Visit the Youtube page as well: lots of other 4HWW ideas,you’ve got plenty yourself if you just do them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1merER1zVFg

“World’s Only Patented 100% Search-Engine-Complaint Link Management System”

Links Manager Typo

P.S. To be fair they fixed it pretty quick, round about the time this thread started getting comments :).

Vexcom’s Atlanta SEO blog lists a decent tool over at webconfs.com, two I personally like are:

http://seopen.com/seopen-tools/link-development-tool.php
http://www.soloseo.com/tools/linkSearch.html

Take your pick. The Seopen one lists all queries directly giving you that immediate rosy glow of being confronted with lots of willing link partners.

The Soloseo one looks neat and you can see every individual search for finding reciprocal link pages, eg. keyphrase +”add site”, keyphrase +”add link”, keyphrase +”add site”, keyphrase +”add URL” and so on which gained fame around 2004 in a seminal post at WebmasterWorld. (Hah, I knew the year without checking).

Yes it’s that old. I used to build site directories, positioning them as a genuine resource for visitors as well as just a links page and would gladly mix up reciprocal links with freely given non-reciprocal links to improve the quality of the directory. Worked well and it still does, just make sure to get some more recent strategies in your toolbox also and go and learn some SMO at the same time :).

Quick check on this site and lo and behold, I’ve used a standard hack to replace the default Thesis theme header text with an image but have missed out altogether on a great h1 tag to use relevant keyphrases in.

Nifty thing is I can then use “Dynamic Text Replacement” to insert different text into my h1 tag for different pages, which would be cool. But I don’t think it’s worth it. There are issues of duplicate content which I lose interest in and while some users may benefit from this level of attention it’s moving towards SEO as distinct from content which is less useful. At any rate, am very happy to have an h1 tag I missed.

Yahoo - No. 23 “boston seo”, showed me in the 30s a couple of days ago and outside Top 1000 before that (when I had the generic “search engine optimization” as title), so this is encouraging.

Google - No.44, moving up a few spots from a few days ago.

Couldn’t help posting the above, it is fun to see something grow. And reading that last sentence I realise I like the work which is a fortunate place to be in.

Just can’t help noticing that if you combine Bing and Google you get Bingle - Bingle Bingle in Korean means running around in circles making yourself dizzy, which my daughter loves and which I’m happy to play along with until my stomach gets the better of me. Bingle Bingle !! *^^*

Must post more interesting techie SEO stuff if I’m going to remotely deserve these climbing rankings, ciao for now.

Most links were developed through finding & commenting on Top Commentator blogs, and then later on guest posting using something called the “Free Traffic System”. As such they’ll be fairly low profile but in quantity will add up, perseverance is the name of the game. Also features other newbies forays into link building and uses a great “case study” approach to how new sites can get off the ground with link building. Great.

This means 2 things then:

- 1. Blog and similar social, CMS-driven content can be updated in minutes, compared to possibly months for older static-content sites.

- 2. Local searches are easy to rank for and represent highly profitable niche markets.

It’s easy to love Google when things go your way of course, but nonetheless, thank you algorithm, that kind of speed is something I simply never expected and I can’t wait to see what else is possible.

It’s the classic SEO story of individual up against agencies, but still with just 5,840,000 results in Google and the typical agency link building patterns, sitewide links from client sites, strong local listings and some savvy blog commenting it looks very doable. Let’s see how it goes!

Now what does that mean? Well, for many it means creating content with an emphasis on particular keyphrases in an effort to attract the attention of search engines. What it really implies however is a decision to reverse the criteria of well-written language and place the labored repetion of keyphrases over language that means something worthwhile.

Such content simply is not worth producing. The very idea of foregoing the subtlety and persuasiveness of human language just to pander to a supposed algorithmic predilection for repeating the same keyphrases over and over again is by it’s very nature counter-productive.

The same goes for LSI - “Latent Semantic Indexing”. I simply do not know how this interesting SEO developmnent affects search engine rankings at all, and as such I see little point in speculating on it, which is what almost all talk on LSI is. I do know roughly however what Google’s overall aim is - to deliver results algorithmically that match as closely as possible the intentions and needs of a human being. That’s a tall order, and however they try the blunt tool of indexing however many billions of pages and ranking them on a scale of 1-10 is, again, going to pale into insignificance compared to the miracle of human decision making.

As an SEO, it simply isn’t necessary and even counter-productive to write for Google. Because Google, at the very same, is straining every fiber to identify content that is written for people. So if you write “for SEO Purposes” as opposed to writing for actual people, you are actually doing the exact opposite of what Google wants.

If you really want to write for SEO purposes, and if you want to write content around the principles of LSI, and if you want to write for Google, and if you want to write for people, your strategy is simple.

Write well.

That’s it. Honest, almost childlike, and deception-free. Write good content, worth reading, helpful, informed, informative, honest, and selfless. When it comes to writing content for any medium, surely that’s the only thing that matters at all.

P.S. This post has been written with no consideration whatsoever for keyword density, SEO purposes, or even LSI. Yippy-skippy!!