google - getting to page 1

[lee8040]

how do i get my website to page 1 on google?

or near the top

[Chris Jones]

Hi Lee,
alot of hard work and patience and no small amount of skill.
The various activities needed are to numerous to list here but if you would like some further info on our SEO service then just pm or email me. I can also run a free report/proposal deatailing the current status of your site and a full breakdown of the activities we would carry out over 6 months to achieve high rankings for you.
Best regards

[SteveGibson]

how do i get my website to page 1 on google?

or near the top

For what?

If you want to be #1 for the term "eledonky", just shove that word into your page and wait until you're indexed.

That should do the trick.

However, if you want p1 for a term that's competitive, you've got a bigger problem.

My advice would be to forget about doing SEO yourself and either:

(a) wade through the minefield that is the SEO industry and find someone that really knows their stuff and can get you lasting results. Oh yeah, and pony up a load of money for their services.

Or

(b) Forget about SEO altogether and use other (faster and more reliable) forms of marketing instead.

Steve

[billhilton]

Sound advice from Steve, I think.

BTW, you'd only be #2 for "eledonky", because I bet this page has higher PR than your site. Google loves forums. :D

[Hobbit]

You can do a lot of hard work and research yourself and read through specialty SEO forums... I did that before and got some very useful tips. You can also try to buy books either online or at a bookstore. Some other thread here mentioned two good books that someone used to get on page 1. I can't recall their names, but one was SEO for Dummies book.

[Astaroth]

Whilst it isnt rocket science it is certainly an ever evolving art form and it has to be very questionable if it is the best use of a business owners time to spend hours each week reading all the "experts" opinions on the hundreds of sites/ forums/ blogs and potentially maintaining dummy sites for the purposes of testing without jepodising your main sites rankings.

If the answer to the above is yes, there is nothing better you can be doing with your time it does almost suggest that there are bigger questions to be answered

[sirearl]

Whilst it isnt rocket science it is certainly an ever evolving art form



Never been called an Artist (well maybe a p*ss artist)

you'll have Turner turning in his grave :D

Earl

[Rob Holmes]

Steves advice is pretty sound although I'd change...


(a) wade through the minefield that is the SEO industry and find someone that really knows their stuff and can get you lasting results. Oh yeah, and pony up a load of money for their services.

To get some recommendations from trusted people that have ranked in the top 3 of google for very difficult words, see who did their SEO, speak with them and try and work out how your keywords compare and from there see if throwing a few grand at SEO would give you a profitable return :)

Good SEO is reliable.

Rob

[sirearl]

Steves advice is pretty sound although I'd change...



To get some recommendations from trusted people that have ranked in the top 3 of google for very difficult words, see who did their SEO, speak with them and try and work out how your keywords compare and from there see if throwing a few grand at SEO would give you a profitable return :)

Good SEO is reliable.

Rob

nearly agree but as I have said before

go with the company who has hundreds of top rankings for competative keywords across a broad range of products and industries.;)


Earl

[sergio]

Like anything else I think there is value in learning about SEO yourself to a certain extent. The law of diminishing returns applies to SEO knowledge like any other specialism but surely it is worth spending some time picking up the basics.

I always think that if you are looking to outsource something of which you have no clue whatsoever you are likely to end up paying more than you need to.

[sandpetra]

If you want to rank at the top of Google why not consider building a good site with lots of good quality keyword targeted content on Google friendly navigation.

PPC is "more reliable" than seo? I beg, how so? If ppc was more reliable than seo you'd have a lot more competition in the ppc game Steve. :)

Online marketing is a big game with a lot of disciplines. It's folly to disregard one for the other. In the end success comes from who's doing it, market conditions, luck and a hundred other things relevant to an individual or business.

PPC guarantees to get you to the top but it could mean a lot of cash to stay there. But it could be a stop gap until the optimisation you (either by employing an seo or doing it yourself) have been doing kicks in. Alternatively, both can compliment each other.

In the end online marketing is just the same as anywhere else. The more money your willing to spend advertising, the more successful you're likely to be.

To be fair i don't see any PPC consultants offering their services pro bono so I think it's only fair to "pony up" the cash when an honest days seo is done and results are being seen.

But at the least - build a good site with good original content and you'll reap rewards in time.

[SteveGibson]

PPC is "more reliable" than seo? I beg, how so?

As I see it, there are 2 basic schools of SEO:

(1) The first approach is the long lasting, "do it once and it's done" type of SEO that tends to revolve around on-page methods and creating the content that google rewards.

This is the approach that's been talked about on this forum by people like Tin and Sirearl. I've got a lot of respect for that sort of SEO and it's what I was talking about when I wrote "find someone that really knows their stuff and can get you lasting results".

(2) The other approach - and the one that's most common - is the links-based approach that is dependent on link manipulation to make google think the site is "popular" or recommended which tends to need on-going work to maintain its positions.

And the fact that it needs on-going work is, in my opinion, indicative of the problem with this sort of SEO.

When google - rather, Matt Cutts on his blog - talks about changes to their algorithm, they talk about linking and the steps they're taking to identify - and exclude - artificial links that aren't genuine editorial endorsements from one site to another.

I think it's fair to deduce from this that google is going to continue to become ever more discerning in the way it evaulates links.

And that this means links-based SEO that's working today may well not work next week ... and that Google is going to continually raise the bar for links-based SEO.

And, every time the bar is raised, there are going to be some SEOs who aren't able to raise their game to the new level and they're no longer going to be able to get high positions for their clients.

So, those sites will lose their positions.

For me, this scenario seems inevitable, which is why I don't think that this form of SEO is reliable (i.e. a business can't rely on the rankings continuing into the future).

Rob Holmes wrote that "Good SEO is reliable" and I sort of agree.

I'd say that "good on-page SEO is reliable ... IF you're able to confidently identify the right person to do it for you".

Finally, my comment that you need to "pony up a load of money for their services" is just an observation that the best SEOs tend to charge a lot of money.

There are not a lot of people who can do on-page SEO effectively, so they tend to be expensive.

Arguably the most expensive on here is Sirearl, who charges half the profits from the business. But as I was the first person on this forum to defend his pricing model (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=231366&postcount=65), it should be clear that I believe that "expensive" can also be "good value for money".

Hope this helps to explain my earlier post,

Steve

[sirearl]

Arguably the most expensive on here is Sirearl, who charges half the profits from the business. But as I was the first person on this forum to defend his pricing model (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=231366&postcount=65), it should be clear that I believe that "expensive" can also be "good value for money".

Hope this helps to explain my earlier post,

Steve

Good points Steve.

I would say that My way of working is the least expensive option for SEO in the business's I am involved in.

I realized sometime ago that if I went to a business that was earning very little from there website and told them it would cost them 10K for my services.I was not going to get many takers.

So my approach was to offer to rebuild there site to SEO standards,and try to get there site as highly ranked on SE as I could allied to my limited marketng skills,all this for no upfront charge.

Instead I would take 50% of all online sales generated.Of course most people were a bit taken aback by having to give up there current 50% of nothing;)

But those with a bit of savvy and knew of my dubious reputation ( all my work has come from recommendations ) thought they would have a punt at risking nothing :)

I am in fact the one who takes all the risk,as not all projects I have got involved in have been a roaring success,and many weeks of work have been for ziltch,zero.nader :rolleyes:

Now to me its a win win situation for the business owner .

They get a top ranked site 100% commitment from me (including finance where needed ) and instead of being the best known business in Whitstable ( or wherever) they become a top player world wide.

And I only take 50% of online sales,they benifit greatly from the extra business to there retail outlets generated by the website.

on a final note some actual examples of what SEO can do

jet ski site before my intervention 10 visitors a day after 1200 a day

volkswagen sites 200 a day after 6,000

So I would maintain that far from being the most expensive.I am probably the cheapest (or most cost effective )

On the question of Googles ever changing algorithms ,not sure if some of this is hype ,in many years of so called changes I have never seen any change in our rankings.

I still believe that SE work on a pretty basic level:rolleyes:

Earl

[SteveGibson]

So I would maintain that far from being the most expensive.I am probably the cheapest (or most cost effective )

Earl,

I agree with what you're saying: profitable marketing costs nothing.

For example, Adwords doesn't cost anything if it brings in business at a profit. Same with direct mail or space ads ... or any other form of paid marketing, when it's successful.

And, in your jetski example, I'd rather have 50% of 1,200 visitors than 100% of 10.

The whole "marketing budget" idea is flawed. As long as more money (profit) is coming in than is going out, it's putting money in your pocket.

Steve

[sandpetra]

Getting 50% of online profits is fine if you can con small businesses into it. :)

Larger businesses and my type of clients would laugh you out of the door, especially if they have been actively involved in online marketing and are looking to improve online sales. ESPECIALLY if you come in saying "give me 50% of your profits, I'll do my magic, and you'll be on top of Google for good".

Earls model would work if a client is getting no business at all because the site is crap. SEO works so well because there are so many sites out there not taking advantage of organic search.

I'm all for commission type agreements if they suit all parties.

About generating links. Sure some crap seo's generate crap links to manipulate Google.

But a good seo will get you good links that in turn generate good stable listings. This is not just "seo" - it's online promotion.

I think we'll just have to disagree about the seo "once it's done it's done" scenario and comment you're not in my markets. I've never seen a site stick to the very top of Google after ad hoc seo in competitive industries because Google weighs variables differently every day so this would be i am afraid impossible. In fact the very idea is laughable.

Non competitive industries can be a different scenario. Going for more long tail traffic is a slightly different scenario.

If you have an example of a site that's been seo'd once and is top of Google, show me, and I (and others) will take it down, within months :)

[sirearl]

Getting 50% of online profits is fine if you can con small businesses into it. :)

Larger businesses and my type of clients would laugh you out of the door, especially if they have been actively involved in online marketing and are looking to improve online sales. ESPECIALLY if you come in saying "give me 50% of your profits, I'll do my magic, and you'll be on top of Google for good".

If you have an example of a site that's been seo'd once and is top of Google, show me, and I (and others) will take it down, within months :)

con small business's you contentious little scottish person,if you think getting people many thousands of pounds a year that they would not have had is a con.:rolleyes:

As for larger established companies (who I eat for breakfast SEO wise) of course they won't go for my sort of deal,although I do have people that do share there profits with me as a percentage of profit increase after my intervention.

As for wanting to work for very large concerns ,forget it they don't pay enough ,have to many chief's.and full of brown nosed Joe's.

As for staying at the top of google.yes I have done for years.

and as for telling you where these sites are so you can try to topple them.
>

>

>

>


P*ss orf :D

Earl;)

[sandpetra]

:) Pals for life.