Learning SEO Basics - Latest Comments in Science for SEO

Re: Science for SEO

Kimberly Bock — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:01:46 -0000

Thank you for the compliment and the visit. :-)

Re: Science for SEO

Listorbit — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:48:37 -0000

Ohh very well described each factor of SEO with proper adjective.

Re: Science for SEO

Kimberly Bock — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:07:28 -0000

Sorry it took so long to respond, you were in the spam catcher.

There is no list.

To add..each of those 'copywriters' are, in actuality, referred to as 'SEO copywriters' for good reason. They are professional SEOs who also write copy which captivates their intended audiences. That's the point. That's the science and the art.

Re: Science for SEO

Kimberly Bock — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:04:06 -0000

Thanks Jason. Having a great time. :-)

Re: Science for SEO

SEO Brighton — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:14:21 -0000

Every single one of them is a well known copywriter. Obviously it isn't a comprehensive list yet.

Re: Science for SEO

J-Dub — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:15:28 -0000

I really like where you're going with this. Please keep it coming!

Re: Science for SEO

Kimberly Bock — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:26:42 -0000

Social networks are obvious tools for blatant misuse in order to gain these backlinks.

Social networks are consistently scrutinized because of this. The influx of general readers and searchers, their temporary negligence in understanding the manipulative nature of the search results, and the influx of commercial content generators?

It will interesting to reevaluate this as the years progress. Neophytes do not remain neophytes forever.

Re: Science for SEO

Traffic Geyser — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:41:03 -0000

A lot of people are wondering why we are paying a lots of money for someone who will just post on blogs forums and social bookmarking sites, to gain backlinks.. because for them it seems like SEO task are easy, but hitting the right spot is the deal and it is what they don't know.. its the science of SEO.

Re: Science for SEO

Jeet — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:26:17 -0000

@Kimberly:

I love your approach in defining each term. Science and scientists use experiments to prove any hypothesis. I don't see many SEOs using this approach. Mostly they just follow what some popular blogger has said of something they read in an forum.

More than the science, I like the art of SEO and SEM. I would put copywriting in art. Getting others to link to your site, talking about your business on their blogs, sites and forums is not a mechanical and objective task :)

Re: Science for SEO

Kimberly Bock — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:13:27 -0000

Thanks Bill,

Defining what needs to be addressed, designing theories/questions/arguments, testing these theories, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions are scientific methods & involved in the entire process-the research and the approach to the art of appeal/engagement.

The beauty behind science for SEO is anyone can be a 'scientist'. People need the right tools and be directed to circles that can offer these tools.

There are many free resources to learn SEO online. It is more difficult these days to find resources that are not hype, but they are out there. Hopefully, this site included. Hype is a distraction from the real education. Uncalled-for noise.

Thanks again for the comment,
Kimberly

Re: Science for SEO

Bill Slawski — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:18:21 -0000

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on science and art in SEO. There's a poetry to your words.

One of the things that makes SEO so challenging, and so enjoyable to me is that it goes beyond how words rank in search engines, to how people read and understand and react to what words you choose as keywords, and what you write, and how you present what you create for your readers.

It is a science in trying to understand those kind of things while also writing something that will rank in search engines, and it is an art in making what you create appealing and engaging.