This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Search engine optimization is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 7, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 1, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted June 23, 2008 Featured article review Kept October 14, 2012 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

	Spoken Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Seo Expert in Delhi <link removed> Lokeshj26 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, there are millions of SEO "experts" out there, we only mention those who are notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because video search engines wouldn't know a contents location, thumbnail, duration, subscription (or not), eposodic relationships, video gallery, filetype, family friendly and location if there wasn't video SEO in place.

I would like to write this if I may.

@matdwright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matdwright (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As of May 2012, according to Toplist results, Seznam is the second internet search engine in the Czech Republic (42.84%) with Google in the top spot (54.69%) 115.64.37.149 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest the following article to be added in the external link section. 9 Secrets for Better Search Engine Optimization I look forward to your feedback and thank you for your time. 24.98.101.191 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Article does not meet external link guidelines, particularly #5 of links to be avoided. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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