SEO Tycoon

**PhilC** · 12-16-2006, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lgc252

david / Gypsy - whatever ... you've posted 25 posts here and lot's more on other sites. What do you DO when you're not posting? It's sure not helping others on the Forum.

Actually, he is a *very* helpful poster in forums.

I understand what he meant by seeing the same post copied and pasted into several forums. I don't like to see it either, because it's usually the case that people make helpful replies, but the person never comes back to look at them, and people's time was wasted. I don't like that at all. They could at least return to say thank you.

But I can see that you aren't one of those, and you have been back to continue with the threads you started. I agree that it's sometimes a good idea to ask the same question in more than one community, as long as each of them is followed up, as you've done.

To whoever pruned this thread a short time ago:

Well done. I came to respond to the unwarranted personal attacks, but it's so much better to simply remove them than have threads taken off-topic with unnecessary bickering.

**lgc252** · 12-16-2006, 11:47 PM

... must be my gallant nature getting the better of me. My apologies ...

**ADAM Web Design** · 04:38 PM

lgc252: you don't need to apologize. You didn't do anything wrong, and you're not the only person who has that impression of theGypsy. So far, I haven't seen anything that would be considered especially helpful either. If anything, his advice borders on dangerous.

<edited >

lgc252, your best bet right now, as stupid as this sounds, is to avoid the SEO thing in the short run. Now, before everyone crawls up my *** and tries to find out what I had for breakfast, I will explain this.

You have some issues, as Chris and Steve pointed out and I touched on, that will affect your site in terms of conversions and sales far more than any SEO efforts will at this stage. What you're better off doing, rather than trying to get more traffic, is to try and maximize the traffic you do have.

Ask for a site review here, work on as many of the common issues as you can (some people will be nitpicky based on what they want to see, and that's the stuff you want to avoid), fix them, come back and ask for more input, try it out on your customers, and repeat until you get your conversions as high as you can.

THEN go out and worry about your SEO. Why? Because once you've solved the design issues, the SEO becomes ten times easier.

It's easier to get inbound links because your site quality has improved.
It's easier to get your pages properly indexed because your code will be leaner and meaner (trust me, the designers will rag on you for this.)
It's eaier to maintain your site and be able to grow and expand it, which also helps with SEO.
It's just plain easier.

And by the time you're done with it, if you do what three of us had the stones to sit there and tell you to do when no one else would, you'll be running into problems hiring people, getting stuff shipped, fighting with your e-commerce provider over payment holds/releases, and all the other business-related stuff...you know, all the stuff a business owner SHOULD be getting ulcers over.

**theGypsy** · 09:29 AM

Ok..wow… fun stuff huh?
I have only been posting here for a few days and I encourage you to look at my posts… tell me they aren’t mostly aimed at advice...Or did you even check?
Next – I also didn’t know Phil had ‘followers’ – if you had read my posts here you’d find out I am a sort of SEO Forum reporter… I spend time on many of the top boards looking for Signal through the Static. Phil’s is one of MANY boards I visit everyday. I had hoped to give this one some promotion via my efforts, but that seems more unlikely by the hour… though I must say U are the only one making it distasteful

Quote:

You have some issues, as Chris and Steve pointed out and I touched on, that will affect your site in terms of conversions and sales far more than any SEO efforts will at this stage. What you're better off doing, rather than trying to get more traffic, is to try and maximize the traffic you do have.

Ok, conversions are NOT SEO as you know ( I hope) and one doesn’t STOP getting traffic to work on conversions. It is a separate task that is run simultaneaously. Get more traffic AND work on maximizing the traffic you have. Simple stuff there.

Quote:

Ask for a site review here, work on as many of the common issues as you can (some people will be nitpicky based on what they want to see, and that's the stuff you want to avoid), fix them, come back and ask for more input, try it out on your customers, and repeat until you get your conversions as high as you can.

This is some pretty weak advice on improving conversions ..really. If you look to my original post I was trying to establish if it was an SEO problem or a Conversions one… though I am not doing much right?

Quote:

It's easier to get inbound links because your site quality has improved.
It's easier to get your pages properly indexed because your code will be leaner and meaner (trust me, the designers will rag on you for this.)
It's eaier to maintain your site and be able to grow and expand it, which also helps with SEO.
It's just plain easier.

This is simply poor SEO advice (this is an SEO board right?) I thought you were a Google fan boy? Don’t you remember Matt saying code has nothing to do with indexing/ranking and the like? The site will get indexed faster cause it’s ‘leaner and meaner’??? Come on man.

In the end it sure does...as Phil mentioned, sound like a web designer giving skewed SEO advice and I dare say the Conversions advice isn’t really all that usefull… ( how about teaching him what Split/Multivariance testing is … (tacguchi maybe?). Your advice isn’t useless, it simply doesn’t finish…
I have a Web Development (Staff of 15..10+ projects at any given time) company since 1998 and SEO since 2002… I am not a nOOb there mate… so you’d best pick yer fights more carefully…

…and hey, instead of getting excited about Matt mentioned something to you on his Blog, would you like his email address? I actually help out the SQT here and there, and I certainly don’t get a fluffy about it and use it as a banner of Pride…. man. There are lot’s of folks (Dave Naylor, Aaron and others) that MC talks to regularily, I am not special in the least. he’s a friendly guy really. We talk about Search engineering and I even rib him about Patents he worked on.. Can you debate Search engineering with folks on that level? I am starting to wonder…

That’s why I chuckled at you on the other post (SEO Book)… I am guessing I know Matt and the SQT a little better than you as well as Black Hat stuff which is an integral part of and SEOs studies.… I know exactly how Matt plays it…

Once again, careful whom U pick a fight with man… U want me to spend the next week going over ALL of your SEO posts and correcting them --- keep it up. I own 4 companies and have the time to do so… I too want only the BEST information for the people on this board.. Maybe I should start by debunking yours.. right down to the algorithmic and technical level.. Sound like fun?

I tried being nice.. and haven’t flamed you although you have shown a propensity for it.

Let’s see who really can doll out the best advice shall we? I have the time…

**PhilC** · 04:46 PM

To be honest, I didn't even read Adam's post past the personal attacks part, but I read some of it in your quotes, Dave.

A site's conversions are very important, and it's essential to try to improve them. But I've seen the conversionalists argue that it's better to have 10 sales from 100 visitors (a 10% conversion rate), than to have 20 sales from 1000 visitors (0.2% conversion rate). It's hard to believe that anyone would argue that, but I've seen it - literally. It sounds as though Adam is recommending the 10% conversion rate idea.

Quote:

What you're better off doing, rather than trying to get more traffic, is to try and maximize the traffic you do have.

That's the last thing a site needs to do. Yes, try to maximise the existing traffic, but *never* stop trying to get more traffic. Conversions rates are unimportant - *sales* are important.

Quote:

Ask for a site review here, work on as many of the common issues as you can (some people will be nitpicky based on what they want to see, and that's the stuff you want to avoid), fix them, come back and ask for more input, try it out on your customers, and repeat until you get your conversions as high as you can.

I agree with theGypsy - it's very poor advice. Concentrate on BOTH improving the traffic AND converting it.

Quote:

It's easier to get your pages properly indexed because your code will be leaner and meaner (trust me, the designers will rag on you for this.)

This is not an uncommon way of thinking, but it shows a huge misunderstanding of programming and search engines. Unknowlegeable people sometimes think that a search engine programme sees a page's code in the same way that people see it. They write things like, "give the engines a chance to find the content by not having deeply nested tables". But programmes are not people, and they don't have any problem extracting a page's content from bloated code. Personally, I prefer lean, neat, and tidy code because it's much easier for me to deal with, but it makes no difference to the search engines.

< flame bait removed >

**ADAM Web Design** · 04:48 PM

<removed>

Phil, if I'm so wrong, and I'm so stupid, and I'm the gigantic idiot you make me out to be, then why are you here? Really. It would seem to be that your friend David, who is clearly smarter than I am when it comes to the things you speak of, should be able to handle himself quite fine without your help. After all, he's such a helpful poster and it's so painfully obvious to anyone that would bother to look, right?

Oh wait...he can't, and neither can you.

As far as fixing a broken site, why send traffic to something that is not prepared to receive it? The site is clearly not prepared. There are numerous errors and design issues, which others have pointed out. So, if he sends traffic to a site that isn't producing much, if any, revenue, he is simply wasting his time.

"But it doesn't cost anything to get links." Costs time. Time is money. Money that he won't see back if he doesn't fix the site.

Quote:

Conversions rates are unimportant - *sales* are important.

Let's do some algebra here. We're going to use the term N to represent the conversion rate in this case...practically non-existent from the sounds of it.

Y traffic x N conversion rate = next to no sales.
Y x 2 traffic x N conversion rate = still next to no sales.
Y x 10 traffic x N conversion rate = STILL next to no sales.

There's a pattern. I think we can all extrapolate the math from here. Yes, there may be SOME point at which he'll start to see some significant sales even with a low conversion rate. But will it result in a profit? Not bloody likely.

lgc252, consider this parallel analogy. You have a car with a leaky radiator. You have two options.

1) Attempt to drive it as hard as you can while simultaneously trying to fix the rad.

2) Fix the rad, and then drive the car.

Which are you going to choose?

What I really don't understand in this whole equation is why anyone WOULDN'T support the idea of fixing the site. Why would you not try to help the guy? If you can see the emperor has no clothes, why not tell him?

As far as the leaner, meaner code, bloated code means increased likelihood of errors, which means an increased likelihood that something will occur that will cause potential problems for both spiders and more importantly users. It can happen....you put something in there that a spider throws up on. It's not likely, but why not go with the sure thing and in the process do all you can to ensure that your site does what it's supposed to for its users (you know, the people the site is built for, not the search engines)?

There are other benefits in terms of traffic besides SEO...a well-coded, well-built site has a way of getting the same inbound links and getting passed around among forums and other places without much effort on the part of the owner. If you build a site right, you'll get links from places you've never even heard of until you check your site stats (which we all do, right?) and you see the referrers and go visiting the sites. I believe that the SEO-types call this "maximizing the traffic."

Before anyone attempts to pigeonhole me as Phil has, these aren't beliefs I follow or subscribe to simply because someone put them out there. I tried them out personally, and I've actually seen these effects. Those of you who know me, and who have seen me post, will realize the one thing about me is that I say things because I believe them, and I'm no follower. I am utterly unclassifiable. Don't try, because there isn't a place you can put me. Never has been, never will be.

< removed >

**theGypsy** · 12-17-2006, 12:51 PM

I shall let U play.. but hey, I tried being nice to you and U persist in being rude. To each his own, I have been known for such behavior myself...

I don't know U from Jack and I am certain Phil is standing up for himself not me .. I believe the comments (now removed) could have something to do with it.

I shall be posting the details and then let everyone I know at every forum I participate in about it.. see if we can't make U famous in SEO after all...

For the record.. You are NOT the only member of these boards the Ol MC has 'respek' for... might want to change the siggy huh?

Like I said, I tried... U seem to want the fame.. I shall allow U to have it

**ADAM Web Design** · 12-17-2006, 12:55 PM

It's a joke. It's why it was there. If you had bothered to read the comment that Matt had put (or the reason it was there in the first place), you'd realize it.

Do whatever you want. The Department of No One Really Cares is standing by ready to take your call.

There's nothing rude about what I said. I was pointing out a site that badly needs fixed. You choose to want to band-aid the guy's problem. What's rude about that?

Yeah, I thought so.

By the way, it's spelled "you." Y-O-U. You.

**PhilC** · 12-17-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Phil, if I'm so wrong, and I'm so stupid, and I'm the gigantic idiot you make me out to be, then why are you here? Really. It would seem to be that your friend David, who is clearly smarter than I am when it comes to the things you speak of, should be able to handle himself quite fine without your help. After all, he's such a helpful poster and it's so painfully obvious to anyone that would bother to look, right?

Oh, he can handle himself just fine, Adam. I came because I was told that you made some personal attacks against *me*. They were removed (after I read them), so you posted some more.

Quote:

As far as fixing a broken site, why send traffic to something that is not prepared to receive it? The site is clearly not prepared. There are numerous errors and design issues, which others have pointed out. So, if he sends traffic to a site that isn't producing much, if any, revenue, he is simply wasting his time.

The reason is that fixing a site is done relatively quickly, but getting increased traffic takes time. The last thing to do is stop trying to increase traffic - for whatever reason. It's seo 101. Following your advice of maximising the existing traffic, by making the site sell better, and holding off on any attempts to increase traffic, only ends up with a site that sells better, and the owner thinking, "Why the hell didn't I get more traffic as well? I could be making twice the sales right now!" And, Adam, don't talk about things taking time, and time is money. That's not your concern. A website owner *makes* time to do the things that are necessary to make the site more profitable. If he doesn't have the time, then he does what he can, but you are way out of line advising someone to stop trying to increase the traffic.

Quote:

Let's do some algebra here. We're going to use the term N to represent the conversion rate in this case...practically non-existent from the sounds of it.
Y traffic x N conversion rate = next to no sales.
Y x 2 traffic x N conversion rate = still next to no sales.
Y x 10 traffic x N conversion rate = STILL next to no sales.

Where on earth did you learn maths, Adam??? Allow me to teach you...

Y traffic x N conversion rate = next to no sales
Y x 2 traffic x N conversion rate = (next to no sales x 2)
Y x 10 traffic x N conversion rate = (next to no sales x 10)

So if "next to no sales" = 3 sales, then "next to no sales" x 10 = 30 sales.

Understand now? If you still don't understand, let me spell it out for you. If Y traffic produces Z sales on average, then Y * 2 traffic will produce Z * 2 sales on average, and Y * 10 traffic will produce z * 10 sales on average. Easy, init

You wrote: "Phil, if I'm so wrong, and I'm so stupid, and I'm the gigantic idiot you make me out to be" - you said that

Quote:

What I really don't understand in this whole equation is why anyone WOULDN'T support the idea of fixing the site.

No. What you don't understand, Adam, is that I suggested *both* fixing the site and improving the traffic. So I support your idea of fixing the site - I just rejected your idea of stopping trying to improve the traffic, that's all.

Quote:

As far as the leaner, meaner code, bloated code means increased likelihood of errors, which means an increased likelihood that something will occur that will cause potential problems for both spiders and more importantly users.

But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that, "It's easier to get your pages properly indexed because your code will be leaner and meaner ". I take it you've changed your mind now. I'm gald to have helped with that.

Quote:

what you see here is maybe 1/50th of what goes on in my brain

I don't believe you actually said that!

I actually thought you had a larger brain capacity than that, but I stand corrected

Quote:

It doesn't work and it looks tacky on your part

You mean like this:- "The only WMT member that got respek from Matt Cutts."

**WilliamC** · 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilC

A site's conversions are very important, and it's essential to try to improve them. But I've seen the conversionalists argue that it's better to have 10 sales from 100 visitors (a 10% conversion rate), than to have 20 sales from 1000 visitors (0.2% conversion rate). It's hard to believe that anyone would argue that, but I've seen it - literally. It sounds as though Adam is recommending the 10% conversion rate idea.

That's the last thing a site needs to do. Yes, try to maximise the existing traffic, but *never* stop trying to get more traffic. Conversions rates are unimportant - *sales* are important.

So much for Phil not suggesting improving the website itself and its conversionability, eh Adam.

I also suppose thats why he convinced Danny Sullivan to change his way of thinking not long ago. Because his knowledge of the engines is all drivel? I think everyone will agree that Danny knows more about search engines than most people alive.

Discredited. Thanks, drive thru!

<personal remarks removed>

**vangogh** · 12-17-2006, 06:00 PM

Since this thread stopped being about helping lgc252 (remember lgc252? It's his thread) I think it's best to close the thread.

**lgc252** · 12-17-2006, 06:21 PM

Wow ... all this s*it - as a result of my initial thread. And, I thought you guys were all so professional. All I ever wanted was some info.

... have at it!

**chrishirst** · 06:29 PM

< opened temporarily >
It would have / will be good to be able to leave this thread open and continue with the original topic.
There is a good amount of useful material that could still be built on PROVIDED the protagonists/antagonists in this thread will leave aside personal attacks.

Thank You.

<added> re-closed. PM me if you are all going to be adult and be a little more professional with each other.