News Source: http://www.searchenginepeople.com
Published: Mar 05, 2009 - 12:06 pm
Story Found By: DavidWallace 1173 Days ago
Category: SEO
7 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.searchenginepeople.com
Published: Mar 05, 2009 - 12:06 pm
Story Found By: DavidWallace 1173 Days ago
Category: SEO
7 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 18, 2012
- Search In Pics: LinkedIn Bike, Chrome Watch & Facebook @ Google
- Dylan Hoffman’s Pirate Times Doodle 4 Google Wins Pirate Booty
- adCenter Updates Microsoft Advertiser Intelligence With Templates & Mobile Data
- Google Improves AdSense Reporting And Bolsters Smart Pricing With New Research
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
I say nay.Jeff compares SEO to "Buying a new car that won’t move, a pen that won’t write, a shoe with no sole." but that’s not accurate. I can build a car that works perfectly but what if they take away the roads, does that make me a failure as a mechanic? I can have a pen that writes smoothly but what if they take away the paper, does that make me a failure as a writer?As an SEO you can do all the right things and still not get the expected results because you don’t control the ’physics’.If I drop an apple I can expect it to fall. All measurable science points to the fact it will.If I write about dropping an apple and watching it fall: in the title, the description, in <h1>h1,</h1> alt tags and copy and get links from other sites about falling apples, can I expect to rank for the term? All measurable SEO points to I would, but where physics is unlikely to change, algorithms get changed every day of the week. The science has to be rediscovered and rewritten every day.Does the work I put into keeping up with other ’scientists’ and acting according to the SEO world view (the Earth is flat, oh actually it’s round [until the search engines decide to make it flat again]) not deserve to get paid?"Products already do this … when you buy a product typically, you buy it knowing what it will do ie. what the result will be." - Yes because that product has been tested in a closed environment where the variables are controllable until the desired result is achieved every time.Search engines aren’t a closed environment and so it’s unreasonable to expect the same results by repeating the same actions.Plus there are a finite number of spaces to be filled in a search engine. The use of one can opener has no relation to other people using the same production line can opener elsewhere, but obtaining a search ranking stops someone else ranking there. If there were only 10 can openers available to the highest bidder/hardest worker could you penalise someone who you employed to open cans (knowing full well they didn’t have a can opener) if they spent all day trying to find a way to get the can open.A good worker will eventually use a knife or bash it open with a rock in the same way an SEO should get paid for trying to work around the problems. We have a stuation, we know the desired outcome, the time spent on the process is what we’re paid for.Sure, some people won’t be any good at it but there needs to be checks in place to make sure they know what they’re doing. Good reporting goes a long way to solving this.Anyway, that metaphor went a bit wild, but hopefully you can tell what I mean. Perhaps look at it as hiring 11 SEOs to fill 10 slots, knowing that one can’t succeed but still expecting them to.We have two almost contradictory views on the front page of Sphinn http://sphinn.com/story/103778I would argue that it’s Jeff’s lack of clarity and consitency (and downright being wrong) that gives our industry it’s bad name. To be fair it’s not just Jeff, but without the search engines giving us the physics we’re all just really theorising and testing hypothesis on what will work and some us will argue the Earth is flat and some that have seen further will argue it’s round.I’m sure there’s a great analogy post waiting to be written about science of old (back when the science was new) and SEO (called it, at least give me til Monday to write it :D) but for now I’ll just leave some thoughts, maybe stimulate a little discussion.SEO is not a product.The nature of the job is such that not every SEO can produce top results and therefore SEO is not about results; it’s about the process of displaying your information in a way that seach engines know what search terms are relevant about you.The crux of ’optimisation’ is being a blowhard and telling search engines you’re more relevant than you are (and having them believe it), unless you are the most relevant in which case it’s simply a case of telling them how important you are (and having them believe it).It’s 23:36 and I’m still at work, so I may have rambled a bit. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I’ve said, be interested in more points of view.</h1>
Thank you for taking up the challenge to engage in this discussion StalkerB ... that’s exactly what I was hoping this post would do ... encourage discussion.I’ll give you the fact that we do not control all the variables. Though you’ll notice that not once did I mention ranking as the desired result. That is becoming/will become too difficult to predict given personalization and user behaviour, though still very possible to influence with links. There are many other possible outcomes though.That said, we do have a great deal of information about the physics of the ’falling apple’ so to speak. I’m glad you like physics too. We can for example, expect Google to behave rationally. Of course, this means that we know what they want/need. Accordingly, I know which direction the apple will fall, the rough speed it will fall at, and even many of the variables that control the speed of its descent. Keep in mind, I don’t need to understand 100% of the aerodynamic properties of the apple, only the relative advantages of the apple shape and mass versus other apples shapes and masses. When I then predict that my my apple will fall slower (which we can do with incredible accuracy I might add), I change its properties to improve the speed of its decent, so it will hit the ground before most other apples ... simple really. That’s the process of optimization ... not taking everything at face value!!!!!!Also, you’re partically right again, SEO isn’t a product. Its the process of ’doing’ as indicated by the fact that ’optimization’ is a verb. Its not a series of tasks ... its the act of doing, and making happen. If you’re not making something occur, then the active verb is ’trying’ not ’doing’. This is where I argue SEO has issues. Anyone can ’try’ regardless of their level of knowledge. Few actually ’do’ SEO! The difference is this; those who achieve desired results ’do SEO’, those who do not, ’try’. You cannot call what you do ’SEO’ until thats what you ’do’ rather than what you ’try to do’.Those of us who ’do SEO’ ... have a really good idea what it takes in most all situations, and we do it (link building and all). If on the other hand, you classify SEO as ’in-page’ only ... then often you merely try, especially if you don’t engage in link building as a means of ’making results happen’! In the end, it means ’getting results’, and not just ’trying to get results’. If we don’t succeed initially, then we go harder at it until we get results, and ’do it’, then rinse and repeat if necessary. Otherwise, the active verb would then be ’trying’ rather than ’optimizing’.
Good elaboration Jeff, certainly clarifies your point for me.I considered as I was falling asleep last night (I’m sad) if people would focus on my use of rankings here and you’re right that you never mentioned them, just results, but my point was the finite number of resources to get results.If results = traffic there’s always only going to be so many people interested in your niche. If results = links, there’s only going to be so many people willing to link to you/your niche. So on, so forth. While there is a HUGE number, it is finite and if your hypothesis doesn’t work as it scales, then it doesn’t work.So, regarding knowing variables, yes, we do know what should work, but occasionally we’re still going to get the rug pulled from under us. e.g. I was working on 2 sites before this ’brand’ update, had 1 go from 100+ to about 50 the 2nd up to about 30 for their respective keywords. This latest shift saw the 1st site drop out of the top 1000 and the 2nd shoot up to 5. I was doing very similar things on both so why the huge difference?!If I was only optimising the 1st site (doing rather than trying) should I be considered a failure. In this instance I’m going to ’try’ and figure out what the difference is, but if it’s a hidden variable then I may never get to the bottom of what caused it, but I should be able to work around it and get the rankings back (it definitely worthy of a top 30 slot and probably higher).So Yoda stylee, do or do not there is no try, but sometimes you’re just not going to get that X-wing out of the swamp.I’m still sleepy :)
StalkerB,You don’t really have just a finite number of resources at your disposal to affect rankings (notice I said ’affect’ and not ’control’). Links provide for infinite possibilities ... there is no maximum. So while in-page factors have a maximum score/limit ... off-pages factors do not.At any point, if the desired results have not been achieved, ’do’ more. I understand that at some point there may not be a business case for continuing, but in that case, that was a problem with the expectations YOU set. If you weren’t able to achieve the desired results ... then you ’tried to do SEO’ but you didn’t do it. SEO should have a possitive connotation, and its definition should not be an excuse for failure.One of the key sound bites that I really wanted to drive home though, was that off-page factors are a component of SEO ... don’t classify it as ’web promotion’ and then say ... ooooh we don’t do that, blame someone else for the poor results. SEO is not about definitions ... its about RESULTS. I didn’t think about the Yoda reference until after ... good catch :)
Okay you don’t have a finite number of resources, you can always make more, but in practical terms there are always limits. You won’t get to the stage where every page on the web is nothing but a link to your page, you’ve exhausted IPv6 addresses with your content, built a new IP system or a new web, created matter, crossed dimensions and traveled back and forward in time to promote your content :)Perhaps I just amn’t able to see from the side that people can possibly consider SEO on-page only. Of course it involves getting links and promoting yourself in as many places on the web to tell search engines that you’re relevant.How to present that information on your site is only one part of it and it could even be someone’s (or several people’s) entire job, but you need to do off-page optimisation too.That’s where reporting and accountability matter. It’s not about pointing the finger to deflect blame but to discover which aspect(s) of the SEO strategy hasn’t work. If you’re only doing on-page then the bit that hasn’t worked is the strategy itself so you need to identify whose fault that is.For the one man army it’s all going to come down on his head, but for the on-page guy whose every available resource says he’s presenting the information correctly and the off-page guy who hasn’t got a single link (and spends all day on Sphinn, eh...), it’s easy to see what’s gone wrong.So I guess my understanding of what you’re saying (and where I think this disagreement is coming from) is that it shouldn’t be about results but that there should be accountability in this profession rather than just saying that you tried but failed.Yay/nay?
There is no need for accountability/responsibility ... if you’re not measuring results, and if there is no expectation of results!:)
Disagree with the view of SEO. If this is what SEO is then a lot of us are going to be failures.