Wow! I thought, pulling an additional insert in my recent Wired Magazine called “Geekipedia” and thought that it might come in handy. I spend most of my time at work with my marketing and SEO hats fully fixed on my head and much of my free time researching the aspects of the latter that keep me sharp and inspired. In other words, “I don’t get out much!”
So, leafing through and trying to keep my geekdom in check (testing myself along the way), I noticed SEO as an entry (just below Robert Scoble), and thought it would be interesting to see what other “geeks” think of the art, dare I say craft, that is search engine optimization. To my dismay I found what I would consider a Jason Calacanis inspired observation of SEO:
SEO
Search engine optimization services are the Wile E. Coyotes of the Internet economy: doomed to stalk prey that repeatedly slips away just as it’s captured. SEO consulting — fine-tuning client pages to land them atop search engine results — has blossomed into a multibillion-dollar industry. But even those that attain the ultimate prize of a number one ranking can’t celebrate for long. Search engines are always tweaking their algorithms to prevent sites from gaming the system to artificially boost their results. Sure, it makes for a frustrating chase. But it also means repeat business.
It is good to see what outsiders think about SEO, but it can be disconcerting none the less.
I feel bad for those of us who have the knowledge to use their experience for good, yet rely on the dark side of SEO to gain traffic to aid their cause. I know that Danny Sullivan does a lot to aid in the purpose of search engine optimization and defends it against the onslaught of others like Jason Calcanis, but the purpose of SEO (at least in my mind, if no where else) is that we provide a service not only to our clients or companies, but to the user. “Gaming the system to artificially boost their results” is not a competent way to get or maintain customers or users.
Search engines are trying to do the same as I am, provide what users are looking for. It is the intent the purpose of SEO to provide a positive user experience, not to do what it takes to get a user to a website, as it is with the search engines. A positive user experience is what we want and need to build quality relationships, not develop a cash cow!
Oh, and SEO isn’t only one dimensional. There is a lot more involvement that just “fine-tuning client pages to land them atop search engine resuts.”
What are your thoughts?
Related Posts >>
- Catching Up
- Happy New Year 2008 – SEOpittfall 2007 in Review
- Yahoo! Acquires MyBlogLog and Bix
- Information R/evolution
- Google Searches Your Subscriptions – Finally!
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
“It is the purpose of SEO to provide a positive user experience”
Good point, but I’d say the purpose of *some* SEOs is to provide a positive user experience. Many SEOs will serve whoever pays the dough, myself included. And some don’t give a rat’s ass about helping improve Google’s search relevancy.
A professional SEO will help clients build a site worthy of ranking #1 for a target term. A newbie SEO will ignore site development and just jump right into link spamming (er. link “building”). Better the quality of a site, less resistance ranking high in search results and less money you have to blow on links since your visitors who dig your site will market your site for free.
Halfdeck,
Thanks for the comment. The reason that engines tweak their algorithms is because they are not providing for the users, simply put, we as marketers and SEOs are not publishing to the user instead of the engines.
I will always contend that if you do your best by users, you will see the benefit from their word of mouth (online or offline) and the engines will follow. Given the fact that you are doing what you need to do to be visible to the engines.
You wrote:
” “Gaming the system to artificially boost their results” is not a competent way to get or maintain customers or users.”
That is very true. So why does people like Danny Sullivan praise and tout the blackhats of the SEO industry then? Many believe he should be using his name for good things, like trying his very best to get rid of the blackhats in this industry so people like Calacanis and the “Geeks” might see the industry in a better light. Instead, he takes monies from blackhats and allows them to promote themselves at his conferences, etc, so it’s no wonder the industry is looked at from the outside the way it is.
It’s like a …. well Duh?
Then you have all the friends of blackhats who defend them to the end. Those friends are also buds of DS. It’s a never ending kind of thing that does not seem to be changing anytime soon.
Doug,
Thank you for your comment. Although I spoke about Danny Sullivan’s defense of SEO from the likes of Jason Calacanis, this does not mean that I subscribe to all of his beliefs, comments or conclusions on the matter. Similar to a political view, some people believe that the SEO industry is full of liars, cheaters and thieves. Does this mean that we all are, of course not.
I think that whitehats should take a bigger role in the industry and be more outspoken as advocates of users and when consulting website owners giving realistic expectations of performance.
I do not defend blackhat behavior. I do, however, understand their desire and intention in practicing in this art.
While I agree with your reply for the most part, it’s really the same thing that most say in this industry…. “let the buyer beware”. The problem with that in this industry is that it’s still fairly new, and “most” of the general public really doesn’t understand “spam”, let alone blackhat/whitehat. Even if you have a blackhat who is informing ALL his clients of the risks involved… you take that leap to saying the client truly understands those risks. That’s quite a leap. How many times have you heard from a site owner who stated to you the former SEO DID inform him of the risks, but he just never really “grasped” what a Google penalty/ban would mean until it happened to him? Many times. The idea that we as an industry do NOT want to take on added responsibility for our OWN actions is kind of pathetic in my mind.
Doug,
Clients should do their homework too! Letting a website owner off just because it is easier than taking responsibility is a cop-out.
Knowing what you are getting yourself into is just as important in hiring a SEO firm as it is with building a brick and mortar business.
Risk and reward are the operative concepts in SEO. If you don’t know what you are getting yourself into, maybe you should do some research and apply some common sense to the equation. Realizing that “if you build it they will come” attitude doesn’t make sense in the real world, so why should this be the case online?
Ownership, in my mind, is shared by both the SEO and the website owner. If you didn’t know the qualifications of a doctor, but let them operate on you anyway and get messed up physically, shame on you!
Education is the first step. Start building your understanding and look at long term results and not just talk.