Message from discussion 'Ethical' SEO?

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news.glorb.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr16.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!e625307f!not-for-mail
From: from_...@nomail.com (C.W.)
Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
Subject: Re: 'Ethical' SEO?
Message-ID: <41937519.421914@news.prodigy.net>
References: <cmdsa2$s2e$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <okclo05iha4ev0r722mor4480vvh1dsogt@4ax.com> <QiOid.131499$Pl.125213@pd7tw1no> <418bb5ae.156556270@news.prodigy.net> <5KRid.132517$Pl.123075@pd7tw1no> <dqbro0hr0hp9h6h2h8oeri5mnif0an8p8o@4ax.com> <418dba40.55177897@news.prodigy.net> <o0oto0paf65j1qcv8cemv20s8nvdlb6nk0@4ax.com> <418ee4fa.65872768@news.prodigy.net> <v5o6p0p7lqtoihr5d33da11riod9bbjv06@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 85
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.239.183.76
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com 1100187249 ST000 4.239.183.76 (Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:34:09 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:34:09 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: FKPO@MC@@S@USTDY\JJL^RLBPJTFQLTLFXVH_IQDJ@_@FNHBK^RAQFW[ML\THRCKV^GGZKJMGV^^_JSCFFUA_QXFGVSCYRPILH]TRVKC^LSN@DX_HCAFX__@J\DAJBVMY\ZWZCZLPA^MVH_P@\\EOMW\YSXHG__IJQY_@M[A[[AXQ_XDSTAR]\PG]NVAQUVM
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:34:09 GMT

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:05:24 GMT, SEO Dave
<seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:

>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]
[snip]
>>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. 

*nods head* Nothing new there though as link popularity thoughts have
been around for well over a couple of years now. 

[snip]
>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. 

Well Joe Blow's Wholly Unrelated Site was kind of _un_related.
*snicker* But no, I don't take most of the "heated discussions" or
debates personally. I think it helps that I remember I can turn off
the computer - it isnt' like all of you live in my neck of the woods. 

>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". 

Some doors don't need to be opened to have their thoughts shared in a
discussion. How your site fared or what SERPs it may have been
targetting were _not_ related to the thoughts I was sharing in this
thread. At least I don't see how they would've been. *shrug* This
doesn't mean that in some discussion in the future that I won't
mention your sites or SERPs .... ;)

[snip]
>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>:-))
>

Ah, but you forgot a snippet I've shared in the past about my linking
practices with other sites.  I do that the old-fashioned way. Out of,
say, 30 links shared to other sites on a page - only aorund 15 to 20
would be reciprocated ones; the others would be unreciprocated ones to
sites I found of interest. 98 to 95% of the links I do share are ones
that closely match the theme of the site's contents shared. 

Now maybe if I hadn't done it the old fashioned way my sites would be
PR7 and PR6 instead of Pr6 and PR5 value. *shrug* I don't lose sleep
over that thought though. And who knows - one day you may wake up adn
see I _did_ share a link to Bill. Will's FAQ, You, John, Eric, Martin,
Phillippe, and/or someone else's site. If I do - it is because I think
folks visiting that particular site of mine would find those sites of
interest. Up to you, on if that ever happens, if the link from my way
is reciprocated or not. I don't twist folk's arms. 

I've also applied the same linking habit to the non-profit
organization's site I maintain for the folks. Their site, currently on
a free level site space at GeoCities, used to be a PR2. It is now a
PR4. Not great but better than what they had with only a couple of new
reciprocated links acquired. I also added around 10 that are not
reciprocated [or weren't the last time I checked]. 

I don't credit the unreciprocated outbound links for that jump [in
placement or PR] as I completely overhauled the site - but I can't say
it has held the site back either. They now land on Page 1 for most of
their targetted phraes so now more actively competiting, online, with
similar group sites from the region.  

>I haven't changed my view on this one regarding SEOs,

Just goes to show that my hubby is wrong when he tries to say I am the
hard-headed one. :)) Now what's really fun is debating something both
parties agree upon - those can be interesting even though, in the end,
the main opinion hasn't changed so both parties still agree. LOL!

Carol