Re: SEO = Rocket Science?

#1

On 17 Apr 2005 11:36:11 -0700, diyseo (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com (Pramod) wrote:

Quote:

Q1.Straight to the point! Is SEO, black magic / wizardy / secret code
/ rocket science OR can ANYONE do it?

Answer: SEO is not any magic. People who claim that they know the
google algo are nothing but fakes. However, anyone can do SEO - of
course you need to have good knowledge of HTML

Speaking of which did you know you have your <body> start on your home
page in the wrong place?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ization.com%2F

BTW I and quite a few others who post regularly here understand how
the Google algo works to a certain degree of certainty (not 100%, but
enough to make our sites rank in Google long term). It's not that hard
to understand, not like it's rocket science figuring out what works.

Note access to a free SEO Tutorial below that doesn't require a fee
and the info is accurate.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

#2

"SEO Dave" <seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
message news

l9661t02r64fp2bum0btgavvi6d13dip1 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

Quote:

On 17 Apr 2005 11:36:11 -0700, diyseo (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com (Pramod) wrote:

Q1.Straight to the point! Is SEO, black magic / wizardy / secret code
/ rocket science OR can ANYONE do it?

Answer: SEO is not any magic. People who claim that they know the
google algo are nothing but fakes. However, anyone can do SEO - of
course you need to have good knowledge of HTML

Speaking of which did you know you have your <body> start on your home
page in the wrong place?

That ain't all he has wrong. His meta data has the content first a little
backwards.....LOL!!! The bots won't be able to even pick it up..........not
that it is a big thing...but still it is wrong! As Carol has already pointed
out it is hard to read!! And he is using the big no-no read background with
yellow font for some. He is going to send an epileptic in a fit!

Stacey

#3

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:18:58 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

On 17 Apr 2005 11:36:11 -0700, diyseo (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com (Pramod) wrote:

Q1.Straight to the point! Is SEO, black magic / wizardy / secret code
/ rocket science OR can ANYONE do it?

Answer: SEO is not any magic. People who claim that they know the
google algo are nothing but fakes. However, anyone can do SEO -
[snip]

Quote:

BTW I and quite a few others who post regularly here understand how
the Google algo works to a certain degree of certainty (not 100%, but
enough to make our sites rank in Google long term).

Does this make those of us 'long term fakes' though?

And wouldn't a SEO tutorial aimed at primarily Google be exploring of
the Google algo to some degree when coming down to brass tacks? After
all, sharing of tips [such as get good inbound links, use optimal
anchor text, use heading markup, etc.] to help one rank well with
Google's algo and what parts of that algo 'favors' is going beyond the
basic Webmaster Guidelines that Google shares with others and starting
to delve into the Google algo a bit - particularly if bringing up
things like "the Florida Update" in response to at least one person as
"Florida" had a major tweak to the algorithem.

The tutorial can't be sharing of 'ethical' SEO - considering the
keyword carrying comment tags [obsolete] trick being shared, that is.
That stunt shows the author was trying to influence the SE spider with
those 5 to 6 instances shared per page that are accessible by the
spider.

It's not that hard

Quote:

to understand, not like it's rocket science figuring out what works.

Ah - but there are those who want the "wizardry" and "secret code"
thoughts due to impatience. They don't want to consider the time
investment or that some SERPs can't be achieved 'overnight'.

Carol

#4

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote

<snip>

Quote:

Ah - but there are those who want the "wizardry" and "secret code"
thoughts due to impatience. They don't want to consider the time
investment or that some SERPs can't be achieved 'overnight'.

I tried wiggling my nose and folding my arms and blinking, but that didn't
work.:-)

Stacey

#5

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:01:10 -0400, "Stacey"
<stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:qt966193ibp76ot52opfks8do3315nq7mm (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
snip

Ah - but there are those who want the "wizardry" and "secret code"
thoughts due to impatience. They don't want to consider the time
investment or that some SERPs can't be achieved 'overnight'.

I tried wiggling my nose and folding my arms and blinking, but that didn't
work.:-)

Aw gawd ... *mopping up coffee* I have to ask ... Did you do it while
wearing a harem outfit and on a broom?

#6

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:30:47 -0400, "Stacey"
<stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"SEO Dave" <seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
message news

l9661t02r64fp2bum0btgavvi6d13dip1 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On 17 Apr 2005 11:36:11 -0700, diyseo (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com (Pramod) wrote:

Q1.Straight to the point! Is SEO, black magic / wizardy / secret code
/ rocket science OR can ANYONE do it?

Answer: SEO is not any magic. People who claim that they know the
google algo are nothing but fakes. However, anyone can do SEO - of
course you need to have good knowledge of HTML

Speaking of which did you know you have your <body> start on your home
page in the wrong place?

That ain't all he has wrong. His meta data has the content first a little
backwards.....LOL!!! The bots won't be able to even pick it up..........not
that it is a big thing...but still it is wrong!

I dont' know, it is listed backward but not the first site I've seen
that has it listed 'backwards' with content="" being first - and it
may still be readable by the bots but value would be low to begin with
on METAs as META descript appears to only be helpful for the
abstract/snippet but not much else. A few SEs claim to still refer to
the META keywords but I don't think they help on SERPs or ranking
thoughts - particularly if you share some words that aren't repeated
in the page itself.

Wonder what HTML editors insert METAs with the content="" bit first
for the site authors ... Homesite v4 and v5 don't but does DreamWeaver
insert them that way?

Carol

#7

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:30:47 -0400, "Stacey"
stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"SEO Dave" <seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
message news

l9661t02r64fp2bum0btgavvi6d13dip1 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On 17 Apr 2005 11:36:11 -0700, diyseo (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com (Pramod) wrote:

Q1.Straight to the point! Is SEO, black magic / wizardy / secret code
/ rocket science OR can ANYONE do it?

Answer: SEO is not any magic. People who claim that they know the
google algo are nothing but fakes. However, anyone can do SEO - of
course you need to have good knowledge of HTML

Speaking of which did you know you have your <body> start on your home
page in the wrong place?

That ain't all he has wrong. His meta data has the content first a little
backwards.....LOL!!! The bots won't be able to even pick it
up..........not
that it is a big thing...but still it is wrong!

I dont' know, it is listed backward but not the first site I've seen
that has it listed 'backwards' with content="" being first - and it
may still be readable by the bots but value would be low to begin with
on METAs as META descript appears to only be helpful for the
abstract/snippet but not much else. A few SEs claim to still refer to
the META keywords but I don't think they help on SERPs or ranking
thoughts - particularly if you share some words that aren't repeated
in the page itself.

The bots won't pick it up. I checked it with a bot. Yeah, it is a low factor
for ranking. I have found that Yahoo and MSN is using them. I have checked
with phrases only listed in the description. Yahoo can be a while to check
as they take forever to get the new page...then when they do they put the
old one back sometimes.

Quote:

Wonder what HTML editors insert METAs with the content="" bit first
for the site authors ... Homesite v4 and v5 don't but does DreamWeaver
insert them that way?

I don't know. But if he is stating someone needs to know some HTML(in other
postings) and he is an SEO Expert I would think he would put it correctly.
:-)

Stacey

#8

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:01:10 -0400, "Stacey"
stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:qt966193ibp76ot52opfks8do3315nq7mm (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
snip

Ah - but there are those who want the "wizardry" and "secret code"
thoughts due to impatience. They don't want to consider the time
investment or that some SERPs can't be achieved 'overnight'.

I tried wiggling my nose and folding my arms and blinking, but that didn't
work.:-)

Aw gawd ... *mopping up coffee* I have to ask ... Did you do it while
wearing a harem outfit and on a broom?

That may have been the problem, I wasn't wearing the harem outfit(don't even
want to know how I would look in one now!), and I wasn't on a broom. I can't
keep the darn thing up in the air yet!:-)

Stacey

#9

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:40:23 -0400, "Stacey"
<stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:htc661d9nj9tjj2iuqkl7nhjp6iock9bbg (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:30:47 -0400, "Stacey"
stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"SEO Dave" <seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
message news

l9661t02r64fp2bum0btgavvi6d13dip1 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On 17 Apr 2005 11:36:11 -0700, diyseo (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com (Pramod) wrote:

Q1.Straight to the point! Is SEO, black magic / wizardy / secret code
/ rocket science OR can ANYONE do it?

Answer: SEO is not any magic. People who claim that they know the
google algo are nothing but fakes. However, anyone can do SEO - of
course you need to have good knowledge of HTML

Speaking of which did you know you have your <body> start on your home
page in the wrong place?

That ain't all he has wrong. His meta data has the content first a little
backwards.....LOL!!! The bots won't be able to even pick it
up..........not
that it is a big thing...but still it is wrong!

I dont' know, it is listed backward but not the first site I've seen
that has it listed 'backwards' with content="" being first - and it
may still be readable by the bots but value would be low to begin with
on METAs as META descript appears to only be helpful for the
abstract/snippet but not much else. A few SEs claim to still refer to
the META keywords but I don't think they help on SERPs or ranking
thoughts - particularly if you share some words that aren't repeated
in the page itself.

The bots won't pick it up. I checked it with a bot.

Ok - then that solves that mystery.

Yeah, it is a low factor

Quote:

for ranking. I have found that Yahoo and MSN is using them.

Yeah, MSN and Yahoo haven't made it a secret they will use the META
description - but I dont' know how much, if at all, it helps in
ranking on those two ... Yahoo will share the META description as part
of the abstract/snippet though. Google will share the META description
at times - but not like Yahoo does. So that META is noticed but -
value wise - I think it is low. I mean I imagine I could remove all my
METAs off my sites and it wouldn't affect those pages' rankings as the
value is probably that low on the SEs side of the deal as they know
some site owners will [over/mis]use those too due to past history.

ScrubTheWeb hints they will refer to the META keywords bit but they
also hint about having a low tolerance for misuse of it.

I have checked

Quote:

with phrases only listed in the description. Yahoo can be a while to check
as they take forever to get the new page...then when they do they put the
old one back sometimes.

A while? Yahoo can take up to 6 or 8 months to index your new content
or changes to the old content. Not that their spider hasn't noticed -
Yahoo is just slower than molasses on updating their index.

Carol

#10

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:42:09 -0400, "Stacey"
<stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:9pc661l8tdkum2qedb1g6qq9phq0aolarg (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:01:10 -0400, "Stacey"
stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:qt966193ibp76ot52opfks8do3315nq7mm (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
snip

Ah - but there are those who want the "wizardry" and "secret code"
thoughts due to impatience. They don't want to consider the time
investment or that some SERPs can't be achieved 'overnight'.

I tried wiggling my nose and folding my arms and blinking, but that didn't
work.:-)

Aw gawd ... *mopping up coffee* I have to ask ... Did you do it while
wearing a harem outfit and on a broom?

That may have been the problem, I wasn't wearing the harem outfit(don't even
want to know how I would look in one now!), and I wasn't on a broom. I can't
keep the darn thing up in the air yet!:-)

Well you know the oft-shared mantras associated with SEO - "takes
time" and "have patience".

Carol