<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SEO Opinions, SEO Facts, and SEO Wisdom</title>
	<link>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html</link>
	<description>I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere....</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: David Temple</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107978</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107978</guid>
					<description>This is exactly why the "debate" about seo standards is moot in my opinion. SEO would be very boring indeed if everybody agreed and we need more of this, so thanks for blogging about it John. I respect both Joost and Mikkel's opinion as they each make good points. I'm still undecided and like Jaan, not even convinced it works and think there are better approaches.

Mikkel's argument reminds me of the what Mao used in China during a period in 1957. He came out with the slogan, "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend". Sounded good to the intellectuals and they came out in droves critisizing the government. Most historians think it was a deliberate attempt to discover the true dissidents and crack down on them. Oops, did I just compare Google to an evil communist regime?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is exactly why the &#8220;debate&#8221; about seo standards is moot in my opinion. SEO would be very boring indeed if everybody agreed and we need more of this, so thanks for blogging about it John. I respect both Joost and Mikkel&#8217;s opinion as they each make good points. I&#8217;m still undecided and like Jaan, not even convinced it works and think there are better approaches.</p>
<p>Mikkel&#8217;s argument reminds me of the what Mao used in China during a period in 1957. He came out with the slogan, &#8220;Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend&#8221;. Sounded good to the intellectuals and they came out in droves critisizing the government. Most historians think it was a deliberate attempt to discover the true dissidents and crack down on them. Oops, did I just compare Google to an evil communist regime?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tin Pig</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107673</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107673</guid>
					<description>this post reinforces two things pretty clearly -

1) google has way too much power
we have an entire industry fretting that google will suddenly change their mind on certain principles and this change of heart could have non-trivial impact on businesses. on a whim and unannounced google can (and has) made "adjustments" to page rank calculations that cause significant drops in natural search traffic across many sites. what if this were traditional marketing and you had spent months researching your target audience and you found once specific print magazine you could run promotions in and reach that audience effectively. month go by, business is picking up nicely each month. now think about the impact to your business if the FCC suddenly decided that magazine could no longer accept promotions. "but this scenario would never happen," you say? then why is it okay for google?

2) the link-based page rank system is deeply flawed.
so often the debate about whether a given technique is white hat or not revolves around links and page rank. there are simply too many ways to influence, fair or foul, the link-counting algorithm. once the basic on-page SEO is taken care of (in relatively short order, usually), the links are all you have left to try to boost natural search. and really when you think about it, even if everybody played by the rules, does popularity = relevancy? i tend to think not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this post reinforces two things pretty clearly -</p>
<p>1) google has way too much power<br />
we have an entire industry fretting that google will suddenly change their mind on certain principles and this change of heart could have non-trivial impact on businesses. on a whim and unannounced google can (and has) made &#8220;adjustments&#8221; to page rank calculations that cause significant drops in natural search traffic across many sites. what if this were traditional marketing and you had spent months researching your target audience and you found once specific print magazine you could run promotions in and reach that audience effectively. month go by, business is picking up nicely each month. now think about the impact to your business if the FCC suddenly decided that magazine could no longer accept promotions. &#8220;but this scenario would never happen,&#8221; you say? then why is it okay for google?</p>
<p>2) the link-based page rank system is deeply flawed.<br />
so often the debate about whether a given technique is white hat or not revolves around links and page rank. there are simply too many ways to influence, fair or foul, the link-counting algorithm. once the basic on-page SEO is taken care of (in relatively short order, usually), the links are all you have left to try to boost natural search. and really when you think about it, even if everybody played by the rules, does popularity = relevancy? i tend to think not.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TheMadHat</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107439</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107439</guid>
					<description>I'm going to have to agree with both opinions really on this. Mikkel has a point about the "No Archive" issue, but it isn't &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; the same thing.

Most industries are not going to benefit from using nofollow in this manner, but in highly competitive markets everyone will be using and in order to gain that small competitive edge. That means you're going to have to use it as well.

You have to push the envelope in competitive industries or you get left behind. Is the chance of getting plowed in a cleanup higher? Of course it is but without tactics like that you'll never rank in the first place.

John, I agree about some of the whoring that goes around. A healthy debate is good for all. Many times both parties are correct and incorrect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m going to have to agree with both opinions really on this. Mikkel has a point about the &#8220;No Archive&#8221; issue, but it isn&#8217;t <em>exactly</em> the same thing.</p>
<p>Most industries are not going to benefit from using nofollow in this manner, but in highly competitive markets everyone will be using and in order to gain that small competitive edge. That means you&#8217;re going to have to use it as well.</p>
<p>You have to push the envelope in competitive industries or you get left behind. Is the chance of getting plowed in a cleanup higher? Of course it is but without tactics like that you&#8217;ll never rank in the first place.</p>
<p>John, I agree about some of the whoring that goes around. A healthy debate is good for all. Many times both parties are correct and incorrect.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jaan Kanellis</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107427</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107427</guid>
					<description>On another point.  Just because Cutt's says nofollow is ok to use does not imply that it works in the way of "sculpting" as many SEO's are now stating.

Remember the whole essence of the nofollow is to help GOOGLE not your website perform better.  It created to first help curb comment spam, then morphed into a paid link condom and now to help Google figure out what pages are more important than others.  Of course the latter point I am very skeptical on. 

Either way I am not going to turn this thread into a why PR Sculpting doesn’t work or exist thread.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On another point.  Just because Cutt&#8217;s says nofollow is ok to use does not imply that it works in the way of &#8220;sculpting&#8221; as many SEO&#8217;s are now stating.</p>
<p>Remember the whole essence of the nofollow is to help GOOGLE not your website perform better.  It created to first help curb comment spam, then morphed into a paid link condom and now to help Google figure out what pages are more important than others.  Of course the latter point I am very skeptical on. </p>
<p>Either way I am not going to turn this thread into a why PR Sculpting doesn’t work or exist thread.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Dan - Life Coaching</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107347</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/525/seo-risks.html#comment-107347</guid>
					<description>There is so much contradictory advice on SEO that it's really hard to tell what's what. If you all start disagreeing publicly and more frequently then no-one will know what to believe! Mind you that would really keep SEO in the domain of the experts and the would-be-amateurs would be less likely to do it themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is so much contradictory advice on SEO that it&#8217;s really hard to tell what&#8217;s what. If you all start disagreeing publicly and more frequently then no-one will know what to believe! Mind you that would really keep SEO in the domain of the experts and the would-be-amateurs would be less likely to do it themselves.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
