Independent and intellectual thoughts ranging from China, SEO, Analytics, and other international topics
24 Jul
Update 7/28/2008:
Per my last comment, Aaron Wall was doing an SEO test to see how well duplicate content will rank and that even while Google knows it is duplicate content, will help it outrank more established sites like Business.com. Since this was done as a test, please note that all opinions below towards this shall be regarded as moot.
————-
It did not take long for SEO Spam to begin with even Aaron Wall promoting his efforts to optimize Knol.
Look, the guy is brilliant and definitely well-versed and absolutely knowledgeable in SEO (anyone interested in SEO should be following his feed). Yet, when you’re creating an article that is going to be on what is supposedly going to be an authoritative wikipedia, one should not be putting over 50% (18/35 links) of your external links to your own site and tools!
Yes it’s great marketing and yes his site should be referenced in many ways for basic SEO (and beyond), but for any person with little knowledge of SEO they will only see this as spam when it references mainly the author’s content and products. Would you trust an article that references over half its own sites?
To give credit where it’s due, he is asking for help to optimize it. My tip: Don’t be creating content and linking heavily to your own site (eg: don’t just link to your own SEO for Firefox page; link to competing products like SEOQuake [my disclaimer: I use SEOQuake over SEO for Firefox]).
Or, even better, post a disclaimer that you’re linking to your own site! Why? If this is supposed to be authoritative then really this article should be removed for vanity that even “lowly” Wikipedia would remove.
In the end, it’s good marketing for him, but bad PR for the rest of us.
I will not likely win any friends on this post in the SEO world, but I’m not one to shy away from my opinions.
Update:
Final comment–I should have added potential PR damage to SEOs on my Knol SEO blog post.
5 Responses for "The Google Knol SEO Spam Begins"
I know what you mean. I’ve already been exploring using it for SEO but I’m also concerned about the integrity and the impression users will garner from a bias article.
Looks like Arron has just copy and pasted his work from an article he wrote on eHow.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2183797_do-search-engine-optimization.html
Knol will be susceptible to dodgy content, that’s a certainty. It will be interesting to see how the platform slips into the Web and how all the search engines can deal with the mess.
Bob,
I’m trying to give Aaron the benefit of the doubt, but its quite weird…
…I searched and searched and that page is not indexed by Google, yet has been by Yahoo! and MSN. There’s no date on the article, but the last time the creator of the article (under the name of aaron wall) was on was in January 2008.
Duplicate content begins alright. If it’s not Aaron, it’s a good attempt at sullying his name. If it is Aaron, then it only goes to show how much Doug Heil has it right in the comments in this point:
http://www.wolf-howl.com/guest-posts/seo-haters-misconceptions-and-misinformation/
Bob,
Seems it’s showing how similar it is to content on other sites:
http://www.work.com/learning-search-engine-optimization-1053
http://www.business.com/directory/advertising_and_marketing/online_marketing/site_promotion/search_engine_optimization/
http://alecsandra.wordpress.com/
All at 90%+!
Could be a test to see how good Knol is at recognizing original content.
Of course, Google is horrible at knowing which content came first anyway…
[...] of things I wanted to follow up on my post about Google Knol SEO spam is in reference to Aaron Wall’s post about how he was testing Google’s lack of concern [...]