Happiness is a warm dogJishMonika & ShaylaCaged babiesThe MukerjisThe MukerjisMonika

Spammers, Evildoers, and Opportunists

Search Engine Optimization is not a legitimate form of marketing. It should not be undertaken by people with brains or souls. If someone charges you for SEO, you have been conned.

First came the web, and it was a mess. Servers went up everywhere, the net connected them all, pages bloomed like flowers, and no one could find a damn thing.

Then came the search engines. First primitive indexes of dumb keywords, then Google with its rankings of most-linked pages, we were finally able to find the pages we needed, mostly.

The ascendency of Google has meant that, if your goal is to get the most eyeballs possible (as any ad-supported media business’ goal is), then prominent placement in the search engine results became a top priority.

And so, like the goat sacrificers and snake oil salesmen before them, a new breed of con man was born, the Search Engine Optimizer. These scammers claim that they can dance the magic dance that will please the Google Gods and make eyeballs rain down upon you.

Do. Not. Trust. Them.

The problem with SEO is that the good advice is obvious, the rest doesn’t work, and it’s poisoning the web. I’m going to tell you about the problems, and then tell you the one true way to generate traffic on the web, based on my own 14 years of hits and misses.

1. The good advice is obvious, the rest doesn’t work.

Look under the hood of any SEO plan and you’ll find advice like this: make sure to use keywords in the headline, use proper formatting, provide summaries of the content, include links to relevant information. All of this is a good idea, and none of it is a secret. It’s so obvious, anyone who pays for it is a fool.

Occasionally a darkside SEO master may find some loophole in the Google algorithm to exploit, which might actually lead to an increase in traffic. But that ill-gotten traffic gain won’t last long. Google changes the way it ranks its index monthly (if not more), so even if some SEO technique worked, and usually they don’t, it’ll last for a couple weeks, tops.

And when they do reindex, if they determine that you’ve been acting in bad faith (like hiding links or keywords or other deceptive practices) they’ll drop you like a hot rock. So a temporary gain may result in a lifetime ban.

In the end, you’re sacrificing your brand integrity in a Faustian bargain for an increase in traffic that won’t last the month. And how valuable was that increase, anyway? If you’re tricking people into visiting your site, those visits are going to be bad experiences.

2. SEO is poisoning the web.

Google’s ranking algorithm is based on links. So the most effective way to game their system is to plant links on as many sites as possible, all pointing to your site, linked from specific keywords. This is called Google bombing.

SEO cockroaches employ botnets, third-world labor, and zombie computers to blanket the web with link spam. 99% of spam comments to blogs are these kind of links. The target of these links is not the blog readers, it’s Google.

SEO bastards are behind worms that attack blog services like Blogger, WordPress, and Movable Type. Some hack into the blog templates themselves to insert links that are hidden from the readers of that blog, but visible to a Google crawler.

And they create programs to grab expired domain names, automatically create websites, filling the pages with content stolen from RSS feeds, creating billions of bad results for users.

It’s a game, and every link is a score for the SEO jerkwads and their disreputable clients. And every time they win, those of us trying to create quality work and good experiences on the web lose.

Worse than the hackers are the competent journalists and site creators that are making legitimate content online, but get seduced by the SEO dark side into thinking they need to create content for Google instead of for their readers. It dumbs-down the content, which turns off your real audience, which ultimately makes you less valuable to advertisers. If you want to know why there’s so much remnant advertising on online news sites, it’s because you’re treating the stories like remnants already.

Remember this: It’s not your job to create content for Google. it’s their job to find the best of the web for their results. Your audience is your readers, not Google’s algorithm.

The One True Way

Which brings us, finally, to the One True Way to get a lot of traffic on the web. It’s pretty simple, and I’m going to give it to you here, for free:

Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.

That’s it. Make something you believe in. Make it beautiful, confident, and real. Sweat every detail. If it’s not getting traffic, maybe it wasn’t good enough. Try again.

Then tell people about it. Start with your friends. Send them a personal note – not an automated blast from a spam cannon. Post it to your Twitter feed, email list, personal blog. (Don’t have those things? Start them.) Tell people who give a shit – not strangers. Tell them why it matters to you. Find the places where your community congregates online and participate. Connect with them like a person, not a corporation. Engage. Be real.

Then do it again. And again. You’ll build a reputation for doing good work, meaning what you say, and building trust.

It’ll take time. A lot of time. But it works. And it’s the only thing that does.

+

UPDATE 1: SEO FAQ
UPDATE 2: The Green Hair Theory


Fray

180 Comments

Thank you, Derek. It’s good to be reminded I’m not the only person who feels this way.

Posted by Katherine Sharpe on 12 October 2009 @ 12pm

A-fucking-men.

Posted by Adam Rakunas on 12 October 2009 @ 12pm

Well, I feel kind of insulted. I don’t practition the dark arts of SEO. I don’t care about rankings, I try to make a website as easy to find and as enticing to visit as I can.

I’ve been doing this for all sorts of clients for the past two years and so far I haven’t used black hat techniques or bought a single link.

So please, don’t call all SEO agencies fucktards or spammers. There are tiers, just as there are in web design.

Posted by Tim on 12 October 2009 @ 12pm

Thanks, Derek. This helps me remember that even when we’re struggling, we’re running this little business the right way. Which feels a million times better than the alternative.

Posted by Laura Royster on 12 October 2009 @ 12pm

Tim: If you’re really not using the darkside, then you have no reason to be insulted. Making a website good is not SEO, it’s just, well, obvious.

Also, I didn’t call SEO people “fucktards” because that wouldn’t be fair to actual retarded people.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 12 October 2009 @ 12pm

Well spoken, Derek. It’s nice to read your stuff again. Funny that I found everyone I used to read via Twitter. Hope all is well with you.

Posted by Jeff Wiegand on 12 October 2009 @ 12pm

Well, my first job title was SEO Consultant. So, that’s probably why I feel that way.

I won’t and can’t deny there are bastards in the industry, but calling the entire industry not a legitimate form of marketing is naming all the correct firms spammers. Surely we can agree that’s a bridge too far?

Posted by Tim on 12 October 2009 @ 12pm

This is exactly why I would follow you to the end of the earth, Derek. Dropping science like Galileo.

Posted by daveconrey on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

I don’t agree on the “obvious” thing.

There are things that are obvious to some people and are not obvious to others.

When you don’t have a clue and need a professional to help you, you need a name of a type of the professional in order to hire one.

Try finding “Obvious Web Content Design Professioanl” and you probably will find none.

Try finding “Search Engine Optimization” and you will find many.

The process of choosing an honest SEO is the same process as choosing any honest professional.

P.S – I don’t sell SEO. I just have an opinion.

Posted by Hanan Cohen on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

There is no such thing as honest SEO. There’s only making good websites.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Are you kidding? I’ve been reading your website for years, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen a post from you that is full of enough venom to almost make me stop reading and recommending your blog to other people. SEO and internet marketing are legitimate careers, and even if we don’t like some of the methods that a small portion of the population uses, I don’t think anyone is in any place to judge what another person does for a living. If the end result of our profession is profit, no matter what the profession is, we’re all guilty of doing wrong to someone in this world.

If you are out there in the world providing good content, you’re probably going to do well on the web without the help of a marketing agent. However, there is a place for SEO, and it’s usually in helping smaller businesses compete with the big guys. One of the most common uses of SEO is in the travel industry, where small hotels who have to compete with the hiltons and westons of the world end up ranking poorly because they simply aren’t as popular. A good SEO or internet marketing specialist can really come to the rescue and help these guys re-structure their websites so that their content/usability/navigation gets noticed.

Calling a SEO/marketing agent a evildoer or fucktard (really?!) is myopic commentary at best. Marketing guys tend to be as reviled as lawyers, anyway, but there’s no use in calling names. This is especially true when the vast majority of these SEO guys hate the black-hat operations just as much as the rest of us.

Why so venomous? There’s no need for hate.

Posted by Stephanie on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

I’m personally grateful that “Professional SEO Consultation” is out there. It makes it that much easier to immediately separate the people who actually care about their work from those who just biding their time until another “get rich online” scam is created. Besides, isn’t SEO nothing more than piss-poor reverse engineering anyway?

Posted by Ryan Brunsvold on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Thank you, sir!
Please consider looking into “social media” at some point; I hear there are similarly high levels of internet douchebaggery going on there as well. ;)

Posted by Schill on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.

Amen, brother.

Posted by myla on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

It may be obvious to you, but you have 14 years of hit and miss experience like you said. The fact is that most successful websites employ SEO. Most big brands employ SEO. Fox ran a piece on television a month or so ago bashing SEO, guess what, Fox has had an SEO team longer than most people have known it existed. It’s not all spammers and con-artists, anytime there is a medium with tons of eyeballs looking at it, companies will pay money to be exposed to it –television, anyone? Most of them don’t know enough about the web to understand how to get there, so they hire SEO firms…how is that unlike any other form of marketing? That’s what agencies have done for a long time…help companies succeed in mediums they don’t understand. For those that don’t hire agencies, they’re still going to be paying someone to do it in house. I work for an interactive agency that also does SEO, and we’ve helped numerous companies make substantial increases in traffic and online business — it’s insulting for you to say that everyone who practices SEO is a scammer or a con-artist. I agree, there are people who abuse a limited knowledge of SEO to do things like spam blogs and poison the web, but that’s not everyone.

There is definitely a dark side to SEO, but that’s only half the story. Ask the people who pay firms like SEOmoz, or any of the big interactive agencies, if they are getting results worth their money and they’ll let you know how SEO has helped them.

I liked your post, but I just disagree that there are no positives to SEO.

Posted by Chris Allison on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Sincere question that might sound snarky: what should we call it when I counsel someone to use an h2 tag instead of bold text? I’d call that optimizing for a search engine, but it’s also optimizing for the world in general.

Unfortunately, it’s not obvious to everybody.

Nothing that you wrote is false; most SEO practices I see are a form of cheating, but I don’t know what else to call it.

Posted by Bryan J Busch on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Stephanie – It sounds like you already stopped reading me, because I never used the word “fucktard” – a commenter did. And, we’re saying the same thing. You said: “If you are out there in the world providing good content, you’re probably going to do well.” I said: “Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.” So we agree on that.

SEO is a deceptive term. It sounds inoffensive but it covers a spectrum of practices that are ineffective at best, and destructive at worst. Feel free to disagree, but do me a favor and read the whole post first.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Solid post Derek. Of course there is no paint brush large enough to paint an entire industry, many SEO firms are bad actors. Also it is generally true of the web business, that many of it’s secrets are actually out in the open. E.g. W3C specs, etc. One of the main reasons I’ve been involved as long as I have :-)

Posted by Richard Ault on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

First of all, I think this is a good article and a lot of it is worth repeating, especially the bits about creating strong content that connects to your readers. Very well said. It’s just that I feel like your article takes a very generalized view of “SEO.”

Any front-end developer worth working with should be familiar with the basic tenets of search engine optimization, the parts you listed as obvious in your article. You would be amazed at how many developers are getting work without knowing how to use header tags or organizing content in a particularly unfriendly way to search engines. There is still a service to be provided to clean up other peoples terrible code and has nothing to do with spamming, buying links or other evil activity.

I believe the term you are looking for is Search Engine Marketing — Marketing directly to search engines. This is where the truly evil things are happening. Spamming, link buying, etc all happens under the umbrella of SEM, not SEO.

Furthermore, there is nothing evil about charging for what is obvious, the entire service industry is based on it. If someone else built a page and didn’t follow the obvious parts of SEO, charging to clean it up is perfectly ethical and provides a clear benefit.

Posted by Benton Barnett on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Bryan asked “what should we call it when I counsel someone to use an h2 tag instead of bold text?”

I call that making good websites. That’s why pro web devs are worth their price tag.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Derek,

I agree with you, but would like to point out that there’s another way: Linked Data or The Way We Should Have Done It Before It Got Out of Hand.

With Google and Yahoo! supporting the RDFa standard, there’s the chance that instead of “google bombing” you actually find intelligent nexus between the semantic content of one URI and another. Granted, like most brilliant ideas out of the W3C, the current state of implementation is piss poor and doesn’t facilitate a “web of terms” that link to each other intelligently, but I hope that as SEO gets optimized out, meaningful bonds will tighten the net so in a way so fine and fast it will be like Vulcan’s net: unassailable.

Steven

Posted by Steven G. Harms on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Great post – a rant very similar to the one that’s been buzzing around in my head for a few days now. Assuming the best, SEO consultants are just web designers who are incapable of doing the other 90% of the job.

Posted by Andi Farr on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Like advertising, the worse your product (website) is, the more (SEO) you will need.

Great post, Derek.

Posted by Gary Aston on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Yup, the link and semantic economy built around What-is-the-googlebot-hungry-for has skewed the web in awkward and horrible ways; the incentives are to game the graph, not to improve the information and social ecosystems. IMO, SEO should stop at “be findable by not obscuring your meaning” (IOW, don’t be stupid). Much beyond that and you’re generally in the realm of bullshit. Thanks for saying what I’ve been thinking, Derek.

Posted by Ian Kallen on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Thank you for writing this. Just this morning I was looking for a well written article displaying “SEO Expertise” as the elementary, brainless, and vile scam it is.
Much appreciated.
(And to the SEO Masters/Experts/Ninjas, I suggest you look into a vocation change.)

Posted by Taylor on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Thanks for the great post, Derek. The term ’seo consultant’ will (hopefully soon) join ranks with other esteemed titles of yore. i.e. ‘web-master.’

Just because the web CAN automate every single thing about our business, doesn’t mean it should.

I think marketing, while practiced in its many convoluted forms, is best left to an honest pitch and conversation (electronic or physical) between a merchant and a customer. That’s how dad did it, and his dad before him, and so on. Those valuable merchant — customer interactions are what really drives business, (not pay per clicks, etc.) it’s not something that can be automated by any computer.

Spam cannons. Hilarious visual. :D

Posted by Wayne Dahlberg on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

I consider myself working in SEO and this post is interesting as for a long time I held the view that there should be no SEO industry – as you say, it’s common sense web development and writing quality content.

But, after working with many clients, most of whom aren’t that online savvy, I do see a need for SEO – it’s about education. We teach them how to write for humans rather than using internal jargon – again it seems so simple but you would be amazed at how many people don’t think about it.

SEO can also really tie into usability and accessibility. It’s us that tells them to not to write their entire website in Flash, put text as images, or hide links with javascript, etc.

In an ideal world, people would write their websites with content, usability and accessibility in mind but as they often don’t, this is where SEO comes in.

It’s unfortunate that there are a lot of shonky used car salesmen in this industry but there are some brilliant, clever people working in SEO trying to make the web a better place. As you say, it’s about creating quality content and good experiences and this is what we get our clients to do.

I think of SEO like usability – yes it’s common sense, but sometimes clients need you to come in and educate you on the best practice way of doing it.

Posted by Cheryl Gledhill on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

“I call that making good websites. That’s why pro web devs are worth their price tag.”

Absolutely but what I’m finding is a lot of companies have a development team and would never call in an external developer. They would, however, call in an external SEO, which is where we come in and educate their devs on coding with web standards, semantics, etc.

When we’re giving our SEO recommendations we spend the majority of time teaching web standards and showing how to code without using tables. Again, seems so obvious for everyone who works in the web, but you’d be shocked at how many companies out there don’t know about web standards/accessibility.

Posted by Cheryl Gledhill on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

wonderful post. i deal with this on an almost daily basis; convincing clients not to hire SEO experts. they resent me for telling them to create good content that they are passionate about.

on the other hand, i’m starting an SEO for zombies immediately. (“It should not be undertaken by people with brains or souls.”)

Posted by yi on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

“There is no such thing as honest SEO.” Man, that is such a simple and ignorant statement to accompany the gross inaccuracies of your post in general.

There are a lot of dicks out there in the SEO world, but the truth is a good website is not the only thing that will get you indexed and optimised for a Search Engine.

As a developer, designer and often SEO consultant I train clients to be able to recognise all of these things you mention so they won’t need us eventually, but the keyword here is education. How to write content for users, build websites for users and think like the users.

After that, you need to fine tune. Server-side issues will always kill a good site without website owners having a clue. Redirects gone wrong will take you out of the rankings without website owners having a clue. Giving your website a good technical foundation is hardly something that is obvious, but should be with a lot of education.

Google Webmaster tools, a large back door into Google has to be configured correctly. You’ll be lucky if a dev / designer is going to touch that.

You sound like you have been stung and it’s easy to generalise the SEO industry but seriously, do your homework. The “web standards will save us” mantra is pretty thin.

Posted by Scott G on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Right on the money, Derek. There is no real world value in SEO. It’s smoke and mirrors to make it look like you’re doing something for your client when you’re actually sitting around getting paid to ruin the internet. Thanks, douchebags.

Of course, they’re one step off my current pet hate of pseudo-personalised marketing: New media/social media ‘experts’. Why are there so many shysters looking to rip people off on the internet?

Posted by Fletcher Thompson on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

This post fired me up so much that I don’t even need afternoon coffee. Testify brother!

Posted by Gino on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

This post is correct on soo many levels I don’t even know where to begin. I have quite a few friends who entitle themselves as “SEO specialists”. I wish them well because they’re not “evil” people, but they started with blindfolds and are unaware that we’re all playing the same game.

This is exactly what you wrote – correct document outline, thinking about content, etc should be used by any professional doing websites. “SEO specialists” started by tweaking existing codebases and seeing what works. Instead of learning the craft, and extending the skillset, they put on blindfolds.

Sadly, many of them (again, good people, and I wish them well) have no idea there’s no such thing as SEO. There’s gaming the system and being a webdeveloper. First one is futile, second is… well, obvious.

Posted by Piotr Petrus on 12 October 2009 @ 2pm

Every commenter on this blog who says, “but but but.. there are legitimate SEOs! I am one! Here’s what I do..” goes on to explain that all they do is what Derek says to do: MAKE GOOD WEBSITES.

Making a good website doesn’t require SEO.

Also, the rest of you SEOs out there might be interested to know that Google flat-out ignores keywords in its index algorithm. So suck on that.

Posted by John Bell on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

Great post. I completely agree. Any legitimate form of marketing or advertising for the web has been largely overshadowed by this sleaziness and it’s very disheartening for someone like me who wants to legitimately market and advertise on the web.

Also, to all you SEO “gurus” who are apparently offended by this post, here’s a question I’ve always asked:

If I wanted to hire an SEO firm, shouldn’t I hire the one that’s ranked first on a Google search for ‘SEO’?

Posted by Josh Holloway on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

Derek,
Thank you! What a great post. This has been extremely useful to me, I plan to use your advice as my guide.
Something for Nothing loses again!

Posted by Antonio Dias on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

Great thoughts about SEO. I like “It’s not your job to create content for Google. it’s their job to find the best of the web for their results.” Very true and I think everyone needs to be reminded of that every once in a while.

As long as Google holds the vast majority of search engine traffic, you are going to see web producers writing content that gets indexed highly on it. Some businesses live or die by their Google traffic, fair or not.

Posted by Dave on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

I kind of feel bad for everyone who reads this and convinces themselves they don’t need SEO. It is true that a lot of SEO is common sense, however, there are legitimate SEO’s out there who can help fix problems with large sites that are coded incorrectly.

Also, you say “create something great. tell people about it”

Yeah, well for many companies, their way of “telling people about it” is search. If your site isn’t optimized, or you are using the incorrect keywords in your content, people won’t find it.

You didn’t mention some of the legitimate SEO services that agency’s or freelancers can provide.

Keyword research
Legitimate link building through social media
Technical site audits
Organizational changes to the site
Content development

Posted by William on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

Oh, forgot to mention. Its the new year and you decide on a new web site rollout and design. I’ll just go ahead and post all my changes, 301 redirect be damned. All that SEO stuff is garbage, right?

Right.

Posted by William on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

This could go on for days:

***
SEO Guy: I do x, y, and z, how is that bad?
Derek Powazek: X, y, and z isn’t SEO, it’s making good websites.
***

SEO Guys, please change your titles to Good Website Makers. I don’t care why, just do it. Derek Powazek insists.

Posted by Jason Kirk on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

Wow, thats the best words about SEO i ever heard. To create great content and connect with people is the only good way to get fame on the web. Who want’s to read SEO-optimized content?

Posted by Andreas Rilinger on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

My wife helps run a monthly meetup for local small business entrepreneurs. Many of these people are new to the web, blogging, etc. To hear her tell it, there’s rarely a day where some SEO dude doesn’t show up with a pitch meant to terrify the attendees into thinking they’re “leaving money on the table!” if they don’t purchase his special brand of fairy dust.

SEO consultants have been far too successful in portraying fairly simple best practices as a mysterious third-party bolt-on “solution.”

That said, I don’t have much sympathy for businesses that would rather spend money on a bunch of SEO fluff to lift their circa-1998 made-with-Frontpage brochure site to the top of Google than actually hire a skilled web developer every now and then to modernize their web presence.

Posted by scottandrew on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

Fletcher, you read my mind about the social media ‘expert’. Sadly, these people actually have a market commonly known as retarded company managers who don’t know shit about the internet and don’t trust that their employees know anything either so they hire people to teach them how to use Twitter or Facebook. How. Fucking. Stupid. Is. That. ?.

Google’s algorithm is fast becoming old school. I often find myself now opening up the Options sidebar and getting a listing of recent results because i’m not interested in content that is more than 1 year old. Normally, you will get older content listed for your search because it’s been on the internet for longer and more websites have linked to it over time but it’s content is outdated and totally irrelevant.

Posted by Brad on 12 October 2009 @ 3pm

Josh Holloway,

Definitely hire number one on Google for SEO.

It’s “Wikipedia”

Posted by Don Makoviney on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

I think it goes without saying the bot people and spammers are some of the worst vile evil on the web. No. The worst actually.

SEO is just another item in the toolbox. I often have to explain to clients how to create a properly structured web page. And surprisingly it’s still difficult for them to grasp. And keeping track of which containers Google is indexing “is” important. If an H2 is getting more weight than an H1, that’s important. If duplicate content via the archives of a site are causing penalties, that’s important. If there are ways to avoid getting “sandboxed” by Google for 90 days, that’s important. Your average small or mid-sized business owner doesn’t have the first effing clue how to figure this out.

And those things change often. I don’t see anything unethical about a small or medium sized business paying me for a day or two of making their shit right. The SEO I did for a client recently moved his sales up several hundred percent once Google picked up the changes. And there was no “bots”, no “Google bombing”, no “dummy content”. Good SEO is a great way to get lots of free, qualified, long tail traffic (but I’m sure you know that and have heard it ad nauseum).

Ironically, great link bait post though.

Don M

Posted by Don M on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

Wise words. You just saved clients millions of pounds.

Posted by Nick Myers on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

Making good websites involves:
Technology > Content > Structure > Function > Aesthetics > Dissemination

Design, SEO, development etc are part of this process – I have always resisted putting the term SEO on my website, because it offends me intellectually… it’s like saying ‘color selection’ or ’spell checking’, except it is more useful for sales people.

So thanks for the post, I am happily vindicated!

Posted by Julian A Waters on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

While there is definitely a LOT of snake oil in the SEO biz, I think it’s childish to throw it’s worth aside entirely.

The majority of web designer/developers that I know don’t understand much beyond the basics of on-page SEO. Posts like this discredit the notion that SEO brings value to a project, so why should they?

In my opinion, great content and design go a long way towards bringing in lots of traffic, but that’s a long term strategy. Working with a good SEO can shorten the amount of time it takes to bolster your rankings, and when you’re dealing with building sites that need to adhere to business goals, that’s important.

I know a lot of good SEOs that don’t throw just keywords in a meta tag. They stay on top of the changes in the search engines algorithms on a regular basis, and are constantly working harder and harder to generate more revenue for their client’s hosting dollars. While I lived in Chicago, I regularly took part in the discussions at the monthly SEO Meetups and saw what these guys are doing; it’s not all a bunch of black hat tricks.

I, too, used to believe that all SEO was snake oil, but I’ve learned that a good SEO consultant can help me drive traffic and better conversion rates (through content strategy, link-building, etc.) on a site that belongs to me or a client of mine in a shorter period of time than it normally takes. When I have to build a web site that delivers on business goals, I’m going to arm myself with as many tools as I possibly can that will help me deliver that web site successful. And sometimes that means bringing in an SEO consultant.

Just my 2c.

Posted by Tristan Blease on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

“Making a good website doesn’t require SEO.”

- Probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, except for the first half of the original blog post above. If you have the best looking website in the world it really doesn’t matter if no-one can find it. Most people find content on the web using search engines so why not make your website as easy for Google to digest as possible?

- There is nothing wrong with hiring someone who knows how to do SEO because it is NOT OBVIOUS for most normal people. Why would I know that a H1 tag is better than bold for Google? If someone can train a blogger to make a few tweaks to their web posting habits they should do it, but only if the blogger wants to be successful.

Posted by MattjDrake on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

Personally:
1. SEO / SEM practices are why I had to turn off comments on my wordpress blog a few years ago, removing one of the most rewarding parts of writing things for other people to read.

2. SEO / SEM practices are why you need an account and a password for every goddamn site on the web, because the people working at the websites can’t keep up with the bot commenters and link spam, and authenticating emails is one tiny defense in the war to keep spam from drowning a site. So either all my passwords are going to be the same, so that I can remember them, or I have to write them down somewhere, because the more secure they are the harder they are to remember. This is why the most common password on the web is 123456.

Professionally:
At Funny or Die, where I work, people post videos and viewers comment, and both sides of that equation have enjoyed it in the two and a half years we’ve been around. Yet every day the spammers are finding ways around our spam defenses, creating hundreds of accounts with pictures of big breasted ladies leaving insipid comments like “nice video. come visit my site” on every single video. It’s not fun for us, since product and development decisions are hampered by having to worry about any vulnerability to spammer techniques. It’s not fun for our users, since nothing takes the wind out of the sails of a good internet comment flame war than zombie bots.

I agree with Derek: don’t hire an SEO agency, just recognize that good designers and good engineers are worth what they charge.

Posted by Liz Dunn on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

I’ve made a huge investment in time giving advice on newsgroups. Since my signature block has my URL in it, and since Google index said newsgroups, I have quite a decent page rank for a small business.

So now when SEO dweebs contact me about SEO, I just tell them to come back when their own web site has beaten mine :)

Posted by Steve Holden on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

I would take a slightly (but ever so slightly) more central ground. No, some search engines do not even use the keywords meta tag anymore. Yes, you can still get shot down for hidden keywords.

But on the other hand, there are a lot of developers out there who really do not understand that (to use the above example) an is usually better than , or that an explicit link is usually better for search engines than a link buried somewhere (or, worse yet, dynamically constructed) in a JavaScript function.

So in that sense, there is certainly a place for SEO. It’s just not the “arcane science” that it once (sort of) was. Yes, it is something that developers can learn. But they have to learn it, somehow.

Posted by Lonny Eachus on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

To answer Tristan, though: Google is the one most often targeted, they do NOT publish their algorithms, on purpose, and in fact they have stated that the BEST and easiest way to get to the top of their ranking today is to have a website that has been around for a while and that contains good content. So trying to “stay on top” of their algorithms is a lost cause before it’s even started.

Posted by Lonny Eachus on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

Haha… sorry for multiple posts, but I see that I goofed and my “html” did not make it through the blog software. I know better… just not thinking.

Posted by Lonny Eachus on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

I am a big believer in ‘make content and they will come’.

I’m working on the ‘tell people about it’.

-funky49

Posted by funky49 on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

For people who make web sites for a living, this post (and the ensuing discussion) has been a long time coming. Thanks for writing this up Derek!

There should be no such thing as SEO in and of itself. SEO is one of many considerations for Front-End Developers, Site Architects, and Content Creators as they create and maintain a web site.

The fact that some Marketers usurped this field and claimed it as an area of specialization all their own — separating it from the actual front-end development of sites — reveals a failure on the part of many Developers to (1) stay on top of their craft and understand how what they do is inextricably tied to SEO, and/or (2) know how to market their own skills, and explain issue #1 to their clients and employers.

Sadly, many people who write code tend to be less comfortable with tooting their own horn than the aforementioned Marketers — who are, in a way, professional manipulators (that’s how they get lumped in with lawyers as one commenter said).

If you care about SEO, then when the front-end code for your site is written (whether you do it or someone else) you should be using best practices, such as valid, semantic markup. SEO isn’t a separate strategy that is glued on after the code is written. It IS the code, and it IS the content.

Write well, write about something people are interested in, that’s part of it. Then present what you’ve written using clean, valid, semantic markup. THAT is SEO. Anything else is the wool getting pulled over your eyes at $10k+ a pop. That money should be going to savvy developers who have learned to pitch their skills as including SEO in what they do.

Posted by Sally Carson on 12 October 2009 @ 4pm

For some companies, especially large ones, disregarding SEO is not an option. What would it do to Target’s credibility if it slipped a couple page ranks because those constructing the site paid no heed to making sure Google (or others) could index their mountains of content easily?

While SEO is not the be-all/end-all solution to content on the web, it is a necessary step in the fit-and-finish of a well constructed site.

As with any profession involving communications, one must know their audience. In this case, several members of the audience are robots. It never works to *pander* to them, but why should we ignore them when they’re interested in our content?

Provided it doesn’t taint the content or message of a site, SEO is an inexcusable step in building anything online.

Posted by Joshua Kulpa on 12 October 2009 @ 5pm

amen. preach it brother!

Posted by code72 on 12 October 2009 @ 5pm

Thanks for that. That is pretty much how I built up Strobist to what it is today, and I learned most of it from watching every Matt Cutts (Google’s SEO evangelizer) video I could find on the web.

You are dead on in your advice. Thanks!

-David H

Posted by David Hobby on 12 October 2009 @ 5pm

I attend a monthly small-business SEO meetup. The two organizers have fantastic prepared materials and spend a lot of their own time in the Google Webmasters forum answering questions. They’re very clear about the things people should not do or pay for to build their site traffic.

So, what’s the value?

A lot of folks are running businesses with Wordpress sites. They’re trying to learn about effective marketing in areas they’re unfamiliar with. And someone’s there, trying to teach them how to build an effective site. Stuff like having well written, relevant and unique content, 301 redirects and good URL structure. I can’t help but see value in teaching people that.

Posted by Nathan L. Walls on 12 October 2009 @ 5pm

Good stuff. I keep seeing SEO advisories going on and on and on.. And then whole thing goes into ratshit once Google or some other engine (there are others out there, people), changes algorithms.. and it starts again “oh create links, oh create sattelite blogs, publish it on social media”.. Bollocks. Honest day work and good idea is what gets good site or blog known. Not some vodoo dance.

Posted by Sergei on 12 October 2009 @ 5pm

I skipped the comments because I was afraid I’d just get angry – there would be the immediate support, the contrived bridge-building, and then the onslaught of SEO gurus chiming in to score “google juice”.

I can’t thank you enough for so clearly articulating my feelings on the matter.

Posted by Matthew Reinbold on 12 October 2009 @ 5pm

Good stuff. I have been going back and forth with an SEO firm from India for the last week. They demand that we load up the keyword tag and insert spammy meta descriptions when Google’s guidelines clearly state those things are ignored for ranking. All the witchcraft surrounding SEO is self-fulfilling because it’s so difficult to disprove that certain things work.

I teach classes on this stuff and my advice is the same – create quality content. Avoid trickery; if it works, it won’t work for long. Everyone wants a magic bullet, but there aren’t any. The fact is, Google has thoroughly documented guidelines for everything that a “legitimate” SEO strategy brings to the table – you don’t need to pay a firm to tell you how to handle 301 redirects. Follow Google’s published content guidelines and you’re there.

And to the link spammers and link builders, may you burn for a long, long time.

Posted by Brent Buford on 12 October 2009 @ 6pm

Extremely well said and needed. Hear, hear!
Mark Shepard
http://ModernJedi.com

Posted by Mark Shepard on 12 October 2009 @ 6pm

It isn’t just SEOs that are scum, all marketing people are. That’s their job, be as scummy and bottom-feeding as possible. Be honest with yourselves.

Posted by dev on 12 October 2009 @ 6pm

Great, now I feel like scum to the big bucks I used to charge as a SEO Consultant. Well, at least I left that behind and am back into programming.

Posted by Tara on 12 October 2009 @ 6pm

Awesome post. I’ve often wondered about SEO practices and where the experts came from. Very few of them seem to have strong web design skills (just look at their crappy sites) and many of them have written e-books that seem to make them experts.

They’re always complaining about “stupid Google” changing their indexing algorithms and how you can fix this for $19.99. Give me a break.

Derek, thanks for having the balls to come out and say what many of us have been thinking. I’ve had a few clients that have lost money to to shady SEO companies.

Posted by Jay Kerr on 12 October 2009 @ 7pm

I don’t know you or your work well and was sent your link by a friend…so perhaps this is a foolish question but…have you ever run your own small business? I’m talking about a 1 to 3 million dollar business with between 5 and 21 employees?

SEO IS obvious, and easy too…and it is also time consuming. I make my entire business by doing things for business owners they simply do not have time to do for themselves. I’m cheaper than an employee (no overhead, no health insurance, 30 day terms, no bad will if they don’t use me for a month or twelve) and ALL I do is help them do things that they could damn well do themselves. BUT DON’T HAVE THE TIME.

People seem to have no idea the actual challenges a small business owner faces today. Those owners don’t make a million a year. They don’t have slush funds. They might not even have retirement or college funds. They work weekends, and late nights, and holidays and they employee other people…and they don’t have the time to think about key words, adwords, tags, backlinks or what good code is.

People who take advantage of people suck. In any field. I love my job because I help people every day who are grateful I can take some of this stuff off their plate. So I write well, I write good code and I’m extremely proud of what I’ve done to help small businesses. I can point to jobs that came in to someone because of what I’ve done. And that $3000 dollar job makes a big difference to the small owner that’s down 20% over last year.

Are their SEO scammers? Yes. Painting everyone with the same brush?

That’s just silly.

Posted by Jennifer on 12 October 2009 @ 7pm

Interesting.. However, SEO is something that Google teaches and endorses to help your ranking in their search engine. Kinda hard to call something evil when the company it effects considers it legit and practical. no?

Check out Matt Cutts… who is an SEO.. and works for Google (I think he is employee 7 or something)

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/

Posted by hmmmm on 12 October 2009 @ 8pm

I don’t agree. Well, I agree that there are spammers, opportunists, snake oil salesman and all that stuff. But that happens on many industries.

We are all aware that there are many different approaches to SEO and many kind of techniques (white/black), some with somehow proved results, some that are doomed to fail, some that are pure speculation on how search engines work.

And no, there isn’t any black magic behind SEO and there isn’t any unknown magic behind how Google works. We just simple don’t know how things works and some of us apply logic and trial and error to find out how the search engines works.
If you are better than your competence at using your brain, then you will be probably be able to show some case studies to your potential customers.

And that’s why there are web developers (aka Good Website Makers, as Jason Kirk said above) that can help their clients to make their websites perform better on search engines.
You have to do some homework, do the classic “tricks” (ie. good titles, good meta description, both based on good content) in order to bring some results, and stay tuned to some industry news.

“Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.” is just a reformulation of “Content is king” mantra.

Personally, I’ve been able to bring “good performance” (aka “good positioning”, “relevant positioning” or whatever you want to call it when your website is on the first page results for a relevant, specific or generic search) to some niche websites, and my clients are quite happy about that. I explain them that there is no magic behind that, that their site has good content, better content than their competence, and than I’ve crafted it on a way that search engines can get the most out of them. You have to help search engines to digest your website.

Posted by Julián Landerreche on 12 October 2009 @ 8pm

And yes, if a client calls me to have a meeting and I’m going to give them some “SEO advices”, then I pretend to be paid my hourly rate for my time being sit with them, telling all the things I’ve learnt regarding SEO.

It’s my time and I’m sharing practical knowledge that will help their business to make money.

I teach them: “Do you see this title here on the blue bar? That’s what SE uses as the clickable link on their SERPs. And do you see this meta description here? Yes, if you use it, then on SERPs you will have a nice, human readable snippet that will probably help to increase click-through.”

And if they don’t like to pay me (or anyone else) for just talking about SEO, then they shouldn’t call me. They should just open Google and do some research on how to make their website better.

I just charge my clients for the time I spend with them or working at their websites, making them better. I don’t sell nor guarantee any results.

Posted by Julián Landerreche on 12 October 2009 @ 8pm

“Spam” exists in most communication channels.

Telemarketers in call centers.
Automated voice messages.
Bulk SMS messages.
Bluetooth spam.
Junk mail.
Email spam.
Usenet spam.
IRC spam.
Web spam.
Word-of-mouth spam.
Celebrity “endorsements”.
Street peddlers.
Classifieds spam.
Flyer spam.
Sky writing, flying banners etc.
Huge billboards with blinking fucking lights.

I could go on for a while.

Are all of those people evil opportunistic bastard cockroaches?

Posted by blackhatseo on 12 October 2009 @ 9pm

Well, I’ll have to read the bulk of these comments tomorrow, but suffice to say I agree with Tim (3rd commenter), among others. To be fair, however, I completely share your outrage, Derek. I can’t tell you how much black-hat SEO sickens me. Hell, even white-hat SEO bugs the hell out of me when it looks like a keyword monster puked all over the place. Good way to ruin a site.

But here’s the thing: for those of us in the lower- to middle-tier development arena, getting a client to spring for content development or copywriting of any sort is a battle that we can almost never win. People refuse to pay for it. And, for many clients, their prepared-in-house content is bad enough for the circular file (usually worse). Meta information, _being_ important content, needs to be organized and developed in order to be worthwhile. And, rather than just pad our quotes without letting the client know, we line-item the “SEO content development,” and we explain to them why it’s important. I hope this seems like a worthwhile and respectable endeavor to you. If nothing else, it’s transparent and optional.

But, when Derek Effing Powazek writes on his blog that “If someone charges you for SEO, you have been conned,” then I can pretty much guarantee that my battles are going to get harder from now on. Thanks, Derek.

Listen, I’d really like to say that the Republican Party of the USA is comprised of fringe lunatics, but I know that it isn’t entirely true. Just like “search engine optimization” is a completely legitimate line-item on many, many web development shops’ project plans. The words “search engine optimization” (which HAVE A MEANING) can NOT be usurped and vilified just because a small number of agencies abuse the system to a huge extent.

All you had to do was craft a missive that points the finger at the bad guys without putting the good guys in the crossfire. I wish you had. Now, I agree with about 90% of what you wrote. And I still very much respect your writing, your opinions, and your contributions to the development community. But man, this post is steppin’ on a LOT of people’s revenue streams, many of whom AREN’T the cocksuckers you were aiming for.

Posted by Jim Thorpe on 12 October 2009 @ 9pm

I will bet a dinner at a nice restaurant that Tim and Stephanie (upthread) are either business partners or a couple.

Posted by Lee on 12 October 2009 @ 10pm

Interesting article, and worth the read – thanks for sharing. There are a couple of issues with this article if you are actually serious about your points.

One is that it is most definitely linkbait which kind of begs the question of whether you’re making your own little faustian by posting it, or whether you’re trying to be ironic.

The second is that it is arguing semantics without defining the speakers. If the general business owner thinks that “SEO” is congruent with “helping make my business successful online/achieve my business goals” and while searching looks for the former rather than the latter then it behooves me as a professional to describe what I do in the terms they are thinking of. While I may ultimately think of it as making good websites by doing things I consider obvious, it is simpler (more easily comprehensible to clients) to label it with the terminology the industry as a whole is buying into.

I like Jason Kirk’s reply. :)

Posted by Leif Jason on 12 October 2009 @ 10pm

And, in case that rant wasn’t enough, one more item:

Bryan asked “what should we call it when I counsel someone to use an h2 tag instead of bold text?”
Derek answered: “I call that making good websites.”

I’ve been fighting a 15-year battle to be respected for what I do. “Oh, you make websites?” is a question I hear a lot. It’s roughly akin to “oh, you’re a computer guy?” People have no idea what it means, and they have no idea how it could be a respectable career path, if their 15-year-old son can “make websites.” When you simplify your craft down to “making good websites,” then you’re wrapping things up into a neat little package, and it just isn’t that simple. But by simplifying it, you rob the component tasks of credibility. I’m not saying it’s necessary to “fluff it up,” but again: I need to tell my clients what services I offer, and exactly what I’m charging them for. And each of those things are not only important, but they need to be _seen_ as important.

Posted by Jim Thorpe on 12 October 2009 @ 10pm

thank you! will forward this to my boss who insists on hiring an SEO consultant for his site… grr. i havent been able to get through to him

Posted by deka on 12 October 2009 @ 10pm

Brilliant stuff Derek.

I’m going to Twitter/Blog/Facebook this article and bring loads of traffic to your site, because it has quality content. he he!

BTW: I came to this page via a Twitter post ;)

Posted by Steve Perks on 12 October 2009 @ 10pm

This is an example of a spam comment link.

Just kidding. Every bullshit SEO practice eventually stops working. The only long term “method”, as suggested by google time and time again is “make relevant content”.

The war between google and the spammers will be won by google (they the ones making the rules). Think about the point of a search engine, to find you the best, most relevant content. As search engines improve, they get closer and closer to this goal.

SEO practice might work now (and it does!) but it is not a long term investment. If you intend on still being on the web in a few years, stop trying to cheat and just do it (sponsored by nike)

Posted by book-value on 12 October 2009 @ 11pm

My longish 2 cents on Spammers, Evildoers, and Opportunists is at http://bit.ly/Nh8Ko

The salient point is that I feel everything in this article is a beautiful lie I wish were true.

Posted by Amelia G on 12 October 2009 @ 11pm

Hi Derek, I absolutely agree with you; but wouldn’t paint the SEO profession as a black art entirely. As an end-user searching for useful information, I have often found it that good content exists online, but is somehow not in the right form to be indexed (say in multimedia, or in flash, or in scanned but un-indexable documents, poor choice of tags, and such like), or using the right content creating tool to make its way into the first couple of pages on Google search.

In one particular industry (energy) I am a part of, e.g., I struggle on a daily basis to find useful vendor information, vessel information, associated services, et al. There are very good companies out there in what they do—but have dismally poor presence on the web. And because they pay so little attention to their web presence, and the way their content is presented (as I mentioned earlier in bad formats et al), they inadvertently find themselves at the bottom of the pit. They probably do not even realize it that they might be losing business.

This is perhaps where good professionals from the SEO industry could actually help — by offering good advice on content creating tools to use, recommending better and simpler indexable formats for the web — like product catalogues and associated information, make their content transparent and reader friendly, which in turn also would make it easier for the spiders to eventually elevate their content based on quality.

Of course, it also depends perhaps on the client. Some are open to advice, others leave it to the ‘professionals,’ and *demand* quick results. And because achieving success is on a short leash, i.e., they may not get paid before demonstrating higher ranking, perhaps, they are drawn into doing something that produces quick results—at the expense of long term harm to an otherwise good site. It should not be like this, because in the end both parties—users as well as owners—lose.

Posted by Chyetanya Kunte on 13 October 2009 @ 12am

Chyetanya — Businesses that “pay so little attention to their web presence” are not going to pay for SEO, let alone a good web designer who’d code their site appropriately from the get-go. SEO scammers, instead, are extorting money from innocent clients that are getting fooled into paying it.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 13 October 2009 @ 12am

“Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.” Man… I couldn’t agree with you more.

Posted by Rachel on 13 October 2009 @ 12am

On the one hand I enjoyed this post, and I think your central message is positive: Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.

Sadly, you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater, demonizing SEO (jerkwads?), and its practitioners, in a one-sided rant which makes me question your judgment.

-Mike

Posted by Mike Mindel on 13 October 2009 @ 12am

I’m lucky.

I’ve had fiction published, on a website which is well-run, and I’ve picked character names which are unusual, and my stories pop up on the first Google page.

Nothing planned, and no sneaky tricks, but maybe it’s a good thing there isn’t a Wikipedia page on the subject. How many fake encyclopedias are recycling Wikipedia and feeding link-spam into the SEO business?

Posted by Dave Bell on 13 October 2009 @ 12am

“Making a website good is not SEO, it’s just, well, obvious.”

YES! Someone who sees the light. EXCELLENT article, sharing it with my community.

Posted by Barbara Ling, Virtual Coach on 13 October 2009 @ 1am

Yes, most of that stuff is damned obvious. It doesn’t stop people from getting it wrong again and again. One of the firms who we have as a client has a slew of woefully designed sites from the search engine visibility perspective with things like Flash only content. In one case even worse, a Flash entry page leading to non-Flash content.

They have great content but people can’t find it due to web design errors. Yes, web designers should be getting it right the first time but that is not the reality out in the field. As long as that is the case SEO agencies will get paid to fix things up or teach web designers to create websites which are not only human friendly but bot readable as well.

Said client btw is currently paying an SEO agency to review their websites to see which ones urgently need to be fixed by the web designers.

Basically, considering how many of these obvious things you mention are being ignored when a site is created a rant about web designers failing their clients is just as called for as one about shitty SEO link spammers.

Posted by Sungam on 13 October 2009 @ 1am

Loved the original post and the ensuing, impassioned conversation. It’s one we’ve been having at our agency for some time. Keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by Deanna Harms on 13 October 2009 @ 2am

Businesses that “pay so little attention to their web presence” are not going to pay for SEO, let alone a good web designer who’d code their site appropriately from the get-go.

I’ve worked for two such clients, having to come in and clean up the mess after the in-house IT guys in charge of the website had to work with black hat seos who the company hired.

The company had no trouble spending 5 figures on SEO but wouldn’t hire a proper content writer until two years into our work. Chyetanya has a point.

Posted by Mike Papageorge on 13 October 2009 @ 3am

Well thanks very much. I’ve just fixed* someone’s web site for them, for money, because the “designer” who did it in the first place *didn’t* do it properly. If it were so damned obvious, there wouldn’t be a market for the SEO people, either good or bad.

* For SEO: i.e. alt text on the images, meta descriptions for SERPS, h1 tags on the actial page titles etc. No black hat, just good practice.

Posted by Tim Beadle on 13 October 2009 @ 3am

The vast majority of SEO that I do is more to do with clearing up other developers shit work. People coding sites badly forcing Google to have problems caching massive amounts of duplicates 404 pages. Lets face it.. a lot of ‘web design’ is and was done by 12 year old’s who don’t have a clue what they are doing.

Yes in an Ideal world where every web developer knew about good web design (not just from a user perspective but from a search engine perspective) there would be no need for SEO. But the world (and the web) isn’t perfect.

So although there are a lot of bad apples out there, I don’t think it’s fair to bad-mouth the entire industry.

Posted by Noodlewitt on 13 October 2009 @ 3am

Thanks for the article, man. Even if SEO is not all evil, the industry is filled with conmen, who make developers write crap code – it just makes me sad, really.

Posted by rosamez on 13 October 2009 @ 3am

I couldn’t agree more. I once hired an SEO to do my site. He like totally screwed it up. First, I wasn’t ranking anywhere. Then he made my site rank really well for a ton of terms. Then I redesigned my site in Flash. My site fell off the Google completely. Obviously, he was using shady tactics that failed to work in the long run.

Derek, you have finally voiced the thoughts I’ve had for so long. I’m glad someone is standing up to these interwebs bullies.

Posted by Josh on 13 October 2009 @ 4am

OK.

1) EVEN if you take the most hard core, black hat SEO cretin on the planet, using the term “evil” is a bit out of proportion.

Hitler was evil. Myra Hindley was evil. Carter Ruck are evil.

Seriously, of all the fucked-up shit that’s happening in the world today SEO doesn’t even measure. Of all the kids being paid 9p an hour in Gap factories. Of all the glaciers melting. Of all the wars being started and bankers being paid bonuses.

I REALLY object to the use moral terms when talking about something as benign as SEO. Even the bad kind.

Seriously .. get some perspective.

2) I agree that bad SEO techniques are bad.

3) I agree that some SEOs use bad SEO techniques.

4) But by the same token that not all web developers have no social life, no girlfriend and Dominos on speed dial, not all SEOs use bad SEO techniques.

I charge people to do SEO.

Basically, this involves:

a) Fixing mistakes other web designers have made

b) Telling the client to have good content and where necessary helping them write it

c) Helping the client get the word out there about their good content, to kick start their rankings

d) Helping clients understand that being top for their brand name isn’t important, it’s about ranking well for keywords people might actually search for.

If that makes me evil then fine, I’m evil.

Personally, I see it as helping clients and covering up for shoddy web designers who’ve come before me.

But hey .. why print the truth, when the legend’s so much more appealing?

Posted by Richard Quick on 13 October 2009 @ 4am

the post has officially becomes funny the moment somebody inserted their promotion links as comments to score some backlinks

Posted by enda on 13 October 2009 @ 4am

One more point.

“The good advice is obvious … Anyone who pays for it is a fool”

Why?

It’s obvious how to make a coffee, but I pay for coffee all the time.

I’m perfectly capable of making a sandwich .. but I buy them too at lunch.

Some people don’t have the time or inclination to spend time learning the “obvious” techniques.

My clients run businesses. They have things to do, like actually running their business.

They pay me to do their SEO. They pay a cleaner to clean their toilets.

Neither is hard to do. But they’re a bit dull, not that enjoyable, and it frees up their time to do other things.

Posted by Richard Quick on 13 October 2009 @ 4am

I’m a recent hire into the Internet Marketing world. I used to be a consultant, but I got tired of selling bullshit.

The company I work for sells websites built on different CMS platforms. The only SEO stuff I do is what you call “making better websites”. The problem I have is when you say “It’s so obvious, anyone who pays for it is a fool.”

Most of our clients don’t know a thing about the internet. That’s why they pay someone to setup a wordpress blog instead of doing it themselves. It’s not obvious to them because they don’t work in the internet. They work in sales, or in manufacturing, or even in marketing.

Making a grilled cheese sandwich is obvious and easy, but I still buy mine (at a markup) for lunch. Does that make me a fool? I also don’t change the oil in my own car, even though I know it is very easy to do. I wouldn’t say I’m a fool for doing so. The same is true of my laundry, which I send out.

Just because something is easy to do or obvious doesn’t mean you are a fool for paying for it.

Posted by John-Michael Oswalt on 13 October 2009 @ 4am

My favorite line: “It’s not your job to create content for Google… Your audience is your readers…”

Posted by SummerH on 13 October 2009 @ 5am

I find it amazing how many people are missing the point here. If you build websites correctly there is no need for “SEO”. For those who practice SEO solely there is a reason that you do so, maybe you can’t build websites? Stop being offended if you find yourself in the wrong category, the point of this post was to bring to light that the term SEO has become abused and mismanaged. Focus on doing things the right way and no one will need to optimize anything, because it was done already.
Those of you defending the right way to SEO are missing the point that the function you are preforming is part of building a website the right way, the two aren’t separate. If you feel the need to optimize then the web developer didn’t do their job. The constant feeling like you have to compete with black hat techniques means you are pushing very close to that same edge. SEO is a dangerous game, watch where you stand, and think about building it right from the foundation.

Posted by Dan on 13 October 2009 @ 5am

Testify! An enjoyable post. (Also, how are there people chiming in here to defend the SEO industry? For serious?)

Posted by ramanan on 13 October 2009 @ 5am

I think this may be a “nice guys finish last” situation, especially without relevant law, or very weak law.

“Are all of those people evil opportunistic bastard cockroaches?”

Well, yes, actually.

Posted by The Raven on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

Your article rocks up until the second paragraph. You obviously wrote it with emotion rather than keeping your mind cool. I do SEO and my clients are thrilled with the results. It’s something they can’t do themsleves as some of my clients don’t even know what HTML coding is. So yes, SEO is a legit service and NO we do not scam, hack, search or destroy anything with spam bots and the like. There are a lot of SEO’s out there that will prove your article wrong to the core.

Posted by Juanne on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

Some of this is semantics. One man’s “good web page” is another’s “seo.” For example, many people don’t know how to make decent web sites ( no titles, bad layouts,etc) that let users and engines find them. An “seo consultant” might point out the obvious things like having proper titles, internal linking structure,etc. For some the obvious isn’t so obvious. And there are many links that make good sense to obtain and are not spammy.

As far as making something good and telling people about it: Nope. If it’s really good you won’t have to tell anyone about it. They will find it.

Posted by Marcus C. on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

I think your generalisation here is prejudiced, misguided and rather naive. You’ve taken some generally incorrect ideas about SEO and applied it to all of the practitioners in an industry. The SEO you describe is poor practice, and therefore not really SEO at all.

SEO is a part of my role. SEO is about identifying what people are searching for and creating good quality content to try to address that need. Identify an audience, create great, relevant content for them to read and use. I then need to try to promote that content, more often than not using PR techniques rather than your idea of link building. So your top tip for ranking well: “Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.” is exactly what good SEO people try to do on a daily basis. Good SEO is more about content strategy than building spammy links.

As with all online activities, including design, blogging, email, there are lazy, poor practitioners. How many abysmal website designs are there in the world? Does this make web design useless? Does it make web designers evildoers, and no one should pay for web design? No, it makes them bad designers and highlights the need for good designers in the world.

So, if I apply your generalisations does this mean that personal blogs named after their owners are not legitimate web content, but rather the selfish outpourings of frustrated individuals who couldn’t find anyone else to listen to them?

I think rather that you’re playing a similar game to SEO, and you know that writing a contentious piece of copy on a popularly followed topic (SEO, search) will get this article sent around the digital community, thereby increasing your site traffic. How is that any different?

Posted by Nate on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

Can I hug you for this?

Posted by David Leggett on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

LOL. Make something great, tell people about it. Agreed. Funny thing is – those terrible SEO people can actually help you to tell people about it.

Oh look – I genuinely increased your traffic year on year by helping show you HOW to tell people about it in a better, more effective and more efficient manner? Oh terrible me. That IS seo. Just done the right way.

Any half-decent SEO will tell you there is no point in trying to promote shit content. But watching great content sat hidden because someone thinks title tag and keywords are all just a big myth, and think we’re all scammers – seems a little ignorant and sad to me. Get off your pedestal for a while and dig a little deeper before you judge the whole industry!

Posted by OneofThem on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

By the way, how many links do you think you’ll get to your blog from the blogging SEO community answering your rant? That smells a lot like link building dude. Oh, have you just unwittingly conducted evil SEO on your blog?

Posted by Nate on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

Hi Derek. Long time follower, first time commenter. I’m a designer with some SEO skill. Though I don’t bill it as SEO, but rather building a findable website (if you’ve read Aaron’s book, you know what I’m talking about).

I don’t practice these black hat techniques or even really do anything off-site. But rather doing a lot of the extra stuff (like server settings, website speed, properly used markup) that not every designer uses or even knows. It also takes extra time.

I consider this bag of tricks as an extra skillset that I offer. What do you think of an approach like this?

Posted by Ted Goas on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

Funny how I find you write this:
“…make sure to use keywords in the headline, use proper formatting, provide summaries of the content, include links to relevant information. All of this is a good idea, and none of it is a secret. It’s so obvious, anyone who pays for it is a fool.”

But then, do nothing of that on your own site. How come?

Posted by Max Berg on 13 October 2009 @ 6am

It doesn’t help that Google increasingly issues unilateral decrees about what web sites should and should not do.

It’s because of Google, for example, that most “SEO-friendly” URLs use dashes to represent spaces. This may suit Google’s indexing system, but it is a deliberate misuse of punctuation:-

http://www.timacheson.com/blog/2009/aug/friendly_url_should_not_use_dashes_to_represent_spaces#comment33

The overpaid geeks at Google were at it again just recently, announcing a proposal that could see every website that uses Ajax modified to suit Google:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/10/proposal-for-making-ajax-crawlable.html?showComment=1255079811655#c96003387870917958

But Google’s role is to index the web as it stands, not to change the web to suit the opinions and preferences of the Google’s staff.

Posted by Tim Acheson on 13 October 2009 @ 7am

Ohh, and regarding the insults from the top of thread, he used: cockroaches, bastards, jerkwads.

Because that’s sooooo much nicer.

Posted by Max Berg on 13 October 2009 @ 7am

Derek:

Let’s not confuse unethical link building techniques like Google Bombing with bonefide SEO.

Link building is not SEO, just something you do to get crawlers to the optimized pages where the optimization can dial in results.

There is so much more than meets the eye, competitive research and analysis, revisions to information and site architecture, custom programming of templates, modifying .htaccess files to eliminate duplicate content from ones site, understanding the semantic cluster of the keywords you are targeting, finding their tipping point etc. that do not scale well with vast generalizations such as “do. not. hire. them”…

Information retrieval is based on algorithms and so it good SEO. Not trying to trick search engines but a hybrid of creating compelling, topical content, creating a pecking order and promoting it to gain enough citation and popularity to push it past waning competitors.

I have no idea why you have so much spite and actually believe your convictions and discredit SEO as a whole. It is my profession and everything we do is based on “quality first” yet done within the guidelines of producing relevance for information retrieval systems.

I’m sure you have allot of great things to say, “as this is my first time visiting your blog”, but this topic was a bit venomous to ingest.

Posted by Jeffrey Smith on 13 October 2009 @ 7am

Absolute bollocks and you’ve lost a really, really good point about metrics of visibility vs metrics of quality amongst the venom (in other words big search footprint and referrals doesn’t mean great product, but lots of twitter followers, repeat usage, mailing list, RSS subscribers and facebook fans does.)

I suggest people stop thinking about SEO altogether, when web users stop using search engines as the starting point for the MAJORITY (60% +) of web journeys.

Yes, your theory about making great products, share, start again, makes perfect sense. But that whole process is made almost impossible, and certainly much more convoluted, when you have no volume at all. Building something from absolutely nothing, especially an EDITORIAL product, rather than a social or tool-based one, is not going to work by telling a few mates.

Remember the nature of the web is how it unites disparate groups of people with similar passions. If you are the first to create a product to unite that audience, how are you going to find them and drive them to your product.

Yes engage users in the social spaces, drive repeat usage with twitter, facebook, email alters.

This is typical talk from someone who has spent most of their life online and has created web products for web people. No awareness of how *REAL* people use, share and INTERACT with the web.

That said, I always build web products that work best for the ultra connected, savvy web, social web users, because being in those conversations does guarantee your message, if it has value, will be shared quickly.

Posted by Oliver Meakings on 13 October 2009 @ 7am

I can honestly say ive never read a more naive post. Although is it naive? or just a classic piece of link baiting, borderline trolling. It’s quite scary really to see how uneducated people are when it comes to your ‘ well designed website ‘ for which you have been probably nailed to the floor by a ‘ cool hip trendy ‘ designer. Wake up. Anyone who actually runs a business in a competitive market knows SEO is essential. The advice given here? great for a personnel website, if you just ran with this advice for your web business, you won’t have one for much longer. FACT.

Posted by Karl on 13 October 2009 @ 7am

As usual, D, you’ve hit the nail right on the head.

Keep on keepin’ on.

Posted by BenMac on 13 October 2009 @ 7am

The problem isn’t necessarily SEO, it’s those that abuse SEO in order to push their shitty content higher up in the results than actual, legitimate and more more relevant content.

And there is the problem. People abusing SEO have, over the years, made Google search results less and less relevant. It’s to the point now where getting any kind of decent results for popular search terms is next to impossible. This isn’t necessarily Google’s fault. Their algorithms are good but are failing under the weight of the efforts of thousands of SEO consultants to overcome the natural order of content relevancy in search results.

So, SEO isn’t bad. SEO is good. What’s bad is the people who abuse SEO and trick Google into assigning higher relevancy to their usually shitty content than is warranted or earned.

This is what Derek is railing against and I think he is 100% correct.

Posted by Cameron Barrett on 13 October 2009 @ 7am

I’m an author first and foremost: my website / blog are a means to an end. I have no advertising on my site – and little interest in making money except by selling my books, the proceeds of which are all for children’s charities.

However, I DO want my website and blog to be found. There’s little point in bashing my brains out providing good content unless it’s found and read. So, as a complete novice in SEO, I’ve found your article illuminating. Thanks Derek.

Incidentally, it was my web designer http://www.cbjdigitcal.com who provided the link to your article.

Posted by Mel Menzies on 13 October 2009 @ 8am

C’mon, your are talking about SEO techniques that worked back in 2000, but do not any more. SEO today is about getting to know your clients better and create content that matches what they are searching the way they are searching. Great content that gets the search engines attention and produces, more than traffic, high conversion rates. SEO, content and usability must work together to make for a great Web site.

Posted by Fernando Maciá on 13 October 2009 @ 8am

Actually, there is such a thing as an honest SEO. Lots of them. And good thing, too, because the “obvious” things to you aren’t obvious to a lot of people. Just as an “obvious” design decision to someone who knows design can seem like magic. So ramp up and talk about how all the designers are ripping people off.

But beyond the obvious, there are plenty of technical issues that can and do crop up that all the great content in the world you think you have won’t help with. Believe me, I know. I’ve been on enough site clinics and talked to enough people over the past 13 years about SEO to understand in detail how confused they are.

But hey, thanks for telling me I’m just some dishonest scammer.

I’d be happy to point you to a few articles that perhaps might enlighten you more. Any good SEO will totally agree with your core premise. Build great content, and that’s the core way to succeed. But you know…

Build that content in frames, you don’t get spidered so well…

Build that content in a system that generates lots of duplicate pages, and you might not get found…

Build that content on a blog that you haven’t secured, get hit with malware and you’re suddenly banned in Google — and probably want some SEO person who knows off the top of their head how to use the tools to get you unbanned. You knew those tools were out there, right?

Build that content say a post about “Spammers Evildoers & Opportunists” but failed to do keyword research and you discover if you’re trying to reach people about the evils of SEO, maybe using the word SEO might be helpful.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on 13 October 2009 @ 8am

White-hat Search Engine Optimization is an entirely legitimate service, just like housekeeping is a legitimate option for those who cannot or will not keep their own house orderly: the work itself is not complicated, but there are many who simply do not have the manpower or time to do so, therefore paying someone else to do it is perfectly legit. Treating it as a trade secret does it a disservice, making it more easily confused with improper techniques and damaging the reputation of each practice.

What we need to do is stop calling black-hat techniques “SEO”. Do not grace them with that term. There is no “Optimization” in any way shape or form to these underhanded methods. This is Search Engine Misuse, Misappropriation or Deception. As long as you use the “SEO” term to describe both good and bad practices, there will be nothing but arguments and it will remain difficult for non-specialist consumers to know the practical and ethical differences between them.

Posted by MonkeyT on 13 October 2009 @ 8am

When you want to come down from your cloud to the real world, let us know. Just as Amelia G. wrote in her post on blue blood, the unfortunate reality is that content is NOT enough; advertising is important, and SEO is a form of advertising. If being on the top of google is important to your business, relying purely on your content to make it there is foolish. And as for it being obvious… it may be obvious to you, but just because you’re a good writer doesn’t mean you know about the way a good page is laid out and how search engines work. I’m sure you would say they should learn… but why? If someone else can provide their services for a reasonable price, why not use them? That’s what the whole economy is based on! Hell, you could learn how to fix your car as well, but I bet you visit a mechanic.
And as for people quoting google, repeating their line that the best way to rank high is content, etc, of course google says this, because its in their interest to do so. That doesn’t make it automatically true.

Let’s dig into an example. By default, most themes for wordpress (hosted on wordpress.org or self-hosted) will place the left sidebar before the main content area within the html. Using a professional theme where the html is laid out properly with the content placed first can improve your rankings. Is this obvious? Is this easy to do? If it is, why don’t 90% of people using wordpress do it? Of course, you’ll just repeat your line about “Making good websites,” but why should a writer have to learn things like this when other people specialize in it?

Posted by Tyler Prete on 13 October 2009 @ 8am

Here’s my embarrassing video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCY042q9gPs

Posted by Phillip Kerman on 13 October 2009 @ 8am

I’ll reiterate that paying for SEO is indeed stupid.

To address points brought up above — any company that builds a web project for you , should build one according to the basic SEO principles. If they request a separate fee / billable / line-item to implement things , they are crooks. If they offer a separate fee to train your staff on SEO techniques and continued management, they are a true partner.

If you are building a web-project in-house, between your CTO, COO, CMO and Product Manager / Producers , you should have all of your SEO needs within reach — and clearly specced out before people build a website. If you do not, then those people are not doing their jobs.

The only SEO billables your organization should be paying for are (re)training and education. Needing any sort of implementation or ’strategy’ means that your team does not know what they’re doing — which is proven by the consultants all offering either common-sense approaches or unethical loopholes.

There are indeed people who are offering good natured SEO services such as “Content Creation Consultation” or “technical architecture recommendations” — but if you’re dealing with a non-hobby website, these are all job functions that people on your team should already have.

Posted by Jonathan on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

I agree that SEO is complete crap. What’s the point of a profession that says: “I’m optimizing for search engines and not the user”. If it was a profession that also emphasized the user, they would have to call it “web-design”, or at least “content ” or “user optimization”. A good web-designer takes the public optimization advice that search engines offer, but only because search engines will also emphasize what they believe makes a web page good for the user.

Optimizing for search leaves you behind the puck. Optimizing for the user leaves you in the path of the puck.

Posted by Huck on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

This is a very negative article, and assumes that everyone that does SEO is a scammer, and/or spammer.

All the name calling you use lowers your credibility, and basically makes you look unprofessional.

I have never used any of the methods you described when optimizing pages. SEO may be “obvious” to some but not to everyone. And there are legit methods of optimizing. Google even has a tool named “Website Optimizer” that gives you tools/tips for optimizing your website.

Your article assumes that all optimization is BS, and this just isn’t the case.

I’m proud to say that I have realestatesigns.com ranked very well for a lot of our key phrases. It took a lot of trial and error working with our meta tags, verifying HTML, adding title tags to the href tags, naming images, etc.

We did this without spamming.

Also you have to figure some business’ and/or bosses are busy making sales, calls, managing, or what ever the case may be.

They may need to hire a web developer to do the task of a making a good website, and or wording the page correctly so that it ranks well in the search engine for their target key phrases.

Same with any job. You could say it’s easy to be a toll booth collector and hand tickets out all day. It’s an “obvious” job. Doesn’t it require someones time to do the job?

Or oil changes on your car. I think oil changes are easy, but I still hire someone to do them for me.

You are angry, & arrogant.

Posted by Jason Russo on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

Oh Friend, it’s SO good to hear and read that other guys from the online business think exactly the same way I do… even if you’r so far away!

Would you allow me to translate your text into German language, copy it on my blog and of course name the real author – you – ? This would be nice… Thanks a lot!

Dominik

Posted by Blabbermouth on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

The amount of ignorance I found in this blog post and in the comments to come after it are both astounding and inspiring.

You’re not saying that SEO doesn’t exist; you’re not even saying that SEO isn’t useful. (In fact, if we read between the lines we’ll see that contradict yourself quite nicely.) Whenever you want something to be bad and evil, you call it SEO, even though those same techniques are “making good websites.” Using the proper heading tags? If an SEO does it, he’s a scammer, but if a designer or developer does it, he’s making good websites. Creating unique content? If an SEO helps you do it, he’s a snake oil salesman, but if your in-house copywriter does it he’s making good websites.

What a bunch of crap. Honestly, I’m surprised at the amount of self-described “web professionals” that are chiming in about how SEO is a myth. Why? Because it shows how little they know. Any web professional that had a modicum of experience with top-flight legitimate SEOs knows that it’s very difficult to cover all the bases, from accessible/engaging/keyword-rich content, to proper site architecture. If you can’t recognize this, don’t be surprised if I posit serious doubts regarding your ability to “make good websites.”

I’ve even got a super obvious example that puts the lie to your bullshit. Lots of large web operations have separate departments for developers and designers (i.e., backend coding, versus visual design). Sure, they could both do each other’s job to some extent, but not to the full extent. Does that mean they’re evildoers? Does it mean that the devs, or the designers, or both, aren’t “making good websites”? So too with SEO – all you’re doing is make a semantic argument that SEO isn’t big or complicated enough to be a standalone discipline (and you’re wrong).

What these commenters really sound like are a bunch of butthurt second-rate devs/designers that didn’t bother to stay up with industry trends and don’t have enough SEO experience to compete with professional outfits. Do you honestly believe that a blanket statement makes a good argument? I got one of my own: cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, all surgeons are criminals.

Sure, there are black hats out there. They comprise a small minority of the SEO populace. As commenter Tim posted, “There are tiers, just as there is in web design.” As this comment thread makes plain as day, there are good SEOs and bad SEOs; there are also some people that excel at “making good websites” and a great deal more that suck at it.

Posted by JM on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

Probably the most honest, straightforward, and incredible post I’ve read in months.

Posted by Se7en on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

Nice job on the link-bait. I think this controversy angle is going to work very well for you. You’re pretty good at SEO.

There are some useless SEOs out there that employ the evil tactics you mention, but real SEO in its simplest of terms is exactly as you said:
“Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.”

A good SEO helps clients create something great (with the basics of SEO in place), helps them promote it, and repeats.

Posted by Darren on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

“But seriously – there’s a pervading myth in the search engine marketing and optimization industry that if you’re a good boy, the engines will pat your head and will reward you with fine rankings, even if it may take an incarnation or two. That’s unfortunate because not only does it fuzz up the hardcore technological issues involved, it also attracts all sorts of gut level thinkers to the SEM world, flogging their gut level advice (“content is king” being just one pervasive popular myth in question) and confusing each other and everybody else. This is a basically religious, moralistic attitude, and quite an inadequate one when dealing with technological issues.” — From http://www.searchengineblog.com/interviews/interview_ralph_tegtmeier.htm

Posted by Tyler Prete on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

@blackhatseo: “Spam exists in most communication channels… are all of those people evil opportunistic bastard cockroaches?”

YES.

Posted by Squaregirl on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

Make a ‘beautiful’ shoe store, put sweat into it, and then try to compete with Zappos by “telling people about it.” You’ll be out of business pretty quick.

You might think SEO is “obvious” but I’m sure my mechanic laughs with his mechanic friends when they talk about how ridiculous it is that people are paying $25 for an oil change.

I do agree that SEO is poisoning the web, or the SERPs at least, but it’s really a natural progression. I don’t think there’s anything to bitch at. Money has ALWAYS fueled nearly everything we’ve ever done. When you have people in the top 5 in Google making $200k a month off of a site ranking for a very broad keyword (‘acaiberry’ etc), then it’s OBVIOUS everyone will follow and try to make bank.

Posted by Rocket on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

Derek: I agree with your premise. But keep in mind that what may be ‘obvious’ to you in terms of good search-engine-friendly practices is not necessarily evident to Joe Blow putting up his first website. Joe hired a firm to put his site up and has no clue about how to make himself found. He has a really great product, too, but no communications skills. You can’t just tell Joe to ‘get with it’ any more than I can tell you to go out and dance like Nureyev. There’s a legitimate place for legitimate SEO experts.

Now, if you were to say that SEO firms really ought to police their ranks better, I’d agree 100%. It’s too easy to be slime in that business, and do more harm than good. Probably they deserve the slap in the face you are giving them, just because they don’t seem to hew to any standard of ethics, and that perception is their own damned fault.

Posted by Mister Snitch on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

People seem to missunderstand what Derek tried to say. He’s basically saying: “If you’ve hired a SEO guy, you’re being ripped off”. What may be a little unclear is who you’re being ripped off by.

If someone comes to you and tells you he can get you to first result on Google, he’s probably the one ripping you off, doing all the bad techniques Derek is bombing.

If, on the other hand, someone tells you he can better your ranking, make your site more search engine friendly and all that “white” SEO, then you got ripped off by your web developer.

If people did things right to begin with (that is, make GOOD websites), people wouldn’t need any SEO agencies. They’ll need to do what Derek said: Tell people about it. Not google. People. People who actually cares about what you’ve done.

SEO shouldn’t exist. Unfortunately, bad developers do.

Posted by Enrique Ramírez on 13 October 2009 @ 9am

Cracked me up and also rang very true. Seemed almost gentle. Also find the jerk and perhaps planted comments (I’m looking at you Stephanie) hilarious. Always makes me sad watching people throw good money after bad on designers who make bad websites and then SEO firms to try and make them show up in Google. Bunch of leaches should all take holy orders and write websites for charities to atone for their sins.

Posted by Drew on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

That’s like saying all PR people are spammers. Good SEO has always been the consistent application of Common Sense. Unfortunately, both of these elements are not always in evidence.
As with all Marketing efforts, it’s all about the customer: what are they looking for, provide it to them.
Black hat techniques and link spam are just that – spam…

Posted by ChrisB on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

spend half my life telling clients this!

Posted by John Bloomfield on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

Certainly writing SEO-friendly HTML is obvious to good web developers, writing SEO-friendly copy is obvious to good copywriters, and building SEO-friendly user experiences is obvious to good UE experts.

So as the project manager (who’s responsible for actually deciding whether to bring in an SEO consultant), how are you supposed to know if your UE, copy and web team are already dedicated SEO experts? Do you take their word for it?

SEO is just one of many considerations in site design, and like any other consideration (aesthetics, user experience, accessibility) it will get forgotten or sidelined unless someone is personally responsible for ensuring that it isn’t.

An SEO expert’s job is not to tell everybody else their business, it is to *care* about SEO more than anybody else does and make sure that it doesn’t get forgotten because something else is more pressing. SEO is everybody’s responsibility, but if you want it done right you need to make sure that it is somebody’s *passion*.

Ideally you should have in-house SEO experts though. Employing fly-by-night agencies to swoop in for a couple of weeks during a project is unlikely to provide “passion” and will open you up to the scammers and snake oil salesmen that this article (rightly) warns you about.

Posted by Nick on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

SEO in 30 seconds. (No charge.)

1) Your website is selling Bananas
2) Your TITLE TAG reads “Welcome”
3) Change TITLE TAG to “We Sell Bananas”

Posted by ken abbott on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

It’s always satisfying to strike a blow for common sense. And it’s true that tons of people make money by gaming the system.

But your basic premise is WRONG. It’s true that the developers who read these kinds of posts have a solid idea of how to integrate SEO onto a page. But talk to the average small business owner about their web site and I guarantee that 1. They have probably never heard of SEO and if they have they 2. don’t know the basics of what to do.

Even if they have used a web developer on occasion, they haven’t made the most of their web site. And their part time web person doesn’t make enough on the small business owner to want to optimize each page for SEO or get to know that person’s business.

So lighten up with the outrage just a bit and realize that not everyone in the world knows about HTML or Java or the way Google does it’s thing.

Posted by TimT on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

> There is no such thing as honest SEO. There’s only making
> good websites.
>
> Posted by Derek Powazek on 12 October 2009 @ 1pm

Well spoken.

It will never end until Google really does permaban’s domains of those caught using “SEO techniques”. As long as Google does this slap on the wrist thing… it pays off. They just move on to the next technique for a fwe weeks.

Posted by Robert on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

Derek is dead on. There is no such thing as SEO and anyone who sells it is lying. If you build web sites properly (standards, semantics, etc) and it’s full of good content about which people care, you’ll get good search engine rankings.

So if you sell a service which analyzes web sites for good content, proper structuring, etc don’t call yourself SEO. If you do, you don’t understand what it is you’re doing for your clients and you’re giving credit to anyone else who sells SEO lies.

Posted by Jim on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

As others have pointed out, what’s “obvious” to a seasoned web developer like Derek is not “obvious” to a small business owner who wants to optimize (not a bad word) the way their website is built so that it plays as nicely as possible with search engine algorithms. Of course, a good web developer will know how to do that, and should also know WHY using, for instance, an h2 tag instead of a bold tag is preferable. The reason: because it’s gives the content some semantic structure that search engine algorithms respond to in a more meaningful way, which results in more prominent placement in search engine results. Now, we can play semantics and say “but that’s just building good websites.” But WHY is that good practice? Because it optimized content for search engines. Period. The end-user doesn’t care one bit whether a header is generated via a bold or h2 tag. Only search engines do.

So, call it what you want.

Posted by JV on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

You’re right that black hat SEO techniques are poisoning the web, and you’re right to be angry about it. But “it’s so obvious, anyone who pays for it is a fool?” Really? I agree with John-Michael Oswalt’s comments, with one addition:

Talk to a good white hat SEO company, and they’ll give you before and after statistics showing that their services do increase traffic, and that ther leads do convert, increasing sales. Is what they do obvious? Most of it, but only a fool would believe that he got 100% of the obvious stuff right the first time, and only a fool would refuse to admit that an expert with a good track record might be able to do a better job.

P.S. I deleted an entire paragraph about specialty products and public-facing keywords because I think it’s rude to soap-box in someone else’s comments, but I can assure you I made some very good points.

Posted by Matt on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

I think some things aren’t blatantly obvious. Well, it all depends on your skill level/experience/knowledge. Sure, an experienced web developer will already know the seo principles. But as a beginner, all the developer blogs I’ve read never advocated using alt tags and other seo things (perhaps you could suggest a developer’s blog that does).

So I had to turn to the SEO guys to learn the obvious stuff. So thank you SEO world!

Posted by Chris on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

Wow, that was quite an overly-emotional blanket statement.

I’ve worked with a very professional (and affordable) SEO firm on a project. They helped organize a large site properly for organic search optimization and it helped greatly and we learned a lot. Planting external incoming links (and other nasty tactics mentioned above) were never part of the discussion. The client still gets solid results after the contract expired.

As a designer and site builder, I’ve come across just as many shady developers, coders and designers who peddle nonsense technology that equally craps up our precious internet.

“Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.” is a nice mantra, but it doesn’t always work on its own. Especially if your business is something different than design, for example, where people can come to your site and immediately see if it is “great” and “tell people about it.”

If your business niche is very precise and your products and services are not search friendly or way too broad (you’re one of many), I see nothing wrong with having experts (scoff at the term if you will) match up the right terms and keywords for your site so potential customers can find you. That’s the key for me, having customers FIND the client using above-board search tactics.

Yes, there’s a lot of SEO charlatans out there, but if you do your research and are the least bit informed about the business you will avoid them and their poisoning of the web.

I really hope none of the readers here needed to read the above to realize that SEO websites with crazy traffic promises and photos of multicultural business people shaking hands are BAD and do bad things.

Crapping on a whole industry with a “screw em all” screed will get you lots of “Hell yeahs! Derek!” but it I think it kind of cheapened your good points.

Posted by jeff on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

I love your stuff, Derek, but I must disagree with you on this point. Just because some SEO folks are quacks doesn’t mean everyone who knows what search engines like and don’t like are out to screw you.

Let me share a personal example as to why I don’t think all SEO folks are spammers, evildoers and opportunists:

One of my clients has a recipe website that does particularly well and appears very high up the Google rank for a lot of big foodie keywords. She makes her living almost entirely off ads. Earlier this year she moved from a /subdirectory/ on one site to a standalone domain for this site. What we found was that her sites (both new and old) were being completely stripped from the search results. This meant a huge drop in traffic which essentially meant a massive salary cut. Again, keep in mind that this client is just an individual who does all the writing, photography and cooking herself… and she does a phenomenal job of it—no snake oil salesmen here.

Finally, she hired an SEO expert who came in and discovered that lots of her content was being pirated by other sites. These other sites had been around longer than the new domain she was moving to, so Google was essentially treating it like a dupe and removing it from the index. After filing several tickets with Google as well as DMCA complaints to have the pirate sites shut down, her rank was restored and her traffic is much higher than it was before.

Whether you call the person giving her advice on how to handle this situation an “SEO Expert” or a “Pro Web Dev”—the information is still the same, and it sure wasn’t snake oil.

Posted by Jesse Gardner on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

Heh! This was the funniest post I’ve read all month. You sound like someone who got taken for a ride, and I’m sorry if that’s true. Fortunately, the people who’ve actually done some research on the subject know that there are indeed honest SEOs to be found.

Posted by netmeg on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

When people spend so much time on the “dark side of SEO”, how can they also create quality content for their site visitors?

Seems like a lose/lose situation to me.

Paul

Eat Well. Live Well.
PurpleGreenPops.com

Posted by PaulsHealthBlog.com on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

Everyone who thinks SEO is a bunch of BS I assume you’re all ranking #1 in Google for all the terms you’d like people to find you under correct?

If it’s that easy & just common sense please share all the great rankings you’ve achieved.

Put up, or shut up.

Posted by Ben Cook on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

Great article. I’m so tired of reading things that clearly are written with a search engine rather than a person in mind. The other part of the problem though is the dirt that unethical SEOs sling to tarnish sites that do have quality content. In particular, Google needs to fix its duplicate content filter so it lists the SOURCE not the stolen copies that outrank the original because of a bunch of ill-gotten links.

Posted by Robert on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

“1. The good advice is obvious, the rest doesn’t work.”

Bullshit. Half the time I spend on SEO is cleaning up some horrific CMS structure that all but tells search engines to go away, or presents information in a very confusing way – multiple pages/URLs for the same item, insanely long query strings that are hard for humans to remember or share, great content buried inside JavaScript or Flash without any text option that would for for people with accessibility issues OR search engines. Not to mention, if all of your competitors are doing the obvious, what makes you think you’d get any boost for doing the same thing?

“Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.” Catshit. This one isn’t as big a load as the other one, but this build a better mousetrap thing hasn’t worked in years – if ever. How many sites make content that’s “greater” than Wikipedia? How many stores sell merchandise that’s “greater” than Amazon? The list could be endless, but being “great” isn’t enough. And if that’s your only advice, I’d really hope it’s free.

Posted by YM Ousley on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

It is difficult to explain the features and benefits of good copywriting from a ‘user experience’ perspective. On the other hand, say “we’ll get loads more traffic from Google” and you’re allowed to rewrite it any way you want.

SEO has its pros and cons – much like the web within the world itself.

Posted by blowski on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

Excellent. This may be the best thing I’ve ever read on SEO.

Google doesn’t have much incentive to truly punish the SEO evildoers. After all, Google’s revenue comes from page views and clicks, both of which are provided by legitimate sites and sites using illegitimate SEO.

Posted by Ron McElfresh on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

I used to think like this. Then I started working at an agency with a dedicated SEO department, and I realized there’s more to it than making good websites.

Say you make widgets. You have a website set up to sell widgets, and you provide lots of information about widgets. Widgets are your great passion in life, and that comes through in everything on your site. But you’re so steeped in widgets that when you think of widgets, you think of “fruminous wombles”, so when you write your content, that’s what you refer to. But an SEO consultant does some keyword research and finds that 80% of your potential clients, when they want widgets, naively search for “frumious bandersnatches”. It’s a reasonable term for your widgets, just not one that you thought of. If you adjust your good website to refer to the term that most of your potential clients *actually* search for, your good website now reaches more of your potential clients.

I think I’m a pretty good developer. I’ve been advocating for semantic markup since before the web existed. I was creating sites that validated in the late 1990s. I used to teach people how to write for the web. I know what I’m doing, and the sites I work on tend to do well in search engines. But I don’t do the research part of SEO that my colleagues in the SEO department here do. Are they evil? I don’t think so. I haven’t seen them recommend anything that’s deceptive.

Posted by ralph on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

I couldn’t agree more, in fact just the other day in reflecting on SEO, the same phrase came to mind, ’snake oil salesmen.’
We should not let these ephemera distract us from our mission of beauty.

Posted by kamutef on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

It’s all about the definiton of SEO you have.

I’m in SEO since like 7 years.

My job involves, keyword research (is this page about our SEO services should be called SEO Services or Search Engine Optimization Services ?), onsite optimization (A/B testing, multi-variation testing) (is blue is getting a better CTR on the sales button or the red one is better?), linkbuilding (not link spamming or link dumping), web analytics (what ppl are looking for on my website, where they came from, did they find what they were looking for), PPC (running PPC campaigns) and global internet strategy.

This is not just create great website and write good content. It’s about getting the best ROI possible for the websites of my clients. I’m not the one spamming your blogs, i’m not the one scraping your content. But i’m the one you fix your poor website architecture, i’m the one that help your good content be found, i’m the one trying to make the best experience for your visitorswhen they visit your website.

@Josh Holloway The first result on seo is wikipedia, the second being Google. It’s not because company have spent a lot of time working their own ranking that they will have the same dedication/budget to do them for their clients. Ask questions when you hire a SEO, who they ranked where, what is their strategy for you etc ?

I know there is a lot of bad/snakeoil SEO in this business. Take the time to shop, it’s like financial advisor, it’s not because some of them are crap that all of them aren’t worth your money.

(By the way english is a second langage for me, sorry for the grammar)

Posted by Francis Vallieres on 13 October 2009 @ 10am

I’ve been saying this for years now and maybe someone else already said it but it’s this simple. Marketing is marketing is marketing! I don’t know but I believe this is where Derek is coming from when he says it’s obvious.

If you opened a corner store you’d do exactly what he said. Make it great, tell people and do it again. The rules don’t change just because it’s on the internet and I believe that the problem.

People think because it’s on the net they’re doing something new and special that hasn’t been done in the past. Derek didn’t say it so I will. Don’t be a fucktard. Learn enough about your industry to know that if you’re only using the internet and not ALL mediums available to you to support your business online or not you’re missing the boat. Period!

Posted by Rai-mon Nemar on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

It’s “obvious” to a developer, not a client. I think the point being made is that if you are paying *extra* for SEO, you are a fool. Any developer with a small amount of web experience already knows these techniques, therefore, your site will be “optimized” by default. SEO is already part any halfway decent web developer’s skillset. If it’s not, then you hired a bad developer.

Posted by Deluxxe on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

There’s nothing obvious about SEO otherwise there would be no industry and anyone can be an “expert”. Time and time again, I come across websites that are horribly coded and far from regular W3C standards, much less SEO standards.

And as someone who is in the “publishing” industry, you writers are not nearly as clever as you think you are. I hate journalists. I hate them with a passion. Not only do they write leftist propaganda, they write as if the world should revolve around them and their “content”.

You complain about how SEOs “dumb down” your content, but really, you over complicate your content. I don’t blame you though because you writers need a “voice” to distinguish from each other so that you can win BS prizes like the pulitzer or whatever.

But really, the world is far simpler than you might think. When people search, they are looking for what THEY want.

SEOs bridge the gap between what searchers want and what your “content” offers. And if you want to reach the right audience, your content needs to speak directly to how the audience searches.

There are certainly bad SEOs. I’ve worked for and with plenty of bad SEO companies who only talk about meta tags and links. Doubtlessly these companies give the industry a bad name. But so do tabloids to the publishing industry. I bet you have a snarky retort to differentiate yourself from those publishers, don’t you? Yet to paint a wide picture, I could easily say American publishers are all liars based on what I see from tabloids.

Your complete lack of SEO knowledge proves just how much a gap exists between SEO customers and SEO providers. SEO customers often do not know what they want, they just want results. Bad SEOs take advantage of that. While that is unfortunate, most SEOs do not take advantage of people or their businesses.

That the publishing industry is dying a slow death and ceding ground to Google proves that the search engines are here to stay and will be the dominant media forum. That means SEOs and SEMs are the new media experts and content creators – writers – need to adapt, transform, or die.

But all of this talk doesn’t matter. SEO is only one component, one technique in driving visitors to websites. You don’t HAVE to use SEOs. You can do whatever old time way you want. Spend money on TV ads, radio ads, magazine and newspaper ads, and whatever else floats your boat.

Bottomline is, no SEO holds your feet to the fire and says pay us or die.

And if no one is being extorted to do SEO, when “why so serious”, Derek?

Posted by AK Works on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

amen to Enrique: When all web developers (or DIY small biz owners) are “good web developers” building search-friendly websites there will no longer be the need for SEOs to come in and clean up their messes.

Posted by Gradiva on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

Ralph, not only that but do you know how to position that great passionate content in the manner that will help your rankings the best?

There are countless aspects that all have a lot more to do with ranking than creating a good website.

Again, I’d challenge the commenters here to explain why they don’t rank for all the terms that people would find their sites for if SEO is just common sense.

Posted by Ben Cook on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

Derek, tell me what the “obvious” terms a health insurance broker would use when looking online for a plan that covers his client’s family. I work on sites that cater to just that audience all day long, and the only reason I know what those terms are is that I did some keyword research, along with some user testing. Now, WHY did I do that? To “make good websites?” Partially. More accurately, I did that so I could work with my writers to optimize (oh that word again!) content to make it as easy as possible for the intended audience to find when they used a search engine to look for it.

Posted by JV on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

Derek,

I felt your post needed an in-depth response, which you can find here:

http://www.leveltendesign.com/blog/colin/seo-more-just-good-design-rebuttal-derek-powazek

Posted by Colin Alsheimer on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

“Look under the hood of any SEO plan and you’ll find advice like this: make sure to use keywords in the headline, use proper formatting, provide summaries of the content, include links to relevant information. All of this is a good idea, and none of it is a secret. It’s so obvious, anyone who pays for it is a fool. ”
You are missing several items here that tells me you dont fully understand SEO:
1. it isnt just keywords, it is the “right” keywords. Where they are placed, prominence, etc…
2. there is a difference between a backlink and a quality backlink.
3. there is no absolute keyword density you should be shooting for or number of keywords to be used on a page or in a title. It may be totally different based on verticle and term/phrase.
4. Based on your theory, since I know the web color palette and read some articles on web design, I know how to be a web designer – so web designers are no longer needed. Yes, there are the basics, but trying to get relevant content ranked when competing with millions of other pages is very complicated and requires research and skills.
5. Dont you want your article to rank for terms like “seo spamming” or other similar terms so people can find it easier? If you made a couple of tweaks to help it rank better, are you saying that would be bad?

Posted by Al on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

Sure Snake Oil salesmen exist but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

As an internet marketer I tell clients that I might not get them to #1, in fact I will tell them that I can’t guarantee that they will be #1. What I can do is increase their search traffic using various levels of SEO. Although basic SEO is something you are familiar with, most websites do not follow basic site structure. They don’t have keywords in the right areas, most of the times they don’t have the right areas aka H Tags et al.

If someone comes to me for help I will make sure that I improve on what they already have. I do this ethically and within the guidelines. How dare you make me feel that I am some sort of heathen that should not be trusted?

Posted by Jason McElweenie on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

Ouch … didn’t realize soul searching was going to be on my agenda today. OK, just checked, still have a soul. My name is Myron and I am an SEO consultant . My mission is to help my clients understand the way organic search engines view the billions of pages of online content and make lightening fast (and often poor) decisions to determine what web pages and in what order it should show searchers for a given query. Often, the problem isn’t whether or not the content is good, but rather the choice of words used were less than optimal and didn’t reflect search behavior.

Improving how pages are built and word choices that are consistent with search behavior also aids the search experience in that it helps connect the searcher with the information they are seeking.

In addition to the value my clients receive for these efforts, and the value the searcher gets, I also consider the efforts of honest SEOs to be valuable to the search engine in that it helps them deliver a better search experience.

So say what you want about SEO. Every SEO I know has every reason to feel their conscience is clear.

PS: Oh, but darn it. You NOFOLLOWed my website link. I took all this time to write a spammy response just so I could get a link back to my site and you NOFOLLOWed me. Boy, you saw me coming :-p

Posted by Myron Rosmarin on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

Derek, you are the Marshall McLuhan to my Woody Allen. Thanks for saying aloud what many of us have been muttering ineffectually for years. You are brave and bold. This reminds me of Nielsen’s subversive essay, “Flash: 99% Bad”. Remember that? He pissed off a million people but the debate that ensued didn’t kill Flash. Instead, it drove Macromedia to invest heavily in usability *which made the web better* for everyone. Scammy SEO is stultifying; things need to change.

Posted by Poppl on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

Thanks for getting this down. I couldn’t have put it better myself. It also looks like some folks are taking this the wrong way, but such is the web.

I get solicitations for SEO services regularly that offer features that my sites already have by default. It’s gotten out-of-hand.

Posted by Eric Peacock on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

A good and timely post, Derek – and it leads to the question of why many business owners turn to SEO consultants in the first place.

Most BO’s don’t treat their website with the same time, care, and attention that they take with a brick and mortar storefront. It’s viewed more like a radio or newspaper ad – a marketing tool and nothing else. So it’s very easy for them to turn to someone who promises to drive traffic with very little effort on their part.

As a business owner myself, I know how much time and effort goes into running a business – and how relatively little time is spent on actually doing what I love. But knowing that 95% of my customers are going to find me online means I absolutely need to spend the time it takes to make my site great.

I just wish more of my clients understood that.

I don’t sell SEO services. I do, however, sell ‘Search Engine Friendly’ websites. It’s up to my clients to take the solid foundation I give them and make it great.

Posted by Bryan on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

This article makes so many assumptions that it’s more hilarious that anything else. Anyone can pick an industry apart and write a self serving negative post. Building a business online or is more than do something “great”. What’s great to you may not be great to your target audience. SEO will always be controversial. If you are going to launch an online business without investigating sound SEO principles, it’s your choice. However, you will more than likely miss some very obvious opportunities that SEO can uncover.

Posted by Cheryl Wilson on 13 October 2009 @ 11am

I don’t sell SEO as a service, I include it as part of a site design. I put it very simply to clients, SEO = good content.

Posted by Aptly Creative on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

First off, loved this post.
Secondly, I agree that SEO should be a part of the process of building a good, functional website, not an extra service bought after the fact.
Thirdly, I love, love, love your formula for visibility success; “Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again.” In the end, lasting value is all that matters. (I’d like to think that my blog being the #1 hit for “network geek” on Google is related to the value I’ve provided over the past ten years or so.)

Lastly, this post proves that the advice of taking an apparently controversial stand on something on your webpage will drive traffic and links! Fantastic! Lead by example! Brilliant! ;)

Posted by Network Geek on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

JV, okay so there are good web developers and good copy writers, when the two come together they “make good websites.”

Posted by Eric Hayes on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

Seems to me that most of the pushback comes from SEO people. Funny, that.

Further, if you really read what Derek said, you’ll see that most of the comments don’t actually speak to what he wrote: they attack his delivery, or his choice of words, or complain that he left out some trivial thing or, funniest, that what he talks about is not “obvious”. And, of course, we can always blame our clients for not being willing to pay for our special expertise.

But designing a web site is not what it was 10 years ago, and anyone who takes the job today should either be willing to be a real pro (like JV, above, who seems to have missed out on the idea that what he did is what is expected of a professional web designer) or be willing to accept that they are a hack because “the client won’t pay for it if I don’t call it SEO.”

If my mechanic were as unethical as most SEO people, my car would have needed a transmission replacement, instead of a tune-up. Hey, wait a minute…

Posted by Yogi on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

“The problem isn’t necessarily SEO, it’s those that abuse SEO in order to push their shitty content higher up in the results than actual, legitimate and more more relevant content.”

This is 100% on the money here. You don’t need good product/content, you just need to hide your competitors.

Posted by mkhall on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

For some peculiar reason people are still not getting it right in terms of making sure that the code etc. is optimized and stuff like that – That’s why we still need SEO experts!

On the content/design side I agree with you Derek – and I have been going on and on about the same thing for years but I guess some time common sense is not just that common!

Posted by Martin on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

Great post. Content is king, always!

Posted by Nick on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

I can understand some of the frustration; there are a lot of individuals out there that have seriously tarnished the reputation of this industry as a whole. I agree that some of the things to do are obvious, but if my time is worth $500 an hour and I can pay someone to provide a service for me that’s $65 an hour I’m not going to spend hours learning to do the “Obvious” myself.

To the statement “SEO is poisoning the web;” I would reply “ABUSIVE SEO is poisoning the web.” Not everyone has evil ententions and in-fact we’ve been preaching many of the points you’ve made for years, but I’d ask that you not lump everyone into the snake oil sales all at once.

Also, isn’t link bait an SEO tactic, because I’m sure you’ll get some links for this one?

Posted by Chris Sloan on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm

Comments here are closed. Please see the followup SEO FAQ.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 13 October 2009 @ 12pm