will benefit considerably.
This IMO is an unethical way to run a business.
>>Also recently Google appears to be penalising sites for site wide >>links, not all sites, just some. So far it seems only the site >>receiving the site wide links gets a penalty (more precisely no boost >>from the links).
>Different angle: Many site designers putting links at the bottom of >pages they designed or work on get no perk if what you shared is above >it true.
It seems to be hitting new sites/links much harder than old. Not completely sure of this though. Has anyone with a site with most links from client sites seen a drop in SERPs recently?
>Ok, but what if that generally isn't the reason the links are >there anyway? So they don't get a boost, SE wise, they may still get >some click-thrus and that is also what they wanted.
If you mean say a web site designer who puts this site designed by X with link to their site. The reason for doing this in most cases is for referrals, not SEO (though it should help with SEO). The site designers job is to design a functional site and if the client is happy for them to have an advert on every page that's up to them. It's unlikely either party know how the link will affect SEO.
SEO's know (or should know) adding a link to their site from their clients site is going to hurt their clients site and so shouldn't do it. It's unethical to knowingly do something that will hurt a clients site.
>[snip] > Considering how >>negative Google is regarding SEO you really don't want to tell Google >>you have had your site optimised!
>Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO >thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical >and what is not. :)
I try to steer clear of ethical SEO debates. Some things I do will be considered fine by some and unethical by others, some consider SEO in itself as unethical!
>>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:04:48 GMT, SEO Dave >><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:27:27 +0000 (UTC), <spam...@postmaster.co.uk> >>>wrote:
>>>>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller >>>>pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" >>>>tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the >>>>pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves >>>>their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for >>>>the client at all.
>>>I think any SEO who does the above cares more about their own sites >>>than their clients.
>>How is someone, doing work on a site and placing a link to themselves >>in the footer, any less ethical [SEO wise] than someone buying links >>that will appear on multiple pages/site-wide within someone else's >>site?
>Hi,
>I'm not thinking ethics here, I'm thinking in terms of what is best >for the SEO's client site. If you want to bring ethics into this, it >would be more suited to business ethics, is it ethical to do something >you know will hurt a clients site.
>If an SEO firm is hired to do the best they can for a clients site >adding a link on every page to the SEO companies site is not in the >clients best interest. It takes PR from the clients site and adds >words to a page that will dilute any benefit to their SERPs.
>Basically they will not perform as well as they should, the SEO >company site though will benefit considerably.
>This IMO is an unethical way to run a business.
>>>Also recently Google appears to be penalising sites for site wide >>>links, not all sites, just some. So far it seems only the site >>>receiving the site wide links gets a penalty (more precisely no boost >>>from the links).
>>Different angle: Many site designers putting links at the bottom of >>pages they designed or work on get no perk if what you shared is above >>it true.
>It seems to be hitting new sites/links much harder than old. Not >completely sure of this though. Has anyone with a site with most links >from client sites seen a drop in SERPs recently?
>>Ok, but what if that generally isn't the reason the links are >>there anyway? So they don't get a boost, SE wise, they may still get >>some click-thrus and that is also what they wanted.
>If you mean say a web site designer who puts this site designed by X >with link to their site. The reason for doing this in most cases is >for referrals, not SEO (though it should help with SEO). The site >designers job is to design a functional site and if the client is >happy for them to have an advert on every page that's up to them. It's >unlikely either party know how the link will affect SEO.
>SEO's know (or should know) adding a link to their site from their >clients site is going to hurt their clients site and so shouldn't do >it. It's unethical to knowingly do something that will hurt a clients >site.
So it ok for the site designer to put a link for referrals [from an example of their work] but not if they optimized the site for the person. I dont' know Dave - seems to me very splitting of hairs and based on "whose" link it is versus it being a link shared in the footer. Ishare a courtesy/referral link to a graphics group that helped me out - that link is in the footer of all pages of the site - I assume that is ok even though my site isn't about graphics. But if someone helped optimize the contents of the site - a courtesy/referral link to them would suddenly be a no-no?
I mean - some folks link exchange with any ol' site so not interested in theme of the contents matching but more interested in the PR of the site. Now some of those same folks want site wide links or across multiple pages. I am sure you will agree with me that people will request such as someone posted just a request here recently on this NG - and they weren't caring about the other site's contents but a different criteria with PR being one and the links being site-wide as another.
Now using your argumentations against the SEO company sharing a link to themselves in the footer of a client's site [diluring the content, not helpign that person's site by having that link there, et al] then why were these thoughts NOT shared in the thread where someone posted about wanting site wide links just from any ol' site using PHP that was PR4 or higher?
Not meaning ot have you feel put on the spot but you have to admit that it is odd that some people are saying it is ok to have non-themed links and/or pay for links [or accept payment for those links to be shared] ... then, when it is an SEO company link, suddenly that is "different" and "not in the site owner's best interest" to have such links shared. And this is with the speculation of footer links not be as weighted in value as links in the main body of text and such thoughts bantied around in other forums.
>>[snip] >> Considering how >>>negative Google is regarding SEO you really don't want to tell Google >>>you have had your site optimised!
>>Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO >>thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical >>and what is not. :)
>I try to steer clear of ethical SEO debates. Some things I do will be >considered fine by some and unethical by others, some consider SEO in >itself as unethical!
Which is why it is such a can of worms - and prompts some debates about even little things. ;)
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:27:27 +0000 (UTC), <spam...@postmaster.co.uk> > wrote:
>>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller >>pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media" >>tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the >>pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly >>improves >>their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing >>for >>the client at all.
> I think any SEO who does the above cares more about their own sites > than their clients. The meta data reference won't have any impact on a > pages SERPs, but a link from every page will. The SEO company is > basically stealing PR from their clients sites, this means the clients > site will not do as well in the SERPs as they could!
There is another way to look at this. Since some good links can be from pages with little PR, and some harmful links can come from pages with great PR, I find that a useful strategy when it comes to linking is to link as if search engines didn't exist. I want links pointing to my site on other sites but not if they offer hotel rooms in Phuket (for example) and my site is something completely unrelated.
The SEO seems to be following this general rule-of-thumb. The ethical problems are related to the link being there, but not attributable to the link directly. The ethical considerations are simple to rectify. If the link was put there without the knowledge or consent of the site owner, then it's deceitful and therefore wrong. If it was not reciprocated (equal or better), then that is theft of PR and that too, is wrong.
If they had permission to put the link there and replaced whatever PR they took with reciprocal links, then it is just a subtle unobtrusive ad.
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:24 GMT, "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >If it was not reciprocated (equal or >better), then that is theft of PR and that too, is wrong.
>If they had permission to put the link there and replaced whatever PR they >took with reciprocal links, then it is just a subtle unobtrusive ad.
Why does the PR have to reciprocated or replaced with equal or better? If they had permission - why add in "and replaced whatever PR they took"?
What if the site, seeking an SEO, may not have that great of PR to begin with. Woudl it then be ok that the link was placed there and not viewed stealing of PR from a PR2 or PR3 site?
PR is just a Google thing. And something that is becoming viewed as "not as highly" on ranking thoughts in Google as PR used to be viewed to being a year or two back.
Sorry, I just view it [with it being placed in the footer] as a "subtle unobtrusive ad" thought. No different than when James [miss him] would sometimes help out folks trying to get indexed on Google by adding their links in the footer of his SEO site [even though they didn't hire him or pay him to do so]. No different to me than if it said "site designed by xxxx" or "graphics courtesy of xxxx".
I think the only reason any thoughts of ethics is appearing is because of it pointing back to a SEO company's site. If it had been a link there to Joe Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site - I bet 98% of hte argumentations, against it being an SEO site link, wouldn't been shared.
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:24 GMT, "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>If it was not reciprocated (equal or >>better), then that is theft of PR and that too, is wrong.
>>If they had permission to put the link there and replaced whatever PR they >>took with reciprocal links, then it is just a subtle unobtrusive ad.
> Why does the PR have to reciprocated or replaced with equal or better? > If they had permission - why add in "and replaced whatever PR they > took"?
> What if the site, seeking an SEO, may not have that great of PR to > begin with. Woudl it then be ok that the link was placed there and not > viewed stealing of PR from a PR2 or PR3 site?
> PR is just a Google thing. And something that is becoming viewed as > "not as highly" on ranking thoughts in Google as PR used to be viewed > to being a year or two back.
> Sorry, I just view it [with it being placed in the footer] as a > "subtle unobtrusive ad" thought. No different than when James [miss > him] would sometimes help out folks trying to get indexed on Google by > adding their links in the footer of his SEO site [even though they > didn't hire him or pay him to do so]. No different to me than if it > said "site designed by xxxx" or "graphics courtesy of xxxx".
> I think the only reason any thoughts of ethics is appearing is because > of it pointing back to a SEO company's site. If it had been a link > there to Joe Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site - I bet 98% of hte > argumentations, against it being an SEO site link, wouldn't been > shared.
> [Yes, I am playing devil's advocate]
> Carol
All I was trying to say that there are multiple issues. It was SEO Dave's contention that it is wrong to steal PR whether it is just a Google thing or not. If theft of PR is unethical or a "crime" then replacement of that would solve that issue leaving the link pointing to the SEO site in place. There wouldn't be an issue if the non-SEO site is better off.
The other issue is permission. Whether it is SEO or website design or Joe Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site, if there is no permission, then I think that's just wrong.
I don't understand why there would be a problem at all, if those two issues are resolved and that's the same for SEO as it is for anything else.
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 20:52:17 GMT, "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >All I was trying to say that there are multiple issues. It was SEO Dave's >contention that it is wrong to steal PR whether it is just a Google thing or >not. If theft of PR is unethical or a "crime" then replacement of that >would solve that issue leaving the link pointing to the SEO site in place. >There wouldn't be an issue if the non-SEO site is better off.
I wouldn't go as far as a crime, it's really about why SEO's are hired in the first place.
Part of search engine optimisation is links, so any SEO who knows his stuff will take links into account (I do). We know a link from a site helps the site you are linking to and in terms of PR hurts the site you are linking from (if it's a related site it may help more over all than hurt, but that's a different post :-)).
So we are hired to perform search engine optimisation 'tasks' for a client, for which we get paid. We are not paid to do search engine optimisation 'tasks' on our own sites at the expense of the clients site. When a SEO adds links without permission or without explaining why it won't help the clients site, in fact will likely hurt the clients site they are not acting in the best interests of the client.
If a SEO company expects a link back, run away quickly. We are supposed to be SEO experts, we should be able to get our own links without using our clients pages!
>The other issue is permission. Whether it is SEO or website design or Joe >Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site, if there is no permission, then I think >that's just wrong.
If there is permission to add a link and in the case of an SEO firm who should understand how adding a link from a clients site to their SEO site will not benefit the client site explains the cons of this arrangement, then I don't see a problem.
But what SEO company is going to say I want to put a link to our unrelated SEO site on every page, oh and BTW it's going to reduce the over all PR of your site and so you will most likely not do as well in the search engines compared to had we not added the links!
Any client who is given this information will say no thanks to the links.
>I don't understand why there would be a problem at all, if those two issues >are resolved and that's the same for SEO as it is for anything else.
<seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote: >If there is permission to add a link and in the case of an SEO firm >who should understand how adding a link from a clients site to their >SEO site will not benefit the client site explains the cons of this >arrangement, then I don't see a problem.
Say I design a site for someone and I state upfront that in exhange for my services I will place a link on the site's pages I worked on [no discount]. I look at the footer of some sites I come across that I like the layout/design of - to see who did the work. I sort of expect to see it if the site owner had someone else do the site design for them. Part of the deal as far as I am concerned - just like the phone number listed on a billboard of the company to contact if you too want to advertise on a billboard.
So if I put my link there - it is there _not_ for the oh-so-precious PR but to let others, visiting that site, who did the site design and maybe consider contacting me for the same services.
No, I won't go into the following:
>I want to put a link to our >unrelated SEO site on every page, oh and BTW it's going to reduce the >over all PR of your site and so you will most likely not do as well in >the search engines compared to had we not added the links!
Why? Because it sounds way overly-dramatic.
If it is ok to share or sell link space to unrelated site, then it is ok to share links to an unrelated site. 'Nuff said. Doesn't matter if that unrelated site is an SEO company or nursery rhyme site - it's a link and likely one that the person, who owns the site, can _see_ is there on the page since it is visible in the footer.
Greatly reduce the overall PR of a site? Please. I seriously doubt _one_ link, with an anchor text of 4 to 5 words maybe, even site wide will "greatly reduce the overall PR of a site". I am looking at my own sites, where I share an unrelated footer link site wide, and I don't se how or where it held me back any by sharing it there.
If it was 10 links or 20 or so, and less than 5% reciprocated, then I would see how the "PR Drain" argument could be applied ... but _one_, to someone who helped them with their site [design, seo, whatever], is going to just suck the PR right out of that site? Doubt it.
Particularly since I didn't see ONE post sharing that thought when someone, last week, posted a request for wanting to pay for site-wide links from PR4 or above sites. Not one person - not even you - posted about sites that would carry would site-side link would suffer a PR drain and not do as well in search engines due to the link being 'unrelated'. Instead I bet the person had some people contacting him saying "sure, you can share your link[s] on my site - how much will you pay me?" Times in the past I have mentioned about themed links [related to content] I seem to recall there were a some folks happy to chime in a thought about "a link is a link - themed or not" or that there wasn't any felt proof that Google or Yahoo cared about themed links.
Granted on Google - and only on Google - I may get some PR flow as a result; depends though on how many links the person has on that page on if I will benefit just a little bit. Whereas a link from my site, from a page with links to folks' sites I worked on, may not have a lot of links shared on it ... so I will flow some of that PR right back to them. So shucks - if unrelated site links harms sites - then I would be harming myself more by sharing all them unrelated links to sites I worked on, huh?
And yes, I will get some backlinks as a rsult of that footer link. But I would get some backlinks if I paid Joe Blow to have my link listed site-wide. Only with the former, I had to work and satisfy the person with my work before I got to share that link. Otherwise it wouldn't be there. So in a way - I had to work on _earning_ that link.
Sorry, but if the OP had not mentioned about the footer link being to an SEO company - I doubt anyone would found fault with it. I find it humorous that _just because_ it is an SEO firm's link,and one that worked on the site, that all of the sudden it is a wholly different story and draining the sites of PR and not having them do as well in search engines.
*yes, still devil's advocating here. But likely my last devilish post*
C.W. wrote: > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:17:18 GMT, SEO Dave > <seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>> If there is permission to add a link and in the case of an SEO firm >> who should understand how adding a link from a clients site to their >> SEO site will not benefit the client site explains the cons of this >> arrangement, then I don't see a problem.
> Say I design a site for someone and I state upfront that in exhange > for my services I will place a link on the site's pages I worked on > [no discount]. I look at the footer of some sites I come across that I > like the layout/design of - to see who did the work. I sort of expect > to see it if the site owner had someone else do the site design for > them. Part of the deal as far as I am concerned - just like the phone > number listed on a billboard of the company to contact if you too want > to advertise on a billboard.
> So if I put my link there - it is there _not_ for the oh-so-precious > PR but to let others, visiting that site, who did the site design and > maybe consider contacting me for the same services.
> No, I won't go into the following:
>> I want to put a link to our >> unrelated SEO site on every page, oh and BTW it's going to reduce the >> over all PR of your site and so you will most likely not do as well >> in the search engines compared to had we not added the links!
> Why? Because it sounds way overly-dramatic.
> If it is ok to share or sell link space to unrelated site, then it is > ok to share links to an unrelated site. 'Nuff said. Doesn't matter if > that unrelated site is an SEO company or nursery rhyme site - it's a > link and likely one that the person, who owns the site, can _see_ is > there on the page since it is visible in the footer.
> Greatly reduce the overall PR of a site? Please. I seriously doubt > _one_ link, with an anchor text of 4 to 5 words maybe, even site wide > will "greatly reduce the overall PR of a site". I am looking at my own > sites, where I share an unrelated footer link site wide, and I don't > se how or where it held me back any by sharing it there.
> If it was 10 links or 20 or so, and less than 5% reciprocated, then I > would see how the "PR Drain" argument could be applied ... but _one_, > to someone who helped them with their site [design, seo, whatever], is > going to just suck the PR right out of that site? Doubt it.
> Particularly since I didn't see ONE post sharing that thought when > someone, last week, posted a request for wanting to pay for site-wide > links from PR4 or above sites. Not one person - not even you - posted > about sites that would carry would site-side link would suffer a PR > drain and not do as well in search engines due to the link being > 'unrelated'. Instead I bet the person had some people contacting him > saying "sure, you can share your link[s] on my site - how much will > you pay me?" Times in the past I have mentioned about themed links > [related to content] I seem to recall there were a some folks happy to > chime in a thought about "a link is a link - themed or not" or that > there wasn't any felt proof that Google or Yahoo cared about themed > links.
> Granted on Google - and only on Google - I may get some PR flow as a > result; depends though on how many links the person has on that page > on if I will benefit just a little bit. Whereas a link from my site, > from a page with links to folks' sites I worked on, may not have a lot > of links shared on it ... so I will flow some of that PR right back to > them. So shucks - if unrelated site links harms sites - then I would > be harming myself more by sharing all them unrelated links to sites I > worked on, huh?
> And yes, I will get some backlinks as a rsult of that footer link. But > I would get some backlinks if I paid Joe Blow to have my link listed > site-wide. Only with the former, I had to work and satisfy the person > with my work before I got to share that link. Otherwise it wouldn't be > there. So in a way - I had to work on _earning_ that link.
> Sorry, but if the OP had not mentioned about the footer link being to > an SEO company - I doubt anyone would found fault with it. I find it > humorous that _just because_ it is an SEO firm's link,and one that > worked on the site, that all of the sudden it is a wholly different > story and draining the sites of PR and not having them do as well in > search engines.
> *yes, still devil's advocating here. But likely my last devilish post*
> Carol
If you put one outlink to an external site on every page I think it will reduce the average displayed PR value by less than a single step of the green scale. Best regards, Eric.
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:18:17 GMT, from_...@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote: >On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:17:18 GMT, SEO Dave ><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>If there is permission to add a link and in the case of an SEO firm >>who should understand how adding a link from a clients site to their >>SEO site will not benefit the client site explains the cons of this >>arrangement, then I don't see a problem.
>Say I design a site for someone and I state upfront that in exhange >for my services I will place a link on the site's pages I worked on >[no discount]. I look at the footer of some sites I come across that I >like the layout/design of - to see who did the work. I sort of expect >to see it if the site owner had someone else do the site design for >them.
The link per se isn't the problem, it's the fact an SEO is taking advantage of a clients site knowing it will hurt the clients site. They are hired to help, not take advantage.
Most web site designers know nothing about SEO, so like you say their link is there for advertising reasons not PR. If an SEO argues it's there for advertising only they are either BSing or not very good at SEO. Either way you should steer clear of SEOs who expect a link.
>Part of the deal as far as I am concerned - just like the phone >number listed on a billboard of the company to contact if you too want >to advertise on a billboard.
Not really the same. The billboard is not owned by the advertiser, when a SEO or site designer creates a site for a client, it's the clients site. Also the number on the billboard is not going to reduce the effectiveness of the ad.
>So if I put my link there - it is there _not_ for the oh-so-precious >PR but to let others, visiting that site, who did the site design and >maybe consider contacting me for the same services.
Why would anyone have a problem with the above (assuming the client is happy with the link of course)?
It's the intent that's the problem here. A small footer link at the bottom of every page to Billy Bob's Web Design like the phone number on a billboard will not reduce the effectiveness of the site when a visitor is viewing. So a site designer adding a link will believe the link will not do any harm. SEOs know it will, so shouldn't do it.
Of course it doesn't matter if it's a SEOs link or a web designers link, both will hurt the clients sites SERPs.
>No, I won't go into the following:
>>I want to put a link to our >>unrelated SEO site on every page, oh and BTW it's going to reduce the >>over all PR of your site and so you will most likely not do as well in >>the search engines compared to had we not added the links!
>Why? Because it sounds way overly-dramatic.
It may sound overly dramatic, but it isn't.
1. The reality is every link from a site reduces that sites PR, that's a fact that can't be argued.
2. If the link has no relevance to the sites content the anchor text will not benefit any page on the site. i.e. If you sell shoes and link to a site with anchor text "SEO Firm", that anchor text will not help the pages shoe SERPs. A similar link to another shoe site (could be to a competitor) with anchor text "Shoes for Sale" will help any page on the site with SERPs related to Shoes for Sale (you still loose PR).
3. By adding unrelated links to a page you will impact keyword density etc...
4. The anchor text of links on a page are given more weight than standard body text. By linking to a unrelated site some of that benefit will not go to the other presumably targeted anchor text on the page.
Every link, every word you add to a page will have an impact on the pages SERPs and in the case of links the sites SERPs. SEOs should know this and so should know adding a link to their site is not in the best interests of the clients site.
>If it is ok to share or sell link space to unrelated site, then it is >ok to share links to an unrelated site. 'Nuff said.
The two aren't comparable. When a site sells links they receive a benefit, money. What benefit does the client receive when a SEO links from their site to their SEO business site?
If it's a agreed that the client will receive a discount for a link I don't see a problem as long as it's explained.
>Doesn't matter if >that unrelated site is an SEO company or nursery rhyme site - it's a >link and likely one that the person, who owns the site, can _see_ is >there on the page since it is visible in the footer.
If they have hired a SEO they probably don't know it's most likely going to reduce their SERPs.
>Greatly reduce the overall PR of a site? Please. I seriously doubt >_one_ link, with an anchor text of 4 to 5 words maybe, even site wide >will "greatly reduce the overall PR of a site". I am looking at my own >sites, where I share an unrelated footer link site wide, and I don't >se how or where it held me back any by sharing it there.
>If it was 10 links or 20 or so, and less than 5% reciprocated, then I >would see how the "PR Drain" argument could be applied ... but _one_, >to someone who helped them with their site [design, seo, whatever], is >going to just suck the PR right out of that site? Doubt it.
The amount of PR lost depends upon the number of links per page. To give you two extremes
If the home page currently has 2 links from it and you add 1 more (to a SEO site) you've just sent ~33% of your PR away and the original two pages receive ~17% less PR.
If the home page currently has 99 links from it and you add 1 more (to a SEO site) you've just sent ~1% of your PR away (big deal).
I think it's not unusual to see a site with a dozen links per page. So we could say for an average site one extra link takes ~8% of the sites PR.
I consider 8% significant. And that's just thinking in terms of PR, what about the other points I made.
BTW anyone noticed that sites that sell links tend to have a lot of internal links on every page. They understand that if they bulk up the number of links per page, the amount of PR sent out to paid links can be minimised. A client contacted me the other day about buying PR9 links from a site. Turned out that due to the number of links from the PR9 page the link would of been worth about the same as a PR7 link from a page with about 10 links from it!
Which would you pay more for a PR9 link from a page with 200 links from it or a PR7 link with 5 links from it?
>Particularly since I didn't see ONE post sharing that thought when >someone, last week, posted a request for wanting to pay for site-wide >links from PR4 or above sites. Not one person - not even you - posted >about sites that would carry would site-side link would suffer a PR >drain and not do as well in search engines due to the link being >'unrelated'.
Why would I, he offered money a reasonable replacement for the loss of SERPs. BTW I wasn't interested in selling him site wide links, just wanted to know how much he would pay. Never did get an answer :-(
>Instead I bet the person had some people contacting him >saying "sure, you can share your link[s] on my site - how much will >you pay me?"
Exactly.
>Times in the past I have mentioned about themed links >[related to content] I seem to recall there were a some folks happy to >chime in a thought about "a link is a link - themed or not" or that >there wasn't any felt proof that Google or Yahoo cared about themed >links.
A link is a link for PR purposes and though I don't think search engines are at the stage of really theming sites, it's not hard to see adding unrelated links from your site will not help your SERPs and adding related links might.
There will be a balance where the keyword rich anchor text of the out going link works out better (in terms of improved SERPs) than the PR saved by not adding the link to an external site. but you can't use this argument for unrelated links since there is no benefit from the anchor text.
>Granted on Google - and only on Google - I may get some PR flow as a >result; depends though on how many links the person has on that page >on if I will benefit just a little bit. Whereas a link from my site, >from a page with links to folks' sites I worked on, may not have a lot >of links shared on it ... so I will flow some of that PR right back to >them.
I'm not talking about your linking practices, but if I was it seems a fair exchange for a link like the above.
>So shucks - if unrelated site links harms sites - then I would >be harming myself more by sharing all them unrelated links to sites I >worked on, huh?
Yes. Though you benefit by giving your clients site a boost in their SERPs, which means more people see your work and so are more likely to click on that footer link and hire you.
It's not a penalty we are talking about, it's a lack of benefit. If Google linked to your site from their PR10 home page you would get an amazing boost to every page on your site. You don't get the boost because Google doesn't link to you, but it's not a penalty.
By adding unrelated links to a page you are reducing the potential of that page. By how much depends on various factors as mentioned earlier.
>And yes, I will get some backlinks as a rsult of that footer link. But >I would get some backlinks if I paid Joe Blow to have my link listed >site-wide. Only with the former, I had to work and satisfy the person >with my work before I got to share that link. Otherwise it wouldn't be >there. So in a way - I had to work on _earning_ that link.
Let me ask you a question. If I can convince you adding a link to your site from a clients site will harm the clients site, do you think it's an ethical business practice to add the link anyway and charge the client?
I'm assuming you don't want to harm your clients chances of gaining relevant search engine traffic and based on your response you didn't realise the possible harm.
There are solutions to this problem. For example you could javascript the link, 90% of visitors will see the link and so you get your advert, but
>>*yes, still devil's advocating here. But likely my last devilish post*
>LOL Well I've enjoyed the discussion, hadn't thought it through in so >much detail before now. I've always known adding a link to my sites >from my clients sites would hurt their sites, so haven't considered >doing it, so not needed to think it out in great detail before.
Well - I know you lean more toward Google whereas I lean to more toward optimizing for Google _and_ Yahoo both. Hence you would think more about PR than I would. Iview PR as just one bit out of the Google algorithem - and one that has been known to have a PR5 site beaten out by a PR3 or PR4 due to other bits of the algorihem.
And so this a thought about the unrelated footer link, along with one or two others discussed between us in the past, is probably going to be filed into the category of "you and I will have agree to disagree on some bits". I understand your views - but I also see a bit of the thinking from the other side of the coin and one that I cannot fully find fault in as I would do the same thing in their shoes. Being honest there, though, as I don't view it unethical or unwise at all. If the link was hidden or very lightly colored in hue, shared in a mouse-over redirect page, or such thoughts - then yes, I would agree that the link was unethical and harmful to the client's site.
I dont' agree that one link, even with anchor text that doesn't match the rest of the page, will drastically harm it - the SEO hopefully would've optimized the rest of the text/contents for the clients' preferred keywords so density thoughts for that one link's phrasing would be a very low percentage. I do agree that someone sharing 10 or 20 unrelated links, though, may not be helping that page's contents.
And, as you pointed out, a linking structure that is sound will help to compensate for PR shared externally. You already know my views of PR hording from discussions past but I don't view a good internal linking as hording - whereas sharing external links through javascript you know I don't wholly agree with either.
Ain't splittin' of hairs in this area of thought fun? And with all the gray areas open to personal interpretation thrown into the kettle too! :))
>Let me ask you a question. If I can convince you adding a link to your >site from a clients site will harm the clients site, do you think it's >an ethical business practice to add the link anyway and charge the >client?
In all honesty, and taking your opinion into consideration with my own, here's my answer:
Yes I still think such a link, given on _why_ it was placed there at all to begin with, is ethical - even if the client did pay me for a service performed on the site in question.
I know you will not like that answer - but I don't see any reason to pull your leg either.
>>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:17:18 GMT, SEO Dave >><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>>If there is permission to add a link and in the case of an SEO firm >>>who should understand how adding a link from a clients site to their >>>SEO site will not benefit the client site explains the cons of this >>>arrangement, then I don't see a problem.
>>Say I design a site for someone and I state upfront that in exhange >>for my services I will place a link on the site's pages I worked on >>[no discount]. I look at the footer of some sites I come across that I >>like the layout/design of - to see who did the work. I sort of expect >>to see it if the site owner had someone else do the site design for >>them.
>The link per se isn't the problem, it's the fact an SEO is taking >advantage of a clients site knowing it will hurt the clients site.
Not everyone would agree that it does though.
>They are hired to help, not take advantage.
>Most web site designers know nothing about SEO, so like you say their >link is there for advertising reasons not PR. If an SEO argues it's >there for advertising only they are either BSing or not very good at >SEO. Either way you should steer clear of SEOs who expect a link.
I expect a link! Only the one a site, mind, but I still expect it.
>>Part of the deal as far as I am concerned - just like the phone >>number listed on a billboard of the company to contact if you too want >>to advertise on a billboard.
>Not really the same. The billboard is not owned by the advertiser, >when a SEO or site designer creates a site for a client, it's the >clients site. Also the number on the billboard is not going to reduce >the effectiveness of the ad.
>>So if I put my link there - it is there _not_ for the oh-so-precious >>PR but to let others, visiting that site, who did the site design and >>maybe consider contacting me for the same services.
>Why would anyone have a problem with the above (assuming the client is >happy with the link of course)?
>It's the intent that's the problem here. A small footer link at the >bottom of every page to Billy Bob's Web Design like the phone number >on a billboard will not reduce the effectiveness of the site when a >visitor is viewing. So a site designer adding a link will believe the >link will not do any harm. SEOs know it will, so shouldn't do it.
I don't know that! I just wouldn't do it because I think it's overkill and it looks tasteless.
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:18:17 GMT, from_...@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
[snip]
>>>I want to put a link to our >>>unrelated SEO site on every page, oh and BTW it's going to reduce the >>>over all PR of your site and so you will most likely not do as well in >>>the search engines compared to had we not added the links!
>>Why? Because it sounds way overly-dramatic.
> It may sound overly dramatic, but it isn't.
> 1. The reality is every link from a site reduces that sites PR, that's > a fact that can't be argued.
> 2. If the link has no relevance to the sites content the anchor text > will not benefit any page on the site. i.e. If you sell shoes and link > to a site with anchor text "SEO Firm", that anchor text will not help > the pages shoe SERPs. A similar link to another shoe site (could be to > a competitor) with anchor text "Shoes for Sale" will help any page on > the site with SERPs related to Shoes for Sale (you still loose PR).
> 3. By adding unrelated links to a page you will impact keyword density > etc...
> 4. The anchor text of links on a page are given more weight than > standard body text. By linking to a unrelated site some of that > benefit will not go to the other presumably targeted anchor text on > the page.
> Every link, every word you add to a page will have an impact on the > pages SERPs and in the case of links the sites SERPs. SEOs should know > this and so should know adding a link to their site is not in the best > interests of the clients site.
I believe I understand what you are saying. You are saying that if someone is aware of how PR works, as any SEO would be, then taking any amount of PR is wrong. It is not the same for a design firm, as they often are unaware of doing harm.
I guess that this is not a discussion about what is ethical, since ethics are not "situational". It is either wrong or it isn't.
About PR: PR, while not unimportant, is certainly not the only thing that matters. There are examples of relatively low PR pages ahead of a page with higher PR in any search you conduct. PR matters, but not that much, and it is advantage is certainly less clear than it was in the past.
About keyword density: If adding a link to an SEO site damages the keyword density to the point that it actually affects the site's performance, then the SEO certainly hasn't done their work. I'm sure you know how difficult it is to positively affect keyword density. That point seems almost irrelevant to me, or at the very least, insignificant.
About advertising: The only way that the link would have any value at all to an SEO would be if someone could see it. If the client site is not found, then no one sees the link and it does no good. To use the billboard example, it is like a billboard on a back road.
Here's the reason why I would not find that to be offensive in the least, morally, ethically, or any other way you'd care to measure.
Imagine that an SEO firm takes on a client. The client's site has PR4 with two inbound links showing in Google. The site is essentially invisible in the search engines.
The SEO optimizes the site according to the accepted practices of the day. The client site now performs well in the search engines. In addition, the client site is ahead of many other sites in the serps that have much higher PR. As a result of the SEO work, the site has acceptable keyword density, increased PR, and dozens (hundreds?) of inbound links.
The SEO asks permission to put a link to the SEO's site on the client site, correctly pointing out that it might reduce the effect of PR on that page. To put into perspective for the client when they ask about it, the SEO points out (also correct) that the client site is currently ahead of sites that have higher PR.
In addition, the SEO points out that a link from the client site adds to the PR of the SEO site and a link from the SEO site to the client site adds to the PR of the client site. If the client site is not the net beneficiary of an exchange like that then the exchange should not be proposed. I think that was your point, wasn't it?
Finally, my point. One situation - two points of view. What I am trying to say in the above example, is that you might steer clear of an SEO that doesn't exchange links with a client, because they might not be doing everything they can to help their client, retaining all the PR they can for their own purposes.
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:22:14 GMT, "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Every link, every word you add to a page will have an impact on the >> pages SERPs and in the case of links the sites SERPs. SEOs should know >> this and so should know adding a link to their site is not in the best >> interests of the clients site.
>I believe I understand what you are saying. You are saying that if someone >is aware of how PR works, as any SEO would be, then taking any amount of PR >is wrong. It is not the same for a design firm, as they often are unaware >of doing harm.
Close, it's not just PR I'm considering. I'm saying a SEO hired to help optimise a site should not do anything that will negatively effect the site. SEO's adding links to their own site clearly falls under this.
>I guess that this is not a discussion about what is ethical, since ethics >are not "situational". It is either wrong or it isn't.
>About PR: PR, while not unimportant, is certainly not the only thing that >matters. There are examples of relatively low PR pages ahead of a page with >higher PR in any search you conduct. PR matters, but not that much, and it >is advantage is certainly less clear than it was in the past.
PR is still very important, especially to SERPs on internal pages. If you remove 10% of a sites PR, that means internal pages will get less boost from the internal links (this assumes most links to a site are home page links).
I don't know where the idea has come from that PR is no longer important. Total PR of a page is not a good guide to how well the page may do. Where a page gets it PR is important, a PR6 link with good keyword rich anchor text will result in a far bigger boost than a similar PR6 link with poor anchor text.
It's not hard to see that if a sites gets a lot of links with poor anchor text they are going to struggle against a site with less links that have good anchor text. So PR is important, but not as most view PR.
>About keyword density: If adding a link to an SEO site damages the keyword >density to the point that it actually affects the site's performance, then >the SEO certainly hasn't done their work. I'm sure you know how difficult >it is to positively affect keyword density. That point seems almost >irrelevant to me, or at the very least, insignificant.
I didn't say this would end a sites existence in Google. Pulling a figure out of the air, what if by adding the link it reduces traffic by 1%. Do you think it's right for a SEO to do this just so their site gets a boost?
1% in some sectors can make or break a business.
>About advertising: The only way that the link would have any value at all to >an SEO would be if someone could see it. If the client site is not found, >then no one sees the link and it does no good. To use the billboard >example, it is like a billboard on a back road.
With SEOs the link isn't about advertising, it's about PR/anchor text.
>Here's the reason why I would not find that to be offensive in the least, >morally, ethically, or any other way you'd care to measure.
>Imagine that an SEO firm takes on a client. The client's site has PR4 with >two inbound links showing in Google. The site is essentially invisible in >the search engines.
>The SEO optimizes the site according to the accepted practices of the day. >The client site now performs well in the search engines. In addition, the >client site is ahead of many other sites in the serps that have much higher >PR. As a result of the SEO work, the site has acceptable keyword density, >increased PR, and dozens (hundreds?) of inbound links.
Other than the above being unrealistic since PR (PageRank) is increased by incoming links and if a SEO company is going to put a link on every page of a clients site to their SEO company site they are highly unlikely to get the client links.
In my experience most SEOs do not deal with link acquisition, because it's hard work.
>The SEO asks permission to put a link to the SEO's site on the client site, >correctly pointing out that it might reduce the effect of PR on that page.
The SEO would of added the link during the initial changes, not later.
>To put into perspective for the client when they ask about it, the SEO >points out (also correct) that the client site is currently ahead of sites >that have higher PR.
That's why the client paid the SEO. If the SEO did a good job and got paid for it, that's it, they don't come back and ask for a link because the client is ahead of the game!
>In addition, the SEO points out that a link from the client site adds to the >PR of the SEO site and a link from the SEO site to the client site adds to >the PR of the client site.
Who said anything about reciprocal linking?
This is one way links from client site to SEO site. A lot are also site wide links, so a link from every page of the clients site.
> If the client site is not the net beneficiary of >an exchange like that then the exchange should not be proposed. I think >that was your point, wasn't it?
Absolutely and a one way link from client site to SEO site does not help the client in anyway.
>Finally, my point. One situation - two points of view. What I am trying to >say in the above example, is that you might steer clear of an SEO that >doesn't exchange links with a client, because they might not be doing >everything they can to help their client, retaining all the PR they can for >their own purposes.
>MM
You mean SEOs should setup reciprocal links with client sites?
What if the sites aren't really compatible for link exchanges?
For example I have clients who won't do reciprocal type links to any sites from their business site because it would look unprofessional to their users (they have external links, just not the reciprocal kind).
I link to my clients sites because I know linking is very important and as I want my clients to succeed I know they need links. I look at it this way, a SEO who does not take linking into account is only doing half the job (if that since linking is way above half of SEO).
> I don't know where the idea has come from that PR is no longer > important.
PR is important and no one can successfully argue otherwise. I'm not sure what I said that caused you to reach that conclusion.
It's simple to see where the idea came from that it is of lesser importance than some other factors - you confirm this in your next paragraph.
> It's not hard to see that if a sites gets a lot of links with poor > anchor text they are going to struggle against a site with less links > that have good anchor text. So PR is important, but not as most view > PR.
If good anchor text and low PR (relatively speaking) can beat poor anchor text and high PR, then it seems pretty clear to me that PR is not the factor to pay the most attention to.
>>About keyword density: If adding a link to an SEO site damages the >>keyword >>density to the point that it actually affects the site's performance, then >>the SEO certainly hasn't done their work. I'm sure you know how difficult >>it is to positively affect keyword density. That point seems almost >>irrelevant to me, or at the very least, insignificant.
> I didn't say this would end a sites existence in Google. Pulling a > figure out of the air, what if by adding the link it reduces traffic > by 1%. Do you think it's right for a SEO to do this just so their site > gets a boost?
Let's see if I have this straight. A link is added to a site, that so dramatically affects the keyword density that the site doesn't do as well in the search engines and as a result, suffers a 1% decrease in traffic? I'd say that the most important consideration for the site you mention is the content, not whether there is a link to an SEO site :-).
> 1% in some sectors can make or break a business.
No doubt, but if you are in a position that adding a single OBL results in a decline such as this, then it's not the link that is the root of the problem.
>>About advertising: The only way that the link would have any value at all >>to >>an SEO would be if someone could see it. If the client site is not found, >>then no one sees the link and it does no good. To use the billboard >>example, it is like a billboard on a back road.
> With SEOs the link isn't about advertising, it's about PR/anchor text.
I thought the reason for the link was advertising. Link like the search engines didn't exist and you boost your traffic. Probably at least 1% :-)
>>Here's the reason why I would not find that to be offensive in the least, >>morally, ethically, or any other way you'd care to measure.
>>Imagine that an SEO firm takes on a client. The client's site has PR4 >>with >>two inbound links showing in Google. The site is essentially invisible in >>the search engines.
>>The SEO optimizes the site according to the accepted practices of the day. >>The client site now performs well in the search engines. In addition, the >>client site is ahead of many other sites in the serps that have much >>higher >>PR. As a result of the SEO work, the site has acceptable keyword density, >>increased PR, and dozens (hundreds?) of inbound links.
> Other than the above being unrealistic since PR (PageRank) is > increased by incoming links and if a SEO company is going to put a > link on every page of a clients site to their SEO company site they > are highly unlikely to get the client links.
Honestly, you lost me on that one, except for one part - where you say the above example is unrealistic. What about that is unrealistic? That is completely realistic.
> In my experience most SEOs do not deal with link acquisition, because > it's hard work.
What? Is that a generalization? Now it's my turn to claim "unrealistic".
>>The SEO asks permission to put a link to the SEO's site on the client >>site, >>correctly pointing out that it might reduce the effect of PR on that page.
> The SEO would of added the link during the initial changes, not later.
You are right. They probably would have asked at the beginning. I guess I didnt consider the timing.
>>To put into perspective for the client when they ask about it, the SEO >>points out (also correct) that the client site is currently ahead of sites >>that have higher PR.
> That's why the client paid the SEO. If the SEO did a good job and got > paid for it, that's it, they don't come back and ask for a link > because the client is ahead of the game!
If it was for advertising purposes, they might. At that point the damage might be visible, as in, "Oh oh, adding that link caused the site to be worse off, we better remove the link." or on the other hand, "Adding that link sure didn't affect anything - in fact, your results improved. Who'd of thought..?" Either is possible and neither is absurd.
>>In addition, the SEO points out that a link from the client site adds to >>the >>PR of the SEO site and a link from the SEO site to the client site adds to >>the PR of the client site.
> Who said anything about reciprocal linking?
I did - I would want an SEO to do everything they could to boost my site. If that included the offer of reciprocal linking, then I would want them to offer that. If I didn't feel it was appropriate for my site, I could always decline even if I could be shown that it could easily result in 1% less traffic.
> This is one way links from client site to SEO site. A lot are also > site wide links, so a link from every page of the clients site.
>> If the client site is not the net beneficiary of >>an exchange like that then the exchange should not be proposed. I think >>that was your point, wasn't it?
> Absolutely and a one way link from client site to SEO site does not > help the client in anyway.
This is funny. I think that between all of the people that were involved in this thread, there were probably about 10,000 words written. Then we arrive at what appears to be the crux of the matter. I absolutely agree with the above statement.
>>Finally, my point. One situation - two points of view. What I am trying >>to >>say in the above example, is that you might steer clear of an SEO that >>doesn't exchange links with a client, because they might not be doing >>everything they can to help their client, retaining all the PR they can >>for >>their own purposes.
>>MM
> You mean SEOs should setup reciprocal links with client sites?
> What if the sites aren't really compatible for link exchanges?
> For example I have clients who won't do reciprocal type links to any > sites from their business site because it would look unprofessional to > their users (they have external links, just not the reciprocal kind).
They are always free to refuse a benefit. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be offered.
> I link to my clients sites because I know linking is very important > and as I want my clients to succeed I know they need links. I look at > it this way, a SEO who does not take linking into account is only > doing half the job (if that since linking is way above half of SEO).
That's great. If they were to link back to you, then you would still be delivering more than you took. In addition, if all of your clients linked to you (not sitewide) then you would have more to give back to them, increasing the exchange in their favor.
The best part from your point of view is that somewhere, someone will be looking at one of those sites and see your link and explore it. You will develop business from that. You benefit and your client didn't suffer as long as you gave more PR than you got.
I think that this topic has now been officially beaten to death. I do understand that a one way link from a client site to an SEO site will reduce the PR of the client site. I agree with you that such an arrangement would be a poor practice (unacceptable) on the part of the SEO. Reciprocity changes the situation to one where everyone can be better off, in my opinion.
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:52:19 GMT, from_...@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote: >On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:55:52 GMT, SEO Dave ><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>*yes, still devil's advocating here. But likely my last devilish post*
>>LOL Well I've enjoyed the discussion, hadn't thought it through in so >>much detail before now. I've always known adding a link to my sites >>from my clients sites would hurt their sites, so haven't considered >>doing it, so not needed to think it out in great detail before.
>Well - I know you lean more toward Google whereas I lean to more >toward optimizing for Google _and_ Yahoo both. Hence you would think >more about PR than I would. Iview PR as just one bit out of the Google >algorithem - and one that has been known to have a PR5 site beaten out >by a PR3 or PR4 due to other bits of the algorihem.
Links are important to Yahoo as well. After adding links to a site recently (the one that gets no traffic from Google) traffic has almost increased 50% (~1500 unique visitors a day). The traffic had been stable for months at around 1000 to 1100 unique visitors a day before the new links.
Other than the new links I only changed one page (after traffic started to rise) and so that page is not responsible for most of the new traffic.
>And so this a thought about the unrelated footer link, along with one >or two others discussed between us in the past, is probably going to >be filed into the category of "you and I will have agree to disagree >on some bits".
I don't have a problem with that, would be a pretty boring NG if everyone agreed all the time :-)
You haven't taken the discussion personally like some do, you've stuck to the topic at hand, not trying to 'win' by bringing up unrelated items. It didn't slip into "you must be wrong about this, because you don't have the Search Engine Optimization Services SERP" or "you got a site banned so can't possibly know anything about SEO". And I respect that about you (and others who debate things that way).
Also I consider a win a better understanding of what was discussed, not making the other party agree with me. In that sense I've won from this thread.
>I understand your views - but I also see a bit of the >thinking from the other side of the coin and one that I cannot fully >find fault in as I would do the same thing in their shoes. Being >honest there, though, as I don't view it unethical or unwise at all. >If the link was hidden or very lightly colored in hue, shared in a >mouse-over redirect page, or such thoughts - then yes, I would agree >that the link was unethical and harmful to the client's site.
I fully understand why they do it, it would be very tempting to take links from PR6 client sites, see my SERPs climb, get more clients with PR6 sites, get a link from them and eventually rule the world :-) But my job is to help businesses get better SERPs and I know taking links from them is contrary to this goal.
To add to this a site designers role is to design a functional site etc..., adding a link to the designers site won't prevent them doing their job to the best of their abilities.
>I dont' agree that one link, even with anchor text that doesn't match >the rest of the page, will drastically harm it -
It's not really possible to put a figure/description on how bad it might be since every site is different.
For example a large site (thousands of pages) with high content pages (40KB text) with 50+ links from the page will likely see no negative results from one link to a SEOs site.
On the other hand a 10 page site with very little content and under a dozen links from each page will likely notice a link to a SEO site. That link will be an important part of the page and so will have a negative effect on everything else.
That's considering just one link, if it's site wide links you will likely see a larger negative result. That doesn't include recent problems with site wide linking.
>the SEO hopefully >would've optimized the rest of the text/contents for the clients' >preferred keywords so density thoughts for that one link's phrasing >would be a very low percentage. I do agree that someone sharing 10 or >20 unrelated links, though, may not be helping that page's contents.
Imagine a situation where not adding the SEO link results in a 10% increase in traffic over the first 3 months and this results in extra profit of £10,000.
If by adding a site wide link to the site reduces the improvement to 9% increase, profits drop to £9,000.
I've made these figures up, but it's not hard to imagine that by changing the content of a site, even just one links HAS to have an effect on the site since links are an important part of SEO. When you consider why SEOs are hired should they be making these decisions when it might cost the client money (lost profits)?
>And, as you pointed out, a linking structure that is sound will help >to compensate for PR shared externally.
A sound linking structure would not include site wide links to unrelated sites or even a unrelated link from the home page where most PR is likely to be.
Why send out a link with no return? I have several SEO sites would you link to any of them with no return (money, reciprocal link, Kylies knickers <Big Bill has a large supply>:-))
>You already know my views of >PR hording from discussions past but I don't view a good internal >linking as hording - whereas sharing external links through javascript >you know I don't wholly agree with either.
Yep.
>Ain't splittin' of hairs in this area of thought fun? And with all the >gray areas open to personal interpretation thrown into the kettle too! >:))
LOL, yep. I enjoy a good discussion, makes you think about things in a different light.
I haven't changed my view on this one regarding SEOs, but I do think not so negatively of designers linking from a clients site. It has also made me realise how 'nice' I am to my clients. Compared to other SEOs I charge a fraction of what is considered the norm (we've had a few posts mentioning thousands to hire a SEO, I charge £250 a month). I don't take advantage of a clients site by linking to my site(s), in fact I send them some good links. Unlike a lot of SEOs I keep up to date with the latest research. The number of SEO sites that still stuff the alt attribute of non linking images is laughable.
|
