Two weeks ago I said that SEO is bullshit and the SEO community promptly got their knickers in a twist. The post was labelled everything from “sensationalist crap” to “linkbait”, but I was still left searching for a solid counter-argument. Even Richard Hearne, one of Ireland’s better known SEOs, decided not to engage in the discussion because my post was “so wide of the mark”. But then why the hype? Why the anger? Don’t tell me there might be some truth to my argument? SEO is bullshit and the SEOs know it too.
SEO is what it is
Paying for SEO services from an SEO consultant will generally get you what you want: higher, relevant ranking in popular search engines. But the majority of what SEO delivers is just best practices. After that, there remains search-engine specific tricks and link-building strategies.
SEO is bullshit for four reasons: it provides only short-term quick-fixes for poorly built sites; it promotes bad practices that cause usability problems; it pollutes the web with spam and noise; and it damages the experience of the web user. I put some of these arguments to the last remaining gentleman of the SEO industry, the very well respected Dave Davis of RedFly Marketting, to see how he defends his profession.
SEO is best practices
I asked Dave if a site, built from scratch and constructed using industry-standard best practices (semantic markup, IA, usability and accessibility), still requires SEO? And if so, why?
Only if you have competition. What if ALL your competitors sites are constructed using industry-standard best practices? I am sure you have competition. We all do. Search Engines do not take fancy designs into account when ranking a site. Search engines do not know that someone at the local chamber of commerce recommended you as the best in your market. All things equal, relevancy is key here. What makes your site more relevant than your competition? How can you tell Google that?
The web is becoming more and more competitive. SEO is absolutely essential when competing on line, especially when in competitive markets. I think it is important to note that in Ireland, in a lot of cases VERY limited SEO is required due to the fact that not many companies are even on line yet. There is no competition and a simple title tag can put you into first position for a reasonable competitive term. Move over to the US or the UK and it’s a different story. Ranking for competitive terms is a different ballgame altogether.
Consider this. If myself and yourself go heads up with a fresh domain each and try to rank for a single competitive word, say “mortgages”. We both design our sites using best practices and you leave it at that. You do nothing else. I however go out, build RELEVANT links, get citations, use tools that search engines provide (webmaster tools, sitemaps, product data feeds etc.) who do you think will rank higher for this one particular term?
I think you know the answer to that and I think your “SEO is bullshit” post knows that too. How many links did you snag with that bait?
The answer to Dave’s question is that his site will rank better if I do nothing but just put it online. But the only part of his solution that resides exclusively in the domain of the SEO practitioner is the “webmaster tools, sitemaps, product data feeds”. These are the “tricks” I’m talking about; the rest is just good marketing. If I’m providing relevant, interesting, quality content (yes, that includes my original SEO post, which ranks second after Jason Calacanis’ post of the same theme), people will link to it and talk about it in the same way that throughout the history of modern man, the most interesting person in the village has his name spoken more than others. It’s bullshit to call this SEO.
SEO is bad usability
Next, I asked Dave if he thinks on-site SEO practices are perfectly aligned with the interests of the visitor?
There are a lot of on-site practices that are absolutely not in the interest of the visitor. These practices are used by either SE spammers or those who have no clue what they are doing. Little do they know but the majority of these practices are also completely useless as search engines are now smart enough to smell them a mile away. Other best practices have absolutely nothing to do with the user experience. Source ordered content, authority siloing etc. These practices make it clear to search engines what content you as a human and a webmaster think is relevant for your visitors.
Others absolutely are in the best interest of the visitor. Image optimisation can bring in a lot of relevant traffic and only serves as useful to visitors that are either visually impaired or using a text browser. Internal anchor text linking also “describes” the page it’s linking to and helps search engines AND users understand what the page is about.
Here I agree with Dave completely; he’s describing nothing but best practices. Bullshit is paying extra for “image optimisation”: if describing images properly with alt attributes isn’t a standard practice, I don’t know what is. But he’s being careful to disassociate himself from “SE spammers or those who have no clue what they are doing”. Maybe Dave’s company doesn’t cross the line where usability is concerned, but even reputed SEOs like Richard Hearne use techniques that definitely don’t best suit the user: linking to your about page with “Internet Consultant Ireland” is putting the search engine before your visitors.
SEO is filling the web with crap
I asked Dave what he considers as acceptable off-site SEO practices?
I’ll give you a few. Registering your site with an authoritative and relevant directory. (DMOZ, Yahoo). Guest posting on other blogs, social media link baiting *cough cough*, article writing, relevant group participating (blog carnivals), mainstream media citations, careful synonymous content creation, content theming resulting from competitive analysis the list goes on. I guess a lot of this falls into the link building category of SEO and I have a feeling that is what you are after here. The list of off site practices is even longer.
Here I get the distinct impression that Dave is either being careful or that he’s actually one of the good guys; but why call yourself an SEO when what you’re promoting are web marketing techniques? I won’t knock all of these suggested approaches; guest posting and “social media link baiting” (aka, creating content that people enjoy and find interesting) are two things that make value for everyone: the content producers and the content consumers. But what Dave calls “careful synonymous content creation”, I call spam. Again, I can’t say what RedFly do, but since my original post, I’ve been sent information on some of these services delivered by Irish companies. One firm, respected within SEO circles and one of the few Irish Google AdWords Qualified Companies, writes spammy “articles” laced with links to the client’s site and spits them into “article networks” at a fiver a pop! This is content made for search engines with the sole purpose of artificially boosting the client’s reputation on the search engines. I know this practice to be widespread amongst SEO “professionals” and I wonder, how is this good for the web? This is pure bullshit. This is filling the web with crap.
SEO is just bad
My final, general argument against SEO is as follows: it’s bad. It’s bad for the user—in the way that it puts the search engine first—and it’s bad for the web—in the manner that it advocates spammy, noisy, web content.
I never claimed SEO doesn’t work. I’ve seen it work and I’ve practised it myself to great effect. But I realised that breaking the semantic structure of the web (for example, by building links that weren’t created because the linked-to document is worth linking-to but instead to boost the perceived relevance of that document for selfish reasons) is bad for everyone. It’s unethical and it’s dishonest and in the long run, gets us nowhere.
SEOs of the world: be good web citizens. Stop adding to the tripe out there on the net and stop spending your time destructively gaming Google. Go out there and make something beautiful, something worth linking to. Tell your clients that quick fixes only get you so far and help them plan new sites and new marketing strategies, using best web practices. SEO is bullshit and SEO is bad. Stop it.
Updates
- Adjusted a line in the first paragraph so I don’t insinuate that Richard refused an invitation to comment.
- Dave replied to my rebuttals and included two paragraphs from his original thoughts that I omitted from this post.
47 Comments
Hi, I do agree - A website won’t run itself, it needs to be kept alive with constant relevant content updates, which will, in turn, add to its Google/Yahoo/Whatever listing. Also SEO best practices (alt tags, etc.) should automatically be part of the web design/development/content production process.
Posted by Katherine at 10:02 am on 27 February, 2008.
if you delete my comments it only proves that you fear this actually is linkbait sensationalist crap and that you’re afraid people will see the arguments to your opinion. i know you’ll delete this too, but a wise man lets the other people join in the discussion, not just claim some bullshit and then delete all opinions not like his. open your mind, see that there are good parts to seo. going on a rave rant where all you do is conclude that seo is bullshit is just plain stupid. people work and study a lot for this stuff, not just how to “game google”, but also old school marketing. ever heard of kotler? he’s the daddy of marketing and his principles are applied even in sem.
so don’t badmouth a community of hard-working people because, as one of my readers pointed out, i do outrank you for “Seo is bullshit”…
and don’t think seo people can just get a website up in google.. by this time tomorrow you could be in the supplemental index if someone had half a mind about it. there are tools out there you’ve never heard of, costing thousands of dollars, which can make for example a hundred blogs with your exact content and thereby ban you from google for duplicate content.
so stop raving and get a job. and learn marketing. then we can speak to each other on equal terms.
Posted by eydryan at 10:07 am on 27 February, 2008.
oh and if you’re going to comment on my blog, have the decency to write something more than a fuckin trackback
Posted by eydryan at 10:07 am on 27 February, 2008.
Hi Eoghan,
I’m quite intriqued by the whole fuffle you’ve started around SEO. I have to admit, I too decided not to respond to your original post because it was simply a childish “I’m throwing my toys out of the cot” rant. I just didn’t see a point in entertaining it.
I think it’s completely unfair how you’ve misconstrued to your own benefit, the honest and precise response from Dave Davis.
I personally don’t care if you think it’s bullshit. What I do care about is the message you are give potential clients.
The simple fact is that SEO is an important strategy for anyone who wants to take their online presence serious.
I’ve been in this industry for 10 years now and the one thing that irks me most is “designers” who spend more time concentrating on a fancy design rather than making sure the website will actually achieve a return on the investment. So many small businesses have been burnt by designers who promise them the sun, moon and stars.
“If you just design it properly, you don’t have to worry about it, people will come”, is the typical designers attitude towards websites. That’s more bullshit than anything in the SEO industry. At least SEO’ers goals are to help website owners achieve something with their website.
Designing a website “properly” is certainly a great step towards a successful SEO campaign, but it’s not the be all and end all. There is a lot more to it than that and you know this. I do agree that there are people who go a little in to what I would class as “spamming”, but most pros don’t need to go this route.
The industry is there because people see the benefits of being found at the top of Google. They see how much business they can attain by good placements on search engines. Unless you are running a business for fun, why would you not want to be top of Google for related search terms?
At the end of the day - it’s not SEO’ers who create the in algorithms that allow spammers to easily manipulate search results.
The example you gave of Richard Hearne is a classic example of what SEO’ers have to resort to, in order to get relevant results to the top of the search engines. If you found RedCardinal when searching for “Internet Consultant Ireland”, would you have found relevant content? Of course you would, because that is what he does. Unfortunately he has to go to a certain level to achieve results for a relevant phrase. But he knows the value of being found for this phrase - so he’ll get his return. While… your clients miss the boat.
It’s an interesting post to see your point of view, but don’t dilute the reality that is - SEO works.
Tom
Posted by Tom Doyle at 10:41 am on 27 February, 2008.
HAHA the SEO community got their knickers in a twist, far from it we just played around with your BS statement because you had provided no grounds on it. I’ve actually lost interested in what you have to say on the subject, for various reasons.
So how about responding to some of the questions people left you? As far as I see you’ve totally ignored what everyone saying, except stating everyone has their kickers in a twist or how you’ve called on SEO people above their BS - took you long enough to write the above and actually try and make sense on why YOU think its BS
Personally I would like to know why you’ve found it ok to game Google using your own clients websites? Do they know you’ve hijacked their footer page? If so did you explain the relevance on non-related links? If so how come you didnt use nofollow links? Why do you find a need to game Google for your own web site? SEO BS?
Talk about usability, you serve a 404 Error over a 410 - thats usability? lol. I’m sure there is more crap I can fling at you Eoghan but why bother? You’ve proven to most of us your not really the type of person that can work alongside people and help improve quality of the web, heck your own blog speaks for itself and you even had to take advice from members of the Irish Web master forum in regards to your design.
Oh by the way, their is no such thing as a quick fix when Google is involved, I thought you’d know that by now.
You stick to what you know (or pretend to) and we’ll stick to what we know.
Posted by Gavin at 11:46 am on 27 February, 2008.
“there are tools out there you’ve never heard of, costing thousands of dollars, which can make for example a hundred blogs with your exact content and thereby ban you from google for duplicate content.”
Adrian, is this a threat? It sure sounds like a thinly-veiled one.
Posted by David Barrett at 12:41 pm on 27 February, 2008.
I would hope that eydryan’s reply isn’t typical of the attitude in the SEO industry.
For the record, I think Dave Davis of RedFly defends his position quite well.
Posted by Dave Jeffery at 12:55 pm on 27 February, 2008.
no threat, just a piece of information. if it were a threat this server would be down by now… or at least the website. and it’s the job of black hatters, me, i’m more peaceful in nature. but not unknowledgeable.
it just pisses me off when people rant on about how someone’s job is crap and how those people are assholes and all that without having a single fuckin clue about what it means…
it’s easy to criticise when you think you are master of the web, but i simply thought he should be reminded that he has what to lose if he really pisses the wrong people off.
and there’s no veil to it. simply an affirmation. there’s no “if you don’t stop doing this”. it’s his choice and probably nothing will happen. but he should be careful. i’m not gonna do anything to his rankings, but there are people out there who could, and i’ve seen them do it…
Posted by eydryan at 1:00 pm on 27 February, 2008.
LMFAO! “Eoghan McCabe: Master Of The Web”
Anyone who knows Eoghan on a professional, or indeed, personal level, will tell you that he doesn’t have the kind of arrogance about him alluded to by Eydryan.
You may not always agree with what he has to say, but I feel that he tries to be proactive about improving the more stagnant areas of the web industry.
Which, counts for a lot in my book.
Posted by Eamon Leonard at 1:13 pm on 27 February, 2008.
look, he may be a great guy, but i don’t like the fact that he pick on hardworking people and makes them look like assholes. i mean come on, would you like to be portrayed as http://www.contrast.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/seo-guy.jpg ?
this is bullshit
Posted by eydryan at 1:52 pm on 27 February, 2008.
@eydryan
Sorry mate, I don’t think you need really Eoghan’s help in looking like an asshole.
You’re doing a great job of that yourself.
Besides, it’s a funny picture.
And it’s not like programmers don’t get compared to serial killers or anything
Posted by Eamon Leonard at 2:01 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Damn!!
You know what’s scary? http://img.skitch.com/20080227-nh53ry1j8nat7i5xdxrbwh3myg.jpg
This is result number 2 for the same search. This is where SEO is really bad & scary. http://www.nua.ie/
And why oh why did nua.ie give away their domain name?
Posted by Robin at 2:18 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Eoghan do you really think that anyone is going to change there ways? If so I think you’re naive or the person who does is very naive.
It is the natural way of things. Google in this case have created a system that everyone uses. People will game it like every system in life. I personally think a sensesionalist blog is just another way to game the system through controversy. I suspect in many cases you don’t believe fully yourself what you put forward. So I wouldn’t get to high on my horse. Apart from that I applaud your ability to game it and I think its going to work very well for you. Its a much more entertaining way than most use.
You already admitted that the gaming works so if I have livelihood depending on me competing with competitors that do game the system then I too am going to.
If the spammers take over the results then Google will just change there algorithm or else they lose there users. I suspect the likes of delicious will take over certain types of searches and then when that gets popular enough people will try game that. Such is life.
SEO is bullshit… Its made me and my clients money in the past and will in the future, that’s not bullshit.
Posted by Derek Organ at 2:21 pm on 27 February, 2008.
I would tend to agree more with Derek than you here Eoghan - SEO (to m e) consists of two parts: how a site is built prior to launch (including care for page titles, content etc.); and how it is promoted after launch. Knowledge of the first part should be part of every web design/developer’s arsenal - knowledge of the second is something that is very specialised and ongoing.
The ongoing SEO of a site may be 1% or 5% or whatever people have bandied about here or in the other post’s comments, but if I had a client in a *very* competitive, *very* online-focused industry, (e.g. the recruitment, retail or finance sector) I would have no hesitation in recommending on-going SEO.
Posted by Stewart Curry at 2:39 pm on 27 February, 2008.
How can I refuse to partiipate in something if I’m not asked to participate in the first place? I decided not to engage because you are completely clueless on the subject matter. I’d appreciate if you dont give a false impression that I was in some way hiding, or had refused a non-existant invitation to comment on your previous hatchet-job. TBH I shouldn’t even feed your bullshit here…
The only thing you’re achieving Eoghan is showing the world how very ignorant you are.
Posted by Richard Hearne at 2:56 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Richard:
“How can I refuse to partiipate in something if I’m not asked to participate in the first place?”
Fair enough, I’ll reword it. It was definitely not my intention to make it seem so, I’m sure you know that.
“The only thing you’re achieving Eoghan is showing the world how very ignorant you are.”
That’s one possibility, but I would claim I’m highlighting the ignorance of the SEO community. But let’s agree to disagree; like I told you this morning, this isn’t personal.
Posted by Eoghan McCabe at 3:11 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Eoghan - if it’snot personal why not pick out some of the less than savoury SEO suppliers here in Ireland? Curious that most of those are web shops? Afraid to turn the spotlight on your own industry?
Posted by Richard Hearne at 3:34 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Interesting debate. Not that I agree with the tone of the original message, or the sensationalized writing style, but the underlying point is interesting.
I personally liken it to R&D coming up with a product, marketing trying to find a reason for the product, and advertising trying to sell the product. If you have the goal in mind in the end, in my example, making a good product that fills a need, you have effectively merged all three departments into one.
SEO in itself is not bullshit, but trying to duck-tape or bandaid a website with SEO is - which is where I would agree with Eoghan.
Now, in my opinion, SEO should be the activation of SEM, which is a true art-meets-science medium with a lot of very professional people in it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of posers as well willing to take the money of any business who thinks they need the all-mighty “SEO” to make their website findable.
Posted by Jordan wollman at 3:56 pm on 27 February, 2008.
* This comment is long, so I would like you to know in advance that this is Dave Davis posting *
Hi Eoghan,
I don’t see how the remainder of my response was too long to “fit” but I think that leaving it out is a little manipulative to further your point.
Just in case any of your readers want to know, here is what you left out:
*** Bottom line here Eoghan is that if you want to compete in most markets organically, you need SEO and link building. You also need SEO that is approved by search engines. I completely agree that the SEO “world” has a terrible name right now as there is no regulation and anyone can literally “jump right in”. Staying on the good side of search engines is a must in this industry and those who don’t fail. You can debate all you like that SEO is bullshit but the fact of the matter is that it works. I have clients and friends that spend a LOT of money on SEO and I can tell you now it’s paying for itself many times over. For instance a client site is on line for 7+ years getting little to no organic traffic. As soon as the SEO starts, organic traffic explodes. It works.
Someone calling an apple an orange doesn’t make it an orange. A thousand people saying that investing in the stock market is a mugs game does not make it so. Just ask the many millionaires it has created. Someone writing in a blog post somewhere that it doesn’t work is only fooling themselves and to be honest, I’d prefer not to have another person to compete with :)***
In response to some of your comments:
“Here I get the distinct impression that Dave is either being careful or that he’s actually one of the good guys”
- I would of course consider myself one of the good guys. I also think it is pretty unfair that you implied that Richard was not.
“but why call yourself an SEO when what you’re promoting are web marketing techniques?”
- People and CUSTOMERS know the marketing techniques as SEO. Why would a plumber list himself or herself in the goldenpages as an industrial and domestic pipe specialist? I think you were very careful too as RedFly are not solely focused on SEO. We provide it as a service as part of an overall marketing mix of paid search management and on line media buys.
“Dave calls “careful synonymous content creation”, I call spam.”
- Then you are a spammer. This post is exactly that. Related synonymous content to your previous post.
Look Eoghan, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and more power to you for expressing it but the fact of the matter is that any legitimate SEO techniques that fall within search engine’s TOS are just that. Legitimate.
I am all too aware that SEO has a bad name, but so does so does the so called web design industry, especially in Ireland. “Web Design is Bullshit” might be a nice catchy linkbait article and I could rant on about “how non standards compliant design is ruining the web… stop it now.” But you have already done that. Likewise so have I with SEO. Just because I might call web design bullshit doesn’t make it so.
Posted by Dave Davis at 3:57 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Dave:
Thanks for your reply. I’m going to link-up your comment with those paragraphs from the updates so they don’t get lost. I didn’t include them because they weren’t direct answers to my questions and as a result, they didn’t fit in the structure of my post. But I’m glad you put them up here.
Re “legitimate SEO techniques that fall within search engine’s TOS”: legitimate in the eyes of Google don’t make them right or good for the web.
Posted by Eoghan McCabe at 4:08 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Wow! SEOs get terribly defensive when the validity of their profession is called into question.
Look, to all talented SEOs that aren’t really SEO’s (Richard, aren’t you more of an IA? Dave, aren’t you more of a Web marketing bod?) - do yourselves a favour and stop calling yourselves SEO’s! To anyone who’s piggybacking on the Web industry and only knows SEO - fuck off a get a real job… or learn how to contribute to the Web in a positive manner.
SEO isn’t bullshit. But it also isn’t a career. It’s a niche specialty and it’s easy.
Posted by Ken Stanley at 4:19 pm on 27 February, 2008.
PS: The “there are loads of shit Web designers out there” excuse is lame. If Web designers are creating shitty, badly optimised, badly coded pages - then become a fucking Web designer and fix the problem. Don’t try to jump on the bandwagon by fixing ONE small problem created by these poor designers.
*Punches wall*
Posted by Ken Stanley at 4:22 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Eoghan,
Quick question…
If a potential client of yours is reading this site, what do you think their perception of you would be?
- You are using curse words on a “professional” and corporate business blog.
- You are attacking members of the Irish web community on a “professional” and corporate business blog.
-You are talking out of your arse on a “professional” and corporate business blog.
It’s hardly a professional demeanor you have created for yourself here. I enjoyed reading your blog on Naive by Design but your approach since moving to Contrast is absolutely ridiculously unprofessional and ignorant.
Posted by cormac at 8:13 pm on 27 February, 2008.
With all due respect Cormac, Eoghan’s post is not ignorant at all. It’s quite spot on IMO. Just because you don’t agree with his viewpoint! You’re probably right about cursing on a business blog, etc. though. Having said that, I’d rather give myself a bad public image than be selling snake oil and empty promises that I’m not accountable for.
Posted by Ken Stanley at 8:22 pm on 27 February, 2008.
Eoghan: RE: “legitimate in the eyes of Google don’t make them right or good for the web.” - That is just your misguided OPINION.
Seeing this issue has been brought up a thousand times before, I will quote some legitimate SEO techniques that web designers and developers do NOT include as part of their industry standard design service:
- preventing search engines from indexing low quality (duplicate content, user tags, etc) or low information web pages (so that more of your link authority is focused on the high quality pages).
- Keyword research: knowing what terms your target audience is searching for is a key component of SEO.
- researching keywords to determine how deep one can profitably go covering a specific topic
- look as search logs from search engines and internal site search to see how well your content satisfies those demands, and using keyword modifiers and semantically related words to help the page rank for more related phrases (a page which is too focused on a core term but lacks supporting vocabulary may get filtered out of the search results)
- Body Content: Good, solid textual content making use of the terms you want to be found for. This also means not all images, not all Flash.
- Links: Good, relevant links from key web sites are super important can sometimes save a site from not having done the other things.
- writing page titles that satisfy search engines and searchers and are interesting enough to be linkworthy
- encouraging social interaction, consumer feedback, and integrating user feedback into the site in a meaningful way, (especially in a way that will allow more users find the relevant content)
- creating self reinforcing authority ideas, improving mindshare, and brands that build links
- requesting links or coverage on high quality websites.
- buying relevant advertising that may lead to indirect links or directly improve your trust scores (for example, Google recommends submitting sites to the Yahoo! Directory)
- create additional content where your site is lacking, or in related fields that relate to profitable fields.
- restructure a site’s internal link structure to ensure important content is getting indexed and place emphasis on popular or profitable pages.
(Do you think the sitelinks under our site here:http://www.google.ie/search?q=redfly+marketing was an accident?)
- linking within content to drive conversions
- (for ad driven sites) balancing ad revenues with site credibility and forward linkworthiness.
The source of the above is from the comments here: http://publishing2.com/2007/02/08/the-truth-about-seo/ I have edited for clarity ad made some additions myself.
Now tell me this, If SEO is bullshit and all SEO can be done at the design and development level, why don’t you do offer the above list of tactics in your service? (I may be wrong… you could be). If two sites are competing, both sites are built using industry standard best practices and one hires an SEO to perform the above tasks, which one do you think will rank higher? Do you think any of the above practices are detrimental to the web, the user or do you think performing the above tasks will be detrimental to the business NOT performing them?
SEO is NOT just about link building and fixing broken site architecture although they are part of it. You are in the mindset that SEO is just spamming links. That’s understandable but it is not the case. Spamming is about spamming. SEO is about much more, a lot of which I outlined above. Yes, some so called SEOs are spammers but then again, some so called web designers are too.
Posted by Dave Davis at 8:57 pm on 27 February, 2008.
I think this is all wonderfully Purple. With the capital P
Posted by Robin at 3:48 pm on 28 February, 2008.
Set to find “bullshit”, my content crawler delivered this meandering post and I’m left wondering if it’s actually an advertisement for a Content Seminar somewhere in Ireland. I’ll have to check all the trackbacks and comment links for that, I guess.
Say what you will about SEO. My personal belief is you need SEO treatment to guarantee relevant content on the top of results served when searching from a mobile phone. At least that what my experience proves to me. In cases where I let my handheld query direct me to venues while underway in Ireland, it seems the hotels, restaurants and leisure activities I find very often have some kind of text-aware treatment. While I could credit those results to good web design, very often I discover the site owner had some SEO treatment and it delivered relevance to my handset.
But then, my experience might be an isolated example.
Posted by Bernie Goldbach at 7:49 am on 29 February, 2008.
What really bugs me here is that I have no idea how to pronounce “Eoghan”.
Posted by Matt at 3:49 pm on 3 March, 2008.
Cormac, your understanding of “professional” and my understanding of the same word are clearly two very different things. Let’s agree I have a very hardline opinion of the damage SEO is doing to the web and how, most of the time, it’s unnecessary: I believe it would be unprofessional of me to ignore this and to bite my tongue and not speak out about this wrong. I take my profession seriously and I won’t stop for fear of offending you or anyone else to defend it. If you can’t understand this and wish to see it as an attack on “members of the Irish web community”, so be it. I can’t help you there.
Re cursing; I’m less set on this, but here are some thoughts on the issue: I’m passionate about my cause and I don’t think people will realise this passion without using passionate words. Cursing may turn off people like you and my Granny, but I’m not too worried about that. I am who I am and my clients like me for it. I work with some of the largest brands in the country and they read this blog and use the same language on it. Welcome to Ireland.
Posted by Eoghan McCabe at 8:28 pm on 3 March, 2008.
Eoghan,
There was a very long response from me that was in moderation and was (I thought) possibly approved.
What happened it?
Posted by Dave Davis at 8:31 pm on 3 March, 2008.
Hi Dave,
I’ll check now. There’s loads of spam and trackbacks and comments still in moderation for the past few days.
Thanks.
Posted by Eoghan McCabe at 8:35 pm on 3 March, 2008.
Dave, pretty much what you have outlined above is what I see as being wrong with SEO. Effectively you have companies competing for footfall and rank and those with money and a vested interest are the ones who will (in theory) rank highest by budgeting heavily for SEO. Google then effectively becomes less about relevance and content and more about commerce and marketing. Surely you can’t see this as a good thing?
I’m not naive, I can appreciate that search is big business and that companies, being competitive in nature, will use search to benefit their agendas to whatever extent possible. That’s why SEO’s do what they do. But my point is - this is not good for the user and, as a result, is also bad for the Web as a whole.
Posted by Ken Stanley at 8:57 pm on 3 March, 2008.
SEO done properly is good for the user.
Content that is useful is being properly packaged so Google can process and understand its relevance. It’s a double edge sword, you can’t just say SEO is bad because it brings bad content to the front it also helps bring relevant thrust worthy content to the user as well. Ken I think your statement has little merit. You should say; misuse of SEO techniques is not good for the user. Which of course can be said about any discipline.
Eoghan’s premise is that good web design is enough. That simply is not the case. This doesn’t take into account targeted keywords for example. We have hired a SEO company in the past to dedicate time to analysis the our clients target market so we better understand what search phrases match what they are offering. This means the language we use is important so that we have content that matches what the client is actually looking for.
What is SEO only dedicating time to market your website. How can this be bad?
Posted by Derek Organ at 11:33 pm on 3 March, 2008.
“Ken I think your statement has little merit. You should say; misuse of SEO techniques is not good for the user. Which of course can be said about any discipline.”
Actually Derek, what I’m saying is that SEO as a principal is wrong. In an ideal world, Google’s algorithms would some how magically be able to determine relevance of content. I appreciate that this is never going to be possible but I also feel that the practice of gaming search engines in order to rank well is a fundamentally bad thing for Web/SE users. Even though it does have commercial benefit for companies. As you say, a double edged sword.
Posted by Ken Stanley at 12:12 am on 4 March, 2008.
Ken,
Do you think that the techniques I outlined above are “gaming” the search engines?
I am referring to my comment just out of moderation starting with:
**Eoghan: RE: “legitimate in the eyes of Google don’t make them right or good for the web.” - That is just your misguided OPINION.** (Unfortunately, this blog has no comment anchors).
Posted by Dave Davis at 12:20 am on 4 March, 2008.
“Welcome to Ireland.”
Thanks Eoghan. Nice reply. It’s exactly the type of reply I was expecting.
Good man yourself. Keep up the good work. You’re a credit. If only there were more people like yourself in Internet land…
(yeah, it’s that easy to sound like a gobshite, how’s my commenting?)
Posted by Cormac at 1:37 am on 4 March, 2008.
Dave, so what we’re debating here essentially is good SEO vs bad SEO. Fair enough. But there are so many shades of grey that it’s very difficult to define and differentiate the two.
I am perfectly happy to concede that there’s nothing wrong with good on-site SEO that doesn’t interfere with a sites core function, that doesn’t sacrifice the user experience and, most importantly, that doesn’t try to deceive the user as to the actual content of the site when indexed by SE’s.
However, as was said before, link baiting, link building and going out of your way to try and increase Google’s perceived relevance of your site is where the commercial side of things kicks in and it’s not good for the user if they’re being served results by the highest bidder in that space. It goes against the nature of organic searches for relevant content. This being a side-debate that most SEO’s alway avoid addressing.
Posted by Ken Stanley at 7:56 am on 4 March, 2008.
I’m going to disagree with you there Ken - the post is “SEO is still bullshit” not “Bad SEO is still bullshit”. I think that SEO is a form of marketing, and when you search for a product or service on Google, you are choosing to be marketed to. In an ideal world, if I searched for “cheap weekend break in London” on Google, the top results *should* be from independent review sites, consumer reports, discussion forums etc. that provide unbiased information to help me decide. But that’s not what Google does, because then how whould they sell ad space?
When I google something I want to buy, I know I am going to be advertised and marketed to - same as when I walk into a shopping centre. So why shouldn’t businesses hire professionals to help them to market their product and be as visible to as many people as possible?
Posted by Stewart Curry at 10:32 am on 4 March, 2008.
Fair enough Stu, but this is what I’m getting at. And it certainly warrants some discussion. I was under the impression that the whole point of organic search results was to index relevant content? That results are ranked in order to relevance to the search term? If you go looking for a product or service on Google, then yes, you are asking to be marketed to. However, if you’re searching for something that isn’t a commercial product, you shouldn’t have products shoved down your throat. Searching for free software is a pretty good example. Or the way Experts Exchange’s paid-for service screws with Google. I know these are extreme examples but you see what I’m getting at.
I’m not really blaming SEO’s for this - it’s up to Google to improve its algorithms and separate the wheat from the chaff and so far it seems to be doing a half decent job. But what happens a few years down the line? Is Google’s organic search going to become less about information and more about advertising?
Reading Eoghan’s original post, I’m not so sure I agree with all of it (apologies Cormac) but I do feel that a reasoned debate about the good and bad aspects of SEO need to be brought to the fore. And before we get all bitchy and defensive, I feel the same way about the wider Web design industry as well. To me, it’s an industry-wide debate about improving standards as much as it is about SEO.
Posted by Ken Stanley at 10:56 am on 4 March, 2008.
@Eoghan - I still see no response to the questions asked by myself and others?
Cat got your tongue?
And I notice you’ve changed your tune over on http://dotneil.com/2008/03/seo-in-2008/:
I think you need to make up your mind a bit more Eoghan - lots of flaffing about methinks…
Posted by Richard Hearne at 1:46 pm on 11 March, 2008.
Richard: “lots of flaffing about methinks…”
Are you for real? Methinks you completely missed my point! I really don’t know how to be clearer than I was in your quote of mine, which is the exact same set of arguments as is in this post.
Everyone I speak with about this discussion has said the same: “the SEOs have no capacity or desire to understand your argument and they’ll defend their position despite any attempts to help them understand”. I empathise with your need to defend your profession, but you’re way, way smarter than this, Richard.
Posted by Eoghan McCabe at 2:11 pm on 11 March, 2008.
‘the SEOs’ - who are they?
Honestly Eoghan - you’ve made no coherent arguments. You’ve simply decided to deride and the work I and others do with broad-stroke ‘SEO is bullshit’ claims.
Back up your claims by answering some of the questions I and others have made. Tis should be no problem to you given that you’re obviously such an expert.
If everyone agreed with your argument then my phone wouldn’t be ringing.
And just for perspective:
‘SMEs Unhappy with Web Design Experience’
Who’d have thought, eh? Seems the SEOs aren’t the only bullshitters then? Of course I wouldn’t be doing the decent web designers any justice if I were to use broad-stroke messages such as ‘web design is bullshit’.
So let’s cut to the chase here since it’s just you and I in the conversation now - I am an SEO, so are you saying I’m a bullshitter or that the work I do is bullshit? Simple yes or a no will do thanks.
Posted by Richard Hearne at 4:09 pm on 11 March, 2008.
Thanks for the good read. I wish the right people will read the article — especially the bit about crap vs. content.
Posted by kometbomb at 10:37 am on 13 March, 2008.
Can we leave the blanket “SEO is bullshit” assertion aside for the time being and concentrate on the fact that SEO is, or at least should be, part of the practice of Web design in the wider sense and not a stand-alone service? Making a client’s site more findable to Google is only ONE small piece of the puzzle when it comes to producing decent websites. Of course Richard is correct when he says that there are a lot of cowboy designers out there but it also needs to be said that SEO’s aren’t really remedying this by doing what they do. I think a holistic approach is needed, where good design meets good SEO meets good usability meets good accessibility meets good security, etc, etc. Best practices all around basically.
I don’t think SEO is bullshit. I just don’t think that it necessitates an entire career. It’s a bit like saying “I’m a professional HTML code consultant”. There’s not that much too it and SEO’s should (and many do) branch into wider aspects of Internet marketing, etc. Unfortunately there are many cowboys that don’t. And there are also many SEO cowboys who completely overlook the other aspects of best practice to meet their own, narrow agenda.
Posted by Ken Stanley at 3:37 pm on 26 March, 2008.
SEO appears backward to me. The intended purpose is to draw people to a site. However, to do so - to apply SEO is to compromise the usability of the site to users to some degree. So once the users arrive, the site is not as good as it could be. As such I see it this way:
1. Use SEO, get visibility for the site, and increase traffic quickly.
2. Make the content as good as can be, and build traffic at a more natural, progressive rate, as the site becomes more visible due to excellent material.
Maybe I simplified this a little too much, but I believe there’s some truth in it.
Posted by Karl at 8:31 pm on 27 March, 2008.
Wow, this was informative, confusing and entertaing all in the same breath. Well done all. Great stuff!
Posted by Niall Devitt at 3:36 pm on 2 May, 2008.
It took me 2 months to bring my blog on the first page for the phrase SEO in the Google.ie (Pages in Ireland), and my site is finally listed there. Yeah!
The only slight problem is that just below my site a fancy Seo Consultant site – there is a next entry in the SERP that reads:
SEO is Bullshit!
That just made me wonder,… how many people are likely to click on my site in SERP and actually purchase the services, if they are coming from a site that reads that SEO is actually bullshit? And I hope to sell it to them then?
Posted by Ivan | SeoConsult.ie at 9:18 am on 8 May, 2008.
7 Trackbacks
[...] and the brains behind FoldSpy (a very clever idea for an analytics tool), recently made a couple of interesting posts on good old search engine optimisation; Paying for SEO services from an SEO consultant will [...]
Posted by SEO in 2008 | DotNeil.com at 9:43 am on 3 March, 2008
[...] Every so often you run into great articles like this (and a follow-up) [...]
Posted by SEO Is Bullshit | John Cow dot Com at 12:54 pm on 3 March, 2008
[...] Not blogging much these days. I’ve been busy still doing my SEO Bullshit. [...]
Posted by Let’s Call Some Bullshit on The ‘SEO is Bullshit’ Bullshitter | Search Engine Optimisation & Online Marketing Ireland .:. Red Cardinal at 4:48 pm on 5 March, 2008
[...] nächsten Beitrag regte sich der Autor über diejenigen Leute auf, die nicht gerade seiner Meinung sind. Ob das [...]
Posted by Schweizer Wordpress Magazin » SEO » SEO ist bullshit at 7:13 pm on 6 March, 2008
[...] have to say - without further research I would have to go with Eoghan on this but I will do more reading when I have time and report back if I find anything spectacularly occult [...]
Posted by Something I have been wondering about for a while « Guy’s Techie Blog at 1:23 am on 10 March, 2008
[...] blog post over at contrast got a lot of attention the last few weeks. Some people say it’s just linkbait but I’m [...]
Posted by Georgie Casey » Blog Archive » a late response to seo is bullshit at 3:07 pm on 11 March, 2008
[...] two articles, SEO is bullshit and SEO is still bullshit, explains why SEO doesn’t work in most cases and why don’t need SEO. Frankly, I agree [...]
Posted by Blog@Rainfall - Articles about branding, interactive communication and other interesting stuff at 1:03 pm on 1 April, 2008
Comments are closed for this post.