Ambiguity is the property of words, terms, notations and concepts (within a particular context) as being undefined, undefinable, or without an obvious definition and thus having an unclear meaning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity

Ambiguity, like it or not, has been a driving force on the web since it’s inception. Words, symbols and acronyms being used by multiple people to explain or define multiple things at multiple times for multiple, (self-serving), purposes. Doorway pages, SEM, long tail, keyword research, canonical, page rank just to name a few terms and acronyms that have been capitalized on by the fact that their definitions and meanings are clear as mud to a lot of people.

There certainly are those who do know what they mean and what that meaning actually means in terms of practical uses, but there are a LOT more who don’t and that has been used to advantage at times by those who did  and at other times by those promoting terms they themselves had no idea of what they were talking about. It just sounded good so let’s sell it, blame our problems on it or accuse someone else of not knowing what it really means to make ourselves look smarter. SEO of course being a classic example as it may be the ambiguiest of them all.

But if I had to choose just one term or word that has been thrown around the most often to mis-identify, mis-label, and mis-clearup the most, it would have to be SPAM.

Spam

Mystery meat of the luncheon persuasion? Unsolicited email? The act of “stealing” organic placement from those more deserving by virtue of superior content or could it just be the search engine scape goat that allows them to deny any liability for imperfect results?

There is no such a thing as search engine spam

Anything you can control you can spam, assuming your defintion of spam is close to the same as mine. Email you can write and send. Unmoderated forum posts, blogs and diggs for example you have at least some degree of control over even if only until a moderator sees it. But basically, as long as you can type something, hit enter and it is displayed, you can promote whatever you choose for any reason you choose. I know I'm a little left of center, but to me trolling a forum is as much spam as dropping a viagra link. Search engines don't work that way!  

I’m not trying to instigate another circular debate about the ethics of search engine placement and I have no intention of arguing the matter. We are all free to believe whatever and whomever we choose, and I have a right to enjoy that freedom as much as anyone else.

I believe that SEO's, (whatever that is), do NOT manipulate search engines. I've seen SEO, (whatever that is), defined as the art of manipulating the search engines. That is false. If you set out to place a web page on the first page of results for a target keyword or phrase thinking you are manipulating the search engine, you are doomed to fail.

Thinking you are forcing the search engine to do anything is a mistake. Thinking you are hiding anything from a search engine is a mistake. The only answer to top placement is recognizing what a search engine does, accepting that, assessing the potential rewards and risks and working within those confines.

It is difficult and time consuming to identify exactly what it is a search engine does and how it does it. Algorithms are complex and just how far you want to dig is up to each individual doing the digging. It really has nothing to do with how smart you are. It has much more to do with how much time and/or money you are willing to invest to learn the quirks of a specific engine.

With most people, myself included, there comes a point of diminishing returns where it makes more sense to simply understand the concepts and base your actions on educated guesses more so than researching another 100 pages under another 100 phrases. Also, keep in mind, success breeds success. As long as you apply the concepts you discover and your sites capture those top spots and generate sales, then you can accept that you are right and act accordingly.

The only person or persons who can manipulate a search engine, are the persons who have access to the admin panel and/or source code of that specific search engine. If you can't get to the admin panel, you can have no effect whatsoever on what that search engines does based on anything you do to your page or site. All you can do is construct data that you feel is most likely to fall within the parameters of the algorithm.

That is NOT manipulating search engines, that is learning how search engines work and then manipulating your page. No matter how vehemently some may disagree, that is a fact!  No one can "help" a search engine find what they are looking for anymore than anyone can "make" a search engine do what they want. Search engines just do what they do.

This may seem like a very minor point to some, but this is the main concept that has caused so much division within the search engine marketing community. The misunderstanding or failure to recognize this concept is the reason some people try to hide content thinking they are fooling the search engines and why some people become so militant about saving the planet from search engine spammers. Both camps are missing the glaringly obvious.

Some things work and some things don’t. Not all of the things that work make the search engines look good to the public or even in their own eyes and that forces them to either admit there may be a problem or find some way to make themselves look better. Claiming the problems they see in themselves lies not with their own algorithms, but rather is due to nasty people they can only identify after the fact is just good marketing and public relations.

I have been preaching this concept for a long time, (http://www.v7n.com/basic-concepts.php), but I ran across a video from one of those guys that when he speaks, smart people listen,( Jeremy Shoemaker http://www.shoemoney.com), just this weekend. He said in a 3 minute youtube what I have been trying to make people understand for years.     

Shoemoney’s don’t make Google look stupid video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOBcXEja_dM

If you don’t watch this short video you’ll be doing yourself a huge disservice. Shoemoney shows in a way that is very hard to argue with, why text links have been carrying an increasing risk factor this past few months. It’s not because they don’t work, rather it is because Google has made such a hard-line stance against them and to do nothing or to admit they don’t need to do something makes them appear less powerful and their search engine not as omnipotent as Google would like. But that is not fighting spam, that is public relations and very smart PR at that.

By torching sites, (as shoemoney eloquently puts it), it gives the appearance that the algorithm is all-knowing and it is only a matter of time before all those nasty spammers get caught. By promoting the notion that some people are bad for doing the exact same thing Google does, (which is to build their own site to maximize their own image and revenues),  it eliminates the liability of poor results and helps to give the appearance of “protecting” the web which is a more noble endeavor than just trying to make as much as we possibly can.

There are risks associated with promoting anything. There are costs and there are winners and losers. But there is no such thing as search engine spam.  

Whatever shows up in Google, Google put there, not you.

Do you honestly think Google doesn’t know that?  

I have heard some argue that Google is getting better at fighting spam, but what that really means is Google is getting better at not looking stupid. Which brings me to today’s topic.

CONTENT HOSTING – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Spotting obviously compensated text links doesn't take a rocket scientist. Pretty much a blind monkey with no arms can run tattling to Google that another blind, no armed monkey has text links on their front page. But after a few dozen monkey "outings" on popular outing sites, (more commonly known as seo forums and blogs), and the top results are still heavily populated with obviously compensated text links Google starts not looking as smart as we thought they were. Action must be taken to address this and torching ensues.

So, with a link based algorithm that has pretty much re-defined technology stock trading, now that we see a problem do we abandon links? I don't think so. I think we just look for ways that make us look smarter. Hello third party content hosting for a fee. Good bye text links. Who cares anyway? Once digital pointless started advertising .edu links for $1 did any of us really think there was much value left in them? I know we all like to accuse Google of trying to tell us how to build our sites but I believe digital point did more to kill text links than Google did. Anyway -------

Today is the first installment in a two part series about content hosting and what value proposition it offers the buyer, the seller and the search engine. My next post will be to describe specifics of content hosting, (sometimes referred to as presell pages), what it can and can’t do for sales and placements for both the buyer and the seller and why, (at least for the time being and until they start getting “outed” by SEO’s), content hosting is the text link, (and pay for post), of the next few years.

Peace Y’all

The Seo Guru

If you don’t stop pesterin your sister, you’ll be cutting me a switch DAMNIT!

Should you buy links? Wrong question!

The question you SHOULD be asking is, “should I be promoting my online business and what risks am I willing to accept?”

{NOTE: the SEO Guru ALWAYS approaches any topic regarding the online experience from a commercial perspective.  So, even though there may be things of interest to some beyond the scope of buying and selling goods and services, the Guru is not addressing those. }

There is really only one reason anyone should want to pursue, (free, paid or killed for), a link in the first place.  The potential of increased profits.  

I suppose there could be an argument made that simple validation is also a motivation worthy of consideration but to me the only reason that justifies compensation is either the direct benefit of a delivered lead trackable to a third party source of someone who has made the investment to attract traffic that they are willing to transfer to me  for a fair price,( where would PPC be without this little concept in place?), or the indirect benefit of things like endorsement from trusted sources, branding and of course, improved visibility in organic results of search engines.

Links given freely are always appreciated of course. Even if they weren’t, there isn’t much you can do about it. If someone wants to link to you for any reason you might as well be glad because you can’t control what someone else does on their site.  Even the Associated Press is going to have to accept that you can’t control what other people link to. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071009/185531.shtml

What Do Free Links Cost

Control is the issue of course and there is a cost associated with loss of control.  Reputation management issues begin with a link. When the #1 result for a search for your name has a title like “ World’s biggest loser”, now there is a link you can live without. There is little question that even if you do nothing more than whine about it, you have an investment of time that could have been better spent not doing  the whining.

Or like in AP’s doomed case where you feel the link does them more good than you, you may end up wasting millions in court costs and lawyer’s fees only to find out it would have been cheaper to offer to simply pay Moreover to stop linking to you in the first place. What a dilemma huh. If you paid someone to NOT link to you, is that still considered natural linking?

When a link is compensated either by reciprocating, trading or cash on the barrel, at least then you do have some degree of control over placement, context and method of compensation. There are undoubtedly benefits and upsides to making a deal.

A deal is a deal and it doesn’t matter if that method of compensation is dependent on clicks or page rank. At least it doesn’t matter to the dealer or the dealee. That is business and the way business has been done since the first cave man traded a pretty rock for a mastadon steak dinner. The perception is that what you and I conduct is no one’s  business but ours. That is the perception and the perception is what is causing all the uproar, confusion and circular debates in the world of online marketing.

Enter the internet and a search engine generating a lot of traffic and wielding a lot of power to divert or alter that traffic on a whim. Now a third party forces it’s way into the deal by virtue of perceived risk and all of a sudden there are considerations beyond the objectives of the dealer and the dealee. Naturally, this is going to freak some people out. Others it will only not sit well with, while still others see the controversy as opportunity and publish their viewpoints in the hopes of gaining links as well as swaying people to their way of thinking.

The Internet Marketer’s Manifestohttp://www.seo-scoop.com/2007/04/20/the-internet-marketers-manifesto/ OR  

Google Needs to Stop Being a Crybaby About Paid Links

http://www.wolf-howl.com/google/google-needs-to-stop-being-a-crybaby-about-paid-links/

But no matter what the position being promoted, controversy ensues as the comments on sphin illustrate.

http://sphinn.com/story/17990

Without the controversy, it wouldn’t be worth the effort.

The harsh truth is that third party influence over certain business transactions are actually nothing new. Just ask anyone who has ever been left anything in a will or tried to sell a business that was located in a leased building. 

But another harsh truth is that anyone who has the power to influence any deal for their own profit, is going to do it. It doesn’t matter if it’s a third party, a dealee or a dealer.  If there is profit at stake everyone that can profit will attempt to and they will use whatever resources they have at their disposal to try to increase their take. That includes FUD, public relations department and behind-closed-doors arrangements.

The Guru actually sees nothing wrong with that as he believes that is as it should be.  Each interested party with even a modicum of business acumen is going to quickly assess risk vs return and act  in their own best interests. That is business, that is human and that is natural human behavior. 

Improved visibility in organic results of search engines. Herein lies the rub.  

So when it comes to links, we already know one of the parties has a vested interest in maintaining some degree of control over the market for a number of reasons creating what could be considered a risk.

Here is a video of Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox discussing how selling links can cause you to lose your page rank:http://videos.webpronews.com/2007/12/11/pubcon-las-vegas-2007-matt-cutts-of-google-and-vanessa-fox

But only you can decide just what that risk is worth. If the risk is more important to you than the return, fine. Trackable leads, endorsements and branding with a no follow tag -- no problem.  Slap a tracker on the link reporting impressions and click thrus, agree on a cost per impression or per click or per action and theoretically, the benefit of these desired outcomes represent little risk beyond the possibility of over payment due to the lack of industry standards and pricing largely dependent on the individual webmasters own idea of the value of his site, (far too often over-inflated in this Guru’s  opinion).

Even if a monthly fee for branding, endorsement or validation works, again, rel= no follow can give you the false sense of security promised by the Google altered perception machine.

But what if you believe that organic converts better than ppc or that organic grabs the lion’s share of the clicks? What if you believe the more Google tries to control links the more value to influence their ranking the links have?

It’s not my job to tell you what to believe or how to spend your money. As an online promotion service provider, my job is not to tell you what you want or to assess risk for you. My job is to listen carefully to you as you explain your objectives and then honestly inform you of my opinion of the risks involved compared to the returns you could expect and then increase your traffic, sales and/or image at your bidding.

Invariably I get the question, SHOULD I BUY LINKS?

Wanna  know the funny thing? Most of the people who ask me that question are the people who least need to worry about the risk. The risk motivating the question being whether or not they may be penalized by google instead of the risk being about going broke.

Logic would dictate that anyone concerned about the risk of being penalized by Google,  is actually  worried about losing something they already have.  In this case sales coming from targeted traffic generated from superior organic placements in the SERP’s.  Fine, that makes sense as that is pretty much the definition of risk. Losing what you already have or at least losing a perceived opportunity that you have already made an investment in, (which was a calculated risk the minute a decision was made to put up a webpage and long before this question ever came up).   

But far more often than not, when I take a look at the site belonging to the askee,  I see a site that looks like a third graders ransom note and written by a Marlon Sanders school of “But Wait – There’s More” drop out with a title tag that reads,  index-Mozilla Firefox.

Little traffic to speak of and certainly no sales to lose. There is VERY little visible investment in design, content or anything else.  Yet they brag of the #3 spot they have for a keyword with over a million results like that is all they need for proof of their valuable contribution to the world of online commerce.

It’s obvious to me that what they really want is to do very little work, invest very little of themselves and then have me make them a lot of money for a couple hundred bucks, BUT they don’t want the site to get penalized for breaking any google rules.

That’s fine I have no problem with that but don’t waste my time and yours trying to make me think you are wanting one thing when you are actually wanting another. If you tell me it’s a thin site with little content but you want it placed, I can help you evaluate risk vs reward. When you tell me what a great site it is and you want it placed for competitive keywords but you don’t want it penalized, that is borderline crazy and I can’t help you with that.

Then I get the people who read more seo blogs and forums than I do. They come to me and tell me they want top quality links from only trusted authority sites with a minimum PR of 7 and without a no follow tag for $1 each to link to their affiliate site promoting herbal male enhancement BUT they don’t want to break any Google guidelines.

Again they are telling me they want top placement for a site that lacks the content, the longevity and the trust built by their competitors without having to build as good a resources as theirs without breaking any rules. They are wanting me to promote a great site when they don’t have a great site.

Again, fine. I don’t care and I can help you assess the risk of this too but only by us both being straight with each other.

I can help but the Truth Must Set You Free!

If you want to build a great resource and want to gain link popularity without breaking any guidelines, fine. I’ll help you develop strategies that get links for free. We may build a nifty little widget to give away for free. We may set up a video blogging site. We may do a lot of things that involve virtually no risk of Google penalizing your site, (bear in mind that they can do anything they want any time they want in regards to how and who they rank).

Fine, I can help and I enjoy building complex sites and managing complex strategies. BUT the objective here is not getting penalized instead of making the site profitable fast.

If you tell me you want this site at #1 within 30 days, I can help with that too, BUT it is very likely the placement in Google won’t last long. Very high risk with every so-called SEO on the planet writing to Google accusing everyone else of breaking the rules.  Again the objective here is not making a site profitable. The objective is to spam the crap out of Google.

Fine, I know a lot of people and can help you assess the risk vs the return for just every genre there is to be promoted online.

Finally, there are those who run online businesses. They are familiar with their own site and with the sites  of their competitors. They want to compete effectively and maximize return while managing risk. They know what sales are. They know what margins are and they know that Google’s business is Google’s and they know they have to make sales and maintain margins to survive and that is their business.

These people I can make a lot of money. I can do the work they aren’t specialists in, faster, cheaper and with a better return they can do it for themselves.

If you know what you want and you tell me what you want, I can probably help, but if you are wanting one thing and ask for help getting another you are either lying to me, lying to yourself or lying to both of us and either way, you lose.

So the question is not, SHOULD I BUY LINKS. The question is “how do I make more profits for my online business”? Buy em, trade em, give away goodies for em or pay for them by the click, links are a part of online promotion and you need them if you want increased sales, more branding or improved image.

Now, my next blog post is going to be about

CONTENT HOSTING – THE TEXT LINK OF THE NEXT DECADE
What content hosting does for the buyer, the seller and the search engine and why presell pages are bullshit!  

Peace Y’all

The SEO Guru

If I catch you buying cigarettes with your lunch money again I’m going to quit giving you lunch money and you can just go hungry!