What's right with Search Engine Optimization

Discuss

8 Responses to “What's right with Search Engine Optimization”

  1. robulus says:

    Does she have a blog in addition to a main site? That has an impact.

    Yeah it does. Everyone looks at her 5 lame blog entries from 2 years ago (posted within a month of attending a web marketing seminar) and immediately see it as a bullshit attempt to improve her search engine rankings.

  2. LX says:

    Sorry to say so, but the two sides of this arguments both miss a crucial point being what “obvious” means.

    One thing is right in any case: semantic HTML can be parsed with greater ease both by browsers and crawlers than unsemantic code. This is what both sides may agree being obvious.

    If you boil their difference of positions down you remain with the question whether marketing is useful or not. My first thought about it: it may be really useful, but less so than good content. Alas, many managers forget the 2nd bit of the sentence.

    Greetings, LX

  3. v21 says:

    Something that says something to me is that in that article he mentions the “Canonical Tag”. I was curious as to what that was, so I clicked a link. Stayed on his site, no useful info. Ahh! I scanned all the links on those pages, nothing external. Alright, I type “Canonical Tag 2.0″ into Google… And #1 is a post from him, and half the links are repostings of the same content elsewhere. Nothing useful.

    Excellent SEO, there. But fuck him.

  4. amarquis says:

    There is one lesson out of SEO that I think matters (beyond the sphere of creating great content and getting the word out): writing for your audience. If you use industry jargon that your target customers/readers won’t be searching for, nobody is going to be finding you in the search engines.

    Paying attention to what people are looking for on your site and focusing on that, I suppose, is really just a subheading under the “create great content” directive though.

  5. Suitov says:

    v21: The “canonical” tag is a <link> tag in the header of your page telling Googlebot under which URL you prefer it to be listed.

    Search for “canonical url” or see the canonical URLs explanation from Google.

  6. vanessafox says:

    v21, when I type [canonical tag] into Google, the first result is the Google blog post and the second is the Search Engine Land article I wrote (Search Engine Land is Danny’s site):
    http://searchengineland.com/canonical-tag-16537

    You really think that article has no useful information?

    I posted it just as the tag was announced, I explain exactly what the tag is, why a site owner would use it, and how to implement it. I also describe other ways to canonicalize URLs beyond the use of this tag. And I talk about the other times that the three major search engines have come together in support of a web standard.

    What other information were you looking for that would make the article useful?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Eeach and every meta is useful for seo .But i m confused about the most useful metas.

  8. vanessafox says:

    Also, v21, the reason you mostly see references to Search Engine Land when you search for [canonical tag 2.0] is that Search Engine Land coined that term to refer to the next version of the canonical tag that Google just announced it was working on last week. Had you taken the time to click the link in the first paragraph of the article you refer to (http://searchengineland.com/canonical-tag-2-0-google-to-add-cross-domain-support-27222), the canonical tag 2.0 article would likely have been more useful to you.

    The reason there are no external links in that canonical tag 2.0 article is that there was literally nothing to link to. We were at the conference where Google made the announcement on stage and wrote up the post based on that announcement. However if you were to follow the first link to my article article about the tag, you’ll find external links to blog posts by all three major search engines.

Leave a Reply