5 Deadly Website Mistakes [Archive]

awebapart.com

20th January 2010, 15:59

According to Drayton, most sites made all 5 mistakes... I thought it might be fun for us to guess. Anyone up for it? If so, let's hear your suggestions.
1. Not displaying relevant titles or worse still having no title
2. Not displaying relevant header tags
3. Displaying bad anchor text like click here, when you have the opportunity to do more with it
4. No on-page textual content
5. Not displaying alternative text for multimedia elements and thus making the site inaccessible

and that's just Drayton's page:

draytonbird.net/online_tinkering_video.html

so I would add a sixth deadly sin...

6. pretending you're an authority on a subject whilst at the same time making basic errors in that subject.

The 5 sins I mentioned are just big sins committed on Drayton's page (I could have added more, like assuming people first visit you on your home page, when any page could be the first point of contact). Those 5 sins are not my opinion of the biggest sins committed generally, but I thought it was worth me pointing them out, in order for people to qualify advice, judge the self-appointed judge, and puts things into perspective.

GreenLaser

20th January 2010, 16:20

"6. pretending you're an authority on a subject whilst at the same time making basic errors in that subject. "

its not that often LOL actually means anything , but that REALLY did make me laugh out loud ! Glad i wasnt drinking coffee at the time

paul

James1980

20th January 2010, 16:24

Asbestos in the meta description tags.

SteveGibson

20th January 2010, 16:53

so I would add a sixth deadly sin...

6. pretending you're an authority on a subject whilst at the same time making basic errors in that subject.

#7: Not understanding the function of a page

The page link was sent out to his own list. So why do SEO elements matter?

Also, the "textual content" of the page was in the email.

And this wasn't the first email about this, so it wouldn't surprise me if the only people who received this email were people who'd opened one of the previous emails.

Steve

cjd

20th January 2010, 16:56

I daren't look - we'll be committing 10 of the 5.

sirearl

20th January 2010, 16:56

Don't make a video if you look like Dot Cottons husband and talk like a relative of Donald Duck.;)

Earl

awebapart.com

20th January 2010, 17:03

#7: Not understanding the function of a page

The page link was sent out to his own list. So why do SEO elements matter?

Also, the "textual content" of the page was in the email.

And this wasn't the first email about this, so it wouldn't surprise me if the only people who received this email were people who'd opened one of the previous emails.
#8: Not understanding what happens in a viral marketing scenario

That page will get indexed by google, because at least one person, yourself, has viral marketed it, and there are no filters in place for it not be indexed.

Out of the 5 sins I mentioned about that page, at least 3 of those sins are being repeated on the home page too.

awebapart.com

20th January 2010, 17:57

#8: Not understanding what happens in a viral marketing scenario
Another outcome of this lack of viral marketing understanding, is a lack of understanding of youtube viral marketing. Since he has uploaded the video to youtube under the title of 'silly website mistakes' (good), if someone searches on youtube for this term, or if someone searches on google for this term + video, they will get to the video on youtube. Unfortunately the video on youtube does not have a call to action link (bad) since it is not in the video, and someone has actually pointed this out in a youtube comment.

Scott-CopyandDesign

20th January 2010, 17:58

I find this battle of numbered points rather funny.

SteveGibson

20th January 2010, 18:32

#8: Not understanding what happens in a viral marketing scenario

Again, you're jumping to conclusions.

Who says he wants it to go viral? Maybe he's only interested in enquiries from people who are on his list?

I have pages on my site that are only shown to people who are subscribed to my newsletter. And when there are offers at the end of the articles, they're only intended for people who know about me.

They're not for tire kickers who are just curious or want free advice.

I'm sure if Drayton wanted to get his video out to a larger audience, he would have also posted it to his blog. But he didn't.

He could have mentioned it on Twitter, but he didn't do that, either.

So why on earth would you assume he's interested in this going viral?

Steve

awebapart.com

20th January 2010, 18:51

Who says he wants it to go viral? Maybe he's only interested in enquiries from people who are on his list?
Things have a habit of going viral whether you want them to go viral or not, and that is a part of:

"understanding what happens in a viral marketing scenario"

If you do not want things to go viral, you put measures in place like:

1. Placing pages in private areas of a website, which cannot be publicly accessed or indexed by search engines

2. Not publicly placing videos on youtube

3. Asking people, like yourself, not to spread the word, on forums like this

So why on earth would you assume he's interested in this going viral?
I don't care either way if he wanted to go viral or not. If he wanted to go viral then he didn't do it very well. If he didn't want to go viral then again he didn't do it very well. Either way, he didn't do it very well.

Colin Parker

20th January 2010, 22:12

Things have a habit of going viral whether you want them to go viral or not, and that is a part of:

"understanding what happens in a viral marketing scenario"

If you do not want things to go viral, you put measures in place like:

1. Placing pages in private areas of a website, which cannot be publicly accessed or indexed by search engines

2. Not publicly placing videos on youtube

3. Asking people, like yourself, not to spread the word, on forums like this

I don't care either way if he wanted to go viral or not. If he wanted to go viral then he didn't do it very well. If he didn't want to go viral then again he didn't do it very well. Either way, he didn't do it very well.

If I send an email to my database - which I do almost daily - I couldn't give a monkey's whether or not it goes viral if that wasn't the purpose of the email.

I also couldn't give a monkey's if the page I direct clicks to from my email is not seo friendly or seo correct or promotes criticism from smug seo's.

Or similarly of any video link that I include in an email - it's of no interest to me if it gets listed on youtube - if that is not the purpose of including the video link.

I am only interested in whether the email produces the response I am looking for from my database because THEY are who I am writing to.

And I bet Drayton Bird would think exactly the same if he read this thread.

Colin Parker

Ali-v-8

21st January 2010, 10:00

Firstly I must have missed something cos the video wont show.
So i went to the website and fell on floor laughing my _ _ _ off.:D
Why, I here you say? :|
<title>Drayton Bird Ass. direct and online marketing, creative, consultancy and training | draytonbird.com</title>
Ha ha ha ha ha :p
I still keep giggling to myself.:redface:

Just in case you have not figured it out search.
Drayton Bird Ass
bird ass
ass consultancy

assoc. is short for associate.
This has definitely made my morning cheer.

awebapart.com

21st January 2010, 10:04

I also couldn't give a monkey's if the page I direct clicks to from my email is not seo friendly or seo correct or promotes criticism from smug seo's.
Who brought SEO into the discussion? I didn't mention it in my original post (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349#post1109216).

The 5 mistakes (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349#post1109216) I pointed out in his page relate to basic web design, web usability, and web accessibility mistakes, regardless of any SEO intent. The 5 mistakes are basic web design mistakes, and the list reads very similarly to what any web design beginner would learn in their first beginner's lesson in HTML (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/).

The 'click here' issue is one that best web design practice says to avoid. With titles, it is top of the W3C quality tips list (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/), and this "don't use click here" advice comes from various other sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_here#References) too. The wonderful invention that is hypertext (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext) (the H and T in HTML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML)) and hyperlinks weren't invented so that every link could be 'click here' (imagine what Wikipedia - or my post - would look and read like if all of its links were variations of 'click here'). Such links have also been split tested (http://www.conversionchronicles.com/page.php?PageID=47), showing that moving away from 'click here' links can increase conversion.

These are basic mistakes regardless of SEO. If SEO is considered too, then the mistakes are bigger, but without considering SEO, the mistakes are big enough in their own right.

If I send an email to my database - which I do almost daily - I couldn't give a monkey's...
We are not talking about any old email. We are talking about the promotion of a survey/report by a guy/company focusing on website mistakes that other companies make. IMO if you are going to self-appoint yourself as an expert judge of other company's websites, and promote this judging, you should at least have a promotion page, and more importantly a home page (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=2#post1109313), which doesn't exhibit basic website mistakes.

awebapart.com

21st January 2010, 10:20

<title>Drayton Bird...
The good thing, on a positive note, is at least the .com version of his website has a title, the .net version in the OP's link does not have a title, hence my comments.

debbidoo

21st January 2010, 10:20

Don't make a video if you look like Dot Cottons husband and talk like a relative of Donald Duck.;)

Earl

I love Drayton to bits (he's given me some really helpful - free- advice in the past, which I'll always be grateful for). He's lovely and he's funny and I really respect him.

But Earl - that really made me laugh out loud :D

Classic :D

*still chuckling*

SteveGibson

21st January 2010, 11:42

Going back to the topic: I reckon one of the 5 will be "a clear call to action".

Still thinking about the other 4.

Steve

Scott-CopyandDesign

21st January 2010, 11:43

Using a business name or 'welcome' as a headline is one of the biggest mistakes I see.

debbidoo

21st January 2010, 11:47

Using excessive jargon when describing your products/services - YOU know what it means, but your customer may not.

Talking about products/services/yourself instead of talking about benefits to the customer (actually, my own website is probably guilty of that, in several places :redface:)

And what Scott and Steve said :)

Alastairlee

21st January 2010, 13:10

Hi everyone - I'm the one responsible for this punch up.

Paul's absolutely right about his comments, which were:

1. Not displaying relevant titles or worse still having no title
2. Not displaying relevant header tags
3. Displaying bad anchor text like click here, when you have the opportunity to do more with it
4. No on-page textual content
5. Not displaying alternative text for multimedia elements and thus making the site inaccessible]

All of them bang on from an SEO perspective - and totally irrelevant. Steve and Colin's comments explain. Couldn't have put it better myself, to be honest. So thanks guys.

We did a mailing. Worked a treat - so Drayton filmed a video to give the fence sitters a gentle push on the follow up. I banged out landing page in literally minutes: job done.

And despite the Donald Duck impression, also done in minutes, I'll be more than flat out this month. In an ideal world, yes, I subscribe to Paul's point of view, but there's only so much work one man can do, and yes, I cut corners to get our mailings out :-)

Interestingly, I've just had a look at Paul's site. He makes all 5 mistakes. Drayton says he hasn't laughed so much since Granny Bird caught her tits in the mangle.

I suppose the obvious question is what is best? A site that attracts traffic, but converts little, or a site that bumbles along and squeezes every possible ounce of profit from it?

Both, is the answer of course. So I'd brush up on your conversions if I was in your shoes, Paul.

Right now Drayton is in a studio doing Mickey Mouse impressions - as he observed "to match one or two of the comments" - but he is going to reply here and in his blog.

Al
PS Put my hand up to the title tags faux pas on the draytonbird.com site. Ouch. Lost count of the times people have emailed Drayton about it. Best pull my finger out.

awebapart.com

21st January 2010, 13:29

Paul's absolutely right about his comments, which were:

1. Not displaying relevant titles or worse still having no title
2. Not displaying relevant header tags
3. Displaying bad anchor text like click here, when you have the opportunity to do more with it
4. No on-page textual content
5. Not displaying alternative text for multimedia elements and thus making the site inaccessible]

All of them bang on from an SEO perspective - and totally irrelevant. Steve and Colin's comments explain.
As I have already explained (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=2#post1110043), my comments have nothing to do with SEO.

SteveGibson

21st January 2010, 14:13

Hi Alistair,

All of them bang on from an SEO perspective - and totally irrelevant. Steve and Colin's comments explain. Couldn't have put it better myself, to be honest. So thanks guys.

You're welcome.

I suppose the obvious question is what is best? A site that attracts traffic, but converts little, or a site that bumbles along and squeezes every possible ounce of profit from it?

Given his background, I think most people could guess which side of the equation Drayton is on.

So, are you going to give us any clues about the 5 things?

Steve

Ali-v-8

21st January 2010, 14:25

Do you mean your going to remove Drayton Birds ASS From being exposed on his website? LOL:D
And i hope thats not what your pulling your finger out of. ROFLMAO :D:D:p

Al
PS Put my hand up to the title tags faux pas on the draytonbird.com site. Ouch. Lost count of the times people have emailed Drayton about it. Best pull my finger out.

awebapart.com

21st January 2010, 16:33

Interestingly, I've just had a look at Paul's site. He makes all 5 mistakes. Drayton says he hasn't laughed so much since Granny Bird caught her tits in the mangle.
Being self-critical, I could point out far more areas for improvement in my site.

However there is one big difference between my site and your site. My site is not launching a "let's be critical of the top websites" report/promotion/campaign/service. If I was to launch such a campaign I'd probably wait a few months down the line until my important areas for improvement in my site were addressed, in order to minimise negative feedback and the chance of people seeing the hypocrisy of it (although there is no such thing as the perfect sublime website (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=31989&page=2)).

I am not particularly interested in what you deem as 5 mistakes, because:

a. You have not demonstrated a good enough website yourself for me to respect your opinion on my website

b. These things generally depend on points of view, which will differ dramatically. Different people - web presence suppliers, website visitors and website owners - will think different things are more important for different websites.

c. Your view is just one company's view on different websites. It is not a survey of a large group of different people's views (e.g. what website visitors don't like) or even a large group of website owner's views (things website owners want to improve).

d. Some mistakes might be a matter of opinion or based on a particular goal. The mistakes I originally pointed are pretty much outright mistakes, difficult to dispute. Other mistakes might be a view, and pointing out of what you deem are mistakes, without knowing what are the underlying goals of a particular website - one thing I know for sure is the fact that you do not know what are the underlying and future goals of my website and business.

e. I am generally cynical of such campaigns as they are usually biased, focused in one area, usually the area where the originating company focus on and offers services for improvement in. My guess is your 5 mistakes are very direct marketing oriented (and let's not go down the my trade, direct marketing is everything (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=131049&page=7#post1033026) route).

If a similar project was launched by say a company more focused on web standards than direct marketing, then their 5 important mistakes would probably be more web standard focused. Interestingly on the web standards scale, we have:

Your .com site home page (42 errors (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.draytonbird.com))
Your .net site home page (73 errors (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.draytonbird.net))
My site's home page (0 errors (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.awebapart.com))

(Personally I do not think web standards (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=109384&page=3#post868557) are that important alone, they shouldn't replace good old browser testing, but other people have very different stronger views on this.)

Likewise if a similar project was launched by a graphic design agency, then it would focus more on graphic design aspects.

Likewise if a similar project was launched by a business/accountancy consultancy, it might focus on the money aspects of a website business, whether the business is actually viable, not necessarily about improving direct marketing or increasing sales but whether there is any profit (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=41385#post295090) to be made.

Likewise if a similar project was launched by a legal consultancy, they might focus on the legal aspects of websites, whether websites might face lawsuits.

There is nothing wrong with doing this as long as the originator qualifies the project by saying they are focusing on a certain area rather than a general area, and they practice what they preach in that particular area on their websites too. It is when companies start talking about judging website mistakes in general, with website mistakes of their own, that it leaves them open to a negative reaction.

SillyJokes

21st January 2010, 17:09

Well, cheerful bantering apart, nice to see a new and clued up face around here.

My punts for top five mistakes are:

Not making it clear what your website does/can do for the visitor within 2 seconds
No email/newsletter/social networking sign up
No great starting point for the majority of customers
Poor usability/ perhaps slow pages
Showing customers what you think they want, not what they want

and I dare say a a big fat paragraph of happy talk into the bargin but to be honest there are lots of things you can do wrong, it's a matter of opinion how you prioritise them

cjd

21st January 2010, 17:21

My punts for top five mistakes are:

Not making it clear what your website does/can do for the visitor within 2 seconds
No email/newsletter/social networking sign up
No great starting point for the majority of customers
Poor usability/ perhaps slow pages
Showing customers what you think they want, not what they want

and I dare say a a big fat paragraph of happy talk into the bargin but to be honest there are lots of things you can do wrong, it's a matter of opinion how you prioritise them

Yup, got all those in spades.And quite a few more.

Drayton Bird

21st January 2010, 17:38

admagic

21st January 2010, 17:57

This is like being nibbled to death by ducks. What matters - though maybe not in Wellingborough - is how much money did it make? The rest is just navel-gazing. And frankly, I don't give a hoot about Drayton Bird Ass or Drayton Bird Arse. The reason we don't say "here are the five mistakes" is obvious to anyone who knows the slightest smidgeon about marketing. It's like giving away the whole story in a headline or envelope line. Nobody has any reason to go further. This really is so basic I apologise. Which reminds me: registering on this forum should be simpler.

If this is the real Drayton Bird WELCOME!!!

Other forum visitors please note.. we have marketing royalty in our midst!!! Well worth listening to what the man has to say.

And drayton - go to introductions, introduce yourself....

PS there are some useful vids of drayton on mark attwoods site..

sirearl

21st January 2010, 18:24

This is like being nibbled to death by ducks. What matters - though maybe not in Wellingborough - is how much money did it make? .

Exactly to much techno babble spoils the broth.

P.S does Dot know your out on your own.?;)

Earl

SteveGibson

21st January 2010, 18:53

admagic

21st January 2010, 23:12

I've given up trying to guess Drayton's 5 things. I don't know if they're "big pieces" or "small pieces".

So here are my 5:

(1) USP/Reason to buy from this site.

(2) 3rd party proof (testimonials/reviews).

(3) Price justification (where there are prices shown)/Demonstrating value for money.

(4) Reason to buy now.

(5) Clear call to action.

Steve

He actually says "dusty old direct marketing principles"

Which says to me they are broad brush not fine detail so steves list is somewhere close - although 5 is a hard number - because two others could equally rank with steves list..

In no particular order -
(6)getting people to read is a big part of the mix - the big promise

it is more than just a headline...it is getting people to read it...but where do you stop? many other aspects to this such as getting them to imagine ownership telling a story , me and you copy, etc. the rest of the message is useless if they dont read it. i

(7) also not explicit in 1-5 is the irresistible offer, before even tackle price, which is not necessarily the same as the USP

Interesting. i think rightly or wrongly, drayton should include at least one of the factors in the video, as a credibility builder and also to prove that the issues are indeed easy to do., then leaving you in the dark for others - a mistake I see a lot of old marketers make, is not to allow for others not knowing who they are, so failing to tell enough of the story.

SteveGibson

21st January 2010, 23:50

He actually says "dusty old direct marketing principles"

Which says to me they are broad brush not fine detail so steves list is somewhere close - although 5 is a hard number - because two others could equally rank with steves list..

In no particular order -
(6)getting people to read is a big part of the mix - the big promise

When I was coming up with my list of 5, I did think about going down the AIDA route.

Again, it's a question of how big the "chunks" are. The two things you mention are definitely important.

Mine are, as you said, more narrow.

Interesting. i think rightly or wrongly, drayton should include at least one of the factors in the video, as a credibility builder and also to prove that the issues are indeed easy to do., then leaving you in the dark for others - a mistake I see a lot of old marketers make, is not to allow for others not knowing who they are, so failing to tell enough of the story.

The video was sent to his own list. Probably just a sub-section of that list. So I'd be surprised if he needed to build credibility.

However, the idea of "we found 6... one was X.. maybe you're making that mistake, too... to discover the other 5..." could have been interesting.

Again, it depends on how specific/objective the points were. Would the prospect be able to take the one piece of information and then analyse his own site?

Also, this would have made the video a lot longer. Drayton would have had to explain why this point was important.

So I suspect it was about right for a "push them over the edge" video. Alistair said it did well and, as someone who experienced the whole sales process - which lasted a few months - I'm not surprised.

Steve

An Oasis

22nd January 2010, 00:10

Welcome Drayton.

This is like being nibbled to death by ducks.

Never knock it, some people pay huge sums for bizarre things.:D

SillyJokes

22nd January 2010, 13:40

Put it on my bill.

http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/images/dress-up/acc/noses/duck.jpg (http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/dress-up/acc/animalnoses/duck.html)

Andycal

22nd January 2010, 15:02

Asbestos in the meta description tags.

This is the best quote of the entire thread and possibly the only one that answers the question properly!

I reckon none of the mistakes eventually revealed or the others mentioned would ever end in anybody's death. Unless, of course, you worked on the mafia's website and they read this thread.

Rob Willox

22nd January 2010, 15:03

Excuse the title, got two and the thought horrifies me!

What is clear, however, from the 'discussion' is that the title has a certain validity but why skin it at all?

Almost all the elements highlighted cover areas that can be approached from an SEO, Optimisation, Usability or Conversion position.

Using proper marked-up and semantically correct coding is good benefiting both SEO and useability and could very well contribute to higher conversions.

They are all sides of the same coin (that's a four-sided coin, of course).

Each contributes to the overall success of a website:-

Without SEO you get no visitors!
With bad or no optimisation you get confused visitors
Confused visitors indicates a usability issue
With some or all the above you have low or no conversions

Result: low-performing un-profitable website.
Without knowing the five elements the video refers to it's difficult to support or criticise constructively but, subscribing to both the Drayton Bird blog and his 101 tips, I have a feeling that it might focus on the on-page selling process that has more to do with content/copywriting, web site optimisation (WSO) and conversion than any other aspect of web site design or developement.

But, there again, I might also be totally wrong!

PS As his colleague Alistair said in his post he has commented on his blog (unfortunately, as a new member can't post the link but just google drayton bird blog).

admagic

22nd January 2010, 15:20

When I was coming up with my list of 5, I did think about going down the AIDA route.

Again, it's a question of how big the "chunks" are. The two things you mention are definitely important.

Mine are, as you said, more narrow.

The video was sent to his own list. Probably just a sub-section of that list. So I'd be surprised if he needed to build credibility.

However, the idea of "we found 6... one was X.. maybe you're making that mistake, too... to discover the other 5..." could have been interesting.

Again, it depends on how specific/objective the points were. Would the prospect be able to take the one piece of information and then analyse his own site?

Also, this would have made the video a lot longer. Drayton would have had to explain why this point was important.

So I suspect it was about right for a "push them over the edge" video. Alistair said it did well and, as someone who experienced the whole sales process - which lasted a few months - I'm not surprised.

Steve

Hadnt realised it went out to his own list....I am on it and missed it!!:redface:

I also think that credibility for the issues is important , that shows they are easy to fix...which cannot be done blind.

re telling the wholes tory- I had a bit of an email exchange on similar issue about draytons week of training... since it was non too clear the benefits of the presentations - and the copy assumed you knew enough to buy in on the basis of their names and reputation only , which in my case - I admit I didnt know many of them, despite my marketing "antennae"

SteveGibson

22nd January 2010, 15:29

Without SEO you get no visitors!

There's more to traffic than SEO.

Steve

Rob Willox

22nd January 2010, 16:03

There's more to traffic than SEO.

Steve

I agree, as the name of this forum suggests.

It was a bit of shorhand for without visitors the rest is academic!

And, if your are not optimising for organic search, as a minimum, then you are probably not marketing actively in other areas either.

debbidoo

22nd January 2010, 16:25

PS As his colleague Alistair said in his post he has commented on his blog (unfortunately, as a new member can't post the link but just google drayton bird blog).

http://drayton-bird-droppings.blogspot.com/2010/01/make-fresh-start-in-new-year-with_22.html ;)

SteveGibson

22nd January 2010, 16:29

And, if your are not optimising for organic search, as a minimum, then you are probably not marketing actively in other areas either.

I tend to find the opposite. It's the people who focus on SEO that tend to be dropping the ball everywhere else.

Steve

awebapart.com

22nd January 2010, 18:16

#9: Mishandling feedback and missing opportunities to turn bad pr into a positive outcome

For anyone following this thread I posted some issues (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349#post1109216) I had with the company promoting their study of website mistakes when they had website mistakes of their own. This kind of feedback can be classed as bad PR (public relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations)) for the company.

In such as situation a company has 3 choices,

1. Do nothing and ignore it
2. Do something to make the PR situation worse
3. Take it as an opportunity to do something to make the PR situation better, turn it around, get a positive outcome, and come out smelling of roses

Here's what could have happened to get the 3rd result, the company could have simply posted a reply like:

"Thanks for your comments. You make some fair points and we will consider these the next time we make improvements to our site. However we do feel that there has been some misunderstanding regarding the spirit of our survey and its focus. Our survey is more focused on the bigger picture of website sales and marketing mistakes, and how to make website improvements at the higher level."

Sounds simple, is this what happened? No...

1. Company person A joins the forum, and makes a post (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=3#post1110301), insults me by calling me a "geek" ("SEO geek"), mistakenly classes the feedback as "irrelevant" because he thought it was SEO related, which I had already explained (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=2#post1110043) it was not. Company person A then goes on the defensive and starts attacking my own site saying there are mistakes (but not saying what those mistakes are, even though I had gone to the effort to point out what their mistakes were and backed this up with independent sources). Company person A finishes it off with the dismissive and offensive comment:

"Interestingly, I've just had a look at Paul's site. He makes all 5 mistakes. Drayton says he hasn't laughed so much since Granny Bird caught her tits in the mangle."

Which aggravates the matter, resulting in even more feedback.

2. Company person B then joins the forum too, makes a post (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=4) which insults the part of the country where I'm based, and belittles my feedback as "like being nibbled to death by ducks"

OK I can live with that.

3. Company person B then publicly blogs (http://drayton-bird-droppings.blogspot.com/2010/01/make-fresh-start-in-new-year-with_22.html) about this, insults the UKBF as an 'online anorak forum', and describes me as a 'fool' and a 'nitpicker', talking 'uniformed drivel', again makes the mistake of saying my feedback was SEO related, which it is not (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=2#post1110043), and makes another mistake of saying my feedback was just about a landing page, when some of it also related to the company's home (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=2#post1109313) page (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140349&page=3#post1110567).

Now that blog might read as great company publicity from the company's blog side, but not so great when both sides of the story are considered and this post is taken into account. Oh well, they do say there's no such thing as bad publicity, only publicity, but it's certainly not the way I would have handled it in their position.

I also guess that some companies like to take on a more aggressive, not suffer fools gladly, "say what I like, and like what I say" persona, but those kind of persona's can be a bit like marmite, you either love them or you hate them. On this Friday afternoon, I'm probably somewhere in between. I don't mind a good sensible debate, but in this particular case, I can also take insults on the chin and find the funny side of it.

cjd

22nd January 2010, 19:41

Time to mention Hitler I think.

There you go.

sirearl

22nd January 2010, 19:42

There's more to traffic than SEO.

Steve

yep and at one time a man had to walk in front of a vehicle with a red flag.

There is not many better ways of making serious money on the web than SEO.

I would like to hear of one.?

Earl

SteveGibson

22nd January 2010, 20:55

There is not many better ways of making serious money on the web than SEO.

SEO is an effective way of promoting a website.

However, someone saying "Without SEO you get no visitors!" is just being silly.

Steve

Scott-CopyandDesign

22nd January 2010, 23:12

There is not many better ways of making serious money on the web than SEO.

-Adwords
-Advertising
-Viral marketing

sirearl

22nd January 2010, 23:16

-Adwords
-Advertising
-Viral marketing

Adwords expensive and small traffic.would have cost £10,000 for todays traffic to one site and would not have got the quantity.

Advertise where.?

viral marketing see twitter ,facebook e.t.c.untargeted ;)

Earl

Scott-CopyandDesign

22nd January 2010, 23:26

Adwords expensive and small traffic.

So what if it's expensive? Who says it's small traffic? If the ROI is good enough, you can make hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Advertise where.?

Wherever there are targeted prospects.

viral marketing see twitter ,facebook e.t.c.untargeted ;)

Examples of sites which probably haven't used SEO to achieve the majority of their online status:

Google itself
Youtube
Facebook
Myspace
Twitter
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=car+insurance&start=10&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=car+insurance&start=20&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=car+insurance&start=30&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=online+betting&start=10&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=online+betting&start=20&sa=N

I do of course assume that by 'serious money' you mean multi-million pound businesses yes? ;)

SEO is one of the very best ways of making good money on the Internet. However, it is not absolutely necessary.

neild

22nd January 2010, 23:27

The five things I think they are:

Call to action (has to be one of them)
Keywords
Showing the product/service the visitor is after (through a link, e.g. - adwords)
Titles with keywords within them
A landing page for that product/service

They don't say what type of websites they visited so I'm presuming they visited any product and service types.

neild

22nd January 2010, 23:31

6. No icons for twitter, facebook, digg, etc...for each product/service

It could be a silly thing like that above.

sirearl

23rd January 2010, 00:29

So what if it's expensive? Who says it's small traffic? If the ROI is good enough, you can make hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Wherever there are targeted prospects.

Examples of sites which probably haven't used SEO to achieve the majority of their online status:

Google itself
Youtube
Facebook
Myspace
Twitter
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=car+insurance&start=10&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=car+insurance&start=20&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=car+insurance&start=30&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=online+betting&start=10&sa=N
Every business on this page - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK329&q=online+betting&start=20&sa=N

I do of course assume that by 'serious money' you mean multi-million pound businesses yes? ;)

SEO is one of the very best ways of making good money on the Internet. However, it is not absolutely necessary.

1 well the return would not be good enough,and it would not be possible to get the quantity of traffic with PPC.

2 are you talking online advertising.?

3 you would not believe how much those companies have spent to get there.:D.

and the SEO is fair and relevant.

Earl

Scott-CopyandDesign

23rd January 2010, 01:31

1 well the return would not be good enough,and it would not be possible to get the quantity of traffic with PPC.

How come? A search term can provide the exact same amount of impressions for organic searches and Adwords searches. With a perfectly optimised ad and high CTR, you can grab a heck of a chunk of those impressions which turn into highly qualified visitors.

You could spend tens of thousands of pounds more on Adwords granted, but it could still be used to make a fortune of profit, and often is.

2 are you talking online advertising.?

Sure. With the right ad you could get your sales message infront of thousands of highly qualified prospects. Perfectly plausible.

3 you would not believe how much those companies have spent to get there.:D.

Yes but they're only on page 2/3/4 and as you've said yourself, those pages get almost no traffic compared to the number one spot. They're successful (very successful) businesses and they haven't relied on SEO.

I say again that it is hard to beat SEO on cost efficiency. No disputing that. However, it's far from essential to make a lot of money on the web.

SteveGibson

23rd January 2010, 06:46

1 well the return would not be good enough,and it would not be possible to get the quantity of traffic with PPC.

PPC can get you a lot more traffic than SEO.

Steve

sirearl

23rd January 2010, 10:42

PPC can get you a lot more traffic than SEO.

Steve

not sure I would agree with that Steve.

How is PPC going to compete with the quantity of keywords in a 75,000 page site.?

Earl

SteveGibson

23rd January 2010, 11:17

not sure I would agree with that Steve.

How is PPC going to compete with the quantity of keywords in a 75,000 page site.?

You've got it the wrong way round.

SEO can't compete with the number of keywords PPC can cover.

For a start, if you have a 75,000 page ecommerce site, you're going to struggle to get all your pages into the index proper (due to the similarity of pages). PPC doesn't have this problem.

With SEO, you get indexed for the words on your page and your anchor text. With PPC, you can bid on anything.

That's why I can run a campaign with 5,000 keywords (and have it set up and making sales within an afternoon - no need to wait for months and months), yet I get matched for over 100,000 different searches. Including stuff you'd never get SEO traffic for.

Then there's the content site of things. Good luck trying to get your SEO rankings to show up on someone else's site. But, with Google content, you can do that.

(and often get far more impressions than you get from google search)

The notion that SEO is somehow "a free version of PPC" is completely wrong.

It may be "free" (but it isn't - at the very least it'll cost you a lot of time) , but PPC is far superior in so many other ways.

Steve

admagic

23rd January 2010, 11:28

From an original question - this thread has taken a life of its own.

I have always found earls stance on this facile.

Point is , all the traffic in the world pointed at a page will not sell a dime if the page is blank.

Whether it sells anything depends on what is on the page!! and some things sell moer than others.

Steve and I must have hundreds of examples where changing a headline increased sales substantially, not the offer. So aint just about the offer.

Clearly then, traffic and conversion matter.

So all earl can ever claim is SEO is the cheapest way to get sustainable targetted traffic, and the only answer to that can be "it depends on the market" - it is never the fastest.

Let me throw the third one in, which is building a list and say the last is most important of all.

Because if your traffic is SEO if google gets rid of your site you are stuffed , game over completely, unless you have a list.

fisicx

23rd January 2010, 11:58

How is PPC going to compete with the quantity of keywords in a 75,000 page site.?
Well for starters PPC will make sure all those pages appear in the SERPs. And all the SEO in world is never going to ensure all those 75K pages are even in the index.

<edit>should have read Steve's post first</edit>

sirearl

23rd January 2010, 12:31

Because if your traffic is SEO if google gets rid of your site you are stuffed , game over completely, unless you have a list.

thats why we have several sites supporting the one business.

all 75k of pages are indexed by google not all in the main index,but that does not mean they do not use them for the SERP's.

So we possible have 1 million plus keywords being targeted.

how much time would it take to get that spread with PPC.?

As for facile ,it is simple as is googles and the other search engines algo's.

All the information for understanding them is out there.

I don't get my results because I have a huge brain,simple spent the time to understand whats what.

Whereas I tend to think a lot of people make it far more complex than it is.

Earl

admagic

23rd January 2010, 13:08

thats why we have several sites supporting the one business.

all 75k of pages are indexed by google not all in the main index,but that does not mean they do not use them for the SERP's.

So we possible have 1 million plus keywords being targeted.

how much time would it take to get that spread with PPC.?

As for facile ,it is simple as is googles and the other search engines algo's.

All the information for understanding them is out there.

I don't get my results because I have a huge brain,simple spent the time to understand whats what.

Whereas I tend to think a lot of people make it far more complex than it is.

Earl

I am not decrying it at all, or your undoubted success..."chapeau" as the french would say....

Google does change algo, and people have literally gone from $100k a month to nothing in a day,

I agree about overcomplication....
I just worry how your remarks are actually interpreted by newcomers..as though the site does not matter at all.

Now...I am sure I would win a race on speed for keywords..
Because if I am selling chairs., the single keyword chair, immediately matches EVERY expression containg the word chair which is millions in a day...

The trick in adwords , is not getting more keywords, it is actually distilling them down to the best, and proving it is so..

sirearl

23rd January 2010, 15:20

Google does change algo, and people have literally gone from $100k a month to nothing in a day,

I suspect that the change of algo may not be the chief culprit.Having never had a site suddenly drop out of the rankings in 12 years .

I suspect that the cause may be more likely to be a change on the site or breaking the engines terms and conditions.

Not sure on that ,but heard a lot of people say they dropped after making what seemed to them minor changes.

Earl

awebapart.com

25th January 2010, 12:53

Google does change algo, and people have literally gone from $100k a month to nothing in a day,
Yes, one of the problems with SEO is that Google's natural search algorithm is a bit of a mystery, known only to google (so the rest of us have to second guess), subject to change (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=129408#post1018993) at any time, and it is outside your area of control.

But the same can be said about Adwords, its algorithm is also a bit of a mystery (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/18/when_google_does_evil/), and it can result in adwords users losing (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/19/google_hand_of_god/) their ads (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/15/google_bans_thirty_thousand_from_adwords/).

So we have 2 marketing channels, SEO and PPC, which rely on another company's algorithm, and are therefore somewhat at the mercy of those algorithms.

I'll add a 3rd marketing channel which is also at the mercy of external mysterious algorithms... email marketing. In this case it is the spam filtering algorithms, which might suddenly prevent you getting your message across. The various different ever-changing algorithms in use by ISPs, companies, mail providers, spam filter providers, etc and these again can suddenly have a big effect (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/microsoft_hotmail_blacklists_nhs_ip_address/) on marketing.

So all in all, we do live in a less than perfect world. A world where things aren't as easy as they might seem. But a world where knowledge, experience, common sense, and hedging your bets and not putting your eggs in one basket (using multiple channels), can help you minimise the risk of being caught out by these potential obstacles.