Page 4 - Quick 12 Point "1st steps" SEO Checklist

Hi Gazz,

We are running trials on non-related reciprocal linking but very limited as it doesn't fit in with good practices, but is another way to test the theory.

I agree with you, and that is what has been echoed throughout the testers results.

I tested it on 3 sites that sat around the 3rd to 7th positions and this boosted them anywhere from 2 to 4 spots. There were too many other variables to nail down the particulars, but this was the only change that was made.

I've never been an advocate of reciprocal linking. Always thought it was a waste of time. But someone somewhere mentioned this technique so I had to trial it and the results spoke for themselves.

Oh, one other element is that they were on internal pages on both ends and they were keyword rich anchors.

GaryTheScubaGuy

Suppose you are working for a seo company and your targeted keywords are seo company, seo companies, search engine optimization some thing like that we all know relevancy is very important for SERPs so, we will get back links from seo company do you think any seo company will go with you for one linking, as I feel in that cases we will move for reciprocal link building.

In context linking to "related sites is good"... whether there is a recip or not... a link somewhere down their link path links to you thus it would be "3-way linking or n-way linking" without the pattern... of continuously showing "3-way links or n-way links"and that's a good thing.

I question the validity of any "sitewide" link whether in this context or any other context... it is one area that Google has taken a shot across the bow...

there is no value in a link on every page from the same site to the same destination page using the same anchor.

I have to agree. i cant think of a valid reason as to why this would work... A website linking to you for a year, which is quality, and then you linking sitewide to their homepage will increase your website ranking? I find it unlikely unless it was an extremely powerful website like the BBC or something along those lines.

To combersome to focus on all so I'll do one at a time.



First I'm not discounting the value of the tools you noted - just your explaination for what you use them for.

There are some pretty bad misconceptions about what a bad neighborhood is and you seem to have falling victim to that - thus any explanation for knowing how to avoid them is equally inaccurate.

I mentioned "hype" in my rebuttal to you because you seem to focus your attention on SEO idioms like a "bad neighborhood" - and IMHO this is purely for colorful rhetoric - "to get peoples attention"... OK I do that to... but I don't usually post these master-style posts... in any case...

A "bad neighborhood" is solely, 100% absolutely, unequivocally about links to and from domains [not IPs] nor IP associated with servers which usually have a specific range of IPs for hosted websites. A server will never be a bad neighborhood so long as the host domain itself isn't involved in whatever the spam practice is that makes that domain part of a "bad neighborhood". What your tools don't do it show how each domain you can note links (or doesn't link) to the others on the server [or IP] - thus these are not meant to locate or avoid "bad neighborhoods"... [no matter what the developer says about them].

A "bad neighborhood" could be hundreds or thousand, or even millions of domains housed on the same amount of servers with the same number of IPs BUT at best, when you are discussing a bad neighborhood, what you are suggesting to SEOs and webmasters to be caution about -- in determining whether or not they might want to "link out to a particular website". ... not where or whether they should host on a specific server or with a specific host service.

I doubt this is a "first step"... it the domain currently indexed in Google, Yahoo, and MSN... YES - no bad neighborhood problem here... it's that simple.

Normally and after-the-fact, a SEO does links themselves and that is where this may become an issue [if you do recips or alternative pattern linking.

A cool tool that also has multiple uses http://www.bad-neighborhood.com/text-link-tool.htm for link development.

One of the things that the bad neighborhood tool does well is flag any sites that could possibly be in industries that historically have been prone to high incidences of search engine spamming, such as the adult and pharmaceutical fields.

But just because a site has spam [e.g. blog comment spam or forum post spam] doesn't make them a bad neighborhood... they are "likely to attract sites that are involved in bad neighborhood [intentionally or unintentionally] due the the lack of quality control.

Lastly just because domaintools denotes blacklisted sites doesn't mean they are "blacklisted or bad neighborhoods"... again "HYPE" is a powerful marketing ploy... they want SEOs and webmasters to purchase their tools.

That's the way I see this #2.

Then we agree that we disagree. Without me calling your OPINION bogus...point taken?

You can't control if or when a host is involved with spamming. Most resolve themselves, but many ignore it. Do you monitor this, spend valuable resources to monitor it or just get a dedicated server?

Bottom line is spend the money to get a dedicated server because in either case Google looks at IP ranges which constitutes the 'bad neighborhood', regardless of linking.

What if the 10 other sites on your shared host suddenly starts serving up child porn?

You won't change my mind on this. I understand your point, but I think its a bit off reality. I say this because in the day (way back when) I was a spammer and targeted hosts based off of the neighborhood.



As I mentioned, you can do a simple site:yourdomain.com search and get this info. This is part of how they populate this element.

Is everything a conspiracy with you?

For £15 a year I spend all of the other cumulative information (eg. other domains with the same owner for ONE) is money well spent.

I'll refrain from calling your opinions 'BOGUS' or criticising your work ethics or intentions...as I hope you will in the future. It really doesn't sit well, and although I know controversy is your fuel, its infecting gazzak and Prof.whatever.

Constructive criticism, without the drama, will get you the same recognition.

By the way, spam isn't blog or comment spam in this scenario, its a host that allows spamming from a site within your IP range.

Your volley!

Huh ?

Whether true or untrue... it's a rare occurrance that any legit host would jeopardize their livelihood... In most instances they are too over protective.



"most... sounds like this isn't a big issue"... the latter point - In SEO I can name the seedy off the top of my head... Traffic Power and Internet Advancement - what host do you recommend we avoid?

By name is better... by IP sounds so anonymous.



Ya... you're in all search engines... your host isn't the problem.



Even on a dedicated machine you can find yourself in a bad neighorhood!



So what? I don't link to them and hosts "rarely link to clients" but at the end of the day... are you still is Google, Yahoo, or MSN - Yes- there is no problem.

Common sense still applies... if a child porn shop set up in your city, suburb, block, or building - and you never visited nor talked would you be penalized with commiting a crime? If you "don't promote them" you are not involved in a "bad neighborhood"!



It's got nothing to do with mind changing... you can spam based on the same misconceptions just as well as being a pure white continuing to think that way.

I try to find Google's official position but couldn't... but Matt's words usually are equally trusted.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/myth-busting-virtual-hosts-vs-dedicated-ip-addresses/



I'll add a neighborhood [for the purposes of SE promotions] isn't a hosted unpromoted website(s)... the neighbor is link based... so a child porn site can be on the same virtual IP and so long as you don't link [promote it] - "NO PROBLEM"!



Not sure I'm following this point... 'who is they?'... and 'what can they get looking at your indexed pages?'



Misinformation breeds misinformation and this is only the "first point of a list"... If I think you're breeding misinformation - you need to prove I'm wrong... I don't mind - that's how "I learn".

I won't sit idle allowing misinformation to be spread... and I would expect that from all active members.



Again I'm not questioning the value of their tools nor the inexpensive price... I'm questioning your suggested use of them:

1. that they can aid to identify a bad neighborhood - they don't - they don't check links
2. is it a useful first check technique for SEO or webmasters doing their own SEO - not really - if they are in the index... they haven't been infected by any bad neighborhood... and so long as you don't link to one - not an issue.



This is where I have a major problem... especially with you.

I'll spawn a debate anyway I can to invoke responses from a diverse group of people with opposing knowledge(s), skills, experiences, and wisdom...

Posting insightful information get great attention... posting information without substantiation - gets a real debate on the merits.

You're a moderator of the forum and a respected member of this community and the SEO community as a whole... It's your job to question alternative views... not to make them.

If you plan to make alternative views beyond fact based views - you need to do your homework to back it up.

Your post didn't say "These are unsubstantiated claims".

Your post didn't say "These are only my opinions."

Your post didn't say "Use at your own risk".

Your post didn't say "I THINK" or it's "my opinion".

You said - Quick 12 Point "1st steps" SEO Checklist [which suggests a mainstream view] and you start the post off as:

Been seeing a few posts getting some pretty crazy answers so I threw this list together really quick (with a juicy tip at the end for those that knew all of this already).

...that implies these are "the right answer"... and IMHO just on this specific "bad neighborhood point"... your definition of a "bad neighborhood is inaccurate... thus how accurate can be your points to avoid them be?



That's totally irrelevant... your connection to spam of any kind is based on linkage.

I'm sure host's can spam just as well as the next site... I recommend NOT LINKING TO THEM to be sure.

I'm sure if I'm wrong - there are 100s of SEO colleagues waiting with baited breath to put me in my place!

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3663474.htm



And



Both Ted & Jim have been doing SEO as long as I have - that's 35+ years of insight.

Cool pics but they don't really say much... you're showing data... that shows no direct correlation to any observations to form conclusions - like the ones you made... you use these tools to get data and what --"just makeup the conclusion?"

There's an interesting conflict between these data sets (and your 2 points) but first:

#4 - well - let's start with "ok say it true"... what ratio should you aim for... I mean just checking doesn't change anything does it?

I'm of the belief that it is good to make everything you can an external file... but you're suggesting/implying that this helps in SEO [ranks] somehow without actually committing to any real numbers... so what actual level should be attempted???? ...or is any level good - making the point moot?

I have:

Results for: http://www.cuddlesngifts.net/
Web Page Size :
24913 Bytes = 24 KB

Code Size :
21933 Bytes = 21 KB

Text Size :
2980 Bytes = 3 KB


Code to Text Ratio : 11.96 %
....................................

Results for: http://www.greenpapaya.org/
Web Page Size :
142476 Bytes = 139 KB

Code Size :
78912 Bytes = 77 KB

Text Size :
63564 Bytes = 62 KB


Code to Text Ratio : 44.61 %
....................................

Results for: http://www.coopyrite.net/
Web Page Size :
207302 Bytes = 202 KB

Code Size :
71290 Bytes = 70 KB

Text Size :
136012 Bytes = 133 KB


Code to Text Ratio : 65.61 %

Hey wait a minute - as the juicy text ratio increases - so does the file size! In general, "code" doesn't generally increase as MUCH AS you add more text... Cuddles has a small amount of text on the page where Coopyrite has an enormous amount... and holidaytales.org if SeoChat tool didn't time out would be likely 80% or better ratio. (NOTE: a tool timing-out doesn't suggest a bot will timeout and totally disregard that page... that's a major jump to take)

Consequently #5 poses the reverse conclusion get rid of text to keep file size low "because this is the real culprit for large filesize".

But I can go to the bottom of holidaytales.org and copy a line from the bottom of the page Now the man and the woman were told by God that they could eat and enjoy the fruits of any tree in the lovely Garden of Eden, except one. God knew why it would be bad for them to eat the fruit of that one tree.

and see it in Google from a 480K file... suggesting Google didn't have a problem with any of the juicy stuff.

I'll concede that you don't normally want 50,000 word pages... but that isn't because search engines will get lost in the code or the text.

Just because someone invents SEO tools doesn't always mean they are of great use.

Both of these are time wasters to the SEO and webmaster... code isn't generally an issue in SEO (using javascript links is - but this wasn't your point) and the file size isn't a major or even a minor contributor either (directly anyway... can you get better ranks carving up a 50,000 word pages so to have more titles for more specific keyword phrases... and specific links anchors... sure thing... but that wasn't in your quick check list...

but really - look at the website... scrolling forever isn't the best arrangement for a shopping cart... but the mainpage of a blog is a different matter... apply common sense... "no tools required".

Thanks for this post, i am arthur abogadil from the philippines, im learning how seo works and this is the first site i see in google so the work you guys are doing is effective definitely! keep up the good work! and will be visiting this site from time to time. Cheers!!!

This one boggles the mind! Gary it isn't a case of whether or not duplicate content occurs and copies are dumped from results... it's the way you theorize about it and how you can solve an issue with it [IMHO]

To start with; duplicated content and supplemental results are two completely different beasts... the negative effects of dup content are lost of pages in all results where supplemental is the shift of pages from primary results to supplement which has abolsutely nothing to do with duplication it is about the lack of PageRank [e.g. lack of importance to be in primary results] the two really don't cross paths. If you have a page in supplemental - get a bunch of solid links directly to it - it's back in primary results... a dup content page is gone no matter what you do [delete it is the best direction]

Secondly (I think you touched on this but not sure) "if duplication is an issue in a website" 1 page of another will remain in results [the dups are removed]... so OK sure it is a consideration but what worries me is your check doesn't do anything and your explanation on how it works is really confusing. "Check the content on low ranking pages"... wait - if duplicate content penalities are "applied" how are they ranked to be checked? ... they aren't indexed. if penalized. If they aren't indexed you won't find them in Copyscape because Copyscape usings Google for returning results... and if you find results in Copyscape.... duplicate content isn't an issue (at least at the time of check].

As such how can a check of this be a check and a quick one at that if you can't actually check it?

According to your check compared to what every other any top seo's name says about 'duplicate content'... I couldn't find anyone that supports you conclusions or you check.

As for duplication across other sites... an absolutely myth that carbon copies will negatively affect your copy or original (ranks)... "linking to them will, (or rather the reverse may)" "shared ownership will e.g. included in your own network multiple times (all version but one)" but "primarily competitors" - well admittedly I've never seen it... and there is billions of examples on the web... that can easily be found by using Copyscape.

As a check for DMCA copyright issue... sure thing but as check for duplciated content in context of negative SEO impacts... not a chance unless you're gaming search engines to start with... then ok - but most website owner don't have this and if they don't disclose to you they do... your quick check... isn't really "quick".

On the supplemental side... While I still believe Google uses this to sort mechanism their is abolsutely no proof of it anymore... thus the assumptions that http://www.mapelli.info/tools/supplemental-index-ratio-calculator are not likely accuruate... I would put any weight into the data returned by this tool... based on "confirmed set of know pages" it's shown it wasn't accurate.

Course what about "blogs" and the way they organize information?

If you add a new category for a new post [1 post in category] the category and post page are identical, not to mention the system makes a trackback version and a feed version for both the category and post page - so you can easily have an original and 4 copies at least until post 2 goes into a category [but some categories can sit for months or years with a single post in them]

I'm still working on discovery here but again: not discontinuing the issues involved with duplicated content or with supplemental - just your way of sorting through them.

You nailed a couple of points:

It can be used to identify the stronger existing links so that you can add, alter or change anchor text.

It can be used to identify your competitors longtail terms that may be contributing to a better SERP (of the many things that can)

But It can be used to identify bad links to be firewalled so they don't negatively affect your rankings. concedes to the philosophy that "links to you CAN harm you"... as in an alternative strategy of developing "special links" to all your competitors can ease your way to number #1.

I don't believe this can occur... BUT would love the thought of proving it can work... advance link scalping!

Let's coin it NegRank!

it's good idea, but i think there are many other methods you have not mentioned will more usable than you

Like what?