Talk:Search engine optimization/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I have marked searchenginejournal.com as dubious

I have marked the references citing searchenginejournal.com as WP:dubious after I located an article it published on how to spam Wikipedia and stay under radar on its site. It was posted by its editor and it is evident that it deviates significantly from WP:NPV in favor of their target audience, the SEO affiliates. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-to-link-spam-wikipedia/3240/ Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think more important is whether the site is reliable and authoritative on the subject of SEO. It looks like that site is somewhat well-known but editorial in nature, so it's probably only appropriate for sourcing "some people say/believe" statements on a case-by-case basis (assuming the statement is appropriate for WP in the first place). I think you were right in marking dubious the references that you did. E.g, if "Google announced..." something, then the reference should be as close as possible to the announcement itself. And an informal poll from 2006 isn't very useful at all. Maghnus (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

COI explanation

It has been made clear by the number 1 major contributor to this article Jehochman that he is indeed an insider with a biased view in another discussion concerning someone connected with SEO. In WP:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Wall, he stated "As an insider, my perspective is biased. To me, Aaron Wall is notable, but to those outside the search marketing community it might not look that way, and perhaps the references are too thin to write a proper article.". Wikipedia is intended for the general audience and not to heavily exhibit in the view of insiders. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Jehochman was merely saying that his background (where presumably he encounters discussion regarding SEO) means he knows that Wall is a "notable person in his field" (the "bias" is that he is not dependent on Google searches to know whether Wall is notable in his field). The same comment ends with "If the result here is to delete ... I can accept that", which is the opposite of COI.

Jehochman has made 490 edits to this article (6.4 edits per month, starting in April 2005), and following is a summary which groups contiguous edits into one diff:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256

I won't remove the COI tag at the moment but there has been no justification for the claim that a particular editor has a COI with regard to this article, and the tag should be removed very soon unless a precise justification can be offered. I checked a few of diffs above—none suggest COI. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We should just remove the COI tag ASAP -- 490 out of 6,016 total edits is like 8%... Raysonho (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look at all 256 edits. I did look at several and saw nothing like WP:COI. If you're claiming there is a needle in that haystack, please produce the needle for examination. Maghnus (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misread the intent of that list. Anyway, Imagine this were a mathematics article and one of the active editors admitted elsewhere that he is a mathematics professor and thus "biased" in that other discussion's context. COI for this article? By no means... I'd be more concerned about original research edits. Maghnus (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that author should not have been singled out, however there are many questionable sources that are left behind in his edits. These questionable sources may have COI in that there are many primary sources without much editorial control and self-published materials. The said author maybe seen as credible source only to insiders advocating the interest of those involved. Sites such as mattcutts.com blog.ericgoldman.org are some of the frequently cited sources in this page and they're self-published material. Others are publications of interest to insiders, such as webpronews.com searchenginewatch.com, a number of personal site like blogs and a very few mainstream secondary sources like WSJ. Nonetheless, these questionable sources are preferentially kept even though they are not up to WP:RSstandards. When most of the sources are catered to the industry, it is very likely that there is bias and COI. Much like an article written on petroleum energy almost entirely from petrochemical industry publications. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

New tags

Great, now we have two new tags: self published and original research (diff). Clearly there will never be an up to date and gold plated source for what should be said about SEO (only dubious websites will ever say anything meaningful about the topic), and a quick look makes me think there are some pretty reasonable sources in the article. Of course more are desirable, and there are unsourced statements, but these tags do not feel quite right given that they have just been introduced after consensus chose to remove the COI tag. Are there any specific problems that can be identified? Are they sufficiently serious to warrant tagging the whole article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

These tags are justified per wp:SPS and WP:OR. Blog entries are clearly SPS. Some contents in this site are not referenced at all and can't be verified. WP:SROUCES does not show personal blogs as quality sources.Eric Goldman's blog is not a reliable source under these definitions. It is his website, where he personally has total control of what is published, therefore it is more or less a personal website. Would you accept a webpage written by someone who works in a gas station repair shop as a credible reference for automotive articles? If this was allowed, anyone can make a webpage, write up stuff to include as a reference on Wikipedia. Unless the authors are WP:N through coverage of more than mere passing in mainstream media, I don't see how they're much different from personal websites. Many of the SEO websites like searchengineland.com simply pubishes articles submitted by authors. For these reasons, I can not agree that many sources in this article meets WP:RS standards. If you disagree, please present your argument why they do. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Eric Goldman is a professor of law at Santa Clara University, and is therefor an expert in the relevant field. From WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It's pretty clear he meets that criteria. If it was in reference to something not related to law, then it wouldn't be appropriate. Additionally, the searchengineland reference was written by Danny Sullivan, another expert in a relevant field, quoted extensively by reliable third party sources. I'm not seeing the problem here, the sources meet the guidelines and the tags should be removed. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your your input. Maybe Eric Goldman pass. I would like input from other editors. I have a discussion in place on reliable source noticeboard. Danny Sullivan appears to be only mentioned in brief passing here and there much like "Officer Jones from Police Department said accidents declined dramatically after installing stop signs" in Fox News, but that does not increase the validity of the information as its still statement made from his personal opinion/feelings. Although, original research tag ought to stay there in my opinion, because there are some signification portions that are completely unreferenced. In any case, the article heavily depends on blogs from Searchengineworld.com, Mattcutts and Eric Goldman and it could use reliable secondary sources. Do you editors feel an article written almost entirely on input from marketeers is encyclopedic? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying that the article is written entirely by marketeer input is needless hyperbole. Matt Cutts is an expert in the field, as is Eric Goldman. Both are acceptable reliable sources for the purpose of this article, and saying that they are marketeers is a bit disingenuous. What part of the article specifically is original research? The self published tag needs to be removed, as it is obviously not needed. The sources cited are experts. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple choice test: Articles on marketing topics should reference publications written by experts in (A) astronomy, (B) ancient history, or (C) marketing. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 7 September 2011

(UTC)

(D). People with some knowledge, but without bias in the subject matter and do not wish to color it a certain way. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of bias are you alleging me to have? My bias is no different than that of any published expert. Jehochman ^Talk 11:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This tagging is incorrect, a continuance of actions by the same inexperienced editor who has already left an improper warning template for me,[1] and made a frivolous complaint at WP:ANI.[2] If Cantaloup2 wants to press the issue, I recommend seeking the intervention of an uninvolved administrator. Featured articles represent the highest quality articles on Wikipedia. They have been thoroughly reviewed and should not be tagged "multiple problems"[3][4] without first discussing the matter to make sure that there really is a problem, and that the editor proposing to place the tags does not seriously misunderstand Wikipedia's policies. Jehochman ^Talk 01:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement does not equate improper or incorrect. Concerning AfD on Wall, you were persistent to insist he is "highly notable". Majority did not. You also restored some contents that I removed even though the cited source did not validate the contents you restored. It appears we were looking at policies through different eyes. Agree to disagree on calling some of the sources as acceptable WP:SPS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Paper does not magically make a source more reliable. There are blogs with editorial supervision that are highly reliable, such as Search Engine Land or TechCrunch. These are not to be conflated with unreliable personal opinion blogs. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If Cantaloupe2 is the only editor wanting these tags, as is apparent, then they should be removed. I'm not seeing any COI problem with Jehochman either. Having his own opinion on the notability of an individual for Wikipedia, and then accepting other editor's consensus when they disagree with him is exactly how you should behave. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I support and concur with Jerochman's recent edits to the article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the things Cantaloup2 points out are in fact problems needing attention. In the spam-revert cycles this article suffers things are sometimes lost or not fully repaired. I recommend Cantaloup2 goes through the article and makes a list of specific problems and posts them here. Then we can fix or explain them. If anything doesn't get fixed in a few days, at that point a maintenance tag could be applied so that the issue isn't forgotten. The article is read by 5,000 people per day. Let's try to keep it looking good. I'm not a big fan of maintenance tags: better to fix things instead of loading the page with distractions. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because we disagree does not make it a vandalism. I find some of the sources questionable. Some of the materials published on SEJ like How to Link Spam Wikipedia as linked in talk page makes me give it a second thought. User:Maghnus agrees with marking it dubious and that user also expressed concerns about portions that maybe original research, but you disagree. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote. A consensus depends on logic and knowledge. This source was reviewed and approved as part of the featured article review process involving many experienced editors. A couple editors showing up on the article talk page don't overrule a prior consensus. We can discuss the matter, and replacement sources might be found, but please do not make the article ugly with tags until there is a consensus that the source must be replaced. You should assume that things are proper in a featured article until somebody presents strong evidence to the contrary. Should that happen, I will replace the source promptly. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The journal Science can be a poor reference (consider all of the published studies that are later refuted), and a blog can be a good reference in some contexts. I could be wrong, but SEJ does not appear to have the necessary oversight to elevate it above "blog" status in terms of reliability. Most of the articles are pure commentary.

I discussed two SEJ references above and agreed that they were dubious in their contexts. It looks like only one (an informal poll that probably shouldn't have passed scrutiny) was in the article when it originally became featured. Moreover, it was actually a "meta-reference" to justify saying SEOmoz was "top-ranked", presumably to preempt any dispute about SEOmoz's notability in the field. Questions of SEOmoz's notability (which I don't have) should occur on the talk page, so the "top-ranked" and accompanying reference were superfluous.

The other reference, which I haven't edited, is the article "8 things we learned about Google PageRank". If the statement being sourced was "Loren Baker learned 8 things about Google PageRank" then that's the perfect reference. Rather, the statement in the article is "In 2007 Google announced a campaign against paid links that transfer PageRank." SEJ is dubious as a source for that claim. If Google announced a campaign, the reference should be Google's announcement of the campaign, not one of the thousands of reactions to their announcement. Maghnus (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensusis not just majority vote, but its a significant part of it. I explained that SEJ is dubious. You claim otherwise and reinstated source. Who is the burden of proof on? The removing editor to prove dubiousness or reinstating editor to prove quality? seachenglineland.com, searchenginejournal.com, searchenginewatch.com, webpronews.com all of which are referenced in various search engine related articles appear to be targeting players in the industry. Many of articles on these pages include about section on author to promote their business. Editorial oversight does not appear to be anything close to that of mainstream press. I find neutrality questionable as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream press don't know very much about search engine optimization, except what they learn by reading Search Engine Land, Search Engine Watch, and all the rest. Specialized journals are preferable to popular media when writing about science, technology, engineering and math topics. When the New York Times or USA Today writes an article about this topic, they contact writers from the above web sites and interview them. The sites have editors who check submissions and will not publish dubious or promotional articles. With all due respect, you don't appear to know very much about this field and are additionally not a very experienced Wikipedia editor. It looks like you have some kind of axe to grind based upon the tone of your comments. Frankly, your aggressive, know-it-all tone rubs me the wrong way. Rather than arguing and fighting I wish you would attempt to understand that which I am explaining to you. There have in the past been lengthy discussions about the reliability of these sources here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. Please familiarize yourself with them before commenting further. Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Frankly, your aggressive, know-it-all tone rubs me the wrong way. "Speak for yourself. Disagree? "vandalism". Don't like? "harassment". You like the source "it's absolutely credible". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue or fight. Please make a list of problems with the article and we can correct them. But please don't make me repeat long ago settled issues when you can simply read through what was discussed before. The sourcing in this article was reviewed and approved by multiple editors at featured article candidacy. If you find bad sources that were inserted after the candidacy I am willing to discuss them, of course. Policy on sourcing is clear that industry-specific journals are preferable to mass media sources when covering highly specific, technical topics. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger

Image search optimization, Sarch engine marketing, Search_engine_optimization_copywriting as well as blackhat or white hat appears to be rephrasing or sub-category of this article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Image search optimization is worth maybe one or two sentences in this article. Search engine marketing is related to paid placement, which is completely different and must be its own article. SEO copywriting is another one or two sentence topic for this article. So, merge those two, but not search engine marketing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Search engine optimization has to do with organic (AKA "natural") search results. Search engine marketing involves paid (AKA "sponsored") results. They are two different things. Both can involve raising the visibility of a company's products or services, and they certainly can be coordinated in a company's marketing efforts. However, just because I eat meat and starches together, that doesn't mean meat and starches should have a combined article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.163.190 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As only a slight refinement to the previous comments but in full agreement over the separation of terms ... while Search Engine Marketing is typically associated with paid placement, both paid placement and Search Engine Optimization (organic) are technically subtopics of the umbrella term Search Engine Marketing, and parts of the overall online marketing mix. Search Engine Optimization is certainly worthy of it's own article however, because of the vast number of elements potentially involved in any organic campaign ... but SEM and SEO share no similarities otherwise and should not be merged as one topic. Digitalzenmarketing (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SEO and SEM are two different things as SEO relates with unpaid search rankings whereas Search engine marketing involves paid search result inclusion. Search engine marketing can be merged into Internet marketing but can not merged in SEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdwivedi (talk • contribs) 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review

With the amount of tags on this page (many of which are about original research) - does this page need re-reviewing? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The tagging is from an editor who is not happy with the consensus view on a certain issue. Last time I looked, no examples of text in the article have been specified that illustrate the claimed problems, despite requests. There are claims above about self published sources, but as has been pointed out, the sources are exactly appropriate for this article. I was planning to remove the tags in a day or two after the point had been made. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq hits the nail on the head. This article is frequently attacked by spammers. We must remain vigilant because sometimes valuable content is lost in between the attacks and the reverts, but in general the article is in pretty good shape. A few recent books have been published on the topic of SEO. If somebody has time, it would be worth reading titles such as The Art of SEO: Mastering Search Engine Optimization (Theory in Practice) by Enge, Spencer, Fishkin and Stricchiola and Marketing in the Age of Google by Fox, and giving the article an update. Jehochman ^Talk 11:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the article I think it needs careful checking. Due to the volume of spamming and reverting valuable content has been lost and dubious content has crept in at a few places. I went through and did a first pass at cleaning up. Rather than adding excessive maintenance tags and further messing up the article, please look for issues and fix them directly or document specific concerns here. Also, please look in the history to find pre-vandalized/spammed versions of sections or paragraphs that appear to be damaged. Many correct versions of the article is available in the history. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a first pass at fixing latent problems. Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverse SEO

There should be something about "reverse seo".

About removing bad publicity from the Internet, but "drowning" it in positive or neutral stories. Many companies offer this, search for "erasing bad publicity from the internet" or just "reverse seo".

88.234.3.75 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• See Online reputation management. Trivialist (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Donna. I am interested in helping. I am new to wiki editing but (a) interested in learning more, (b) want to contribute to the community, and (c) want to share my passion and enthusiasm and with it resources related to marketing, especially SEO. (RebeccaChurt (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

I added the Bing Webmaster Guidelines as an additional "External Link" since both Google and Yahoo! were listed as well. It felt like an omission. (RebeccaChurt (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

Spelling error

Eric Schmidt is misspelled in the article. ~ 72.16.18.113 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Overrepresentation?

After reading through this page I feel that Google is over represented (particularly in the second half of the article) and other search engines are mostly ignored. Even in the legal section both lawsuits are related to Google. --Zdm 1 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably right. Still, Google was really the first company to develop a popular and effective search engine and Google has more than 50% of the market worldwide. People think of "googling" a question -- that is, the term may possibly enter the vernacular in common parlance. People don't think of "binging" a term. And the lawsuits indicate, again, Google's deep pockets, prevalence and power; I am not sure the other search engine would envy Google for being sued. So it is natural why the article has a preponderance of information reflecting Google or Google-related stuff. In a way, this preponderance does reflect a reality; trimming all of the Google-information may bring in a new distortion (ie suggesting all the search engine firms were equal when they're not). Maybe a solution would be to get more information on the other search sites?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge SEO Copywriting

Please comment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There's nothing to be covered under that topic that can't be included here. If this article gets too long we can consider breaking out daughter articles, but there's no immediate need to do that. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

SEO copywriting

• The parts that I consider particularly valuable and worth keeping are:

• (1) The definition of copywriting with the purpose of improving SEO (note that I added a link to Content strategy, which is closely related):

SEO copywriting

Search engine optimization (SEO) copywriting is textual composition for web page marketing related to content strategy that emphasizes skillful manipulation of the page's wording to place it among the first results of a user's search list, while still producing readable and persuasive content.

• (2) Factors that Google's algorithm consider in determining relevance and importance in ranking results (related to Nielsen's "Above the fold"):

Technical details

Factors that determine relevance during a search are the page's keyword density, the placement of the keywords, and the number of links to and from the page from other pages.

• (3) If useful, interesting, relevant and popular material didn't rise to the top of a search engine's rankings (if top-ranked stuff in a search engine's results were just spammy and useless rubbish) then people would abandon that search engine and switch to another (i.e. useful or interesting, relevant to search keywords, and easy-to-find above-the-fold are surely the key concepts):

Professional role

The main goal of the SEO copywriter remains writing interesting content that people want to read and link to. SEO copywriting requires ... repeated experimentation to assess how the page revisions will fare in a potential customer's search.

• The above basic principles of good copywriting appear in many references such as Google's free Webmaster Central SEO and Google Analytics IQ study guides, so references can easily be added. There's also Google's Webmaster Academy. The incremental improvement and A/B testing things are important and well-known parts of good web analytics practice.
• Apart from perhaps the Google references, there don't seem to be any good, brief, non-geek-oriented explanations or what SEO or "Search Engine Optimization" is in reliable news sources and encyclopedias, I tried searches with {{Google RS}} for "SEO" (adding -jobs -books -korea -korean to the end of the search string) and for "Search Engine Optimization" (adding -jobs -books to the search string), but...
• An example of how effective SEO can be: simply reorganizing the Computer virus article, moving historical and out-of date stuff to the end, and putting relevant stuff near the top, has nearly doubled pageviews. This SEO article is currently #1006. I have previously written some ideas about SEO and WP here.  LittleBen (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the above material might be outside the scope of Wikipedia. Why don't you start with what reliable sources say? What sources would you like to use? The section would be called Copyrighting, not SEO Copywriting, because the article is already called Search Engine Optimization. For example, in the article California there is a section called Culture, not California Culture. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it could be called The roles of content strategy and copywriting. Because easy-to-find, well-organized, interesting and/or useful content is maybe 90% of white hat SEO. Surely Google's Guides to SEO (mentioned above) and to SEO for Adverts are as authoritative as they come? Do you have anything better? Without any content or without decent copywriting there surely is no SEO, so I wouldn't consider this to be irrelevant or outside the scope of this article or Wikipedia.
• Quote from the Content strategy article: "Content strategy is to copywriting as information architecture is to design".
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBenW (talk • contribs)

My comment

Please keep in mind that this isn't a how to article. We are explaining what SEO is, not how to do it. The article should, and does, mention copywriting and copyediting as factors. That text could be edited or expanded if need be. Jehochman ^Talk 12:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see any mention of the importance of well-organized, well-written (by a capable copywriter), interesting and/or useful content—relevant to what the reader is searching for—now that you've completely removed any mention of copywriting or content. Virtually all that is left is "Ancient history" and "Method", but you are saying that this is not a how-to article, so should have nothing about "Method"?
• There is a single mention of "editing ... content" in the second paragraph, and (under "Increasing Prominence", near the end) "Writing content that includes frequently searched keyword phrase, so as to be relevant to a wide variety of search queries" and "Updating content"... That's all. The article is certainly not clear about why "Preventing crawling" would improve search rankings. LittleBen (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs improvement of sources for confirmation

Hello, this article needs improvement of sources for confirmation of material. However, I cannot edit the page. For example, an area with a dire need for it is the section on Chinese search engines. Please advise.

Best regards, DefinitionWizard (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

Please change the following: "Some search engines, notably Yahoo!, operate a paid submission service that guarantee crawling for either a set fee or cost per click.[30] Such programs usually guarantee inclusion in the database, but do not guarantee specific ranking within the search results.[31]"

'AND'

"31. ^ "Search Submit". searchmarketing.yahoo.com. Retrieved May 9, 2007.[dead link]"

Should read:

Some search engines, notably Yahoo!, operated a paid submission service that guarantee crawling for either a set fee or cost per click.[30] Such programs usually guaranteed inclusion in the database, but did not guarantee specific ranking within the search results.[31]

31. ^ "Search Submit". searchmarketing.yahoo.com. Retrieved May 9, 2007.[dead link]

Use link: http://www.rickramos.com/yahooseachsubmit/

Yahoo closed this program down at the end of 2009 as stated in the article provided Someconnect (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, more or less. I tweaked the existing wording based on what the cited source supported. Thanks for the clear request. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Spammy External Links?

It looks like the External links point to some scraper sites like Curlie. Not sure how to remove it.

Image of Yahoo/Google offices?

What's the relevance of adding the thumbnail image of the Haifa Google/Yahoo office building to the Relationships.... section? It's not clear what these offices are used for, their specific connection with SEO, etc. I recommend dropping it, unless someone can provide a bit more context. jxm (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014

In the "History" section, the article says "In 2005, Google began personalizing search results for each user. Depending on their history of previous searches, Google crafted results for logged in users" [emphasis added]. You would naturally expect that a couple of lines later, it would say "In 2009, Google extended its personalized search to signed-out users." But this information is missing from the article. Please add it. Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/personalized-search-for-everyone.html

108.87.183.203 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This information would be useful to have on the site. Please provide a rule that states this is not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, it is a press release, which is a non-independent source, and "non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. " Vile-eight (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Press releases are considered primary, and therefore are not independent reliable sources. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It is allowed despite being primary: "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vile-eight (talk • contribs)

Doesn't the article already say that in the sentence that starts with "In December 2009, Google announced it would"? The source is even that press release. Stickee (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Already done, The history section is written chronologically, as you go down from 2005 following 2007, you'll find that there's a sentence starting with "In December 2009[..]", that is exactly what you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014

I want to add an infographic to the SEO wiki page in the external articles. Would this be okay? 81.174.249.178 (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be too likely to happen. What is the infographic? Do you own the copyright to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickee (talk • contribs)

An infographic might be a welcome addition, though probably in a different part of the article. But please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for whether the image could be included in Wikipedia. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

41.223.160.238 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 13:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

122.163.62.14 (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC) <a href="https://rintubiswas.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/definition-of-seo" title="Definition of SEO" class="mw-redirect">Definition of SEO</a>

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07^Talk 11:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, note that blogs are generally not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia and cannot be used as references. Ravensfire (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

Please Add SEO methods like On Page and Off Page As they play vital role in Search engine optimization and Google ranking Onpage SEO : On-page method Includes Changes in Meta tags of website, installation of Google analytic and Webmaster account, Creation and submission of XML sitemap, Keyword Research,Competitor Analysis,Mobile Site Compatibility,Broken Link Check,Content Optimization activities Offpage SEO : Off-Page method includes Social Bookmarking, Directory Submission, [Engine] Submission, Local Listings, Article Submission, Answer Questions, Blogging activities —  Amulya Joseph (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? Eeekster (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I Do Amulya Joseph (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, can you provide them? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

1st Request Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of affecting the visibility and rankings of a website or a web page in a search engine's unpaid results, often referred to as "natural," "organic," or "earned" results, through on and off website or a web page optimization techniques that enhance signals that calculate the quality and trust placed on a website or a web page.

2nd Request

news search, mobile search and industry-specific vertical search engines.

Marceloaoliveira (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Review a section

The line:

The reviewing attorney basically bought his incoherent argument that while "SEO" can't be trademarked when it refers to a generic process of manipulated keywords, it can be a service mark for providing "marketing services...in the field of computers."

Seems poorly written and biased. Do we need to call this "incoherent" and did the reviewing attorney "basically bought" this or did he make a judgement. Just seems out of place. Ausjackal (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ausjackal: It's the wrong tone. Feel free to remove or improve it! --Izno (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo! directory

The Yahoo directory is no longer in service. The article could benefit from an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.99.98 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2015

In 2015 an update from google which gave mobile friendly sites additional weight and additional prominence when searched from a mobile device was coined "mobilegeddon" and struck fear into those webmasters and site owners who didn't optimize their sites for various screen sizes. Rudy McCormick (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015

I would love to edit the SEO article here to reflect the new trends in SEO.

Tolulope Sina-Olulana (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

Extended content

Getting indexed Search engines use complex mathematical algorithms to guess which websites a user seeks. In this diagram, if each bubble represents a web site, programs sometimes called spiders examine which sites link to which other sites, with arrows representing these links. Websites getting more inbound links, or stronger links, are presumed to be more important and what the user is searching for. In this example, since website B is the recipient of numerous inbound links, it ranks more highly in a web search. And the links "carry through," such that website C, even though it only has one inbound link, has an inbound link from a highly popular site (B) while site E does not. Note: percentages are rounded. The leading search engines, such as Google, Bing and Yahoo!, Climaxbox, use crawlers to find pages for their algorithmic search results. Pages that are linked from other search engine indexed pages do not need to be submitted because they are found automatically. Two major directories, the Yahoo Directory and DMOZ both require manual submission and human editorial review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaealtd (talk • contribs)

 Not done, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

Felixrc91 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As a marketing strategy

This section does not provide a neutral point of view. It only describes reasons why SEO is an unreliable marketing strategy. SEO is an industry with organizations, publications, countless vendors/software and conferences because SEO has been a successful marketing strategy to enough business for a long enough period of time. The point about algorithm changes making SEO unreliable can be somewhat balanced by providing information about how algorithm changes are monitored, recorded and analyzed by notable organizations such as MOZ (formerly SEOmoz), RankRanger and Search Engine Roundtable (a forum). Notable conferences focused on SEO as a marketing strategy could include SES, SMX, PubCon, and possibly MOZcon. A list of enterprise level SEO software that typically starts at $20K per year could include BrightEdge, Conductor Searchlight, Searchmetrics, seoClarity, MalkamDior WebCEO, Raven Tools, and Rio SEO.
Possible sources:

• http://www.seobook.com/conferences/ (published by Aaron Wall, who is already discussed in this article)
• http://searchengineland.com/buyers-guides/enterprise-seo-tools-the-marketers-guide (publication already cited as a source in this article)

Local SEO should be a subsection for "As a marketing strategy". Content should include explanation of local businesses using software, services and tactics to obtain listings in search engine map results, GPS (device and vehicle) search results, and standard web results that are localized based on the search user's location. Businesses using local SEO fall in two categories, they either travel to the customer within a local service area or have a brick and mortar storefront location where a customer can come to the business. Common tactics can include implementing on-site schema code, building off-site citations, consistent use of NAP (name address phone), and encouraging reviews.
Possible sources:

• http://www.searchenginejournal.com/the-definitive-guide-to-local-seo/47319/
• http://searchengineland.com/local-seo-rank-local-business-218906
• http://imandseo.com/seo-how-to-get-your-business-website-on-the-first-page-of-google-for-beginners/ — Preceding undated comment 10:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Finding more sources for inline citations should be pretty easy since this stuff is considered industry best practices. I don't have any affiliation with any of the tools, service providers or publications, etc. Does anyone object to me building out this content? Any suggestions/help is of course welcome! G J Lee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request - May 23rd 2016

While reading the article I noticed there was a dead link in the content. Under the 'Relationship with Google Section' citation number [27] directs you to a site where the page content no longer existing. I have a very similar piece of content, detailing the exact subject matter being discussed. I would like to replace the old link with the newer one.

"In 2005, Google began personalizing search results for each user. Depending on their history of previous searches, Google crafted results for logged in users.[26] In 2008, Bruce Clay said that "ranking is dead" because of personalized search. He opined that it would become meaningless to discuss how a website ranked, because its rank would potentially be different for each user and each search.[27]"

Old Reference Link: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/11/17/seo-about-to-get-turned-on-its-ear

The Above is the actual excerpt from the content. I would like to change it to:

"With Google's personalized search algorithm constantly being updated trying to rank for 'keywords' without considering your audience is a tactic guaranteed to fail. Factors such as location, personal history, social connections, all play a part. Not all users are created equal and Google has made this clear with their personalized algorithm."

New Reference Link: http://fusingmarketing.com/2016/02/09/bulletproofseo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emequita (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to look at this myself at this moment, but I have added the tag for you so someone else can look at performing this action. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The text requested to be added looks to be plagiarism directly from the source. Not done for now. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

Ommy panchal (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That page is not protected, so it is possible to create. You have proposed no change here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

The citation link [28] shows page not found error. I've found the reference link http://myguestpost.org/will-personal-search-turn-seo-ear/ which can be replaced with the broken link. Also, for the citation [53] please replace the not found page with http://myguestpost.org/battle-search-engine-optimization-conversion-wins/ wakodeprashant6 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done, neither link is broken and your suggested URL does not look like a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@McGeddon: the links were broken, but I fixed them (in one case by removing the citation, as it referred to a prediciton from 2008 - not very relevant now as it was never reliably sourced) without having to resort to the suggested low-content source. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

DMOZ open source directory ceased on March 14th 2017. . Search Engine Land http://searchengineland.com/rip-dmoz-open-directory-project-closing-270291. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref> ref:http://searchengineland.com/rip-dmoz-open-directory-project-closing-270291

BeeDigital (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done, unclear what what edit is being requested. (The DMOZ link in the article still appears to work, if this was a request to remove it.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

Lee Alberti Lorenzo (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Change the sentence: "SEO differs from local search engine optimisation in that the latter is focused on optimizing a business' online presence so that its web pages will be displayed by search egines when a user enters a local search for its products or services."

To: "SEO differs from local search engine optimisation in that the latter is focused on optimizing a business' online presence so that its web pages will be displayed by search engines when a user enters a local search for its products or services."

 Done. Thanks for catching the typo and reporting it. Deli nk (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request - April 12 2017

Broken citation link [5]. (http://www.webir.org/resources/phd/pinkerton_2000.pdf) for the PDF Brian Pinkerton. "Finding What People Want: Experiences with the WebCrawler"

Working link "Finding What People Want: Experiences with the WebCrawler"

Broken citation link [42] (http://searchengineland.com/070508-165231.php). for the article "Newspapers Amok! New York Times Spamming Google? LA Times Hijacking Cars.com?"

Working link "Newspapers Amok! New York Times Spamming Google? LA Times Hijacking Cars.com?"

Both suggestions are 1st position in Google when searching article titles and point to live versions of the original articles.

Suggestion made by Luke Gibson Forsaken84 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope you find it helpful.

 Done. Thanks for the suggestions. Deli nk (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Dr.seo (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As of Mar 17, 2017, dmoz.org is no longer available.

 Not done dmoz.org is not mentioned in the article or its sources. It is not clear what you want changed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

KashishJain (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

i want to edit the page for creating a link that will help users to learn latest 2017 SEO techniques.

•  Not done - Wikipedia is not a place for spam. - Mar11 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017

The most important and relevant way in which SEO helps user accessibility is not mentioned.

This "In addition to accessibility in terms of web crawlers (addressed above), user web accessibility has become increasingly important for SEO." should be followed by this:

Without SEO, a blind person who browses the Internet using a screen reader – a program that reads the site content, wouldn’t be able to understand what one site or another contains, especially if they are made up of pictures called pic2054.jpg instead of folding-cane.jpg

Source: https://londonmarketingacademy.com/2017/10/23/what-is-seo/ Elailiesi (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done – See WP:NOTESSAY for more information. ToThAc (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Dated examples and information

I think this article might need quite a big overhaul, there is a lot of old information which is either incorrect or unclear, for example: "Adding relevant keywords to a web page's meta data, including the title tag and meta description" - meta description isn't taken into consideration when talking about keyword relevance "One black hat technique uses text that is hidden, either as text colored similar to the background, in an invisible div, or positioned off screen" - This is a little misleading as an invisible div is fine and pretty commonly used now to hide content that can be expanded/revealed by interaction on the site, the rest of the suggestions simply don't impact search results at all.

no mention of impact of mobile, voice or even structured data which now dominates the majority of search results

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I am happy to start writing up some sections for this. Rickb (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok I am going to start writing up one section at a time, this should make it easier to scrutinise Rickb (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

Hi,

have observed that the citation number 26 is a dead link and goes to a web archive page https://web.archive.org/web/20070528133132/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050929-072711 we have a blog on the topic that can be linked to the page and can be given a proper citation for the page. Here is the link for your reference http://www.mindsmetricks.com/blogs/want-know-ranking-factor-rand-fishkin/ Shrutidesai016 (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Web Archive links are perfectly acceptable and even preferred in some cases. There is no reason to replace the current link with the offered blog. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

[SEO (Search Engine Optimization) URL removed] in detail with awesome techniques. 42.106.30.12 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No spam thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

SEO metrics

I wanted to add one more section of SEO Metrics in the article only if it add some value to the article.

SEO Metrics are the key performance indicators of the success of SEO campaigns. It includes parameters such as:- i) Search Engine Result Page Ranking ii) Organic Traffic iii) Bounce Rate iv) Session Duration v) No. of Quality Backlinks vi) Website Speed vii) Indexed pages viii) Crawled Budget ix) Local Visibility x) Click Through Rate xi) Crawl Errors

<link removed> TOP 10 SEO METRICS TO MONITOR IN 2018 Atuljaiswal1246 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This looks more like an attempt at WP:REFSPAM than anything else. Deli nk (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

evaporation of PageRank

The 4th paragraph of § Relationship with Google was

In 2007, Google announced a campaign against paid links that transfer PageRank. On June 15, 2009, Google disclosed that they had taken measures to mitigate the effects of PageRank sculpting by use of the nofollow attribute on links. Matt Cutts, a well-known software engineer at Google, announced that Google Bot would no longer treat nofollowed links in the same way, in order to prevent SEO service providers from using nofollow for PageRank sculpting. As a result of this change the usage of nofollow leads to evaporation of PageRank. In order to avoid the above, SEO engineers developed alternative techniques that replace nofollowed tags with obfuscated Javascript and thus permit PageRank sculpting. Additionally several solutions have been suggested that include the usage of iframes, Flash and Javascript.

If I understand this correctly, the change in the treatment of nofollow caused PageRank to "evaporate" (meaning it became impossible to manipulate it in this way?), but the manipulators then changed tactics and could once again manipulate PageRank. But since the SEO cheaters have found alternative techniques, it is either no longer true or no longer relevant that "the usage of nofollow leads to evaporation of PageRank". So the present tense in that clause is either incorrect or misleading. I've changed it to past tense: "the usage of nofollow led to evaporation of PageRank".

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

Combine the sentences "Yahoo! formerly operated a paid submission service that guaranteed crawling for a cost per click" and "this was discontinued in 2009" in the first paragraph of the "Getting indexed" section. I'd recommend changing it to "Yahoo! formerly operated a paid submission service that guaranteed crawling for a cost per click; however, this practice was discontinued in 2009" for maximum clarity, but "this" needs to be capitalized at the very least. Cr602 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

link wheel

What is a link wheel? I see that link wheel currently redirects to search engine optimization. The WP:R#PLA guideline suggests that such a redirected phrase should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of this article, but currently this article doesn't even mention the word "wheel" anywhere in the article. --DavidCary (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, I am familiar with link wheels and will try to provide an answer for you. A link wheel is simply a type of search engine optimization tactic. It's sometimes referred to as "everything links to everything else," though that is not entirely accurate. The link wheel is most often employed when someone creates a number of social profiles (example: Facebook, Twitter) and then links them in a specific way. Usually, each social profile is linked to another in a chain, but the key is that every social profile links back to some target page. If someone were to diagram this in visual form, it resembles the spokes of a wheel. The spokes are the links to the main target page. The wheel is the chain created when all of the social profiles are linked. As to your point about the redirect, I would say there perhaps should be a small section that describes a link wheel, or it should be listed under "Methods" or "White hat versus black hat techniques." The other issue is that the meaning and even execution is somewhat ambiguous. Hope that helps. --Philadelphia seo (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is incorrect, that is not a link wheel. Link Wheel is a traditional technique to increase your website rankings in search engine.

Suppose you have 5 websites all related to same niche then the method is as follows:-

Website 1 Link To Website 2

Website 2 Link To Website 3

Website 3 Link To Website 4

Website 4 Link To Website 5

Website 5 Link To Website 1

Thats all it is.

Shibga Media 20 Union St, New Rochelle, NY 10805 (347) 920-9521 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibga Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Kartikrathi485 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

The below verbiage:

One example was the February 2006 Google removal of both BMW Germany and Ricoh Germany for use of deceptive practices.[53] Both companies, however, quickly apologized, fixed the offending pages, and were restored to Google's list.[54]

Should be changed to the below for accuracy. "Google's list" should be "Google's search engine results page.", as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_results_page:

One example was the February 2006 Google removal of both BMW Germany and Ricoh Germany for use of deceptive practices.[53] Both companies, however, quickly apologized, fixed the offending pages, and were restored to Google's search engine results page.[54] Schieler (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

Change on Heading "Methdods" > "Preventing crawling", because it's partly factually wrong and misleading, since Search Engines might still crawl websites that disalloow crawling via robots.txt. Also it doesn't not prevent web pages being indexed and shown in Search Results. Here's what I would add to the section:

However, while search engines won't crawl or index the content blocked by robots.txt on its own, they might still find and index URLs if they are linked on other websites. As a result, the URL address and, potentially, other publicly available information such as anchor text in links to the page can still appear in Google search results. To properly prevent an URL from appearing in search results, you should password-protect the files on your server or use the noindex meta tag or response header (or remove the page entirely). Tristanhahner (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Not done: First off, you'd need to write that in your own words to add it to this article. That aside, this strikes me as too detailed and too narrow for a high-level overview of this subject. (For example, it's also possible that a search engine may simply ignore the robots.txt and crawl it anyway.) This information might be a better fit at an article like Robots exclusion standard. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

Under section "Increasing Prominence" there are two instances of URL which are not capitalized. 203.42.226.30 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

Add the goal/aim of doing SEO for a website, Whats the ultimate aim of SEO and how can one achieve it. what should be the strategy for SEO to achieve its aim. A comprehensive SEO methodology and how to go about it, Thats what i wish to suggest. I am a digital marketeer and speaker on digital marketing, having conducted more then 50 workshops in India. It would be a privilege to edit this topic of SEO which hopefully should help many concerned users. Anoop2111 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

Sadanandkasukurthi (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Infinity Lead Gen (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC) 04:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2019

change "SEO is performed because a website will receive more visitors from a search engine the higher the website ranks in the search engine results page (SERP). These visitors can then be converted into customers." to " [external link] perform SEO to receive more visitors from a search engine. The higher the website ranks in the search engine results page (SERP). These visitors can then be converted into customers." Siddhantgusain (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NOTADVERTISING ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

agree, this is advertising, it's just trying to add an external link, not improving the content Kieran21 (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible expansion?

I'd just like to pose a few ideas together for expansion, any objections? Thinking about adding in some additional page sections around sub-categorisation of the different "types" of SEO eg: on-page SEO / content / relevancy, off-page SEO / authority, Technical SEO, International SEO, LocalSEO, Edge SEO etc - Kieran21 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To expand on this, the middle section (and sub-topic selection) doesn't seem to make a lot of sense:

• 2 Methods
  • 2.1 Getting indexed
  • 2.2 Preventing crawling
  • 2.3 Increasing prominence
  • 2.4 White hat versus black hat techniques

Instead of that ^ I'd like to suggest something like this:

• Types of SEO
  • On-page SEO
  • Off-page SEO
  • Technical SEO
  • International SEO
  • Local SEO
  • Content ?

• SEO Strategy
  • Something about how how SEO fits into an overall business/org marketing mix and how the application of various Types of SEO and Tactics can be used to work further organisational and marketing goals.

• SEO Tactics and Methods
  • Link building
    • White hat vs Black hat tactics (impartial without comment on the ethics)
  • Keyword research

• Ethics of SEO
  • White hat vs. black hat
    • Some discussion without judgement around existing cited viewpoints that are common in the industry
    • Include some

- Kieran21 (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition needs a fix I guess

"SEO - Search engine optimization: the process of making your site better for search engines." Ref: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/7451184?hl=en TDresearcher (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely needs a rewrite. "better" is not precise enough, to the point where it could arguably be incorrect. Kieran21 (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Kieran21 as many officially published needs of the search engine developers are met, the better? Even if one requirement is met, it is optimization? I wonder why "better" may be a problem. Kindly elaborate further. TDresearcher (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

TDresearcher Oh I realized now that your suggestion was to change to "SEO - Search engine optimization: the process of making your site better for search engines.". I think the current definition is more correct: "Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of increasing the quality and quantity of website traffic by increasing the visibility of a website or a web page to users of a web search engine" as I said better is not specific, the current definition uses terms like "increasing quality and quantity of website traffic" and "increasing visibility" which are more accurate descriptors, no? - Kieran21 (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Responsibilities of Modern SEO: The responsibilities of a ‘Modern SEO’ are not limited to keyword research, link building, site accessibility. There are many other in which seo has to work. Technical SEO,Social media,Voice search,Local search,Mobile search,Online Reputation Management,Secured sites (HTTPS),Content Strategy and Marketing,Knowledge graph, answer box, and entity search,User experience testing. Rohit Rayana (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

See also [voice search]. Namdevprince942 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019

my suggested changes for reference line "Some SEO practitioners have studied different approaches to search engine optimization, and have shared their personal opinions."

change reference of https://web.archive.org/web/20070528133132/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050929-072711 to https://www.searchenginewatch.com/2005/09/29/rundown-on-search-ranking-factors/ because this article is more useful instead of dead link

Seobrainmine (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the link in question – Thjarkur (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

"please change Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of increasing the quality and quantity of website traffic by increasing the visibility of a website or a web page to users of a web search engine." to "Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process and practice of increasing the quality and quantity of website traffic by increasing the visibility of a website or a web page to users of a web search engine." Traders Online (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Declined. That reference is not reliable and this change is not an improvement. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

Please allow me to post my company link its my beg thanks.. ElizabethSEO (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see What Wikipedia is not, and the guidelines on external links. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020 - A Request To Replace The Dead Link

Search Engine Watch searchenginewatch.com to https://www.cicitnetwork.com/search-engine-optimization-seo/". Because The Original Link Is Broken Since Long. Thank You HarpreetSingh29 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No thanks, per WP:EL and WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Actually I am New Over Here. Not Aware Of The Terms As If Now. But The Link At Citation Reference No 6 Is A Dead Link. Requesting You To Replace The Same With "https://www.cicitnetwork.com/search-engine-optimization-seo/". Because The SEO Introduction Is Available At This Page. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarpreetSingh29 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Link fixed with an archive link. Your link is not a reliable source and you should not link to your own company's page. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarpreetSingh29 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

Search Engine Optimization has become a full-fledged career for Generation Y. It gained more popularity in 2020, when almost the whole world was following strict lockdown measures because of COVID-19, and every business activity was digitized. Many lost their jobs while SEOs were the only ones whose job was secure. Retailers and customers both shifted online for online shopping, making Search Engine Optimization even more relevant during the tough year i.e. 2020. Sadia11 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You need a reliable source for that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Under Heading = As marketing strategy Add Hyphen to high-quality and 160-page Please change practice to practise. Surendrenc (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. Hyphens added, spelling not changed; see wikt:practice and MOS:RETAIN. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Arun765689 (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

SEO क्या है और कैसे काम करता है- What is SEO

 Declined This is why the article is protected. Please promote your site elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Invalid Outbound Link for Note ^5

The link to note 5 was no longer available - https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2048891/intro-search-engine-optimization ("Intro to Search Engine Optimization | Search Engine Watch". searchenginewatch.com. Retrieved June 29, 2017.)

May I suggest to replace with this link instead - https://outrankco.sg/blog/what-is-seo/ ("What Is SEO And How It Works | Outrankco SEO Singapore". outrankco.sg)

Hwlw2655 (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have updated the reference link to the new url for the SEW source. The suggested source is not useful for Wikipedia's purposes, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 16:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

mobile search page does not exist in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile_search&action=edit&redlink=1 Bluecoat12 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for Mobile local search? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

Fixing a small typo.

Currently the second paragraph states: "SEO is performed because a website will receive more visitors from a search engine when websites rank higher in the search engine results page (SERP)."

Instead of: "SEO is performed because a website will receive more visitors from a search engine when websites rank higher on the search engine results page (SERP)."

i.e. the requested change fixes the wording from "in the search engine results page (SERP)." to "on the search engine results page (SERP)." Studious Cat (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

And its one of the methods of the Digital Marketing Rohi990 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Anadigme (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Is important to add this link with the most important updates from google history: Thanks!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

"change sunsetted to unsettled" "change engines, or to engines or"

This is a grammatical mistake change request. KanicaYadav (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @KanicaYadav: These are not errors, and should not be changed. "Sunsetted" is a specialist term, and it should be wikilinked (to Sunset provision) to help our readers, but it would not be correct to change the word to "unsettled" which means something different. The only instance I find of "engines, or" in the article is in the sentence "Black hat SEO attempts to improve rankings in ways that are disapproved of by the search engines, or involve deception." There is nothing wrong with that comma. --bonadea contributions talk 14:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

Note n.50 - Jill Whalen (November 16, 2004). "Black Hat/White Hat Search Engine Optimization". searchengineguide.com. Retrieved May 9, 2007 is no more available (error. 404)

Change "Jill Whalen (November 16, 2004). "Black Hat/White Hat Search Engine Optimization". searchengineguide.com. Retrieved May 9, 2007" to "SEOriented (August 27, 2021). "SEO: cos'è e guida all'ottimizzazione". seoriented.it/seo. Retrieved August 27, 2021" Monjewiki (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That source doesn't mention the cited material, specifically the difference in time that the results last. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2021

Adding more related subjects to the See also:

See also: Blog network List of search engines Search engine marketing Search neutrality, the opposite of search manipulation. User intent Website promotion Search engine manipulation effect Search analytics Web analytics Behavioral targeting Thershey1 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There's already quite a few see alsos, and most of what you've requested is already linked in the prose or infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

adding more brief and precise content about SEO notes in pdf format.<excised external link> Enx77 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JTField.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thershey1, Jrorkin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

I want to add something new information about SEO and it affects change on the SERP Ashishkumar777 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with Google

In 1998, two graduate students at Stanford University, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, developed "Backrub", a search engine that relied on a mathematical algorithm to rate the prominence of web pages. The number calculated by the algorithm, PageRank, is a function of the quantity and strength of inbound links.[18] PageRank estimates the likelihood that a given page will be reached by a web user who randomly surfs the web, and follows links from one page to another. In effect, this means that some links are stronger than others, as a higher PageRank page is more likely to be reached by the random web surfer.

Page and Brin founded Google in 1998.[19] Google attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users, who liked its simple design.[20] Off-page factors (such as PageRank and hyperlink analysis) were considered as well as on-page factors (such as keyword frequency, meta tags, headings, links and site structure) to enable Google to avoid the kind of manipulation seen in search engines that only considered on-page factors for their rankings. Although PageRank was more difficult to game, webmasters had already developed link building tools and schemes to influence the Inktomi search engine, and these methods proved similarly applicable to gaming PageRank. Many sites focused on exchanging, buying, and selling links, often on a massive scale. Some of these schemes, or link farms, involved the creation of thousands of sites for the sole purpose of link spamming.[21]

By 2004, search engines had incorporated a wide range of undisclosed factors in their ranking algorithms to reduce the impact of link manipulation. In June 2007, The New York Times' Saul Hansell stated Google ranks sites using more than 200 different signals.[22] The leading search engines, Google, Bing, and Yahoo, do not disclose the algorithms they use to rank pages. Some SEO practitioners have studied different approaches to search engine optimization, and have shared their personal opinions.[23] Patents related to search engines can provide information to better understand search engines.[24] In 2005, Google began personalizing search results for each user. Depending on their history of previous searches, Google crafted results for logged in users.[25]

In 2007, Google announced a campaign against paid links that transfer PageRank.[26] On June 15, 2009, Google disclosed that they had taken measures to mitigate the effects of PageRank sculpting by use of the nofollow attribute on links. Matt Cutts, a well-known software engineer at Google, announced that Google Bot would no longer treat any nofollow links, in the same way, to prevent SEO service providers from using nofollow for PageRank sculpting.[27] As a result of this change the usage of nofollow led to evaporation of PageRank. In order to avoid the above, SEO engineers developed alternative techniques that replace nofollowed tags with obfuscated JavaScript and thus permit PageRank sculpting. Additionally several solutions have been suggested that include the usage of iframes, Flash and JavaScript.[28]

In December 2009, Google announced it would be using the web search history of all its users in order to populate search results.[29] On June 8, 2010 a new web indexing system called Google Caffeine was announced. Designed to allow users to find news results, forum posts and other content much sooner after publishing than before, Google Caffeine was a change to the way Google updated its index in order to make things show up quicker on Google than before. According to Carrie Grimes, the software engineer who announced Caffeine for Google, "Caffeine provides 50 percent fresher results for web searches than our last index..."[30] Google Instant, real-time-search, was introduced in late 2010 in an attempt to make search results more timely and relevant. Historically site administrators have spent months or even years optimizing a website to increase search rankings. With the growth in popularity of social media sites and blogs, the leading engines made changes to their algorithms to allow fresh content to rank quickly within the search results.[31]

In February 2011, Google announced the Panda update, which penalizes websites containing content duplicated from other websites and sources. Historically websites have copied content from one another and benefited in search engine rankings by engaging in this practice. However, Google implemented a new system that punishes sites whose content is not unique.[32] The 2012 Google Penguin attempted to penalize websites that used manipulative techniques to improve their rankings on the search engine.[33] Although Google Penguin has been presented as an algorithm aimed at fighting web spam, it really focuses on spammy links[34] by gauging the quality of the sites the links are coming from. The 2013 Google Hummingbird update featured an algorithm change designed to improve Google's natural language processing and semantic understanding of web pages. Hummingbird's language processing system falls under the newly recognized term of "conversational search" where the system pays more attention to each word in the query in order to better match the pages to the meaning of the query rather than a few words.[35] With regards to the changes made to search engine optimization, for content publishers and writers, Hummingbird is intended to resolve issues by getting rid of irrelevant content and spam, allowing Google to produce high-quality content and rely on them to be 'trusted' authors.

In October 2019, Google announced they would start applying BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) models for English language search queries in the US. BERT was another attempt by Google to improve their natural language processing but this time in order to better understand the search queries of their users.[36] In terms of search engine optimization, BERT intended to connect users more easily to relevant content and increase the quality of traffic coming to websites that are ranking in the Search Engine Results Page.

In June 2021 Google has launched the MUM (Multitask Unified Model) to furhter improve search queries. MUM not only understands language, but also generates it. It’s trained across 75 different languages and many different tasks at once, allowing it to develop a more comprehensive understanding of information and world knowledge than previous models. And MUM is multimodal, so it understands information across text and images and, in the future, can expand to more modalities like video and audio. It uses the T5 text-to-text framework and is 1000 times more powerful than BERT.

RDalchow (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to add the part below, as there was no information on the latest MUM update on the site and thought the google blog itself would count as a reliable source.

In June 2021 Google has launched the MUM (Multitask Unified Model) to furhter improve search queries. MUM not only understands language, but also generates it. It’s trained across 75 different languages and many different tasks at once, allowing it to develop a more comprehensive understanding of information and world knowledge than previous models. And MUM is multimodal, so it understands information across text and images and, in the future, can expand to more modalities like video and audio. It uses the T5 text-to-text framework and is 1000 times more powerful than BERT. RDalchow (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

DMOZ was retired on March 17, 2017, and no longer working. Remove references Seobro.agency (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No need. The article provides context, stating that DMOZ and the Yahoo directory were both closed. The references are historical. The article should be cleaned up but that will be a lot of work and I don't have time to work on it. But I suggest you leave some recommendations here for people to discuss/consider. Michael Martinez (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Any suggestions here? I can help Seobro.agency (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest you review the Wikipedia policies. That's important, because understanding what Wikipedia IS and IS NOT helps you decide what kinds of edits are acceptable. Secondly, I suggest you request a change of username as your current username violates guidelines. You don't have to use your real name like I do (I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, and well, that's history). Once you've fixed your username you'll be allowed to edit articles that aren't semi-protected. There are levels of protection that admins can place on articles to prevent people from abusing them.

The quick primer is that Wikipedia articles should only summarize what can be found in what Wikipedia determines to be reliable sources. That means, sometimes, Wikipedia can't include some information people know to be true because there are no acceptable sources.

Before making changes you're not sure comply with Wikipedia guidelines, leave comments on the Talk pages proposing changes you think should be made. Virtually every article is on someone's watch list. We'll be notified when someone changes something we're watching. That doesn't guarantee anyone will respond but it's the best way to start. If you have questions about Wikipedia policy and practices, the best place to ask about them is at the Wikipedia Teahouse community. That's a forum where new Wikipedians can ask for help. Some of the people there are formal "hosts" (selected by the community to lead discussions at the Teahouse). So it's a moderated discussion forum.

Be advised most people use shortcodes to reference other parts of Wikipedia. I'm one of the few who rarely do that. The shortcodes start with WP: and can sometimes be a bit obscure. And welcome to Wikipedia.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

I just want to add two lines at the end of the first paragraph of "As marketing strategy" in order to add more info with valid citation. MaryMYD94 (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

SEO is an ongoing process, and it requires continuous optimization, monitoring, and adaptation to keep up with search engine algorithm updates and changes in user behavior. It's important to note that SEO results take time and effort, and the competition for search rankings can be intense. Renusingroha (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. That's unsourced and not useful. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What is Ecommerce SEO?

Ecommerce SEO (Search Engine Optimization) refers to the practice of optimizing online retail websites to improve their visibility and rankings in search engine results. The primary goal of ecommerce SEO is to attract more organic (non-paid) traffic to the ecommerce website, ultimately leading to increased sales and revenue. In the competitive world of online retail, having a well-optimized ecommerce website is crucial for success. When potential customers search for products or services related to what the ecommerce store offers, SEO ensures that the website appears prominently in the search engine results pages (SERPs), making it more likely for users to click through and make a purchase. Ezkrt123 (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a blog. You need to create your own Website and post your opinions there. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

Anika soni (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

hi, I'm a digital marketer and blogger too. i really want to add some information about search engine marketing.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. I would additionally recommend reading the conflict of interest guideline if applicable. Tollens (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unclear meaning at the start.

I was reading this - "Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of improving the quality and quantity of website traffic to a website or a web page from search engines."

It looks like and quantity of website traffic to a website or a web page is not clear for few people. I send this to more than2 people and both of them find this a lil confusing.

It can be "Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of improving the quality and quantity of traffic to a website or a web page from search engines"

or "Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of improving the quality and quantity of website traffic for website or a web page from search engines."

it look like we can make it simple by using simple words instead of this complex text. 49.249.156.2 (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's more about improving the relationship between a Website and search engines. SEO isn't simply about traffic. It's about crawling, indexing, and influencing what appears in search results. The traffic isn't the only goal any more as there are branding aspects to it all. The opening sentence is really outdated, but the whole article is outdated. Michael Martinez (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2024

In May 2024, Google introduced the Search Generative Experience (SGE), leveraging generative AI to handle complex search queries more efficiently. This advancement enables users to pose nuanced questions, such as "what's better for a family with kids under 3 and a dog, Bryce Canyon or Arches," eliminating the need for multiple searches to find an answer. Additionally, Google allows for follow-up questions, maintaining context seamlessly. Chenanna (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Please note that SEO is about other websites (not google) optimizing themselves to be more easily found on search engines like google - it isn't about improvements to the google algorithm. I'm sure SGE will have an impact on SEO practices, but its not clear how this is relevant as currently written. Jamedeus (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)