131 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

I have to disagree, Peter. The section of the webmaster guidelines I chose to quote deals specifically with making a site relevant. It stresses content, text links, site structure, etc.

What you refer to as the SEO guidelines are, of course, not guidelines for SEOs, but warnings about the practices of the sort of SEOs Google would rather webmasters chose not to hire.

[SearchRank]

I think you have seen this page before, it does not sound like the googlies think highly of SEO’s to me.

At the beginning of the Google SEO page it states:

"Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results."

Google doesn't care for "a few" SEOs. They do not say "all SEOs" are bad but on the contrary that "many SEO's provide useful services.

[Bad Andy Good SEO]

Thank you for validating my point Searchrank.

Personally I fear for the clients of an SEO that laughs at the thought of an ethical optimization! It is firms like this, that give the rest of the industry a black eye.

[SearchRank]

Hey Dave,
From your site:
"Therefore it is highly recommended that you hire a professional SEO company if you want to reach the top of search engine results."
The top? So not just SE friendly, then

Well of course any SEO wants to help their client "reach the top". We sure wouldn't stay in business long if we advertised that we can get you listed at the "bottom" of the SERPs.

However, I believe one should not resort to spammy techniques to get a client to the top. That is where manipulation comes into play. If they do, they risk being caught and punished.

There are many, many SEOs that do get their clients to the top of the SERPs and in the process of doing so help provide more relevant results to the end user in the process.

BTW, the top to me is not always #1 but rather the first page of results. let's face it, not everyone can be #1.

[peter_d]

They do not say "all SEOs" are bad

It's not a question of good or bad. It's a question of business. A search engines' business, and their USP, is to provide relevant results. They do not want your help in doing that - they have never requested it. They do request that you make your site accessible if you want to be included in their index.

If they then choose to spit you out of that index at a later date, tough. You've made the assumption that if you play by their rules, you will be included and ranked highly forever more.

I feel that assumption is misplaced because it doesn't make good business sense as far as the SEs are concerned. Why give free drinks at the door when you make your money over the bar?

How many of you request links as part of your seo strategy? Why is that part of a search engine *optimization* strategy and not simply a traffic building strategy?

Edited by peter_d, 25 September 2003 - 06:33 PM.

[Zendulee]

"SEO, in my opinion, is what every webmaster ought to be doing."

 

That is really the crux of the matter...we have been through two different design companys, spent thousands of dollars, created an e-commerce site with over 2000 items, and not one person has ever mentioned SEO!!! I find that incredible, considering we paid through the wazoo for "professional" consulting. Now that I have discovered the need for SEO, I realize it may mean the website will have to be redesigned to accomodate those content changes which should have been part of the original plan. If I only knew then, what I know now...budget for SEO... before your site is built.

[Scottie]

I was just talking with someone who was complaining about DMOZ. I pointed out that DMOZ submission is free- you get what you pay for! The other person complained that it wasn't fair because Google values a link from DMOZ so highly and now the playing field isn't level for the sites who can't get listed due to technical issues.

My point back- Google listings are free.

The only thing you have control over are the things you pay for. AdWords, Overture, to some extent Yahoo. If you set up your business model promising listings in DMOZ and high rankings in Google, you are taking a huge gamble. Not a bad thing, but too many SEO's have become dependant on "free" things to get their jobs done.

Just like Peter pointed out- they can boot your client's site from the listings with absolutely no reason. They don't have to give you one.

Focusing on improving a site when part of that improvement includes adjusting for search engine guidelines does more than just attempt to manipulate SERP's- it improves the visitor experience and builds traffic in other ways.

[SearchRank]

Focusing on improving a site when part of that improvement includes adjusting for search engine guidelines does more than just attempt to manipulate SERP's- it improves the visitor experience and builds traffic in other ways.

Great point Scottie!

It is absolutely true that search engines such as Goolge owe nobody anything regarding their general index.

DMOZ doesn't owe anybody anything. They are both free services.

Therefore the business model of an SEO should be to help one to improve their site so it can be found in the search indices as well as provide a overall better user experience. As Jill says frequently, web site owners shouldn't depend strictly on search engine traffic anyway. But by improving the site's usability and salesability (is that a word), it will produce more conversions no matter how one finds it.

Anyone performing search engine marketing needs to understand that no SEO has any control over the search engines, directories, etc. and that at any time, the SEs or directories could give you the boot. Therefore a SEO cannot promise the world to a client, they can only provide a service that they hope will be effective.

[lots0]

As Peter pointed out, Search Engines are a business and their product is the results. They don’t want anyone messing around with THEIR product, for any reason.

IMO Making your site accessible to spiders is not SEO. Usability is not SEO. Marketing is not SEO. Even clean code is not SEO.

SEO is manipulating the search results for your or your client’s benefit. I do believe google says that this is unfair and they do not want you to manipulate their results in any way.

Look, I am an SEO and I am proud to call myself one, I just don't have any illusions about just what an SEO is and what an SEO does.

[Scottie]

So... there's this great site with TONS of content. It's updated daily by a community of people who really care and keep things wonderfully organized and readable.

It's in a database with URL's that have 7 query criteria. Googlebot doesn't want anything to do with it.

I am hired- I recommend a mod-rewrite on the URL's. Doesn't change a thing for the user. But suddenly, Google is able to access thousands of highly relevant pages over a boatload of obscure keyphrases and searchers are thrilled to be able to find the site.

Do you think Google is ticked at me for making that content accessible to spiders?

[lots0]

...making that content accessible to spiders

Is not SEO...

How about we take that same site and start a link building campaign to improve the sites position in the SERP... Now that’s SEO...

[qwerty]

Is not SEO...

...but it is to me, as are all those other things you listed. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[peter_d]

Scottie makes good points about site marketing in general, with which I agree.

Except this bit:

Focusing on improving a site when part of that improvement includes adjusting for search engine guidelines does more than just attempt to manipulate SERP's- it improves the visitor experience and builds traffic in other ways.

Not necessarily. SEO can sometimes damage the visitor experience.

It's also widening the brief of seo, which I know is done mainly to gloss over the "distasteful" aspect of ranking manipulation, but it is not what we're discussing. As lots0 points out..."making your site accessible to spiders is not SEO. Usability is not SEO. Marketing is not SEO. Even clean code is not SEO". The SEO USP is very clear and it is stated on this very forum: high rankings. Not "spider friendly".

BTW: No one has answered my question. How many of you request links as part of your seo strategy? Why is that part of a search engine *optimization* strategy and not simply a traffic building strategy?

Edited by peter_d, 25 September 2003 - 07:58 PM.

[lots0]

but it is to me, as are all those other things you listed. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Fine by me.

I would just say that what you see as SEO (Search Engine Optomization) I see as SEM (Search Engine Marketing) SEM is what I see as this "Make your site the best it can be." kind of thing, which BTW I do agree with. I just don't believe that optomizing a site to rank higher in the Search Engine Results is the same thing as creating a good user experence.

[SearchRank]

What is the definition of "optimize"? According to Websters:

optimize v., mized, mizing. -v.t. 1. to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible. 2. to make the best of. 3. to write or rewrite (the instructions in a computer program) for maximum efficiency and speed in retrieval, storage, or execution. 4. Math. to determine the maximum or minimum values of (a specified function that is subject to a set of constraints). -v.i. 5. to be optimistic. optimization, n. optimizer, n.

It would be sufficient to say then that SEO can include things like accessability and usability. It is the process of "optimizing" one's site for the search engines.

Search engine marketing IMO encompasses not only SEO but PPC, PFI, directory submissions, link popularity enhancement and the like. The ultimate purpose of all these things is to increase one's visibility on the search engines which brings more traffic and then make sure those visitors have a great user experience which hopefully increases customer acquisitions.