Calendar
Network
Feeds
hugoguzman
Though I don't agree with some of the sentiments, the post is definitely sphinn-worthy because it's original and though provoking. Ironically, that's the very definition of "good content."
As I mentioned to John and Aaron, the main thing I was interested in was who's site would rank best for "make good content"
(Aaron jokingly said that he just wants to rank for "feed the machine")
Thus far, it's not even close. John ranks first, followed by this Sphinn post. Aaron's not even in the top 100.
Helps reinforce the idea that site-side elements have a major impact on non-competitive phrases (John's post has the words in the title tag...Aaron's does not).
P.S. Want to know how much Google juice Aaron's blog has? Go check out how well he ranks for the term "moral authority". It's probably only a temporal ranking but it's still impressive.
And people wonder why a lot of mainstream publishers are struggling?
Maybe if they stopped paying sums of money for poorly researched articles by non-experts, they'd be in better shape.
Sadly, if you ask the average consumer and/or marketer, they would tell you that they would abide by this hack's viewpoint over someone like Aaron Wall.
Not sure that I buy this argument. My experience with clients suggests that the first budgets to be cut are offline advertising budgets (print, TV, radio, etc...) while online budgets (and search in particular) are either standing pat or expanding because of the cost effectiveness and ROI metrics that they provide.
Granted, I deal mostly with Fortune 1000 companies, but I can't help but think that this mentality extends to the small business owner.
P.S. I recently held a search marketing workshop for affiliates for a major real estate brand, and all they wanted to talk about was SEO. Remember that while many agents are losing their jobs, the brokers (the ones that own the franchises and listings) are still alive and kicking.
@willseoforfood - I hear ya as far as real estate brokers being burnt by shady outfits. That was actually one of the main takeaways from my workshop with the affiliates for this big brand. It may cause some to think twice about spending, but most of the ones I spoke with are really more into educating themselves so that they can pick the right provider as opposed to cutting off the services alltogether.
Most of them realize that the longterm (and shorterm) value is to great to be completely ignored.
This also takes us a step closer to an explosion in search queries, once apps like this get more refined and allow for long-tail search queries via phone command.
It's a good time to be in the search business.
Sphunn for the interesting conversation that has transpired.
For the record, I'm all for live blogging. I'm also all for free speach and the desimination of opinions (even if this particular bordered on being a little nasty)
@webuildpages - I appreciate the feedback, but this article is not about paid links. It's about "experts" making dangerous assertions that aren't based on tangible evidence or clear insight.
The speaker in question was insinuating that inbound links (any kind...not just paid) were being phased out of Google's algorithm. I think you would agree that making those types of assertions is dangerous, especially when non-SEO savy clients catch wind of it then turn around and tell you "I heard an expert at a conference say that inbound links don't matter anymore"
@storyspinner
Thanks for chiming in.
I can only assume that you did not actually read my post. I completely understand the gist of what you said in your session (shifting from links to social media signals) and went as far as to mention that in my post. I also purposely refrained from referencing your name because I'm not trying to throw you under the bus. You're not the only person out there that's made this type of claim in a public forum.
Still, your assertion has:
a) not happened yet (Google is still very link-driven)
b) the general message will/has been misinterpreted by inexperienced and/or unsavy marketers. I know this because I've already have clients (marketing folks that aren't SEO/social media savvy) say things like "I heard at a conference and/or on a blog posts that Google's not counting links as much anymore and/or that link building doesn't matter anymore.
Therefore, making a statement like "Google is going to shift from links to social media signals" is dangerous. It's not a personal attack on you, Li. It's just an observation based on actual feedback I get from clients. Ironically enough, I've delivered this message to clients myself (that Google will eventually shift at least partially away from straight links and anchor text) but some folks out there completely misinterpret it to mean that link building doesn't/won't matter.
@wilreynolds - Even the moderator made a point of mentioning that Li's assertion was radical. Not sure if that qualifies as an uproar, but it was definitely something worth mentioning (I was there too...that's why I wrote this).
Hey Li. I'm not looking to turn this into an adversarial thing.
All I'm saying is that while your assertion might possibly come to fruition some day (engines moving away from inbound links and towards social media elements or semantics, etc...) there's no way to be 100% certain. Nor can anyone accurately predict when that shift will occur (it could be a year from now or a decade from now).
Moreover, when you deliver it without a caviat (i.e. "don't take this to mean that inbound links will completely be devalued or removed from Google's algorithm" etc...) it can/will lead to misinterpretation. Not by you or others that are well-versed, but by less savy marketing directors that have a habit of employing very black and white thinking patterns.
These are just my humble opinions on the matter, and as I mentioned, I purposely did not mention you by name because my intention was not single you out. It was more of a general commentary because this assertion has led to some very misinformed clients/prospects.
I.E. In just the past week, I've had one client and one prospect tell me "I was told that links don't count as much anymore" (got it from some article or a conference). And what's most sad is that both are Fortune 500 companies!
P.S. Your comment didn't show up on the blog for some reason. I'm checking the moderation queue to see if it fell in there by mistake.
@bhartzer - thanks for chiming in.
I think that a lot of valid points have been made here, and I hope that you all understand my point about the danger of these assertions (they get misinterpreted).
Also, I want to point out that while everyone has brought up some valid theories (personalization, social media factors, etc...) Google's algorithm is still based on citation ranking, which is a technique that has worked both in the academic community and on the internet for decades.
It's plausible to believe that links will always be a predominant factor, but that they will simply be generated in a "social" manner, which if I interpreted correctly, was the meaning of your presentation on the difference between old SEO and new "social media" SEO.
P.S. Just caught this little tidbit over on another sphinn post
Just as recently as today someone claims I said "LINKS ARE GOING AWAY" (Shock, horror gasp) That wasn't what I said at all - Lisa was in the session but didn't blog I said this, neither did Tamar as that wasn't what I said, I said "Less Emphasis on Links, more on Social Signals" .... now a errornous post is sitting on sphinn with 18 sphinns ... yeesh
So again I say, Li, did you bother to read my blog post? What I claimed is that your assertion will likely be misconstrued by SEO-unsavvy marketers in attendance (my claim is backed by real world inquiries from clients that have heard assertions like yours at conferences and/or blog posts). I also claimed that you have no tangible evidence for said assertion. Lastly, I made sure to not mention you by name and explicitly pointed out that I understood what you meant when you made your assertion (but that others might not).
I don't think that's "erroneous" in any way, and I'm starting to think that you just don't handle criticism well (even indirect criticism). It's hard to believe that you don't recognize the point that I'm trying to make and that you're taking this as some sort of personal attack on your credibility.
Oh well, I'm sure that this won't be the last time that I face a backlash for simply voicing my opinion.
@tamar - Thanks for chiming in and I appreciate that you're questioning my logic/intent in a professional non-adversarial manner.
I'll try to explain.
I was in the room when Li made her assertion. It was basically a 1-2 sentence assertion that, in the future, engines will shift away from links and towards social media signals (don't remember the words she used verbatim). It came at the very end of her presentation.
I have had several large clients and/or prospects (Fortune 500's and/or 1000's) reach out to my team saying that they've heard this assertion (at a conference or on a blog post) and that they've taken it to mean that links are being devalued and/or that link-building is no longer as important.
As someone that works for an agency, few things are more frustrating than having to start from scratch on selling the value of link-building for present day SEO, especially when it's the result of a misunderstood (yet well-intentioned post).
This was not a personal attack on Li. It was a commentary on a challenge that is faced by folks that pitch/sell SEO. And my only suggestion to Li and others that make this assertion (including myself) is that a caviat be inserted (aka "links are still king").
@ Li - The title of my post was crafted to lure in readers. You are correct. But if you read the actual post it's plain to see that:
a) I wasn't attacking you and even went as far as to leave your name out and point out that I understood and agreed with your general premise
b) The title is legitimate because although you clearly refuse to see it this way, there are marketers out there that take your 1-2 sentence assertion the wrong way.
As for evidence, I'll be happy to read Grehan's white paper when it comes out. I also like to pick the brains of folks like Neyne and I love reading Google patent applications. Here's what I know:
1) Today, links are still the primary ranking factor
2) Social media is already having a major influence but it is often secondary in nature (bookmarked sites get backlinks, reviews on review sites get indexed by Google Local and drive search results, etc...)
3) There is no guarantee that Google will ever move away from citation ranking. They could simply lower it's impact by introducing semantics, social media queues, personalization, etc...but for all we know, inbound links could continue to be the primary ranking factor for the foreseeable future.
All of these scenarios and predictions are fun to discuss, and as I've said countless times, I agree with your general assertion.
Still, I'm going to stick to my guns and say that when you deliver it in 1-2 sentences at the very end of your presentation, some greenhorn marketer is going to take that back to their office and pronounce that links are dead/dying.
@davidwallace - thanks for chiming in. The moderator for the session seemed to pick up on something, since he immediately referred to Li's assertion as "radical." Again, I'm not saying that Li told people to stop link-building. Only that her assertion can be miscontrued as meaning that links don't/won't matter.
@tamar - yep, and for the record, I'm not anti-live blogging ; )
I know that I'm not the only one that feels this way about these assertions because I've had several folks thank me for the post and because I've literally been there explaining to client/prospects that these types of assertions don't mean that links are dead (or that they will be any time soon).
And as I've mentioned, the moderator for the session felt inclined to label Li's assertion as "radical."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. I'm simply representing the sentiments of folks pitching SEO are forced to deal with marketers that misconstrue these well-meaning assertions.
@homeless - solid insight regarding the technical implications. Until quantum computing comes to full fruition, it's unlikely that Google will be able shift away from citation ranking. The computing power needed to develop a truly semantic search is mind-boggling. Even more mind-boggling than Google's current data handling capacity.
@peterryan - hahahahaha
@yetanotherben - thanks for trying to keep the piece. Definitely a misunderstanding...on the part of unsavvy marketers can easily misconstrue statements like the one that Li made. The disappointing part for me is that I went to great lengths to avoid personally attacking Li and to treat her with professional respect even while criticizing and offering a point of view. But you can see where that got me.
@storyspinner - bye. I'll miss the demeaning monickers and all the bold letters.
Let me know if you ever feel like discussing the topic at hand without getting adversarial and self-righteous. And yes, my mistake, your statement was made at the midway point. But I think you'll agree that it was a 1-2 sentence statement. Whether or not you'll ever admit (publicly or to yourself in private) that those wide-sweeping statements can be misconstrued has yet to be determined. It wasn't a personal attack on you. Just an insight garnered from personal experience with clients.
If you're going to make such fundamental and general assertion, it deserves a lot more supporting evidence, insight, case studies, etc...that just my humble point of view. But what do I know. I'm just some dude, right?
This truly is an amazing piece of news, because if it sticks, it sets all sorts of precedents.
What good is search if entire topics (a famous socer player's name in this case). Truly sad on a personal level because I was born in Argentina and I'm a huge fan of soccer and Diego Maradona (the player...not the personality).
As with most things in life, it all depends on context.
We work with a large insurance/financial services client that derives massive amounts of visits and conversions from one monster keyword, despite ranking well for tons of "long tail" keywords as well. The one monster keyword accounts for nearly half of all their visits and conversions.
On the other hand, I oversee a sports site that derives over 1000 organic referrals per day, and nearly all of that traffic (99%) is derived from longtail keywords.
@nunney - that's just it, though. We do get the traffic for a ton of longtail terms.
As @johnandrews reiterated, it's about researching to understand the specific landscape you're working with.
There's no "one size fits all" solution.
My team manages roughly a half dozen Fortune 500 clients (and a bunch of Fortune 1000s as well) so this article is definitely preaching to the choir here.
Obviously, some clients are better than others, and many of these companies do have SEO evangelists in their midst, but the problem is that C-level folks simply do not understand how search engines work.
I think that another huge problem is the fact that many VPs of marketing and CMOs try to apply old school, offline marketing principles to online disciplines such as SEO. Eventually, as more new school folks get hired in those roles, SEO will become much more streamlined and common place.
Lastly, because of their size, there's a ton of interdepartmental beaurocracy that gets in the way.
But man, there's nothing better than having success with one of these behemoths. Makes it all worthile.
Is it just me, or does this post (and Rand's) come off as nothing more than a case of sour grapes?
Google's algorithm is far from perfect, but it is the by far the best option available and has by far the biggest share of voice.
If you don't like the results it serves up - for "SEO company" or any other term - then go use another engine.
If you think that your site is worthy for top rankings - for "SEO company" or any other term - then work hard to get there (and be prepared for year's worth of effort if the term is highly competitive).
Or, do what the rest of us do; build relationships, prospect for new opportunities, continue to educate yourself and your team, make the rounds within the SEO community, and do great work for your existing clients.
And eventually, you'll have so many clients and prospects that you won't even care about whether or not your site shows up for a generic term like "SEO company."
Or if you have access to a lot of cash...just take a short cut and buy the company that owns one of these spammy legacy sites that occupies a top spot :)
I've been so caught up with travel and meetings, so it looks like I'm super late to the party.
I know I'm just a small fish in a big SEO pond, but I can tell you from personal experience that Rand has changed a lot since I first "met" (online) with him back in 2004 or so. I think that he is a classic case of "Ziggy Stardust" disease.
He got too big in his own mind and lost touch with the sentiment and sensibility of the community he was born out of, and as a result, he has taken some major hits to his personal reputation and his brand's reputation.
It's never too late, though, and I believe that there's always a chance at redemption. Rand just needs to get back in tune with the webmaster community and stop listening to whoever he's been listening to in recent months/years.
I observe all of Google's guidelines and yet still don't like this "outing" ethic. How do you explain that, arteworks?
I guess it was my ubringing...I was schooled to abhor snitches.
Story: Comparing SEO vs. SEM
@JohHGohde - you're sort of missing the point.
The grand majority of companies we work with (Fortune 1000) equate "SEM" with "Paid Search" (aka "PPC"). The use it in conversation and even refer to it in this way in RFPs. And while I appreciate the semantics of the situation, I have to write for my clients and prospects first and foremost.
But yes, I'm aware of what "SEM" means, what "paid search" means, etc...
Story: Comparing SEO vs. SEM
Thanks for the Sphinn! I'm good with Rand's general mindset, but I just feel that some of the data he presented was misleading or possibly misguided.
It's really just my two cents on the topic.
Story: Comparing SEO vs. SEM
@dannysullivan - sadly, most of the companies that my agency deals with refer to paid search as "SEM", so as a good marketer (and mediocre writer) I feel that need to speak their language.
Also, I felt that the title would have lost some punch if I wrote out "natural search vs. paid search?..."
Thanks for chiming in.
Story: Comparing SEO vs. SEM
@JohnHGohde - thanks for the alternate interpretation.
What I'm really curious to hear about is whether you agree with the premise of my post.
Story: "Just Make Good Content” is Bullsh*t