Wikipedia starts listing SEO's


It looks like Wikipedia starts listing SEO's... I don't know what to think about this.
Full Story

Famous SEOs
Brett Tabke
Bruce Clay
Danny Sullivan
Jill Whalen
Matt Cutts

For example, Matt Cutts isn't techincally an SEO... perhaps he could be called the 'SEO police / Sheriff' :)

Bruce and Jill both own SEO firms, They are missing Aaron Wall and Chris Ridings from SearchGuild from that list.. (something that I would of had listed up there)

I thought it's worth a discussion.

Someone needs to clean up that Wiki Article.


Speaks for itself

Doesn't the fact that it lists MC as a Famous SEO say it all?

Yes...let's discuss this knowledgable and usefull listing... man, I am going back to the CIA and consiracy theory lunacy... as good as any lately round here huh?

haha ha ha ha.....

Oh... and ain't 'famous' a tad subjective? Few folks I know (even in the web development industry) even know who the fish any of them are.... a fame... such a fleeting thing...

The list could be longer, shorter or completely meaningless depending on whom U talk with...

Silliness.... find me a shrubbery

A couple of people on that

A couple of people on that list haven't done Optimization in years.

that article is a POS

I ranted on it like just yesterday :)

Don't forget that they classify SEO as part of the spamming series

the page also says shit like

Google's market share of daily searches has fallen rapidly from 75% to 56% over the past few years, as other search engines find many web pages that Google has banned and cannot display due to Google's severely limited index.

i fixed it

added Doug Heil

No BlackKnight ?

No BlackKnight ?

why single out anyones name...

I dont think its fair too mention names of people... unless of course Al Gore, because he invented the Internet.



i fixed it added Doug

i fixed it
added Doug Heil

I snorted water through my nose when I read that....I must remember not to drink when I read here.


If they're going to list seo's then Doug fits in there ...somewhere. Right?


When you go to edit the page it has a comment

This is not the place to add your clever linkspam

I think its time to write our companys wiki bio ...lmao... the whoring out of wiki.


Doug's name has been removed. I protest, he has a long-standing forum and is well-known in the industry.


The page of the admin doing the edits ZimZalaBim (I swear I averted my eyes and was on my knees while reading it) has some interesting links on it. Especially the admin ones down at the bottom ...

Doug's back up!

Someone put him back up!


Quality or quanity

Just because they are famous doesn't mean they are good. No offense but how many people are gonna start dumping their name there.


That is exactly my point on starting this thread... that wikipedia article recently has turned into a link farm for some SEO forums, name dropping (currently) and has become literally the dumping ground of who can edit the fastest and can cut and repaste their BS over and over again from as many IP's as possible.

It's bullocks to the N'th level.

Hence why I am in favor of re-writing the article to literally discribe what it is, SEO in a 1 page document that discribes literally (not how it's done, but why it's done).

and that page needs a strict no link out policy.


Instead of listing people's names, it should say:

"Search Engine Optimization is the attempt at ranking a website higher in the SERPS (Search Engine Results Pages) with the hope of increasing visitors to the website."

When people start leaving that and start listing people's names, that is exactly the moment when the document becomes worthless.

>doesn't mean they are good

"Famous" is less subjective than "good" so let's run with this bull. Doug is famous. Any WP editors here, I want him on that list. If he's not included then it is obvious (already obvious, really) that the list was started with a bias.

So, I suggest we make Doug the litmus test. He fits their criteria, so why shouldn't he be included?

I am all for including him

I am all for including him, I wouldn't touch his profile page with a 10 foot pole because no one here wants to be sued.

But technically speaking, you are correct.. he is just as famous as any of the other ones listed there.

looks like

poor Doug's been nuked again.

He's back!

Bruce Clay
Danny Sullivan
Jill Whalen
Matt Cutts
Doug Heil

LOL ... the WP editor will ban you if you keep adding it..

I'm In There... do a little adjusting...


How about No Famous People? Did I tell you how famous I am to my clients and their wives? Rofl. Seriously, by listing it as Famous SEOs you might as well just be saying, "Go here for SEO". You gonna tell me that you would recommend any of those people. I wouldn't. Its kind of a sore spot to talk about marketing and then name drop a few people. Talk about what it is, but don't promote a few businesses to drive potential business to when there is plenty very legitimate SEO companies out there. This isnt the yellow pages. Its an encyclopedia.

The Founder is spot on. Talk about what SEO is. Not make a mockery of it.

"This page explains what SEO is and also what could be considered SPAM or black hat techniques. Notice that we have managed to drop a whole bunch of names at the bottom so they can filter out some good link backs from this article."

I dont have enough time to

I dont have enough time to do my stuff let alone write lots of shit for someone else.

Gimp, that came from the soul. You should write blues songs.

Honestly, though, I hear ya, and I feel the same way.

I dislike the part about hats. I'm so sick of the black hat/ white hat nonsense.

>ban you

I'm already a, ummm, errr, person of contention at WP from long ago. In their mail system, there's even a pronouncement from On High (Wales himself) telling the troops that they should rollback my entries (about half mutinied and kept them --hence the contention).

BUT I'm not the one adding Doug back, I only entered him the first time. Evidently, I've made a contentious entry once again.


i prefer blue cap with an "NY" on the front.

Please add to the Famous

Please add to the Famous SEO's:

Chuck Norris

All his shit is PR11.

Famous SEOs

Piffle and Bollocks

no longer Famous

just Noteworthy


Noteworthy is much more NPV and the qualifications for being "noteworthy" are lower than that for being "famous" ...

Thanks for all the fish

...and thanks for all the fine contributions to the article. Please read it and fix anything you like, but be sure cite reliable sources.

Looking at the discussion

Looking at the discussion page I'm glad to see that the folks now editing it at least know about the field and the people involved.

Ooops! Dougie's gone again. Guess that means he's famous but not noteworthy.

three revert rule

This may be of help to some of you...

Sorry, DaveN

Somebody nuked you, hhh. You and Doug. Maybe they don't like SEOs with the first names starting with D's.



Somebody do something already with, ok?

like DMOZ

In entries like this is (by its own definition), Wikipedia -like DMOZ- is an exercise in arbitrary rule. Maddening ...but kind of fun to watch them, too.

Those guys have been there

Those guys have been there like FOREVER. And you are allowed to link only to existing articles (not external links).

a.k.a. is that like an MBA

Lots of a.k.a's there, is that like an MBA for SEO's?

a k a

Hell, you know better than anyone that we don't know people by their real names. (Remember trying to go to real names at Pubconference #1 --lasted maybe 10 minutes.)


From Peanut Butter Boy to famous SEO in a matter of a few years...congrats to Aaron!

also nuked

Black Knight
Bill Slawski

This is kind of like watching a bug zapper.

I took a screen cap

of the brief moment my name was listed. Now I can prove to my children that I was once in the Wiki....

Dude, haven't heard? Anyone

Dude, haven't heard? Anyone that ever changes a single web page is an SEO (not that that's a bad thing).

Not that there's anything wrong with that

Some of my best friends are SEOs! No, really!


i threw your name up there ...can't figure why it stuck.

Matt is no longer a SEO...

Google Engineers

* Matt Cutts

Personally I think that whole page... a marketing ploy by people from SEMPO and the SMA and as such should be severely edited and have a no links external links policy instituted.


Hehehe...I have been Wiki'd, and it wasn't even due to me spamming this time.

On that article either they should do no links, or they are still missing a lot of people that should be listed, like Ammon Johns, Greg Boser, Mike Grehan, and Rand. I can't see how I would be listworthy if Greg isn't on there.

I don't think that Wikipedia article is that hosed as an isolated incident...I think it is that way because the current rule sets and social structure of that organization create a framework, which promotes low level generalists with a self aggrandizing authority complex to assume they always know best...even better than true topical experts. But then a misinformed market is one that is easier to exploit profit from I guess.

I think we only notice how hosed that article is because we know the topic so well. If we knew other topics as well many of them would appear just as hosed.


I agree, Greg should be on there.

If people are missing you can help

Wikipedia is a work in progress. If people are missing, you can help by writing an article. It looks like Jill has volunteered to write Greg's article.


"And you are allowed to link only to existing articles"

So lets see the SEO Wiki page links to jill's wiki page and aaron's wiki page, then those pages link to their webpages. Which part of this isn't taking advantage of a good link back? Maybe everyone of the first page of Google for SEO should be listed there because hey lets admit it, thats a competitive word and its pretty noteworthy if you got that placement.

Sorry, guys and girls, not to single you just continuing my expression of angst at the idea. Aaron you know i link love ya ;)

The criteria for having a Wikipedia page

Matt, the criteria for having a Wikipedia page is that the person has to be noteworthy. You can find the wiki page the defines notability, but for these people they've satisfied the requirements by being the subject of multiple news articles published in a well known periodical with editorial supervision. It has nothing to do with search rankings, competency, ethics or how much anybody loves them. [A Notorious Blackhat who Dislikes Aaron] probably deserves a Wikipedia page too, though it wouldn't be very flattering, seeing how his criminal conviction is in the public record, as well as all the legal motions.

>>And you are allowed to

>>And you are allowed to link only to existing articles

This sounds a little bit like a walled garden.

alrighty then

Alright I stand corrected... jill, aaron, danny, etc should be there. My whole thing is I can image link droppers just taking advantage of this page. But as I can see, there are enough anal retentive people in this industry (including myself) to not let that happen. ROFL!

But I'm not sure on that whole notoriety thing, I thought I remembered a lot of Joe Schmoes who have put up a Wikipedia page.

ps- hi brad ;)

How to deal with Joe Schmoe

If you find a Wikipedia page that doesn't establish notability, you can tag the page with {{notability}} and that will put it on the radar. Either the editors will clean it up and add references, or some "exclusionist" Wikipedians will swoop in and tag it with {{AfD}}, articles for deletion.


From what I read you can only have your name on the page if you are 'notable' which by wiki definition implies you have a wiki page all of your own - so no matter how often people add a name as a SEO worthy of mention, until you get a wiki page you are not notable... now it also probably says somwhere in the 'rules' that to have your own wiki page you have to be notable and that means having your name mentioned on other wiki pages... I need coffee :/

Here's the notability guideline, its not a rule

Here's the notability guideline for people. It's not a rule:


Well I guess thats why Joe Schmoe could have Wiki pages... because its only a guideline and nobody pays attention enough to Joe to bother tagging the page :)


>Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated

... may I be excused

It looks like Jill has volunteered to write Greg's article.

I don't know enough about Greg to do that. But I do know that Greg has been in the industry for pretty much ever, and for good or bad, he is notable!

Hoarding tendency....

This sounds a little bit like a walled garden.

Yup, WP looks a bit incestuous these days (pardon, LOL) Some editors are even mentioning "pagerank" (sic) as a reason not to link out to other sources. That's just sad IMO.

Problem with listing names

See Jill this is my problem with this, listing people right and left based on what exactly?

Time in the industry?
Number of Clients?
How many SEO forums they moderate or own?

You start to see my point, exactly what defines 'notable'

up until 2005 or so SEO Inc was listed all over the place as #1 for Search Engine Optimization in Google... so does Garry Grant deserve to be on that list?

And for all the teasing and poking fun, how about Doug from IHelpyou? Does he deserve to be on that list, controversial he is.. comical he is (according to many) however is he notable?

I still don't see Chris Ridings up there, and honestly he is one of the better respected SEO's in the UK

How about Jeremy Zawodny? If Matt Cutts is up there how about Jeremy?

Trust me Jill... I could expand this list to 100 if not more...

This lies the problem.

>should be on there

> they are still missing a lot of people that should be listed, like Ammon Johns, Greg Boser, Mike Grehan, and Rand

I put all those mentioned and more on there. All are current admins, moderators, and in nearly all instances, notable conference speakers. No links to anywhere because they didn't have a page on wikipedia. BUT, having read through the editors' discussions I saw no rule requiring a WP article before submitting a name. I may be mistaken, I might have missed it, but I did read over their discussion thread first. Particularly this part:

Some famous SEOs now have Wikipedia pages that appear to be supported by references that establish notability. I've added those I've found. Once this list gets a bit bigger, I would like to separate it to List of SEOs. Does somebody here know the protocol for creating lists? The point is to organize these articles in one place. This makes it easier to find them, and potentially easier to AfD those that are unworth. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Bruce Clay for now. Redlinks are an open invitation to spam. Bruce might qualify for the list. If you think so, create a page about him that passes the notability criteria of WP:BIO. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool Thx...

I created an Article for Bruce Clay and added it to the SEO Article. I would appreciate if any of you could check the article for accuracy and improve on it if you have something to add. Thanks. --roy Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed names listed without articles. If the person isn't notable enough to have an entry, there's no need to list them here. This isn't meant to be a "who's who" list. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It didn't seem to exclude "plain text" submissions outright --until the last entry, which was after the above submissions.

This thread is doing wonders for Threadwatch

If you think somebody should have an article, write one and post it. It's like our local Congregation -- they warn everybody that if you complain about something you'll be put in charge of it.

Once the list gets long, it will be broken out into a separate article 'List of Notable SEOs.' Size is no problem at all. There are lists and categories of professional athletes, famous actors, etc. which are much larger.

If you want to write about Doug, go for it. Send me a PM and I'll help you with the editing.


It's not a general rule, but *someone* added a comment to the article page itself. Fits current (unwritten) Wikipedia law rather well.....

>It's not a general rule, but

>Here's the notability guideline, its not a rule

I think I see the problem.

>write one and post it

No thanks. Too biased there:

"this article needs to be protected, since it is heavyly abused by SEO-professionals." Any thoughts? —tregoweth (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How presumptuous. I don't think SEO professionals are linkspamming. The linkspam comes from black hat SEO's and newcomers. We seem to have a good handle on the linkspam control here. This article is a magnet. By watching it we can rapidly identify the sources of linkspam and go revert their other spammy contributions on the lower profile articles. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the walled garden

Well the walled garden didn't work for AOL and I doubt it will work for Wikipedia.

On another note, why are only "Google Engineers" listed what about the other search engines? Wait, I forgot, Goggle is the whole world - resistance is useless.

While I have no strong opinion either way on Bruce Clay - why list Bruce? I don't remember Bruce Clay helping out at any of the major SEO forums. And while Bruce has a major SEO firm I suspect that he's included because he advertises way more visibly than most other SEO firms. Which is a good argument for branding BTW, but not a real good reason for being on the list. The other folks on there currently do deserve to be there but there are many glaring omissions. I don't say they have to be linked anything: either a Wiki page or an outside link. The value is in the information not the link. Once a reader has the name they can google it on Yahoo. ;-)


Well Bruce did help out many firms by charging a whole boat load of money on classes :)

"Once the list gets long, it will be broken out into a separate article 'List of Notable SEOs.'"

Oh great, now really make it worse. Who needs a big list of Notable SEOs. That will really be bollocks.


Guys / Girls..

I have to admit that jehochman is well open to working with us and the rest of the community regarding it.. (from what I gather he is the wikipedia editor for that area).

This is more than what we get from other areas... so in essance I applaud the openess with this.

>>from what I gather he is the wikipedia editor for that area

I was under the impression that anyone was the wikipedia editor for that area, or am I just being tremendously naive here?


"Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

anyone CAN edit

it's just a bitch to get it to stick

>>it's just a bitch to get it to stick

I guess it depends on your degree of equality (and yes, that book springs more and more often to mind as we talk about communities and social marketing and open participation...)

Once again the animals were conscious of a vague uneasiness. Never to have any dealings with human beings, never to engage in trade, never to make use of money — had not these been among the earliest resolutions passed...

The Founder

See Jill this is my problem with this, listing people right and left based on what exactly?

I agree! I think the task would be fairly impossible, and quite frankly I was suprised to not only see that someone attempted it, but that also I was listed there. (I had nothing to do with it, I swear!)


Hi Jill,

Trust me I believe you 100%

I don't think you or anyone up there initally listed did that and then proceeded to list Matt Cutts as an SEO. All the people initally listed up there would of not done something so comical.

Personally I think to start listing peoples name up there is going to be a bitter and fruitless excercise that should of never been attempted in the first place.

There's the problem:

There's the problem:

This article is a magnet. By watching it we can rapidly identify the sources of linkspam and go revert their other spammy contributions on the lower profile articles. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, it's a honey pot to get the SEO spammers to incriminate themselves, so wikipedia can then drop any other wikispam links submitted those same sources.

So the problem is, the wikipedia people think SEO spammers are dumb enough to link their activities, use their real IPs, usernames, etc.

Thanks for clearing that up. I had been wondering why it was so easy to link spam wikipedia.

If each of you takes one paragraph and fixes it

If each of you takes one paragraph and fixes it, the article might become halfway decent. For better or for worse, lots of people read this article, so it tends to define our industry. We may as well try to convey an accurate view and provide reliable references.

One of the reasons you may find it hard to get your edits to stick is that edits by anonymous IP addresses tend to draw extra scrutiny. Instead, if you make ongoing constructive edits and identify yourself, the other editors will tend to give you much more respect. So don't charge in there with keyboard blazing and expect everyone to bow down to your leetness.

It's way better than it used to be

I have to say that when I first looked at the SEO Wikipedia page a few years ago, it was total crap. I think since Jonathan and (I believe) Bill Slawski (?) have set out to fix it, it's much better, and much more accurate.

I don't personally get the whole wiki thing because I can't imagine how bias can't play a part, but considering the topic, I think whomever has been working on this particular article have been doing a great job and deserve a lot of kudos. It's only been the past 6 months or so that it got fixed up. Try reviewing some of the crap that it said before that and you'll really laugh!

That may be very true and a

That may be very true and a call to assistance is very nice but... how about that fact that it's a public wiki and this is promotion and marketing field, driven by back end performance? Your SEO section is going to mirror the network news hour... heavy on the Hollywood at best.

There is a beautiful irony in the way a privately owned user generated content site approaches a community of hard-core online marketers and webmasters and ellicits their contributions to a game that never ends. Reminds me of a casino I know...


no SEO's listed this morning - but that's ok because we're all actually Google Consultants


So far as independence, accuracy and objectivity is concerned Wikipedia is the new Dmoz so who gives a shit anyway.

we're all actually Google Consultants


Google and the Google consultants have more or less reached a détente where Google gives a certain amount of advice to Google consultants on how best to edit or engineer webpages to allow them to be indexed properly. However, since Google is now listed on NASDAQ and its commercial success depends to a great extent on selling AdWords by auction, it remains to be seen if the symbiotic relationship between Google and the Google consultants will survive.

Um ...

... what exactly is a "Google Consultant?" Is that someone who consults to Google? Is this a new breed of expert that has suddenly appeared and is helping Google?

I'm confused. More beer methinks.

that is a great find Gurtie

This is gonna get messy!

It get's dirtier by the second!

am I a Lycos Consultant, too?

what happens if / when Google's brand dies out? is Wikipedia going to do a find and replace Google --> Yahoo!

100% Ask Consultant

Google Consultant ROFL!

Sorry Aaron, I think you have a separate degree for the other search engines...

oh it gets better

I was going to mention SEO PR - that highly specialised blend of SEO and, er PR, involving submitting online press releases and then writing articles about doing so, but I thought that I couldn't really mock that page too much as it is, after all, simply a copy and paste of the first two paras of one of the articles it references.

I especially liked the first item in the discussion

Please feel free to add to this initial summary of SEO PR. I have tried to find more resources on SEO PR but my search was not as successful as I had hoped

which, imho, would be because YOU MADE IT UP.

..... and, breath.....

It's been tagged with {{Notability | Neologisms}}

Watch what happens to this article. There are wiki tools to deal with situations like this.


two things on that - the first is that someone raised concerns on the 18th of August and nothing was actually tagged until now. I guess that happens but in an SEO related area where people are so quick to edit an article which references this one you would sort of expect less than 6 weeks from 'this is dodgy' to 'lets take a look'

The second is that you believe the citations are valid. OK on first glance they're not bad, but when we look at this one is posted on a site which the writer is CEO of, the second mentions SEO-PR only as a company name and the third is on search engine watch true, but look closely and its about the same company, and never uses SEO and PR next to each other apart from in the company name.

So remove that company name and you have one article which mentions it, which appears two days before the wikipedia entry.

I reckon I could setup a company called SEO-carrot and get a mate to write an article about 'carrot and stick' methods of SEO link building and get it published. Are you going to let me have the wikipedia page about it? :)

and identify yourself, the

and identify yourself, the other editors will tend to give you much more respect

ahahahhahahahhahahahhahah aha hahahahhahahahhahahahha...wipes eyes...hahahahhahahahhahahahhhahahhahahah

Sorry, everybody except you Oilman

You definitely don't want to identify yourself. ;-)

Sorry jehochman...

...but even "notable" editors can't get a word in here and there.

Please admit that it's not all straight and clean. Cuz it's not. It's a nice concept, and on the whole it works quite well, but on occasion you can see edits and "reverts" and added {tags} that make you go "WTF".

I still quite like wikiP tho.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.