Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Overreaching Obfuscation?

Is it just me or does this article seem to be over-stretching and obfuscating the domain of SEO to include or blur distinction between SEO, search engine marketing, internet marketing and marketing? I see clear distinctions between the boundaries of those domains in all of the above articles but this one. Oicumayberight 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's partially you, and partially the nature of the topic. The distinctions in reality aren't clear or convenient, and I don't believe that there is any intent to overreach nor obscure. The term "SEO" had been in use for a number of years before the use of "search engine marketing" was suggested by people like Danny Sullivan back in 2001, and many consider SEO to be "search engine marketing." The same with "internet marketing" and "marketing." Back before search engines like Altavista and Google were around, we often referred to the practice as "web site promotion." A person practicing SEO often takes a holistic approach in their efforts that encompass SEO/marketing/internet marketing/search engine marketing. That may not make it easy for someone attempting to build an encyclopedia, but the wikipedia entry is reflection of the actual practice of SEO if the boundaries between those efforts aren't all that clear. No intent to deceive or confuse or mislead. Do you, or have you ever worked as an SEO? SEO isn't just tweaking title elements and fixing robots.txt files. SEO practitioners engage in competitive marketing analysis, SWOT analysis, defining business objectives and marketing strategies, understanding market segments and audiences, writing copy, and so on. SEOs are marketers - but marketers who understand something about how search engines work.Bill Slawski 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if the profession started out needing to re-invent the wheel in order to adapt, it doesn't give it the right to re-name the wheel. I understand that marketing for the web, marketing the web, marketing via the web, advertising via the web, and copywriting for the web all involve a level of understanding the technology that didn't exist before the web. However, that doesn't make whatever was known about marketing, advertising, and copywriting, "obsolete" since the advent of the web. And yet they all are applied to search engine optimization. The object of the game doesn't change as fast as the rules. The old rules may apply to new technology just as easily as new technology changes rules. SEO is still primarily a subset of search engine marketing, a subset of internet marketing, a subset of marketing. The only part of SEO that doesn't serve the function of marketing is SEO for non-profit organizations, if it's not considered "non-profit marketing". Oicumayberight 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Keyword selection, content building, site organization are all efforts involving marketing research i.e., (Q: do you structure a site around products and services, around specific audiences, around price points, etc. - A: You research the market, the competitors, the audiences, and others, and develop a marketing strategy based upon that research). SEO is marketing, and not an IT department function, even though it requires a much greater techical knowledge to be successful. SEM was an attempt to rename aspects of SEO, and not the other way around. I've done SEO for nonprofits that were marketing organizations. Those efforts involved creating marketing strategy as much they did building web pages to support those. SEO can as easily be considered "marketing including search engines" as it can be a "subset" of marketing. While it would be nice to find a simple definition, least common denominator based entries in the wikipedia serve no one responsibly. I'm hoping that we can avoid that. Can you clearly define which parts of the article that you take exception to? That might be more constructive than broad accusations of purposeful obfuscation.Bill Slawski 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the general tone of the whole opening section. If you want specifics: "a process of improving the volume of traffic to a web site from search engines, usually in "natural" ("organic" or "algorithmic") search results" couldn't be broader. That almost defines marketing in a nutshell. If you are talking about optimization in the broadest sense of the word, anything any business does to improve it's market share will effect search engine traffic, even if that business doesn't have a website. You could say that any marketing tool has its own set of problems that involve a specialized understanding. I could say post card optimization, brochure optimization, tradeshow booth optimization, television commercial optimization. It wouldn't make it any less a part of marketing. We understand that the web is a complicated medium. So is any form of mass media. It doesn't mean that all things important begin and end with the web.
We all know that search engine relevance is either based on algorithms or other marketing methods. I don't have a problem with SEO summing up the challenge in dealing with algorithms. Once SEO gets into explaining the challenges outside of algorithms, it gets into well established domains that have been around long before SEO. Oicumayberight 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever done SEO, or are you just writing about what you think SEO is, without any actual knowledge? I ask not to accuse or attack, but rather to understand your stance. The challenges in SEO go beyond algorithms to things such as understanding why someone might link to or visit one page over another. That's not a function of algorithm, but rather of marketing. Another example involves the choice of words within meta descriptions on pages. They aren't part of the index of Google or Yahoo, and the main reason to include them is to persuade people who see them as snippets on a search result page to visit the pages that they are associated with. SEO is more than algorithm chasing. I don't see how "improving the volume of traffic to a web site from search engines" is misleading.
And yes, there are even things that you can do that fall under the practice of SEO that don't require that a business have a web site, such as making sure businesses are verified within Google's local search.Bill Slawski 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the broader definition from this article, I have done search engine optimization. But I wouldn't consider myself a search engine optimizer. I've edited copy, but I don't call myself a copywriter. I've made marketing decisions, but I don't call myself a marketer. I have interviewed search engine optimizers, and I do think what they do is unique within the domain of SEO. When they step out of that domain, they are still in the domain of marketing, more specifically marketing communications. Keywords become buzzwords and soundbytes. Content placement becomes page layout. Content development becomes communication design, professional writing, visual arts and software development. It may still be for the purpose of gaining search engine prominence, but that's only for the purpose of market share, circulation, readership (surprised there's no article), sales, and everything else that serves marketing. I would be surprised if there was any SEO concern aside from algorithms that wasn't synonymous with a marketing equivalency established years before SEO.
What next? Education becomes a domain of e-learning? Business becomes the domain of E-commerce? I understand if SEO is too much of a specialty to stay busy and pay the bills. I have no problem with SEOs going out side of their domain to find work. I do have a problem with the world having to relearn most of our established vocabulary every time a new technology effects the market. Oicumayberight 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with it, but I am trying to understand your point of view, especially when it comes to the specific portion of the article that you pointed out. To me, "a process of improving the volume of traffic to a web site from search engines, usually in "natural" ("organic" or "algorithmic") is pretty clear and distinquishable from marketing as a whole. If you were to rewrite it, what would you say? Bill Slawski 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, that's a brilliant user name that you have. Wish I had been more creative in my choice. (Forgive me the aside, please.) Bill Slawski 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a reason why there is no bachelors degree in "optimization" but there is a degree in "marketing". There is a reason why there is no bachelors degree in "learning" but there is a degree in "education". I'm just tired of all the re-labeling to suit the purpose of the profession, rather than the profession suiting the purpose of what feeds it. It's easy to see why someone who didn't major in marketing would resist adding the word "marketing" to what they do. I'm not accusing you specifically, but I know that the culture of computer science tends to overreach and relable everything in terms of the rigid dualistic logic that work so well with their crisp 1s and 0s. Some programmers act like they work and live in a vacuum.
Before new terms are forced into our vocabulary or technical terms are stretched beyond there usefulness, every effort should be made to see if an existing well-established term suffices. Oicumayberight 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not the only one who is tired of that. You will love to hear that there are stronger movements active today, supported by search engines that work on a curriculum for certified SEO's that will be accepted by the industry. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's just hope they will include marketing in that curriculum. Otherwise they will find it difficult to predict what goes on in the head of the user. Oicumayberight 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get offended if I find humor in this discussion. I do. I'm going to be a guest speaker in a marketing class at a local university later this semester - I'll try not to mislead them too much. Bill Slawski 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No offense. I'm glad you have a sense of humor. Maybe the guest appearance will be a two-way learning experience.
I see you have a law degree. I'm curious as to how that translates to SEO or the reverse. I guess we all have a lot to learn with this still very young medium that is rapidly reshaping our planet. Oicumayberight 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Lots of ways, probably not quite the appropriate context here to go into in detail. I'm still learning a lot about marketing Web sites after 10 years, though I think that mobile search may have an even bigger impact and provide more for us to learn.Bill Slawski 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The two of you, did you see the template at the top of the page? It states: "This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here". I was breaking down the Internet marketing category here. I intended to create a project to clean up the current mess that still exists in a lot of areas to Internet Marketing. Internet Marketing becomes more and more integrated and lines between once clearly separate types of marketing got blurred. Affiliate Marketing and Display Advertising are already overlapping each other to some degree, which was not the case a few years ago. Paid Search overlaps with SEO and if you want to be successful today and in the future, you better integrate all marketing method, including email marketing and what have not together and see it as a combined effort. This does not mean that you have to repeat everything in all articles, but that you will have some overlapping content across multiple articles. It should stop at a certain point and being referenced to the specific article that is more appropriate at a certain point, but that requires that all topic related articles are in a shape that allows to do that. Regarding SEO. It's the nature of the business to touch everything "physical" about a website and what affects it. That includes Website Design, Proper HTML Code usage, Copy writing and also some 100% SEO related things such as Meta Tags and Robots.txt. What it does not mean is that SEO's are designing and code your website and write all the copy for you. Most of the time consists the work of SEO the FIX and TWEAKING of the mentioned without re-doing it from scratch. Correct me if I am wrong Bill, because I am not the professional here and consider myself an amateur when it comes to SEO. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I seem to be heating things up to a boil. But this discussion needs to be had. I don't know why my experience came into question on a democratic forum. I know that this article is not being written to be read exclusively by professional search engine optimizers by title. Oicumayberight 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with democracy, but facts. If you tell a car mechanic what he is doing to fix your car and he says nope, I do this and also x other things you did not know about, the answer would be: Interesting, I did not know that. But insisting that you know better than the car mechanic what he is doing while he is at work is ridiculous. Do you expect the car mechanic to agree with you, just because you read the stuff you insist upon in a Car magazine? This has nothing to do with democracy. The SEO article needs improvement and there are clearly things that are open for debate, even among SEO's themselves. Those need to be discussed, yes, but don't tell a SEO what he is doing every day to earn his money for living. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see myself as telling the mechanic how to fix my car so to speak. I saw my self as telling the mechanic that "customer service" is broader than fixing the customers car, even if the customer service is for auto repair. That's putting it lightly. Boiling marketing down to SEO is like boiling the entire automotive experience (manufacturing, sales, warranty, insurance, maintenance) down to auto repair. Oicumayberight 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
unless you are an SEO yourself. And you will be surprises, not all SEO do exactly the same. There are specializations and niches. Like doctors, they all have the same basic understanding and knowledge and then they go off and specialize. The fixes brains, the other intestines etc. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So now it's a practice or a science. That's fine, as long as it's not the practice of re-inventing and renaming the wheel. Oicumayberight 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to see that we are at the end on the same page after all. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I might rephrase it a little. SEO is not reinventing marketing but to some degree reinvents how the actual marketing is being done. Hands-on. The reason why SEO is still necessary is that algorithm based search engines are unfortunately not as smart as humans. I web page that can be clearly seen by a human does not mean that a search engine sees it properly, only because a human can navigate to a page does not mean that a search engine can, content that is perfectly clear to humans is not automatically clear to search engines. Now in order to tweak the technical sides of the business is it important to do that in alignment with the general marketing strategy of the website owner. You gain nothing if you have a perfectly SEO optimized site, if humans don't know what to do with it. Also some thinking needs to be a bit different than in traditional marketing. The thinking in terms of keywords and phrases used by THE CUSTOMER to find your site in the search engines. This concept is new and something companies have to learn to adapt to. Then it comes to the off-site strategies which have to equivalent in the offline world. The offline world is defined by physical space which is irrelevant on the Internet. A mom and pop shop can be in direct competition with a giant like walmart, because the two have the same size on the Internet and are closer than what we call next door in the offline world. Most Internet marketing methods need to consider those things. Some more than others and there are subtle differences between the ones that seem awfully similar, such as Paid search and organic. The beginning of the campaign will look very similar, if not identical to each other, but will become very different down the line. So nothing is being reinvented, but rather adopted to the different environment. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Technical problems have always changed the rules without changing the object of the game throughout history. And yet the establishment adapts. At one time it was thought that desktop publishers would need to hand code postscript.
It sounds to me that there's less adoption of working terms than there is strategic exclusions of those terms if they are from the perceived competition. You can just look at the history of some of these articles and see that dirty word "marketing" being edited out with no explanation. Marketing is a fact of life, no matter how many times it gets re-labled.
Again, I don't have a problem with the use of SEO and it's unique terms for it's unique problems. Once problems spill in to other domains and professions, it's time to use that profession's terminology if it suffices, not force the new terminology on the establishment. We all have a stake in this. Oicumayberight 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you and you will like this article from 2001 [1] and this one [2]. I hope that will make you feel better, because you are right too, you know. It's only that you can't change things over night. Regarding terminology. I come from a SAP background (German Software) which tend to re-label the same old thing to something new and used marketing to sell it as the great new thing to customers. Technically was it the same old, only the interface was redone. So I hear you.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we are on the same page with the goals of the article. SEO has a place in the big picture, and the boundaries of the domain are slowly becoming clearer.
Thanks for the links. I found the phrase "search engine positioning" especially interesting. I use to think that the word "positioning" summed up marketing, until I heard of guerilla marketing. I guess the black hat methods would fall under the category of guerilla marketing. Consumers are getting too smart for guerilla marketing. Maybe the web will bring us back to good ol' fashioned positioning. Oicumayberight 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) For what it's worth, I am an SEO, but I hate the term and avoid using it to describe myself because I think it's too narrow. I'm a marketing consultant because I have to help people with all aspects of their marketing (most of which focuses on the web). It would be daft to only look at organic search when so many aspects of marketing depend on each other. I still like the lead of this article, because SEO is a hugely popular term and the article reflects the current understanding that people have. I am sorry if the world is confused, but we have to take the facts as we find them. This POV -- that SEO as commonly used has expanded to include areas of traditional marketing, and that some people think it's silly to use a highfalutin phrase instead of just "marketing" -- could be added to the article if we can find a reference. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Addition to External links

Search Engine Optimization and Internet Marketing Tutorial

Voting on above - be the first to vote and comment on above.

Gladly-- No. It appears to be promoting the company, first and foremost. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Seo Techniques - Seo tech contain all information about search engine optimization, which is the sub set of searchengine marketing.SEO manage and improving the quality and visitors of a web site. it makes website content more search engine friendly to attract traffic by ranking higher.the seo helps that site is accessible to search engine and improve the chance that site will be shown by the search engine.

Voting on above - be the first to vote and comment on above.

75.82.249.29 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"Yes, some of what you say is partially true, however Wikipedia promotes itself also. Please focus on the important point of what can the average person learn from this practical search engine optimization tutorial? Also why would anyone believe what this SEO tutorial says without proof of results, so some company promotion comes with this. The current Wikipedia search engine optimization page is too technicial for over 80% of the average Joe's that may read it. Also it offers no proof that any thing it says will work. So I think adding this external link complements the theory given in the Wikipedia search engine optimization page. I like the Wikipedia search engine optimization page and fully understand it, I can tell you for sure that is not the case for every one that reads it. I showed it to ten people and only 2 out of 10 told me they understand what it is talking about. Also how does an external link to a dieing Directory (DMOZ) with a list of thousands of SEO companies of which most of them do not know what they are doing help any one? You need to add some external links to this main SEO page if you want to help people learn about this subject. The only current external link is of little value."


Link Building Resources

  • linkMarket.net - Directory of Sites willing to trade links.
  • google.com/trends - Google Trends - Use Google Trends to choose your anchor text wisely.
  • EzineArticles.com - Ezine Article Submission - Submit Your Best Articles For Massive Exposure.
  • getyourcontent.com - Post Free Articles - Post your articles at Getyourcontent.com. Allows authors to post unique content with Adsense code.

^---- I assume that this was also added recently --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


1. Please sign posts with --~~~~ and 2. also use ":", "::", ":::" and so forth for indenting your responses to another wikipedians note. Nobody is able to tell stuff appart otherwise. Now to the comments. 1) References to sources of more information are provided in the article (plenty for that matter). 2) The article had just until a month ago or so an External Links Section with Links to Matt Cutts Blog, WebmasterWorld, Threadwatch, HighRankings and SearchEngineWatch (which would have been replaced or extended by SearchEngineLand by now). A list of lists without additional purpose is an invitation to add any link you want to that is more or less related to the topic. Check the Dmoz listings and you will get an idea how much links the article would have in under 1 year since every english speaking SEO will be linked to from it. 3) last but not least, the section with links to other websites has to be titled "external links" see here. The section in the seo article was renamed back then because of that, before it was removed completely.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

75.82.249.29 16:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC) I am new to this and am sorry if I am not formating things properly. Please feel free to correct my formatting mistakes. I am willing to edit my own external documents based on feedback I recieve here. I am also sorry I do not fully understand what you wrote above. I am coming into this with a fresh persective of what the average person sees and understands when they first look a topic up on Wikipedia. I only see the one current external link that I think is not useful. Please help me understand why more and better quality external links do not show up on the search engine optimization page where the one DMOZ link shows up? That is what the average person will see and understand. WebmasterWorld will just try to get people to pay, so I do not think that would be a good external link.

75.82.249.29 17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Also some of the ways you are doing things in Wikipedia appear to be causing Google to give you a penality or it is a Google defect. For a specific example look at search engine optimization vs. Internet Marketing in Wikipedia, the Internet marketing page has been recently penalized and taken out of the Google cache. You can see this yourself by noting that the Wikipedia Internet marketing page shows as a PR5, however it is not in the Google cache, which may indicate a recent penality or a Google defect.

Voting

I vote no. We're not creating a directory here. Those sites may indeed be very useful, but they aren't sources of info for the article, nor are they among the best available sources of info about SEO. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 07:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No is my vote as well. Primarily because the sites are not about SEO, but are tools and methods employed for different SEO Techniques and Research. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No for the same reasons as above. I'm not link-phobic, I've pressed for this article to contain more external links back when it had almost none, but these particular links are not worthy. -MichaelBluejay 09:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No! this is essentially a spam link. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong NO I am an SEO professional, and there is no way in hell I'd give up anything that wasn't already widely known. Anyone offering strong SEO techniques for less than an astronomical price is either an idiot or a fraud. Nobody is going to give away anything of high value, because keeping it private results in huge profits. NetOracle 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Link Suggestion for SEO

Shouldn't we include a more direct link to a page that contains the rules.

like: [3]; so that they can choose their favorite format (http coming soon, RSS, Blog)?

I couldnt find these things easily on those big sites, especially the forum... I think this is more what people are looking for at wiki; fast, easy info ontopic. This page disrecommends spamming.

Koen

Koen, Wikipedia isn't a directory that facilitates search. It's a compilation of knowledge. We don't add links, we add content, then cite the most authoritative source so users can verify the information they find in Wikipedia. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Some content is real hard to add; like http://video.google.nl/videosearch?q=matt+cutts since havent seen video on wikipedia yet. I bet it should be linked although its matt cutts personal vision and not google's. Can someone more experienced help out?

Rob Thrasher

I pulled this content because the editor is the subject of the discussion, and his article is subject to a { { notability } } discussion.

The first mentions of Search Engine Optimization do not appear on Usenet until 1997, a few years after the launch of the first Internet search engines. Although, the earliest mention of search engine optimization is in the New York Times on November 11th, 1996. A New York Times article about Search Engine Optimization was published about a small group of Web site developers in Utica, New York. This group claimed they used search engine optimization techniques geared at attaining a higher rank for customers that was prefectly legitimate to the business and Web site they were building. In this article Rob Thrasher agreed with Srinija Srinivasan, who helped develop the directory system for Yahoo, that keyword stuffing Web sites with impertinent keywords is bad Netiquette.

Let's discuss this before proceeding to add this material. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I removed the block from the article. See this post by Danny where he mentioned the stuff Rob provided. The post is part of this thread at SEW Forums which I refered to from the Bruce Clay Article (Talk Page). See also my SEJ Blog post. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from

It has been suggested that SEO Services & Search Engine Optimization Company be merged into this page or section. (Discuss)

Rich257 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I nominated that article for deletion join the discussion here. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The article was deleted. No need to merge. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

permanent semi-protection

I just requested permanent semi-protection for the article. The anonymous spam every day is getting old. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New SEO tool

I think there is an useful tool: Site Information Tool Information about site/page including domain registration data (whois), Alexa Rank, IP Address, server response headers, page data (title, meta tags, links count) and more.

Wikipedia isn't a directory of useful tools. That link would not be appropriate for this the article. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
it is a nice tool and I added it to my site, but as Jehochman said, it is not appropriate for this article. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo

It would be nice if the article had a photo, or several photos. Which photos should we use? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The present photo is uninformative and looks pretty much useless. Shabda 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    Please come up with something better first before you take it off. SEO is boring enough as it is without a picture. I would upload mine but you peepz would probably prefer the Yahoo one... Just be creative Wit 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    What should be done to make Wikipedia better? Shabda, what photos do you think would be appropriate? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Does this article even need a photo? There is nothing to illustrate. NetOracle 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seocontests

A Portuguese seocontest, called esquillo seocontest is currently ending - ends the 8th of January. It would be interesting to publicize this regional seocontests. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.241.129.109 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Addition to External links

Mobile Phone Search Engine Optimisation

The article was credited on the http://www.w3.org/Mobile/Articles-2006 - W3C Mobile website for W3C MWI in the press 2006.

Tambourinos 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This piece seems to be located on the web site of an SEO firm. There's no independent editors reviewing the article. As such, I think it fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 05:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest to start a new article about mobile search and also one about mobile search marketing and seo and reference from the general seo article to it. It's still a new thing and would be a useful addition to the Wiki. How about it Tambourinos? Interested? Lets face it, there is no authority if something is new. Everybody is equally clueless until experience is gained. The early adopters will become the authorities of tomorrow. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article clearly qualifies as an additional source that will help and offer extended information and knowledge on the topic of search engine optimisation, but on a different media source. The article provides information that is possibly not mainsteam enough to deserve a seperate category as it is directly related to seo and is more a spin-off of seo, but it is resource that offers additional guideance on seo that many users may be completely unaware off. Agree on resource addition?

81.129.245.37 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is too small and trivial, and located on SEO "optimisation" company website. Futurix 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


No, again, Wikipedia isn't a directory, nor a search engine, nor a place to publish original research or thought. It doesn't matter how informative the article may be. Until the content has been published by a reliable source, it should not be cited as a reference. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Both comments are complete contradictions. If you see my above proposal, the W3C are happy to add it as a reliable source; that clears up any reference issues. How can you justify how informative an article is by length? Wikipedia is a encyclopedia - so any comments of whether it is listed on a seo companys website is irrelevant. Please review the article and my comments and rethink why this article should be added, instead of why not to add the article.
86.147.53.82 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your passion for adding a link is unexplained. If this article is so great, it should be published somewhere with editorial review, not on a corporate web site. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Frankly, W3C can link to whatever they like. That makes no difference to us. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/a/Talk%7ESearch_engine_optimization_Archive5_4ccb.html"