Re: SEO theories

John Dunlop wrote:

I heard somebody say most of the 'SEO theories' are a 'big
hoax'.

Comments?

What do you mean by 'SEO theories'?

What is 'SEO theory' in general?

and can you give a specific example of one?

Davémon
-------

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:06:30 +0100, Davemon <nospam (AT) nowhere (DOT) no> wrote:

John Dunlop wrote:
I heard somebody say most of the 'SEO theories' are a 'big
hoax'.

Comments?


What do you mean by 'SEO theories'?

What is 'SEO theory' in general?

and can you give a specific example of one?

Davémon
-------

I think he was a troll, DM, don't worry about it.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:59:40 GMT, John Dunlop
<usenet+2004 (AT) john (DOT) dunlop.name> wrote:

Davemon wrote:

John Dunlop wrote:

I heard somebody say most of the 'SEO theories' are a 'big
hoax'.

Comments?

What do you mean by 'SEO theories'?

Simply a reference to what somebody else said.

In answering the question, you can assign any value to it you
like.

What is 'SEO theory' in general?

You tell me. And can you also tell me how, apart from their
goals, 'SEO Theory' and authoring guidelines differ?

and can you give a specific example of one?

I'm not in a position to.

Don't feed the trolls!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

John Dunlop wrote:

John Dunlop wrote:

What do you mean by 'SEO theories'?
In answering the question, you can assign any value to it you
like.

Thanks, I'll assign values of:

a) Myths that an SEO practitioner will put forward in order to sell
their services, these will chiefly be moral (black or white hat) and
contain some notion of quantifiability. i.e. "Ranking scores", or
"Increased Traffic". These myths will be used to justify and defend the
activity.

b) Models of how search engines work held by an SEO practitioner, and
ideas regarding: what evidence those models should be constructed on,
how that evidence should be gathered and theories regarding how to apply
those to the construction of 'hypertexts' (and/or web-based applications).

c) Theories that help sustain the 'SEO community' - including notions of
the value of the SEO activity, and its relative importance in the
construction of 'hyptertexts'. (Compare SEO Theory with the more
established Communication Theory and Design Theory and their impact on
the construction of 'hypertexts').

d) Theories regarding how people use search engines, as held by SEO
practitioners ( a subset of theories regarding 'what the web should
be'), and including a folk-psychology of 'search'.

And can you also tell me how, apart from their
goals, 'SEO Theory' and authoring guidelines differ?

No, I can't. 'Authoring guidelines' are reasonably well defined by the

W3C, and we don't (as far as I am aware) have a common definition of
what 'SEO Theory' might entail, however, if i take my example 4 points
above as being a guide to what 'SEO Theory' might be:

SEO Theory, by definition, would be an ideological framework based on
the percieved dominance of SE's over the use of the web, and
subsequently upholding dominant ideological notions such as competition
as a positive force in society, and the rights of private companies to
'hold the keys' to information.

The W3C guidelines regarding HTML are largely based on an egalitarian,
but somewhat conformist and essentially reductivist ideology. However, I
would say that XML is as ideologically free as a mark-up language can be
(not withstanding its inherent structuralist leanings).


HTH

Davémon
-------

John Dunlop wrote:

[...]
I doubt very much that when he made his claim the original
claimant had any of those values in mind, except (a).

Indeed.

And can you also tell me how, apart from their
goals, 'SEO Theory' and authoring guidelines differ?

No, I can't.

Neither can I, but that doesn't mean the two don't differ.

Yes, they are definately different things. My earlier post mentioned how

I think they differ at their most fundamental level, but only *if* you
accept my entire definition of 'SEO Theory', other definitions of 'SEO
Theory' will (of course) have different differences, which I can't answer.

What does a 'SEO expert' do then?

...'expert' is a relative and emotionally charged term, so I'll leave it

out, if that's ok?

In general an 'SEO practitioner' applies their conclusions based on *b*
and *d* primarily to the construction of hypertexts and secondarily to
the production of both *a* and *c* (which are intimately involved in
monetising the SEO activity).

Each 'SEO practitioner' will have their own modus operandi and criteria
for success. This is partly why there is no consensus on what a general
'SEO Theory' might be, or definitive guide to SEO, but it does give each
'SEO practitioner' a competitive advantage (or lack of).

If you don't mind, can I ask why you're asking?

Davémon
-------

John Dunlop wrote:

Davemon wrote:
In general an 'SEO practitioner' applies their conclusions based on *b*
and *d* primarily to the construction of hypertexts
So a 'SEO practitioner' writes web pages, or dictates how to
write them, based on his conclusions from studying SEs?

....or from the results of other peoples studies (be they rumour,
hunches, folklore, with or without evidence), yes. However, I wouldn't
use the phrase 'web pages' but hypertexts (multiple linked documents).

Do constructs that result from the application of these
conclusions ever conflict with your idea of 'authoring
guidelines'?

They could do.

The current myth is that 'authoring guidelines' (specifically the W3C
ones) are complimentary to the SEO activity.

If you don't mind, can I ask why you're asking?

I started this thread because I was wondering why people write
pages with SEO at or near the top of their priorities or even
in their minds at all.

Do you feel you've had adequate answers to that question? Why do you

think you've been called a troll by some of the people here?

Would you say it's down to money?

Most SEO practitioners charge for their services. However, most display
notable pride in their relative success, and I believe this is a strong
motivator for many SEO practitioners, and why not, taking pride in your
work is a good thing.

Davémon
-------

Big Bill wrote:

I think he was a troll, DM, don't worry about it.

BB

Gnawer of the Moon,
Giant of the Gale-blasts,
Curse of the rain-hall,
Companion of the Sibyl,
Nightroaming hag,
Swallower of the loaf of heaven.
What is a Troll but that?

:-)

Davémon
-------

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:28:33 +0100, Davemon <nospam (AT) nowhere (DOT) no> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
I think he was a troll, DM, don't worry about it.

BB

Gnawer of the Moon,
Giant of the Gale-blasts,
Curse of the rain-hall,
Companion of the Sibyl,
Nightroaming hag,
Swallower of the loaf of heaven.
What is a Troll but that?

:-)

Davémon
-------

Now you're Tolkein!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:28:33 +0100, Davemon <nospam (AT) nowhere (DOT) no> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
I think he was a troll, DM, don't worry about it.

BB

Gnawer of the Moon,
Giant of the Gale-blasts,
Curse of the rain-hall,
Companion of the Sibyl,
Nightroaming hag,
Swallower of the loaf of heaven.
What is a Troll but that?

:-)

Davémon
-------

Now you're Tolkein!

Tolkien, and no, it's not Tolkien :-) Much older.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html