Bruce Clay Tools & Certification [Archive] - Search Engine Watch Forums

BruceClay

08-04-2004, 11:55 AM

Sorry not to have answered sooner... Google dance...

The $750 covers not only a course (which is in person, face-to-face, with the associated costs), but several tries at a test, as well as audits of the practices of the Certified Analyst. At least 5 times (once at the beginning and 4 random times) a human will audit the work of the members to detect any violation of the Code, and if an issue then we intervene which takes several hours per incident. Also, any person can cause random audits as well by issuing a complaint against a member. I figure that at any reasonable consulting rate that my cost of managing a year of this, including a year of my tools, training, audits, included technical support, costs of the web site, a full time instructor, etc... the cost will easily come close to $750. I will see if it works, but in my opinion I am at risk of losing money.

I also did not want the whole world to sign up on the first day... I have had forms in my SES booth and we have many registrations for the whole thing already, and not one gripe over cost. When it is explained the people hearing it wonder why it is so inexpensive. I agree, not everyone can afford to invest in this program if they are losing money, but not everyone can pay $1600 to attend SES either.

As for the slot reserved for ads... I am installing rotating ads for Certified Organizations in this area as a part of their fees and only on the main site. The site never show a competitors ads when you are in the tools themselves, and the tools even drop navigation to the main site pages so that they remain "separate". But since I ate the cost of developing this program, and I wanted to protect the advertisment turf, it seemed fair that I occupy the space reserved for the rotating ads on day one. This was never intended to be a loss leader or to guarantee it will be non-profit... otherwise it is not viable. At launch I just need to cover my costs, and that was a SWAG calculation. I have been here a long time, and I do not plan on going anywhere. But as I said earlier, this is a voluntary membership program, and you are welcome to contribute (I'll listen), join, or not. But the journey starts with a step and nobody else was willing to lead.

Booth 301 at SES.

Sidebar... ad area is surrounded with <advertisment>...</advertisment> tags. But that is another thread...

seobook

08-04-2004, 12:27 PM

Sorry not to have answered sooner... Google dance...

The $750 covers not only a course (which is in person, face-to-face, with the associated costs), but several tries at a test, as well as audits of the practices of the Certified Analyst. At least 5 times (once at the beginning and 4 random times) a human will audit the work of the members to detect any violation of the Code, and if an issue then we intervene which takes several hours per incident. Also, any person can cause random audits as well by issuing a complaint against a member. I figure that at any reasonable consulting rate that my cost of managing a year of this, including a year of my tools, training, audits, included technical support, costs of the web site, a full time instructor, etc... the cost will easily come close to $750. I will see if it works, but in my opinion I am at risk of losing money.

I also did not want the whole world to sign up on the first day... I have had forms in my SES booth and we have many registrations for the whole thing already, and not one gripe over cost. When it is explained the people hearing it wonder why it is so inexpensive. I agree, not everyone can afford to invest in this program if they are losing money, but not everyone can pay $1600 to attend SES either.

As for the slot reserved for ads... I am installing rotating ads for Certified Organizations in this area as a part of their fees and only on the main site. The site never show a competitors ads when you are in the tools themselves, and the tools even drop navigation to the main site pages so that they remain "separate". But since I ate the cost of developing this program, and I wanted to protect the advertisment turf, it seemed fair that I occupy the space reserved for the rotating ads on day one. This was never intended to be a loss leader or to guarantee it will be non-profit... otherwise it is not viable. At launch I just need to cover my costs, and that was a SWAG calculation. I have been here a long time, and I do not plan on going anywhere. But as I said earlier, this is a voluntary membership program, and you are welcome to contribute (I'll listen), join, or not. But the journey starts with a step and nobody else was willing to lead.
the cost is really cheap for an in person course. especially with all the other stuff. its hard to find anything that will be truely scalable and affordable...that is just how this industry works.

the face to face thing adds value, but again that adds to the scalability problem.

Sidebar... ad area is surrounded with <advertisment>...</advertisment> tags. But that is another thread...
I did not know that the was eventually going to shift to a community ad. I still think it likely hurts you more in the eyes of new people to see your ads there than just leaving that area blank.

you can have something that says "brought to you by" and I think that would be fine, but that ad looked like it was trying to sell your serives IMHO.

best of luck with your site. it will be a hard road.

Nacho

08-07-2004, 01:03 PM

Bruce, you are doing a good thing for the industry and it takes guts to stand out while many out there are just giving opinions but not doing anything about the industry. I support your program as I mentioned to you in person, but also wanted to take time to let everyone know that here "en mi casa".

----------------------------------

Regardless if BruceClay rules of conduct A through Z written in one language and Organization X has it in another. As long as the code of ethics are right, being part of one or in multiple ones is a good thing and your clients will reward you for it in the long run.

My 2 cents.

excell

08-10-2004, 10:51 AM

If the industry is to have a code of ethics & certification - I do not see why it has to use BC tools in order to do so. :p

Also, if we are talking cost then http://www.seotoolset.com/support/certification_information.html.

BruceClay

08-10-2004, 11:34 AM

I agree. That is why I am not trying to set an industry standard.

As I discussed in my original post (page 2), I announced a personal code of conduct centered on my personal offerings (much like Microsoft Certifications). My intent is to publish mine as a way to start the ball rolling. But I believe that there are so many personal interpretations that simply publishing a code is worthless unless you can also teach and enforce it (just look at how well the search engines have done against spam). My offering is reputation, branding, leadership, strategic and tactical training, methodology, comprehensive tools, audits, and enforcement. I do not think that many in this industry are able to put together the package needed to do it right, and I know that simply publishing a code is not going to do it.

Yes, I know that there are many that are senior SEO's that have their own way and tools, and they are not obligated to do things my way just like they are not obligated to get my certification. But if you want to be certified by me (and I am putting a great deal on the line here) they need to use my methods and tools.

I also know that many SEO’s have been self-taught and have fought their way to a lucrative career and do not want their competition trained. They hate the idea (and think I am crazy) to teach other SEO’s how to do what I do. I am sure that many of you are making money and do not need better trained competitors. BUT I think that if spammers were eliminated that the amount of work for those of us left standing would exceed our wildest dreams, so I want to train clients to only use ethical trained SEO’s. I also think that there are a great many believers that simply need leadership and they will bandwagon this program to the top. I believe in this industry and this is my chance to contribute. Just imagine what could be if clients know that they have an alternative to spam, and who to call...

I will keep you posted on how this goes... the classes are 3/4 full for the next 3 months just from SES. :)

excell

08-10-2004, 11:48 AM

"so I want to train clients to only use ethical trained SEO’s"
Bruce - I wish you well (I know you will do well anyway) but my point is merely that the way some of the wording reads right now on your website seems to be a little "my way or the highway". Training clients to think that only SEO's coming up through your ranks are any good is reading just a little bit like (or even worse than) the Google guidelines SEO page... (which we all know could be worded better).

Hopefully my words assist you in some small way... :) Give a mention to those rare gems out there that do it differently but ethically and it will feel better.

NFFC

08-10-2004, 02:12 PM

>much like Microsoft Certifications

I'm sorry but I can't let that pass, words are powerful etc etc.

No doubt you are considered a name in the industry, a speaker at SES and holding down a 10 ten spot for the "industry" term for a long while. Whilst I accept that slowly shaking off the Bruce the cloaker Clay term and moving on from, shall we say, the unfortuinate page jacking incidents may give grounds for a new beginning it does not make your code of conduct in any way whatsoever like Microsoft Certifications, trust me on that.

I think it depends on whose approval you are looking for. If its the SE's I feel you may be out of luck ["Bruce, the cloaker guy, has a code of conduct?"] if its other SEO's ["Bruce the page jacker, has a code of conduct?"] same result with maybe a few more LOL's.

If on the other hand its the approval of clients shown by contributing to your bottom line I think you are on a winner, and from my heart I wish you the best of luck in your new business venture.

seobook

08-10-2004, 02:24 PM

If on the other hand its the approval of clients shown by contributing to your bottom line I think you are on a winner, and from my heart I wish you the best of luck in your new business venture.

Its seems as though you cut to the chase more than just about anyone else I know.

BruceClay

08-10-2004, 10:09 PM

I think it depends on whose approval you are looking for. If its the SE's I feel you may be out of luck ["Bruce, the cloaker guy, has a code of conduct?"] if its other SEO's ["Bruce the page jacker, has a code of conduct?"] same result with maybe a few more LOL's.

If on the other hand its the approval of clients shown by contributing to your bottom line I think you are on a winner, and from my heart I wish you the best of luck in your new business venture.

First, I have NEVER used cloaking. Second, I am not a pagejacker, and only had a single issue due to a well documented programming error in test software ONCE long, long ago, which was explained repeatedly and corrected immediately. I am not and never have been a spammer. I earn results the hard way -- I play clean. I have never hidden from accusations designed to falsely accuse me, discredit me, or otherwise cause bias, and I have always owned up to and even documented my errors for all to see when they have occurred. IMO, those raising long dead issues are only trying to confuse this issue and distract this thread from its real purpose and should leave.

I am not here to set a standard, simply to offer an option for those that want it. If anyone feels that what I say and do is evil, then simply do not participate. If anyone thinks that hiring full-time instructors (which I have done), offering 3 days of face-to-face training (hotel space is not free), a years worth of tools, at least 5 audits to assure compliance, free technical support on the tools (I have 2 dedicated people in my support department), and more is not worth $2000 (what an small SEO firm earns in a few days), then you should simply go elsewhere. I do not see anyone else doing all of this for less, do you?

As for the Code… do better and I will support you. But lead or contribute or get out of the way.

Wail

08-11-2004, 05:34 AM

No one knows how to SEO.

Okay, people on these forums are good - some, including Bruce, are very good at SEO.

But no one knows for sure how to SEO. The algorithms are a secret. We don't know, to the character, how much you can put in an h1 tag before it's spammy. We don't know what Googlebot/test was really up to. Some people swear true about sandboxes and over optimisation penalities and others laugh at the suggestion.

We've pretty good ideas and we're sure enough to run businesses based on them. That's one thing. I think offering certification on something you're only able to make best-guess on is an other issue entirely.

fathom

08-11-2004, 06:07 AM

I think offering certification on something you're only able to make best-guess on is an other issue entirely.

Bcomm degrees are based on the same "best guess" philosophy yet it is a neccessity in mainstream business recruitment. I mean - if you hire a person with the "wall sticker" does that actually guarantee your company will now succeed, or just have a better change at succeeding?

Intangible products and services are knowledge-based. They don't offer net value that you can simply touch and feel... but they do offer a major competitive advantage "if" the methodology is used correctly, strategically, and with steadfast resolve.

Additionally, "all certification programs right up to PhD" only give you the ability to think for yourself rather than relying on others to do all the thinking for you. If gives you the right to be "accountability" rather than "well that's what some guy at SEW told me will work... and he knows what he is talking about - I think?"

littleman

08-11-2004, 03:33 PM

In response to Bruce Clay I just have two quick things to say.

1. 'SEO Standards' is a contradiction in terms. The very phrase makes absolutely no sense. It is like having standards for a street fight. You stick to your standard blocks, punches and other standard rules of engagement and I'll whip your ass in a fight in 4 seconds.(metaphor of course)

2. As one of those who was pagejacked I know for a fact that it was a lot more than one page, you probably had at least 400 of my pages alone. And the stuff you were jacking was completely machine generated garbage.

seobook

08-11-2004, 03:40 PM

1. 'SEO Standards' is a contradiction in terms. The very phrase makes absolutely no sense. It is like having standards for a street fight. You stick to your standard blocks, punches and other standard rules of engagement and I'll whip your ass in a fight in 4 seconds.(metaphor of course)
great metaphor

2. As one of those who was pagejacked I know for a fact that it was a lot more than one page, you probably had at least 400 of my pages alone. And the stuff you were jacking was completely machine generated garbage.
memories tend to be a bit more vivid and clear when you were the offendie vice the offender

BruceClay

08-11-2004, 09:26 PM

1) Standards are quite different from a code of conduct. Without a reasonably similar code of conduct we would not be a society. But, boy are there differing standards. When I considered how to do this, I realized that nobody could dictate an industry standard. But I can teach people how to do what I do, and I could offer a certification of my own on that specific training and practice, and that is all I could do (or that the industry could or would tolerate). I have the knowledge and resources to do it, I have the desire to help us all move forward, and I am frustrated at those that keep us from making progress. So I am taking a step. I hope to have followers... at least until something better comes along. I think this is a step forward, not backward.

2) Littleman, since you remember it all from years ago, do you also recall that I explained myself openly and quickly, that I did not hide at all, and when the error was detected that I immediately corrected it? Do you not recall that it was a programming bug and that I explained how it occurred in technical specifics, and that I apologized about a zillion times for my mistake? I think you will agree that error never resurfaced. I would hope that each of us making an error would behave as responsibly.

But this leads back to my intent... ANY code of conduct should allow for converts -- people that want to go straight regardless of their prior life. If everyone converted to being a follower of a social code then it might succeed. If having "sinned" once will forever make you evil and nobody wants to help you do it right, then a clear majority of SEO's in this world are doomed.

As for "how to SEO", I am only certifying people on the use of my tools, following my code, and playing by my guidelines. Others may consider it worthless, but I have raised the bar and consider that a valid first step. I think that this single act is of value to us all. So "how to SEO like me" does fit what I am doing even if “how to SEO” does not. How many others are willing to teach their competitors how to succeed?

This is not a thread about me, it is about moving towards consensus. I simply expressed my opinions, and told you what action (versus rhetoric) I was committed to providing. Action speaks louder than words. I hope you give it a chance, and support the attempt.

seobook

08-11-2004, 09:40 PM

I have the knowledge and resources to do it, I have the desire to help us all move forward, and I am frustrated at those that keep us from making progress.
who are these people who frustrate you and when have you spoke of your frustrations prior to marketing your new program or your Bruce Clay SEO code of ethics?

How many others are willing to teach their competitors how to succeed?perhaps the hundreds of people posting in SEO forums every day, not just around the timeframe when they are promoting their new product.

This is not a thread about me, it is about moving towards consensus. I simply expressed my opinions, and told you what action (versus rhetoric) I was committed to providing.
so people who do not agree with your idea or offer feedback and suggestions are speaking rhetoric. that should be a good way to get followers. where do I sign up for your program?

mtnviewmayhem

08-11-2004, 10:11 PM

But I can teach people how to do what I do, and I could offer a certification of my own on that specific training and practice, and that is all I could do (or that the industry could or would tolerate). I have the knowledge and resources to do it, I have the desire to help us all move forward, and I am frustrated at those that keep us from making progress.

So are there standards by some commercial company on how to advertise and market tv commercials? I really don't know but enlighten me if there is one. Is there a commercial company that certifies people or entities on how to advertise on tv according to rules? Again, I don't know but please search and prove me wrong.

Sorry pal but standards are what the FTC or other agencies are for, not some commercial SEM company. If the gov wants to step in fine, but don't preach to us about your tactics to benefit yourself.

To everyone else: Why is it that these thick skulled SEM people can't get it into their heads that they are not the ones to create standards? Come on give me a valid response to that question. All of this talk is really boring me.

Search results belong to the search engine companies. Its their game, its their rules, its their programs, its their data, and they have their own reasons for what is allowable. Anything else to regulate-that is up to the government. Why is it that some SEM company or SEMPO organization has to set some rule for what others do? Answer that too while you are at it. Seems that the common answer is some false statement to blind people in order for the said company to profit from it. But that's business right?

seobook

08-11-2004, 10:25 PM

Seems that the common answer is some false statement to blind people in order for the said company to profit from it. But that's business right?
well put :)

mtnviewmayhem

08-11-2004, 10:52 PM

I announced a personal code of conduct centered on my personal offerings (much like Microsoft Certifications)

Heh, almost forgot this part.

I took some Microsoft certifications. They didn't tell me how to conduct myself in business, they just told me how to use their programs to build databases or manage networks. You are not even 0.00001% close to Microsoft so please don't bore me with trying to associate with their systems and certifications.

BruceClay

08-11-2004, 11:10 PM

Seobook, I am frustrated on several levels. I am mostly frustrated by those who complain and tear down progress instead of being constructive. I am frustrated by those that say that they make money because of the chaos and thus will fight progress, ethics, conduct, and standards until their dying breath. My frustrations are not specific to this thread, but threads in general. We have a wealth of intelligent people that have enough collective brain power and desire to solve most issues, yet there are those that float from thread to thread with one goal, to distract and attack those trying to accomplish something. Several openly appear with a stated intent of "shaking things up". Way too often the threads appear to have ADD. So I am frustrated that not one person has written me with a single helpful suggestion. I had hoped for more.

"perhaps the hundreds of people posting in SEO forums every day, not just around the timeframe when they are promoting their new product" is a quote without substance... you do not know my other names, and I never disclose anything that would show any relationship to my site without showing my real name. If I have something to say, I contribute just like you. Why don't we all simply become responsible enough to use our real names? I don't because I do not want to be accused of posting for business reasons (as just happened). But in this case I wanted off-forum channels open. Seems to me that you never post under your real name? As a sidebar, I really, really do appreciate everybody that post to help others. Forums are a real service to the community. I do not appreciate destructive distracting attacking posts.

"so people who do not agree with your idea or offer feedback and suggestions are speaking rhetoric. that should be a good way to get followers. where do I sign up for your program?" - I have repeatedly invited suggestions, but not once has a comment shown that they have studied my plan in detail. The problem here is not in (dis)agreeing comments, but where the comments attack at a personal level instead of commenting on the meat of the proposal. But it is an election year… Again, frustration.

There are a lot of parts to this program: pricing as low as makes sense, dedicated staffing, hard resources (computers, projectors, space, printed manuals, etc.), months of work, a complete web site, making the tools operate under private colors... much more than a year when it is added up, to say nothing about operating expenses. I have a lot of investment here - and all I requested was constructive feedback from colleagues I respected so that I could make it even better. I knew that rhetoric would not write a six-figure check. And all I get is exactly what I said would happen in my original post. I did not ask for anyone to take the class or seek certification – in fact, I did not ask for anything other than comments. Since the investment is not appreciated, and my original post has been proven, I will leave this thread and become a lurker. Again, frustration.

Oh yeah, not once have I said I am creating standards. I have ONLY stated that I am publishing my personal Code. Do not put words into my mouth please.

seobook

08-12-2004, 12:30 AM

I am frustrated by those that say that they make money because of the chaos and thus will fight progress, ethics, conduct, and standards until their dying breath.
I have stated that chaos is a good thing for well branded SEOs (I do not think I am part of that group though). when I think of that group I think IProspect, MarketLeap, Did It, Bruce Clay, WebSourced, and stuff like that.

I have not stated that my goal was to create chaos. in fact I usually spend about 10 - 12 hours a day reading and writing in forums. I do so to learn and I do so to help. I could make a ton more money promoting certain types of sites and whatnot but that is not what interests me.

some people question your intentions. as well some people should. nobody should be blindly followed.

My frustrations are not specific to this thread, but threads in general. We have a wealth of intelligent people that have enough collective brain power and desire to solve most issues, yet there are those that float from thread to thread with one goal, to distract and attack those trying to accomplish something. Several openly appear with a stated intent of "shaking things up". Most of my posts are generally me asking questions to learn or me answering questions to the best of my ability. As far as people shaking things up I am not so sure that it is a bad thing.

Those who occasionally ask abnormal questions or make strong statements (like NFFC) also drive others to research vice blindly buying and getting ripped off. not saying your product is bad. it is probably wonderful. there are many people in many forums who play one set of cards while holding another.

Way too often the threads appear to have ADD. So I am frustrated that not one person has written me with a single helpful suggestion. I had hoped for more.
If you really wanted helpful suggestions you would have wrote a long thread months ago asking people what they wanted. you did not want feedback then. why?

I suggested that you took your Bruce Clay seo services ad off the page if you really wanted people to get behind it. Obviously that was not a single helpful suggestion. If you are not actually looking for feedback I am sure it is not hard to find 0 useful suggestions.

"perhaps the hundreds of people posting in SEO forums every day, not just around the timeframe when they are promoting their new product" is a quote without substance...
just typing what I saw.

you do not know my other names, and I never disclose anything that would show any relationship to my site without showing my real name. If I have something to say, I contribute just like you.
that is a good thing if you like posting. perhaps though a few more posts by the name you are using to promote your products would make it seem like you did not aim to promote your products. just typing what I saw. many other people got the same impression. and you tried making yourself sound better than everyone else by saying "I don't see anybody else..."

Why don't we all simply become responsible enough to use our real names? I don't because I do not want to be accused of posting for business reasons (as just happened). But in this case I wanted off-forum channels open. Seems to me that you never post under your real name?
so which way is it? are you being the fence here? should we use our names or should we use alternate names when we are not promoting our products? why not just go by the same name all the time?

my name is aaron wall. I opened up my hotmail account 5 years ago when I was 19. awall19@hotmail.com. I started learning SEO stuff just over a year ago ath the Boston SES and started playing in SEO forums about a year ago by the name awall19

I can think of over a half dozen forums off the top of my head where I go by the name awall19 and have about 4,000 or so posts by that name. recently I decided to put more branding into my name on some of the newer forums that I joined but I do not make my name any sort of secret.

As a sidebar, I really, really do appreciate everybody that post to help others. Forums are a real service to the community. I do not appreciate destructive distracting attacking posts.
as a sidebar, I really, really do appreciate those who post to the forums when they are not promoting their products and when they are not cutting others down who do not entirely agree with them. Forums are a real service to the community. I do not appreciate destructive distracting attacking posts (or overtly self promotional posts).

"so people who do not agree with your idea or offer feedback and suggestions are speaking rhetoric. that should be a good way to get followers. where do I sign up for your program?" - I have repeatedly invited suggestions, but not once has a comment shown that they have studied my plan in detail.
so it is our job to study your plan in details. thats like asking for a site review and asking for people to draft a business model for you while they are doing it. many people have attacked you personally but its because your motives are in question because your name has not been used often except for in conjuntion with promoting this idea. if you want specific answers then ask specific questions.

when someone says can you please review my site usually they are given a few suggestions. if they do not get what they want they ask more specific or more focused questions.

everybody has a different reality. perhaps people have the wrong perception here, my advice to you would be to try to consistantly use the same name(s) for your posts so people do not think you are just swooping in for self promotion.

There are a lot of parts to this program: pricing as low as makes sense, dedicated staffing, hard resources (computers, projectors, space, printed manuals, etc.), months of work, a complete web site, making the tools operate under private colors... much more than a year when it is added up, to say nothing about operating expenses. I have a lot of investment here - and all I requested was constructive feedback from colleagues I respected so that I could make it even better.
its great that you are making a major investment into something you truely believe in. the world would be a better place if everybody did that.

perhaps it would have been a good idea to collect some of that feedback before you launched your site.

I knew that rhetoric would not write a six-figure check. And all I get is exactly what I said would happen in my original post.
I can shoot a person in broad daylight in front of the courhouse and predict that I will soon be going to jail. as long as you have been doing seo for and playing on the web one would think that you could have though of a better way to ask for feedback or perhaps a way which did not make so many independant individuals get the same "wrong" perception.

I did not ask for anyone to take the class or seek certification ï¿½ in fact, I did not ask for anything other than comments. Since the investment is not appreciated, and my original post has been proven, I will leave this thread and become a lurker.
feel free to post by your other name if you do not want to post by your real one. the frustration your feeling has everything to do with your lack of the concept of others perception. I do not know you personally and have nothing against you.

try asking specific questions and you will likely get great feedback from many of the great minds here.

mtnviewmayhem

08-12-2004, 01:05 AM

Oh yeah, not once have I said I am creating standards. I have ONLY stated that I am publishing my personal Code. Do not put words into my mouth please.

Ok so you didn't use the word standards, sorry. But you did say...

they need to use my methods

If someone is needs to follow your methods then they need to follow the standards you set. Correct? Do you have a standard operating procedure for your methods? How about in order to be the a true Bruce Clay certified SEO someone needs to follow Bruce's standardized methods?

rustybrick

08-12-2004, 09:33 AM

Let's not give Bruce a hard time. :) He is an icon in this industry. If you do not like what he has to offer, then don't follow. Your objections have been made but based on my forum experience, I have a strong feeling that this thread might go into an area where people get hurt. So please be respectful to each other (see that I am not pointing fingers) and continue the topic of the thread. If we want to discuss Bruce's new service, then I am sure a new thread can be started. Then questions about his service and code can be addressed.

massa

08-12-2004, 11:28 AM

> He is an icon in this industry. <

At least in some countries, that and two nickels is worth close to a dime.

excell

08-12-2004, 12:29 PM

There are a lot of parts to this program: .... Since the investment is not appreciated, and my original post has been proven, I will leave this thread and become a lurker. Again, frustration.

Bruce... there is nothing wrong with your business plan, your hard work or you willingness to offer and output..

My opinion is more based on you saying:
not once have I said I am creating standards but seeing within your copy no room for allowing credit to others that may be equally ethic/successful etc unless they use YOUR tools! You seem to give more credit/understanding/co-existance acceptance to the Spammer mentality than anything else.

I hope my input is valuable - it is not put forward maliciously - just an observation (on the feelings that I get).

There is no reason why your plans will not go ahead successfully - but this thread is about an SEM code of conduct in general - for everyone etc.. I feel left out - because your program gives no room for the likes of me.. it is excellent in trying to round up some of the cowboys & loose guns that want direction and a solid program to follow for their businesses..

Hope that helps to explain a bit more of this poster's views - it's not aimed at attacking you! :)

littleman

08-12-2004, 02:06 PM

Okay, talking about the page jacking further was not alright with DS. His board, his rules, I'll live with it. But I would like to repost part of my original post.

This reminds me of a woman bodybuilder with 19 inch arms who then starts bashes steroids. This whole SIMPO thing isn't about a 'higher standard' it is an attempt to corner the market.

dannysullivan

08-12-2004, 03:42 PM

Hey, eitemiller and NFFC, moved your last posts over to An SEM Code Of Conduct? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=8953#post8953), as they were general in nature rather than specific to Bruce's thing. Sorry for the confusion splitting the two threads may have caused.

NFFC

08-12-2004, 03:48 PM

>as they were general in nature rather than specific to Bruce's thing.

I'm cool with that. How specific, bearing in mind Mr Clay's first post "Comments welcome" can we be? I have a boatload of specifics waiting.

BruceClay

08-13-2004, 03:02 AM

Please POST suggestions (or email bclay@seotoolset.com) and I will seriously look into including / addressing / responding to each. Even though I have made the investment in this program from my own pocket, I would like to have it be everybody's godchild. If it works we all win. :)

pageoneresults

08-13-2004, 11:51 AM

Bruce, does this one ring a bell?

I was recently approached by a client of another "highly respectable SEO Firm". The person asked a very simple question -- "will you take a look, I am not sure my SEO firm is acting in my best interest?"

I believe wholeheartedly in "ethics". What I found - was not easily detectable to the untrained eye. As a client of this industry is completely at a disadvantage - as there is no real clear cut way to determine 100% if the company is acting in your best interests without hindsight.

This isn't about ROI, or manipulating technology -- this particular case is clearly and simply using the "lack of understanding" a potential client has and the services company "unfairly" manipulating that relationship to be nothing but self-serving. The results of what I uncovered - 423 clients all in the same boat.

1. The SEM(O) conveniently added an extra link to each page that transfers all associated PageRank to a single common page in the site's domain. That common page (as suggested by the consultant) re-generates through scripts the sites backlink and would then normally re-distributes that PageRank back through the backlinks, which sends a slight bit more PageRank back to linked pages. As number of backlinks grow - the PageRank at the common page grows as well.

2. Basically this page gathers all possible PageRank "natural" & "internally passed" to a common place and not easily visible to the outside viewing public (normally the mainpage has the most PageRank) but in fact this page would have as much PageRank as the mainpage if not more, depending on the internal link structure of the site.

3. The Scam - The common page itself has "robot" and "Googlebot" specific tags to "stop" Google (and others) from indexing the page but to continue following all links. Such as:

<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX,FOLLOW">

<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="FOLLOW,NOINDEX">

4. This means that no PageRank is passed to any external links including own site backlinks since all are generated as external references rather than relative ones. This happens to be all outbound links from the page, except for two internal site links which, these pages are <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="INDEX,FOLLOW">, transferring PageRank externally to SEM(O) web site almost exclusively.

5. What's more -- the whole scam is clouded by a topical theme of the pages "SEO ethics" and as these two pages actually belongs to SEM(O) (as far as text copy and links) they are highly relevant to the SEM site's theme. Each client's site has similar pages denoting different keyphrases of the SEM(O) targeted terms. The SEM(O) basically leaches PageRank and derive relevancy from clients for the SEM(O) own benefit - the client is never informed precisely what these techniques are used for -- only that they "help search engine spiders/bots find their backlinks".

6. Not to mention that the client gets to pay for this, as well as believing "how ethical and professional" this firm is.

7. As the pages are basically link laundering and out of plain view, the scam is quite unrecognizable unless you investigate very carefully and have knowledge of all the techniques used.

8. Actual site optimization consist of next to nothing, simple Meta title, description, and meta keyword, nothing more - plus the normal page content (as is).

9. The SEM(O) WOWs clients with "off-page" optimized links, banners and keyword-rich pages without the clients true knowledge or understanding of how this is achieved, and the implications right up until the SEM(O) service (which is fee based and ongoing) is discontinued and then (I suspect) all SEM(O) controlled links are broken.

10. In hindsight - the client drops like a rock in ranks and then realizing the error of their ways - re-hires the SEM(O) since "they obviously knew precisely how to get them ranked"... must be ongoing maintenance, right?.

11. "A leader in the field" WOO's clients with "SEO Ethics" - all the while pointing to Google's SEO page for support of "ethical SEO's" and at the same time... is one of the reasons SEM(O)'s all have such a bad image problem.

12. This isn't knowledge and skill, this isn't professionalism, this isn't ethical, this isn't acting in the best interest of the client(s), the industry, or the markets. This is feeding off a clients lack of understanding, and the only way they will ever understand -- is to become an SEM(O) themselves.

NFFC

08-13-2004, 06:47 PM

>Please POST suggestions

Words again!

I thought you were looking for comments, I have lots of those, seems you *now* want suggestions, I have none that are printable. You win.

seobook

08-13-2004, 07:04 PM

Bruce, does this one ring a bell?

I wish I were doing SEO longer. its fun reading all the stuff from the past though.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 08:07 PM

Not too much in the past Aaron. That email is all about the LinkMaps thing that Bruce offers his clients.

seobook

08-13-2004, 08:25 PM

Not too much in the past Aaron. That email is all about the LinkMaps thing that Bruce offers his clients.

wow. thats a tad bit sketchy.

Nacho

08-13-2004, 11:50 PM

If you approve or disapprove a post, you can always use the optional feature for "Rate this Post" located to the right next to the scale icon ------------------------------------------------------------> _ _ _ _ ^

Let's try to keep this thread clean to "Bruce Clay Tools & Certification" and if you like to start a new thread that does not fit to this title and original post, you are welcome to start a new thread.

Thanks! :)

excell

08-13-2004, 11:53 PM

{Quote is from a post by fathom on another forum...(seochat)}

pageoneresults

08-14-2004, 10:58 AM

Before everyone runs out to sign up for this SEOToolSet, I might suggest that you do some research first to see what the program is really about.

In the past 10-12 hours I've reviewed a very large portion of the LinkMaps network. You know what, you may not want those pages on your sites. Why? Because they may be designed for one thing, the promotion of Bruce Clay.

Bruce saw an opportunity here recently to add another notch on his bedpost. Let's take advantage of all the press at Search Engine Watch and promote the SEOToolSet to new and unsuspecting webmasters. There are many reading here who are unaware of Bruce Clay's past reputation in this industry. Sure, people can change, but in this case, I really don't think any major change has occurred.

Bruce, I'll have to give you credit where credit is due. You've managed to manipulate your position in the SERPs for quite some time, very impressive placement. Myself along with quite a few others are very aware of how that placement has been achieved.

To all those fledging webmasters and SEOs out there, please do the diligent research first before spending your hard earned money on a program like this. For some of you, this may be the way to go. For many, it may not be.

I've not looked at all of the products in the SEOToolSet but I think I can vouch for the LinkMaps product. It is something you may not want to get involved with.

For further information, just perform some searches in your favorite search engine...

Yahoo!
inurl:linkmaps

Google
allinurl:linkmaps

The above searches should give you a much clearer picture of what part of the Bruce Clay Certification program is all about. It is about the promotion of Bruce Clay and his products, bottom line.

excell

08-14-2004, 12:57 PM

In the past 10-12 hours I've reviewed a very large portion of the LinkMaps network
Page - why should we listen to you? I have been looking at and questioning this for years now... BC you have always answered to defend these... so, what do you say now?

Are we barking up a dead tree? can you justify it? Is there anything to justify? Is it all just great ethical & certifiable SEO?

pageoneresults

08-14-2004, 01:22 PM

Page - why should we listen to you?
Hopefully for the same reason that we listen to you. Because we are familiar with your history and the credibility of your comments. ;)

I have been looking at and questioning this for years now.
Me too. I had to make a tough decision a couple of years ago which required some fairly extensive research into the LinkMaps product which is just one part of the SEOToolSet. There is much going on there that is not visible to the less technically inclined. I too was in that category a few years ago. Today, I believe I have a solid understanding of what may be taking place within the LinkMaps network.

excell

08-14-2004, 02:09 PM

I have my own conclusions as to this program and to date I haven't seen anyone agree vocally, strongly & publicly... so you take a bold platform.

I understand it, what you are trying to say with your posts but wonder if BC or anyone else can shed light that you/I cannot see on the subject of the linkmaps?.

If ever the program is to launch the subject would need to be killed to succeed.

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 02:30 PM

That's just it though. It won't succeed. It's not designed to help client's. Most of the benefit is going directly to BC. It's very clever stuff. We have discussed this for along time.

It's not any kind of "ethics" thing that many of us would accept.

BruceClay

08-15-2004, 06:48 AM

A couple of comments… it appears that some people have chosen to attack me personally to discredit my attempts. Certainly the person that openly takes the first serious action in any movement will be analyzed, and certainly spammers will be vocal and negative. Nobody is worthy because spammers do not want this to succeed, or because some feel unimportant because they did not think to do it, or simply couldn’t pull it off.

LinkMaps has been reviewed by Google engineers and has been as blessed as it could be (they of course cannot openly support any SEO tool, but they know about it and have said it was okay). I have run it on my site with their knowledge and had face-to-face discussion before it was released, I personally went back to Google when it was originally questioned (yes, I openly discussed every accusation in those posts), and it still stands as a great aid in getting existing links recognized by the engines. I have lengthy technical responses if need be (NDA required), but what is being claimed is that I am scamming unsuspecting users into transferring their entire PR to me. The only way to get to the only page that used to link to me is through a sequential series of NOINDEX pages each with 50+ links. The dilution to PR by the time you get to the last page makes this page PR meaningless even if it were transferred, but it is not transferred.

LinkMaps does not fabricate links, does not solicit them, does not generate anything false or misleading, it simply documents known linking pages (and verifies them before making the spiderable reports). Note that I do not hide anything from the SE's... it requires a directory of /LinkMaps/ and is intentionally easily identifiable by the search engines. Since it works and works well, why is this even an issue? One answer is that people selling PR do not want others to get it any other way. Oh, yeah... the page in question also uses NOINDEX in the latter versions... and the next version will see the links reports residing on an outside domain - thus there is no inbound PR at all from any clients (they no longer even need to link to it) thus no outbound PR to transfer (every LinkMaps page will have a noindex tag). In this next version there is no reason to link to any of my sites or the client sites since the SE’s will be the only users. The current NOINDEX version links to seotoolset.com so you can find an author and seek support or information, not to bruceclay.com, and it is a NOINDEX page.

Nobody needs to use LinkMaps, you simply need to learn about linking as a part of our course.

Next topic: I use the Google API with their knowledge. And have since it was first announced. (It frequently does not work as one would think, but it is okay.)

In fact, everything I do in my tools has been discussed with Google and they have a free subscription to validate anything they want about the tools.

I think that there are those that have an axe to grind that are attacking to get even - they were previously caught cheating and didn't like it. If anyone thinks that I am doing something without having first discussed my methods with Google then they are simply wrong. I think that using political mud-slinging tactics to discredit my attempts was predicted in my first post, it hurts us all, and smells of a spammer protecting their turf. I expected spammers to hate my program and claim it will not work. I had hoped for everyone else to give it a chance. And for the record, I never said this was a standard, I never said it applied to everyone, and I never implied join or you are evil (the site FAQ actually says otherwise). And I never said I would not make money on this program – I need to “not lose money” in order to keep this campaign alive. Win-win or we all lose.

If I make a little money educating clients and competitors, which over time helps clients understand that spamming is bad and how to pick a “clean” alternative, then is it bad for the client, or bad for the spammers? How can you say that this helps me and not students until you have taken the course? If you do not think it will succeed simply do not participate – wait and see.

seobook

08-15-2004, 07:37 AM

Certainly the person that openly takes the first serious action in any movement will be analyzed, and certainly spammers will be vocal and negative.
I hear you loud and clear.

Nobody is worthy because spammers do not want this to succeed, or because some feel unimportant because they did not think to do it, or simply couldnï¿½t pull it off.
There are plenty of good ideas...plenty of SEO stones still left unturned. Some people do not like your products but a greater number of people are more likely offended by the "greater than thou" text you write.

Everyone is important in their own mind. It is possible to promote your stuff in a way that is more community oriented. Again I state the fact that you were not soliciting lots of feedback until you were announcing the launch of and promoting your product. Why?

I think that there are those that have an axe to grind that are attacking to get even - they were previously caught cheating and didn't like it.
I have never had a site removed from any major search index. I do not know you. Yet I bet you would say I am "attacking to get even." Personally I do not like your approach.

Maybe you could have offered some people free trial accounts or something if you wanted feedback? Or asked for feedback in the product development / pre promotion period.

I think that using political mud-slinging tactics to discredit my attempts was predicted in my first post, it hurts us all, and smells of a spammer protecting their turf.
Essentially you are saying that people who do not like your stuff are mud slinging spammers protecting their turf. You say their mud slinging is hurting all SEOs. And yet you manage to convey this message in a way that slings mud.

That is the "broken approach" thing I was referencing above.

Win-win or we all lose.
Based on the statements from both sides so far I do not think I lose anything if your toolset fails.

If I make a little money educating clients and competitors, which over time helps clients understand that spamming is bad and how to pick a ï¿½cleanï¿½ alternative, then is it bad for the client, or bad for the spammers?
The reductionism "spam vs non spam" or "good vs evil" concept is one of the biggest problems in the SEO community. Currently you are fueling that fire and claiming to help the industry. Explain how that works again?

How can you say that this helps me and not students until you have taken the course? If you do not think it will succeed simply do not participate ï¿½ wait and see.
You can tell a bunch about a person from the statements they make and their prior actions.

The fact that we are mostly SEOs here means that likely we have analytical minds which may be able to deduce motives and figure out patters...after all that is a large part of our jobs.

The web is a huge social network and links are social connections and they are gold (or maybe platinum) to an SEO.

I do not think most people are saying that your toolset is necissarily a bad thing. The comments I have been reading fall more along the lines of "it would probably be a better idea if someone else was doing it."

Best of luck with your tools, but hopefully PR is not one of your courses.

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 08:24 AM

Bruce, thanks for responding. I have some comments and questions...

LinkMaps has been reviewed by Google engineers and has been as blessed as it could be (they of course cannot openly support any SEO tool, but they know about it and have said it was okay).
Blessed by Google? I'm impressed that you have that close of a working relationship with Google Engineers. What surprises me is that they would actually bless the LinkMaps product.

It still stands as a great aid in getting existing links recognized by the engines.
I'm a little confused on this one. What purpose do the LinkMaps pages serve by presenting links that are already indexed by search engines. I've reviewed many of the LinkMaps pages where there are actual search queries pulled from existing engines and displayed as results on the LinkMaps pages. Since those pages are already indexed by the search engines, where does LinkMaps come into play?

The only way to get to the only page that used to link to me is through a sequential series of NOINDEX pages each with 50+ links.
That is not true. Let's take the www.domain.com site as an example. I see the http://www.domain.com/LinkMaps/LinkMaps0.htm page which does not have any indexing instructions behind the scenes. Using the above example, that page has a PR6. There are two links to you and two links to www.domain.com.

All 64 other LinkMaps pages on that site (with 1,592 scraped and assembled results) have a link back to the http://www.domain.com/LinkMaps/LinkMaps0.htm page.

Based on how the above is set up, the client links from their home page to the http://www.domain.com/LinkMaps/LinkMaps0.htm page. There is a transfer of PR from their home page to the Glossary for LinkMaps. All of the LinkMaps1 thru LinkMaps64 contain the noindex, follow Robots META Tag. So this means the spiders cannot index those LinkMaps1 thru LinkMaps64 pages but they can follow the links from those pages. One of those links is the copyright notice which leads right back to the http://www.domain.com/LinkMaps/LinkMaps0.htm page. So in theory, everything is being transferred back to that one common page which contains the links to your site and tools. Am I missing something here?

Oh, yeah... the page in question also uses NOINDEX in the latter versions... and the next version will see the links reports residing on an outside domain - thus there is no inbound PR at all from any clients (they no longer even need to link to it) thus no outbound PR to transfer (every LinkMaps page will have a noindex tag). In this next version there is no reason to link to any of my sites or the client sites since the SE’s will be the only users. The current NOINDEX version links to seotoolset.com so you can find an author and seek support or information, not to bruceclay.com, and it is a NOINDEX page.
Why is it that each time we have this discussion (there have been others in the past where I've been involved) that there are new versions of the product? All of the LinkMaps pages I've seen to date contain links back to your site from the Glossary page. Not just to the SEOToolSet, but to these areas of your site...

http://www.bruceclay.com/
http://www.bruceclay.com/web_linkmaps.htm
http://www.bruceclay.com/web_rank.htm

In some instances, you have one string of linked text at the bottom of those Glossary pages that link to three different areas of your site.

Next topic: I use the Google API with their knowledge. And have since it was first announced. (It frequently does not work as one would think, but it is okay.)
No it doesn't work as one would think and therefore probably negates the accuracy of the reports that are being generated. My experience with the Google API shows that it pulls results from a different database than the public version.

In fact, everything I do in my tools has been discussed with Google and they have a free subscription to validate anything they want about the tools.
Again, I am quite impressed that you have a working relationship with Google.

I think that there are those that have an axe to grind that are attacking to get even - they were previously caught cheating and didn't like it.
I'm going to assume that you are referring to someone else participating in this topic.

If anyone thinks that I am doing something without having first discussed my methods with Google then they are simply wrong.
If you have Google's approval on LinkMaps then I guess I'll have to retract all of my statements. If I were a quality engineer at Google, those LinkMaps pages would have never made it past my department.

In fact, based on research to date, it looks like Google is discrediting those Glossary pages within the LinkMaps network. You won't find any of them showing as a backlink for your site. But, you will find them littering the SERPs in other search engines.

Bruce, let's talk about this comment you made almost a year ago...

As a result I have decided to stop creating LinkMaps-like pages that are loaded onto the client site. Like my other tools I will continue to produce reports, but no pages for upload. Nor will I create these pages on my or any other site for the client to link to. I will not have the client link to or install any LinkMaps pages.

This means there are no robots tag issues, no spider issues, no PageRank issues, and no alteration opportunities.

This removes (I think) every issue raised in this forum about the technical implementation of LinkMaps. In my opinion, this is the material of every complaint, and so I am removing it. I am extending this to all of my tools - I will not produce HTML pages for upload on client sites.

The objective of LinkMaps was to have the complete list spiderable. This would lead to a natural inclusion into the index. So does submission through manual means. So I will now instead produce simple text files containing URL's to be manually submitted. No more HTML pages from my tools for the client sites. In the future the subscriber will need to cut-and-paste the linking URL’s into the SE’s native submission box. Not as smart as LinkMaps, but cleaner.

The complaints about PageRank, or indexing, or any linking pages pointing to my site is no longer an issue. The new version will be up within a week, and as of tonight (as soon as I can get to it) I will alter the subscription process to be for the new version 2 process. Those with Version 1, even if they are no longer clients, are being sent updated version 1 pages with every page NOINDEX and no links to my site. I hope to have these flushed this week. I will also offer all of these old subscribers a free 90-day subscription to version 2 when released later this week. - Bruce Clay
Based on research, it doesn't appear that the above promises were kept. I'm going to assume the above response was to quell the concerns at that time and hush everyone up.

I'll have more questions and comments for you during this conversation. I may even have a chart similar to your Search Engine Relationship chart which shows how all of this works and how PageRank is being transferred from client site to the Bruce Clay site.

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 09:41 AM

LinkMaps does not fabricate links, does not solicit them, does not generate anything false or misleading, it simply documents known linking pages (and verifies them before making the spiderable reports).
I've bolded the term that I have a question on.

If you are interested in using LinkMapsTM to facilitate reciprocal link exchanges, all you need to do is check the box. Then, LinkMapsTM will create pages with "Index, Follow" tags, allowing these pages to be indexed and pass PageRank (and other forms of link power) to the websites they are linking to. Plus, it will create a page where people can request that you add their URL to your LinkMaps TM pages. If the person requests the link and then puts a link to your website on that specific page, they will automatically receive a link back from LinkMapsTM the next time that you update your LinkMapsTM pages.
Hmmm, I kind of interpret the above as a solicitation for links. Am I misinterpreting the statement from your site and the one above stating that there is no solicitation involved?

IMPORTANT: To help the search engine spider access your LinkMapsTM pages, we recommend that you link to the LinkMapsTM index page from your homepage. Think of it as a sitemap for your inbound links.

To use LinkMapsTM, all you need to do is add the LinkMapsTM folder to your root directory and link to it from your homepage to give the search engine spider access to these pages.
So, can we assume that the page that is linked to from the home page of the client site is the LinkMaps Glossary page? And if so, does that LinkMaps Glossary page still contain links to your site like all of the previous versions?

The more I look at the LinkMaps product, the more it looks like a Zeus directory setup with a few twists. We all know how Google reacted to Zeus. Are you sure Google Engineers have approved of this product? Just to be on the safe side, I've sent a request to Google with a link to this topic asking them if they approve of the LinkMaps product.

seobook

08-15-2004, 10:03 AM

Are you sure Google Engineers have approved of this product? Just to be on the safe side, I've sent a request to Google with a link to this topic asking them if they approve of the LinkMaps product.

thats a great line :)

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 10:08 AM

LinkMaps has been reviewed by Google engineers and has been as blessed as it could be (they of course cannot openly support any SEO tool, but they know about it and have said it was okay). I have run it on my site with their knowledge and had face-to-face discussion before it was released, I personally went back to Google when it was originally questioned
Before everyone runs out to subscribe to the SEOToolSet, I think it might be a good idea to wait until we see some official documentation from Google that states the SEOToolSet is approved and/or endorsed by them. The way the information above reads, you may be influenced to think that this product is approved by Google.

I don't think we will ever see a public endorsement by Google or any other search engine for that matter for tools that may query their databases against their published guidelines. In Google's case there is an exception when using the Google Web APIs.

excell

08-15-2004, 10:17 AM

Well anyway, if it is true Bruce that you have all this influence with Google then maybe you can influence them to make some changes within their webmaster guidelines to cover the activity of your products..

Because at the moment it's not gelling. (For those that know how to research anyway.)

While Google does not have relationships with any SEOs and does not offer recommendations, we do have a few tips that may help you distinguish between an SEO that will improve your site and one that will only improve your chances of being dropped from search engine results altogether.

Adding: At the moment there are only a few pages advertising Bruce Clay Search Engine Optimization services via the Linkmaps pages in google search, but there are a lot of links to there from other client pages. The DSM seems to be doing better as far as numbers go. Seems some pages are devalued in importance PR0 but there are quite a few old ones out there.

It does kind of worry me that all this is coming up again on a topic that has been aired before - but I think it is far from cleared up.

If the aim of the new BC courses & certification is building for the future not just for the industry but as individuals, then there might be some more cleaning up to do before it can be recognised as near a standard or code.

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 10:29 AM

And it still stands as a great aid in getting existing links recognized by the engines.
I have to question the above statement again. Since it appears that you service mostly dentists, let's take this page as an example...

http://chulavistacosmeticdentist.com/linkmaps/

On that page are 25 spidered links. All 25 of them are search queries from AOL, Lycos and MSN. Since these search engines already recognize those links, what purpose is LinkMaps serving in indexing those? And, what benefit does this bring to the client and to the search engines?

rustybrick

08-15-2004, 11:27 AM

Im just going to add what I know to be true based on my tests. The Google API is pretty accurate. The only changes I see in SERPs are those that are seen throughout the day. For some reason, todays SERPs at Google can vary greatly, dependent on keyword, based on the time and location you search. There is discussion about this over at SEO Chat, which I summarized at my blog (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000753.html). One thing the API has never been able to bring back 100% accurately is the "total results" for a keyword search. This seems not to be a problem when you do a link: command using the API.

I also have some experience with Google silently acknowledging SEO Tools that use the API. Of course they have never officially said its accepted to anyone. There are of course rumors that some sites have the "official stamp of approval" but I can not verify this first hand. Google words their API TOS is a manner that can be looked at by a lawyer in several ways. One thing every lawyer will agree based on the TOS, is that Google has the right to stop you from using the API at any time. To be sued is one thing, to be restricted access to use the API is at Google's discretion.

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 11:38 AM

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 01:09 PM

Terms and Conditions for Google Web API Service (http://www.google.com/apis/api_terms.html)

Personal and legitimate uses only

The Google Web APIs service is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use only (at home or at work). You may only create a single account and must provide accurate identification, contact, and other information required as part of the registration process. You may not create any script or other automated tool that attempts to create multiple Google Web APIs accounts. And you may not use the search results provided by the Google Web APIs service with an existing product or service that competes with products or services offered by Google.
I'm not certain how aggressive Google is in enforcing the above but I feel everyone reading and participating in this topic should be aware of the T&C's for the Google Web APIs.

For those not familiar with the Google Web APIs service, it works like this...

You create a Google account and sign up for an API Key. You then enter your key in the tool that you are using. There are many tools and applications out there that have been created using SOAP (and other technologies) along with the Google Web APIs.

You must include this license key with every call you make to the Google Web APIs service. This license key entitles you to 1000 queries per day.

fathom

08-15-2004, 01:55 PM

Let's clarify a few things before any confusion ensues.

Which tools in the SEOToolSet require a Google API Key?

I don't think the LinkMaps product is powered by a Google API so the mention of the API in reference to this particular tool within the set is not relevant.

I investigated these a year or so ago at the urging of one of BC's client who thought the firm was deploying something shady and not explaining there true purpose.

While I can't comment on motive for their use (I really have no idea what BC and company rationalize behind close doors) I only consider two things.

1. Benefits to BC that are not disclosed to the client (I talk to a few on this matter)

2. The Code of Ethics camouflage that is hidden away behind link page(s) (that are either good, bad, or indifferent).

I find no rational "good" reason to "hide" Code of Ethics other than to add merit to point#1.

Since bots "love" crawling links and we (as humans) only get to see a sampling of these as backlinks these pages don't help in that regard.

Be that as it may and noting PageOneResults comments about Google's request of information (they didn't respond to mine a year ago) Should Google sees these as "beneficial" to the client - I will openly promote their value.

But I'm fairly confident that Google has publicly acknowledge this:

Be careful if a company is secretive or won't clearly explain what they intend to do.

You should never have to link to an SEO.

Avoid SEOs that talk about the power of "free-for-all" links, link popularity schemes, or submitting your site to thousands of search engines. These are typically useless exercises that do not affect your ranking in the results of the major search engines. At least, not in a way you would likely consider to be positive.

While Google does not comment on specific companies, we have encountered firms calling themselves SEOs who follow practices that are clearly beyond the pale of accepted business behavior. Be careful.

...This in IMHO defines LinkMaps - more benefit for BC and less for client.

For your own safety, you should insist on a full and unconditional money-back guarantee. Don't be afraid to request a refund if you are unsatisfied for any reason, or if your SEO's actions causes your domain to be removed from a search engine's index.

2 Points:

1. the client ask for their money back - and kudo to BC they did "unconditionally"! :-)

2. The Code of Ethics page is (as I understand) on BC website and all clients sites that use LinkMaps. This results in a penalty for duplicated content and I believe "if" you look many have penalties already.

What are the most common abuses a website owner is likely to encounter?

Another illicit practice is to place "doorway" pages loaded with keywords on the client's site somewhere. The SEO promises this will make the page more relevant for more queries. This is inherently false since individual pages are rarely relevant for a wide range of keywords. More insidious however, is that these doorway pages often contain hidden links to the SEO's other clients as well. Such doorway pages drain away the link popularity of a site and route it to the SEO and its other clients, which may include sites with unsavory or illegal content.

Now I'm not implying that these points are specifically addressing LinkMaps only that Google's public writings seem to refute what is being suggested by Google employees in private.

For the record - I'm not saying anything against BC and company - other than believing you are being complacent about the value of these tactics.

BruceClay

08-15-2004, 03:24 PM

Wow...

LinkMaps has evolved a lot in the past and I will agree that earlier comments were sometimes reversed in subsequent versions. I put out LinkMaps changes almost monthly as the various engines spider the pages (not just Google). After Florida a great many bugs were repaired by Google in the linking area and LinkMaps evolved with them. I had in fact removed all links and went totally NOINDEX for a while, then for a while I used the Google redirect (yes there is one), then later I altered my Terms of Service to be what they are today, then I added the index to my last page so I could gather some spidering statistics (if it were spidered from a NOINDEX page then I could show/know FOLLOW works), then... anyhow, the present version is not the last and there are more to come. I really gather little value from the PRzero pages that link to me, and I think I have shown to my own satisfaction that NOINDEX, FOLLOW does what it is intended to do. And now I am back to NOINDEX. And in a new version I will remove all links to any of my own pages since it will not appear on subscriber domains.

In my opinion I am entitled if not obligated as author to link to my site. I hate sites that have no address of the owner, or tools that are too “stealthy” of the authors). I think it is almost unethical to not link to information about the author (why hide who you are – sound too spyware-ish), and I certainly have taken care to be easily found (compared to most products on the market). I never hid the ethics logo, I simply thought that the legend page was an appropriate spot. The client could certainly have deleted that page or replaced the text after installing it on their site. The last page is only a link to the original, never was a copy of the page. I do allow other sites to copy that text to their sites – I am not worried about it not being ranked as duplicate – but I never have put it there. They may have griped about the image link?

There are no links to the LinkMaps0.htm page other than from an internal LinkMaps page (certainly there are none in the product that go around the NOINDEX structure). And we know that using the Toolbar for PR is misleading. We can see that all other pages containing NOINDEX are no longer being indexed, so adding this to the last page should work just fine.

There is a “feature” that captures links to your site in real time (PathMaps) and I do a feed into LinkMaps of those URL’s. In essence, when someone adds a link to you and tests it and you have installed PathMaps, we see that URL’s visit to your site and consider it a “found” link. We then spider it, verify the link, and if valid we add it to the LinkMaps pages. Then I had to do a new version that allowed the filtering of the major SERP pages since those were suddenly being “found”, but in the meantime many were reported. Once I added the filter I had to be selective - the tradeoff was that I wanted to be able to report on detected pages that did redirects, and thus some were retained. So I did a version to drop “weak” (redirected) links, and so on. All of these are “checkbox options” so subscribers may still include them if they desire. You will see instances of each version as you visit subscriber sites… The dental sites are subscribers. I do not “solicit” links other than offer people the opportunity (yet another source of link page names if PathMaps is not installed) to list pages that link to the subscriber for inclusion. We want this to be a complete list.

There is a fallacy that all SE’s can detect and spider the web equally well. If they could then the number of pages in each index would be the same, and sites/pages would always appear in every index. But the SE’s do not index equally well, and there is a significant gap in their overlap. [They are not congruent sets. If each said you have 100 links, I know that they do not all know of the same 100 pages.] LinkMaps will document pages that we have found, we verify link to you, and you must meet our filters. This is presented in a spiderable format that the SE’s can read (we have shown that). As a result, in every case so far subscribers have seen that those pages linking to them are being spidered and that their popularity is increasing. And the SE’s still determine what they want to keep in their index -- just because it is in LinkMaps does not mean it will be indexed, it simply means that they know about it. Spidering is not the same as indexing. So the fact that there may still be some inert links in LinkMaps reports does not mean they are ever going to be in the index. Just like going to the Google add URL page and entering them guarantees inclusion.

My relationship with Google is good, but certainly not a trade of secret information in every case (however I am covered by a Google NDA). My products have been discussed as I stated, and I have never been told that they violate any Google guidelines, and have been told they are fine. Google does not often comment about SEO tools, has no official certification program of those tools, and does not appear to have that as a priority. So you knew before the post that there will not be an approved or endorsed by them statement. And there are many at Google that do not know they are speaking with me, just like most of you have not met me. Each of you can have that same relationship with Google reps and engineers if you wish to work at it.

The Google API allows for non-competing use, and you will find it used by many products. The 1000 limit is 1000 calls, each call is able to return up to 10 SERP entries (1 page) of information. I do not use other than counts and page names – I do my own spidering. I use the API in most tools that even mention Google. I have to filter results, or combine them myself, to match what is reported by Google (“Cisco routers” returns Cisco as the top 4 results in the API, while Google combines them and reports them as 2, one indented, in their search results, and there are minor sequencing issues at times.).

Strange as it seems, your comments were mostly constructive. I think you will all agree that I hide in plain sight, openly answer accusations if legitimate, and like many I get a little miffed at people that attack me personally instead of a tool or service. The issue of LinkMaps has been a hot issue for a while, and I am sure it is not over. But it is not deceptive, everything is in plain view, and it is blatantly obvious to a search engine just by the file names where it comes from. They keep what they like and ignore the rest.

One comment is incorrect… I give out many hundreds of free subscriptions each year for those wishing to try the tools. You can apply here to get one until September 21st: http://www.bruceclay.com/SEWThreadDemo.htm - I have nothing to hide. If you find something suspect, I am sure you will let me know.

fathom

08-15-2004, 04:06 PM

First - not sure if your comments about "personal attack" was directed to me... I'm am as vocal as you, and not discrediting your products, or services just oftening a different vantagepoint.

We all are in peer review, client truly can't review us equally, as their knowledge base is most often limited. As such, the outward appearance of said products and services can be misintrepreted - what the SEO explains to a client (while often repeated incorrectly) suggests that they are not fully aware/apprised of additions to their own websites.

Either way with the LinkMaps and using your own explanation (to the current developments) a link is added to every current website page pointing to a page that is "noindex".

The "follow" part could indeed add value (I concede this part - although search engine saturation on most websites tends to indicate most pages are indexed and indexed better with more PageRank (or more link pop)but as the "noindex" keeps these LinkMap pages out of the archive no credit is being passed thus no help to "keep" pages into the archive.

Additionally, as PageRank is pass from every page of the existing website (making the LinkMap Page normally high in PageRank) the "noindex" part ensures that this PageRank is lost as well as any weight & relevancy that accompanies it.

This seems to work doubly against any value gained by "helping" bots find and crawl new links.

In my opinion I am entitled if not obligated as author to link to my site. I hate sites that have no address of the owner, or tools that are too “stealthy” of the authors). I think it is almost unethical to not link to information about the author (why hide who you are – sound too spyware-ish), and I certainly have taken care to be easily found (compared to most products on the market). I never hid the ethics logo, I simply thought that the legend page was an appropriate spot.

A bit argumentative, but find it strange that the above statement suggests link from clients websites (your authored page is ok) but you don't link to any clients websites from your primary website.

Does this seem a little "stealthy"?

To recap - not discrediting - providing constructive feedback to help make your product/services better.

BruceClay

08-15-2004, 04:30 PM

Fathom, et. al.,

Your questions and comments are exactly what I seek. They question but not me personally, but the contribution, operation, and appropriate perception of the tool itself. I would love such comments on the entire set of tools, and I promise to be reasonable (although I am perhaps a little terse on saying when I make a change as with the ads).

We recommend a link to LinkMaps from a sitemap page, and perhaps the home page if appropriate, to expedite spidering. Some add it to common footer code (ssi includes are common) thus it is included on each page. Since spidering is the issue, I saw no problem in having too many links. It was not designed to gather PageRank regardless of what folks say.

I doubt that all reading this post will agree on anything, so it is my duty to weigh the comments and take action, and while I think we will agree that most products we use daily do not offer this degree of interaction with the author, and none commit to actually considering changes, I will listen and consider all that I hear. I am not afraid to say I do not have all the answers. I listen to my clients, colleagues, and anyone that wishes to have the tools improved.

fathom

08-15-2004, 05:02 PM

I would think a better approach would be as follows:

1. LinkMap pages Indexable (Index,Follow) this allows link credit to be passed.

2. A link back to their mainpage - closing the loop (e.g. internal navigation).

3. Remove COE page and replace a snippet on LinkMap page + your anchor to your website.

4. LinkMap anchor points to a client's page (resident on your website) a profile of the company with links pointing into your website & their - a mutual exchange.

Now you are created "an expert page" for the client + the client is pushing PageRank, weight, & relevancy out to websites that have something to offer them (a backlink)... in return you are gaining in the process but at the same time they (the client) are gaining something more in return - Higher Quality Links from a totally relevant "on-top" page - and Google says - these are more important than just a bunch of limited value links.

In the end - (and in most instances) hub score is needed to induce authority score, and less links "in" - in favor of higher quality beat the reverse.

BruceClay

08-15-2004, 06:03 PM

Fathom,

My agreement with Google is that I will not "clutter" with indexed pages, I will specifically focus on providing spider-food links. And that I will filter as I have done, yada, yada. I really think that these pages can be indexed (as with reciprocal link pages), but I have chosen to restrict them to NOINDEX since it would make them appear like software generated doorway pages and I hate doorway pages (sort of like an ex-smoker). So I cannot implement this portion of the suggestion. :)

I have noindex on the last page now so there should be near zero PR value to anyone other than what existed prior to installing LinkMaps except that the client will have many more links once these links are "found". Yes, they were always there already and LinkMaps just pointed them out.

I can easily make a full (albiet terse) directory page per certified analyst for all of their clients (I also hate junk ads hence my <advertisment>... </advertisment> proposal) on my sites that link to the client home and /LinkMaps/ page for both boosting their PR and spider seeding. In fact, this would be a nice feature for all certified analysts -- stay active, agree to behave by our code, and receive a geo-targeted spiderable link for your clients using the tools (not just LinkMaps I would think). I would set it up so that I would receive no PR in return by keeping LinkMaps from pointing back to me (for those still doubting how this all works).

Would that meet your needs? Anybody else think this is worth considering?

It would take a few days to implement.

Now we are starting to cook... :)

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 07:13 PM

I had in fact removed all links and went totally NOINDEX for a while
Maybe I'm misinterpreting something again. What is the difference between these two directives...

<meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow">
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
If this meta tag is missing, or if there is no content, or the robot terms are not specified, then the robot terms will be assumed to be "index, follow" (e.g. "all"). If the keyword all is found in the robots terms list it overrides all other values. That is, a robots terms that is "nofollow, all, noindex, nofollow", would effectively be "all".
Based on my interpretation of the protocol, a Robots META Tag containing just noindex is the same as if it had noindex, follow, is that correct?

I really gather little value from the PRzero pages that link to me, and I think I have shown to my own satisfaction that NOINDEX, FOLLOW does what it is intended to do. And now I am back to NOINDEX. And in a new version I will remove all links to any of my own pages since it will not appear on subscriber domains.
Here we go again, another new version. These same issues were addressed a year ago at which time you stated you were releasing a new version with I think the same changes you mention above. I'd have to dig back through the hundreds of topic replies to verify that.

There is a fallacy that all SE’s can detect and spider the web equally well. If they could then the number of pages in each index would be the same, and sites/pages would always appear in every index. But the SE’s do not index equally well, and there is a significant gap in their overlap. [They are not congruent sets. If each said you have 100 links, I know that they do not all know of the same 100 pages.]
With the above statement, are you stating that your spider is better equipped to index these pages that the search engines cannot? Also, I had a question a few replies back asking why you were spidering search engine results and using them as LinkMaps results. You've avoided that question and I think it is an important one based on what you are saying about how LinkMaps work.

So you knew before the post that there will not be an approved or endorsed by them statement. And there are many at Google that do not know they are speaking with me, just like most of you have not met me. Each of you can have that same relationship with Google reps and engineers if you wish to work at it.
I could also turn that around and say that you knew before your post that using those statements about Google approving of the tools is pure marketing hype and there is no confirmation to support your comments. This leads many who read here to believe that your SEOToolSet may have a Google endorsement which it does not.

Strange as it seems, your comments were mostly constructive. I think you will all agree that I hide in plain sight, openly answer accusations if legitimate, and like many I get a little miffed at people that attack me personally instead of a tool or service.
Answering questions is one thing. Taking action is another. These same questions have been asked as far back as 2002 in other topics that were similar. The same answers have been provided by you. If I base my conclusions on the history of these topics, I can only conclude that the changes probably won't take place and that the product will continue in its current form or an enhanced version thereof.

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 07:24 PM

We recommend a link to LinkMaps from a sitemap page, and perhaps the home page if appropriate, to expedite spidering.
No you don't. It clearly states this on the LinkMaps page...

IMPORTANT: To help the search engine spider access your LinkMapsTM pages, we recommend that you link to the LinkMapsTM index page from your homepage. Think of it as a sitemap for your inbound links.

To use LinkMapsTM, all you need to do is add the LinkMapsTM folder to your root directory and link to it from your homepage to give the search engine spider access to these pages.

It was not designed to gather PageRank regardless of what folks say.
I'll have to disagree with the above. I believe it is the exact opposite. It was designed to funnel PageRank from various pages into one common page. That one common page then links to your site. In some instances there are two links to your site. In others, there are three, four maybe even five links to your site. And, to top it off, that LinkMaps Glossary page has a title that changes based on the keyword sets that you are targeting. I have a whole list of them here and it's pretty impressive what you've done and how it is being done in plain sight.

I doubt that all reading this post will agree on anything, so it is my duty to weigh the comments and take action, and while I think we will agree that most products we use daily do not offer this degree of interaction with the author, and none commit to actually considering changes, I will listen and consider all that I hear.
I guess you could consider yourself very fortunate then.

After the LinkMaps product has been thoroughly discussed, we can then move on to the DSM product as it is pretty much an exact replica of LinkMaps with the exception that it only spiders internal links on the site. It has a similar set up in structure and how the pages interact. It also contains an index page with basically the same thing the LinkMaps page does, advertisement for Bruce Clay with three or four on topic links that go to various areas of your web site.

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 07:44 PM

Now we are starting to cook...
Yes we are. And, it is going to get a little hotter in the kitchen as we move forward and expand the menu.

fathom

08-15-2004, 08:02 PM

allinurl: /LinkMaps/ -site:/LinkMaps/ (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%2FLinkMaps%2F&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=url&as_dt=e&as_sitesearch=%2FLinkMaps%2F&safe=images)

Admittedly this query shows that pages are indexed (and cache shows that the Robots tag has been changed recently).

But no matter - your own LinksMap on your website is designed to send bots to all pages that sport your links "including LinksMap". Your Copyright page (which is often LinksMap0.htm) is not "noindex" and has links to you and while (in theory) is now disconnected from the website itself it resides on the domain and gaining some credit or not.

I'll assume for the moment that the periodic changes from "NoIndex" to index and then back is possibly to get Google to credit links with whatever - I have watched "orphaned" pages retain PR, weight and relevancy for a long period of time (but this is spectulative in your case)

Admittedly, I'm not going to spend day & night running through this - but you "gain" at the expense of your clients loss. They "do" lose so the only question in my mind is their actual gain equal to the loss or less - it will certainly not be more.

As for Google "supporting this"... I concede that they support website owners "linking out" but even if someone said "Bruce we see nothing wrong with providing bots, spider food" I would think any comments are likely biased to how such a linking scheme was projected to them.

Lastly crawl depth is a factor of PageRank - these pages pass none because in most cases they have none. The resulting output is "zero" affect in backlink inclusion, or retention for the client and a loss of PageRank to the extent of what ever links were sent to the LinkMap page.

Your gain - is also questionable - but then again you get another set of pages on unique IPs all the time - which is more than clients get.

I would love to see your research data on this, logically, mathematically, and in practical application "it works not" - at least from the external appear side.

Skip the marketing fluff - show me facts.

Honestly you don't need to explain a thing to me - but one of us is gravely wrong and doing client's harm -- me or you?

pageoneresults

08-15-2004, 11:19 PM

Bruce, while I prepare my next round of questions, can you confirm that the following chart is accurate?

LinkMaps Relationship Chart (http://www.seoconsultants.com/dev/bruce-clay/pdfs/linkmaps.pdf) (.pdf 49k)

The blue two way arrows indicate where PageRank is being shared between Client home page and the LinkMaps and/or DSM home page. All other red one way arrows indicate where PageRank is being transferred and/or links are being followed.

I'll put some more time into this but I wanted to get a general outline and understanding of how all of this benefits the client.

White boxes indicate pages that have noindex, follow and/or noindex directives (no PageRank). This refers to the LinkMaps page themselves. You know, the ones that contain spidered results from other search engines. ;)

Light and dark green boxes indicate the page has PageRank and is index, follow (by default).

LM = LinkMaps
DSM = Dynamic Site Mapping

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 12:26 AM

seobook

08-16-2004, 12:31 AM

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 12:47 AM

The chart was cute. Please explain how Pagerank moves from the outside to the inside with intervening noindex pages? NOINDEX does not transfer PageRank. [There was a time when it did but that bug is long fixed.] ANd explain how the current version does it since it is noindex throughout and no pages link to bruceclay.com and only one link goes to the product page for LinkMaps (which I contend is totally appropriate, covered in the license agreement, and explained specifically in the installation instructions). :confused:

pageoneresults

08-16-2004, 12:52 AM

The chart was cute.
Thanks, although it doesn't compare to your legendary Search Engine Relationship Chart (a compliment).

Explain how the current version does it since it is noindex throughout and no pages link to bruceclay.com and only one link goes to the product page for LinkMaps (which I contend is totally appropriate, covered in the license agreement, and explained specifically in the installation instructions).
Bruce, when was the current version released? And what about the 3,000 to 4,000 linkmaps pages that are indexed out there?

:confused:
Me too.

Edit Reason: I padded my numbers on the counts for the linkmaps pages. I've changed the above to be more in tune with what Bruce states below.

pageoneresults

08-16-2004, 01:01 AM

Please explain how Pagerank moves from the outside to the inside with intervening noindex pages? NOINDEX does not transfer PageRank.

Using LinkMapsTM for Reciprocal Link Exchanges
If you are interested in using LinkMapsTM to facilitate reciprocal link exchanges, all you need to do is check the box. Then, LinkMapsTM will create pages with "Index, Follow" tags, allowing these pages to be indexed and pass PageRank (and other forms of link power) to the websites they are linking to.
Not all of the pages I've seen have noindex, follow.

All other red one way arrows indicate where PageRank is being transferred and/or links are being followed.

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 01:06 AM

There is another Linkmaps product in a very different industry that has a vast majority of those pages. Then there seems to be a tendancy to list "linkage maps" in the results, or just maps, and a great many sites used this word for various reasons having nothing to do with my product: http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/links/linkmaps.htm is an example of a page that has nothing to do with my tools. By my count if all subscribers installed LinkMaps there would be under 1/10th of that count, and most subscribers are SEOToolSet only. As subscribers I cannot force them to upgrade since the code is on their site... hence I am motivated to have it only exist at linkmaps.com (one of my URL's).

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 01:09 AM

"Using LinkMapsTM for Reciprocal Link Exchanges
If you are interested in using LinkMapsTM to facilitate reciprocal link exchanges, all you need to do is check the box. Then, LinkMapsTM will create pages with "Index, Follow" tags, allowing these pages to be indexed and pass PageRank (and other forms of link power) to the websites they are linking to." was old information and is not implemented. This was never offered, and I have corrected the description. It was included in the new site based upon a discussion, not a design, and I decided not to go there.

If you want a reciprocal link page you have to build your own.

Sorry.

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 01:17 AM

Bruce, when was the current version released?

I run an ASP model (tools run from my servers), so when I test and it works it is released... almost daily. Most changes are minor, and since I am the only programmer I have no reason to do releases that get in the way of features.

These changes were in the works for a while longer and were released with SEOToolSet.com. However, there was a period where the old software ran from bruceclay.com while the new ran from seotoolset.com, so the cutoff was vague. I'd say I went to the current model several weeks ago, and will have the next model within a few weeks.

SEOToolSet.com, in order to be in a neutral corner, is dropping ties to bruceclay.com in the tools. So I have been removing links and notations for a while. They still crop up, but I address those as they appear. For instance, run the tools from my site and get my logo. Same tool (now) from SEOToolSet.com and get that logo, and ditto for a certified organization. So I have been updating code daily.

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 01:27 AM

Sorry for consecutive replies...

allinurl:/LinkMaps/ is the correct query

the one shown with "allinurl:/LinkMaps/ -site:/LinkMaps/" was incorrect, but apparently Google repaired (ignored) the -site parameter... go figure.

By agreement, every LinkMaps page is coded to require this directory in the URL, and all that I have seen have it this way.

Anyhow, this shows 322 indexed pages for LinkMaps, not the 40,000 you may get when you query some other way (not sure how). Might help put this in perspective.

pageoneresults

08-16-2004, 01:28 AM

Was old information and is not implemented. This was never offered, and I have corrected the description. It was included in the new site based upon a discussion, not a design, and I decided not to go there.
Huh? I just pulled that quote from your site not more than 15 minutes ago. I'll assume that this is one of those dynamic changes you are referring to.

Bruce, there is a neat feature here at the forum where you can click on the QUOTE button from someone's reply and easily quote and answer questions as they arise. Might I suggest using that QUOTE feature so that we can continue with the review of LinkMaps/DSM and have our questions answered.

fathom

08-16-2004, 01:48 AM

I just checked my code and then the pages on my own site and they were as I claimed... they clearly state NOINDEX, FOLLOW parameters, and there is no link to my site except because it is my site... if it were your site the page links would be to you. There is a product link to seotoolset.com, and a link to the home page of the domain where it is installed (on my site it is me, but in your case you). I found no instance of NOINDEX without FOLLOW in my code, although it would have been the same as NOINDEX, FOLLOW. Can you be specific about where it is different? :confused:

Interesting enough I saw that as well, but check Google's Cache (source code) for your LinksMap page as noted in the previous post "url" as retrieved on 30 Jul 2004 02:18:52 GMT clearly shows no Robots tag thus by default is indexed.

The fact that I can find these in Google suggests there are routine changes to your strategy. How can a page have PR5 (yours) and be "noindex".

However, I'm not really concern at the moment whether PR flows or not... pages with links and not currently in Google are not for a reason - they tend not to have merit to be in Google (or to remain in Google).

As your LinksMap add no "new" merit to these pages "not currently in Google"... no credit is offers to clients sporting your LinksMap pages.

Be that the case... the strategy is flawed (for clients anyway) and why I am back questioning the need for it?

Anyhow... PageOneResults seems to have the ball, I will just monitor the thread for some resolve.

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 02:48 AM

How can a page have PR5 (yours) and be "noindex".

Pages that are not in the index default to one less than the page immediately above them (determinination unknown). Try this... create a page like my bruceclay.com/helloworld.htm page, make sure it is NOINDEX, make sure you do not link to it, do not submit it, and immediately after you upload the page look at it's toolbar pagerank. We have many cases of pages not indexed that "inherit" PR from other parts of the site (or web) using some magik formula known only to toolbar elves. [When spidered the PR changes to zero, but for years my helloworld page was a PR-seven].

However, I'm not really concern at the moment whether PR flows or not... pages with links and not currently in Google are not for a reason - they tend not to have merit to be in Google (or to remain in Google).

I disagree in part. Some are omitted due to breaking rules, some are indexed but rank poorly because they are not subject matter experts and are not worthy, and some are simply not yet found. Many times adding LinkMaps has doubled the number of documented links in Google, so it is not simply a matter of "not having merit". Try though we will, there are still designers that do not know that java navigation is a problem when it comes to search engines, and none will know of the link added just this second.

As your LinksMap add no "new" merit to these pages "not currently in Google"... no credit is offers to clients sporting your LinksMap pages. Be that the case... the strategy is flawed (for clients anyway) and why I am back questioning the need for it?

LinkMaps is not intended to add merit anymore than a sitemap adds merit. It helps the search engines find content and the SE's determine merit. LinkMaps simply provides links to pages they may never have considered.

BruceClay

08-16-2004, 03:04 AM

I just pulled that quote from your site not more than 15 minutes ago. I'll assume that this is one of those dynamic changes you are referring to.

Everyone, I am ready to change anything to make it work for everyone provided it does not require that I break with the code. Sometimes you will point out an error, and I see no reason to wait to fix it. Sometimes you will point out an operational issue, and I will have to change code so it might take a few days. And sometimes we will disagree, and I will give you a chance to convince me. I know that once all the dust has settled it will work for us all. Correcting the site content that was incorrect was one such case. Had you been using/testing the tools you would not have found the checkbox since it did not exist. I admit to correcting the site to match the tools.

The lingering issues are whether LinkMaps receives PR and passes it to me, and I addressed that several ways (I am convinced that PR stops at a NOINDEX page), and whether LinkMaps is as worthless as a sitemap and that there is no merit to helping the SE's find pages they may not know link to you. Your comments seem to imply that you do not need a sitemap because pages not yet indexed on your site obviously have no merit, and I disagree.

I am sure there are more issues to come. I hope you will at least agree that I am answering issues and not running, and never have. If I cannot be accountable and listen to colleagues then this entire program will fail.

seobook

08-16-2004, 03:25 AM

fathom

08-16-2004, 05:15 AM

Everyone, I am ready to change anything to make it work for everyone provided it does not require that I break with the code. Sometimes you will point out an error, and I see no reason to wait to fix it. Sometimes you will point out an operational issue, and I will have to change code so it might take a few days. And sometimes we will disagree, and I will give you a chance to convince me. I know that once all the dust has settled it will work for us all. Correcting the site content that was incorrect was one such case. Had you been using/testing the tools you would not have found the checkbox since it did not exist. I admit to correcting the site to match the tools.

The lingering issues are whether LinkMaps receives PR and passes it to me, and I addressed that several ways (I am convinced that PR stops at a NOINDEX page), and whether LinkMaps is as worthless as a sitemap and that there is no merit to helping the SE's find pages they may not know link to you. Your comments seem to imply that you do not need a sitemap because pages not yet indexed on your site obviously have no merit, and I disagree.

I am sure there are more issues to come. I hope you will at least agree that I am answering issues and not running, and never have. If I cannot be accountable and listen to colleagues then this entire program will fail.

There is nothing wrong with passing PageRank from a client's website to other sites, particularly since the link back is there already. The gain is automatically mutual.

The pages should be robots default "index,follow"

The duplicate content (usually LinkMap0.htm) needs to go... you will simply get pages penalized.

The fact that most websites need to increase their hub score (outbound links) to improve their authority score (inbound links > via the returning link from a link exchange) means that the LinkMaps are already aiding this at a maximum (current level - with available links existing on the web).

I would however clean up the copy - the visible "on-page" unformatted HTML code looks undesirable, and has the appearance of rubbish "advertising pages" - a similar thing that Traffic Power did.

The fact that your own website has LinksMap suggests that once indexed all clients would have backlinks from BC, thus I see no reason why BC can't demonstrate original author.

Lastly you may want to try formatting recovered links in some meaningful arrangement - organized according to topic (if possible) - in the basic sense they are a directory.