Are These Ethical SEO Techniques Or Not? #1

[Sharon & Roy]

Are These Ethical SEO Techniques Or Not? #1


---------------------<><><><><>-------------------

Here is an SEO Technique we found called ... Anchor Pages ... So is this SEO Technique ETHICAL or not?

------
We see a lot of discussions about "doorway pages" and we'd like your opinions and comments about the following SEO Technique.
------

Anchor Pages Defined

• The next step is the creation of "anchor" pages. These are additional pages, professionally written based on the content of your site and designed to carry through the look of your site. Each anchor page is optimized for a single keyword phrase. It's been built specifically for a search engine and has the keyword phrase appearing in all the right places with the right keyword weight and density for the search engines.

• If you've looked at other positioning firms, you may have heard the phrase "doorway" pages. Our anchor pages differ from doorway pages in one very important aspect. Anchor pages are carefully interlinked with other main pages in your site, so that to the search engine, they appear to be an integral part of your website. It's this anchoring deep within the context of your site that gives anchor pages their name. Doorway pages, by their nature, tend to stand alone from your site, making them easy to flag as a spamming technique.

---------------------<><><><><>-------------------

[ihelpyou]

This is a case where we would have to look at the page built. They probably use an automated page generator, but if they then tweak the page manually, it is possible that it is just fine.

[Alan Perkins]

No technique, in and of itself, is spam except for cloaking. Since there are no specifics, it's impossible to say whether these "anchor pages" are designed to deliver spam.

From the description, they sound like what's sometimes called "Information Pages". If these pages are an integral part of the site and designed to be seen by and useful to the site visitors, without degrading the experience of any site visitor (e.g. those disabled either by a physical condition, or the platform they are using or the environment they are working within) then they are not spam.

The worrying line is "Doorway pages ... easy to flag as a spamming tool". This suggests they think "anchor pages" are a spamming tool that is not so easy to flag...

[JuniorHarris]

Spam!

[Never Enough]

doorway, anchor, gateway... how many other ways can we say that if a seperate page is created for the sole purpose of getting a better ranking, it should not be done.

As said over and over in this forum, your current site pages are all you need.

Read what is written:

"they appear to be an integral part of your website. "
appear being the keyword here. (something to hide?)

"making them easy to flag"
if content is being duplicated on your site for the sole purpose of getting a better ranking... it is unethical.

My 2 cents - stay away.

[Alan Perkins]

Well said, Never Enough.

[SubmissoR]

I disagree.

What if you have a client with a dynamically driven website, totally unspiderable and without the programming knowlegde to make it spiderable. You re-create the pages in static html, and put links to them that can be followed (not hidden at all).

When visitors arrive at the "Static page" via SE's it looks exactly like the regular one (except it has perfect keyword density, because you know about that stuff). The click to the "dynamic" site, and the individual products is seamless. They dont have to click twice to view products on that page, or links in the navigation.

What should you tell your client, "sorry, your are out of luck, I can't ethically make your site SE friendly because I personally dont have the programming capability to take out the ?'s in your URL's?"


I know you guys are purists, but sometimes things like that are the only solution, and I don't think its spam, because there is nothing "misleading" going on. They can view and buy products, exactly like the regular site, only they found it through a search engine instead of coming in through the front door.

[ihelpyou]

You are right if that is what they are doing and offering. I just have a big suspicion that is not what they do.

[Advisor]

Betcha those anchor links they're talking about are invisble links, making the pages doorway pages with a nifty new name. However, if they really do have visible links within the site, then then, yeah, they're simply Informational Pages, as coined supposedly by Shari T., Detlev J., and Marshall S.

Nothing different or special from the sounds of them. Just a cute little name to confuse people and make them think there's something different or smarter about the company that uses them, in my opinion.

Jill

[Advisor]

I find Submissor's scenario perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. I've done similar things for clients in the past, myself!

Jill

[markymark]

This is spam. The phrase 'to a search engine, they appear to be an integral part of the site..' . So they only appear that way to a search engine, right ?

It is a shame that talented SEOs (and I don't know whether these are or not) feel that the search engines need to be fooled or tricked in some way in order to deliver rankings. This clearly shows a complete lack of understanding on what is going on with the engines. They are trying to deliver relevant results, so it is our job to ensure that the sites we look after meet that test of relevancy - there is no need to use spam techniques.

I personally think I have improved several search engines over the last few months by optimising client sites where most of the top ten or twenty was previously only marginally relevant to the search. I have introduced sites that improve the results - better for the SEs, for the searchers and certainly better for my clients and me.

[Alan Perkins]

I personally think I have improved several search engines over the last few months...

Careful about saying that sort of thing. It's the kind of thing search engine spammers say to justify things like cloaking, invisible text, etc.

It is not your job to improve search engines. It is their job. If you try to make it your job, you will probably end up being labelled a spammer by at least one search engine.

Here's what I think you meant to say :) :
I personally think I have improved the information architecture and accessibility of my clients' sites over the past few months, thereby improving the Web overall. Search engines recognise the improved quality of my clients' sites and now feature them more prominently for relevant searches. This means the search engine results contain higher quality Web sites.

i.e. it's not the results per se that have been improved, but the quality of the sites in the results...

[markymark]

Alan,

I do not try to make it my job to improve search engine listings in that way.

And it was perfectly clear from the context what I meant.

[Alan Perkins]

Agreed, markymark. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. I was (actually) trying to cover you. Sometimes these threads are read out of context by people who have no idea who you are. Certain phrases ring alarm bells ... you used one. Having read your post more carefully, I agree that it is quite clear what you meant. :cheers:

I still prefer the way I put it though! :D

[SubmissoR]

if a seperate page is created for the sole purpose of getting a better ranking, it should not be done.

If SEO's limited themselves to only optimising pages other people created first, they would be really limiting themselves from getting optimal results for the client.

[ihelpyou]

True, but all we are saying is that another page serves more purposes than simply to get ranks. If it supplies the site with more "content" and information for the visitor, then it is just perfectly fine.

[Alan Perkins]

That's right, the key phrase is "sole purpose". Find another purpose.

[Advisor]

Find another purpose. I still hate that! It irks me that one has to think up a good reason for doing something after the fact! And if they come up with one (even a tenuous one), then it's okay. At least come up with a legitimate reason first, in my opinion!

Jill

[Alan Perkins]

I bet you are still brought in "after the fact" on every new site you do. The typical progress is still

Design -> Publish -> Promote -> Fail -> SEO...

[Advisor]

Yes, but the things I do to the site all have legitimate reasons for doing them. They're not things that I have to figure out an excuse for doing. That's what I mean.

J

[Kal]

Originally posted by Alan Perkins
The typical progress is still

Design -> Publish -> Promote -> Fail -> SEO...

Oh yes indeedy Alan! This could be the company tag line of many of my clients. Although you forgot a couple of steps:

Design -> Publish -> [Consider SEO] -> [Reject SEO as too expensive] -> [Self] Promote -> Fail -> SEO :rolleyes:

[ihelpyou]

Very good! but oh soooo true.