SEO Training

[Siebird]

I tried googling 'SEO Training' because I want to take some classes/seminar. I got hundreds of hits companies that offer this. Can anyone recommend a top notch firm that offers excellent training? I know a little a bit about SEO, but haven't really got my hands dirty. Thanks

[stymiee]

Read forums and websites dedicated to discussing SEO. You'll learn more and won't get only one point of view which is usually a bad thing. Remember, those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

[bigalreturns]

Originally Posted by asiewe61

I know a little a bit about SEO, but haven't really got my hands dirty. Thanks

Then what are you waiting for? Get those hands filthy in the muck of SEO, it's the best way to learn.

[romanpalo]

The best resources are forums dedicated to SEO. I suggest you join affiliate marketing forums. There are plenty of them. You just need to find time to study and digest everything.

[Siebird]

Originally Posted by romanpalo

The best resources are forums dedicated to SEO. I suggest you join affiliate marketing forums. There are plenty of them. You just need to find time to study and digest everything.

Suggestions?/Links?

[ArdRigh]

You can visit bruceclay.com for trainings about SEO. They offer lots of trainings about search engine optimization, Internet Marketing and Website Promotion.

[akritic]

I'm trying my hand at SEO, and so far (even using meta tags --only a few) I've managed to get to page 5 in google

Still work to be done, no doubt, but it's worth trying things, and this forum is good for info, you just need to read all the great replies to problems, can give you ideas and inspiration!

[ckita]

Learning online from forums and blogs are better i feel, sites like seomoz.com should be great for you, i've learn alot from sites like seomoz.

But if it makes you feel better to attend a class than there's the "Internet Marketing & SEO" class with the famousJohn Chow as one of the students.

[rcj662]

Forums and doing the actual work are the best way to learn. Remember no one has all the answers so take the ideas and see what works best for you.

[Hannah Edward]

Forums like this will help you learn a lot. People here will share their SEO learning experiences and will also give you tips for learning and will also offer answers to all your queries.

Cheers,
Hannah

[pollacks]

Originally Posted by ArdRigh

You can visit bruceclay.com for trainings about SEO. They offer lots of trainings about search engine optimization, Internet Marketing and Website Promotion.

yup... this site will help you they offer several courses for SEO...

[jadehat]

If you have $5k-$25k to spend, try SEOMoz.

If not, just read various forums and adsorb knowledge.

Oh, and buy Aaron Wall's SEO Book. It's the only one that matters.

[stymiee]

Originally Posted by jadehat

If you have $5k-$25k to spend, try SEOMoz.

Don't ever spend that kind of money to learn SEO. Ever. Seriously. You can learn everything you need to know for free just as easily and get better information, too.

Originally Posted by jadehat

Oh, and buy Aaron Wall's SEO Book. It's the only one that matters.

It sucks actually.

[jadehat]

Don't ever spend that kind of money to learn SEO. Ever. Seriously. You can learn everything you need to know for free just as easily and get better information, too.

Of course, SEOMoz prices are waaaay overblown, but I wouldn't say so about SEO training in general.

It sucks actually.

Aaron's book, together with human training, share one feature forums lack -- accuracy.

While browsing over major webmaster forums, too often I read horrors like 'how many visitors do I need to raise PR' or 'how does Alexa impacts Google ranking' etc etc.

Misinformation is much, much worse than lack of information.

[Hannah Edward]

I don't think you need to buy books for learning SEO. There are lot of information over the web try reading them you will get basic ideas of SEO. You can then learn in detail when you start implementing and from your own mistakes.

[bigalreturns]

Originally Posted by jadehat

Aaron's book, together with human training, share one feature forums lack -- accuracy.

While browsing over major webmaster forums, too often I read horrors like 'how many visitors do I need to raise PR' or 'how does Alexa impacts Google ranking' etc etc.

Misinformation is much, much worse than lack of information.

I don't regularly read the SEObook blog, but I was sure there must be a reason why I didn't, so I went and had a quick read through the archives, and believe me there are as many inaccuracies in his thinking as there are on any forums. For example, referring to the mythical -30 and -950 penalties, which are pure speculation. What disturbed me most was his belief and justification for .edu and .gov link power, and his thinking that the tld has automatic benefit. The man quotes Matt Cutts saying it's not true, but then uses his own, frankly pathetic, logic to argue against him...

Originally Posted by SEOBook

Google's Matt Cutts has argued that .edu and .gov links do not carry any more weight other than their raw PageRank scores being higher, but if they trust those resources enough to display them disproportionately more in the search results, then wouldn't they also be likely to trust how those resources voted for other pages more as well?

Hopefully I don't need to explain why this isn't a good argument!

Now I agree that misinformation is worse than no information. But I'd rather see misinformation from an anonymous forum poster than from a man who has published books on the subject.

[stymiee]

Originally Posted by jadehat

Aaron's book, together with human training, share one feature forums lack -- accuracy.

Um, his book is inaccurate. The fact that he provides information [/i]that he knows is wrong[/i] should be a clear sign that someone shouldn't be learning SEO from this book.

Originally Posted by jadehat

While browsing over major webmaster forums, too often I read horrors like 'how many visitors do I need to raise PR' or 'how does Alexa impacts Google ranking' etc etc.

Misinformation is much, much worse than lack of information.

Those are stupid questions, not stupid answers. As with anything you need to judge the sources of the answers. There are a lot of great answers in this SEO forum and a lot of logical and well thought out reasoning behind them. Don't buy into the whole ebook thing. Anyone can write an ebook.

[jadehat]

Um, his book is inaccurate. The fact that he provides information [/i]that he knows is wrong[/i] should be a clear sign that someone shouldn't be learning SEO from this book.

Quotes, please. From the book, not the blog. I've stopped reading his blog ages ago, because it's turns more and more on the crappy side together with SEOMoz.

Those are stupid questions, not stupid answers.

I agree. 'Links don't matter as long as you have good content', 'PR algorithm is changed constantly, because rankings fluctuate', 'META tags are the foremost part of on-page optimization' etc are stupid answers.

As with anything you need to judge the sources of the answers.

Perhaps it's just me, but when I can tell at the glance, is answer is stupid or not, I don't need it at all. And as for sources... Big authorities can utter absolute stupidities, and unknown SEOs can provide priceless insights.

There are a lot of great answers in this SEO forum and a lot of logical and well thought out reasoning behind them.

And also a lot of complete rubbish, misleading and misinformation. Sorry to bash the forum I'm new to, but compared to two other webmaster forums I frequent (digitalpoint and v7n), general quality of SEO discussions is quite lower.

Don't buy into the whole ebook thing. Anyone can write an ebook.

Wholeheartedly agree. In last years, 'ebook' became a synonym for 'rubbish' somehow.

Whoa. A long post.

[bigalreturns]

Originally Posted by jadehat

And also a lot of complete rubbish, misleading and misinformation. Sorry to bash the forum I'm new to, but compared to two other webmaster forums I frequent (digitalpoint and v7n), general quality of SEO discussions is quite lower.

Well the nature of a forum is that anyone can post an answer, so it follows that there's always going to be some poorly thought through answers. As stymiee said it's up to the reader to assess the logic and reasoning behind the answers and come to their own conclusions. The two forums you mention, I've never read the v7n one so can't comment, but I've had looks through the DP one, and it contains many more inaccuracies than you'll find at SP. Reading their stickied SEO FAQ you'll see recommendations that .org and .gov links carry more weight...I stopped paying attention at that point and came back to SitePoint!

[jadehat]

Reading their stickied SEO FAQ you'll see recommendations that .org and .gov links carry more weight...

Their stickied Google FAQ says explicitly that .gov/.edu do not carry more weight. Just checked it.

Anyway, .gov/.edu issue is one of the most disputed questions in SEO community. There is no one answer to this question.

Problem is that absolute majority of existing .gov/.edu domains really have more weight. Question is -- is that because of their TLD or their natural trust value (which is high?).

Hard to say, very hard to say for sure.

PS. And don't quote Matt Cutts. .edu spam is question of prime concern for Google (just search for 'buy viagra' -- results change every few hours, but at any given time at least half of the links are spammed .edus), so his statement that .edu and .gov links have no innate value could be either true or false (to try to persuade spammers that .edus are not good targets for spam).

[stymiee]

Originally Posted by jadehat

Their stickied Google FAQ says explicitly that .gov/.edu do not carry more weight. Just checked it.

Anyway, .gov/.edu issue is one of the most disputed questions in SEO community. There is no one answer to this question.

Problem is that absolute majority of existing .gov/.edu domains really have more weight. Question is -- is that because of their TLD or their natural trust value (which is high?).

Hard to say, very hard to say for sure.

PS. And don't quote Matt Cutts. .edu spam is question of prime concern for Google (just search for 'buy viagra' -- results change every few hours, but at any given time at least half of the links are spammed .edus), so his statement that .edu and .gov links have no innate value could be either true or false (to try to persuade spammers that .edus are not good targets for spam).

How can you say it is hard to say for sure when Matt Cutts, who has explicit knowledge of Google algorithm, flat out said there is no arbitrary bonus for those TLDs? Seriously.

And if you need a logical reason behind it, here's what we've been saying at SitePoint long before Matt Cutts confirmed it:

From the Search Engine Optimization FAQ:

It is also commonly believed that .gov and .edu sites are given preferential treatment from search engines. This is also untrue. Web pages on .edu and .gov domains tend to rank well because they contain quality content and many webmasters will link to their content as a result. Both of these are key elements in SEO. But the fact that they are .edu or .gov domains does not benefit them directly in the SERPs.

[jadehat]

Web pages on .edu and .gov domains tend to rank well because they contain quality content and many webmasters will link to their content as a result. Both of these are key elements in SEO.

Wrong. Web pages on educational and governmental domains tend to rank well because they were in the roots of Internet, and academic community is one of the most interconnected communities in the world.

ERCIM.org, Keio.ac.jp or nsf.gov are all PR10. Do you think they are linked en masse from anywhere but the academic community?

How can you say it is hard to say for sure when Matt Cutts, who has explicit knowledge of Google algorithm, flat out said there is no arbitrary bonus for those TLDs? Seriously.

"Don't believe what a multi-billion corporation tells you" (c) cluelessphp.

Google isn't telling you that Firefox 2.0 gathers your usage habits even without GToolbar installed. Google isn't telling you that it *can* banish MFAs, but won't because they provide a huge part of Google's income, etc, etc. Google isn't telling a lot of things.

[stymiee]

Originally Posted by jadehat

Wrong. Web pages on educational and governmental domains tend to rank well because they were in the roots of Internet, and academic community is one of the most interconnected communities in the world.

ERCIM.org, Keio.ac.jp or nsf.gov are all PR10. Do you think they are linked en masse from anywhere but the academic community?

Wrong? Do you even know Google works? There is no bonus for being "a root of the Internet". Those universities link to each other because they are quality sites and institutions and an obvious respect for each other. If one of those sites suddenly became a porn site do you think the others would still link to it? No. They link to it and continue to do so because they consider it a respected institution offering quality information and resources. Basically, what I said in my previous post.

[bigalreturns]

Originally Posted by jadehat

Their stickied Google FAQ says explicitly that .gov/.edu do not carry more weight. Just checked it.

Originally Posted by DP sticky thread

Link from .org and .edu sites:
The education and organization sites are considered more valued sites and links coming from those sites are valuable link. You need to search those sites.

That's a direct quote from a stickied thread in the DP link building forum.

[jadehat]

Wrong? Do you even know Google works?

All of us know, and all of us do not. It all depends on the definition.

Those universities link to each other because they are quality sites and institutions and an obvious respect for each other.

Exactly. Link to each other.

many webmasters will link to their content as a result.

And that's what you've said.

Do you see the difference yourself or should I point it out?