I didn't say that you could buy higher ranking... I said you can buy 'higher visibility'. I was referring to the latter.Originally Posted by QT Luong
I didn't say that you could buy higher ranking... I said you can buy 'higher visibility'. I was referring to the latter.
So what's "disgusting" if sponsors links are clearly labeled as such ?
The hottest thing nowdays for Search Engine Optimization is "quality in-bound links"
The more people link to your site, the better. But thats not all. The quality of the inbound link counts too. If the in-bound link is from a "poor" quality site - like a linkfarm whose purpose is merely to create fake inbound links -- then your site's placement will suffer. On the other hand a high-quality in-bound link is from a well-regarded site (an "authority site") that provides an inbound link to your site within the context of a keyword-rich portion of text. How do you get that? Well, the first "trick" is to have a site that provides a lot of relevant, original content which will attract visitors and in-bound links. So, we go back to square 1. THe best SEO technique is simply good content and hard work.
Well, in my opinion, search engines and 'advertising' are a poor mix, morally speaking. Just like magazines and advertising. Just like the evening news and advertising. The advertising tends to infect everything after some time. To me, this is called a 'conflict of interest', as far as the user is concerned - and leads to extremely misleading content. But that's one of the things I respect about this site and why I prefer it over apug & photo.net, for instance.
I think the important thing is to generate "quality" visits to your website not just volume.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
One primary thing he has done in this regard is having placed key text descriptors of his site as high on the home page as possible and repeated them often on the home page. For example "Stock images" is on the very first line and is repeated 30 more times in the text on the home page. The word "California" is also on the first line and appears a total of 348 times on the home page. This works wonders for SEO but is a disaster for readability. Since he is a stock photogrpaher I don't think he cares too much about readability.
If it works so well then why aren't the Getty or Corbis sites a sea of keywords?
To me it reeks of cheap hackiness and borders on sleaze.
Quality = Results
Last edited by Frank Petronio; 27-Aug-2006 at 12:46.
I agree, what's the point of getting visitors to your website if it looks like crap once they're there? Don't the Google spiders took into account "keyword stuffing", and, for example, penalize someone for repeating the word "California" 348 times?
Brian Vuillemenot
Getty & Corbis are known entities. People go directly to them (not through Google). THis guy is trying to pick up the scraps that are left over.
I'm not sure why he dressed up the text to look customer friendly. It's so blatantly intended to pick up spiders that its offensive that he even bothered trying to dress it up.
I don't like advertising either, but before you banish it you'd better find another way to pay the bills. google is a great search engine, and is paid for 100% by advertising. what i respect about them is that there's a firewall between the keyword ads and the search results--both visually and under the hood. you'll never be fooled into thinking one is the other, and one will never influence the other.
Google would provide an even better experience without the keyword ads, in my opinion. Except that google wouldn't exist at all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks