My Network
Feeds- 40
- Sphinn It!
Posted By: AndyBeard
598 Days ago
Source: http://seo2.0.onreact.com my network | add to My friends
Category: Social Media
21 Comments
Who Sphunn This Topic?
-
AndyBeard
floppy
Lyndon
Eavesy
swags2804
onreact
Aviva
DoshDosh
smodo
tnash
fantomaster
jeffquipp
sphinn007
baiduyou
SpostareDuro
TheNanny612
bsaric
aimClear
NickWilsdon
toddmintz
DaveDavis
planetc1
FredPeters
mban23
karenzara
Lodispoto
hugoguzman
hotlara
SisterSledge
97thfloor
Cumbrowski
Hobo
AbleReach
DVOLA
ManishPandey
nsmseo
thinkingserious
lasellers
bhartzer
deezin
Comments
I completely disagree with this article, but agree with the original one he was commenting on.
Who is he? Do you agree with the Colective Thoughts article of mine? If you do so whole heartedly disagree, do you have the courtesy of telling me why? Otherwise it’s childish just stating that after I argued for 1000 words in a top notch analysis.
I thought SEO is what offers SMO a fighting chance.
"I argued for 1000 words in a top notch analysis."I enjoyed your article onreact and I thought you put up decent arguments, but to say so yourself gives the impression of that big hat housing a swollen head. However miffed you might be that Jill disagrees with you, how about "Hi Jill - please could you elaborate on that?"
It’s not that she disagrees, but how: Condescending.
Sorry, I didn’t realize I needed to write a point by point disagreement.For starters, I disagree with your very premise:SEO for Web 2.0 does not only consist of SEO of course but, if I you would ask me for numbers I would say 70% SMO and 30% SEO. On the other hand if you would ask me for the time and effort spend with SEO compared to the hours spent for SMO in SEO 2.0 I would reply 5-10% for SEO and up to 95% for SMO.That’s nice, but in my opinion, that makes you not an SEO company (or consultant) but a social media company and/or a publicity firm. It also means you’ll be working a lot harder than you have to as your efforts will bring a ton of untargeted, unconverting bursts of traffic. Where if you spent your time on SEO (real SEO), you’d see the opposite. Steady increases in highly targeted traffic from people looking for exactly what you (or your client) offer.The online world has changed in the recent years where Web 2.0 style social sites and blogging have become omnipresent. No, it actually hasn’t. In your world of SEO it has, but it’s not even close to being that way in the rest of the world. There is still a huge percentage of the general population who doesn’t even know what a blog is. The claims made in the original post which you attempt to refute were right on the money, again, in my opinion. There is only a very small target audience where social media should be the main marketing mix, at this point in time. This isn’t to say that it might not increase over time (years), but we’re not even close to there yet. Traffic for traffic’s sake is just as bad as the old rankings for rankings sake. Neither will bring you customers and sales.
Nonetheless I have the impression that Wayne is driven somehow by a strange kind of nostalgia to the easy days of SEO where you optimized once, added some links from directories or link exchange and then you got traffic for an infinite time via Google and other search engines.When was this then? I’m not one of the veterans here and maybe Altavista was a ball-park but I’ve never found it a one-shot, easy task to do SEO on a website. Dave Pasternack would probably agree with you though.http://www.threadwatch.org/node/10393There is still misunderstandings about SEO, you see it with web design firms and to some extent with the "new generation" of SMOs. Social media is exciting but to write SEO off as a few "good practices" is a mistake. I’m glad that the basics have been ingrained in some people now but that’s what they were - the basics. If you’re a clever internet marketer you get skills in all the areas available. As Jill said, traffic does not equal conversions. As an SMO you can run the risk of just become a publicist rather than internet marketer. While (some) companies will pay for buzz and traffic there will come a time where they will again look to the bottom line. If you’re not providing that, they will go elsewhere.
Yes Jill, this is the way people talk and discuss with each other. Only kids say no without saying why not. Apparently you’re an SEO expert but no a SMO specialist. As I did both succesfully already I can only tell you that your points are not true, or just partly. For instance StumbleUpon traffic comes both in bursts and is steady if you get really popular once. Also, as I stated above as a side effect of your social media success you get better rankings etc. So the usually tedious SEO tasks can be skipped while your social media strategy is much more effective in gaining natural organic links etc.What conversions do you depend on? Social media traffic is far more likely to bring you subscribers for instance. I can’t sum up SEO 2.0 in a short comment though. That’s why the post I wrote is much longer. Moreover I have the impression you did not read it till the end, or did not grasp the concept of SEO 2.0 which is not SMO only.Nick, those risks exist, but why concentrate on the risks and not the positive aspects? Also, again: SEO 2.0 is both SEO and SMO. While it’s not prehistoric stuff like search engine submission or link exchange it’s still advanced SEO.
I’ve had numerous articles that have been stumbled and have received up to 1000 visitors in one day from stumblers, without hardly noticing a blip in newsletter sign ups.I don’t know about how others use StumbleUpon, but I stumble upon stuff when I’m bored and just go from page to new page to new page with my browser’s stumble button. I suspect that’s what others do as well, judging by the high number, but poor quality of traffic it brings. Not sure if you read my Search Engine Land article, "Social Media Marketing: The New SEO?" but it sums up my feelings on the subject nicely. It has so far received 65 Sphinns, so I imagine others here agree as well.Oh, and thanks for the tips on how to comment on sphinn...who knew?
I find it sad to see you two bickering like this, and I feel that both of you suffer from a bit of an overinflated ego (Jill, no need to point out how many Sphinns you got, since we both know that Sphinn’s are not a measure of SEO aptitude) (onreact, hasn’t anyone every told you not to compliment yourself? "I argued for 1000 words in a top notch analysis.")In my opinion, you’re both partially right. Jill has a point, in that SEO is not just a "best practices" exercise. onreact is correct in stating that virtually all businesses can benefit from SMO (right now, not at a later date as Jill suggests). As with most things in life, it’s just a matter of vision and creativity.If you don’t think all businesses can benefit from SMO, you’re really limiting your perspective and possibilities. If you think that SMO can take the place of more traditional SEO work, then you’re not a very good SEO implementor.
"Oh, and thanks for the tips on how to comment on sphinn...who knew?"Onreact is giving commenting lessons is he? That’s rich. See http://sphinn.com/story/12836#c17125:"Read the whole article to grasp Google’s role here and the issue at stake and don’t offend me. Especially if you’re a 3rd rate Sphinn user I never have heard of."Obviously, Jill is not the one who needs commenting lessons.Meanwhile here’s what Wayne had to say about this article:"I find it saddening that you chose to paraphrase me inaccurately in such a way as to discredit me...A lively discussion is one thing, but to bad-mouth me publicly isn’t really what I consider sporting."It takes balls and brains to tackle issues head on; but no, let’s just shoot the messanger.
Hugo, I don’t know about onreact, but I’m certainly not bickering, I’m simply discussing.As with most things in life, it’s just a matter of vision and creativity.I agree. What I didn’t like about onreact’s article (and I’m entitled not to like an article, no?) was that he was refuting what I felt was a very good article, and I simply disagreed. Again, as I’ve said, it’s just my opinion. I believe that’s what sphinn is here for, to provide our opinions (good or bad) about various SEM/SEO articles. At least that’s how I use it, and from the looks of it, others do as well.
"SEO as a side effect" OMG too funny... I’d be embarassed if I posted that.Unless someone just doesn’t know what they’re doing at SEO and it’s some big mystery to them, it definitely isn’t a "side effect", but if you think it’s just a side effect then SMO your heart out and leave the search engine traffic for the rest of us.
Hey Jill! No sweat. Your original comment did just what you say it did, but when you began to engage onreact, and eventually resorted to mentioning your Sphinn count, it moved away from the realm of "discussion" a bit.And yes, you are most certainly entitled to not like an article! And as you well know, a lot of SEO folks appreciate you chiming in ; )P.S. Though I also don’t agree with everything onreact has to say, I do enjoy reading his stuff.
At least for me, SEO, SMO, link building, etc... all fall under understanding the client, the client’s target audience and goals, and a little of "there’s a time and place for everything’ thinking. It’s all part of the basic marketing principles. Although I do feel that SEO is the first step of building a successful website/web business you should diversify your marketing from SEO and SMO to offline website marketing. I think that people sometimes get so caught up in the process that the big picture is overlooked. That’s just the way I see it. :)
Am with you on that one rotatedspectrum, 100%. While tactics du jour are debated there’s still the matter of getting results for clients - otherwise, why bother?
Absolutely, rotatedspectrum. Every site is different and has different needs. There are certainly some sites that are in highly competitive industries, where traditional SEO will make little difference. And for those sites, that’s where social media and other publicity tactics will make or break their success.But there are millions of sites that are not in highly competitive industries, in which traditional SEO still works like a charm when implemented correctly (easier said than done).
You people are funny. Is my English that bad? Is it that difficult to understand? So you really want to tell me, that "meta tag optimization", directory submission, link exchange, paid linkso or similar obsolete and tedious manual link building tactisc surpasse link bait and the likes of SMO?Get up, stand up. You have been asleeep for over 2 years.Just some numbers: StumbleUpon has the lowest bounce rate of any traffic (30%). I just managed it once to get that from Google, with a client after 1 year of SEO.I had several articles on SU with more that 10000 visitors. Nobody subscribes to a SEO newsletter because most people and thus stumblers do not care about SEO.
Exactly the pointer oh-petulent-and-barely-comprehensible-one - SEO is about *targeted* traffic, but SMO often suffers from *untargeted* traffic.SMO for information sites - great. Match made in heaven.SMO for commerce sites - not easy to work. And usually involves writing link bait barely related to the site, and simply drives in traffic looking for information/humour/grossness etc, *not* prequalified sales.Your supposed rebuttal just centered on traffic generation - not *targeted* traffic generation. You never really touched upon traffic targeting conversions, or general net savvyness for turning those visitors into sales.Unless you can do that, your argument is meaningless.
"I had several articles on SU with more that 10000 visitors."I get 40K targeted visitors a day, not per article, just from search engine traffic so SEO obviously stinks. I’m not saying SU isn’t a good potential traffic source but I sure wouldn’t do it exclusively and leave SEO to happen as a "side effect" as that’s just money left on the table.
So you really want to tell me, that "meta tag optimization", directory submission, link exchange, paid linkso or similar obsolete and tedious manual link building tactisc surpasse link bait and the likes of SMO?Ahh...I see what the problem is. You apparently have a completely different view of what SEO is all about. You are behind the times, onreact!I don’t do any of those things you mentioned when I do SEO. Haven’t touched a meta keyword tag in years, don’t submit to directories, haven’t done a link exchange since the early 90’s...