• http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    “Most SEOs that have been in the industry for a while would largely agree that overall domain SEO performance can be generalised to be a balance between the total backlink profile of the site (its ‘Authority’) and the total number of pages indexed on the domain (the total ‘Domain Sprawl’).”

    I stopped reading at this ridiculous statement.

  • http://www.highrankings.com/ Jill Whalen

    Correct, Michael. Most SEOs would NOT agree to that statement.

  • Henley Wing

    Hey Jill, what do you find wrong with that statement?

  • Daniel Freedman

    With reference to the statement in red on the screen shot of the BBC site, is the author actually suggesting that content that is unlikely to be adding any traffic is “poor value?”

    If so, the author fundamentally misunderstands the BBC’s mission and values and sees the world with SEO blinders. A page that attracts even a handful of views long after it was published can be immensely valuable to its users.

    Pursued to its logical extreme, this mistaken line of reasoning would have the BBC purge dated or unpopular content.

    But, of course, this is the LAST thing the BBC should do.

    The BBC is not selling widgets,

  • http://uk.queryclick.com/ Chris Liversidge

    It is a ‘massive generalisation’ Michael, as I stated in the next line. I would stand by it though – I’d be interested to know what you think is incorrect about it. If you were to try to generalise SEO in a single sentence from your experience, how would you go about it?

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    There is really nothing in the sentence that is supportable. How I would describe SEO isn’t relevant to the fact that you wrote a simply incredible statement of fact that I find to be completely unbelievable.

  • http://uk.queryclick.com/ Chris Liversidge

    Hi Daniel, I agree the BBC isn’t selling widgets, but I think they would be better served migrating their *ranking* ability for terms related to ‘Labour budget’ or ‘Budget cuts’ to a page that still directly relates to those terms but is not a) out of date (content refers to 2001), and b) off-brand.

    Even for the BBC branding and in particular usability and accessibility are important.

    There are also legal questions to consider, such as the fact these pages do not trigger the cookie usage alert that’s now obligatory for UK sites.
    By only following the canonical redirections, this content can then still be surfaced using internal search tools or navigation, preserving it for use by those genuinely researching 2001 election policy reporting.

  • Daniel Freedman

    Hi, Chris. Thanks for the reply. I understand what you’re saying. But we’ll have to agree to disagree. I can assure you most BBC journalists, viewers and listener would either cringe at your suggestions — or think that following them would be “off brand.”

  • http://uk.queryclick.com/ Chris Liversidge

    Well the only impact to those people would be any general initial Google search landing them on a more recently updated BBC page (and more frequently on the BBC in general for general search terms) – they’d still be able to access the content via the BBC site itself.

    I don’t think that’s a bad searcher experience of damaging to the BBC’s brand.