Comments on: SEO Interviews galore

By: Bill Kelm

Bill Kelm — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:45:16 +0000

Matt, I could not find a blog post of yours that had to do with Greg Boser’s SEO Contest, so forgive me for putting this comment here. But, it kinda has something to do with “SEO Interviews” if you stretch the meaning of those keywords (smiley face). So, here goes:

Bill Hartzer said in his comment on the WebGuerrilla blog:

“I’m sure it will be very informative for the engineers at Google and
the other search engines-all they have to do is analyze the results and
find all the tricks SEOs are using. Furthermore, I’m sure it will be
fairly easy to identify all the SEOs out there involved in the contest.”

As a non-insider, but observer of the SEO-SEM industry since 1997, I’m
curious how true Bill’s statement is? I’m not questioning Bill’s vast
knowledge and experience. I’m just wondering if Matt Cutts (who I
respect) isn’t going to suggest to someone in Google that they should
use this “contest opportunity” to do exactly what Bill suggests? Matt
certainly has the right (and maybe “personal obligation”) to do that.
For all SEO’s following the Google Webmaster Guidelines, no problem.
But, how “competitive” will this get?

Was the 2003 contest used by the search engines to do the same?

http://www.webguerrilla.com/seo-contest/ Bill Hartzer’s comment is #16

By: Nitin Rustagi

Nitin Rustagi — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:49:20 +0000

Well the time will come for the leading search engines to increase their artificial thinking to cut down the black hat seo techniques. Well, enjoyed your photographs and the total discussion.

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:53:59 +0000

and exactly how a “free registration” page will be good for SEO? since googlebot will probably bounce on it.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:47:44 +0000

I don’t think anyone here has said black hats make no money?? If I missed it, please point it out

By: Supplemtal Challenged

Supplemtal Challenged — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:32:47 +0000

Sure it pays the bills, and is a decent job in terms of jobs in this world, but there is relatively no money in it.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:12:19 +0000

not to defend the black hats, but if there wasn’t any money in it do you think they’d still be doing it?

It’s obviously paying their bills.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:48:11 +0000

RE: “You lose the bet”

No arguing with that spammers friend logic, I concede Yeah right!

Black hats have about as much potetial as a moth flying about a light bulb.

By: Jon Wright

Jon Wright — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:35:58 +0000

he he he just like the forums only with Google as the arbitrator.

By: Joe Hunkins

Joe Hunkins — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:00:02 +0000

RE: Making eight figures a year! Right, few if any spammers have *ever* made over ten million annually, in fact I don’t think there is a single Internet CEO salary in that range (excluding option/bonus values which would go very high but only for the big players). Matt deserves it but I doubt he’s hit the eight figure mark…yet?

By: What a Maroon

What a Maroon — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:25:19 +0000

>there are not enough trusted sites to link to you now.

Sure there are, but you make Boser’s point that “compelling” or “pursuading” sites to link to you out of the goodness of their hearts isnt the world we now live in. Which brings us back to the question of what is an acceptable action to take that results in “have relevant sites link to you”.

The reality is that it isnt “build it and they will come” for most sites out there. And now that Matt has confirmed that the “sucking sound” that Ross Perot heard wasnt jobs going away but page rank, links have an even greater intrinsic value. Call it a vote Iif you will, but even politicians get votes from the electorate by promising something of value in return. Same with links.

The question is whether or not Google thinks everyone but them must be altruistic in their online business and will punish them if they are not.