Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:07, 1 June 2007.

Search engine optimization

[edit]

Currently a good article, this one has been thoroughly reviewed by numerous editors, including experts in the field. I am one of the main contributors. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "SEO is marketing by understanding how search algorithms work and what human visitors might search for, to help match those visitors with sites offering what they are interested in finding." This sentence is very awkward; "is marketing" is confusing because of the possibility of reading "marketing" as a noun or a verb. It appears to be used as a verb, but the marketing article treats it as a noun.--ragesoss 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked that sentence. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we will fix that. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(huff, puff) Okay, I've standardized all the references, updated a few of them, and added a few more to cover the latest news. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - not bad, but needs work Work done, changing to Support
    • Needs a prominent and early link to search engine.
    • "white hat" and "black hat" SEO practitioners - link first occurrence of the terms
    • monetizing - wikilink
    • Google, Usenet - wikilink first occurrence in a section, not later occurrences
    • link spam - wikilink
    • Current technology - current as of what date?
    • Some SEOs; online forums and blogs - WP:WEASEL. Surely some SEO forums and blogs are more prominent than others - you list the top 4 search engines, can you list the top 4 SEO forums or companies?
    • Wall Street Journal profiled Traffic Power - give a date
    • "All of the main search engines provide information/guidelines" - implies this sentence will be followed by links, but isn't. Are these supposed to be them? "the search engine guidelines[24][25][26][27][28]"
    • Yahoo! Site Explorer] - trailing ]
    • crawled. [18]. - dump last dot
    • As of 2007 the leading contextual search engines do not require submission. - surely this didn't only start in 2007
      • Just removing the date and keeping the sentence is misleading. If I'm correct, at least Yahoo did once require submission, rather than running a spider; or at least discovery wasn't automatic, but manual entry by humans.
    • Not every pages is - count mismatch
    • White Hat advice is generally summed up as creating ... then make - tense mismatch
    • "white hat SEO", or "black hat SEO"; White Hat advice; is Black hat - pick a consistent capitalization
    • Therefore, businesses should not rely on SEO as a single source of business. - we shouldn't give controversial seeming advice like this, given that at least some businesses do, in fact, rely mainly on search engine rankings; rephrase so we're merely citing someone
    • first amendment complaint - wikilink
    • The whole article seems so heavily focused on the United States that it's almost tempting to slap a {{globalize}} template on it. Can we at least say something about how this affects other countries? For example, Baidu.com is the world's #7 website according to Alexa, ahead of Ask.com. What are the issues it faces? Any legal precedents outside the US, say in the EU or other countries?
      • You removed Ask.com and added a single link to Baidu, which is slightly better ... but not all that much. Is almost all search engine optimization US focused? If so, say so, and cite it. If not, put a few things about non-US SEO. (Suggestion: it would work to cite it by omission, finding a reliable source that says almost all SEO targets the US engines, Yahoo, Google, Inktomi, and MSN.)
    • Uh oh, this is a problem. "In some early search engines, such as Infoseek, ranking first was as easy as grabbing the source code of the top-ranked page, placing it on your website, and submitting a URL to instantly index and rank that page.10" That isn't actually backed by the source. Please, check your references. If they don't actually back the text they're supposed to, that's very bad.
    • AirWeb - spell out that it meant Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web, otherwise it's just a weird acronym
    • Wikilink dates in references, per WP:DATE. (Sep, 08, 2005) is not good.
    • Search Engine Representatives section - specify who is from what engine. Is there one for Baidu?
      • Oh dear. When there were 4 I thought there was one per engine, instead it seems 3 out of 4 are from Google. Unless about 75% of SEO specifically targets Google, this isn't balanced. If that is roughly the ratio, say so somewhere and cite it.
    • Origin: Second stage: - are these terms actually used universally? If so, say so and cite; if not, then get rid of them in the section headings, they look awkward
    • "The earliest known use of the phrase "search engine optimization" was a spam message posted on Usenet on July 26, 1997." - Cite that someone says it was the earliest known use, don't just cite the message. Also link the date per WP:DATE.
      • Actually, now you have links to two different Usenet messages. Are they both "first"? You also missed the part about "Also link the date per WP:DATE.", and don't even have the date in one of the message refs.
        • Now you don't have a link to either!! I'll live with that, but do think it was useful.
    • explain "rank" better. I couldn't find the simple sentence "better 'rank' means presented earlier in search results", and it needs to be prominent.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AnonEMouse, for all your hard work. I think I've now fixed all of these issues, or at least made good progress. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You got some but not all. Weakening oppose, but still oppose. One more:
    • Footnote 17 (ref-a-wm-guide, apparently) is blank

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've hit the remaining items. Thank you again, and please let me know if you have further concerns! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like you got them (though I'd return the link to the earliest mention of the term in a spam post, that was interesting, as it showed the historical connection between SEO and spam). Supporting. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, 1c, failure to use reliable sources. Webforums, Usenet and blogs used as sources — most publishers not identified. Footnoting problems including blank footnotes, and failure to identify publishers (many of which are not reliable). See WP:CITE/ES or the cite templates for how to correctly format footnotes, once reliable sources are located. The TOC is rambling, and headings are unnecessarily long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited are the most reliable available and are identified. A blog can be a reliable source if it has editorial oversight and fact checking, as the blogs cited in this article do. These aren't personal blogs (added: except for Matt Cutts' blog, but he's an expert publishing in his own field, and he's a primary source for Google). There is no need to kill trees to create reliable media. In this case we are dealing with a new media phenomenon. Traditional media are ill suited to cover the finer points of the topic. If you think there are more reliable sources than those cited here, please produce a few examples. As for your other concerns, can you provide specific examples as the previous editor has done? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several items now fixed; I'm glad to see Usenet sources removed, but publishers still need to be identified on all sources (see WP:CITE/ES). Moving other comments from my talk page to here:
I believe all publishers are now identified. I am still learning best practices for reference formatting, so bear with me if mistakes remain. The remaining issue of source reliability needs clarification because I've spent many hours searching for the most reliable sources, and I'm a search professional. I've started a discussion at WT:V in an attempt to improve Wikipedia's policy on citing blogs. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page, as these comments are part of the review:[1]

---

Drive-by FAC reviews

Before you review featured article candidates, SandyGeorgia, I hope that you will at least read the articles. From your edit history I see that you probably spent less than five minutes looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. I can't imagine how that would be enough time to give a thoughtful review. I don't treat other editors that way, and I don't expect other editors to treat my efforts with such disregard. This is the first time I've tried to elevate an article to featured status, and your review has made me feel both foolish and unwelcome. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 04:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry my comments made you feel foolish, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes to review sources and find blogs, Usenet and personal websites were used to source the article. It shouldn't be too hard to replace those with reliable sources if you know the territory well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the personal website, please. Just humor me, I'm a little slow. The Usenet references were primary sources linking to things of historical interest that mentioned in the article. Your objection is duly noted. I removed those because they are linked via the reliable source that replaced them. I appreciate any and all advice.
I'm sorry; since you brought the comments to my talk page, I didn't have the review comments at hand, where I actually said (see above) "Webforums, Usenet and blogs used as sources". I did not see any personal websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I get it. You are Are you objecting to Matt Cutts as a source? Did you know that Matt is the head of Google's webspam team, and that he is the de facto spokesman for Google to the webmaster community? Per WP:SPS, which you probably know inside and out, and maybe wrote most of it yourself, a self-published source by an expert writing within their areas of expertise is allowed. Let me quote:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Cutts is extremely well-known in this space. The posts I reference are relevant to his field of expertise. He has been published numerous times in third-party publications. I have exercised caution. When the head of Google's webspam team explains why Google blocked a particular website for spamming, I am prepared to take his word for it. I don't see how the New York Times can do better fact checking than that.
In this instance mainstream media is way behind the times in reporting on search engine optimization. If we want to write a proper article with all the nitty gritty details, I can't wait for the New York Times to catch up. I've used dead-tree media wherever possible, but these here blogs are the equivalent of industry trade journals. There's only one paper magazine I know of about search engine optimization, and it sucks, out loud. is not very good. If we want to write a high quality article, we have to use online sources. Most people covering this space publish via blogs.
Do you do much work on technology articles? Not so many people do. If you have, you've probably seen situations like this before. If you still disagree with my approach, I suppose I can try to find some secondary sources that report "Matt Cutts said" and use those, but I somehow feel that would result in a lower quality article. Who knows? Maybe I am completely off base. If this is an interesting issue, maybe we can take it to RFC and get some more opinions. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 05:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down, and identify your publishers. If you're using blogs and webforums as sources, your reasoning for considering them reliable should be explained (as you've pointed out above). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample edit; I filled in some missing authors, publication dates, and publishers (as well as identifying PDFs and running Gimmetrow's ref fixer to fix ref punctuation per WP:FN) as a sample of work needed. Struck completed items above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I AM CALM!!!! (Humor!) Sorry I got a bit keyed up. As one of the few professional SEOs who contributes to Wikipedia in a non-spammy way, I sometimes get kicked around by people who think all SEOs are scum. I have a real challenge with this article because I've used many non-traditional sources, and I am afraid that my efforts may go down the drain because of ingrained biases. This is an arcane topic, but one that is very important to many people. I really appreciate your help, and I see that you've made some sample edits to the article. I will surely take your advice on board and follow up with further edits as needed. THANK YOU! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, if I need to explain why we are using blogs as references, should I write something into the article to explain that most SEO-related news is reported online, via blogs, because the practitioners, analysts and reporters within this industry have such a strong affinity for new media? You won't believe it, but there's even an online radio station that carries SEO news all day long. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jehochman, much improved, glad we're back on track, and I'm sorry again for making you feel awful — you have a solid start here. :-) I've struck all comments above except for the concern about blogs and webforums. What is needed on those is to get some consensus from people knowledgeable in the area that these are, indeed, reliable sources for the statements they are sourcing. I accept that the authors may be knowledgeable experts, but you may need others to confirm that the sources reflect industry-wide consensus and knowledge, since blogs are not peer-reviewed. Perhaps there are some WikiProjects where you could inquire, and you could also initiate a thread at WP:RS, inviting others to comment or look at this review. If you can get some consensus from people knowledgeable in the field that the sources are reliable for this application, I'll strike that remaining object. Remember, if you don't achieve that in this FAC, there's always the opportunity to come back for another try, but by asking knowledgeable folks to comment, you should be able to get there. The TOC is MUCH improved — nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited half a dozen editors who have experience with this topic to evaluate the references. Let's see how many respond. Maybe we can get an opinion from AnonEMouse above, who's been very helpful. I appreciated your continued support! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to accept Jehochman's word on this. I haven't done a thorough scan through the references, but the ones I have read do seem to be OK. I'm not an SEO expert, but have read a bit about it, and it is true (and not that surprising) that the best sources on writing web sites are, well, web sites.
That said, I've "met" SandyGeorgia in quite a few FAC reviews now, and she tends to be stricter than I am. :-) This may not seem immediately obvious, given that I tend to write 20 issues to her 2, but most of my 20 are things that can be fixed in only slightly more time than it took me to object to them, while hers tend to be foundational/structural issues. As someone wrote somewhere, the main difference between a GA article and an FA article is one pair of eyes vs many pairs of eyes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support The article came a long way and the 5 archive pages of the articles talk page speak for themselves. It is a very complicated subject and also one where you will not be able to find 2 experts in the field that will have the same opinion about it. References was were specifically hard to come by. Mainstream media only started slowly and not too long ago to cover the subject in greater detail when search in general started was getting a lot more attention by advertisers and old school media as well. SEO is also constantly changing at a paste that most big media outlets can not keep up with. No wonder that most of the real information can be found in forum discussions and blogs. The time it takes from start to print for an article at the NYT or WSJ is an eternity in the SEO industry. Once coverage goes into details, it often ends up being either wrong<striek>, out dated or is already a thing of from the past. A lot of editors did a lot of digging for quality references to support the article. Let me show you some examples.
See here the debate about citing forums, such as High Rankings. Interesting to note is the fact that over time was it possible to replace all references to that forum with better resources. Also see this debate and this one. It shows that every reference was debated, evaluated and may be added only temporarily until better references were found. References were not picked because of convenience. Regarding Matt Cutts blog, see see this. Most editors that commented here are not familiar with the subject and therefore did never heard about Matt Cutts and understand his role as an official unofficial voice of Google. If you check some of his posts and especially the comments, you will notice that the discussions are not trivial and very technical and detailed. Just this Monday made one of his posts that was updated by Matt headlines again across virtually all blogs in the industry. [2] The original post from a month ago had already over 600!!!! comments and none of them were spam or trivial like "me too". --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cumbrowski for your comments! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SearchEngineWatch.com (SEW) blogs and forums as well as SearchEngineLand.com (SEL). Danny Sullivan (technologist) was the founder of SEW and of SEL last fall. You can check out the article about him to get to know about more about his background. He is well respected throughout the whole industry, by search engines, marketers and advertisers that do search alike. He has a daily internet radio show and podcast where he reports the latest search marketing news. SEW and now SEL are technically blogs, but they are managed and treated like a news pager manages their content. The editors of the "blogs" are never "newbie's" or "rookies", but always well established expert in the industry. They all have their own personal/semi professional blogs for their ramblings about stuff that is may be industry related, but not appropriate for SEL or SEW. You could remove WordPress as publishing platform and replace it with any other CMS and it would be considered a "news publication" by old standards. Well, even old publishers start utilizing blogs or blog like features. I believe that you also can make comments at the WSJ online nowadays too. I am not sure, but several newspapers do it for sure and you would not discount them as a bad reference, only because they use a blog as online publishing platform. It's the quality of the content and the professionalism of the editors and not the CMS that make a site a quality reference and reliable source.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, this sentence is a problem: "As a marketing strategy, SEO considers how search algorithms work and what people search for in order to increase a site's relevancy." Do you mean "As a marketing strategy for increasing a site's relevancy, SEO considers how search algorithms work and what people search for."
  • I'd love you to get rid of all the "upon"s (on). Tony 23:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, Tony. I've adopted your suggestion for the lead, and wiped out all the "upons." I had planned to save a few, just for variety, but none were worthy.
Would you be willing to look at the sources and say whether you think they are reliable or not? SandyGeorgia suggested that I ask for community input. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I asked Jill Whalen to comment on the sources. She is a longstanding and well-respected member of the expert SEO community, and she's very tough on the issue of what's reliable and what's not. This is what she said:

...I don't have a wikipedia account. However, I think it's going to be very hard to get consensus on which resources are reliable or not. Most of us disagree on that point! [3]

I would beware of anything from WebPronews. Many of their articles are good and accurate, but they allow any "author" to be published, so you can't rely on them to be a reliable source. And as much as I love (and write for) Search Engine Guide, they will also publish pretty much anything related to SEO/SEM.

So for those types of resources (and any other that will publish any article at all about SEO/SEM), you have to evaluate who the actual author of the article is and judge their level of expertise and knowledge. (I'm not going to do that here as I have enough enemies!)

And unfortunately, we all know that the major media sources, Forbes, NYT, etc. often provide the worst and most inaccurate info. But it's understandable why Wikipedia would want/need to reference those ones.

But honestly, a very brief look at the references in that Wiki article look to be fine. [4]

In light of this advice, I will look at the references again and see what can be done to improve the reliability of sources. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and check the authors first. I agree with Jill regarding WebProNews. They are agressively expanding to cover everything, everywhere. That the quality suffers there in some cases, because of it, is not surprising, but it also does not mean that the source in general is unreliable. Regarding Forbes, well I commented on main stream media and SEO coverage already :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the WebProNews reference with Washington Post, and removed the Search Engine Journal reference and edited the statements to rely on an existing reference. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 15:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Regarding the SEJ reference removal. I would not consider Gemme van Hasselt an unreliable source. He lives for years in Shanghai and works as internet consultant and news correspondent for inside marketing news for a number of blogs. He was born in the Netherlands and speaks 5 languages: German, English, Chinese, French and Dutch (Flemish) [5]. If the reference is better in quality than the reference you replaced it with or if you just removed it and left the content in the article unreferenced, I would suggest you re-add it again. That's my 2 cents. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the content to match the Mike Grehan article that was already cited. This is a minor issue. The bigger issue is how to get more people to comment here so we can demonstrate consensus. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I sent Bill Slawski from "SEO by the Sea" an email and asked for his comments. Bill has a Wikipedia account and also contributed to the SEO article itself a bit in the past. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm responding to Jehochman's request to comment upon the references presently cited by the Search Engine optimization article. I will disclose that I submitted four or five of the academic peer-reviewed papers cited, and a version of the Cory Doctorow article, though linked to its original place of publication at the Well, rather than e-LearningGuru.
I have seen and read all of the articles presently listed as references in the Wikipedia search engine optimization except for one, which I read before writing this response. I know all of the authors of the blog posts listed, except for the one that I hadn't seen before, and I know two of the owners of the business that published the article that I hadn't seen before. As far as quality of resources in the article on SEO, the ones listed are of high quality. Even the main stream media articles.Bill Slawski 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bill for taking the time to look at this and comment! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 05:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For a web-based subject, I think the reliability of the references is fine (although there's no harm in having a small paragraph at the start of the References section). The prose is of high-quality throughout, the content is comprehensive, and the images have useful captions and fair use rationales. CloudNine 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, CloudNine. Jehochman Talk 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I was sent an email by Carsten Cumbrowski requesting I give my opinion - My Wikipedia user name is a direct Polish equivalent of my English name as I would prefer to avoid the frequent searches for my name resulting in Wikipedia edits and discussions either now or in the future.
Whilst I could be looked on as notable in other fields, that is not the case for my current profession in affiliate marketing. I am regarded by many as an expert in blogging, Wordpress and in particular SEO for blogs, and some of those who have already given an opinion are known to be subscribers to my personal blog, so all the terminology and references are very familiar to me. Historically I have been creating high profile websites since 1996, and was first online in 1992.
Most of the documents cited were already familiar to me and those that were not I have examined. Based upon my understanding of the Wikipedia rules for verifiable cited sources, all the sources I would consider appropriate.
It is a known fact in Search Engine Optimization that many of the best sources of information unfortunately do not conform to Wikipedia rules for verifiable cited sources and whilst search engines by-and-large operate based upon mathematical algorithms, there are multiple ways to achieve similar results. Many of the documents cited I do not personally agree with all the conclusions reached, but that doesn't mean they should be excluded from the article. AndrzejBroda 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Andrzej. We welcome additional points of view. Feel free to add new statements with appropriate sources to the article, or you can leave a message on the article talk page with suggestions. We could use more European coverage in the article. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for your comment below, User:Randfish. Keep in mind this discussion isn't about the editors who worked on this article. If possible, could you refactor your comment to specifically address the reliability of the references cited in the article? What you think about me doesn't matter. I may be nice, but I could also be misguided, stupid or just plain wrong. If you can identify specific weaknesses in the article, or provide additional sources, make a list here, and I will take the time to make improvements! Jehochman Talk 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jonathan - I'd rather not make changes to the article or, really, even read through it. I've mentioned why[6] on SEOmoz. My point is that unless the editors here can themselves claim the level of expertise and industry participation that you have, they should be respecting your authority. I'm not interested in whether that's the "Wikipedia" way - it's the right way. YOU are a trustworthy source, and if YOU reference something, it should be up to another true expert to question it, not at the whim of prejudiced participants who have no industry experience. --Randfish 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rand, thank's for the vote of confidence! You may be right, but when I volunteered for this, I agreed to be mercilessly edited, reverted, criticized and insulted by 4 million other users, so I have no complaints. Check my talk page for examples. Jehochman Talk 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of references, summary

SandyGeorgia requested opinions as to the reliability of sources. Here is a brief summary of the opinions we've gathered.

  • Jehochman (nominator, main contributor, professional SEO) - I've checked all the references and think they are reliable.
  • AnonEMouse - "I tend to accept Jehochman's word on this. I haven't done a thorough scan through the references, but the ones I have read do seem to be OK. I'm not an SEO expert, but have read a bit about it, and it is true (and not that surprising) that the best sources on writing web sites are, well, web sites."
  • Carsten Cumbrowski (main contributor, professional SEO) - "A lot of editors did a lot of digging for quality references to support the article."
  • Jill Whalen (notable SEO expert) - "But honestly, a very brief look at the references in that Wiki article look to be fine."
  • Bill Slawski (well known SEO) - "As far as quality of resources in the article on SEO, the ones listed are of high quality."
  • CloudNine - "For a web-based subject, I think the reliability of the references is fine"
  • User:AndrzejBroda (European SEO blogger) - "Based upon my understanding of the Wikipedia rules for verifiable cited sources, all the sources I would consider appropriate."
  • Rand Fishkin (notable SEO expert) - "Jonathan Hochman knows what he's talking about and should be considered reliable and trustworthy in the sources he cites. Despite my personal distaste for this website (wikipedia) and many of its editorial practices, Jon is one of the good guys, and both his goals and motivations are noble." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randfish (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 May 2007
  • User:Pleeker - "I've read the SEO article. I've reviewed it and I find the references used to be very good. I'm familiar with just about all of the industry sources used, and trust each as a reliable source of information."

Oppose - This is not an appropriate topi for a featured article. Search engine optimization is way too esoteric for the average reader and there is no structure or discipline involved in the industry. The SEO community is fragmented, contentious, and lacks professional credentialization. Lack of standards is just one of the many problems that plagues SEO and attempts to document it. The article itself still contains erroneous statements of fact (early "optimiation" was based on tagging, not simply submitting URLs) and omits important information (such as the need for directory optimization in the 1990s). The summarization of the "backrub" project also makes it sound like PageRank was all there was to it (it was far more than that). And the article is promoting a handful of SEOs, none of whom are particularly superior in skill or knowledge to the community in general as authorities on the topic. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Martinez (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 May 2007

Thank you for taking the time to comment! I will look into these issues and see if we can improve the article. Jehochman Talk 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection: Michael, as I know from having met you in other online fora, you have a strong point of view. Wikipedia articles represent multiple points of view in proportion to their prevalence. If you wish to add criticisms of the SEO industry to the article, you are welcome to do so, but please cite reliable sources. Jehochman Talk 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the SEO article. I've reviewed it and I find the references used to be very good. I'm familiar with just about all of the industry sources used, and trust each as a reliable source of information. --Pleeker 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pleeker, for your comments. Jehochman Talk 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Forbe's article should not be a reference. It's biased and inaccurate. The writer went out of his way to write a one-sided article by censoring feedback from several people whos opinions clashed with the gist of his article (e.g. Barry Bwelford from cre8asiteforms, Aaron Pratt from SEOBuzzbox - both claim they received calls from the author of the article but their opinions were dismissed). The author later admitted he may have done better to write a more balanced piece. --Tetsuto 06:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No article will make 100% of the people happy. That's not the standard we use, and there is a strong consensus that Forbes is a reliable source. We do represent all views, so feel free to add a counterpoint that cites a different, reliable sources. Jehochman Talk 06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, Forbes is a reliable source. However, Andy Greenberg happened to write an unreliable, over-the-top, sensationalized article (BTW, I've read your featured article twice, read every reference, and in my opinion, all other references are credible). This reference will make 99% of SEOs very unhappy.

Rand Fishkin calls it "an extremely lopsided article[7]." Andy also called Rand Fishkin asking for "supplemental horror stories." Like Aaron Pratt, Rand's claim that supplemental results isn't that big of a deal was dismissed because it killed the drama of Andy's article. In the video, Rand says: "and of course, the reporter proceeded to call up folks until he found people who supported his story line which I think sadly is how a lot of reporting operates...it makes me doubt the journalistic field a little bit."

The two sites discussed in the article as victims of Google Hell were actually just perpetrators of spam [8] "Matt, however, provides another take. Google received spam reports of link exchange emails and that caused the site to lose its credibility in the search engine's eyes." Matt Cutts adds: "Andy Greenberg wrote an article for Forbes entitled “Condemned To Google Hell” about supplemental results. I was getting ready to go on vacation, so I didn’t have a chance to talk to Andy, and now I wish that I had. It’s easy to read the article and come away with the impression that Google’s supplemental results are some sort of search engine dungeon where bad pages go and sit in limbo forever, and that’s just not true."

Aaron Pratt discusses his dealings with Andy in this post [9], where he says: "Andy Greenberg from Forbes called me looking for information on Google’s supplemental results. When I said that I believed that SEOs exaggerate what supplemental results are all about he wasn’t interested in discussing the issue further with me."

Barry Welford over on Matt Cutts blog [10] says: "Andy Greenberg called me when preparing his Forbes article and I expressed this point of view to him. I guess it didn't fit the picture that he wanted to present so he ignored what I said. So much for journalistic integrity." Barry later says, in the comments of the same Matt Cutts post: "Just in the interests of fair play, I've just had a call from Andy Greenberg of Forbes as I'm sure have others he spoke to prior to his article. He wanted to say that on reflection, it might have been better to include both sides of the debate." You call that reliable journalism? Jonathan, the Wikipedia article's credibility is tarnished when it cites a journalist who is clueless about search engines and is out to sensationalize rather than inform. --Tetsuto 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reference was used to support this statement: "Due to this lack of guarantees and certainty, a business that relies heavily on SEO can suffer major losses if the search engines stop sending visitors." Do you disagree with this statement or think it should be reworked? Do you have a better source to cite that would support this statement? I specifically did NOT use this source for anything related to supplemental results because I know that Forbes is not the best source for technology information, but their reporting of what happens to a business when it loses natural search rankings is perfectly acceptable. I am convinced that business did suffer losses when their rankings dropped (that reason is in dispute). You seem to be knowledgeable about SEO, so you see the flaws in mainstream media coverage; people knowledgeable in other subjects see the same media biases, and lapses, their own fields. That's why we use multiple sources, to balance out any biases or flaws in coverage.
We face tough objections due to Wikipedia's inherent biases toward print media. This discussion is an excellent example of why we need to convince the community to be more accepting of expert bloggers and online sources. We aren't going to convince anyone if we "nuke the site from orbit" as Rand and Barry did yesterday.[11] [12] The way to convince people is to work with them and show them a better way to do things. Jehochman Talk 08:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan, I agree that a small brand business that relies heavily on search engine traffic can suffer major losses if the search engines stop sending visitors. SEO is a marketing strategy that involves gaining inbound links from other sites besides Google. It's also a strategy that involves increasing visibility and brand-awareness by submitting articles/links to sites like Digg, del.icio.us, and Wikipedia. So a company that invests in legitimate SEO and website development will gain many links from sites besides search engines. Those links will often send a majority of a site's traffic[13] (e.g. Seomoz's top referers: digg.com, stumbleupon, del.icio.us, bloglines, i-mezzo.net. SEO by the Sea's top referers: my.yahoo.com, netvibes.com, potu.com, blog.searchenginewatch.com). A quote from that page: "Search marketers, in a twist of irony, receive a very small share of their traffic from search engines." A niche market site with less viral marketing opportunities may be more dependent on search engine traffic, though Michael Gray will tell you even carpet cleaner sites can benefit from viral marketing[14]. Big brand names also can sustain loss of traffic from search engines much better than a website that no one knows exists. For example, people will find BMW.com or Ebay.com without Google, but they will have a more difficult time finding a new blog or be even aware of the fact that it exists. If a site isn't referenced often by other websites (either because it lacks originality/value or because its new) and 90% of inbound traffic comes from search engines and that traffic doesn't compound (word of mouth and high number of return visits result in traffic that compounds, like money sitting in a Roth IRA), then loss of traffic from search engines can be devastating. --Tetsuto 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great perspective to add to the article. Let me see how that fits. Jehochman Talk 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Search_engine_optimization&oldid=1078806458"