SEO Dave wrote:

> On 7 Mar 2005 23:34:54 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
> wrote:
>
>>SEO Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 Mar 2005 07:14:16 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>[ SEO ]
>>
>>>>"focus on content", the true basics, fits on a post it note.
>>>
>>> That's not really SEO since the above will not alone get a site
>>> traffic.
>>
>>Works for me.
>
> You keep forgetting to take into account you have a PR7 home page.

You keep forgetting that getting the PR7 took time :-D.

> That alone gives you a boost most here can only dream about.

To me PR mostly gives one faster googlebot visits. Also, PR6 is easy to
get, I was able to make a new site (some time ago) PR6 with just a few
links.

> To put it into context you might have more link power with your
> relatively small number of pages (I'm assuming you have far less than
> 1000 pages)

Yup, currently, yes.

> compared to the 100,000+ I have (soon to be increased
> significantly).

Oh, if I want I can do that too. It's quite easy to create 1,000,000
pages or more. Problem is, everybody can do that.

> I haven't looked at your sites in detail, so only
> going on the very rough PR as a guide to SEO 'power'. As you know PR
> is log based,

Of course I know :-D.

> probably around base 6 to 8,

I think 8, (which is 2^3)

> so your PR7 could be 6+
> times more 'powerful' (very close to a PR8) than mine (if mine are
> very low PR7s). Or it could be the other way around with mine more
> powerful than yours.

Yup.

> I know what links from a PR7 page can do with regards SERPs, so part
> of any traffic you get has a lot to do with the PR not just content.

Untrue.

> If you took your content, how ever good and put it on a brand new
> domain with enough links to get it indexed (say a few PR4 links) and
> did nothing other than basic on site SEO things, you'd be lucky to get
> above 50 visitors a day.

If I copy the content, maybe. If I rewrite it so it basically tells the
same story, I think I will get 1000 visitors a day (because a lot of
hits I get are via direct links) and it will grow in 1-2 months to the
3000+ I today got.

So you are wrong, which is understandable since "I haven't looked at
your sites in detail"

> With your PR I'd guess without any SEO at all you'd probably get
> around 4 to 500 visitors a day, with basic on site SEO maybe 2000,
> with very good on site SEO 4000+ visitors a day.

I think 3000+ is the max at the moment, and even you can't improve that
without adding extra content ;-)

> I've had a quick look at your site now and I'd put it at above basic
> SEO level.

Of course, I mean, since hey, it can't be close to SEODave, the SEO king
:-D.

> Biggest problem though (and I'm digressing a lot from this
> thread) is the diverse content.

Yup, it's a personal page, and I like a lot of diverse stuff :-D.

> The traffic your site is likely to
> bring in isn't really targeted at SERPs you are likely to make money
> from!

Probably you should have a second look at my site ;-)

> For example this page http://johnbokma.com/pet/scorpion/ and
> similar, are you really wanting traffic from visitors looking for a
> site about Pet Scorpions, Scorpions and similar SERPs.

Yes, since it's my personal site, never intended to make money (although
at the moment it almost pays my rent ;-) ).

> I'd guess way
> over half your traffic is like this,

Your guess is wrong :-D

> which seems a waste of link power
> IMO.

Because you are guessing ;-)

> Take my advice, keep those pages, but remove the home page links to
> them so your important pages (ones you make money from) get a lot more
> PR/link benefit).

The site is for visitors, not for guessing SEO wannabees.

> So you mean focus on body text rather than links and other SEO
> factors? If you have a PR7 home page it will work to a degree.

If you want to sell something what counts more do you think? The SEO
trick of the week (which can drop your business of the chart tomorrow),
or content that's attractive to the visitor and nudges him/her into
buying? Do you go for the 1,000,000 visitors a day, with 10 buyers (and
a possibility to drop to 10,000,000 visitors over night, and zero
buyers), or 1,000 visitors a day with 20 buyers?

>>Yup, also SEO of the above kind relies on tricks that might stop
>>working after a few months, and then those people complain how bad
>>Google works nowadays etc.
>
> It relies on links,

I get plenty of links because I have good content. What do you not
understand about that? Also, since people make those links the anchor
text is most often on topic so to say :-D

> not tricks. There is no trick in adding a pages
> keywords to the anchor text of it's inbound links.

Depends on how it's done ;-)

>>> Focus on content and an invoice for $100 :-))
>>
>>If it works for that site, I doubt the client will complain ;-)
>
> LOL

Yup, that's business Dave. If a customer pays me 100 USD, and he is able
to get that investment back in, say one month, it means next month he
makes an extra 100 USD. It isn't that hard to understand sound business.

>>Moreover, rather a good advice on how to improve the content than some
>>tricks that work today, and drop the customer's site out of Google
>>tomorrow. Focussing on short term tricks was fun in the previous
>>century, now I am a bit more serious ;-)
>
> But it's been shown content alone doesn't do much with Google.

By whom?

> Make a
> new site and keep it's PR low for 6 months, add as much quality
> content (optimized or not) and see if you still think "improve the
> content" is the most important SEO advice you can give?

Good content gives me every day new back links. Every day more. And some
are on important sites. For example, I never added myself to DMOZ,
blogs, or wikis.

I agree that with a virgin site it takes some work to get noticed. But
once you are noticed it's just adding good content to get people back,
make links. And thanks to all those links I get a nice PR, meaning
Googlebot visits me very often, meaning I can kick new pages within 12
hours in Google. Since I focus on the content, I get visitors, who link,
etc. So my site is now self sustained and it will grow.

>>No. If a user can't use a tool, you can't blame the tool, period.
>
> Err, yes. You don't purchase a piece of software like Dreamweaver to
> use it as a text editor.

Weird, since most people purchase for example Office without using 90%
of it's features.

>>It's the same as you require 10 real shops, 100+ real shops. Or if you
>>want 10 computers with DW or 100+.
>>
>>Most software sellers give you discounts, especially with 100+
>
> Not this one.

Then live with it. What's an investment of 500 USD in the first world?

>>If you can't get the 500 USD investment back in a month, don't start a
>>shop on the Internet.
>
> How many online shops have you run then? Do you generally spend money
> when you don't necessarily have to?

Since you need a shopping cart it's necessary.

>>Since you clearly can't pay for a good design,
>>good content, etc.
>
> Sorry!! How does what I've posted equate to the above??

A good design for each shop will cost you more than a measily 500 USD.
Unless you consider a free template downloaded, tweaked, etc. a good
design.

>>You mean the free ride? That's rarely a sound base for a business
>>anyway. Most business grow because they invest money, and moreover,
>>because they don't waste time complaining over something insignificant
>>as 500 USD, a major part of their business.
>
> ROFLOL and this is from someone who couldn't afford to buy a new
> workstation when they started up http://johnbokma.com/sgi/

You clearly have no idea how much an SGI workstation costs?

> How many
> days did you waste hunting for second hand PCs then?

The funny thing: none :-D. My partner had good contacts with a guy who
was able to sell us a second hand workstation at less than 10% of the
value of the same (!) workstation new. Oh, and believe me less than 10%
is still about twice as much as people are willing (or were willing) to
pay for a peecee.

> I bought a new computer system when I started a business :-)

Good for you. We could have bought 2 for the price we payed for the SGI
Indigo. And since I was a student at that time I was able to get the
development software at a Varsity license. Software that would have cost
us the price of about 2 new peecees.

>>Did you suggest this to them? Sometimes you have to give someone an
>>idea
>>:-D. Or make them an offer, something like: we want a 100 license,
>>:but,
>>we pay USD 30,000
>
> Isn't this a contradiction to your other advice about making so much
> money why care about initial costs and not wasting time?

Nop. I don't see writing one email with an offer (or maybe better a
phone call) not as wasting time.

> What has the turnover got to do with NOT wasting money? I don't care
> if the sites are going to make a million a year,

They probably never will.

> I'll go with the best
> solution at the best price. Lowering overheads without compromising on
> quality is very good business sense.

Whining about a few bucks and putting a lot of time in the whining, is
not. Most businesses don't work because people are wasting all their
time in saving money. Doing everything themselves, instead of hiring
people who can do it better in a quarter of the time.

>>And each of them is not able to make the 500 USD in a few weeks?
>>Amazing.
>
> I hope you don't deal with the finances in your house!! I bet double
> glazing sales men like you as well :-)))

If you had read a bit better, you would have been able to grasp the
message a bit better: invest when you need it. But probably you prefer
to read that as: throw your money away like a silly ass. I mean,
admitting that your complaints are not business like is probably way
harder.

>>It's peanuts Dave, I have no idea how you do business, but if you hire
>>me (which you can't or so it sounds) there is very little I can do for
>>$1500 :-D.
>
> LOL
>
> That wasn't what you said when you sent me a quote a few months back
> for a project. If I recall correctly your quote was the lowest at
> around $500. That was building a database driven website which tends
> to be expensive (most quotes over $2000).

Since you have no problem with making private info public, I quote:

<quote>
"Basically I supply a CSV file (or other format, easy to convert) with
a list of over 2000 'products' and an indication of what each of the
11 variables represent (might be a few other variables) and where I
roughly want them on a page etc..."

Done this for several people. Basically my own sites are generated from
file(s), and published statically.

Rough quote depends a bit on what you exacly want. Using PHP to create
pages on the fly from a CSV file is a bit overhead. If the CSV file is
quite static, I would recommend using Perl to create the files on your
machine, and upload them. I canmake that only files with a change are
uploaded.

Rough quote would be like 500 USD
</quote>

As you read carefully you can see that it's not a "database driven
website" I offer for 500 USD but a script that turns CVS into HTML.

And yes, a Perl programmer with 11 years of experience can do that in 5
hours (100 USD/hour)

> $500 would have been a bargain for what I wanted, but we went with an
> alternative solution.

Then I guess you didn't want CVS to HTML conversion. Or otherwise: you
complain about 500 USD as being a lot, while on the other hand you
ignore a bargain.

>>> The problem arises when we start incorporating this into SEO
>>> packages (a fully optimized ecommerce site), that's a profit loss of
>>> $150 a client and start to roll out a lot of sites.
>>
>>So your business model is not sound.
>
> We have a mind reader on the NG.

No, someone who is able to read between the lines.

> No one knows our business model, yet
> John knows it's not sound, I'm impressed. Was it a crystal ball or tea
> leaves that gave it away?

Normally I have to sacrifice a goat, but with you it was not needed :-D.

>>You thought you could make a quick
>>by buying nice sounding domains, throwing a template at it (generate
>>content based on a catalogue for example), and put a shopping cart in
>>it, and presto, your own optimised shop for 350 USD?
>
> Not even close. But lets imagine you were right.
>
> If we use Oscommerce (free)

You can't since it doesn't do what you want. Also you make a very common
mistake: it's free as in speech, not as in beer.

> if it cost $100 to create a shop etc...
> we'd realise a profit of $250 per shop. With X cart that drops to $100
> profit a shop and possibly less with add-ons.
>
> Would going with Oscommerce or X cart be the best solution
> financially, should we go for $250 profit or $100 profit per shop?

You wrote before that OScommerce didn't fit the profile.

>>Well, maybe I can write one for 15,000 USD. Depends a lot on the
>>requirements though :-D.
>
> I'm sure you could do it for a lot, lot less in Perl.

Again, depends on the requirements.

>>OScommerce can be extended with modules, so find a programmer who can
>>do that for say 5000 USD. You save 10,000 USD. Don't go to cheap there
>>though. I know people who really believe that 5 USD / hour programmers
>>are cheaper than 100 USD/hour programmers because 5 < 100.
>
> I do know you generally get what you pay for.

I am impressed now :-D.

> That's not always true when a decision today has financial
> implications in the future. To throw some random numbers around. If X
> cart cost on average $150 a shop and in the next 10 years we create
> 1000 shops, that's $150,000 spent that with more research could be
> saved.

How much did that "more research" cost?

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html