The problem with business websites.!!

[GNU]

Its far from perfect, but you're confused. This was set up for PPC, not SEO.

You just said:

"You could call that keyword stuffing, you could also call that an appropriate list of skip hire locations in London. Considering its both, that makes it clever SEO."
​

And in a site search of the site 9 of the top ten pages are this parameter stuffed page, with different locations:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en-GBGB320GB320&ie=UTF-8&aq=h

PPC?? Where is the call to action on this page:

http://www.topskips.com/skip-hire-blog/skip_hire_london.html

Look at the copy on it... I cannot believe you are trying to pull this, you must think we are bigger morons than you are.... PPC page ROFL

Anyone who does PPC knows you have a simple page with call to action. You really telling me you built a page full of geo spam and post codes and sent PAID TRAFFIC to it... pull the other one.

Its being replaced for SEO with a much much cooler geo targetting system in the coming weeks, the original method will have to remain for PPC.

I bet its being replaced... you have to replace it now dont you... just a shame you didnt figure it out without my help 18 months ago eh.

You can make yourself look even bigger by pointing out this page http://www.topskips.com/skip-hire-locations.php - but did you notice its actually indexed? This was never the point, in-fact it wasn't indexed for a very very long time, and in the process it debunks the "maximum links on a page" myth.

There are loads and loads of these GEO spammed pages indexed, all 100% dupe except for the injection of different town names.... do a site search as I linked above.

If you did not want those pages in the index they would not be there, you would have removed them. If it was for PPC (already established that is bull) you would have used robots.txt to block them.

I cant believe you even came back on this... I thought you had gone off to fix your site, and instead your just trying to make more stuff up... a right web of porkies youve tried to spin here isnt it.

You do realise that there are people in here that can code, that have used Geo Spam, know how to use robots.txt, 301 un-wanted pages and and create PPC landing pages with calls to action that convert to sales dont you? Do you really think this crud is going to wash with any of those guys?

I don't have a problem admitting that things like this aren't perfect, even that they are aren't even close to perfect, but they do work. They've existed for 6 years and served a purpose, they do need replacing but there are more important things to do first.

You didnt admit it, you didnt even know about it till 30 minutes ago or you would have taken 10 mins out to fix it. You have been bigging yourself up the whole time and are still tyring to bull and bluster your way out of it... mad.

Enjoy your little tirade, it bothers me not.

Yeah it was funny stuff, SEO comedy sketch... but not very productive

 

[VinceSamios]

Its fine, you got confused between two completely different pages. You're on your little rant and its obvious nothing could stop you. Sit with me face to face and you'll find there are good explanations for all of it when you aren't given the opportunity to misunderstand and misinterpret.

Very very very egotistical of you to think this is your little recommendation - replacing this system has been a work in progress for a long time and different iterations have been tested on other platforms for yonks.

basically:

PPC traffic to exactly relevant pages = higher conversions.

Other internal pages with internal links and keywords = works for SEO.

Its always easy to find imperfections - results speak louder than rants. If duplicate pages get indexed, why would I not want that extra traffic even if the method by which those pages are being indexed is less than perfect? Why would I then no-index or 301?

Enjoy your shield of anonymity behind which you can criticize others without putting anything of your own on the line.

At the end of the day, it works, fact!

 

[GNU]

Its fine, you got confused between two completely different pages. You're on your little rant and its obvious nothing could stop you. Sit with me face to face and you'll find there are good explanations for all of it when you aren't given the opportunity to misunderstand and misinterpret.

Yes I dropped the ball on that... sorry.

Very very very egotistical of you to think this is your little recommendation - replacing this system has been a work in progress for a long time and different iterations have been tested on other platforms for yonks.

The reason I found your parameter page so quickly is that I used to do the same thing, then dumped it realising it was not a good plan.

PPC traffic to exactly relevant pages = higher conversions.

Yeah like I said, I dropped the ball on the PPC thing.

Other internal pages with internal links and keywords = works for SEO.

Its always easy to find imperfections - results speak louder than rants. If duplicate pages get indexed, why would I not want that extra traffic even if the method by which those pages are being indexed is less than perfect? Why would I then no-index or 301?

You said they were for SEO, then PPC, now SEO. I just dont get why you dont have all this stuff sorted.

Enjoy your shield of anonymity behind which you can criticize others without putting anything of your own on the line.

Fair comment I suppose, I have my reasons, and they have nothing to do with being able to criticize others.

Far as I can tell your ok at what you do, said that before, but what makes you think you are up there with the greats is beyond me...

 

[AMSEO]

I rate myself over Alex - considering what Alex has been saying that's a pretty easy call to make. I know my SEO shiz, I'll go word for word with anyone on the subject, and I'm entirely confident of this.

LOL, "My Dad's better than your Dad". What I've been saying has got you answering all these questions. I wouldn't go word for word with me my friend, I think you can see my grasp of the English language.

You've been outed man, parameter keyword stuffing, poor robots.txt setup, shoddy splog posts. Give up on this one. We accept you can rank a website, but would any big name brands EVER hire you based on those techniques? No. You're good, not great. Mediocre in the grand scale of things.

Interesting spot GNU, confirmed all I needed to know.

Regards,
Alex

 

[VinceSamios]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

Just a little reminder to anyone who wants to judge an SEO's ability.

Your to late Google et al have already done it.

Hence all the words about what,how and why are irrelevant as the judges that matter have done there stuff.

Earl

 

[GNU]

Just a little reminder to anyone who wants to judge an SEO's ability.

Your to late Google et al have already done it.

Hence all the words about what,how and why are irrelevant as the judges that matter have done there stuff.

Earl

If your only criteria in judging a good SEO is their ability to rank pages then fine, but I would also consider things like:

Quality - get some half decent content
Attention to detail - don't let competitors trash your site by indexing pages stuffed with pharma spam
Risk avoidance / sustainability - related to the two points above, and the fact that what works today may not work in the future
Competitive advantage / ease of replication - I could hire someone in India on e-lance to replicate everything on that site. I was recently discussing some work I Brian did on a site, and the fact he had been able to get high quality links into a site that really did not "deserve" them. I could not easily replicate that, whereas, I could build a much better site than topskips, and get better links into it.
Cost - time / effort vs output.

Vince is ok at Slip Slop Slap SEO, chuck up some crap stuffed low cost content and pump in as many craplinx as possible... beat competition on volume / brute force.

That is not good SEO, that is what the average SEO affiliate / low grade off shored SEO can do.

My best affiliate site is #1 on google for its main terms, but I have a competitor that achieved similar results #2 and #3 with only 20% of the links and a much smaller site. Am I a better SEO because I got #1 with that site? Absolutely not.

 

If your only criteria in judging a good SEO is their ability to rank pages then fine, but I would also consider things like:



Vince is ok at Slip Slop Slap SEO, chuck up some crap stuffed low cost content and pump in as many craplinx as possible... beat competition on volume / brute force.

Point 1 my real criteria is how much money they make from there efforts.

Point 2 is there any othere way.?

Earl

 

[GNU]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Is an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms preconceptions or working hypotheses..... Biases can occur in the collection, interpretation or recall of information.

http://www.topskips.com/skiphirecheap-viagra

http://i36.tinypic.com/2ekjcyr.jpg

My irrational interpretation: Lacks basic coding ability / understanding and pays no attention to detail / security.

http://www.topskips.com/skip-hire-blog/skip_hire_london.html

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en-GBGB320GB320&ie=UTF-8&aq=h

I stopped using that technique well before crossing swords with you Vince, because there are better lower risk ways to do it... that do not break the bank.

 

[GNU]

Point 1 my real criteria is how much money they make from there efforts.

Point 2 is there any othere way.?

Earl

1) What would be the overall cost / loss of revenue associated with hiring a couple of writers, and paying a bit of attention to the quality of the site vs the possible risks associated with not doing it?

2) Yes. The example of my competitor who used smaller site, less links.... and was more cost effective / probably made more money vs efforts.

 

1) What would be the overall cost / loss of revenue associated with hiring a couple of writers, and paying a bit of attention to the quality of the site vs the possible risks associated with not doing it?

2) Yes. I was recently talking to someone working on a new site on a domain name that cost $1 million. He was not using the same techniques Vince and I use to crank crap sites up the SERP for quick profit. Perhaps not a very relevant example, but I certainly would not leave topskips in the condition its in if it were one of mine.

1) quality of the site .? He's hiring bleeding skips.:|

2) as the site has been dominant in its field for many years.I don't see the quick profit angle.?

Seems many many thousands of people are quite happy to skip (Ooops)along to the site everyday.

Earl

 

[SFD]

If this site was reported by a competitor would it be penalised?

If so then it doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

[GNU]

1) quality of the site .? He's hiring bleeding skips.:|

make it less spammy, stop viagra terms being injected into it... and other basic stuff.

2) as the site has been dominant in its field for many years.I don't see the quick profit angle.?

Reckless corner cutting

 

[VinceSamios]

I've been involved with much of the off-page SEO for topskips.com over the past 18 months

I'm not disowning the on-page, but there are legacies and compromises from the past 6 years. Its still working, so an immediate replacement isn't a priority. Also, why fix what isn't broken?

When we start talking about these things publicly people start looking for flaws and loop-holes, your cheap viagra example is something that we need to get fixed critically now that effort has been made to index those pages. A filter list should be in place within a few days. I suspect you expect thanks, but really you've just re-shuffled my to-do list in a way I'm not particularly keen on.

This all comes down to the 80/20 rule - and there are truckloads of 80's we are chasing all over the place. Our business growth isn't in skips, we've got skips, we've done skips.

 

[GNU]

I'm not disowning the on-page, but there are legacies and compromises from the past 6 years. Its still working, so an immediate replacement isn't a priority. Also, why fix what isn't broken?

When we start talking about these things publicly people start looking for flaws and loop-holes, your cheap viagra example is something that we

Yeah I guess so, and I'm concious of your comments about me not posting my own sites... its easy to rip someone elses stuff... sure you could pick holes in my stuff if you wanted.

If I'm honest, I took exception to the "out SEO you both combined" stuff and some other comments you made and let myself get wound up... which is not a good thing is it.

Anyway, I wont be posting anything else in this thread, so good luck with topSkips and your other projects.

Jez

 

[VinceSamios]

If I'm honest, I took exception to the "out SEO you both combined" stuff and some other comments you made and let myself get wound up... which is not a good thing is it.

I was reffing alex and his boss chris - I didn't think it was a particularly arrogant statement to make... considering...

I can jump higher than a log... I can swim further than a stone...

 

I was reffing alex and his boss chris - I didn't think it was a particularly arrogant statement to make... considering...

I can jump higher than a log... I can swim further than a stone...

But can you swim further than a stoned frog.?:|

Earl

 

[AMSEO]

I was reffing alex and his boss chris - I didn't think it was a particularly arrogant statement to make... considering...

I can jump higher than a log... I can swim further than a stone...

Considering what? That I challenged your horrendous website that people are agreeing with me whole-heartedly on? You have tried to slide away like a slippery snake, "I suspect you expect thanks, but really you've just re-shuffled my to-do list" - what slime. You didn't even talk of the site AT ALL before I mentioned it on this thread. You then said you've DONE skips, so why would it be on your to-do list prior to this damning?

You know nothing about my SEO history, nor of Chris's. You know none of our clients, our achievements or our techniques. You're ludicrously defensive in a way that makes you look moronic, e.g. "meant for PPC". LOL, give over. Can you not admit your faults? Stop trying to compare yourself to someone who you nothing about. It's childish and above all pitifully defensive.

This really is the last reply I'm going to make to this thread. I'll be the bigger person and stop here, because it seems too much effort for you, Vince.

Alex

 

You know nothing about my SEO history, nor of Chris's. You know none of our clients, our achievements or our techniques. You're ludicrously defensive in a way that makes you look moronic, e.g. "meant for PPC". LOL, give over. Can you not admit your faults? Stop trying to compare yourself to someone who you nothing about. It's childish and above all pitifully defensive.

Alex

At least Vince HAS posted some of his history.
Time to put up or shut up Alex.

 

[VinceSamios]

You didn't even talk of the site AT ALL before I mentioned it on this thread. You then said you've DONE skips, so why would it be on your to-do list prior to this damning?

You know nothing about my SEO history, nor of Chris's. You know none of our clients, our achievements or our techniques.

You're ludicrously defensive in a way that makes you look moronic, e.g. "meant for PPC".

Alex I think you've been reading with tinted glasses - you weren't wholeheartedly agreed with, not in the slightest.

We've done skips - we are doing a whole tonne of similar things, so a solution for many is also a solution for skips. I have mentioned http://topskips.com in prior threads.

You say I know "nothing" about your nor Chris's history. "Nothing" is definitely the wrong word. I was able to research Chris's history - 11 months doing SeO for AEI Security, and looking at AEI Security, they have squat all off-page SEO. To me that suggests quite strongly that Chris was at the very least, rather lazy. I was also able to get a picture of your history, and based on your comments your skills (or lack thereof) were made apparent.

The location specific pages were set up for PPC - possibly you don't understand the implications, whatever. Its a fact which I can't prove and you can't dis-prove. If you check out our adwords adverts you'll find they link to these pages. No matter... They did well in SEO regardless, and while I'll openly admit its not an ideal SEO solution, it works. I've just sent GNU a couple of screen grabs of the new geo-targeting platform which will replace the one on topskips, and all the other sites.

You've used terms such as "slippery snake", "slime", "ludicrously defensive", "moronic", "pitifully defensive" - but then you claim to be the bigger person? Come on buddy, that's just ludicrously moronic and pitifully slippery defensive slime. If you make stupid criticisms I'll shoot you down.

If you have rebuttal, then rebut. You made statements of opinion, I demonstrated that any opinion didn't matter, including my own. You claimed expertise, I discredited.

Dan Kennedy mattered to you, until I pointed out that myself and Mark are speaking at the same events as Dan and a plethora of other brutally famous IM'ers. Suddenly you don't care.

You don't automatically become the bigger person by driveling and withdrawing.

 

I think the whole threads gone down the thingy

Earl

 

[VinceSamios]

I think the whole threads gone down the toilet

Earl

lol - earl you love popping open those cans of worms and pandora's boxes... that ones probably not user friendly or seo perfect either.

I think we need to grab the opportunity to dig this one out of the toilet, and lift lift lift and even haul this conversation into warmer and lighter arenas and put a fence between us and the past. That way we can avoid the hazards and together, pump more business and generate more income.

come on people, bring on the criticisms...

 

[david64]

If your only criteria in judging a good SEO is their ability to rank pages then fine, but I would also consider things like:

Quality
Attention to detail
Risk avoidance / sustainability
Competitive advantage / ease of replication

These are metrics I like to see. Getting a load of low links is easy if you've got some bunts.

If this site was reported by a competitor would it be penalised?

If so then it doesn't seem worth it to me.

No. TopSkips is nowhere near getting a Google penalty. Sure, the kind of stuff they are doing would make Matt Cutts cringe. They have their guidelines, but they are just that. They aren't the laws of the web. They are just saying how they think websites should be made because its in their interest. Search engines are primitve and if you know how they work, you can game the results without merit. There are so many people doing this because it is easy that they can't really do anything about it. Really, most sites that are SEO'd are doing something that Cutts & Co. would frown on and part of the reason is because SEO client generally don't care about investing in the quality of their site and just want cheap, quick results.

I'm not disowning the on-page, but there are legacies and compromises from the past 6 years.

In Vince's defence, that site hasn't changed much in the last 18 months. The only change I can pick out is a decrease in spammy blog posts that probably would haven't have been penned if there was no search engine benefit of it.

Maybe he'd like to change a few things but hasn't been able to because its not his site. I know what it is like to work on sites and not have the ability to do anything. Currently I am working on a sites that I think are awful. I'd certainly never buy from and I make this known. One of the reasons I don't disclose any sites I work on, because an SEO never has free reign or unlimited budget. Can only work in the proximity a client allows you to. You just have to work with what you've got even if you think that is rough. One of the early sites I worked on was one of those ones that has a load of white space at the bottom followed by full width centred paragraphs of tiny text full of unnecessary links and footer spam to a web design company. They wouldn't remove it. Probably a better judge of an SEO is their site and the only ones I rate are the ones who have busted a gut and invested in them and not done a load of cheap punts to get in a few clicks.

 

lol - earl you love popping open those cans of worms and pandora's boxes... that ones probably not user friendly or seo perfect either.

I think we need to grab the opportunity to dig this one out of the toilet, and lift lift lift and even haul this conversation into warmer and lighter arenas and put a fence between us and the past. That way we can avoid the hazards and together, pump more business and generate more income.

come on people, bring on the criticisms...

Thats more like it Vinnie saved me having to dig em all out.

All you need now is a decent SEO.:|

Earl

 

[omnivore]

First up, thanks for the kind comments.

We are talking two very different concepts here - SEO is obtaining high rankings in natural search listings, CRO is converting that traffic to paying buying customers.

So - while your design might feel important to you, I would be suggesting testing elements on your pages to see how they effect conversions.

This concept isn't at all market specific - you might find what you think looks pretty doesn't convince your visitors you are any kind of up there in the fashion world. We are doing this is markets ranging from weight-loss to toilet hire, including automotive markets and home wares, and everything in between.

The great news is, this stuff can be tested. And that's critical. Opinions don't matters, it can all be tested.

hi Vince
hope you didn't think i was being sarcastic in any way or that i actually meant you might not be able to do a cool design.

I was just being light hearted when i made my last comment (hope sirearl sees this too)

for what its worth, if i could afford it, i'd jump at the chance for you to seo and conversion optimise our site. cheers

 

[david64]

I was just being light hearted when i made my last comment (hope sirearl sees this too)

I don't think anyone takes much people say here that seriously, save for SirEarl that is. His pearls of wisdom never cease to forge vibrant new areas of search discussion.

 

[VinceSamios]

hi Vince
hope you didn't think i was being sarcastic in any way or that i actually meant you might not be able to do a cool design.

Not at all omnivore - I thought it raised a good point and an opportunity to reiterate that in no case in regards to "web design" does opinion matter.

@david64 - I could make any changes I liked, but its simple the sheer amount of more important and higher reward things that need to be tackled.