78 replies to this topic

[Jill]

In this thread, Michael M. said something that was intriguing, but was a pretty broad statement.

Rather than going off topic in that thread, I thought we could discuss it here in the Pub.

The more the "SEO gurus" rave about something, the less likely it is to be true.

I think this really depends on the "guru" that you're talking about. Michael likes to lump us all together (including himself) which just doesn't work in this field. Nor probably any others.

I guess I'm not really thrilled with the implication that we at the HR forum do this. Although I do have to agree that I see it happening at other forums with other so-called gurus.

Is it true? False? Is HRF and it's own gurus guilty of it too?

[qwerty]

Frankly, I don't think of any of us HR folks as "gurus" -- not even the great and powerful Whalen

The difference to me is that everyone on staff here will openly admit that they don't know the answer to a question when that's the case (although it's so rare it's barely worth mentioning ) and we've even been known to admit when we're wrong. I view "guru," at least in this context, as meaning someone who acts as if they know everything.

[copywriter]

I don't know that the SEOs here "rave" about anything, but you'd have to define the term "rave."

All of us (SEOs, copywriters, marketing pros and everyone else) repeat many of the same things again and again because they are true. They are fundementals of SEO that need to be reviewed time and again if for no other reason than to introduce newbies to the principles that have consistently worked for years.

If that's "raving," yes... we are all guilty.

[SearchRank]

I guess it depends on how one defines "guru".

From Websters:

guru n., pl. rus. 1. a preceptor giving personal religious or spiritual instruction, esp. in Hinduism. 2. any person who counsels or advises; mentor. 3. a leader in a particular field: the city's cultural gurus. guruship, n.

First of all an "SEO guru" has to fit the second and third part of the definition above. Many SEOs today really don't because they may not have been around long enough, are still learning, don't really know what they are doing, etc.

Is Michael's statement true or false then? I'd say for those that can really be characterized as SEO gurus, false.

Take some of the things we rave about here -

• Title tags are one of the most important elements of SEO

• Good content is important

• Don't stress over PageRank

• Make your site the best it can be

These are all true and have been true for a long time.

[Jill]

Frankly, I don't think of any of us HR folks as "gurus" -- not even the great and powerful Whalen

Don't make me fishslap you, Qwerty! I'm a guru and you know it! Now admit it, damnit!

[qwerty]

Yeah, but by my definition you're not a guru... ouch... I mean you admit it when you're wrong... OW! I mean HEY THAT HURTS

[projectphp]

We need a Cartman smilie for when we are upset!

And yes, IMHO, SEO gurus are full of it, for the one reason that whatever they say today might not be true tomorrow.

But there are some fundamental truths in SEO as in all things that never change, and the more any guru talks about these things rather than today's algo du jour, the better.

So, and me, we are indeed good pals!

[ewc21]

Does it mean that if we are advocates of quality content and descriptive titles these principles do not hold on anymore? So I disagree with the quoted message. Could be a message mistyped and was therefore misunderstood.

I do not know if you'd like to be called guru but in an industry whose outcomes of our efforts aren't exclusively controlled by the so called "gurus", it's a virtually non-existent title.

To be called an SEO guru doesn't flatter me at all simply because I don't know everything about it (and who would claim he or she does?).

Maybe 95% of employees of search engines we try to optimize our sites for do not know the algorithm used, let alone most outsiders who do SEO.

[maleman]

I always got the feeling that when they call someone a "guru", it's a way of separating the guru from regular folks. Like the guru is some kind of geek, nerd, weirdo, etc.
:frog:

[qwerty]

I always got the feeling that when they call someone a "guru", it's a way of separating the guru from regular folks. Like the guru is some kind of geek, nerd, weirdo, etc.
:frog:

But in the SEO business, the geeks, nerds and weirdos are the regular folks

[Jill]

I suppose now you're going to tell me I'm not a geek, nerd or weirdo too, Qwerty?

[qwerty]

You're just upset because I'm a guru and you're just some geek
















OW!!!! I'M SORRY! STOP! CALL A COP, SOMEBODY!

[projectphp]

Also remember that research shows those with guru in forum name "... typically the greenest of newbies"..

Edited by projectphp, 21 September 2005 - 12:30 AM.

[Michael Martinez]

The more the "SEO gurus" rave about something, the less likely it is to be true.

I think this really depends on the "guru" that you're talking about. Michael likes to lump us all together (including himself) which just doesn't work in this field. Nor probably any others.

It's the democratic principle at work.

I guess I'm not really thrilled with the implication that we at the HR forum do this.  Although I do have to agree that I see it happening at other forums with other so-called gurus.

Actually, the kind of raving I was thinking of rarely appears here. The "link building" versus "link braking" semi-debate that we are engaging in (I am the link braker, of course) is pretty tame.

The people I have in mind are pretty venomous when it comes to advocating "the right way of thinking about SEO".

Some of these folks are well-known and some operate their own forums. None of them, so far as I can tell, engage in front-line SEO research (that is, they don't put up pages and test out their ideas or, if they do, their ideas are pretty tame and unimaginative).

These are the people most prone to conduct poison pen campaigns as rebuttals of anything (or anyone) they disagree with.

If they respond to a first-time poster's request for help, their response is usually something like:

1) Build more links

2) Don't link to bad neighborhoods

3) Googleguy is a liar

4) Some pointless sentence incorporating the words "Florida" or "Hilltop", or the expression "latent semantic analysis"

Even I occasionally advise people to build more links. I just don't offer it up as The Universal Cure For SEO Woes. It's certainly not an appropriate response to someone who starts out with, "I have 2,000 inbound links but my ranking sucks." With 2,000 links, most people don't need to build more links if their ranking sucks.

I occasionally talk about Hilltop, too, but I don't normally toss it out as the explanation for why someone's rankings are poor.

And "latent semantic analysis"? Um, I have trouble typing it, so I try to minimize the number of times I type it.

[ewc21]

Haha, you can call me a geek, but never a guru...

What a good reminder projectphp!