Talk:Search engine optimization

Highly Relevant Patent Application not allowed?

What is the justification for removing the "Navigable Website Analysis Engine" patent application? The following is extremely relevant (a lot more relevant than half of the articles referenced here), and follows a natural discussion about the speculation on algorithms by public Search Engines. The following was removed because "it needs a secondary source" ???

In 2008, a patent application was filed on a new type of "transparent" Search Engine, called a "Navigable Website Analysis Engine", to show the public how Search Engines used these algorithms to score and rank each web page and link.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote a non-notable patent. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable SEOs not acceptable

What is the justification for this language? Notable SEOs, such as Rand Fishkin, Barry Schwartz, Aaron Wall and Jill Whalen, have carried out controlled experiments to gauge the effects of different approaches to search engine optimization, and have published results through their online forums and blogs.

These people may be notable but they don't carry out "controlled experiments" and their opinions are hardly worth more mention than those of any of dozens of other SEOs in the field.Michael Martinez 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment at the bottom. It's customary to add new threads at the end, not the beginning. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no justification on including a section on notable seos if it excludes smart-traffic.co.uk who have been Googles no1 seo specialist for a very long time and will continue to be so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.120.44 (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That section has been removed; you are commenting on an old discussion. (Now there is an internal link to the category for notable individuals within the SEO industry, but that is a different matter.) The new section you added was pure site promotion. If the company is indeed notable, at some point somebody will presumably create an article about it. You should not do so yourself, and you should not add external links to the company. Thank you. --Bonadea (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of these "notables" should be vetted as some of them are obvious shills for Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texxs (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Spamdex / "Black hat" -- Isn't Spamdex a subset of Black hat?

My understanding of Spamdex, and the Wiki page on it, are very specifically define what it is, while Black hat as defined here includes Spamdexing. Subtitle should be Black hat only. Libertate 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this article to make it better. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to create a page for Jasmine Batra, she's leading the field of SEO here in Australia. She Founded Arrow Internet Marketing, I'm going to place a link to the page in Notable SEO's. She has made SEO more understandable and accessable to everyone. She's also done a heap of stuff on SEO as a way of allowing small businesses to compete with larger competitors. I might also make a page for Arrow Internet Marketing. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napper52 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on SEO

Hello, where would I link this article? The Rise Of The Linkmeisters: a look at the culture of SEO --Jjzeidner (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't, IMO. Seems a random blog post, and not fitting within WP:EL guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the conflict of interest since it is your own blog. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with ZimZalaBim, I don't see encyclopedic value of the article, and being written by you would be a conflict of interest. Not to mention the large amount of advertising on the webpage; I counted 5 seperate ad units. SDSandecki (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any Search engine makes it clear that it disapproves of certain SEO tactics, such as hiding keywords with invisible text. Methods that disapproved for any search engine are called Black Hat SEO. In the ethical sense Black Hat SEO is really "bad". White Hatters say that Black Hatters are unfairly trying to manipulate the SERPs. Black hat method less pure than another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadraza092 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Template

I've made and added a template to help bring about the SEO related articles amongst themselves, and accordingly I've inserted it here, since it is clearly a far tidier and more presentable way of presenting these links. WilliamH (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization

Content from a deleted article, that may be useful here:

Web 3.0 Search engine optimization (SEO) is a process of improving the volume of traffic to a web site based on human input and “future web” standards.

Web 3.0 SEO will be based on standardized formats which specify concepts used in web sites and describe web sites’ structure and content. SEO formats will be used by web crawlers to get more accurate data.
Nowadays a few organizations have been already engaged in Web 3.0 search technology standards development process, such as W3C that defined Semantic web concepts with RDF/OWL specifications, OMFICA which developed Internet Content Description Language (ICDL) oriented to Web 3.0 SEO approaches.

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization - Nabla (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an important topic as the semantic Web is now being integrated in algorithms ranking Web pages. I am pretty sure the term is the Semantic Web, although Web 3.0 has gained some footing. Perhaps a section might be relevant on this page for possible changes on the horizon. There is a growing body of published work about the semantic Web and search engine optimization. Here is a link to an article about Google purchasing a semantic technology company last week: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2366610,00.asp. I've been a member of Freebase for about a year and was surprised when it happened. The search engines are beginning to make massive investments in the semantic Web, and SEO will change because of it. Not sure it can be included yet, but definitely something to consider in the near future as more published work appears. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Better choice of Words

SEO is under sem--not opposed to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.234.185 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let us start to choose better words and sentences on the Internet.

For instance: "Search engine optimization"

This is a totally wrong use of words. It's trying to take a shortcut that only creates confusion. It leads to unnecessary search hits and search time.

Better use of words would be: "Optimization of Search Engines" and "Optimization for Search Engines"

Which both have a totally different meaning that should be clear and not be confused by our misuse of words.

So, we have to start to be more clear in the basic use of our language otherwise optimization either way will lead to nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also good to put some more efforts and unleash your inner keywords wizard by using WordNet, a lexical database for the English language at Princeton, http://wordnet.princeton.edu/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyGhost22 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Implicit in the phrase "search engine optimization" is the phrase, "of websites." Eg "The search engine optimization of websites is done by adding keywords, improving their navigation, and getting them links." Besides, it's a standard nowadays. - Gab Goldenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.252.21 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate(s) for addition to list of internal links

Please consider adding a link to the orphaned article Exploit Submission Wizard in a new list section "Automated search engine submission tools" (or whatever is appropriate) under the heading "See also". (I made the grammatical number nonspecific -- "Candidate(s)" -- because this one might not be the only one for this talk page section. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

SEO and SEM seemingly would compete against eachother, however in many cases they work well when used together. You may want to check out the article written on Googlizeme regarding 10+20=60. The main point focuses on Brand Recognition, and how using both SEO and SEM will boost overall traffic. Brand Recognition in Google SEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCutt (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible link to orphaned article Authority site

Please consider adding a link to the orphaned article Authority site. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Major search engines

I see the list has grown, and now it includes MSN which surely isn't a search engine. I'd discourage any additions to this list as there's already a List of search engines page. What do other think? --Northernhenge (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed and condenses this into a more standard See Also section. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the quality of this article

I was just casually reading through this article to find out more about the topic. While I was reading, I noticed some issues that should not be present in a featured article. In rough order of decreasing severity:

• The section on the various "hats" of SEO needs work. The last three paragraphs were copied word-for-word from the source until I rewrote it, summarizing the passage. The prose in the whole section still has problems.
• I am also concerned about the source I mentioned above. Is "www.websitepublisher.net" a reliable source of sufficient quality for a featured article? Judging from the proliferation of sentence fragments and unclear wording in its article on white, gray, and black hats, I would be inclined to think that it is not.
• The article's prose overall, while acceptable, in my opinion does not meet the FA standard of prose being "engaging, even brilliant" in all areas of the article.
• Some areas of the article are rather sparse on internal links. I can see quite a few places where links would be helpful to the reader but are absent.

This article strikes me as closer to A-class or GA quality than featured. I am not at all familiar with SEO myself, so I suggest that someone more knowledgeable on this matter and more familiar with the article resolve these issues. Thanks, Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

reference 2 is a forum post, and there are other reference like 9, 11, and 25 which are blog posts. How is this a featured article? LightSpeed (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In the two weeks since I posted the above concerns, the only major improvement to the article has been the removal of much of the unreliably sourced content in the "hats" section. The prose and link issues remain. Also, LightSpeed pointed out some references that don't meet WP:RS that I had missed earlier. I'm nominating this article for featured article review, which will hopefully lead to these problems being fixed. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the contributors to this article's FA drive. I am currently involved in an action before the United States Patent and Trademark Office where this article has been cited as evidence by both the defendant and the plaintiff (me). To avoid real world conflicts of interest, I am not going to make any substantial edits to the article while this litigation is ongoing. I hope that other editors will step in and take care of the article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a good idea if you're in the middle of related legal issues. The featured article review will get the attention of the article's other editors, so there will probably be someone willing to work on it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found out at FAR that the sources are fine, and the internal links aren't a big issue. Since a FAR probably isn't needed anymore, I'll bring up the remaining issue here. I still see some prose issues in some areas. Here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:

• At the beginning of the "Webmasters and search engines" section, the first two sentences don't seem to read correctly to me. The way the first sentence is constructed strikes me as somewhat awkward, and the second sentence's wording seems slightly ambiguous or unclear.
• In the last paragraph in the "History" section, the first sentence is confusing. It states, To reduce the impact of link schemes, as of 2007, search engines consider a wide range of undisclosed factors for their ranking algorithms. Does this mean that search engines considered undisclosed factors only as of 2007, or that it is not known whether search engines used these factors before 2007? As I read it, it could mean either one.
• Under the "Legal precedents" section, the second paragraph doesn't explain what KinderStart.com's rationale was for a First Amendment lawsuit against Google; it only says that it was a First Amendment complaint. This paragraph also needs a source.

After reading through the article again, some of the prose problems I saw earlier don't seem to be much of an issue, but it'd be good if these here could be fixed. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed these details, as they do not affect the subject of my trademark dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

images

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#Stripping pictures from FA

i see no reason to post these images
first image is only showing a search result page, not visualize anything in the articel, second is only a Google event shown and the third one is a image of a asian(chinese?) site and is acting like the first picture. First and last picture are fair-use btw. 87.78.112.120 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured article. One of the requirements expectations is that there should be images to illustrate the topic discussed. Removing images could be viewed as damaging the article, though I understand you might have a good faith belief that images are not needed. I suggest not removing them again. I have posted to WP:ANI to get attention from uninvolved editors. Let's see what some of them say. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #3. I believe these images are relevant, and their fair use status was checked when the article passed featured article candidacy. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All three of the images look relevant to my eye: search engine results pages from two different outfits, plus a photograph that illustrates the corporate power of the search engine industry leader. Mr. or Ms. IP, in the future if you object to illustrations please communicate better. The edit where you removed the material contained no summary of your reasons, so it looked like blanking vandalism. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to expect an explanation of why they look relevant (enough to pass the NFCC) to your eye, rather than just the plain statement. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the burden is upon the editor who wishes to change the status quo. This is a featured article; its content has been scrutinized extensively by a variety of editors. If you think the existing consensus is wrong, please make a better case for that and, ideally, propose better substitutes. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Very disappointed with this response. The burden is on the images to pass the NFCC; when this is questioned, we should expect arguments as to how they do, not handwaving and wikilawyering (forgive me, but that's what your attempt to shift the burden is. And if you wish to point me to where the image use is scrutinized extensively, i shall be happy to look.) 86.44.27.95 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles receive the most scrutiny of any pages at Wikipedia. I gather you're already aware of that since you're familiar enough with the site to use the term "wikilawyering". You are attempting to overrule consensus unilaterally, accusing people of impropriety instead of attempting to persuade them, and offering no replacements for the images you consider objectionable. When I first posted to this thread I supposed in good faith that you might have been too new to understand how and why to use edit summaries. Would you please explain how it is that you know site terminology this well, without having supposed that removing all images from a featured article with one edit was the kind of action that calls for an edit summary? I am attempting to determine whether this is a serious and potentially productive discussion; your actions thus far do not have the appearance of good faith. Durova^Charge! 07:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not the OP and have never edited the article. I thought that was obvious from our styles if nothing else. Second, I edit without an account, this does not bar me from any knowledge you are not barred from as an editor. My actions objectively have every appearance of good faith regardless of your determinations. "Comment on the content not the contributor" is a sound principle that we have both heard of, i'm sure. Third, pointing at a discussion which gives no indication image use has been considered does not suggest consensus on the issue, and it is strange to assert so strongly that it does, especially when two discussions are available that explicitly address the issue: this section here, and the ANI thread, suggest that consensus is overwhelmingly with the OP. Fourth, a better alternative is the article minus the two non-free images; i mean this quite sincerely and in several senses (article "better" as in more compliant with policy, and in my view just plain better without images that add nothing, but are on the contrary a distraction if anything). Lastly, making no argument whatsoever, not addressing my post below in any form whatsoever, and then asserting that i need to "make a better case" is a bizarre method of editing. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The google event image is cosmetic eye candy. As it's a free image and people like cosmetic eye candy, i don't see a problem with it. The two non-free images are unneeded. Rationale reason for the first:Educational presentation and critical commentary on search engine results and attempts to influence them. I defy anyone to present a reason why a screenshot of some results significantly increases a reader's understanding of this article. Rationale for the second: Identification and critical commentary in the Search engine optimization. The second is sheer bunk. The first is no justification for a lead image whatsoever; this placement is clearly a result of an irrational feeling that "there should be an image there". The sole sentence in the article body dealing with this is Google attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users, who liked its simple design. Any rationale based on this would be very weak; this is cited to a 2003 article: the 2007 screenshot is not relevant to it.

I'm puzzled that Jechoman has not acted on his beliefs by expending any energy on attempting to justify this image use in response to the edits made by the above IP. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SEO is about improving the quality of a site's appearance in the search results pages. It therefore makes sense to illustrate the article with various pictures of such pages. The article has been reviewed by numerous, experienced editors. One editor with unknown history cannot overrule that sort of consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 07:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are free pics of Google's campus and Israel and China offices on Commons in commons:Category:Google. Wouldn't one of those do just as well to replace the Argentina picture? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Argentina picture is CC licensed and was the one chosen to run with the article on Wikipedia's home page because even at 100px thumbnail size it is still recognizable. Looking at commons:Category:Google, nothing immediately jumps out as more descriptive, but perhaps that's a matter of personal preference. Which do you suggest? Jehochman ^Talk 10:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Might be best to forget I mentioned it. However, I'd say either one of the US campus pics or the China office would make the point that search engines are serious business. Launch shows are less persuasive than bricks and mortar. As for the Google screenshot, I don't see much alternative. Would anyone bother SEO'ing on Sciencenet? I suspect not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like commons:Image:Google Campus2.jpg, but it needs to have some of the brick cropped off the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 10:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SEO is about improving the quality of a site's appearance in the search results pages. Is it? The article does not indicate this. By "the quality of a site's appearance in the search results pages" do you mean the fact that it appears at all, and if so, how high up? I don't see the fact that search engines produce search results as in need of non-free illustration, do you? 86.44.27.95 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is a dispute about that wording, we can look up what the featured article reviewers said. I believe they addressed that. I think there may have been better wording there at some point in the past. Yes, the average reader may not fully understand what a search engine results page is, and an illustration could help them. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the image removals at all, but what is the huge importance of the second image of Google's grand opening at a location in South America? seicer | talk | contribs 13:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We needed something to run on the home page. This image is legible at 100px thumbnail size. I agree it could be replaced if a better image is found. It would be nice to have an image that shows the importance of Google. A suitable image of the Googleplex would be better, if one can be found. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How's this? Durova^Charge! 19:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure an image with the aspect ratio of this crop would do well on the main page, but it's large enough to crop in tighter. I need to get back to an FA drive of my own, so if someone provides info on the preferred thumbnail dimensions I'll see if I can find a recropping to fit the bill. There's enough material here to work with. Best, Durova^Charge! 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed several subsequent trainwrecks at AN/I, and I'm sorry these threads get archived before others can respond. Some input:

1. No, WP:WIAFA does not require an image, nor does WP:TFA; TFAs run without an image when no "appropriate" image is available.
2. Image policy is gradually becoming more clear on Wiki, and only recently has better scrutiny of images for compliance with policy become more rigorous at FAC. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches.
3. No, past FACs did not receive intense scrutiny for compliance with image policy: some received no scrutiny at all, because Image reviewers throughout Wiki are regularly abused of and give up. Because images in an older FA passed FAC does not make them immune to review per current standards.

I haven't looked at the images in question: I am only addressing the misinformation that was propogated (and archived) at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications. I think that the fair use rationales provided by me are acceptable, and unless the copyright holders express displeasure, we should keep the pictures in this article. An article without pictures is boring. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Elcobbola (talk · contribs) and Awadewit (talk · contribs) are good at image evaluation, in case you want to check in with them. I weighed in only because, once again, a thread at AN/I was archived away with incorrect info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, excuse me, but the image of a "typical search results" contains racial slurs about Barack Obama, right after the Wikipedia Link. Just wondering...why this is? And perhaps someone can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.56.31 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now and dropped the uploader a note; it's a complete accident. Kuru ^talk 01:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Link love

I was searching for "link love" and I expected to find a Wikipedia entry but there was none. I see that "Link love" redirects here but it doesn't show in Goggle. And this page has no "link love" in it. I think there should be a page for link love. 88.241.208.2 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GJG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.251.58 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: link love. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary? Unsourced neologism. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally source-able neologism. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Egad! Link love is an entire category on Search Engine Watch. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction on History

Please consider updating the earliest known reference to "search engine optimization" using this new documentation. The Usenet spam posting currently being used for documentation of the earliest reference to SEO is about 6 months later than this proof. thanks! Audette (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia needs to be pruned

I believe this sequence of edits has introduced trivia and violated WP:UNDUE. Could somebody with no business dealings with Mr. Gambert and Mr. Cimring please make a determination. The edits do look like they were made for the purpose of promotion, rather than to improve the article. (I am opposing Mr. Gambert's SEO trademark registration attempt.) Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SEO 2.0

I think the SEO 2.0 page should be merged here.

Suggest link to SEO encyclopedia article

I am not conversant with Wikipedia culture, so -- even though I realize one can edit freely -- I am tossing this out there to see if someone more sophisticated cares to add a link to this encyclopedia article, perhaps under External Links: http://www.hastingsresearch.com/net/09-SEO-ELIS-encyclopedia-article.html

ELIS is a production of Taylor & Francis publishers, and this edition was produced under the direction of UCLA's GSEIS (Graduate School of Education and Information Science) to encyclopedia standards: neutral; no unsupported hypotheses; citations of all theories which are not commonly accepted knowledge.

Since the hardcopy of the encyclopedia will be in the USD 2000 range, this may be the only open access version available.

http://industrialwebcenter.com/Articles/On-Page-Optimization--The-very-Heart-Of-Successful.aspx - This link also have menationed some simple techniques to start seo, which I think will be beneficial for new user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifersalerno (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

66.53.121.152 (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals

I propose a link to Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals (WP:O). -- Wavelength (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Other methods

Variety of other methods are employed to get a webpage indexed and shown up in the results. Few methods listed below:

• Cross linking between pages of the same website. Giving more links to main pages of the website, to increase PageRank used by search engines. Linking from other websites, including link farming and comment spam.
• Keyword rich text in the webpage and key phrases, so as to match all search queries. Adding relevant keywords to a web page meta tags, including keyword stuffing.
• Title and url optimisation for a page. Search engines give more weight to url and title match over page text match.
• URL normalization for webpages with multiple urls, using "canonical" meta tag.

Discussion

I removed this suggested addition because it needs copy editing and references for verification:

Each bullet point needs a reference, and I think this should be converted to prose, rather than a list. Additionally, we need to be careful that Wikipedia is not a "How-to" manual, but certainly this article should cover the basic methods of SEO. We also need to check that the above items are not redundant with content in the article already. Jehochman ^Talk 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs ref. Only sentences that are likely to be challenged need to be given ref. And this is not "how-to", but it is list of "commonly used methods". Boated idea s (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when we give wikilink to another article, refs can be found that page. I have added enough refs by now, you may ask for more refs using {{fact}} tag. Boated idea s (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But what if other page gets deleted? Then the references on the wikilinked pages go away. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In such case of deletion I will give external ref. Already i have added enough, now take a look, and place fact tag which you challenge. Regards, Boated idea s (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am challenging the new content (and removing it) because: (a) It lacks proper sources. We cannot cite http://www.netsol.com/ as a reliable source about SEO. (b) The new content is excessively detailed for this article. Perhaps a new article could be created Search engine optimization methods and linked from this one. My concern is that this article is a featured article and thus, we need to maintain high standards of sourcing and copy writing. Feel free to continue to refine your proposed content. I am open to including it once my concerns are addressed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree featured articles needs to be maintained for standards, but the article became featured in 2007. Especially modern topics go out of date very fast, and it is time to move on. Boated idea s (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article is indeed short, and definitely no need of creating separate article as suggested by Jehochman. Boated idea s (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

An article should be as long as it needs to be. If we are going to cover SEO methods, why not do a thorough job and cover all of them, both black hat and white hat? Such coverage, if complete, would be much more than one article could handle. Anyhow, I recommend keeping this article at featured article standards. Any new content can be developed at Talk:Search engine optimization/Draft in rough format, and then moved into the article once it has been polished. Thank you for offering new ideas and updates. I agree that the article should be updated. Jehochman ^Talk 04:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are forcing me to work hard and more? It is supposed to be voluntary "contributions" right? Why not we all do it together? You know if we keep content in talk page it wont be edited by community. And i feel article should give more emphasis on methods used than "irrelevant" black hat or white hat, either you are misguiding me or you dont know about the subject. Boated idea s (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimisation Techniques

Search Engine Optimisation tools / methods are constantly changing.

As the number of websites increase, it will become increasingly difficult to get your website onto the first page of the major search engines.

Say you have an e-commerce website offering a wide variety of gardening related goods. The site and category URL's are extremely important and should include wording that describes the range of products. In a gardening website, you may have categories for Garden Machinery, Garden Furniture, Garden Buildings etc.

The repeated 'Garden' term is useful to let the search engines understand the general nature of the site - however, this term is generic and unlikely to reach the first page on any search engine on it's own.

As you move away from the Home Page the relevence of any term decreases due to dilution amonst other terms and products.

One way to overcome this problem is to restrict the range of products on any website. Therefore instead of a multi range website like 'internetgardener' it will become increasingly more beneficial to have niche websites such as 'BuyGardenFurnitureOnline' that focus the majority of the text and images to 'Garden Furniture'. Follow that logic further down the line and you will end up with 'BuyCastAluminiumGardenFurnitureOnline' to focus text on a particular sector of the Garden Furniture market.

The route described above cannot be considered in isolation. As an example, major search engines will recognise similarities in sites from the same server. It will provide be little benefit if search engines take the combined relevance of all websites from one server and split this by the number of websites promoted - you could end up with the all inclusive 'internetgerdener' website being downgraded with only nominal increase in the relevance of the niche websites.

The website platform has a huge effect on the time taken for the major search engines to recognise and promote a site. Many sites use off the shelf source coded platforms that are adapted to suit each customer. This route is cheaper than commissioning a bespoke website. However, the main consideration has to be for a clean code structure that introduces the least number of obstructions to allow the maximum depth of search by the search engine crawlers.

Rb135 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

ك —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.41.61 (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"See Also" section: Acceptable Links and Additions

I saw a warning in the "See Also" section. It told me to come here to ask if a link is acceptable. So here it is: Search engine optimization methods Is that acceptable? Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, because it is already linked to in the "Methods" section. "See also" should be mostly for links not included inline in the text. Haakon (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What about links to Search engine marketing and Pay per click? Jonslate ([[User talk:Jonslate|talk}}) 06:17, 17 July 2010 (ET)

SEM is linked three times on the page already; once in the lead, once in the sidebar, and once in the bottom nav pane. PPC is also on the bottom nav. Kuru (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a good article on search neutrality that is relevant to SEO. Fmccown (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"External Links" section: Suggested Addition of free SEO Book

I would like to offer my free SEO Book as a link resource:

The book is entirely free and I have nothing to gain from any increased traffic or visibility (for the last 3 years I have run a software company Darwin, and no longer provide SEO services).

The book is based on over a decade experience of working closely with clients and leading search search engines. Everything in the book is tried and tested, has examples, and is written in plain english. Turning the clock back, if I had wanted to learn about SEO and visited Wikipedia, I would have liked to have found such a resource - hence my motivation for giving something back to the community.

It is my proposal that a link to the book be listed in the External Links section at the bottom. Comments please.

regards,

M150565 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained to you before why this link is not acceptable. Still isn't, and your attempts to clumsily promote your other endeavor are not appreciated. Kuru (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Star?

How can this article be a featured article, while it contains sentences like "However, link spamming can also have a bad impact on your search result position." (my search result position, wth?), "We can say the legal SEO is a white hat SEO" (who is we + what is this sentence doing here?). Wikipedia is dieing? --77.249.244.103 (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Those sentences appear to be remnants of spam or poor edits that were made. Feel free to rip out any bad content. This is the most heavily spammed article on Wikipedia in my perception. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

¿Whadju say?

This article uses a lot of therms that are well-known by those who use them on a regular basis, but utterly unknown to most others. Some of them have links to other pages which explain the term, some do not; either way, these terms shoudl be explained in-article for those of us who don't understand. It is cutomary in the English language to write the maening first, then the term the first time it is used, then ther term alone after that. (that's a hint). 97.120.239.247 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON`

Please specify which ones need explanation. Usually we link to the explanation, rather than repeating it. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The verb "to game" as in "Although PageRank was more difficult to game" "these methods proved similarly applicable to gaming PageRank."--Timtak (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition

SEO or Search Engine Optimization as its name says is about Correcting or Optimizing a webpage for allowing search engine bots to exact information to do further analysis. Claiming it is for maximizing traffic is irrelevant. Doing search engine optimization does not rank a webpage high, or maximize traffic to a website there are many other factors responsible. SEO only makes appropriate atmosphere for a website to get quality traffic. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Adopted the definition from SEMPO http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&oldid=372734032. Please discuss if it needs any alterations.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting reference, though it is not complete because it does not account for link building activities, which are also part of SEO. I've modified the lead for style, clarity and accuracy. The reference can be used in the article. I will take another look and see where to put it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Link building is not part of SEO though it is commonly believed to be. It was originally part of Online Marketing. People used to build links from other websites in order to gather visitors to their websites. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again there's another common misunderstanding that SEO is only for unpaid visitors, does SEO not help PPC?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Score#Landing_Page_Quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh J. Acharya (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

History

{{editsemiprotected}} Rand Fishkin is mentioned as a notable person in the "History" Section, but there is no link to an article about this person. The article for Rand Fishkin has been deleted 3 times - possibly at the request of the subject himself - Rand Fishkin. His blog is referenced at least twice in this article, supporting his notability. Either remove the mention or create a link and article.

≈Netizen1138 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Somebody can be a reliable source for an article, but that does not mean they are instantly notable. Take a look at other articles such as Gamma ray burst. Numerous scientists are cited, but almost none of them have Wikipedia biographies. Yes, Rand Fishkin requested deletion of his biography. Is the current consensus of the Wikipedia community that we delete biographies of borderline notable subjects at their request. This does not mean they should not be mentioned in articles where relevant. Jehochman ^Talk 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Rand Fishkin is known as one of the most famous, or one of the most famous Google Shills out there. The last thing the world needs is a shill toted as an expert. texxs (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

would like to change a line

I'm not even going to ask why this article is locked but instead just suggest my change:

I feel that: "The term "search engine friendly" may be used to describe web site designs, menus, content management systems, images, videos, shopping carts, and other elements that have been optimized for the purpose of search engine exposure." Should be changed to: "The term "search engine friendly is used to describe web site urls, content and links that a search engine is able to read, follow and store in their databases."

The last section of the original sentence refers to things that have been "optimized" for maximum effect. Just being search engine friendly doesn't mean it's been optimized. Images also cannot be search engine friendly, nor can videos. The page they are on can be, a sitemap that is, can be created... etc, texxs (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a reference too

as a Canadian SEO practitioner, I would like to add a reference link to our own blog that talks about Canadian SEO..... I would think that this would be a relatively agreeable task, if you consider that SEO up here is somewhat different than in the US or around the globe...especially as we have our own google.ca index and server farms too. I dont' know "how" to add same either, by the way, so to whomever receives this request, should it be granted, I'd also then need to know "how" to edit the page to add this reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVRudnick (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No thank you. If you have reliable sources, then you can update the article with them, but blogs do not fall into that category. Kuru (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article status

Does it bother anyone else that this article depends so heavily on primary blog sources from the search engine sites? Should its FA status be re-evaluated? Active Banana (^bananaphone 02:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been long discussion about this. Which sources are you concerned about specifically? Some things that look like "blogs" are reliable online publications, such as http://searchengineland.com/ (I sometimes write for them) and Search Engine Watch. In this field the majority of reliable info is publish online, rather than on dead tree media. I just looked through the article and removed some spam or dubious information. The article is attacked by spammers quite frequently. Sometimes stuff slips in. If you post an questionable sources, I will be glad to review them. Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes googleblog et al may be "reliable", but they are not third party independant sources. Where is the coverage and information from non-primary source publishers?Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Googleblog? I don't see that being used in the article. Which other sources are you concerned about? I can't answer you without specifics. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the large number of citations that come directly from search engine sites rather than third party sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

External links

Search engine optimization Guidelines

I do not see that the above link which has been suggested for inclusion in the article meets the WP:EL criteria for those that should be included or considered, in fact it appears to fall under those that should not be included. WP:ELNO. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to propose a link to Google's page on "Search Engine Optimization (SEO)" @ http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35291 CreativelySpecialised (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

New section/article proposal for affiliated professionals

I would like to propose that the search engine optimizer disambiguation redirect is removed, and a full scope section (or separate article on) affiliated professionals be added. I see that we have Search engine optimization copywriting with its own article, as well as digital marketing engineer but it would be good to get this clarified correctly.

Example: the copywriting article mentions "SEO copywriters often work with "optimizers" who are more expert in the technical aspects of SEO" yet there is currently no link I can point to which clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the software, marketing, server admin professionals that may be involved in the SEO work undertaken for a website.

I suggest we remedy this with a section in the main SEO article, or we branch it off and remove the disambiguation - any thoughts on clarifying this, people? Fuddydud20 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the subjects are distinct enough to merit a separate article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're probably right that unique articles expanding the area isn't justified just yet, but it would be nice to have somewhere which explains the roles and duties involved in the professional work this topic entails.

((To explain, the reason WHY i'm suggesting this was because I'm actually one of those server admins - new, working in a large SEO agency in their infrastructure team and one of my colleagues explained the reason for some IIS changes (302 redirects, bad, 301 redirects by default, good)... I wanted to learn more about his actual role here (more than just "website developer".. yet but this SEO article on Wikipedia, normally so useful for background info, totally fails to clarify the subject at all. I ended up having to go to external websites to explain the difference between some of my colleague's jobs, despite the fact that they call themselves "SEOs"... confusing to outsiders, would be good to get a proper area to "link to" for more information to be honest.)) Fuddydud20 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

SEO optimization with SAPE and cost of traffic

I cannot find information in the article about SEO optimization by SAPE links. Also we must understand cost of usefull traffic. Calculation cost of usefull trafic and SAPE optimization Example of research. Use Google Trans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoPR (talk • contribs) 08:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have marked searchenginejournal.com as dubious

I have marked the references citing searchenginejournal.com as WP:dubious after I located an article it published on how to spam Wikipedia and stay under radar on its site. It was posted by its editor and it is evident that it deviates significantly from WP:NPV in favor of their target audience, the SEO affiliates. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-to-link-spam-wikipedia/3240/ Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think more important is whether the site is reliable and authoritative on the subject of SEO. It looks like that site is somewhat well-known but editorial in nature, so it's probably only appropriate for sourcing "some people say/believe" statements on a case-by-case basis (assuming the statement is appropriate for WP in the first place). I think you were right in marking dubious the references that you did. E.g, if "Google announced..." something, then the reference should be as close as possible to the announcement itself. And an informal poll from 2006 isn't very useful at all. Maghnus (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

COI explanation

It has been made clear by the number 1 major contributor to this article Jehochman that he is indeed an insider with a biased view in another discussion concerning someone connected with SEO. In WP:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Wall, he stated "As an insider, my perspective is biased. To me, Aaron Wall is notable, but to those outside the search marketing community it might not look that way, and perhaps the references are too thin to write a proper article.". Wikipedia is intended for the general audience and not to heavily exhibit in the view of insiders. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Jehochman was merely saying that his background (where presumably he encounters discussion regarding SEO) means he knows that Wall is a "notable person in his field" (the "bias" is that he is not dependent on Google searches to know whether Wall is notable in his field). The same comment ends with "If the result here is to delete ... I can accept that", which is the opposite of COI.

Jehochman has made 490 edits to this article (6.4 edits per month, starting in April 2005), and following is a summary which groups contiguous edits into one diff:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256

I won't remove the COI tag at the moment but there has been no justification for the claim that a particular editor has a COI with regard to this article, and the tag should be removed very soon unless a precise justification can be offered. I checked a few of diffs above—none suggest COI. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We should just remove the COI tag ASAP -- 490 out of 6,016 total edits is like 8%... Raysonho (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look at all 256 edits. I did look at several and saw nothing like WP:COI. If you're claiming there is a needle in that haystack, please produce the needle for examination. Maghnus (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misread the intent of that list. Anyway, Imagine this were a mathematics article and one of the active editors admitted elsewhere that he is a mathematics professor and thus "biased" in that other discussion's context. COI for this article? By no means... I'd be more concerned about original research edits. Maghnus (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that author should not have been singled out, however there are many questionable sources that are left behind in his edits. These questionable sources may have COI in that there are many primary sources without much editorial control and self-published materials. The said author maybe seen as credible source only to insiders advocating the interest of those involved. Sites such as mattcutts.com blog.ericgoldman.org are some of the frequently cited sources in this page and they're self-published material. Others are publications of interest to insiders, such as webpronews.com searchenginewatch.com, a number of personal site like blogs and a very few mainstream secondary sources like WSJ. Nonetheless, these questionable sources are preferentially kept even though they are not up to WP:RSstandards. When most of the sources are catered to the industry, it is very likely that there is bias and COI. Much like an article written on petroleum energy almost entirely from petrochemical industry publications. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

New tags

Great, now we have two new tags: self published and original research (diff). Clearly there will never be an up to date and gold plated source for what should be said about SEO (only dubious websites will ever say anything meaningful about the topic), and a quick look makes me think there are some pretty reasonable sources in the article. Of course more are desirable, and there are unsourced statements, but these tags do not feel quite right given that they have just been introduced after consensus chose to remove the COI tag. Are there any specific problems that can be identified? Are they sufficiently serious to warrant tagging the whole article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

These tags are justified per wp:SPS and WP:OR. Blog entries are clearly SPS. Some contents in this site are not referenced at all and can't be verified. WP:SROUCES does not show personal blogs as quality sources.Eric Goldman's blog is not a reliable source under these definitions. It is his website, where he personally has total control of what is published, therefore it is more or less a personal website. Would you accept a webpage written by someone who works in a gas station repair shop as a credible reference for automotive articles? If this was allowed, anyone can make a webpage, write up stuff to include as a reference on Wikipedia. Unless the authors are WP:N through coverage of more than mere passing in mainstream media, I don't see how they're much different from personal websites. Many of the SEO websites like searchengineland.com simply pubishes articles submitted by authors. For these reasons, I can not agree that many sources in this article meets WP:RS standards. If you disagree, please present your argument why they do. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Eric Goldman is a professor of law at Santa Clara University, and is therefor an expert in the relevant field. From WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It's pretty clear he meets that criteria. If it was in reference to something not related to law, then it wouldn't be appropriate. Additionally, the searchengineland reference was written by Danny Sullivan, another expert in a relevant field, quoted extensively by reliable third party sources. I'm not seeing the problem here, the sources meet the guidelines and the tags should be removed. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your your input. Maybe Eric Goldman pass. I would like input from other editors. I have a discussion in place on reliable source noticeboard. Danny Sullivan appears to be only mentioned in brief passing here and there much like "Officer Jones from Police Department said accidents declined dramatically after installing stop signs" in Fox News, but that does not increase the validity of the information as its still statement made from his personal opinion/feelings. Although, original research tag ought to stay there in my opinion, because there are some signification portions that are completely unreferenced. In any case, the article heavily depends on blogs from Searchengineworld.com, Mattcutts and Eric Goldman and it could use reliable secondary sources. Do you editors feel an article written almost entirely on input from marketeers is encyclopedic? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying that the article is written entirely by marketeer input is needless hyperbole. Matt Cutts is an expert in the field, as is Eric Goldman. Both are acceptable reliable sources for the purpose of this article, and saying that they are marketeers is a bit disingenuous. What part of the article specifically is original research? The self published tag needs to be removed, as it is obviously not needed. The sources cited are experts. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple choice test: Articles on marketing topics should reference publications written by experts in (A) astronomy, (B) ancient history, or (C) marketing. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 7 September 2011

(UTC)

(D). People with some knowledge, but without bias in the subject matter and do not wish to color it a certain way. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of bias are you alleging me to have? My bias is no different than that of any published expert. Jehochman ^Talk 11:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This tagging is incorrect, a continuance of actions by the same inexperienced editor who has already left an improper warning template for me,[1] and made a frivolous complaint at WP:ANI.[2] If Cantaloup2 wants to press the issue, I recommend seeking the intervention of an uninvolved administrator. Featured articles represent the highest quality articles on Wikipedia. They have been thoroughly reviewed and should not be tagged "multiple problems"[3][4] without first discussing the matter to make sure that there really is a problem, and that the editor proposing to place the tags does not seriously misunderstand Wikipedia's policies. Jehochman ^Talk 01:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement does not equate improper or incorrect. Concerning AfD on Wall, you were persistent to insist he is "highly notable". Majority did not. You also restored some contents that I removed even though the cited source did not validate the contents you restored. It appears we were looking at policies through different eyes. Agree to disagree on calling some of the sources as acceptable WP:SPS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Paper does not magically make a source more reliable. There are blogs with editorial supervision that are highly reliable, such as Search Engine Land or TechCrunch. These are not to be conflated with unreliable personal opinion blogs. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If Cantaloupe2 is the only editor wanting these tags, as is apparent, then they should be removed. I'm not seeing any COI problem with Jehochman either. Having his own opinion on the notability of an individual for Wikipedia, and then accepting other editor's consensus when they disagree with him is exactly how you should behave. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I support and concur with Jerochman's recent edits to the article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the things Cantaloup2 points out are in fact problems needing attention. In the spam-revert cycles this article suffers things are sometimes lost or not fully repaired. I recommend Cantaloup2 goes through the article and makes a list of specific problems and posts them here. Then we can fix or explain them. If anything doesn't get fixed in a few days, at that point a maintenance tag could be applied so that the issue isn't forgotten. The article is read by 5,000 people per day. Let's try to keep it looking good. I'm not a big fan of maintenance tags: better to fix things instead of loading the page with distractions. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because we disagree does not make it a vandalism. I find some of the sources questionable. Some of the materials published on SEJ like How to Link Spam Wikipedia as linked in talk page makes me give it a second thought. User:Maghnus agrees with marking it dubious and that user also expressed concerns about portions that maybe original research, but you disagree. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote. A consensus depends on logic and knowledge. This source was reviewed and approved as part of the featured article review process involving many experienced editors. A couple editors showing up on the article talk page don't overrule a prior consensus. We can discuss the matter, and replacement sources might be found, but please do not make the article ugly with tags until there is a consensus that the source must be replaced. You should assume that things are proper in a featured article until somebody presents strong evidence to the contrary. Should that happen, I will replace the source promptly. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The journal Science can be a poor reference (consider all of the published studies that are later refuted), and a blog can be a good reference in some contexts. I could be wrong, but SEJ does not appear to have the necessary oversight to elevate it above "blog" status in terms of reliability. Most of the articles are pure commentary.

I discussed two SEJ references above and agreed that they were dubious in their contexts. It looks like only one (an informal poll that probably shouldn't have passed scrutiny) was in the article when it originally became featured. Moreover, it was actually a "meta-reference" to justify saying SEOmoz was "top-ranked", presumably to preempt any dispute about SEOmoz's notability in the field. Questions of SEOmoz's notability (which I don't have) should occur on the talk page, so the "top-ranked" and accompanying reference were superfluous.

The other reference, which I haven't edited, is the article "8 things we learned about Google PageRank". If the statement being sourced was "Loren Baker learned 8 things about Google PageRank" then that's the perfect reference. Rather, the statement in the article is "In 2007 Google announced a campaign against paid links that transfer PageRank." SEJ is dubious as a source for that claim. If Google announced a campaign, the reference should be Google's announcement of the campaign, not one of the thousands of reactions to their announcement. Maghnus (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensusis not just majority vote, but its a significant part of it. I explained that SEJ is dubious. You claim otherwise and reinstated source. Who is the burden of proof on? The removing editor to prove dubiousness or reinstating editor to prove quality? seachenglineland.com, searchenginejournal.com, searchenginewatch.com, webpronews.com all of which are referenced in various search engine related articles appear to be targeting players in the industry. Many of articles on these pages include about section on author to promote their business. Editorial oversight does not appear to be anything close to that of mainstream press. I find neutrality questionable as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream press don't know very much about search engine optimization, except what they learn by reading Search Engine Land, Search Engine Watch, and all the rest. Specialized journals are preferable to popular media when writing about science, technology, engineering and math topics. When the New York Times or USA Today writes an article about this topic, they contact writers from the above web sites and interview them. The sites have editors who check submissions and will not publish dubious or promotional articles. With all due respect, you don't appear to know very much about this field and are additionally not a very experienced Wikipedia editor. It looks like you have some kind of axe to grind based upon the tone of your comments. Frankly, your aggressive, know-it-all tone rubs me the wrong way. Rather than arguing and fighting I wish you would attempt to understand that which I am explaining to you. There have in the past been lengthy discussions about the reliability of these sources here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. Please familiarize yourself with them before commenting further. Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Frankly, your aggressive, know-it-all tone rubs me the wrong way. "Speak for yourself. Disagree? "vandalism". Don't like? "harassment". You like the source "it's absolutely credible". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue or fight. Please make a list of problems with the article and we can correct them. But please don't make me repeat long ago settled issues when you can simply read through what was discussed before. The sourcing in this article was reviewed and approved by multiple editors at featured article candidacy. If you find bad sources that were inserted after the candidacy I am willing to discuss them, of course. Policy on sourcing is clear that industry-specific journals are preferable to mass media sources when covering highly specific, technical topics. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger

Image search optimization, Sarch engine marketing, Search_engine_optimization_copywriting as well as blackhat or white hat appears to be rephrasing or sub-category of this article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Image search optimization is worth maybe one or two sentences in this article. Search engine marketing is related to paid placement, which is completely different and must be its own article. SEO copywriting is another one or two sentence topic for this article. So, merge those two, but not search engine marketing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Search engine optimization has to do with organic (AKA "natural") search results. Search engine marketing involves paid (AKA "sponsored") results. They are two different things. Both can involve raising the visibility of a company's products or services, and they certainly can be coordinated in a company's marketing efforts. However, just because I eat meat and starches together, that doesn't mean meat and starches should have a combined article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.163.190 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As only a slight refinement to the previous comments but in full agreement over the separation of terms ... while Search Engine Marketing is typically associated with paid placement, both paid placement and Search Engine Optimization (organic) are technically subtopics of the umbrella term Search Engine Marketing, and parts of the overall online marketing mix. Search Engine Optimization is certainly worthy of it's own article however, because of the vast number of elements potentially involved in any organic campaign ... but SEM and SEO share no similarities otherwise and should not be merged as one topic. Digitalzenmarketing (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SEO and SEM are two different things as SEO relates with unpaid search rankings whereas Search engine marketing involves paid search result inclusion. Search engine marketing can be merged into Internet marketing but can not merged in SEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdwivedi (talk • contribs) 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review

With the amount of tags on this page (many of which are about original research) - does this page need re-reviewing? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The tagging is from an editor who is not happy with the consensus view on a certain issue. Last time I looked, no examples of text in the article have been specified that illustrate the claimed problems, despite requests. There are claims above about self published sources, but as has been pointed out, the sources are exactly appropriate for this article. I was planning to remove the tags in a day or two after the point had been made. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq hits the nail on the head. This article is frequently attacked by spammers. We must remain vigilant because sometimes valuable content is lost in between the attacks and the reverts, but in general the article is in pretty good shape. A few recent books have been published on the topic of SEO. If somebody has time, it would be worth reading titles such as The Art of SEO: Mastering Search Engine Optimization (Theory in Practice) by Enge, Spencer, Fishkin and Stricchiola and Marketing in the Age of Google by Fox, and giving the article an update. Jehochman ^Talk 11:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the article I think it needs careful checking. Due to the volume of spamming and reverting valuable content has been lost and dubious content has crept in at a few places. I went through and did a first pass at cleaning up. Rather than adding excessive maintenance tags and further messing up the article, please look for issues and fix them directly or document specific concerns here. Also, please look in the history to find pre-vandalized/spammed versions of sections or paragraphs that appear to be damaged. Many correct versions of the article is available in the history. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a first pass at fixing latent problems. Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverse SEO

There should be something about "reverse seo".

About removing bad publicity from the Internet, but "drowning" it in positive or neutral stories. Many companies offer this, search for "erasing bad publicity from the internet" or just "reverse seo".

88.234.3.75 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• See Online reputation management. Trivialist (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2012

Seo Expert in Delhi <link removed> Lokeshj26 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, there are millions of SEO "experts" out there, we only mention those who are notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Video SEO should be acknowledged in this, why?

Because video search engines wouldn't know a contents location, thumbnail, duration, subscription (or not), eposodic relationships, video gallery, filetype, family friendly and location if there wasn't video SEO in place.

I would like to write this if I may.

@matdwright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matdwright (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

Eric Schmidt is misspelled in the article. ~ 72.16.18.113 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)