Comments on: Our Definition of Search Engine Optimization

By: David Quaid

David Quaid — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:55:23 +0000

@Caelen No point re-inventing the same wheel and there certainly is a lot of re-usable code reproduced on the web.

As an aside, while a good point you make, an unfortunate example that you picked the e-mail gateway, to wit the HELO standard developed probably 30/40 years ago is directly responsible to the huge spam problems we have now as the security-less prototype became the Model-T standard immediately afterward. Definitely due for re-development but too widespread now?

By: Caelen

Caelen — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:25:54 +0000

@david – true if we abandon all primary research, however I’m just talking about learning from other. If your going to write a email gateway then look at state of the art implementation and learn what you can first. If you are going to launch a platform that can be spammed then look at other platforms that can be spammed. Really I think I’m just saying what you were saying.

By: David Quaid

David Quaid — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:45:40 +0000

@Caelen – at the risk of swerving 90 degree’s off topic – would you not kill innovation?

By: Caelen

Caelen — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:24:26 +0000

@david
This is so true for all areas of software. How many times have engineers written code to send and receive emails? 10s of thousands I’ll wager and nearly every time they write it from first principles. Software is something that is inherently reusable, we should be able to create a body of knowledge so that we effectively re-use tech and don’t have to re-invent it each time.

By: David Quaid

David Quaid — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:57:05 +0000

@Philip

Funny thing about technology is how even the biggest guys fail to learn from each other. twitter is struggling with spam although its doing a great job. Skype struggled with it too. The funniest thing is that Yahoo had far more sophisticated technologies and a larger user base than both twitter and Skype have now – and they had it ten years ago.

Now Google has an open season on leaving comments beside websites which will be publicly visible to all and sundry when logged into Google but they have no verification system/anti-spam system for it…

By: Philip Boyle

Philip Boyle — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:50:08 +0000

@David It’s going to be very interesting to see how personalised search pans out, especially given that the vast majority of users won’t know it is happening to them. It will also have some ramifications for SEO – if a person has a search history (and most will) it will be harder for new websites to break into their personalised search results as the person’s commonly visited sites will be favoured. I wonder how well Search Wiki and Side Wiki will catch on – I certainly haven’t been using them myself.

By: David Quaid

David Quaid — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:50:21 +0000

I think spam and badly generated content, such as repeated keywords/variatinons, nonsense reviews of products, listing products that aren’t stocked in order to bring in traffic to sell other products and anything that doesn’t give the user what they want is unethical to a degree.

That’s probably where personalised search comes in (which is now available even when you aren’t logged in, by default) – it will allow you to block sites like these going forward. You can also a message using Search Wiki and the new Side Wiki tool on the latest Google Toolbar (firefox & IE) – which could be a warning of sorts to some and high praise on others…

By: David Quaid

David Quaid — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:49:24 +0000

@PhilipBoyle

The spam artists are getting a lot cleverer – I’ve even noticed Irish SEO’s posting a lot on my own very simple blog.

I think SEO exists as a real, recognised function of a website. All of the search engines have an SEO forum, advice page – and most of them rank quite highly.

If you have a website and sell BMW’s in Dublin and you develop rich, interesting content, you structure your site cleanly, you don’t overkill meta-information and you read what the search engines direct you to do – for example, using the Description tag to convert people from a search page and not to “trick/fool/other” the search ranking algorithm, then this is ethical. You are keeping the relevance of your content to what you do and what your provide. That way if someone is looking for “BMW Clare” – then you aren’t going to appear there etc just to get extra traffic (albeit with a high bounce rate)

I think SEO includes things like : site architecture, inter-site connectivity – and now more than ever before – conversions. Which means narrowing visitors back to low bounce figures and designing the flow of the site to generate as many pageviews and conversions/enquiries as possible.

By: Philip Boyle

Philip Boyle — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:30:05 +0000

Joe Smith has been consigned to the Spam folder David. I’m interested in hearing any thoughts you have on responsible SEO, particularly anything you think might have changed from being acceptable to unacceptable, or vice versa.

By: David Quaid

David Quaid — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:14:13 +0000

@OP – I think the last comment is blatant Blog Spam – ironic given the nature of the post and the link that “Joe Smith” has placed there.

@Derek – the very workings of Google (Ranking based on Authority where site is relevant) is at the very heart of SEO. SEO is about developing relevant content and growing the authority. You need the two – relevancy is not authority and doesn’t bestow it. You can’t vote for yourself.

Maybe the conversation is – what is responsible SEO and what isn’t?