PatHATIC Bulldust
In a recent blog enty on phatic.org the author claimed that adhering to the W3C standards is good for SEO. This is complete nonsense as many top sites do not validate to the W3C standards. This is discussed within the following thread at iServ in greater detail. I will not discuss that again. However, I thought I would do some checking on the SEO credentials of the author.
I chose to compare the statistics of:
- phatic.org
- schwoit.com
- iserv.com.au
- vilesilencer.com
The first test was to plug the site name into Google and see where it returned.
- phatic.org – Not in the top 100 when searching for the word phatic.
- schwoit.com – Ranked number 1 for the word schwoit. In fact the entire page is dominated by links to the domain or sub-domains.
- iserv.com.au – Ranks at number 2 for the word iServ.
- vilesilencer.com – Ranks at number 3, however the site that leads the way is a sub-domain owned by the same individual.
Not off to an auspicious start there.
The second test was to use a popular, yet not always accurate PageRank Prediction Tool.
Now while I don’t trust the results (PR is impossible to predict), I find it astounding that phatic.org has an unknown current PR, yet the owner speaks about SEO.
The third test is via Alexa.
- phatic.org
- Traffic Rank for – No Data
- Sites Linking in – 6 (one of which is iserv.com.au)
- schwoit.com
- Traffic Rank for schwoit.com – 3,642,649
- Other sites that link to this site – 88
- iserv.com.au
- Traffic Rank for iserv.com.au – 63,219
- Other sites that link to this site – 63
- vilesilencer.com
- Traffic Rank for vilesilencer.com – 9,644
- Other sites that link to this site – 50
Again no information.
Clearly this site is new right? Wrong, phatic.org has been around since 17th June 2005. Clearly the owner has no idea about SEO and as such his assertion that complying to W3C standards has no basis for belief, and should correctly attract contempt.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
The funniest part of this is that because Monty was linked to by some other websites which didn’t have a pea-brain for an owner, Phatic actually once had a PR5. Monty brought it down though because the content quality was poor and as such inbound links were lost.
That happens when websites go from being something even slightly interesting and descend into a daily personal attack on rival site owners.
To an extent that has happened on iServ though at the same time I include sufficient other content which people do find interesting. Monty clearly doesn’t have the capacity to do that and the fact that he re-launched his PR0 site with a tirade of abuse on myself and people of my acquaintance proves that point.
This afternoon Monty claimed to be a landlord. Big deal. Anyone with a rich dad can score a renovator’s dream and with some professional help, turn it into something of value however these people are the ones that fail later in life because they don’t know or understand how to live off meagre earnings.
I am a high wage earner but about ten years ago I wasn’t. So I know how life on both sides of the poverty line works. I prepared myself for the worst and have earned the position I now have. Whilst that hasn’t changed my outlook on life or my ability to interact with normal people, a bit of prosperity, assuming that Monty is telling the truth about having three houses, sees Monty beating his chest and having a good toss over the situation.
The whole thing makes me laugh and more will be said about it tonight on iServ and in finishing I see that Schwoit.com, despite being a fairly new site, has managed to escalate to PR4. This is outstanding and reflects the desire of the owner to champion the cause of intelligent discussion. Well done and I wish this site every success.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Monty has no knowledge of SEO, webdesign, web standards or the internet. So it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that it has no ranking in search engines or traffic meters.
It also has no personality, so no one would naturally link to it.
Since it has no plans on changing its lack of knowledge or its lack of personality, its site will be wallowing in the mire for quite some time.
It really is just a little internet pest, and the less time spent on little bugs the better. This particular one is beneath you and should be squashed under your shoe.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I’d like to know where I actually wrote
Once you do that, then I’ll address your concerns.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Scott it is implicit with the statement:
Which is from Regarding Phatic written on Tuesday, 13th February 2007.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
So, how does Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) equate with Search Engine Rankings in relation to what I was writing? There is no-where in that article where I mentioned the acronym SEO was there?
Seems to me as though your trying to jump on the bandwagon to get in the good books by stretching the truth, hey?
You sure you want to go there Mr. Shadowknight?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Or should I say, Mr. Dean Thompson?
March 21st, 2007 at 12:53 am
Whilst the acronym SEO was not mentioned specifically, the practice of SEO and search engine ranking go hand in hand. Rankings are driven off of search results, and whether I write content to the strict letter of the W3C
“standard” or not makes little difference to those results. What makes a difference is well thought out and targeted content. Hence that is the point, the W3C standard and tat comment do not align themselves at all, it is little more than a sales gimmick put out by W3C. The rest of the original article is fine, and as a result I have not questioned the rest of the articles validity. That one statement is the entire issue.
As for “trying to jump on the bandwagon to get in the good books”, I would not have written anything on iServ until all the comment alterations of opposing viewpoints began. The constant presentation of your view or no view was the straw that shattered my silence. I have though endeavoured to concentrate on specific points, not a personality. I have done this deliberately for the following reasons:
1. Your beef with Brad and Dan is between yourselves.
2. It is an attempt to bring some balance to the argument.
As for this site, my contributions are free of arguments based on personal attacks. With all discussions presented being focussed on specific statements, not a general comment about an individual or personality. All comments are produced as submitted on this site, unless the comment is clearly spam. Hence the comments of Brad, Dan, and yourself (Scott) are shown and respected.
I welcome any further comments.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Shadowknight,
You are correct. The mention of ‘improving search engine rankings’ implies that one is ‘optimising’ for the ’search engine’ in order to improve ranking(s). Even simple things like providing a title in your title tags, or using meta tags, or even writing frequently on your blog or website is considered SEO. Because all these things work at improving your rank.
Adhering to W3C involves work, but doesn’t improve your search engine rank. Read that as fact.
Take it from an expert. Monty (Scott) has absolutely no idea of how to improve search engine rank, despite thinking it is an easy topic to master. Try finding his website in the search engines. You won’t, despite the fact that it now validates.
Enough said.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
iwebtool has got pretty good choice of tools for SEO and PR building and you took the most out of it ans shared that information with us. pretty good!