Subscribe in a reader
HOME
Interview Jim Boykin
Mr. Pratt Interviews Jim Boykin
I became aware of Jim Boykin when I followed an RSS feed out into the marketing matrix to his personal blog. Jim had posted an interesting chat interview with Aaron Wall about his recent purchase of Threadwatch. I vaguely remember Jim from back when I made my first website and used to visit (the self proclaimed white hatter) Jill Whalen at Highrankings.com. Here is my interview with Mr. Boykin.
Hello Mr. Boykin, I picked up on a web synapse and followed it to you and your chat with Aaron Wall, I hope you don’t mind. I want to ask you what’s a whiter shade of grey marketer doing chatting with Mr. Wall, but first let me add that I believe Mr. Wall’s hat color is getting lighter by the day, it seems to work for him. Do you consider yourself one of these so called “ethical” internet marketing consultants? Is there such a thing as white hat SEO, what works for you?
Oh please Aaron, just call me Jim.
I think Aaron (Wall) has always been pretty “white” but certainly he has some of knowledge of the dark side. I guess it’s not what you know, it’s what you do that really counts, and I think Aaron has some great knowledge and has made some great moves in this industry and I’m honored to be his friend.
Hum…am I an “ethical” internet marketing consultant? I’d like to think that when consulting that I’m pretty ethical in that I can say I’m as honest as I can be. With clients I really try to be straight up when it comes to what methods they could use, and risks (if any) involved. In consulting I usually try to preach the “white side” of creating a great resource site that will get natural links…unless someone tells me they’ve got sites to burn…then they’ll get another version of options…but that doesn’t happen too often.
Let me ask you what kind of hat does one wear who’s requesting a link? What are the shades there? Where are the boundaries of white and black in: link trading, one way linking, link buying, publishing newsletters, publishing articles on other websites, having your neighbor link to you as a favor, etc. Where does relevance come into play in this scale as well? If you’re paying someone for a “relevant” link ad is that “ethical”? If your buddy who owns an unrelated site links to you, is that “ethical”? I can say that I don’t do most techniques considered strictly “black hat” unless you consider paying sites for a link advertisement “evil”.
I was however called “evil” by Matt at the last Webmasterworld conference (not sure how much was in “jest”) for my post on “screw the sandbox, buy an old site”. If you ask Doug Heil, he’d say I’m a spammer (but I’m in good company). I’m certainly grayer than Jill, no doubt, but if you’re targeting something like “Las Vegas Real Estate” can you afford to be as white as Jill? (FYI, I do highly respect Jill).
I think that over the years I’ve gotten much whiter, as those seem to be the methods that work best for rankings today. We’ve got clients, and we’ve got some of our own sites. On some of our own sites I might go grayer than on clients, but I’m aware of the risks. Most clients are seeking long term rankings so I tend to consult more on the whiter side of marketing.
I see that in December 2002 you where #4 in Google for the phrase “Internet Marketing” but now you are #25. How have you done since 2002 during all these algorithm changes? Do you believe that the 197,000 backlinks in Yahoo hurts your current trust rank or does the phrase “internet marketing” just have too much competition these days?
For about a 1 1/2 years we were in the top 4 for “internet marketing” - and back then I knew I was lucky. It was a grand time when you could just purchase every link you could find and amazing things could happen.
Around the time of Florida some of our sites took a hit and so I decided that it was time to change our methods. We ended up canceling almost all the links we’d been buying (totally non relevant links), we stopped link trading, and even tried to ban the engines from webuildpages.com (which caused a bit of a stir - especially since we didn’t go away). At that time I figured that our clients sites should get whiter, and that any of our own “greyer sites” should try to move under the radar. And we built back up.
At first as I watched our rankings slip for “internet marketing” I did the wrong things to try to compensate. I started buying more links with the exact anchor text of “internet marketing” linking to our homepage, and it seemed the more I tried, the more we slipped (looking back I can see that much of my moves were counter productive).
I guess at some point about a year ago I just said “fuck it”. Ranking for “internet marketing” was really just an ego boost, it was in no way essential to our business, and might not even have even been the best traffic for potential clients.
I’m surprised that we’re still #1 in Yahoo for “internet marketing”, and I’m happy that we’re still #1 in Google for “internet marketing services”, #2 for “internet marketing company” and #1 for “seo services”. Even with that, most of the clients we take on are from referrals. We seriously get more leads than we can handle right now so I’m no longer even thinking of chasing the phrase “internet marketing” again.
I used to follow our rankings on a near daily basis, but I don’t think I’ve run a ranking report since April. For a long time, that’s all I had to show for ourselves…the rankings. Then through things like bringing Todd on board, speaking at conferences, and blogging, I realize that rankings don’t mean jack to me anymore. I’m more than happy with what we’ve got, and so long as we’ve got clients to work on and leads coming in, I’m happy. I’ve stopped running in that race for the phrase “internet marketing”.
To address the second question you asked “Do you believe that the 197,000 backlinks in Yahoo hurts your current trust rank or does the phrase “internet marketing” just have too much competition these days?”
200k backlinks is nothing. A year ago it was 1.5 million. I stop buying most of the links which I had been purchasing only for their “power” and have worked on trying to get more natural backlinks via our free internet marketing tools. I’m really proud of the tools that we’ve created, and due to those getting natural links, I’m happy to never have to purchase a link to webuildpages.com again (unless I’m looking at click through traffic). Creating free tools (which I know will gain backlinks) was one of the best moves we did.
I just looked at our backlinks, and among some good links I do see some crap links from old deals. I can spot 2 links right off the bat that look rather spammy, but the people whom I did my deals for those links haven’t responded to my requests to remove those links…oh well.
I’m also proud that I haven’t bought or even asked for 1 link to my blog at www.jimboykin.com and that due to it’s content I’ve gotten a few thousand natural backlinks within a few months. It’s kind of a case study on how I’d do things if I were starting a site today with long term goals (which is what it is).
You have an interesting past; you are dos educated and well traveled, are you aware that future search engine algorithms will reward those who are able to educate others? Do you believe that after the latest Jagger updates .edu, .gov and the wikis of the world are doing better or are the SERPS currently a mess in your chosen field of expertise?
I’m aware that things are constantly changing, and I’m aware of what Google likes today. I think the SERPS aren’t a mess at all. As engines get smarter and are better able to analyze things, SEO’s must get smarter as well. Overall Jagger was pretty good for most of our clients - probably due to our whiter hat methods. I believe that the engines are “rewarding” sites that appear to look like “natural resources” and so as an SEO, I’m trying to emulate this look on our sites as best we can. (via it being telling our clients to create better resources, and via trying to link more “natural”)
I enjoyed your pictures which leads me to another thought and (congrats on you son BTW, I also have a little replicant who will replace me, he is 4 years old) Judging from all those pictures of you with various faces who are part of the growing marketing matrix you get around. Do you still have the privilege of going to marketing seminars and events with a child?
Yea, the wife isn’t a big fan of my traveling so often, but I always enjoyed traveling. At first the excuse I had was “I’ve got to go so I can learn”, and now the excuse is “I’ve got to go because I’m speaking.” It’s harder now with a baby at home, but going away for a few days every 2-3 months isn’t so bad. And now there’s no way I’m going to pass on the privilege of speaking at these events.
What kind of computer do your use and what operating system?
I’m sure there’s some who will be disappointed to know that I use an old latop and windows XP.
What are your favorite SEO tools?
I’ll be speaking on this topic next week in Chicago, but I really rarely use tools other than our own. I use the Cool SEO Tool several times a day, and a few of our non public tools as well.
Close your eyes and tell us the first thought that comes to your head?
ah…just a bunch of “this client needs this”, “this client needs that”.
Thank you Jim.
Similar Post:
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:25 pm
I never had the privilege of talking to Jim, but reads his blog with great interest. I believe what he claims is right. Quality is still king.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Excellent interview!
Nice job Jim!
Lee
December 7th, 2005 at 9:26 am
Excellent interview. I’ve never personally met Jim but he really seems like a great guy, seems easy-going and straight-shooting. I agree with him 100% in that the search engines are getting better, and as such “white hat” methods are now simply what’s more effective, as engines are weeding out the effects of black-hat tactics. I’ve always been pretty darn white hat, but now its just not just so much a philosophy as it is the realistic set of effective tactics…
December 15th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
Quite good.
Perhaps most interesting was the discussion re: no longer running the race for the phrase “internet marketing”.
I agree completely. It’s a bit ironic that search engines tend not to be an important source of converting traffic for SEO firms (in my experience, at least).