Online PR UK & Expert SEO

I have written this to help new writers structure their ideas for putting together SEO related copy . As you may know, search engines love content whicih is ‘on theme’ and hopefully this will give a newbe some ideas.

• Other theme finder tools: Clusty http://cloud.clusty.com/ - type in a keyword and see what it comes up with, the bigger the text the more important the keyword.
• To see the theme of another site: Use this tool: http://www.acmetech.com/tools/adsense-preview/index.php copy and paste the link youre interested in analysing and see what ads come up – if the ads relate well to the way you see the page , then cool. It helpw you understand how google understands theme

I think link baiting has been done to death. its great if you know how. But like any marketplace, the more entries into a given space, the more competitive it gets and correspondingly the less effective it all becomes.

I say all this, but i wish I was a genius linkbaiter. That is probably why I’m keeping a close lookout for master copywriters who can help me on this

link building reading
http://www.andyhagans.com/articles.php
http://www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml
http://www.justilien.com/category/link-building/

My wikipedia hell…the prevailing idea behind wikipedia is that individuals contribute out of their goodness… but of course there is no free lunch in life and a great number of the contributions are placed in order to get that valuabe reference link at the bottom of the page.

But as with any ’social envoronment, you get imbalances, you get power hungry *ankers who think they can go about doing as they please in the name of wikipedia. Just think of the last time you got a parking ticket from a gloating, self rightious parking attendant, the one that hangs around your car till its one minute past the ‘over time’ - this is how i feel about the wikipedia police.

below is how my story went :

i added this :

A web site has search engine prominence (SEP) when its content is ranked highly amongst the search engines. Webmasters build search engine prominence through building as large and relevant link inventory as possible.

A website can be prominent without being well search engine optimised, however a well optimised site may not be prominent if it does not have a sufficient link inventory to compete in popular search terms.

SEP should not be confused with SEO (search engine optimisation). SEO is to do with elements a webmaster can control i.e. content manipulation. SEP relates to activities undertaken by 3rd parties like placing a link to your website.
Contents

[hide]

* 1 Why sites enjoy search engine prominence
* 2 How webmasters build up search engine prominence
* 3 Dangers of sponsored link acquisition
* 4 References

[edit] Why sites enjoy search engine prominence

Typically such websites which have prominence, enjoy a large inventory of Inbound links or backlinks. The greater the number of links and the higher the ‘quality’ of these inbound links, the greater the prominence of relevant keywords (Keyword (Internet search)) in such a web site.

For example, Wikipedia enjoys a massive inventory of inbound links, or inlinks, which subsequently makes its extemely prominent in search engine listings across a great spread of keywords.

[edit] How webmasters build up search engine prominence

Webmasters typically either rely on the attractiveness of their website’s content to attract inbound links, or they actively set up Link bait, which attracts inbound links from webmasters. Webmasters also run online PR or Seo pr campaigns, but at the time of writing, SEO pr has not been widely adopted by the Public relations community as it is still a very specialised arena.

They can build a web sites prominence by purchasing links from 3rd party website owners, these are known as Sponsored links.

They can also enter into Pay per click campaigns to ensure they have visability amongst search engines. These include Google Adwords, Microsoft adCenter and Yahoo! Search Marketing.

[edit] Dangers of sponsored link acquisition

Search engines can recognise the patterns shown from purchased link acquisition. Google more than other search engines regard this attempt at search engine prominence potentially as Spamdexing and so will either penalise or not recognise these additional inbound links to a given site. Typically search engines will look at the rate of growth of inbound links and the similarity of the link text to determine wether it is Organic linking or inorganic linking Italic text

[edit] References
^ Microsoft Bcentral. PPC & Search engine Prominence.
^ Market Sentinel Spamming your way to search engine prominence.
^ webstrategy.com.au How do I improve my search engine ranking?
^ Internet marketing for your tourism business Chapter 3 Designing Your Site for Search Engine Prominence.
^ SEOMoz Blog Spammers Can’t Call Themselves SEOs
^ To Blog or no to blog Blogs are also a great way to get higher search engine prominence
^ PR Web Search Engine Submission: Is it a Necessity or a Liability?

they said :
Not standard terminology

“Search engine prominence” is not (yet) really standard terminology, so I wonder if an article is justified. A Google search on the phrase returns only 542 hits, compared with over 36 million for “search engine optimization” and over 23 million for “search engine marketing”. Are there source references, or would this fall under (Wikipedia’s policy against original research)? –IslandGyrl 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i reincluded the text and edited it

they took it out and I said:
reason for re inclusion

from the writer of the article: I work as a professional search engine marketeer and in order to explain the difference between optimisation i.e. stuff they can control and prominence whicih is stuff they can’t directly control i came up with the term; search engine prominence.

normally I wouldnt feel that strongly about this issue except that for me and my clients it all makes complete sense. After all how much sense does link bait make ? All i’m doing is defining something which is not well defined at the moment. other related terms are linkbait, in linking, backlinking etc, but none of these deal with the core concept of search engines seeing one site as more important/prominent than another and ranking keywords accordingly….. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sepguy (talk • contribs).

Please read WP:OR. Wikipedia is not for things you made up yourself. — RockMFR 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They took it out again and I said

reason for re-re inclusion

Hi, you can tell, I’m being persistant with this, mainly because I relly feel it should be included into wikipedia. I didnt come up with the term and i have cited references on the article - so please can this remain this time …sepguy

and they have taken it out again. So having had a look at who did the deleting I found their trail:

Contents

• 1 username
• 2 Andreas Evagelopoulos
• 3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Online Learning Institute
• 4 My RfA
• 5 RfA thanks
• 6 List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations
• 7 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor
• 8 Re: 66.79.167.173
• 9 Deletion protocol question
• 10 Old Louisville
• 11 General Mayhem
• 12 I said I would give an admin who protected a smiley face.
• 13 Main page protection
• 14 linkless template review
• 15 Small reminder
• 16 Down syndrome
• 17 Linkless article fix-up
• 18 Linkless article (fix-up)
• 19 FYI
• 20 AfD Iron Ring Clock
• 21 Baseball
• 22 Yeouinaru Station on deletion review
• 23 AfD Nomination being used in a personal dispute
• 24 Relisting AfD
• 25 Deleted Article: Albert R. Jonsen
• 26 Anna Marek
• 27 Do you seriously want me gone that badly?
• 28 List of famous tall/short people AfDs
• 29 October man sequence

Articles this editor has interfered with - see if you can see a pattern…the patten is - no pattern

- what the * uck does this person know about search engine prominence ?!@{!
So I give up and i hope the spammers have better luck than me.

Hi there long time no blog for me ….

I’m sure this is old news, but I have been talking to a big london PPC agency today and they were moaning about google sqeezing them on commission.. big deal you may say. well yes it is actuallly.

The way it used to work was that a client wold buy media, if they went through to the media provider they would pay X, but an agency would be able to buy media for X - 10% - 15% depending on the size of the spend and the provider.

So when a company takes on a pay per click agency they are ususlly charged a set up fee and then a percentage of the media spend - usally 10 - 15%

So as you see if you get the ‘kickback’ from the media provider, it effectively zero’s out the cost of the agency - so were all happy!

But google dont play this game - they dont give any kickback and so we get stuck with the agency fees. Thats bad, but what makes it worse is the increasing cost of online paid for search (adwords and adsense) why ?

Well the big companies are entering the fray without much online savvy. They think that in terms of broadcast advertising (tv, Radio) and display advertising (newspapers magazines etc) . they assume, within reason, the more money you burn, the bigger the bang (awareness) the bigger the uptake.

But PPC doesnt work like that. there is a ’sweet spot’ i.e. the amount of money you spend versus the return on investment. and once you hit that - any more money and youre just burning money - but im seeing loads of big spenders overspenind in the vain hope they are going to get a good ROI.

In PPC you generally look at a conversion rate of about 2% so if a click costs a £1 then its £50 per acquision. and im seeing £4 a click on generic competitive keyphrases - thats £200 per acquisition !!! and those numbers are consistant

so stupid money is beginning to roll in and….

.. as you probably know google is doing a big push on stamping out ‘inorganic’ link building - this is buying links from 3rd party sites to get a bump up th rankings.

what they want are NO commercial organsiaitons artifically buying their way to the top of the engines - its an ‘anti spam’ drive. This is like saying road speed cameras are not about making money, or that the london congestion charge is about stopping congestion!?!
So the idea is to get the money out of one place in the internet and get it into online advertising. The big idea is to fill the top ranking positions with non commercial information sites and let the commercial organisations fight it out in paid for search.

so as you see with any monopoly, they can squeeze and get away with it.

Uh? 301 whats that ?!

Well sometimes your website can be seen by the search engines like this

http://www.mysite.com

or

http://mysite.com

and the upshot is that google sees two sites and that makes for a dilution of page rank. It also sees identical content which can also have a negative impact on your rankings..
Real life example of this: One of my sites, macintyre.com was hosted on a plain old windows server when it was time to progress I set up a proper content management system on a linux server (to handle the amount of content generated about my celebrity client). Anyhow the previous host had control over the DNS and for security reasons we were going to keep the email on the windows server and the site on the linux server (its all a bit complicated)

As a result, one site http://www.macintyre.com went to the old windows server and http://macintyre.com went to the new server. The upshot was:

- traffic being split up

- chaos on the search engiens as users were sent to a redundant site.

- the new site not being picked up by the search engines until this addressing problem had been sorted out!

Thats why 301 redirects are important

to do a fix on this use this code / if you use Apache

- go into your .htaccess file and add this code and change the web address to your preferred address.

Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^villainpuglia.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.villainpuglia.com/$1 [L,R=301]
then all roads lead to one site instead of 2.

for more on 301 redirects go HERE and for windows server HERE

This useful diagram explains how search engines see keywords…

(I would love to take credit for this excellent diagram - but that goes to webmasterworld and one of its contributors.)

As you can see, the more specific the search, the more likely you are to have relevant content for your user. So when you build a site and plan content, its worth planning your site as groupings of subjects with ‘weightings’ of keywords allocated to different pages.

This way you are allowing search engines to catalogue your site more logically and that will end up producing higher rankings.

an example of what im talking about

you have a site called widgets.com
the home page is about widgets

there are 4 main topics on widgets, an deach of those have a page assigned to them

• widget extraction,
• widget placement
• widget location
• widget maintanance

Each of these pages focus on their given topic, so widget extraction will obviously centre on all to do with getting widgets out of the ground, or whereever they come from. This page might have 4 sub topics like:

• widget ground extraction
• widget water extraction
• widget air extraction
• widget space extraction

And of course we can go even further…

• widget ground extraction by water
• widget ground extraction by machine
• widget ground extraction by hand
• widget ground extraction by dynamite

and on it goes… you get the idea.

So as you see you get a pyramid effect and if i wanted to know about widget ground extraction using dynamite - I expect I would land up on your page, after all it is the most relevant page on this subject !
Whilst this is only one componant of many in SEO, its definately one of the most significant - I say this because ‘relevancy’ is the most important mission for a search engine in terms of positive user experience and those who build sites around this strategy will see their rewards in the rankings!