Will so called SEO experts be killed off by their silly prices

[JamieM]

I think many doubt the results of SEO. It's not really that hard to measure the results is it. You can measure the increase in traffic as well as the increase in sales. The increase in sales isn't always as high as the increase in traffic, sometimes it's higher. It depends how targeted the traffic is.

The more stable the traffic before the campaign, the easier it is to measure. Sure, nobody is going to be able to give 100% exact figures, but then you absolutely don't need that either.

But you can never KNOW than an increase in traffic was solely down to the SEO's work.

A recent client of mine doesn't really give a toss where that extra £50k profit came from - he just knows that it was from the interwebs and it wasn't there in the previous 9 years of having a website.

Well I would give a toss because I would want to know if it was returning my investment on SEO or coming from other sources.

Have you ever had a No1 on google for a high traffic ,high profit product?

Earl

No but I've had number 2 for 'sleeping bag' with zero SEO (except basic onsite).

Have you?

 

[realmaverick]

But you can never KNOW than an increase in traffic was solely down to the SEO's work.

That's like saying you'll never really know your wife loves you. Or that you won't die tomorrow.

You're not going to get a massive traffic increase, with pot luck.

 

[Rags]

Well I would give a toss because I would want to know if it was returning my investment on SEO or coming from other sources.

Quite right too! He wants to know the ROI as well - but all he wants to know is how much comes from the website and how much from his shops.

He's too busy expanding his business (helped by profits from the website) to care about what keywords are the most profitable and all that interwebs stats - that's what he pays me for.

When he needs a measurement he looks in his bank account and compares that to what was there before bringing an SEO guy on board.

I've yet to meet a business owner who offers refunds to all the customers from unverifiable sources, or the bank manger who refuses to bank the money unless it can be proved which campaign brought the customer through the door.

It's true that not everything online can be measured (although most of it can) - but here's the thing about what can't be measured (which isn't much) - it doesn't really matter - the £££ does the talking.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

But you can never KNOW than an increase in traffic was solely down to the SEO's work.

A butterfly flapped it's wings in the Caribbean, causing an increase in your sales...

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Is Google really that stupid to put any weight on links now that everyone knows its all a lie and really meaningless in quality, apart from a very few links

 

[JohnnyCash]

Is Google really that stupid to put any weight on links now that everyone knows its all a lie and really meaningless in quality, apart from a very few links

What would you suggest they put it on instead?

 

[RedEvo]

Is Google really that stupid to put any weight on links now that everyone knows its all a lie and really meaningless in quality, apart from a very few links

What would you use as an automated alternative to the link based algo?

d

 

What would you use as an automated alternative to the link based algo?

d

A quality based algo.

Earl

 

[MASSEY]

A quality based algo.

Earl

From what i can tell over the last 12 month links that were considered poor are considered even poorer now.

 

[Rags]

A quality based algo.

Earl

Do you mean the quality of the page/site itself? (as opposed to any link source page/site)

If so...I agree

 

[RedEvo]

Do you mean the quality of the page/site itself? (as opposed to any link source page/site)

If so...I agree

And how do you automatically (i.e. with an algo) do that? That's the problem even Google's army of PhD's can't solve

d

 

Do you mean the quality of the page/site itself? (as opposed to any link source page/site)

If so...I agree

I think it would be nice if the quality of the site was the main factor as links have been done to death.

A good idea at the time but abused sumfink rotten now.

Earl

 

[RedEvo]

I think it would be nice if the quality of the site was the main factor as links have been done to death.

A good idea at the time but abused sumfink rotten now.

Earl

OK, and how do you do that with an algo? It can't be done manually because of the numbers. Any thoughts?

d

 

OK, and how do you do that with an algo? It can't be done manually because of the numbers. Any thoughts?

d

I suspect its already done to a degree as part of the algo.

Googles algo would have to recognise quality.

They keep telling me how clever they are.

Earl

 

[RedEvo]

And we all know what they use as the major quality signal

d

 

And we all know what they use as the major quality signal

d

I think links are being diluted by google already.

Had some pretty surprising results with sites with low link profiles.:|

Earl

 

[JohnnyCash]

I think links are being diluted by google already.

Had some pretty surprising results with sites with low link profiles.:|

Earl

If you think they are using links less.... what are they using in their place?

 

If you think they are using links less.... what are they using in their place?

Quality of links is probably more important than ever allied to many other factors becoming more important.

Earl.

 

[Rags]

OK, and how do you do that with an algo? It can't be done manually because of the numbers. Any thoughts?

d

They can't do it up-front with an algo (at least not very well or untrickable), but over time they collect data on ctr, time on site, no. of pages visited, whether the searcher returned to the search results or conducted the same (or similar) search again etc etc etc

This allows them to build up a bunch of stats directly linked to real people's behaviour (as opposed to crafty webmaster wheedlings) on that site.

Then creating a behaviour-based algo (as opposed to site content+links) becomes childs-play for the brains that already created such an effective search engine.

 

They can't do it up-front with an algo (at least not very well or untrickable), but over time they collect data on ctr, time on site, no. of pages visited, whether the searcher returned to the search results or conducted the same (or similar) search again etc etc etc

This allows them to build up a bunch of stats directly linked to real people's behaviour (as opposed to crafty webmaster wheedlings) on that site.

Then creating a behaviour-based algo (as opposed to site content+links) becomes childs-play for the brains that already created such an effective search engine.

Quite not that hard for them to work out which sites are popular with the public a much better system than links.

Earl

 

[UKSBD]

I suspect they are doing things like this more and more already.

I'm seing what looks like ranking improvements in sites that that are getting more traffic from different visitors.

It's almost as though the more different visitors you get to pages, the better the whole site does.

 

[terryuk]

I suspect they are doing things like this more and more already.

I'm seing what looks like ranking improvements in sites that that are getting more traffic from different visitors.

It's almost as though the more different visitors you get to pages, the better the whole site does.

The more referring sites (votes) then yeah I would say.

Links are ten a penny, links with value isn't

 

[MASSEY]

Quite not that hard for them to work out which sites are popular with the public a much better system than links.

Earl

So you're suggesting plus one could to be a ranking factor?

 

[terryuk]

So you're suggesting plus one could to be a ranking factor?

There must be millions of abundant gmails floating around, that would be a silly idea imho

 

[MASSEY]

There must be millions of abundant gmails floating around, that would be a silly idea imho

It's along the line of what rags and sirearl are chatting about. I saw a video once where matt cutts was suggesting their algorthm would be capable of determining legit twitter accounts not too long ago, why can they not do the same tech for plus one...

 

[JohnnyCash]

If they can do it for +1, Facebook and Twitter then they could also do it for links from websites/blogs.

I'm not seeing any effect of all this social media nonsense... its completely unneeded in SEO today.

 

I'm not seeing any effect of all this social media nonsense... its completely unneeded in SEO today.

Except in the right hands it can drive a hell of a lot of traffic.

Earl

 

[UKSBD]

The more referring sites (votes) then yeah I would say.

Links are ten a penny, links with value isn't

No, not referring sites, just general direct traffic from Google.

i.e.
put a page up that gets lots of visitors via Google and even if no one provides a link to that page, the fact it is getting a diverse range of traffic seems to help the site in general.

 

[terryuk]

It's along the line of what rags and sirearl are chatting about. I saw a video once where matt cutts was suggesting their algorthm would be capable of determining legit twitter accounts not too long ago, why can they not do the same tech for plus one...

Yeh there is social media value same as link value

Age and popularity

But never the less, didn't stop Youtube getting fraped of likes. Same for Facebook and any other big boy.

As the sir him self says though, still value... i am still waiting to see value in social media. one day

 

[terryuk]

No, not referring sites, just general direct traffic from Google.

i.e.
put a page up that gets lots of visitors via Google and even if no one provides a link to that page, the fact it is getting a diverse range of traffic seems to help the site in general.

.

Referring sites are counted?

One referring sites, or 500? I would like 500. Along with organic traffic

A referring site would mean your links are probably worth more than a penny.

 

[MASSEY]

Yeh there is social media value same as link value

Age and popularity

But never the less, didn't stop Youtube getting fraped of likes. Same for Facebook and any other big boy.

Youtube are quite good at detecting spam in my opinion, they ban people for dicking around

i am still waiting to see value in social media. one day

The way spammers talk you'd think it was working but i have come to the conclusion most spammers are tards.

 

[MASSEY]

.

A referring site would mean your links are probably worth more than a penny.

Wouldnt you need to have google analytics installed though...

 

[JohnnyCash]

The way spammers talk you'd think it was working but i have come to the conclusion most spammers are tards.

If what they were doing worked you wouldn't hear them talking - they'd be away making money. The only reason you hear them in the first place is they are out promoting themselves, trying to find their next sucker for a "10,000 seo friendly links for $17" deal

 

[JohnnyCash]

Wouldnt you need to have google analytics installed though...

No because Google have access to a huge amount of user data - they own a browser remember.

 

[terryuk]

Youtube are quite good at detecting spam in my opinion, they ban people for dicking around



The way spammers talk you'd think it was working but i have come to the conclusion most spammers are tards.

Spammers tards? They do your job in 2 seconds so not sure whats tarded about that!??? Not naming no names of course :|

A clever spammer doesn't even need to spam you know that right?

 

[MASSEY]

No because Google have access to a huge amount of user data - they own a browser remember.

That still relies on their user base, isn't mozilla the king of browsers.

A clever spammer doesn't even need to spam you know that right?

Because the clever spammer will know spamming doesn't work :|

 

[terryuk]

That still relies on their user base, isn't mozilla the king of browsers.



Because the clever spammer will know spamming doesn't work :|

LOL

Nah not what I were thinking. But Yeh do what you do

 

[JohnnyCash]

That still relies on their user base, isn't mozilla the king of browsers.

No, IE is.

Just had a quick look in the stats of a site getting hundreds of thousands of hits a month (aimed at general population so probably a decent general indication) and Chrome is used by 17% of the users.... that is a massive amount of data that could be built into the ranking algorithms if they chose to do so.

 

[MASSEY]

LOL

Nah not what I were thinking. But Yeh do what you do

Oh you mean the quick time automation. I agree that using all these tools is beneficial if done right and pretty skilful too, but bombing sites with 100k profiles like most do, they just work for 3 seconds and lose power.

No, IE is.

Just had a quick look in the stats of a site getting hundreds of thousands of hits a month (aimed at general population so probably a decent general indication) and Chrome is used by 17% of the users.... that is a massive amount of data that could be built into the ranking algorithms if they chose to do so.

I never looked at it like that, good point.

 

[terryuk]

Oh you mean the quick time automation. I agree that using all these tools is beneficial if done right and pretty skilful too, but bombing sites with 100k profiles like most do, they just work for 3 seconds and lose power.

Who ever mentioned profiles, and no 100k takes time and resources.

I do agree with most spammers are tards though, I like it.