Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
If you all are like me, you follow Sam and Dave posts. There is some
wisdom there, do doubt. But their  posts are getting more complex then
google as you try to filter what is relevant and what is not. So, I
thought, lets summarrize, if we can, and maybe even poll some
thoughts. So below is an outline for you to edit, change or add your
comment to.

1. There is an ongoing dispute between Sam and Dave (may be the
understatement for the day)

2. Sam and Dave have sites that have the same other words,
sex sells their product(s)

3. How many sites does Sam have and what are they?

4. How many sites does Dave have and what are they?

5. Dave had one site banned by google -- ture or false?

6. Dave says, Sam is trying or has tried to get his current site
banned by Spamming blogs using Dave's current website (can this really
happen, if that is the case then it would be easy to get our
competition banned)

7. Sam likes spamming blogs and is the reason he ranks well

8. Sam says Dave's old site was banned by google cause he had too many
pages (what? I thought having lots of pages was a good thing)

9. Dave says, Sam's site(s) will go down in flames cause of him
spamming blogs and those who follow his advise will also.

10. What is the most profound thing you learn from Dave?

11. What is the most profound thing you learn from Sam?

12. Do you believe following Sam or Dave's advise will hurt your site?

13. What is Davie's #1 SEO tactic?

14. Waht is Sam's #1 SEO tactic?

15. Sam and Dave are more controversial then Janet Jackson's Halftime

16. Whose site is ranked higher in google and why?

17. Sam or Dave helped my site's ranking because?

18. I want Sam and Dave to be friends - yes/no?

Please add to, comment on, or change anything above that may not be
true which may be the case since I had a hard timie trying to sort out
the facts amongst the many words they wrote. But the point is, a lot
of us are trying to learn from these posts and are grateful for what
words Sam and Dave provide. However, I would really like to see some
of the comments backed by evidence, especially items 6 and 8 above.
And, no doubt, I'm having a little fun here. I said it before and I'll
say it again.......both you guys have something to offer to the
group..... we thank you.


Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

I think this whole thing is something that should have been taken 'away from
the forum' a long time ago.  Lots of space and time is being spent wading
thru 'the argument' and, trust me, there will be no winner in the end.  In
the long run, this forum may be the loser because new people may wonder what
the heck goes on here.

After reading many of the posts on this topic, I certainly would not waste
my time answering these questions.  I gave up playing "king of the mountain"
games a long time ago.  Age does that for you.  I think that your SEO
contests perpetuate this type of mentality on this group.  It is not
productive to anyone.  I have better things to do, like try to help kids
beat cancer.

This entire post is just a personal opinion.  Arguing with me will not
change my mind, so don't bother.
Take Care,  Sharon Lane

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Sharon wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

erm, I don't agree. The SEO competition has been a highly instructive
laboratory to see which techniques currently work on google.  Even if
you don't follow the more controversial practises most people who have
studied the competitors can't fail to pick up some ideas for their site.
  I"m not talking about dubious stuff but just things to better present
an already good site.

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Sharon wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wouldn't it be better for everyone, if these people would list the
techniques that they have used to SEO a website, then tell us the keywords
they were targeting, then give us a link to the site so we can watch what is
happening and NOT make it a competition.  The 'winner' of competitions leads
everyone to a dangerous assumption - that everything that the person did is
something that others should follow.  That is not true.  It actually may be
a combination from each person's techniques that actually work the best.
But we may not know that if we do not look at all of the techniques.

Displaying your techniques, your keywords, and your website, may help
Fron the arguments I have seen on this newsgroup, I would say that
'competitions' might end up being more destructive, than constructive.
Maybe in another group it works, but in my humble opinion, in this group it
is not working well.  At least not from a new member standpoint.
Take Care,  Sharon Lane

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would like to think that after the competition ends we will have sensible
discussions about techniques used.
I personally do not see it as a competition anymore, but more of a useful
gauge as to how Google is reacting at the moment.
I must admit, I was a little competitive in the first week but this soon wore of
and I would like to think my site is actually useful now, rather than just a
nonsense page just to trick Google.
I have even listed the tactics I have used on my serps site.
I don't think the serps competition has much to do with the
SEO Dave vs. Sam argument.
This was brewing up long before the serps competition began.
lets hope they soon resolve it.

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Sharon wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's what SEO Dave was doing. There's a problem however with
hand-picking what you rank good for, because everyone ranks good for
one tem or another. The point of a competition is to see how different
strategies rank in a direct comparison.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nobody has the power to destroy anything here or on the web. Thinking
so would be highly paranoid. Even if Sam and Dave would expose each
other's private life in detail most wouldn't care.

Google Blogoscoped

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 Even if Sam and Dave would expose each
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Say Dave if yu're reading this what about that time we took that crusie
to the Bahamas together. They might be interested in that.

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

All valid points. Tried to sift through the many posts. Again, that
was my point -- to summarize here. I do agree, david has been very

There are two items....item 6 and 8....that I could not find any
theory to back up those claims. I assume I got what they said right or
david and sam would of denied saying it.  If that is the case, is
there any truth to  what they said for items 6 and 8.

If I missed it where they back these claims up in one of their many
post, I apologize and glady have someone show me where the evidence

One question, doesn't anyone else see where that many posts and
arguments can filter the truth and it starts to be hard to sort the
fact from the fiction. I was hoping a straight forward summary without
debate would help us all.

 Like I said, though, I have not been following every word they said
even though I tried to reserch some of their claims. It would be great
if one knew that spamming blogs or if too many pages actually hurt
your ranking like they claimed in their debate.


Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Theories abound.  Google itself says, "Google goes far beyond the number of
times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's
content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a
good match for your query."

There have been suspicions for a long time that Google is looking at where
the links are coming from.  Link farms were hit badly a couple of years ago.
Excessive crosslinking between sites is discouraged by most in the know.
Recently it has been suspected that link pages (esp. those named 'links')
have been downgraded in importance.

If it is not happening now, I would guess that at some point Google will
attempt to filter out techniques used to artificially inflate anchor text or
page rank. Unfortunately, many innocents will again be hammered, the
indirect victims of spam.

I suspect there is a germ of truth in both statements. Unfortunately, they
are presented as dogma, when at best they are hypotheses.

We often find ourselves positioned more by accident than design.  If we are
able to discern patterns from those accidents we are better able to control
future events.  But, we must remain open to the idea that our position is
influenced by factors outside of our awareness, no matter how much we think
we know.  (One of my sites ranks #2 for a term returning over 3 million
results. 'twas an accident that I am there, and 'twas an accident that I
discovered it. Analyzing it is important.)

John Merrell
Gateway Farm Alpacas

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Cue: X-Files closing music...

Daniel Ruscoe

Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Sharon, like you I'm ratehr new. Yet I feel there is some gold in
those words and I'm not just talking about the debate. But trying to
sift through the words can be tough and that is the whole idea of this
post. Maybe those who have been around for awhile and have been
following their advise from the beginning can outline. Or even better,
maybe we will be visited by Sam and Dave themselves and they will
provide us a summary to their techniques.

Anyways, I thought it was worth a shot. Just trying to organize the
wisdom that is obviously there amongst the heated words.


Re: Not for Sam and SEO David unless they want to

SEO Dave is on the money and has provided many insights for my seo progress
thus far.


Site Timeline