Comments on: Eric Lander’s Day One Recap of SMX Advanced in Seattle

By: Gab

Gab — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:39:00 +0000

I had 5 slides onnly cuz I wanted people’s attention on what I was saying, not reading slides. Also, I tripped up with too many slides at SMX WEst. Your notes may also be thin cuz I was trying to copycat Seth GOdin and use pictures rather than text in my slides. Harder to take notes with that.

“For example, I’ve seen many questionable sites with search queries being indexed.” I’d love for you to share them.

That said, G are the ones who’ve said it’s something they’re doing for high quality sites; if you read my post on submarine crawling (“Understand Search and Value Links like Matt Cutts with Submarine Crawling) you’ll see why I think they’re doing it, and why I doubt that it would grow to average/crummy sites too.

Everest wasn’t so much planning as
a) research
b) protection from google smackdown on bought sites
c) strong domains/base camp = key.

Glad you liked the style in any case :).

By: Eric Lander, Associate Editor

Eric Lander, Associate Editor — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:23:28 +0000

@Gab – I’ve gone back through my notes and also accessed your presentation online via SMX. Both though seem to be pretty thin, which is why I didn’t cover your presented topics in my initial post. Were there only 5 slides to your individual panel?

Either way, here’s my quick recap… I liked your recommendations of planning ahead, finding niche sites in a space and treating the situation as something incredibly important.

You likened buying sites for SEO to be similar to climbing Everest. I get why you did that (to hammer home the point of planning ahead), but I’m not sure it’s that serious for most site acquisitions.

I was not sold on how you presented the concept of submarine crawling. For example, I’ve seen many questionable sites with search queries being indexed. Perhaps there was too much focus on that concept? Or, too much reliance on an assumption of Google and WP powered search boxes?

Really though, that’s only my opinion.

In terms of how you presented – there’s no problems there. You speak clearly and are certainly comfortable in your approach, As always, your material was well prepared and you presented it well.

By: Gab Goldenberg

Gab Goldenberg — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:11:07 +0000

Can you give me some feedback on what you liked/didn’t like Eric? Seems like I was pointedly left out, which is cool if you thought I sucked n would rather not have said so and embarass me. But I’d really like some constructive feedback if that is the case.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:01:17 +0000

Hey, you attended the same things as me!

SMX Advanced was pretty awesome.

In response to page sculpting, I believe that Google’s algorithms probably have some sort of way for compensating for the “privacy policy” pages on the web – they probably have some way of “categorizing” pages as non-important – rendering PR sculpting useless. It definitely seems like a waste of time.

By: Eddy DeMelo

Eddy DeMelo — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:23:57 +0000

Nice recap! I’m still bummed that I didn’t get to go. Maybe next year. Anyway, I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s recap and the upcoming articles!

By: Eric Lander, Associate Editor

Eric Lander, Associate Editor — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:56:47 +0000

Typos!? What typos? I don’t see anything wrong here :)

By: shoemoney

shoemoney — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:43:03 +0000

“This was cool in that it allowed Jeremy Shoemaker to make he first panel”

Are the typos and misspellings a tribute to me ? 8)