The Worst SEO Mistake You Can Make

[theGypsy]

Originally Posted by cbscreative

if I am building a new site, then is is planned from the start. The situations I have dealt with were taking sites from oblivion to page one.

And once more, even if it is 'from the start' - bad link building practices are easily still be 'the biggest mistake' since they are the hardest to recover from.

The problem is that Google knows what is 'natural' in a given query space and we do not. This means a 'one size fits all' approach to link building is truly hap-hazard. I would suggest even tracking the link growth/velocity of top sites (and a few from say page 5 of the SERPs) in a niche before even beginning your own endeavors.

Originally Posted by cbscreative

With your question, Graphic3, yes good coding is part of the process. Attention to detail is required to win because sloppiness is rampant, so good coding does stand out.

Ok, let's not get carried away. One of the worst myths in SEO is code... clean code, code to text ratio and so forth.

There are NO code related ranking signals. As long as the page parses and displays... yer good to go. As a certain Googler once told me (paraphrasing)

"If professor X from University Y doesn't know how to formulate good HTML, it doesn't mean what he is publishing is not of value"

So, while I do believe in quality as an asset, coding has nada to do with SEO for the most part...

Now, if we're talking usage of H1-5 tags, bold, italics, lists and so forth.... they are known as 'prominence factors' which Yahoo tends to like more than Google...

....but code... nope... not an SEO consideration.

I'm just sayin.....

[cbscreative]

Yes, I emphasize code as a foundation, not the building itself. You also hit on a big difference I've noticed between Google and Yahoo. Yahoo does tend to place a much stronger emphasis on page structure.

Aside from SEO, much of the coding and organizational structure is more about usability than SEO. If usability is lacking (and it quite often is when I'm looking at doing SEO), then SEO just creates more traffic that will bail once they arrive.

[vangogh]

Good points about link building Dave.

I'm a little in between on the coding. I agree that, especially with Google, things like hx tags aren't going to be key. No search engine cares either if your code validates and things like that. A strong link profile is also going to outweigh site coding for the most part.

However there are coding mistakes that can practically doom you from the start. A Flash navigation with no alternative for example. If search spiders can't find your pages they're going to have a hard time listing them in the results.

I also think a search friendly coded site helps to increase your chances of success. Organizing your content around keyword themes, fixing up SEO gotchas, etc. Most coding problems can be overcome by a strong link profile, but the more you get right with the code the less strong your profile might need to be. And in low competitive markets coding (with a few good links) can be enough to make you competitive.

In the end I think it all works together. The more you don't get right in one aspect, the more you need to get right in another. Overall though, yes, links still outweigh most everything else.

[theGypsy]

I suppose we could even go beyond links and say 'any ban-able offense' - because many things can be fixed but recovering from a slap is by far the most problematic...

Links are merely the most common screw up I see.... understanding how to craft timely, relevant link profiles is still important. For now....

The more engines evolve, the more signals we're seeing being used... I for one can't wait until links become less important and we see more relevance signals emerge... and even behavioral signals. I am big on relevance (phrase based/semantics) signals and 'social' signals in the form of behavioral metrics and personalized search... but U knew that he he....

[yankeerudy]

Coming in a bit late to the party, enjoyed reading through the back-and-forth.

Another consideration for "in at the start" is the structural aspect of the site. Things like domain name, folder names, and page names all play a part in the searchable-ness (?) of your content, and by extension your choice of website development tools/frameworks. (Ever use an open source forum that insists on naming posts with cryptic page names? Good luck trying to get that to be more searchable.)

I agree, though, that getting in on the ground floor is not always an option. That's why it's important for us SEO types to rise through the ranks and seize control of our company so we can be sure that we're there!!

[vangogh]

@Dave - yeah penalties can be hard to come back from. Google places so much emphasis on signals of trust that once you break that trust you have to do a lot to earn it back. I'm looking forward to more emphasis being placed on content again too. Not the add one more tag kind of thing, but placing the emphasis on content people actually enjoy and revisit. I have a hard time seeing links going away. There are good reasons for using links, but somewhere along the line too much emphasis was given to them.

@Rudy - I think all the things you mentioned play a part. To me the whole "in at the start" thing is about understanding your general marketing as early as possible. Some people will create a product that no one really wants. A little marketing research could have saved a lot of time.

But I do also think it's a good idea to consider SEO itself early on. Dave is right that links will outweigh your code, but at the same time good code reduces your reliance on links to some degree and I don't know too many SEOs who are going to ignore what you're doing internally so might as well get it right from the start.

[cbscreative]

You raised a good point there, yankeerudy. I've seen some database stuff that was obviously expensive to have created, yet it was an SEO nightmare. I like your forum example, which is why vangogh installed the vBSEO plugin here.

[billbenson]

So do you think the recip links from 5 years ago that are still at least linking to your site from non relevant sites or spam sites hurt even if you pulled the outgoing links on your site or will G largely ignore those if you are currently following accepted linking practices?

[vangogh]

Dave might know better than me, but I would think as long as you're not linking back out you're probably ok. I think other than extreme cases that recip linking practice most likely didn't result in a penalty. Might depend a little though on how many recip links we're talking about and the sites in question.

There's nothing inherently wrong with exchanging links with another site. If I sell tires and you sell rims it makes sense for our sites to link to each other. The issue is more when you're linking back and forth to a bunch of random sites solely for the purpose of manipulating search results. Naturally search engines don't want to see that.

I think in most instances the links are just discounted, though they may hurt a little, but I think in most cases this hasn't been a penalty things. I believe some sites have been penalized so it may depend on your situation.

[billbenson]

I really don't have any sites that matter where I did a lot of link exchanges. Just curious.