Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 40
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: December 11, 2007 - 3:22 pm
Posted By: swags2804 254 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://seo2.0.onreact.com)
Category: SEO
"They are 15 because 10 were just not enough..."
14 Comments
Comments
This is bang on! What a great comparison between the old and the new.
Thanks for submiting and thanks Jeff! I think it was overdue to clarify it a little. I'll do follow ups on that as SEO 2.0 and it's definition is evolving right now. You all participate!
It's a comprehensive enough list. I look forward to the follow-ups.
Great post but it would have been even better if an SEO 0.5 (pre Google) had been included. The first couple rows would have looked like...
Bothering with link requests only if the potential to drive lots of direct traffic exists.
On site optimization for spiders: Hidden keywords, cloaking, near-duplicate pages designed for specific engines.
Destroying the competition: The goal is to completely own the first five SERPs. Single 1st page listing = losing.
And on and on...
That looks like fodder for an entirely different new post.
You write and post it, someone else will give it a whirl.
Hmm, the original list contains a few items that are still important, and as someone else already said, that methodology doesn't apply to some types of sites - though I can see several ways for a partial cross-over (think "willitblend.com" and related material).
I can't figure out why you want to call these aspects of marketing "SEO". SEO is about search referral traffic, plain and simple. Placement (#1, #9) is important only because it determines referral volume. Keyword targeting is not SEO... SEO starts after you have your keyword targets. Aspects which impact search engine inclusion (indexing, snippets etc) are all SEO as they directly effect referrals. Search strategy is part of SEO as it relates to search referral traffic. Search strategy is also part of marketing, for related but not the same reasons.
What does Rand Fishkin moving to an Agency model (for marketing) have to do with SEO? What does "transparency of clients" have to do with SEO?
It seems pretty elitist to stretch to the comparisons you make here... old school SEO "technocratic" vs. the newer stuff being "democratic". "buying links" vs. freely linking out and benefitting in return. Gimme a break. It sounds sophomoric to me, kinda like the Nerds vs. Jocks stuff from high school.
I think the marketers need to invent a label they will like as much as they seem to like SEO, because this attempt to co-opt SEO just isn't working.
It may have been better titled "SEO for bloggers", because I really don't see the approach working in big commercial sectors.
I think it atleast impresses the point of Social Media being a practical advantage as an associated SEO practice. "Optimizing" We already know the advantages of SEO with the SE's, but SM optimizes in a way that SEO cannot.
AdamDorfman, g1smd: Thanks for your suggestions!
johnandrews: Good point, but basically there are 3 very simple reasons.
1) You still rank well or even better with SEO 2.0
2) In the broader sense people using StumbleUpon, Sphinn or Technorati still search for something or use an engine for it (a program that assists them)
3) It does not make sense to use new names each time the methods change or something. SEO is more than an acronym. SEO means getting webistes noticed on the Net. So SEO 2.0 is more apt than any acronym nobody can relate to. Even SEO is still unknown to the masses.
iBrian: Also good point. In fact you are right in that you do not exist in Web 2.0 if you don't have a blog. So blogging is a prerequisite for most of the SEO 2.0 methods.
SpostareDuro: It's not only about socila media though! Do not mistake SEO 2.0 for a SMO synonym. SMO is just a set of methods inside of SEO 2.0
sheesh, so confusing this blonde world I live in.
The company I work for is slowly bridging the gap between SEO and SEO 2.0, and it's great to see a clear list of where we are and where we should be. Thanks for posting!
@onreact at least we know where some of the confusion comes from.
On your points:
"1) You still rank well or even better with SEO 2.0"
--> If social media posting and click thru behavior impact rankings, then pursuing SMO becomes part of an SEO strategy. That doesn't make it "SEO". No different than links.. links are important for SEO, so SEO strategy includes link building. But is pure Link Building SEO? It's a logic question, not a political position. Since there is link building for direct traffic, link building is not definitively SEO but rather... link building.
"2) In the broader sense people using StumbleUpon, Sphinn or Technorati still search for something or use an engine for it (a program that assists them)"
--> There's an argument to be made that these are "search engines". I don't think we've had that discussion, nor assumed that to be true. Marketing certainly includes such activities, as does promotion.
"3) It does not make sense to use new names each time the methods change or something. SEO is more than an acronym. SEO means getting webistes noticed on the Net. So SEO 2.0 is more apt than any acronym nobody can relate to. Even SEO is still unknown to the masses."
--> SEO means "search engine optimization", meaning optimization for search engines, or optimization to get search referral traffic. It does not mean "getting noticed on the net" as that is promotion, public relations, Internet marketing, etc. Personally I don't think you need new names. How about promotion, public relations, and Internet marketing?
It seems your comments acknowledge that the monker "SEO" has value in the marketplace. Does that justify co-opting it? Last I looked (at myself) there are still professionals who do SEO, and for whom the "new" definition of "SEO 2.0" makes no sense and it obviously causes consumer confusion in the marketplace.
I'm not convinced by this SEO 2.0 talk. I still see it as marketers trying to co-opt an existing term for a new purpose, and confusing people in the process.
Heart surgery is no longer heart surgery when they are fiddling about with your liver or kidneys.
So, let's go with SMO or SMM or whatever for the "other stuff", and leave SEO as it was.