Talk:Search engine optimization

Proposal to Expand Section on Core Web Vitals in SEO

Hello,

I’ve been reviewing the Search Engine Optimization article, and I believe the section on on-page SEO techniques could benefit from an update. Given the recent emphasis Google has placed on Core Web Vitals as a ranking signal, this topic seems underrepresented in the current article.

Would it be worth expanding this section to include a breakdown of Core Web Vitals (Largest Contentful Paint, First Input Delay, and Cumulative Layout Shift) and their importance in modern SEO strategies? There’s solid research from sources like Google’s Web.dev and independent SEO research firms like Moz that could be used as references.

I’d be happy to help provide references and structure the update if the community agrees it would add value to the article. Looking forward to your feedback! Shahzaibahmadkhan (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It would depend on the sources used, taking note of the spam warnings on your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Core Web Vitals is not a major ranking signal and it's only specific to Google. Search engine optimization is about managing the relationship between Websites and ALL search engines. There is no justification for including a section about Core Web Vitals in this article. It seriously needs clean up. Adding more Google-specific content that isn't even significant will just make it less useful. Michael Martinez (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Blog networks are not link farms, and vice versa

There is no Wikipedia-acceptable reliable source that accurately describes the difference between a "blog network" and a "link farm". These articles have been challenged by some Wikipedians for not sourcing their statements of fact correctly, and that's just never going to happen because the people who created these spam systems don't publish academic papers, aren't profiled by the Wall Street Journal, and aren't considered reliable sources. A link farm is any group of Websites that all link to each other [regardless of whether they are blogs] for the purpose of manipulating or influencing search engine crawling, indexing, and/or ranking. The link farms were created by adding pages filled with links to existing Websites. They had nothing to do with blogging.

Link spammers turned to creating blog networks that sold home page backlinks after the link farms were killed off by the search engines. The blog networks did NOT all link to each other. They merely sold links to other sites. This article and the Link Farm article should not be using the terms interchangeably. That's like saying killer whales are sharks because they're both sea predators. Michael Martinez (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey Michael Martinez - I think the edit that flagged your concern was one that I made, and it was not intended to cause trouble or make it so that this article was taking a stance on this. I noticed that "blog network" was linking to "link farm" and so I tried to call out clearly where that link was going to take someone before they clicked it. You made the right call by just deleting that out. I think this is definitely an issue within Wikipedia, and a distinction that's needed, but not sure where to take this from here.Dflovett (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is a mess and doesn't really do things the Wikipedia way. But for reasons I explained above, there's never going to be a Wikipedia way to document search engine optimization accurately. There are no industry standards, everyone (even in academia) just makes up terminology for their own purposes, and the people who pioneered some of these techniques (including me) are considered Primary Sources (although there is a suggested way to use them - Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources - Wikipedia). At this point, my goal is just to keep the confusion in the article to a minimum. I don't have time and energy to do much actual editing on Wikipedia these days. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

please allow me to edit Abs sadiq (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Read the instructions in the tag you placed in your request. And if you're hoping to drop a link in the article to your Website, that won't last more than 10 minutes at most. Michael Martinez (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2025

I would like to add an internal link to the term "target audience" in the sentence:

Current text: which search engines are preferred by a target audience.

Proposed change in source editor format: which search engines are preferred by a target audience.

This will link the phrase "target audience" to the Wikipedia article on Target audience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_audience), providing additional context and helping readers understand the term better. Digital Dharmesh (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Note: I'm not convinced it's needed. M.Bitton (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Due to M.Bitton opposing the requested edit, I am marking this as not done for now, once a consensus has been reached, you may reopen the request. Shadow311 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Updating Keyword Stuffing Section for Modern Algorithms (BERT, RankBrain)

While keyword stuffing is still recognized as a bad practice, I believe the article should mention newer search algorithms like BERT, RankBrain, and their focus on understanding user intent and context. Perhaps we can update the section to reflect the evolution of search engine algorithms. ASWATHI S Nambiar (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Please propose a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe search engine land is a reliable source, they publish articles, analyses, and research reports on SEO and search engine algorithms.

https://searchengineland.com/library/platforms/google/google-algorithm-updates

ASWATHI S Nambiar (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on your talk page, you have previously been warned about promotional editing, so I can't help but suspect your intentions for wanting to add this site are promotional. Do you have any affiliation with it? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggested Search Engine Land because it provides a clear explanation of BERT and RankBrain's impact on keyword stuffing, a topic currently lacking in the Wikipedia article.

I believe this information is crucial for an update. I'm also happy to supplement it with corroborating sources like Search Engine Journal and Moz. My goal is to improve the article, not promote any specific site. ASWATHI S Nambiar (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)