commit: fb200d8 - #595 (2014-04-14 00:44:57 -0400)
...to be used to get 50 (potentially more) links, GUARANTEED, on sites with a DA 45+, or to be used to ensure that a website was 100% architecturally sound, which would you choose?
Without a lot of background this is a tough one. Is this a site with awesome, useful content and is just bad from a user experience and crawlability perspective? Or is it a poorly made site, with piss poor content that even with good "architecture" wouldn't be of much value to the search engines or its users?
100% architecturally sound. But that doesn't cost that much.
Anytime you use the words "$1,000", "links", and "GUARANTEED" in the same sentence the results are shady at best. Also, anytime you can improve your sites architecture is a good day.
I tend to agree with you, Jeff. You can get links a million different ways (without spending $$) but if your site is a mess, then what's the point? Thanks for your response!
I would also invest some into solid competitive research, or something else tedious that I am not a huge fan of doing.
upvoting. was going to tell the very same thing.
haha I haven't seen that one, nice. And just FYI... I'm not buying links here, people :) Just a hypothetical situation: If you had a limited budget to spend, links or architecture?
Ok, I've had my fun.. but honestly.. and this is somewhat to echo Roadruck, but if you *only* have a $1,000 there's a good chance you can't make arch re-work happen. Maybe the re-design of the IA, but certainly not the implementation, unless it's a brochure site - in which case, it probably doesn't matter... just my $0.02
I've watched that video like 5 times, how is it still at 200ish views?
It gives better advice than most Matt Cutts Videos
It depends on my current PA/DA and the content that exists on my site. E.g., if I'm RE/MAX or Ebay with lots of good content and links already, then I want to invest in my architecture.
If I'm Joe's Music Shoppe and my website has one link going to it, but page after page of info on great local musicians in different genres, then I want the links.
Hi Emma, If my site was not architecturally sound that's where I'd start. Your own site is the ONLY thing you have 100% control over in SEO, and often when checking compliance with best practices you can find some big wins that can improve user experience and rankings with a couple little tweaks.
Also, fully agree with Jeff, IMO anytime you go down the shady path you may see some quick results, but long term you are only hurting yourself. "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison
All good points, Ian. Sometimes arch is undervalued because of the attractiveness of building links, but you're right, it's the only thing you'll ever have full control over, so why not make sure it's up to snuff? However, the link building I was referring to in the hypothetical isn't about being shady or 'buying' links, it's about allocating budget and resources for making link building possible.
On another note, you been reading my LinkedIn profile? http://www.linkedin.com/in/emmastill/
Good hypothetical question. I'm going to assume this is for a smaller business and in that case... today I pick links.
Normally, I like to clean up site architecture problems first, but I'm going with the links because it is an element that is a bit more out of your control. You own the website and have a better chance of fixing that down the road than building a fantastic amount of links.
To follow up on this point as well - more often than not its the links that will move the needle initially and its the moving the needle part that smaller businesses are more interested in.
I'm all for making sure your house is clean and in the best working order, but if I go to someone and explain their canonical, pagination and site architecture issues and they have an external development team, it's a hassle for them. Meanwhile, this new link building/content marketing/inbound strategy or whatever I have for them can be applied straight away.
Pretty obvious what the response is initially: Let's do the second part. But don't neglect the first.
All the sexy links in the world ain't gonna help a website like this: http://www.canadianfreightways.com
Going to cop out and give the SEO answer - it depends. Are we talking about mis-implemented canonical nightmares on an ecommerce website or is this something that has longer-than-average page load times? Kind of hard to weigh things on a scale if you don't know how bad it is...
That being said, that $1000 budget + target doesn't sound too far off or far-fetched using white-hat Content+PR+optimized for sharing methods...
Yeah unfortunately it really does depend, but that's where our value comes as consultants - helping the client decide how to most effectively spend their time/effort.
This is kind of like asking, "if your house was on fire, would you put out the fire, or put up a bunch of signs to try and help the fire fighters get there?
Good point. My instinct says architecture, but I feel like there's such a focus on link building in our industry because it's sexy, so I wanted to see what people thought.
That's true, and fair. You do see some terribly built websites still performing relatively well thanks to their link profiles, too.
Probably not this (and not just because it's already been sold)...https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/500-blogroll-links-just-1000.2471654/ ;-)
Yes, I would spend on SEO, mainly on natural way of link building, bookmakring which are done manually.
$1000 on architecture could get you the same result as $1000 on reconstructive surgery: A mess.
Skip the links and the architecture. If you're an e-commerce site, buy a few hours of time from a good CRO person. Have them give recommendations on reducing cart bail-out.
If you're B2B, spend it on something you can use to generate great inbound: If your site's solid, then commission a report that'll help your customers. If your site's a mess, then work on improving the lead generation funnel, similar to the CRO work I suggest above.
Agreed 100%. Upvoting.
I would pay 80% to the best copywriters I could find to create the best content they can produce to satisfy the needs of my target audience and 20% to the PPC campaign to that (those) pieces of content, to give them initial boost of traffic.
Personally, I would buy the links though I think the architecture is more important but I am a technical SEO and ex webmaster and Developer. So i can fix the vast majority of architecture issues on my own. Building links is something I dont enjoy doing.
Making sure you have the basics of on page optimization down is easy and really shouldn't take much time or money. Put your 1k into linkable assets that are as evergreen as possible so you can continually outreach off of them for LINKS & LIKES.
I go to the nearest college campus (FAU in my case) and find the craziest looking college kid and ask him to video tape himself doing 3 insane things (of course, having to do with my niche) he/she also must share the video I choose to all of his social networks and spend 1 day promoting it in whatever way he chooses. For this, he will receive $1000.
Send $1000 worth of crates of beer to a super-influencer of choice. One crate a day, business card attached.
Well no one else was leaving a silly answer... :)
If you could successfully achieve the perfectly architected site for the $1000, I'd go with that every day.
I like your thinkin' Kevin. Plenty of other free avenues for links/press.
Buy your content team a trip to Times Square and ask them to copy that digitally. Inspire them to grab some attention for the company. Then pay for whatever tools they need.
Well this question I would say the following:1. If it was an Enterprise website I would 100% pick "100% architecturally sound" because most Enterprise websites are horrible in terms of architecture. Becuase most big sites already have a traffic source, they ave the branding in the market they just need to get the site right first and that is usually more difficult than easy if its built on IBM or some other CMS from the 90s hehe.2. If it was a SME website then I would pick up the 50 x 45 DA + domains. Because they are probably using some basic CMS which is already SEO friendly.
But let me add $1000, will GET you NO where with an Enterprise site architecture, that number needs a few more zeros on it to get some traction hehe.But yeah I mean this question is kind of random with the title including the 1000 spend, A better wording would be: Pick the 50x 45da links or pick the 100% architecturally sound.
or just learn how to bribe people lower on the chain that will value $1000 more :)
True you can try that with company developers, invest $1,000 into some nice bottles of Whiskey and then go around with a note and say hey you know those SEO changes I need done. I know a mate who was an in house SEO who did something similar as the devs were not moving hehe =) Personally when I worked in house I got in contact with the head dev and said lets put SEO KPI's in the devs bonus, only 10-20 %. Suddenly Devs went from hating SEO to been all over it and keen to learn =)
In case of a decent site already filled up with quality contents, I'd spend that amount on white ways of getting backlinks (like: infographics, unique content or on skyscraper technique).In case of a crappy site, I'd use $200 to get the basic architecture right and to make it look decent. I'd use $400 on producing quality content. $100 on miscellaneous analytics tools etc., and finally $100 for proper outreach.
Oh man this so sounds like we are at digital point.
I would be spending 55% on the money on building quality links. I'm not talking about buying links. I'm totally against it. I mean I'll get premium accounts on forums and communities that allows to link to external content and will pay for big blogs to allow me to Guest Post there. They are worth it.
And I'll spend the rest of the money on buying Link tracking and keyword tools. Long Tail Pro is a must.
I'm glad you're not buying links, but only paying to guest post. Big difference!
haha! He probably meant 'buying spammy links'. Paid guest posts are spammy in their own too, though. :P
70% architecture + advanced CRO then 30% natural link building.
Did any one get a bunch of emails from random people asking where do they get 50 x DA 45 links for $1,000 hahaha
Clearly they did not understand this is a fictitious thread.
I will spend 50% on UI of the site and another 50% to create content and outreach
Good enough. :)
Easy, spend it all on advice from an ex-google seo guy.
95% of the money spent on the fastest ROI-centric work possible. (Whatever that means to you and the project). The final 5% spent on a cool 'lunch-and-learn' with the person that helped you... where you ask questions on what else you should be doing, and maybe how they can help you even more...:-)
If the links are really good and not spammy than I would definitely go for links. The fact is that when you have the authority from links, On-Site stuff can be changed and improved later on. For majority of people link building will be much harder than to create content, make some on-page adjustments etc. You can learn basics of On-Page SEO in almost every other SEO article however if you do "basic" link building you'll probably end up spamming.
Hi Emma! Nice hypothetical question here. As for now, I would pick links. But I believe that we can get links a thousand different ways without spending dollars. With this, we need to make sure that our site is not a mess :)