Talk:SEO contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SEO contests article started to get an overview of important past, present and future SEO competitions and some of the nicer examples. Also note that an SEO contest is not the same as Google bombing, although Google bombing can be seen as a special sort of SEO challenge :-) Wit 10:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Deleting the fluff

Should every contest that started be added to this page? This is just a fad and I suugest that we delete most of the contests, excepting the top three. Shabda

[edit] Political Contests

Should we cover Political SEO Contests? One just started...

www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.htm Nintendo

Come on man how many users are even playing for that contest? I donot think it would be a good idea to add this. Shabda

[edit] Merge

All theese articles are repeating the same info.

  • It's a search contest
  • It has begin/end dates
  • It has a prize
  • It uses a unique phrase that is not used before

If you remove the "fluff" that is being repeated, you can slim the articles down quite a bit. I propose we merge the following into this page:


  • agree with merge proposal Tedernst | talk 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • agree as well with the proposal, as long as the original terms (esp. Nigritude ultramarine) stay up as redirects, and most of the background info (again especially on the nigr. ult. challenge) is ported. The original contest was quite important and the afterthoughts provide good info for SEOs and web enthusiasts. Thanks for the work on this so far Wit 12:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I fully endorse this merge. I would have done it myself. See my WikiPhilosophy :) —Quarl (talk) 20:05 2006-01-22

[edit] Cleanup after merge

I have merged the articles and deleted "A LOT" of repeated info among the four articles. Now this needs a little more cleanup as it reads a little odd. —This user has left wikipedia 10:45 2006-01-23

[edit] Problems with some of the external links

Some of the external links are a direct violation of the current Wikipedia guidelines and will be removed. Please bring it up on the talk page before adding external links that could be questioned.--85.166.51.70 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Um.... that kinda takes out the info bit eh. These links were there for a reason (and yes, I know Wikipedia is not a web archive, but still) Wit 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that no site apart from the official site starting the contest be linked. I just deleted a site which was obviously a contestant for the prize. Shabda

[edit] Add ext. info link

I was planning to add the following:

  • www.jimwestergren.com/v7ndotcom-elursrebmem/ Time Line, strategies and resources for the v7ndotcom elursrebmem contest (running)

But I don't want to add an external link before your approval and yes, I am the owner of that page. In case it does not qualify I would not mind but it could be a good resource for those interested in the time line and such.

I'd say, go for it (after all I started this article hehe), but place your link near the ones that are not direct sponsors of the various contests and please leave out the "(running)" bit. People interested in SEO contests could learn something from that. Just try and be subtle and informative if you will... Wit 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Wit. I will add it. In case someone does not agree than just delete it and yes, I want it to be a valuable resource of the contest. / Jim


I was hoping to add the following:

  • www.watching-paint-dry.com/v7ndotcom-elursrebmem/ V7dotcom Charity site and ContestNews

Like Jim above I won't add it without approval. I am not the owner of the page but I am a supporter of the owner. This site has a different take on the contest and actually has a number of pages with information on other contestants as well. I thought it might be a good resource. If not, thats fine but I figured it was worth a shot. DrakesTravels

I have not heard for a week. I will add this but please let me know if it is not good. I will try to enter it so it is not to commercial like.

If you think it's good (and not too spammy), then why not add it? I felt the same about JimW's entry. Someone took it off though, I dunno why. It was actually quite good and useful for lots of people reading this particular article... Perseverance is key LOL. There's no shame in having your addition nuked onece or twice..... Wit 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) PS: I wouldn't mind if JW re-added his link to this one as well. Regular websites and blogs just have more to-the-point and actual info... WP is not the be-all-end-all of up-to-date info sources (although it's close)

Check the page history. Some one deleted all the links. ***(rem inappropriate spam and blog links + attempts to use Wikipedia for commercial purposes. Page needs further admin attention)***. Looks like all external links are SPAM. Nintendo

[edit] Facts

Not a well known word, except by SEOs, this meant it was not a particularly competitive target, allowing for the tracking of competing sites to be reasonably easy.

I'm not entirely true this contention on SERPS is entirely true, given its other (and arguably more prominent) meaning. Struggling to think of an alternative wording, though. 81.104.165.184 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning

We do not want or need a list of all SEO contests, so I have removed those which apper to be generic or derivative. I suggest we conentrate on the small number of notable ones, and also vigorously prune external links (for obvious reasons). Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me --Wit 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC) PS: even my own mid-paragraph 'link' has been nuked by someone ages ago LOL.

Hi Wit, you restored some I removed as being "quite noteworthy"; if they are included then we should have a claim to notability with references, otherwise this is just going to be a magnet for promoters of SEO contests, just as it was a magnet for competitors who added their links to the contest and the article. Guy 09:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that maybe we should define a threshold of some sort. But some of those are pretty big (see also prize money) and some were issued by (well-)established companies.... I appreciate your efforts to sort this one out though. It's just that people will be searching for recent contests and being recent is sorta contradictory to being legendary. I also think the contenders submissions are a PITA LOL Wit 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem with any of that, as long as we make at least some attempt to establish significance. I am reminded of the Million Dollar Homepage; lots of knock-offs, only one original. Most SEO contests are blatant self-promotion for the organisers and promoters, and the most recent addition had a whopping $500 first prize. Guy 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not start a separate page listing all contests? Is that asking for trouble? It would be a valuable resource, I think. We could categorize it by total prize money and or restrictions so that it would be clear which are decent and which are less so. Alexa411 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it would be deleted under WP:NOT (a web directory). This is an encyclopaedia, not a mechanism for promoting SEO contests. A few notrable examples is sufficient to illustrate the conept. Guy 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalwarming blah

In what way is this different from the others? Guy (Help!) 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's new. Furthermore, the prize is a CAR! And no, I'm not participating :-) Wit 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Riiiiight. So not different then :-) Guy (Help!) 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, A SEO contest is still a SEO contest. I guess the starting point will always be the same. That said, this particular contest seems to frown upon "evil SEO". If people would just get them to officically state that "spamming Wiki is evil" then we might just be spared of the "onslaught" mentioned in Jimmy's message... Just an idea. I'm not an expert LOL Wit 14:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)