Publishing 2.0 - Latest Comments in What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Brokerblogger — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:58:47 -0000

Since I have studied the Search Marketing Industry since about 1996/7, I have consistently noticed a pattern. In most/all discussions and debates I hear people defend and promote the sellers (SEO's, SEM's, Traditional Ad Agencies, etc.), the buyers (the clients of those sellers such as Marketer Vendors or anybody selling to an end-user/consumer), but I rarely hear people speaking up for the consumer end-users who are the online searchers, and should be the most important people of all.

The major SE's say the online searchers are their #1 priority, but in many real world examples, that is obviously not the case. Scott, your "SEO misunderstanding", as an online searcher (and publisher) looking for "relevant to your intent" quality content, was caused by Google's algorithim, in this case, and I'm hoping Matt (who I have the greatest respect for, has much power in these matters, but doesn't own Google) can initiate a fix of the "bad algorithmic hole". If all the SE's truly put the end-user, online searcher/consumer first in all online search scenarios, it would solve a myriad of problems for all parties, IMO.

My first blog post says: "In order to get a long term "win-win-win" scenario, the end user-consumer has to come first, and be happy with the overall value. Then the client-buyer will be happy. Last, but not least, the ethical seller has won, since he has a happy, long term customer." Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, "salesmanship" is at the core of every aspect of this discussion. Isn't it ironic that sales people got a bad reputation long before SEO's or SEM's did, yet eveyone is a salesperson at some point in their lives, even if it is only to "sell themselves".

It also says: The perfect online search sale is one in which the user is educated to the most valuable, personalized, relevant opportunity, and then has it made easy for that user to buy, or take the next action."

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Peter Young — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:31:40 -0000

Well if anything you've learnt the art of link baiting Scott :)

Personally, I believe SEO like any other industry has individuals who react in different ways, I personally work with a number of individuals in the Advertising sector, and I can tell you that there are just as many if not more "attitudes" than there are in the SEO arena. To simply write the majority of the industry seems a little unfair.

SEO does have to educate people, more in my opinion to advise those of its potential benefits and how it fits into the marketing mix as a whole.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Matt Cutts — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:27:50 -0000

Hi, don't mind me, I'm just popping in to tell Scott that I saw his post and will ask someone to check out that site. I think we can get this case handled pretty quickly (I'm traveling or else I would have mentioned it to someone even sooner), and I'll ask someone to check out why our algorithms to spot sites like this didn't flag this site. We may be able to improve the underlying algorithm in addition to solving this case, so thanks for mentioning this issue.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

disqusererer — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:24:24 -0000

Thanks a bunch Scott :)

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott Karp — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:18:31 -0000

Aaron,

I added an update as you suggested because I very much respect your view -- and how you approach things -- and because you are absolutely right that this requires a correction.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

disqusererer — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:57:15 -0000

I can easily understand John's perspective. There was an update IN THE POST to say how some SEOs are inconsistent with their messages, but there was no update to say "this is totally Google's fault" or "my bad" or "I shouldn't have blamed all of Google's faults on SEOs".

And since that update did not appear, and most people who come here will probably not read most of the comments, you are further spreading that perception that "SEO = shit" to the average reader who subscribes to the RSS feed or lands on this page from a search result.

In essence, all the agreements down in the comments, but a lack of them in the content is the equivalent of using small type on the disclaimers or the guy who talks really fast on the parts of the commercial he doesn't want you to hear.

Given that, it is certainly easy to read mixed messages when trying to determine the intent of this post.

I regularly read your blog and have emailed back and forth with you in the past, but if I did not do those things I would likely have been offended by the post.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott Karp — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:44:37 -0000

John,

You show little deference to several experienced people who are benevolently offering you free SEO advice, despite your obvious negative bias.

Huh?

Aaron, great advice, thanks!

Bill,

I appreciate that. The goodwill goes a long way.

I do, however, believe that all conversation is good conversation, so for that â€” and for all the good tips â€” I am thankful for Natashaâ€™s efforts.

Where exactly do you see the lack of deference? And in any case, the word "deference" is pretty darn condescending -- am I supposed to bow down and kiss everybody's ring? It's that sort of "we know everything" and "you know nothing" attitude that gets SEO in so much trouble.

You highlight how Natasha posts from a different perspective in different communities, as if it were distasteful (it is actually quite tasteful, and respectful to you).

"Different persepctive"? Nice spin.

but your expressed opinion that, because you donâ€™t get it and write misleading, uninformed posts about SEO, we SEOs should work hard for free to educate you?

The point I've been trying to make, which some such as yourself seem to miss entirely, is that SEO's has an imagine problem because there is much that APPEARS to reflect poorly on SEOs -- such as my example above -- which in fact is not SEO's fault at all. But appearances have a big impact.

You seem to suggest that I wrote this post as PURPOSELY misleading. I didn't. It was an honest mistake. And MANY other people in the online world make the same honest mistakes about SEO -- and that is SEO's problem, not ours. It's people like you, who take "misunderstanding" and smear it as "misleading," that make people suspicious of SEOs. You can write me off as "uninformed," but there are many thousands more like me, and we are all YOUR potential clients.

Fortunately, you are the exception, not the rule. The comment section here is filled with goodwill and good information, and that's a very GOOD thing for SEO.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Roger Wehbe — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:19:59 -0000

Iâ€™m very glad that weâ€™re talking about auto mechanics here, not self-styled rocket scientists or (Heaven forbid), â€œSEO rock stars.â€

'SEM wallet grabbers' is another term that we could use, you know the guys that charge monthly fees for PPC when there is an easy web based interface or feed that the client themselves could use?

Hence why I am saying that the age old rule applies... "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house"

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott Karp — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:16:23 -0000

Graywolf, if we use the principle that all traffic is good traffic, then sure, SEOs stopping by to check out my cluelessness is still good traffic. I do, however, believe that all conversation is good conversation, so for that -- and for all the good tips -- I am thankful for Natasha's efforts.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

graywolf — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:12:52 -0000

I would also add that due to the magnetic component or link baityness of Natasha's title on threadwatch, you actually got quite a few SEO's visiting here, picked up some conversation, and some good tips, so I'd say as end result her efforts worked to your advantage.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

John Andrews — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:38:04 -0000

Scott,

You no-follow your commenters contributions. You suggest that by being sub-optimal, Wordpress is actually "dragging down" your rankings. You show little deference to several experienced people who are benevolently offering you free SEO advice, despite your obvious negative bias. You highlight how Natasha posts from a different perspective in different communities, as if it were distasteful (it is actually quite tasteful, and respectful to you). And in the ThreadWatch post you cite as "writing off everyone who doesn't get it as idiots", what Natasha actually stated was "[this] just proves that he should stick to the topics that he knows well."

As noted elsewhere, your post remains published, mis-leading, and anti-SEO. And what about the statement: "They can either go about the hard work of educating people on the complexities of search and what good SEOs do and do not do, so that they are no longer the victims of unfair misperceptions:" but your expressed opinion that, because you don't get it and write misleading, uninformed posts about SEO, we SEOs should work hard for free to educate you?

Most would pass at that "opportunity".

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Aaron Pratt — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:54:18 -0000

There you go, it's nice to see people educating about SEO rather than calling people idiots and acting like chimps. :)

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Natasha Robinson — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:27:01 -0000

Scott,

Whew long day! :) I think if more people responded to SEOs as you have in your comments as opposed to the post, you would see just how happy SEOs are to help people with their sites. This goodwill of SEOs should be obvious by all the free advices that SEOs give by writing blog posts, articles and forum posts. I actually don't think that "SEO has a relationship management problem". I think a few vocal people in the blog believe and write about the SEO relationship management problem... however the classified ads, overbooked SEM firms, and Major Corps that can't seem to get SEOs in the door fast enough all say different - :)

Have a good one!

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott Karp — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:15:18 -0000

Aaron, great advice, thanks!

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

disqusererer — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:59:23 -0000

I just don't think that listing all categories is probably the best way of optimizing for humans...like if I am looking for a specific catgory I am not sure that makes me relevant to see all of them...especially when you have so many categories with one post or only a few posts.

The more common mode of navigation is search, IMHO.

Instead of showing all categories on every page, you could list a top x categories and have a link to more categories...that would probably distribute your link equity more toward your most popular categories (like online publishing). Or you could just have a link to a categories page and save all that room for other stuff.

The only benefit of having that many categories on the sidebar of every page is that it keeps most of your link equity flowing internal to your site, but it distributes it in a bottom heavy way that places far more weight on posts where the parent category has few posts.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott Karp — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:51:48 -0000

Bill,

I appreciate that. The goodwill goes a long way.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Bill — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:49:34 -0000

Hi Scott,

There are a lot of us in the SEO industry who would be happy to answer a quick question when you see something odd like the result you're pointing out. I'm seeing more than a couple of SEOs who would, in the responses to this post, and showing up in your MyBlogLog widget right now.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

The Founder — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:31:35 -0000

Hi Scott,

I think you have a point.. funny I published this at the same time you did.. we said the same thing.

http://www.tribbleagency.co...

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott Karp — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:25:11 -0000

Natasha,

If I was really that sensitive, do you think I'd still be blogging, much less writing posts like this? :)

I made an issue out of your tone because SEO has a relationship management problem, and in that context tone matters.

I think it was a fortunate coincidence that the instance I highlighted is of ambigous origin, rather than a clear cut example of SEO manipulation -- the discussion here has been much more informative and constructive for SEO as a result.

The key question is this -- if SEO gets falsely blamed for a crappy Google search result, whose fault is it? Figure that out, and you'll have insight into how to fix SEO's reputation problem. (Hint: See Aaron's comment about the real source of this bad SEO karma.)

Drew, I never linked to the offending site.

Dave, thanks, you deconstructed the mechanic analogy much better than I did.

Aaron, interesting that using WordPress' default category set up could drag down your search engine ranking. But what's really interesting is that I have this category list on every page to help human users with site navigation, but what you're telling me is that it confuses Google, so I basically have to choose between optimizing for people and optimizing for machines. What a great system!

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Dave Pasternack — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:20:38 -0000

Natasha wrote: "But simply because one mechanic may make a mistake or does a bad service, is not going to make me say that all Mechanics are cheats!"

Natasha, I'm very glad that we're talking about auto mechanics here, not self-styled rocket scientists or (Heaven forbid), "SEO rock stars."

The question is: how do you know whether your mechanic is a crook or a competent journeyman/woman? Well, you do need to know something about the way automobiles work, and also, about the common scams practiced by mechanics.

Otherwise, you just have to trust your mechanic, and pay him whatever he/she asks, which is a risky proposition, as we all agree.

Regards,
Dave Pasternack
Did-it Search Marketing

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

disqusererer — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:16:43 -0000

Google is the one trusting old domains even after they expired and are picked up by a domainer. That is their fault. NOT the fault of an SEO.

If Google ALREADY ranks a real site, then it expires, then it is picked up by a domainer, then it is turned into a PPC landing page, then Google STILL ranks it (even after it is easy to detect as a PPC page) I am not sure you could fault the field of SEO for that. It is more of an issue of having a bad algorithmic hole, and then paying domainers to exploit it.

And guess who is displaying ads on these garbage domain lander pages? Typically Yahoo! or Google.

The engines not only rank the garbage, but they are also the ones paying for the business model. The control AND PROMOTE the entire ecosystem.

---------------------------------

As a tip for improving your rankings in Google for "online publishing", you may want to pull the flat navigational structure off your site (or at least not put it on every page of your site). Right now your sitewide category links are causing search engines to believe that Uncertainty, XML, or VNU should be weighted nearly as much as "Onine Publishing".

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Natasha Robinson — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:03:13 -0000

Scott,

My you are sensitive - lol - I kid.. No Problem. But did you think that anyone who does SEO would respond any differently when you write "of course, I donâ€™t rank high on Google for this keyword â€” who can compete with quality sites like these?" Ya get, what ya give. You wrote off all of SEO based on an incorrect conclusion! I didn't write you off as an Idiot - I said you were "mis-informed". And, had you written the post from the perspective of wanting an education on SEO as opposed to blaming SEO, I would not have been so offended by the post... and felt the need to vent at Threadwatch. I think I actually took the high road by showing the error of your ways... my sarcasm is par for the course - lol.

As I said at Threadwatch, "The First Drinks on Me!" and I'll still answer any questions that you have that will help you not write any more posts like this blaming SEOs for poor search engine results.

And DR - I consider linking part of how the web works.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Drew Robertson — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:38:50 -0000

you realize that with everyone linking to these clowns from your article, Google et al will only increase their SEO juice. Maybe they go to #1

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott Karp — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:38:32 -0000

Natasha,

I'm afraid your mechanic analogy doesn't hold up, because one bad SEO can affect how everyone's car runs, i.e. bad search results.

And thanks your offer to answer my questions for free, but after reading your Threadwatch post, I think I'll pass.

Re: What Gives SEO A Bad Name

Scott — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:56:47 -0000

Hi Scott,
Your comment form ate my earlier comment...

You may want to file this as an "other" spam report at:
http://www.google.com/conta...

I'd bet that Google doesn't want this in the index. They may or may not remove it, but it may ultimately help them to fix some aspect of their algo as one more example of something that they can improve...