Looking for feedback...

[pops]

Sigh, I was really hoping this would turn into a meteorological thread. (BTW, it's hot as hell in St. Louis although we're promised a cool front sometime today - should be in the low 90s by tomorrow).

It seems to me that there are a couple of interesting SEO and directory related questions running through this thread that could be discussed in threads of their own (and this one could die a natural death).

However if we keep returning to the questions of Michael's and Rand's motivations this thread will produce lots of heat and very little light.

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by randfish

I can't agree with your assessment of Michael, but you've known him longer than I have, so I'll defer.

With regards to your queries - http://www.google.com/search?q=marke...e%3Aseomoz.org

What page on SEOmoz is targeting those terms? I don't see it?

Same here - http://www.google.com/search?q=join+...e%3Aseomoz.org

I don't see where you pulled those terms?

Those words are in your Blog's title tag and your premium content page title tag. I thought you said choose 5-8 words and a good site would rank for those terms no matter how mixed up they are. Did I read it wrong or am I missing something all together?

Originally Posted by pops

It seems to me that there are a couple of interesting SEO and directory related questions running through this thread that could be discussed in threads of their own (and this one could die a natural death).

It probably could but I'd rather keep it all in one thread so as not to lose the context (not to mention splitting it off would be a pain in the arse).

Originally Posted by pops

However if we keep returning to the questions of Michael's and Rand's motivations this thread will produce lots of heat and very little light.

I couldn't agree more. Each person's motivations aren't really the point. The issue that first must be addressed is whether the facts Rand used to make is point are in fact accurate.

Rand, I'll check out those searches you linked to and post back.

[mvandemar]

Rand, un-fookin-believable, you did it again. How in the hell have you convinced yourself that anything in that tirade or after answered this one simple question: Why is it ok to only pay attention to the queries that support your conclusions while at the same time ignoring the ones that directly refute it?

Is it beyond your capacity to answer that?

I still want to hear how you justify it, at least how you do it to yourself in your own head, but here's a little bit of info that you really shouldn't be getting for free, you should have discovered it on your own by now. The word "Aviva" is in and of itself a highly competitive phrase, seeing as it is the name of the worlds 5th largest insurance group. The fact that the directory ranks for anything using that name is in and of itself an accomplishment.

Take for example the last query you showed, [strongest directories aviva], and drop "Aviva" from it, leaving you with just a two word phrase, [strongest directories], and suddenly it ranks at #5.

Originally Posted by skitzzo

Those words are in your Blog's title tag and your premium content page title tag. I thought you said choose 5-8 words and a good site would rank for those terms no matter how mixed up they are.

That is what he said, skitzzo, but I think it is completely unfair for you to use his own methods to prove him wrong. Quit being a troll and go away, what are you doing, just looking for attention now? I've heard from reliable sources that you are just pretending to be your father as well as yourself so obviously people shouldn't trust you!

Btw, Rand, I would say nice distraction methods, attacking me like that, if it wasn't such a lame assed job of it. You probably would have been better off hiring a freelance copywriter to do it for you in this case. I mean, c'mon, asking me for my valued opinion on how to increase the quality of your blog posts one day and saying people shouldn't listen to me the next? Weak.

Your points would have course been much stronger had you been able to show where I had previously attacked someone and actually been wrong, don't you think?

Oh, wait... that would take you actually doing research, wouldn't it? My bad... unfair pressure again.

-Michael

[randfish]

I'm done with you, Michael. If other folks have concerns, I'm happy to address - literally anyone else. But, I'm not responding to you anymore. You are not worth my time - and I believe it would be nearly impossible for anyone to argue that point.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by randfish

I'm done with you, Michael. If other folks have concerns, I'm happy to address - literally anyone else. But, I'm not responding to you anymore. You are not worth my time - and I believe it would be nearly impossible for anyone to argue that point.

Wow, so when asked to reply to that one simple question, the same one all along, you honestly do believe that the Troll Defense is your best bet?

Bro, what is your phobia about getting honest here? It is really less painful than you are making it out to be. Who cares if you were wrong? This actually does give you a genuine chance to learn, seriously. You should take advantage of it, imo.

-Michael

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by randfish

If other folks have concerns, I'm happy to address - literally anyone else.

Rand, shouldn't those searches I posted earlier bring up your site using the method you stated?

Originally Posted by mvandemar

you honestly do believe that the Troll Defense is your best bet?

Mvand, posts like the one before Rand said he's not going to reply anymore doesn't help your case, IMO. You have a good point but you get bogged down in this sarcastic, belligerent language that detracts from the point you're trying to make.

However, the bolded question in my opinion is still a valid concern.

Rand, since the site ranks 5th for your last example without Aviva attached would that example be nullified? It does rank for the much more difficult phrase right?

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by skitzzo

Mvand, posts like the one before Rand said he's not going to reply anymore doesn't help your case, IMO. You have a good point but you get bogged down in this sarcastic, belligerent language that detracts from the point you're trying to make.

Oh, considering that was in response to a 5 paragraph personal attack designed to distract people from noticing that he was still unable to answer 1 simple question? I actually do think I was quite reserved in my reply.

-Michael

[skitzzo]

Also, Rand, you're pointing to some searches that are only a few words long, not sticking to your 5 word minimum that you imposed on us.

[mvandemar]

The Blogger Law post, btw.. truncate the query a bit and it puts Aviva at #1 for [important laws every blogger needs to know].

-Michael

[skitzzo]

Just going through the title tags, though Michael, and I'm not seeing a lot of rankings. I've just been typing in the categories like Real Estate Resources Information, real estate listings international information, and in fact sports baseball information aviva web directory (although it does rank #1 for [sports information aviva web directory]). I can definitely see why Rand thinks something strange is going on.