Comments on: How not to do onpage SEO http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/how-not-to-do-seo/ SEO in Munich and Ireland Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:41:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Landon Douglas http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/how-not-to-do-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-11420 Landon Douglas Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:10:12 +0000 http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/?p=182#comment-11420 Brilliant article about google. I'm frankly stunned that it has not been said earlier to such a great length. Brilliant article about google. I’m frankly stunned that it has not been said earlier to such a great length.

]]> By: Paul Savage http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/how-not-to-do-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-4676 Paul Savage Wed, 20 May 2009 14:59:44 +0000 http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/?p=182#comment-4676 Hi Paul, I really think that their SEO was overdone, and as you say not natural. These tactics may work right now, as with all SEO, it may not work over the long run. Hi Paul,
I really think that their SEO was overdone, and as you say not natural. These tactics may work right now, as with all SEO, it may not work over the long run.

]]> By: Paul Anthony http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/how-not-to-do-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-4665 Paul Anthony Wed, 20 May 2009 08:46:17 +0000 http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/?p=182#comment-4665 Have to agree with you Paul. Its doesn't look like a natural linking process, and their link profile is too strongly weighted towards link text. A natural link profile will have a mix of followed and no followed and link text which is not as obvious i.e. "click here", and related keywords. that said, they are in a competitive market, and are probably lining Google's pockets as well, along with the various other medicals out there that pay big dollars for PPC. That's the sceptic in me that says google tend not to bite the hand that feeds them. Have to agree with you Paul. Its doesn’t look like a natural linking process, and their link profile is too strongly weighted towards link text. A natural link profile will have a mix of followed and no followed and link text which is not as obvious i.e. “click here”, and related keywords. that said, they are in a competitive market, and are probably lining Google’s pockets as well, along with the various other medicals out there that pay big dollars for PPC.

That’s the sceptic in me that says google tend not to bite the hand that feeds them.

]]> By: Paul Savage http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/how-not-to-do-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-4371 Paul Savage Tue, 12 May 2009 08:19:27 +0000 http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/?p=182#comment-4371 Hi Frank, Thanks for stopping by. The links in the footer here are purely for SEO value, and not being used as a navigational aid. This also will take away from the user experience. You might say they are not there for a 'normal' user, but then in this case they should be simply left out. I have dealt with sites, who were subjected to a penalty and (it's my idea that) it was because of such tactics. In one case there was significantly less links in the footer, but they were done in such a way that it looked liked the user was again trying to target keywords. As for the Google line on links, they recommend around 100 links per page [<a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769" rel="nofollow">source</a>]. Generally what happens in a penalty is that a number of flags are set off, and one of them could (and most like is) do with the number of links on a page. The whole reason for posting this is to give an example of over SEO, and to highlight the possible dangers in it. As for the review, I think it is important to highlight such features, as too often you hear what is 'good seo' , and it's harder to come across bad examples. Either way I understand your point on it and I know where you are coming from. Paul P.S. -> as for lunch, will let you know ! Will be back for OCC on June 12th. Hi Frank,

Thanks for stopping by.

The links in the footer here are purely for SEO value, and not being used as a navigational aid. This also will take away from the user experience. You might say they are not there for a ‘normal’ user, but then in this case they should be simply left out.

I have dealt with sites, who were subjected to a penalty and (it’s my idea that) it was because of such tactics. In one case there was significantly less links in the footer, but they were done in such a way that it looked liked the user was again trying to target keywords.

As for the Google line on links, they recommend around 100 links per page [source].

Generally what happens in a penalty is that a number of flags are set off, and one of them could (and most like is) do with the number of links on a page.

The whole reason for posting this is to give an example of over SEO, and to highlight the possible dangers in it.

As for the review, I think it is important to highlight such features, as too often you hear what is ‘good seo’ , and it’s harder to come across bad examples. Either way I understand your point on it and I know where you are coming from.

Paul

P.S. -> as for lunch, will let you know ! Will be back for OCC on June 12th.

]]> By: Frank P http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/how-not-to-do-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-4354 Frank P Mon, 11 May 2009 21:59:06 +0000 http://www.blackdog.ie/blog/?p=182#comment-4354 Hey Paul, I had a quick look at that site and I disagree with your analysis. While I personally might have a different design/seo approach I don't think it's fair to highlight this site as "bad SEO". I don't see anything that you've pointed to being deserving of a penalty, and I wonder if the div did not have seo (or even footer maybe) in the classname and the content was styled differently would you still have felt this was "bad". <a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66358" rel="nofollow">Google says</a> you should use keywords "appropriately and in context" and avoid "lists or paragraphs of keywords, often randomly repeated". The site is using keywords presented in relevant content in an explanatory way which leads to further information about the item. The site is ranking fairly well for some random phrases I tested, as you yourself point out. If this was my site, I would be upset that you had written this unsolicited review and said that it might be deserving of a penalty. This is not to take away from your right to state your opinion of course. I still owe you lunch, let me know when you're about next :) Hey Paul, I had a quick look at that site and I disagree with your analysis.

While I personally might have a different design/seo approach I don’t think it’s fair to highlight this site as “bad SEO”.

I don’t see anything that you’ve pointed to being deserving of a penalty, and I wonder if the div did not have seo (or even footer maybe) in the classname and the content was styled differently would you still have felt this was “bad”.

Google says you should use keywords “appropriately and in context” and avoid “lists or paragraphs of keywords, often randomly repeated”.

The site is using keywords presented in relevant content in an explanatory way which leads to further information about the item.

The site is ranking fairly well for some random phrases I tested, as you yourself point out.

If this was my site, I would be upset that you had written this unsolicited review and said that it might be deserving of a penalty. This is not to take away from your right to state your opinion of course.

I still owe you lunch, let me know when you’re about next :)

]]>