7 Reasons Why You Don’t Need Seo Options

[Jill]

This one actually isn't new (was written in Oct.) but I liked it so much I thought it would be worth posting here.

7 Reasons Why You Don’t Need SEO

All you SEO fans get ready for a bumpy ride, this is going to be one lean mean rootin’ tootin’ SEO hatin’ post! You don’t really need SEO and you certainly don’t ever really need to pay for it - it’s all just smoke and utterly unconvincing mirrors. When it comes down to it, you need SEO about as much as a man needs nipples.

You may wonder why I'd be a fan of a "No need for SEO" post, but once you read it, you'll see that what he says aligns perfectly with "our" form of SEO.

What do you think?

[1dmf]

Yes I was suprised to see this post by you Jill, I'm also suprised because they actually mention some stuff you should be doing (standards compliant code) which you don't seem to agree with much (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

my seven responses.

1. Yes all well and good but if no one finds your site, no one will know about it's existence to natuarally link to it! (chicken and egg syndrome on this one)

2. Who can argue on that score!

3. Who the hell is Seth and what's a Purple Cow? hmm take your word on that one, now move along!

4. How many times do I say this, and how many times do i get bitch slapped, standards code, non-required JS navigation, that's all childs play and err yeah , no (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_images/poo.gif) sherlock! for a real developer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

5. Don't get this, mod rewrites what so you can just kwd stuff url's , that's not even SEO is it?

6. see no.4

7. terminology my friend , potato , tomatoe , all urls are landing pages aren't they? if you get a new product, should it be on it's own product specific landing page or on a page with 500 products that do not target the keywords required or make it easy for visitor to find what they want.

hmm, i mean they are actually insiting to start as blog for SEO purposes, hmm, Jill you know better than that, don't you?

my (IMG:style_emoticons/default/penny.gif)

This post has been edited by 1dmf: Jan 28 2009, 10:52 AM

[rolf]

Interesting article. I agree that much of what's recommended is just good practices on the part of the designer/developer, but they're conveniently glossing over a few things.

1. As 1dmf points out, build and they wont come. Once the ball is rolling then sure, just provide great content and the rest will take care of itself, but initially you need to get people to see it via some active promotion.

4. Sure, but what if you didn't hire a web designer who coded it right the first time? What if, as a non-techie business owner, you naively hired a total cowboy who you don't want to rehire, even if he fixes it for free? Not something I have to worry about myself, but I'm often asked to improve sites that have these types of omissions.

6. See point 4, but I'll add that many of my clients aren't interested in why they should care what an alt attribute is, they just want me to fix up the mess that the other company left them with. That attitude is probably why they hired a cowboy in the first place, but it's not my job to change their attitude.

Just for context, I don't put myself out there as an SEO, I just try to incorporate good practices in my regular coding, but regularly find myself looking from an SEO-centric viewpoint because of circumstance. I agree that SEO is often oversold by snake oil salesmen, but I feel this article goes a little too far the other way - interesting though it is.

[Randy]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif)

Well, I can agree with the overall concept of the post I suppose. After all, I'm not an SEO and have never hired one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

I would take some umbrage with #2 however. It's way, way too broad. In my mind there's a huge difference between a copywriter and a web copywriter. Just as there is also a huge difference between a web content copywriter and a web sales conversion copywriter.

Can one person write good offline copy and good web content copy and good web sales copy? Sure. But if you find one of these rare, extremely gifted people you'd better find some way to pay them enough money to lock away all of their time for the next 20 years. These folks are literally worth their weight in gold.

Are many copywriters good at all three disciplines? No.

Do many copywriters understand that there's even a difference? Sadly, no.

Do most webmasters realize there's a difference? You're kidding right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/giggle.gif)

[1dmf]

copywriter and a web copywriter. Just as there is also a huge difference between a web content copywriter and a web sales conversion copywriter.

who and what randy?

You're making it up, are you splitting hairs or is copywriting that much of an art it's segregated into medium and type?

I accept you need the right person to write the content, and it usually isn't a programmer! , but saying us coders don't know this, you upset me! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/punish.gif)

[Ron Carnell]

You really don't need a good copy editor, either. Not if you write well enough the first time, or at the very least, go back and read what you just wrote before you post it.

If you DID have a copy editor, however, phrases like "Go any buy it" and "go through an site an add alt attributes" probably wouldn't make it public. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The reality, of course, is that perfection is typically a little hard to reach on the first try. We really do need someone else to proof our words and, yea, to make sure they're eventually accessible to the search engines.

[torka]

On point #4, another issue is that "internal link analysis" -- if it's done right -- isn't just looking at whether the links are coded in JS or HTML/CSS or Flash or whatever. To paraphrase Truman Capote, "That's not analysis, that's typing."

Effective internal link analysis also includes a review of the site architecture and how the site's pages link to each other, through the site navigation, header/footer links and links in the on-page copy. It coordinates with keyword analysis and usability to ensure that pages of the site are referred to by appropriate link anchor text, and that they're linked-to from places where such a link would be useful to help visitors more effectively navigate the site, and that they work to guide the visitor through the site toward the conversion goal.

But I get the feeling the author isn't talking about actual site optimization, but rather the sort of snake-oil "SEO" that a distressingly high number of low-value companies are pitching to unsuspecting webmasters, with more of an eye toward enriching the "SEO" than improving the client's website.

And yes, 1dmf, at least in some quarters there is that sort of specialization (with, actually, even more sub-specialties than what Randy mentioned) in writing. And not just in writing... People who focus on small businesses often tend to be more generalists, simply because small businesses often can't afford to hire different specialists for each little aspect of a project.

But when you get to the larger corporate level, whether you're talking actual employees or outside contractors, yes indeedey-do there is specialization enough to make your head spin. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif)

[Randy]

who and what randy?

There are some obvious differences and some more subtle but very important difference 1dmf. One of these days I'm gonna write a book, I swear.

And for the record, I didn't say anything about programmers. I said webmasters. Most of whom didn't even build their own site's code. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_tongue.gif)

Ron: I agree completely.

On the copywriting part, truth is it doesn't take a proficient copywriter to produce copy that sells like crazy. It only takes a moderately competent writer who is aware of the things that really do work time after time. With lots of testing and an extreme non-fear of failure mixed in.

I can personally say I've never written or for that matter seen copy that is perfect right out of the box. I guess that's why I became such a testing nut several years ago. It's always a continual process.

Torka: I got the feeling the original author was talking more about the snake oil salesmen myself. Which is why I went easy on him. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

[Jill]

I got the feeling the original author was talking more about the snake oil salesmen myself. Which is why I went easy on him.

Yes, which is why I posted it in the first place. You all bring up very good points.

Most sites do, of course, need some SEO, just not in the old-fashioned way that people think of SEO.

[piskie]

If a site has been just sort of built (as many are), then all or some of the virtues of "Good practice in the first place" that this article talks about would be addressed by who of all people but an SEOer.

[1dmf]

And for the record, I didn't say anything about programmers. I said webmasters. Most of whom didn't even build their own site's code.

touche! , but that terminology always confuses me, if a webmaster isn't the coder, what the hell does a webmaster do? , as you know I wear all the hats around here, so job boundries and defenitions tend to blur into one.

At least it makes my job diverse and some what challenging, even if frustrating at times.

If a site has been just sort of built (as many are), then all or some of the virtues of "Good practice in the first place" that this article talks about would be addressed by who of all people but an SEOer.

Nope, good coding practices would not 'usually' have been employed by an SEO'er, Semantic code and SEO have nothing to do with each other, just ask Jill (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

[Hyperformance]

This article is perfect for an SEO to write another angle article maybe called;

"10 Reasons Why You Need SEO More Than Ever Today"

Take each point and his sarcasm and point out that most businesses cannot afford all the professionals necessary in accomplishing the 'simple' tasks he outlines.
(Let's not even discuss doing these tasks successfully) - Successfully being the Keyword here.

If everyone could do these things, then there would be no need for SEO, unfortunately, most are not aware of what it takes even if they are a designer or developer.

I will lighten up a bit because this was written before Web 2.0 in which there are no comments or 'reasons' listed.

Your article (when submitted) will draw as much, if not more attention to it and your website and the real way of thinking about SEO and YOUR website.

It was a good read for with coffee - It should give every one of us the opportunity to address, overcome and have answers to each of his points... because people will continue to read these things... So be ready to address them when your client or potential customer asks you about it.

Number 10 - You don't need SEO if you are this Author, or you do not plan on winning online... in any capacity.

Just my thoughts... it's early still - I need to go to bed.

- S

[projectphp]

One is wrong - of course you need link building. It's like saying you don't need HTML.

Did you do anything to get any link on your site? If yes, that's link building.
If no, you're a liar (or have zero links) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The other are more attacks on terms, and also rely on having some mythical X who knows all.

Despite that, I like the article, because it reads like a proper conversation with a real person who knows a few buzzwords (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Robot Overlord]

Amazing linkbait.

Only in a perfect world sites are sites built correctly right off the bat.

[maleman]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif) First, ranking is dead, then 7 reasons why you don't need SEO and third, quoting 1dmf:

if a webmaster isn't the coder, what the hell does a webmaster do?

Must be cabin fever or somethin going around! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sos.gif)