Talk:Website audit

Source discussion

Can you please point out how my changes are refspam in your opinion? How can content be refspam?

90.152.1.254 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:RS and read it through for why an SEO firm's website is not a suitable source for a broad topic such as this. Also WP:REFSPAM should help you. Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask how probably the biggest SEO resource available is classified as spam? I understand that this is probably because they are an SEO company but then how does any SEO page get updated with current information?

When a page on Wikipedia is old and outdated, is it not beneficial to put something current in there? It asked for citations, so that is what I did. I see this being shared hundreds of times over the last few days. You can't just routinely dismiss something just because of its industry!

Also, the main guy over at iQ SEO is published in magazines and routinely appears on webinars - I watch them quite a bit myself.

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to evaluate who is and isn't an SME if they're not already established as an SME by independent reliable sources. Considering this link is also used no where else other than your addition, I have sincere doubts that this organization or individual is considered an expert in their field. Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for providing SEO resources, and citations are not for providing access to SEO or audit tools. The purpose of a Wikipedia citation is to provide corroboration from a reliable source for a statement presented in an article. If the statement is SEO related, then the kind of citation we would want is to an independent, neutral source (as per WP:RS) disinterestedly writing about SEO, not to an SEO site itself, and especially not to a page promoting an SEO site's own tools.
Further, the content you added was not appropriate. For example, you wrote "This should always include mobile analysis", but Wikipedia should not state what should be done in its own voice - Wikipedia is not an SEO user guide (or any other sort of user guide). The source you used for it, "The Ultimate SEO Audit Checklist", is not an independent reliable source (as required by WP:RS), and does not neutrally corroborate any statement of fact in the article. Also, you added a paragraph that started "It is important to understand..." Again that is inappropriate, as Wikipedia should not state what is and what is not important. You also added a part about when "A Technical Audit is performed..." but it was not sourced.
So, essentially, you added inappropriate content and you cited an inappropriate source for it.
Finally, do you have any connection to the IQseo site yourself? I see on your talk page that you said "I have no conflict of interest as I don't work for them", but there are numerous other ways you can have a conflict of interest other than working for a company/site. So you need to disclose any personal connection you might have with that site or its operators. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee Fun factoid of the day: Did you know that 90.152.1.254 belongs to Regus Group Services Ltd. in Chester and that IQSeo.org's website gives the address REGUS HOUSE, HERONS WAY, CHESTER BUSINESS PARK, CHESTER, CH4 9QR? Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, yes :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't *need* to disclose anything. It can be requested of me and I can decide. Like many others in this market, so many SEO's know each other and yes, I do know the guy that runs it, but I just don't understand how that has anything to do with what I added as being something that updates a page with information for others. I get that there is a lot of spam around SEO but any sensible SEO also knows that a link from Wikipedia is not ever going to add any benefit to the site.

If someone just took a look at the article, they would see how good it is.

And what you just told me about how I worded things incorrectly, this is all I was looking for - what did I need to do differently. Please remember that we are not professionals in how every little thing needs to be worded so know this is a big help for the future.

And yes, we are in the same building as them.

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you do. It's a policy. WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. We're also not professional editors - those do not exist on Wikipedia. And as for rewording it, you could reword it perfectly but the source itself is completely unacceptable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Just a bit of expansion on the same thing.) Re: "Well I don't *need* to disclose anything. It can be requested of me and I can decide". Nope, see WP:PAID. If you have any COI then you are required to disclose it per the Wikipedia T&Cs. If you do not, you will not be allowed to edit in the related topic area. So you either tell us whether you do or do not have any conflict of interest, or you do not edit in this topic area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Re: "...any sensible SEO also knows that a link from Wikipedia is not ever going to add any benefit to the site." So there's no benefit, not even reputational, in promoting that guy's "Ultimate SEO Audit Checklist"? But anyway, we don't care what "any sensible SEO" knows, we're only interested in building the encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies - and those policies include the prohibition of using promotional/SEO links. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Wikipedia policy, nothing more - but even so, if I know a company because they are in the same building, how does that even matter? Surely the whole idea with Wikipedia is about providing the best resources for readers?

Put it this way, I don't think I shall be bothering to do this again because it is far too much like hard work and has taken an ungodly amount of time to even understand what the original issue was.

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, bye. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was polite in my last reply to you but I see this isn't also forthcoming.

Little tip - be helpful and no need for sarcasm or to be facetious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]