Comments on: Microsoft Search Marketing Vs. Google Search Marketing (Beta)

By: Lucky Lester

Lucky Lester — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:54:17 +0000

I can’t help but wonder if Google will be changing their logo (as they often do on special occasions) to show the replacement of the “OO” with pictures of the “see no evil, do no evil and hear no evil” monkeys? I doubt it as that would be patently untrue.

By: DavidDalka

DavidDalka — Mon, 21 May 2007 04:25:51 +0000

Danny, Thank you for your relentless discussion of this issue, it’s a necessary voice.

Here are some of my initial thoughts:
http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2007/05/20/building-chinese-walls-for-search-engines-and-advertising-agencies/

By: Leif

Leif — Sun, 20 May 2007 09:49:55 +0000

As long as there are big walls between the search engine parts of the companies and the parts doing SEO, I suppose this is acceptable. However, the lure to “cheat”, even if it is just by providing some inside info seems too big to ignore.

By: Jonah Stein

Jonah Stein — Sat, 19 May 2007 06:34:45 +0000

Danny

Not to quibble with your artistic license nor ignore your considerable wit, but does Razorfish offer SEO?

They talk about PPC and online media, but their site does not talk about SEO. The only mention of optimization is “site optimization”, which I believe is actually conversion testing. I looked at a couple of their client sites from among the examples they list. Without getting trying to out anyone in particular, I cannot imagine them getting top rank for much.

One site was essentially devoid of text and another, a PR7 site with a solid brand, had about 75,000 pages in the supplemental versus a couple hundred in the normal index. Many of them member profile pages with no unique content.

By: Gang0rraZ

Gang0rraZ — Sat, 19 May 2007 03:57:14 +0000

From the Desk of Gang0rraZ
Friday, May 18 11:55PM
The Internet

Dear Danny,

Keeping those SEO companies after the purchase sounds like too evil. Who is more evil Google or Microsoft for doing this?

Your fan,
Gang0rraZ