Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 40
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: November 8, 2007 - 10:42 am
Posted By: theGypsy 295 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchengineland.com)
Category: SEO
Search Engine Land
Small businesses are often left in the dark when it comes to which SEO strategies really work and which don't. Online there is an onslaught of information freely available online, much of it contradictory. Small business owners who attempt to perform SEO for themselves are often left wondering. What strategies are more important than others? Which are worthless? How do you tell the difference?
5 Comments
Comments
altogether now... I love conversions!
That cracked me up at the end - I was reading through it thinking, "Man, they're missing the only thing I care about at the end of the day...."
_OT
I agree that there is far too much obsession with various SEO tactics and perceived measurements of true value. Further, I believe that this article does a fairly good job at reminding us about the ultimate goal of good SEO... CONVERSION.
However, I do want to caution fellow SEOs on making generalized and broad-sweeping comments. It's these types of comments that can and do add to the confusion.
For example:
- "SEO isn't about PageRank, links or who says what is or isn't important"
- "In fact, the better your conversion rate the less traffic you have to rely on. And relying on less is always a good thing in an online world when things can change overnight."
1. If you sell/broker advertisements on websites or blogs, doesn't PageRank play at least some small factor in allowing you to sell ads at a higher rate? YES! If you want to rank well for competitive phrases on Google, isn't it true that acquiring quality inbound links is important? YES! If Matt or Tim tell us that engaging in a particular practice can be good/bad for one's ability to rank well in their respective index, wouldn't it be wise to consider what they say? YES!2. The first statement doesn't sit right with me. It sounds like an excuse that an SEO would use to make a client feel better when traffic numbers were off. Maybe the author means that if you are getting less traffic, but more of it is QUALIFIED traffic then great--trim the fat.
Also, I don't believe that relying on less is always a good thing, especially when trying to drive more qualified traffic to one's website or blog. Sometimes, placing more of your eggs into fewer baskets can be more harmful because each basket now represents a larger percentage of n (revenue, traffic, etc.). A loss of just one could be extremely detrimental. That can't be good.
"1. If you sell/broker advertisements on websites or blogs, doesn't PageRank play at least some small factor in allowing you to sell ads at a higher rate? YES!"
Site's shouldn't sell links or ads based on PageRank, and advertisers should't purchase them for such. If you get that benefit then great, but by and large those things should be based on traffic/exposure and the ability to send qualified visits.
"If you want to rank well for competitive phrases on Google, isn't it true that acquiring quality inbound links is important? YES!"
I didn't say don't worry about getting quality inbound links. I simply said don't obsess over who's linking to you. Big difference.
If Matt or Tim tell us that engaging in a particular practice can be good/bad for one's ability to rank well in their respective index, wouldn't it be wise to consider what they say? YES!"
Again, if you read in context, I say take everything with a grain of salt. If Matt or Tim say this such and such is "good", you have to put it into perspective. It may be good for them, but not necessarily good for the website. They have their own agendas too!
"Sometimes, placing more of your eggs into fewer baskets can be more harmful"
I agree. My point was the opposite. Put fewer eggs into more baskets, that way when one basket topples over, you don't lose as many eggs.
The title and meta tags should be marketing friendly copy targeted to the user.