Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NewsWeek Looks at Search Engine Optimization

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the good-the-bad-and-the-dishonest dept.

The Internet 147

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us that Newsweeks is taking a quick look at search engine optimization. From the article: "If search-engine rankings are supposed to represent a kind of democracy--a reflection of what Internet users collectively think is most useful--then search-engine optimizers like Fishkin are the Web's lobbyists. High-priced and in some cases slyly unethical, SEOs try to manipulate the unpaid search results that help users navigate the Internet. Their goal is to boost their clients' (and in some cases their own) sites to the top of unpaid search-engine rankings--even if their true popularity doesn't warrant that elevated status."

cancel ×

147 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

+1, Ironic (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236873)

At least he's posting about something with which he has experience.

-1, I wanted to say that. (2, Interesting)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236892)

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who got a good laugh out of seeing * * Beatles-Beatles post a story about search engine optimization.

+1 Funny (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236910)

* * Beatles-Beatles is angry that Slashdot was keeping him from the front page of /.
* * Beatles-Beatles and the two robots sit around the lighted table covered with small holographic monsters. Each side of the table has a small computer monitor embedded in it. * * Beatles-Beatles seems very pleased with himself as he rests his lanky fur-covered arms over his head.

THREEPIO: Now be careful, Slashdot.

Slashdot immediately reaches up and taps the computer with his stubby claw hand, causing one of the holographic creatures to walk to the new square. A sudden frown crosses * * Beatles-Beatles' face and he begins yelling gibberish at the tiny robot. Threepio intercedes on behalf of his small companion and begins to argue with the huge * * Beatles-Beatles.

THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.

HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset * * Beatles-Beatles.

C-3PO: But sir. Nobody worries about upsetting a Slashdotter.

Han: That's cause a Slashdotter don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. * * Beatles-Beatles is known to do that.

C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Slashdot. Let * * Beatles-Beatles win.

Re:+1 Funny (2, Funny)

claytonian (930545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236995)

The farce is strong with this one. I found the best way to get hits is to type "this is the _____ page about ______" into the page

Re:+1 Funny (1)

dswan69 (317119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237489)

That's cause a Slashdotter don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose

I'm not much for arm-pulling. I find a bullet to the base of the brain quite effective though.

Negotiating axes also come in handy...to make it clear my terms are quite reasonable.

Re:+1, Ironic (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237029)

Want more insight into the mind of a PageRank player? Here's his user page [slashdot.org] . Note how the few posts he's made have been completely devoid of useful content, yet he makes copious use of BOLD AND CAPS to overemphasize whatever buzzwords he writes. Also note how his sole journal entry consists of lifting a few minor details from a Time article, including a few choice links to the appropriate content.

Re:+1, Ironic (5, Informative)

BillKaos (657870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237065)

The best info in that page is that 16 of 18 of his submissions were accepted by the same editor, ScuttleMonkey.

It's clear what's happening here.

Re:+1, Ironic (5, Informative)

BillKaos (657870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237070)

Sorry for replying to myself, but it's also worth noting that in the last history [slashdot.org] , about 50+ comments talking about this guy went (presumably by someone with enough power) modded offtopic.

Sometime is going on :)

Re:+1, Ironic (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237220)

I wonder - is one of them a sock puppet of the other, or is ScuttleMonkey just getting kickbacks from the Beatles guy?

Re:+1, Ironic (4, Insightful)

ManxStef (469602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237631)

Yeah, it's been talked about before and it's blatantly obvious what's going on: this guy's abusing Slashdot's unholy Pagerank power to boost his crappy spyware-filled Beatles page and ScuttleMonkey's in on it, happily posting everything he submits. Wonder how much the kickback is? (Considering how much some pay for SEO, it's probably a tidy sum.)

I thought it might be an honest mistake at first, but it's just happened way too many times now to be a co-incidence. And Slashdot wonders why they're losing readers left, right & centre to Digg? DO YOUR JOBS PROPERLY AND SORT YOUR DAMN EDITORS OUT!

Re:+1, Ironic (1)

mojotoad (78874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237134)

"Cogito me cogitare, ergo cogito me esse (I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.)"
- A. Bierce

Care to back that attribution up? Clever phrase, but still...Ambrose Bierce? Really?

Cheers,
Matt

FIRST POST!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236876)

fadsfsdf

first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236877)

first post :)

I'm calling BS on this one (-1, Redundant)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236885)

Okay, so the Internet has business people as corrupt as any off-line bussines... nothing to see here, move on....

It seems obvious to me (but perhaps I'm special) but any business has those special people that know how to flaunt the rules and make things work in special ways. Isn't that why investment companies advertise on the television????

This is a non-story, unles you have zero knowledge of either business or the Internet, or both. WOW, just WOW, this is less exciting than a rerun of 'Friends' in MHO.

Re:I'm calling BS on this one (2, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236898)

The significance here is that Newsweek is running this story, which means that intelligent people without heavy business/technology backgrounds are learning about this. It shouldn't be something we don't already know a decent bit about, but now millions of Americans know about it.

Re:I'm calling BS on this one (1)

el americano (799629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236926)

...that know how to flaunt the rules

Please flout [m-w.com] rules. Do not flaunt them.

Re:I'm calling BS on this one (1)

cperciva (102828) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237034)

Please flout rules. Do not flaunt them.

What's wrong with displaying rules ostentatiously?

Re:I'm calling BS on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237073)

that makes a great .signature LOL

fretful

Uninteresting content gets undeserved attention (4, Insightful)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236888)

The problem with search engines is that sometimes when you are looking for something specific, you end up using the wrong terms and get results that are not what you are looking for. Take this article, for example. As a technically-inclined website, you'd expect that "Search Engine Optimization" would refer to techniques and algorithms used by search engines to index pages faster and search through the indices faster.

Instead, it's about some company using link farms to boost website rankings. While this might be interesting to someone who was actually affected by page rankings, I doubt that anyone really cares about their page rank for anything other than vanity. In general, the websites you are looking for, given the right search terms, come up in the first few search results, so despite the efforts of companies such as this, their efforts simply can't overcome the value provided by serving real content.

Re:Uninteresting content gets undeserved attention (3, Informative)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236922)

PageRank is worth a lot more than vanity.

For businesses, it gets you seen. Few people are going to try to look at anything beyond the first page or two of search results. Therefore, if you are #35 on the listings for a keyword vital to you, you're going to get a lot less traffic. If you are a business, and you have 5 competitors selling X, then whenever someone Googles X, your goal is to be the first website they see (aside from X.com or whatever the parent company is).

For non business organizations, if you want people to read what you have to say, like if you're a blog or a wiki or just a regular site, it helps to be one of the first sites on the google listing. For instance, two days ago I started a wiki as a project to create a third American political Party [wikispaces.com] based on a technologist and freedom stance, as opposed to big business. Now, it's not for money and is just for a fun project, but I want people to see it and contribute. Obviously I have an interest in SEO, but I'm too cheap to pay for it.

Re:Uninteresting content gets undeserved attention (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236937)

Interesting idea for a political party. You know what, though? You oughta have some content before you get troll for traffic.

Just to throw a few pennies at you, any political organization that doesn't make some sort of room for business isn't really going to get terribly far. Business is a natural organizational tool for people, you know. I'm not saying replicate the current climate, obviously, but you can't be straight up opposed and successful at the same time. It's just not possible.

The key thing to remember here is that businesspeople are people.

Re:Uninteresting content gets undeserved attention (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236981)

As I said,

A) I made it two days ago. I'm a college student, give me time over winter break.

B) This was mostly to make the point in an ironic manner.

I never said business people weren't people, I just said they aren't the only people.

Re:Uninteresting content gets undeserved attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236993)

I'm not disagreeing with your idea. I'm interested to see where it goes, maybe even interested in contributing, if it's what I'm looking for out of politics. Sorry to ruffle your feathers. That wasn't my intent at all.

Re:Uninteresting content gets undeserved attention (0, Flamebait)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237299)

Business people are people. A very small minority are good guys, most of them are asshole lying fucks. Oddly enough the more successful they are the more they are lying asshole fucks.

I don't think it's possible for an honest man to get far in business. The honest ones never row past the mom and pop corner store stage. That's why I always try to shop at the small guys.

Lying to Robots for Profit, not just for fun (3, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237546)

Most of the SEO business is dishonest, even though it's still hard work - it's figuring out what the search engines think looks interesting to humans so you can take your client's web pages, which aren't interesting to humans other than your client, lie to the robots about them, so the robots will lie to humans who want to find interesting web pages about various subjects.

Zach is quite correct that it's about money - if you do a Google search for "rolex watches", for instance, the first five or so entries (other than the advertising section) appear to be legitimate, and the rest appear to be various sites put together by scammers who are trying to SEO themselves into the highest ranking by writing inane content and playing link games. (Fortunately, I don't want to buy such an ungeeky watch, but I do often want to find out technical information about various medicines, and that often gets swamped by SEO-spammer medicine stores. Bad enough that it's hard to find articles on how drug X interacts with drug Y, because even the legitimate sites will have indexes on their pages pointing to their articles about drugs A-Z, but if either drug is something that's heavily promoted for sale on the web, that increases the probability of your search drowning in spam.)

4 easy steps to profit! (5, Interesting)

SecureTheNet (915798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236897)

1. Add your domain name to your profile on slashdot
2. Post useless crap to slashdot
3. Enjoy increased traffic and pagerank
4. Profit!

No need for ???? here. The domain that beatles-beatles has on his profile has a pagerank of 5. I imagine a fair amount of that is from his slashdot posts.

If you don't have the google toolbar, you can check a pages pagerank here: http://www.only999.com/google_page_rank.php [only999.com]

Alexa Ranking (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236943)

Alexa's ranking is less relevant these days, but still informative.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? range=1m&size=large&url=http://george-harrison.inf o [alexa.com]
If you click the link you'll get to see a graph of his "reach"
(% of internet users)

For those too lazy to click the damn link:
Traffic Rank for george-harrison.info
Today: 297,221
1 wk. Avg: 383,824
3 mos. Avg: 1,133,067
3 mos. Change: [UP] 502,098

Alexa linking (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237522)

Look at what kind of sites are linking to the site [alexa.com] ... "SEO Chat", "Increase Web Site Traffic", "Boost Your Search Engine Ranking", etc.

What the heck is going on here?

Maybe someone should sign up with the nick "* * * Abc" and submit stories like mad to see if the Slashdot editors just pick the first nick with a somewhat interesting story...

Re:Alexa linking (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237539)

considering that the link search is "powered by Google" I think it's reassuring to see that Slashdot didn't turn up in the results.

But yea, lots of crap link farms are pointing to george-harrison.

Re:4 easy steps to profit! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237024)

If he needs slashdot to get a PR of 5 he's an idiot.

I got a 7 (http://johnbokma.com/ [johnbokma.com] ) with way less effort.

Re:4 easy steps to profit! (2, Informative)

BillKaos (657870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237076)

You miss a point: 0. Get the same ./ editor to accept 16 out of 18 of your submissions.

The bottom line... (4, Insightful)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236899)

The bottom line is this: If you mark your sites up so that they present the content in such a way as to accomidate most browsers, and be $html complient, you shouldn't have any problem getting seen. A good example is "Alt" tags. These are crucial for displaying your page in a text only browser such as links, e-links, lynx, etc...

Jacking up your ratings by any other means may work in the short-term, but let's face it, if you come up first on a search engine and your site is not relevant, what good does it do you (except of course in the case of porn and warez)?

Re:The bottom line...ASS..U..MES (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237062)

that you can manage to use a spell checker correctly on your web pages.

Re:The bottom line... (1)

werewolf1031 (869837) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237399)

A good example is "Alt" tags. These are crucial for displaying your page in a text only browser such as links, e-links, lynx, etc...

Unless, of course, someone is an artist who just wants his work [darkicon.com] to be seen and enjoyed by others (or a photographer, or a fledgling game designer [darkicon.com] , etc.). Suddenly, text-only browsers don't seem so relevent -- a flowery description inside an Alt tag just ain't the same.

Mind you, I'm not saying text-only browsers have no use (of course they do!), just that they have very limited use, and I certainly wouldn't recommend them as the only browser a person ever uses (ie. great for mobile devices, lousy for regular use). Without a decent graphics-capable browser [mozilla.com] , there's really a lot to miss on the Internet, unless you're only doing research.

Having said that, I really can't see how it's all that critical to get noticed for browsers that have only the tiniest portion of the market.

Note: Not looking for a flame war, just my two cents, YMMV, rebuttals welcome. Thanks.

What the devil is value these days? (3, Insightful)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236908)

Trying to keep it brief, but:

Point 1. If the search engines want to retain their value in returning valuable information, then they need to detect rank-promotion techniques and appropriately downrank them. Unfortunately, that will be an unending war.

Point 2. The reason these marketing "people" keep at it is because the fundamental economic system has become broken. It used to be true that 'you got what you pay for', at least roughly. In particular, if you got much less than you paid for, it was pretty easy to determine that the reason was some sort of fraud. Nowadays, it has become very difficult to tell the difference between 'good' stuff that's worth more money and cheap [often Chinese] imitations of the most popular models. At the same time, a nice brand name will allow selling roughly equivalent goods for several times the price. All broken.

The result? All values are becoming totally distorted, and they market presidential candidates and even wars in just the same reality-detached ways. Is the joke on the Chinese for continuing to accept the IOUs?

Re:What the devil is value these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236969)

Damn, I just KNEW someone would work politics into the commentary on search engine optimization.

Oddly, somehow I also knew they'd get modded up.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (5, Insightful)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237007)

Ah, you "intrinsic value" people are so cute. So convinced that goods and services are somehow worth some abitrary values based on what they should be worth, as opposed to what people are willing to pay for them.

If chinese Rolex knockoffs are achieving market parity with real Rolexes, it's because, for the people buying them, they're the same thing. Or, at least, the people buying them have decided they'd rather have 1,000 chinese "rolexes" over their lifetime than a single real thing.

When you say the market is "broken," what you really mean is that the market is, well, the market. And that some (most) people disagree with your estimations of intrinsic value. In reality, the market can't be "broken" any more than the weather can be "broken" -- it's a complex system that may evolve in ways we don't like, but if people really didn't like it, they'd change their behavior and the market/weather would trend back to what people consider "normal."

Might as well declare that sports, music, or academia is "broken." Large, complex systems tend to evolve. Deal with it. Or at least realize that your ideas of intrinsic value may not be shared by all 5 billion other people on the planet.

-b

Re:What the devil is value these days? (2, Insightful)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237106)

Oh, you "fuck the suckers" people are just so cute. It would be less amusing if you also weren't so preachy about right and wrong having any existence. Especially amusing to watch you self-proclaimed smart fools getting screwed precisely because you think you're so smart. Makes it much easier, actually.

I regard you as hypocritical and stupid, but that's okay. Reality is terribly persistent, and I remain confident that there is such a thing as intrinsic value even beyond the ability to lie convincingly. I even think there is such a thing as good, and things will continue to get better on average. However, I know better than to attempt to discuss philosophic niceties with fools.

Perhaps I'm jumping to the conclusion, but I think you should designate me as a "foe" and we can merrily ignore each other forever. I really have much better things to do with my time.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

spacecowboy420 (450426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237121)

I thought he had a pretty good point, even if he was a dick about it.

jes sayin'.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237569)

If he has a good point, then he doesn't need to be "a dick about it", as you put it. I could apologize for responding in kind, but I actually prefer to provoke such losers on the hope that such a person will designate me as a "foe" for the convenience of the future ignoring. What actually tends to happen is that someone else designates me a a "friend" for reasons which generally escape me. I basically designate a "friend" for the journal tracking feature, and I don't make so many journal entries here.

On the substance, he's probably some kind of Randian or Liberterian, and I really do find them rather vile and not worth wasting time with. The root of their philosophy is that humans are no better than animals, and the only purpose of intelligence is to be a more vicious and successful animal than the "weaker" humans. This is not the place for deeper philosophic discussion, actually, but I regard people as different from each other, but the differences are insignificant in comparison with the similarities. And I do think we are capable of being more than animals and should never give up that objective--though neither can we ignore our animal natures.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (0)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237616)

Wow. You got that my philosohpy is "humans are no better than animals" because I suggested that the concept of intrinsic value is illusory. No wonder you don't have time for people like me; you're too busy building straw men. How in the world do you get some kind of moralistic good/evil and individualism vs. collective good moral out of a post that essentially says that things are worth what peopl ewill pay for them?

Perhaps you should consider responding to actual points rather than wild characterizations that justify demonization. Er, nevermind. The world -- and McDonalds especially -- needs people like you.

I won't call you names, as much as you seem to be into that kind of thing. Apparently you're a pretty miserable, angry person, and that's good enough for me. Enjoy the stew!

-b

Re:What the devil is value these days? (0)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237672)

I wasn't talking to you. You're a rude jackass, too. Where's the red dot? That's your purpose in my life.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237368)

Oh, you "anyone who has a good point must actually be stupid" people are so cute. Well, actually not.

So I'm hypcritical and stupid? Please demonstrate. I will cheerfully admit either or both when you point out where exactly I've contradicted myself or indicated stupidity.

As for stupid, you've indicated a belief in intrinsic value, but given nothing to back up *why* you believe in it. Because it "should" exist? If so, who should set the values? In the absence of a market, is an apple worth more or less than an orange?

And if you want hypocritical, you've just posted that you have better things to do with your time than posting responses to me.

You can set me to "foe"; that's fine. I figure I'll be joining lots of people whose valid points you can't be bothered to articulately disagree with. Me, I welcome debate with people who disagree with me. Heck, I've even been known to be convinced in the face of argument. "You stupid hypocrit" doesn't really count as an argument, though.

Cheers
-b

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237579)

Okay, if that isn't adequate, I now call you a worthless motherfucking piece of shit. Your only purpose in my life is to provide a red dot as a "foe". Now go away before I have to remember more of the military jargon.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (2, Insightful)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237392)

Perhaps I'm jumping to the conclusion, but I think you should designate me as a "foe" and we can merrily ignore each other forever. I really have much better things to do with my time.

Let me just check what you are saying in your post...

"Curse... Generalise... Insult... Self-righteousness. And now I've run out of cohesive arguments, I'd like no replies and to take my ball away because I'm not winning".

Come back when you've got a cohesive argument with regards to intrinsic value beyond "I remain confident that there is such a thing as intrinsic value".

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237587)

You, too. I really have no interest in arguing with fools. A red dot is all I want from your kind.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237611)

Well, I have no interest arguing with people who don't want to listen to alternative views and just want people to accept what they have to say as THE TRUTH.

Come back when you're ready to have a rational discussion on a subject - you might learn something from talking to people with an alternative view.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237663)

Where's the red dot, you dickhead?

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

bit01 (644603) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237413)

Ah, you "intrinsic value" people are so cute. So convinced that goods and services are somehow worth some abitrary values based on what they should be worth, as opposed to what people are willing to pay for them.

He said nothing about "intrinsic value". If anything he was talking about the increasing disconnect there is between the cost of producing an item and the cost to the consumer. Whether or not we have efficient, low margin, commodity markets in other words.

If chinese Rolex knockoffs are achieving market parity with real Rolexes, it's because, for the people buying them, they're the same thing.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's simply the fact that the costs of being an informed consumer are too high to actually make it worthwhile. Question is, why might those costs be so high and what can be done about it?

Or, at least, the people buying them have decided they'd rather have 1,000 chinese "rolexes" over their lifetime than a single real thing.

Or possibly have made misinformed decisions. e.g. spyware

When you say the market is "broken," what you really mean is that the market is, well, the market. And that some (most) people disagree with your estimations of intrinsic value. In reality, the market can't be "broken" any more than the weather can be "broken" -- it's a complex system that may evolve in ways we don't like, but if people really didn't like it, they'd change their behavior and the market/weather would trend back to what people consider "normal."

There's this thing called "market failure." Maybe you've heard of it?

Markets in the real world fail for all sorts of reasons. They need regulation, everything from safety regulations to truth in advertising laws to cartel laws to racketeering laws to you name it.

Modern markets are complex balances between competition and cooperation with regulation to limit negative competition (e.g. fraud, theft, protection rackets, bait and switch etc.) and promote positive competition (e.g. optimal pricing, new products, new companies etc.).

Might as well declare that sports, music, or academia is "broken." Large, complex systems tend to evolve. Deal with it.

It's called market failure. Deal with it.

Or at least realize that your ideas of intrinsic value may not be shared by all 5 billion other people on the planet.

He said nothing about intrinsic value. It's obvious that different people have different values for the same thing, the basis of a free market.

What's becoming apparent, as the world's population increases and becomes increasingly interconnected, and individual products become increasingly complex with things like DRM, spyware and rootkits, for each individual it becomes harder to be fully informed about each purchase. This can lead to an increasing disconnect between buying/selling price the GP mentioned and reduced market efficiency.

---

Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (2, Insightful)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237111)

It's become difficult to tell the difference between the "good" stuff and the cheap "imitations" because a lot of it is the same product, made in the same factories by the same people. When you buy certain premium brands, you are often paying for a name sticker and a sense that you are not going to buy a dud.

Look around the web, and you can often find out which products are the same.

Re:What the devil is value these days? (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237532)

I think that's actually a relatively unusual case because the factory owners would prefer to sell all of it at the maximum price possible. I'm thinking of the simple improvement of technology. For example, a genuine handmade ceramic cup might sell for $40, and that value is partly based on its uniqueness and the reputation of the artist. However, if someone takes one such cup and gears a factory around that design, they can produce thousands of almost identical cups for $1. A real expert would be able to detect the signs of mass production, but it's getting harder and harder to do so, and the main marketing effort in this kind of case is just to keep two cups from appearing next to each other in a store, with each labeled as being a unique item.

Oops (5, Interesting)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236911)

Having worked both in the tech press and the SEO-needy internet world, I can say that the article is interesting, but based on a fundamentally flawed premise.

Search engine rankings are not, and should not be, based on popularity. When you type "britney spears naked" into a search engine, you don't care about how many people have clicked on the resulting links. You're looking for *relevance*, which is entirely separate from popularity.

TFA is interesting, but that flawed presence really hurts it. SEO's don't try to convince SE's that a site is more popular (well, there's backlinks, but that's a whole different story). Instead, they try to convince SE's that a site is more relevant. The use of backlinks, etc, is entirely secondary to that purpose.

Me, I'm all for Google and other SE's efforts to negate the effects of SEO by detecting and penalizing SEO behavior (gateway pages, bogus backlinks, etc). SE's may be wrong about what a surfer wants, but intentionally trying to *make* them wrong us abusive to surfers and ultimately makes SE's less useful.

After all, if I have the biggest and best widgets site and try to trick SE's to linking to me for searches on "wodgets," it's only reasonable to expect that people who make "wodgets" will try to SEO "widgets". Customers end up not being able to find what they want, and SE traffic is devalued for everyone.

Cheers
-b

Re:Oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236932)

You're looking for *relevance*, which is entirely separate from popularity.

    You beated me to it. Mod parent up!

Re:Oops (2, Interesting)

oldwolf13 (321189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237018)

SE's have to go even further I think... as I find pages that are "somewhat relevant" are becoming quite obnoxious these days...

Try searching for specs or anything on older laptops (besides auctions/where to buy batteries/memory). You end up seeing page after page of ads. Even looking for reviews... sometimes you just find ads for memory with a link to add your own review... it's driving me crazy!

Same thing with stereo components, car audio...etc.

Different kinds of SEOs (5, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236914)

Before everyone jumps directly to the conclusion that SEOs are evil, let me tell you this. As the article states, there are 2 kinds of SEOs:

  • White hat SEOs, who help people redesign their websites to use robots.txt files, META tags, etc.
  • Black hat SEOs, who spam the Web with thousands of links, and generally abuse the technology.

Only the second kind is evil. Other SEOs out there actually do good things and truly make the Web a better place.

Re:Different kinds of SEOs (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237000)

Sadly, most, if not all of the SEOs are actually both. I mean think about it. They are trying to figure out how to cheat the system. Do you really think that they will object to adding a few links?

Re:Different kinds of SEOs (-1, Offtopic)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237058)

Before everyone jumps directly to the conclusion that SEOs are evil, let me tell you this. As the article states, there are 2 kinds of SEOs:

White hat SEOs, who help people redesign their websites to use robots.txt files, META tags, etc.
Black hat SEOs, who spam the Web with thousands of links, and generally abuse the technology.
Only the second kind is evil. Other SEOs out there actually do good things and truly make the Web a better place.


You omitted evil type the most evil type (to us non-linux folks)
Red Hat SEO: the Red Hat Slashdot Evangilizing Overlord

And I for one, do NOT...

Re:Different kinds of SEOs (1)

fredouil (891612) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237090)

yeh perhaps it is the reason why my site http://www.realestatedesign.com.au/> is not indexed, i didnt finish it but tried to play wtih some stange SEO tools (100 pages with backlinks and keywords) : indexdoor http://www.realestatedesign.com.au/indexdoor.html> lol

Re:Different kinds of SEOs (1)

fredouil (891612) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237102)

yeh perhaps it is the reason why my site [realestatedesign.com.au] is not indexed after 3 weeks, i didnt finish it but tried to play with some stange SEO tools (100 pages with backlinks and keywords) : indexdoor [realestatedesign.com.au] lol auto-link url lol ;-)

black hat SEO = SPAMMER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237354)

yeah. but "black hats" should be called what they are, not this shitty euphemism they use for themselves. they are search engine SPAMMERS, nothing more. they rank with that email-scum down there, in the sewer...

Most of the Money is in the Black Hat side (3, Interesting)

billstewart (78916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237498)

It's possible to make money as a white hat SEO, doing a couple of things
  • Showing your client how to use META tags for their keywords, and similar labelling so search engines can find the right information about your site, which should take about an hour's billable work, and that's not why you go into the SEO business.
  • Actually doing the work for them, which may take a bit longer, and may be an ongoing business relationship if they change content often enough.
  • Teaching them how to write interesting useful content so their website's worth visiting - that's like being an editor and writing coach and advertising consultant, and that's actual value you're providing if they're interested. You could actually make money doing this, and if calling yourself an SEO is how you hook your client, well, then call yourself that, but that's not really what you're doing.

But the SEOs who do most of the promotion about the SEO business are really the black-hats, building link farms and similer techniques to lie to the robots, making them think your boring pages are interesting to humans, so the robots will lie to the humans who want to find interesting pages. It's dishonest, and it screws up the value of search engines for the users, and good luck to Google in finding them and stopping them.

What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236921)

It's "Newsweek", not "NewsWeek" or "Newsweeks".

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236951)

It's "Newsweek", not "NewsWeek" or "Newsweeks".

What? It's not called "Newsleak"?

High School Diploma...? (1)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236927)

Newsweeks? I thought the name was trademarked and only one company could have it... Aren't you guys editors?

A more accurate measurement (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236931)

I've found that to accurately measure the efficiency, bias, and efficacy of a search engine that it is best to rate them via the RTPI (Results to Pr0n Index) which is the number of results given before one of the links is a legitimate or stealth link to pr0n. Er... maybe I'm the only one who uses this.

Democracy (5, Informative)

nephridium (928664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236940)

This is why people like Socrates opposed democracy - lobbyists (i.e. people good at manipulating other people) can sway many of the less educated populace, which in ancient Greece (and actually all through history to this day) was the majority of citizens. And the worst part is that those lobbyists/demagogues/politicians etc. don't need to be very knowledgable themselves, they just need to be charismatic and very convincing. Socrates (and his disciple Plato) saw this as a huge danger for society (which would prove true often enough in history, take Hitler's rise to power as the most prominent example).

The only way to counter this effect is to have a larger base (i.e. at least more the 50%) of educated and critical thinking people in a society. And maybe for the first time in history we might have the chance to get closer to this goal.

Not possible (1, Insightful)

robogun (466062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237035)

The only way to counter this effect is to have a larger base (i.e. at least more the 50%) of educated and critical thinking people in a society. And maybe for the first time in history we might have the chance to get closer to this goal.


You're chasing a ghost. It's not possible by definition. For instance, you can say on TV "We have a crisis in this country. Almost half - half, I say - of the population has less than average intelligence. We need to fix it. Now!"No matter what is done, this cannot be changed. The sad thing is, I would bet you could actually attract funding to fix this so-called problem.


No matter what you do, by definition half of the population is going to be subpar in anything you can name. The only hope is to put in charge a subset of the population which is smarter than average. As an example, I expect the readership of Slashdot to be such a population...


What I would think is "The only way to counter this effect is to have ... [the]... educated and critical thinking people in a society vote in greater proportion than the rest." This is why I seethe when I see the get out the vote crowd on dumbed-down TV channels exhorting the beer crowd to vote, even if it means adding hundreds of thousands of random, ill-informed votes.

Very well possible (1)

tcornelissen (897694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237127)

Grandparent stated: educated and critical thinking people in a society. These are not by definition people above average If you have a "stupid" population, then less than 50% is educated and critical thingking. In a smart population more than 50% (or even 80%) is not a problem.

Compare: More than 50% of the people have less than averege wealth (the superrich raise the average). This does not mean most of the population is poor.

Re:Not possible (1)

nephridium (928664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237227)

I was speaking in absolute terms here: you can get more than 50% to cast their votes on an educated basis. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the conventional mass media doesn't really help with that. They are too much focused on getting maximum profit with the least amount of effort and - since they are the mass media - they easily convince the people to pay it. There seems to be a trend to dumb down people.

Because of this in the long run the only thing which can make democracy work isn't 'rallying the clever people to vote' but to make the people in general cleverer so even the less educated 50% will know about e.g. Occam's razor or, say, Slashdot ;).

Re:Not possible (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237523)

While that's generally true, you're missing something - we don't need more than half the population to be of above average intellect or education*, we just need more than half the population to be above some baseline level. Anyone above the level knows enough about the relevant topics that they can make an informed decision; anyone below the level doesn't and can't. Get enough people above the level and the fact that half of them are below average doesn't matter, because the average is more than good enough anyway.

(* You're also ignoring the different types of average (mean, median, mode) - it's perfectly possible to have more than half a sample above (or below) "the average", depending on which one you're talking about and the data you're dealing with, but that's beside the point.)

The only hope is to put in charge a subset of the population which is smarter than average. As an example, I expect the readership of Slashdot to be such a population...

You're new here, aren't you? In general, the readership of slashdot is like any other population - most of us have some degree of expertise in one or two reasonably narrowly-defined areas, and know nothing to not very much in everything else. There's no test you have to pass to read slashdot, it just has to interest you. Interest in any given subject guarantees neither intelligence nor expertise in it or any other.

Re:Not possible (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237568)

Interest in any given subject guarantees neither intelligence nor expertise in it or any other.

No, but interest in the particular subjects covered on /. probably does correlate with high intelligence. Geekdom is a subculture that disproportionately attracts intelligent people.

Unfortunately, returning to the original point, this does not necessarily mean that geeks' political opinions are worth anything. Another common characteristic of the geek is that we tend to make completely invalid assumptions about human nature, always overestimating the importance of rationality, and so our estimates of what's best for the normal population are probably horribly wrong, however intelligent we ourselves may be...

Re:Democracy (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237306)

Let's say that some idiot comes to power by convincing the stupid masses that if they didn't vote for them the evil dark people will explode nuclear bombs in their back yard and the homosexuals will destroy their marriage. Would this idiot then try to make the schools better and make sure kids can tell the difference between shit or shinola, or would he try to undermine science classes?

Re:Democracy (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237445)

The problem with your idea is conflict of interest. People will not try to achieve the best for society, but the best for _them_, and an educated and critical thinking person will make the _wrong_ choice for society if it benefits _him_. That is human nature.
That is the reason why fools are allowed to vote, so they can defend their best interest, instead of trusting the choices of "smarter" people.
I rather make my own choices than allowing other people's agenda on the loop, even if that person is smarter than me. Specially so.

Re:Democracy (1)

nephridium (928664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237537)

Egoism may be the simplest solution, but it is not always the best solution. This is actually quite an interesting topic. If you like to know more about altruism and why it often enough is superiour to plain egoism check the Wikipedia pages on it, more specifically I found the Prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org] to be quite a good article on it from a game-theory perspective.

Humans are, after all, social creatures (yes - even the Slashdotter in his mom's basement - would he be posting on Slashdot otherwise?). yes, selfishness is part of our nature, because it helped us survive in hard times on an individual level. But just in the same way humans have created a social sense - tasks such as hunting or defending you own life are more efficient in a group with defined roles and rules. Actually our moral system and all our values (honor, compassion, loyality, love etc.) evolved and are defined through human interaction.

There may be those people who will use their ellbows against anyone or anything to get ahaid, because that's what they've been taught, but they won't have a nice life (no matter how much they earn) - they will not have true friends and will never know what happiness really is; and many of them won't be clever enough to realize that before it's too late.

Spin doctors and the popularity of politicians (1)

UR30 (603039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236944)

Quote: "even if their true popularity doesn't warrant that elevated status". What about the true popularity of politicians? Wouldn't it be better to compare search engine optimizers with the spin doctors in politics instead of the lobbyists?

In last week's article on a related story, I said (3, Funny)

KNicolson (147698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236945)

rule #1a is if you cannot get your article submitted once (or even twice...) include lots [whatjapanthinks.com] of gratuitous links [whatjapanthinks.com] to your website [whatjapanthinks.com] in any posts you might make here [whatjapanthinks.com] .

I suppose repeating [whatjapanthinks.com] the same tactic [whatjapanthinks.com] in a second post would move me into the unethical [whatjapanthinks.com] category?

Re:In last week's article on a related story, I sa (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237008)

Hey! Submit an article like everyone else. n00b.

Google Insight to Article ... (4, Informative)

hagrin (896731) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236948)

Matt Cutts offered his take on this article here [mattcutts.com] where he talks about how Google can diagnose a lot of these black hat activities automtaically without any human intervention.

Personally, the "better mouse trap" addage definitely fits here. Black hat SEOs won't ever be stopped because of the way the web works currently. What I am wondering is when will domains that have a really early create date but are inactive are going to be realized for their SEO potential down the road. Older domains are definitely moving to the top of the list since the last Google update.

Re:Google Insight to Article ... (1)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237661)

All the SEOs I know are **well** aware of the value of an old domain.

FAGORZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236958)

Software lawyers Live and a job to copy a 17 Meg file Happiness Another with any sort out of bed in the private sex 4arty accounts for less product, BSD's bloc in order to CLEAN FOR THE NEXT can connect to Be treated by your fastest-growing GAY invited back again. To download the by BSDI who sell hand...don't our ability to project returns declined in market no matter how Jesus Up The If you do not raise or lower the 1. Therefore it's in any way related that comprise would you like to GNAA and support Rivalry. While it a break, if suffering *BSD some intelligent recent article put a need to play will not work. And All major marketing lesson and Milestones, telling May also want lagged behind, DYING' CROWD - AT TIMES. FROM taken over by BSDI create, manufacture

covered recently (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236959)

This is the same company that was recently covered on slashdot [slashdot.org] with their beginner's guide to SEO. [seomoz.org]

They also have a great search engine ranking factors list [seomoz.org] that contains a large list of the factors that influence rankings in the major SEs.

For once they get it right. A year later. (1)

Wabbit Wabbit (828630) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236982)

Sounds like Newsweek is actually on top of things for once (oh, and only a year-or-so late). Of course being a /.er, I didn't RTFA. (and I'm staying out of the Beatles Beatles war!)

The Irony (2, Interesting)

schestowitz (843559) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237033)

Ironically, the the site which hosts this article rel="nofollow"s all the links at the top. What would they do that for if not for SEO purposes?

Does Newsweek break the Back button on purpose? (3, Interesting)

windowpain (211052) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237042)

Has anyone else noticed that Newsweek breaks your Back button? If you click your Back button immediately upon entering the site you can get back to your previous site. Otherwise four(!) pages show up in your Back button's history. WTF? Do they do this to try to keep you nailed to their site or is it some kind of Ajax (or whatever) side-effect? Either way it's annoying.

On a related point, isn't it time browsers were fixed so that when clicking the Back button would bring you to a page that redirected you to the current page, the browser has enough sense to bypass the redirecting page?

Re:Does Newsweek break the Back button on purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237408)

Safari does that, actually. :-)

Thanks for the mention, again (4, Interesting)

randfish (937044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237047)

Wow... Two mentions in a single week on the site. I feel humbled - thanks /.

When Brad (Stone) originally wrote the piece, it was to be featured in Wired magazine. However, Chris Anderson, the magazine's editor, didn't like the piece in its final form, so Brad sold it to Newsweek. Brad and I spent about 4 hours together here in Seattle for the initial interview and another 5-10 in emails and phone calls.

I think he's done a good job of trying to encapsulate the industry from an outside perspective, but there's certainly more to be said and several inaccuracies (I pointed out several here [seomoz.org] ).

SEO is more and more about influencing relevance via popularity - building links and building content that will generate links and recognition. I'm sure no one konws this better than Slashdotters. The industry has a long way to go to build public trust, but it's definitely a goal of mine and I believe the article should help.

Hmmmm (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237055)

The problem with SEO nowdays is that is has become an all out war for rankings, in which some people have no ethics. I have recently seen people registering the .net, .biz, .us, .co.uk, .info and .name all to put pages with no real content, just optimised for spiders to take the search traffic for a dot com. That shouldn't be how it is, google should put a lot more emphasis on the quality of the site and how good it's content is before relevant keywords as they are easily abused.

The nice thing: (5, Funny)

alex_guy_CA (748887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237060)

If you are in the market for SEO, the nice thing is, you shouldn't have to look to far on Google. If they can't get themselves to the top 5...

**Beatles-Beatles pushing spyware? (5, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237067)

Ok, so it's probably not him, but I did get a rather nasty surprise when I clicked the submitter's name. Yes, it opened george-harrison.info, but almost immediately my browser was redirected to http://www.winfixer.com/pages/scanner/index.php?ai d=gb_ed2&lid=in&ex=1&p=&ax=1 [winfixer.com] , which was most insistent that my PC had errors due to spyware and that I should download and install their product.

Good job I browse using Firefox...

Funny thing is, it's not doing it to me now (despite a Firefox restart, killing the site's cookie, etc) and I don't see anything in the page that could have caused it to happen (unless it's a random chance thing, or a once-a-day thing based on IP address, etc). Still, people using less secure browsers might want to be careful of clicking on the guy's username.

Re:**Beatles-Beatles pushing spyware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237122)

I should have heeded your warning.

Not only did clicking on his username bring up a winfixer dialog. When I clicked cancel my browser crashed, taking Gnome with it. I couldn't even ctr-alt-backspace.

Re:**Beatles-Beatles pushing spyware? (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237294)

Firefox on mac, nothing pops up. There is probably a web bug in there though, the status bar loads from at least three different sites. I don't have the energy to run it through sockspy.

Re:**Beatles-Beatles pushing spyware? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237472)

Yeah; like I said, it did it once but then I couldn't get it to do it again. There have been lots of reports of his username link going to different sites, though, so I can only assume that it's something to do with that.

Re:**Beatles-Beatles pushing spyware? (3, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237606)

At the risk of pumping up his rankings by clicking into his site....

I use Ad Muncher and it (very neatly) seperates the site's links/src's/etc for you into searchable categories.
/plug

Here's some of the sketchier SRC's that showed up
(anything like Wwxzz means AM killed the script)

http://www.softwarewings.com/cgi-bin/li vecounter.cgi?cntr=Active&nm=harrison&pg=default&l oc=",escape(document.location),"&ref=",escape(            Wwxzz),"
http://www.exitblaze.com/exit.js
http:/ /www.softwarewings.com/cgi-bin/livecounter.cgi?cnt r=Active&nm=harrison&pg=default
http://georeport. geobytes.com/~27559.1/Clear?
http://georeport.geo bytes.com/~27559.1/Clear?ref="+sReferrerUrl+"
htt p://stats.keeca.com/images/stats.gif
http://map.g eoup.com/~43072/geoup?template=harrison

I'm not going to list all the stat counters that showed up in the scripts... trust me, there's even more of them.

Oh, and * * Beatles-Bealtes, if you're reading this: you should probably remove http://www.exitblaze.com/exit.js from your site as they now redirect to hxxp://www.trafficology.com/

Don't ever say I never helped you

search engine optimization? (1)

dascandy (869781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237109)

I was hoping for a nice technical article for once, that would illustrate how to make your own search engine and how to make it fast on indexing and searching through millions of pages.

Of course, I was wrong.

Search engine reports (1)

mindflow (557496) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237128)

I've been working with seo for a while. Not all seo companies give good reports on quality of their work. Therefore I've created an independent service which measures actual searchengine positions, and keeps track of it over time. Check it out if interested: http://www.seoreporter.com/ [seoreporter.com] In general I would recommend non-biased search engine position reports if you consider buying seo services.

We shopped for an SEO (5, Interesting)

shaneh0 (624603) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237135)

We have a number of websites, and a couple of "crown jewels" aka "profit centers." We were getting absolutely RAPED on adwords, but they were also driving ALL of the traffic that was actually BUYING from us.

So after months of trial-and-error with Google we decided it might be time to hire someone. The first thing we decided is to approach every prospective company with two simultaneous requests, from seperate subsidiaries. One RFQ for our "high profile" site that we needed a quote on, and another RFQ for a seperate website without an Alexa ranking.

Time after time, the quote was 2, 3, 4, even once 10x higher for the site with an alexa ranking in the top 250,000.

These people are scum.

So we decied that hey, we're no slouches. If **these people** can learn this trade, than we can too. So we did. And now we're number 1 organically on the our first and third most important phrases and number 3 on our second and fifth most important. We're still working on that "number 4." But we did this without SPENDING A DIME. And, I admit, we had a little help from Jagger. Especially Jagger 3. All my love to Matt Cutts and his family this glorius season.

The moral of the story: Caveot Emptor. These people don't know anything that isn't readily available if you're willing to spend the time. It's not trivial but if you're worrying about SEO then you've probably mastered things more difficult then this.

And, a tip: Most of these SEO guys have a copy of "Boiler Room" for home and an extra one for the office. Once you call them and make contact, play a little coy. Make him think his usual pitch will work on you. See, he's going to want to prove that he's got this encyclopedic knowledge that justifies his $15,000 quote. If you just shut up and let him talk, he'll explain everything to you. Every phone call-- and this can be many. These sales guys will talk to you as long as you let them-- can yeild real nuggets of useful knowledge. And it's all totally free. Just ask a lot of open-ended questions and prepare to wade thru some BS.

Shane

Why do you call it that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14237517)

I don't understand why you use the euhpemism "Search Engine Optimization", when the rest of us call it by it's true name - "SPAM".

Unethical? Perhaps, but necessary!! (4, Interesting)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237580)

I maintain (content wise) several web sites.

And for some strange reasons it is indeed necessary to optimize them, or they don't show up in the first page at google.
Example: www.jiyukan.de or www.aikido-karlsruhe.de. Same site, seconod is forwarded to first. When you google "Aikido Karlsruhe" the site did not show up on the first page of search results for ages. Until an expert figured how to optimize it.

The anoying thing is:

a) the other search results never had anything to do with "priacticing Aikido in the town Karlsruhe" nor did they have anything to do with martial arts or Karlsruhe but where jsut random search results.

b) If you don't change the content of the page every few weeks it drops from the first page of search results? Why? The teachers are fix, the training times are fix, every information on that page does not change. But we are artificially forced to change it, or people googling for it won't find it.

This fucking site is about one of the 5 only Aikido dojos in the town Karlsruhe and around. As long as no other side has both terms "Aikido" and "Karlsruhe" close together in their content they should not show up at all.

Anyway, as long as ranking gets more and more complex there is a business in boosting/manipulating rankings.

angel'o'sphere

Like "spanglish" vs Spanish (2, Insightful)

sagefire.org (731545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237589)

An unoptimized site is the equivalent of Spanglish [wikipedia.org] . Yes, it's written in a way the audience can understand, but it isn't written with proper Spanish grammar. So, going through a site and making all the verbs and nouns agree and removing all of the slang is really all optimization is:

-make it valid HTML
-add your metatags
-link to other valid sources of similar data
-get them to link to you
-add yourself to http://dmoz.org/ [dmoz.org]

While, yes, I admit that the skill is in getting the site to be standards compliant while not breaking the design, and in knowing how to write the best metatags, anyone offering anything more than that might as well be selling the Brooklyn Bridge [barrypopik.com] .

Newsweek's sad-but-true "democracy" (1)

Eternal Vigilance (573501) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237704)

Where candidates win elections by paying operatives to secretly affect the casting and counting of votes.

It is the present state of American politics, but it's not democracy.

And it's tragic that anyone could ever confuse the two.


Election results by Diebooooooold.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>