The SEO community gets a lot of blame for Google’s problems. Here are a list of solid reasons Google is better because of professional SEOs and how even the true spammers should get some of the praise for making Google what it is today.
16 Comments
16 Comments
Comments
SEOs are doing the dirty work Google fails to accomplish itself.
wow.of all the meaningless, ill-informed, self-indulgent, drivel that get’s posted by SEO’s trying to maintain their "personal brand," this is the worst i’ve read in a long, long, time.
Tin Pig,Why do you say this? Because this guy spoke what he actually thinks and believes and generally made a good case for it?I can’t find a single thing in his post that isn’t true, I can find some stuff I don’t like but on a factual level, I find nothing that isn’t spot on.
Sorry, have to disgree as well - I’m sure Google would love to work with us on a more open level of communication, but SEO’s only agree with that so long as the environment suits them.As soon as Google does something detrimental to someone’s Google presence, even if over clear and outright offences, SEO’s call Google "evil":http://sphinn.com/story/25911I’d love to communicate better with Google, but too many webmasters have personal pride that prevents Google from being able to commuicate openly IMO.
Specifically, here are the problems I have with this post - point for point (and copied from the comment I just left on the post itself) - Per the first and second points, googles needs SEO’s because otherwise the search results would be non-relevant. And my point is exactly what the author stated - on-page SEO work is relatively trivial compared to off-page, and off-page largely consists of link building. And so, without the link-based page rank algorithm, a large piece of SEO work goes away and perhaps people start to wise up and realize that the on-page stuff isn’t that hard. Follow the best practices and integrate it into your content production work-flow. Educate your staff instead of paying lofty prices for external SEO companies. Like the author said, it doesn’t take much time to teach. The third point states that Google needs SEO’s building inbound links because otherwise they’d never find content to index. This makes no sense. Create a site-map, submit it to the search engines, and add it to your robots.txt file. I’ve created many brand new sites that get indexed without ever having a single inbound link. Google subsequently tries to use inbound links as a means to attribute value to individual pages, which is another issue. The fourth point credits spammers for helping Google fix problems with their search engine. Sure, but this is like crediting bank robbers for helping police improve their detective work. Every software company on the planet revises it’s product based on feedback from the field. There’s nothing specific to SEO about this. The fifth, and last point, really doesn’t seem to make a point at all beyond saying SEOs are making money helping clients optimize their content. I fail to see how this supports the argument that Google needs SEOs.Finally, SEOs do not create content. They optimize existing content for search. There’s a huge difference.
@Pig,Actually it looked to me like you got totally owned on Spirko’s blog and it looked like Matt Cutt’s was cool with it all as well.
@Tin Pig,This alone, "Finally, SEOs do not create content. They optimize existing content for search. There’s a huge difference." shows the depth of your ignorance. Perhaps you are not a content creator but I and most firms certainly do creat content.Please, part of SEO is even according to Google, "Creation of great content". Perhaps you are not capable of this, who knows but I, my staff and countless other great SEOs create exceptional content every day. To aruge this point in this way is well, crap I don’t even want to say what it is, it is that bad.SEOs don’t create content? Really? Good Lord!
@Jac k - we clearly have a different idea of what content is. the NY Times creates content and i guarantee you their SEOs aren’t writing articles for them. The Onion creates content, and i gurantee you their SEOs aren’t content creators. quality content creation requires a specific creative or editorial expertise that has nothing to do with SEO - and it’s the SEO’s job to work with content creators for optimization purposes. As an SEO, if you’re creating content then it’s likely content purely for the sake of SEO, which has no inherent value. if that’s what you call content then, again, we have a different view of what content is. just because you own "one of the biggest SEO Companies in the world" (nice ego, by the way) doesn’t make you a good writer or artist or video producer or any type of content creator.
@johathompson - oops, sorry to have left you out. actually, if SEO’s do nothing but run around fawning over Matt Cutts i’d question where the original thought is in this industry. as for getting "owned" on jack’s blog, my impression is that there’s been zero response to the point by point objections i had so i can only assume he agrees. i mean, he called me ignorant, which isn’t worth responding to, and he made a thin response to the content creation issue by basically saying "yes i do create content" which is without substance.so, actually, if you call getting "owned" having nothing to say then, sure, agree with you.
@pig,Clearly you have a hard time with basic reading comprehension. I did not say I owned one of the biggest SEO companies in the world, I said Google did. If you can’t even get that right well again, I mean, really?
@jack - oh. my mistake, i thought you were referring to yourself. see how easy it is to admit when you’re wrong? it’s okay to do.still with the insults, though? are you sticking your tounge out at me too? how about you try to actually engage in the discussion then resorting to a 5th grade mentality.
@pig,I don’t stick my tounge out at anyone. My point is for someone that takes such contention with what I had to say you did not understand a very clear and basic sentance. That would simply lead one, logicly, to question your understanding of the rest of what was actually said.I am not insulting anyone (you seem to be) I am simply pointing out the irony of the situation.
@jack - you’re funny. my mommy raised me to believe that calling somebody ignorant and suggesting they lack basic reading comprehension are insults. anyway, this has gone way off course and you’re clearly not interested in discussing the substance of your post. till next time - good luck.
One of first things I do when I get a new client is evaluate the state of their content. Is it original? Is it useful? Is it accurate? If the answer is no, then I encourage the client to improve their content, usually with specific suggestions. I’m not telling them to add H1 tags or keywords, I’m telling them to create something that has value. Once they’ve done this, I make sure the page is properly optimized and promoted.The result is that a poor quality website has transformed into a valuable resource that meets the needs of searchers and is easy for Google to rank. Every time I do this, I am helping Google by increasing the odds that there is a quality site to answer a searcher’s query, AND that it will be found.
As Mary J. Blige would say, "No more Drama" which is obviously (and I’m no stranger to drama, believe me) easier said than done. I think there is an ’in-house’ vs real life pajama wearing SEOs misconception going on in this commentary.’In-house’ = wear uncomfortable shoes and starched collars, more defintive roles (hey you..like do this do that), and yes, maybe even not having to create top-to-bottom content.Pajama wearing = wears slippers at the kitchen table while drinking coffee and LAO @ Danny’s "F" bomb, defintive role as a do-it-yourselfer without a ’head cheese stealing the credit (hey me..write that product/services content [top-to-bottom], linkbait this, nofollow that), and yes, maybe even resent someone for taking kudos away from them for all their well invested content writing efforts.just my 2 cents worth, which couldn’t pay for a cup o jo.
*sigh*I only wish I’d seen this article before the 3 day limit.B-e-a-utiful.