Ambiguity is the
property of words, terms, notations and concepts (within a particular context)
as being undefined, undefinable, or without an obvious definition and thus
having an unclear meaning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity
Ambiguity, like it or not, has been a driving force on the
web since it’s inception. Words, symbols
and acronyms being used by multiple people to explain or define multiple things
at multiple times for multiple, (self-serving), purposes. Doorway pages, SEM,
long tail, keyword research, canonical, page rank just to name a few terms and
acronyms that have been capitalized on by the fact that their definitions and
meanings are clear as mud to a lot of people.
There certainly are those who do know what they mean and
what that meaning actually means in terms of practical uses, but there are a
LOT more who don’t and that has been used to advantage at times by those who
did and at other times by those
promoting terms they themselves had no idea of what they were talking about. It
just sounded good so let’s sell it, blame our problems on it or accuse someone
else of not knowing what it really means to make ourselves look smarter. SEO of
course being a classic example as it may be the ambiguiest of them all.
But if I had to choose just one term or word that has been
thrown around the most often to mis-identify, mis-label, and mis-clearup the
most, it would have to be SPAM.
Spam
Mystery meat
of the luncheon persuasion? Unsolicited email? The act of “stealing” organic
placement from those more deserving by virtue of superior content or could it just
be the search engine scape goat that allows them to deny any liability for
imperfect results?
There is no such a thing as search
engine spam
Anything you can control you can spam, assuming your defintion of spam is close to the same as mine. Email you can write and send. Unmoderated forum posts, blogs and diggs for example you have at least some degree of control over even if only until a moderator sees it. But basically, as long as you can type something, hit enter and it is displayed, you can promote whatever you choose for any reason you choose. I know I'm a little left of center, but to me trolling a forum is as much spam as dropping a viagra link. Search engines don't work that way!
I’m not trying to instigate another circular debate about
the ethics of search engine placement and I have no intention of arguing the
matter. We are all free to believe whatever and whomever we choose, and I have
a right to enjoy that freedom as much as anyone else.
I believe that SEO's,
(whatever that is), do NOT manipulate search engines. I've seen SEO, (whatever
that is), defined as the art of manipulating the search engines. That is false.
If you set out to place a web page on the first page of results for a target
keyword or phrase thinking you are manipulating the search engine, you are
doomed to fail.
Thinking you are forcing the search engine to do anything is
a mistake. Thinking you are hiding anything from a search engine is a mistake.
The only answer to top placement is recognizing what a search engine does,
accepting that, assessing the potential rewards and risks and working within
those confines.
It is difficult and time consuming to identify exactly what
it is a search engine does and how it does it. Algorithms are complex and just
how far you want to dig is up to each individual doing the digging. It really
has nothing to do with how smart you are. It has much more to do with how much
time and/or money you are willing to invest to learn the quirks of a specific
engine.
With most people, myself included, there comes a point of
diminishing returns where it makes more sense to simply understand the concepts
and base your actions on educated guesses more so than researching another 100
pages under another 100 phrases. Also, keep in mind, success breeds success. As long as
you apply the concepts you discover and your sites capture those top spots and
generate sales, then you can accept that you are right and act accordingly.
The only person or persons who can manipulate a search
engine, are the persons who have access to the admin panel and/or source code
of that specific search engine. If you can't get to the admin panel, you can
have no effect whatsoever on what that search engines does based on anything
you do to your page or site. All you can do is construct data that you feel is
most likely to fall within the parameters of the algorithm.
That is NOT manipulating search engines, that is learning
how search engines work and then manipulating your page. No matter how
vehemently some may disagree, that is a fact! No one can "help" a search engine
find what they are looking for anymore than anyone can "make" a
search engine do what they want. Search engines just do what they do.
This may seem like a very minor point to some, but this is
the main concept that has caused so much division within the search engine
marketing community. The misunderstanding or failure to recognize this concept
is the reason some people try to hide content thinking they are fooling the
search engines and why some people become so militant about saving the planet
from search engine spammers. Both camps are missing the glaringly obvious.
Some things work and some things
don’t. Not all of the things that work make the search engines look good to the public or even in
their own eyes and that forces them to either admit there may be a problem or
find some way to make themselves look better. Claiming the problems they see in themselves lies
not with their own algorithms, but rather is due to nasty people they can only
identify after the fact is just good marketing and public relations.
I have been preaching this concept
for a long time, (http://www.v7n.com/basic-concepts.php),
but I ran across a video from one of those guys that when he speaks, smart
people listen,( Jeremy Shoemaker http://www.shoemoney.com),
just this weekend. He said in a 3 minute
youtube what I have been trying to make people understand for years.
Shoemoney’s don’t make Google
look stupid video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOBcXEja_dM
If you don’t watch this short
video you’ll be doing yourself a huge disservice. Shoemoney shows in a way that
is very hard to argue with, why text links have been carrying an increasing risk
factor this past few months. It’s not because they don’t work, rather it is
because Google has made such a hard-line stance against them and to do nothing
or to admit they don’t need to do something makes them appear less powerful and
their search engine not as omnipotent as Google would like. But that is not
fighting spam, that is public relations and very smart PR at that.
By torching sites, (as shoemoney
eloquently puts it), it gives the appearance that the algorithm is all-knowing and
it is only a matter of time before all those nasty spammers get caught. By promoting
the notion that some people are bad for doing the exact same thing Google does,
(which is to build their own site to maximize their own image and revenues), it eliminates the liability of poor results
and helps to give the appearance of “protecting” the web which is a more noble
endeavor than just trying to make as much as we possibly can.
There are risks associated with
promoting anything. There are costs and there are winners and losers. But there
is no such thing as search engine spam.
Whatever shows up in Google,
Google put there, not you.
Do you honestly think Google doesn’t
know that?
I have heard some argue that Google
is getting better at fighting spam, but what that really means is Google is
getting better at not looking stupid. Which brings me to today’s topic.
CONTENT HOSTING – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Spotting obviously compensated text links doesn't take a rocket scientist. Pretty much a blind monkey with no arms can run tattling to Google that another blind, no armed monkey has text links on their front page. But after a few dozen monkey "outings" on popular outing sites, (more commonly known as seo forums and blogs), and the top results are still heavily populated with obviously compensated text links Google starts not looking as smart as we thought they were. Action must be taken to address this and torching ensues.
So, with a link based algorithm that has pretty much re-defined technology stock trading, now that we see a problem do we abandon links? I don't think so. I think we just look for ways that make us look smarter. Hello third party content hosting for a fee. Good bye text links. Who cares anyway? Once digital pointless started advertising .edu links for $1 did any of us really think there was much value left in them? I know we all like to accuse Google of trying to tell us how to build our sites but I believe digital point did more to kill text links than Google did. Anyway -------
Today is the first installment in a two part series about content hosting
and what value proposition it offers the buyer, the seller and the search
engine. My next post will be to describe specifics of content hosting,
(sometimes referred to as presell pages), what it can and can’t do for sales and
placements for both the buyer and the seller and why, (at least for the time
being and until they start getting “outed” by SEO’s), content hosting is the
text link, (and pay for post), of the next few years.
Peace Y’all
The Seo Guru
If you don’t stop pesterin your sister, you’ll be cutting me a switch
DAMNIT!