3 ms·

This sums up everything that is wrong with folks who limit themselves to a narrow focus on SEO hat tricks: "It’s easy to preach great content when you have a gr

This sums up everything that is wrong with folks who limit themselves to a narrow focus on SEO hat tricks: "It’s easy to preach great content when you have a great subject. But no one gives a shit about non-clog toilets or pulse oximeters or single phase diode bridge rectifiers." The missing ingredient that the author can't figure out is CREATIVITY. If you're an advertising creative you can make non-clog toilets sexy to their intended audience (who will be building contractors, architects, etc.). This is the sort of 101 problem that any average PR or advertising person tackles in a day -- how to make the product a hero. The problem with many SEO folks is that they're so obsessed with gaming algorithms that they forget that it's really all about creating content that your audience cares about. Honestly if you can't make insurance or incontinence products sexy you're in the wrong game. Folks from David Ogilvy to copyblogger have spent years documenting how to make the mundane interesting. If you can't so it yourself, then hire someone who can... PS Radio Shack made a solid business for years by cramming a geektastic catalog with products like a diode bridge! The key is knowing your audience and knowing how to engage them.

sabat 16y ago
Excellent rebuttal. Real SEO is an act of marketing. You make a website that is genuinely useful and interesting to its intended audience, and then you make it as search-engine-friendly as possible, and cultivate links. None of that is a joke.
a5seo 16y ago
There's a big difference between what you're critiquing (marketing messaging) and what blackhats are focused on manipulating (links). Your diagnosis, "if you can't make insurance or incontinence products sexy you're in the wrong game," would be correct if Google had a function called getSexiness(URI uri, TargetAudience audience, String strKeyword). But they don't. Google uses citations/links instead. I think what Kris is saying is that it's harder to drive "earned" LINKS for insurance or incontinence products than it is to astroturf your way there with blackhat techniques.
notahacker 16y ago
You seem to be in violent agreement with the author; his objection is that content creation is better handled by writers than SEO-experts. That said, if I didn't think I could excite the linkerati with my single phase diode bridge rectifiers, I'd much rather my content was handled by someone focused on long tail search terms appealing to those potentially interested in purchasing single phase diode bridge rectifiers than a Pulitzer-prize winning writer.
mekoka 16y ago
I feel that your view may be as simplistic as the one you're criticizing. I'm not an SEO, but my understanding of this field from people who actually work in it is that things are not so black and white. The author went a little over the top, but I generally agree with his sentiment that not everything is worth the effort to make it interesting. It really does depend of the results you want and what you have in your wallet. If you're a little fridge repair-n-resell shop, without the marketing resources and budget required to turn your really bland business into an eye-magnet, I think it would be reasonable to dabble in the cheaper gray areas, provided an acknowledgement of the risks and rewards.

sabat 16y ago

Excellent rebuttal. Real SEO is an act of marketing. You make a website that is genuinely useful and interesting to its intended audience, and then you make it as search-engine-friendly as possible, and cultivate links. None of that is a joke.

a5seo 16y ago

There's a big difference between what you're critiquing (marketing messaging) and what blackhats are focused on manipulating (links). Your diagnosis, "if you can't make insurance or incontinence products sexy you're in the wrong game," would be correct if Google had a function called getSexiness(URI uri, TargetAudience audience, String strKeyword). But they don't. Google uses citations/links instead. I think what Kris is saying is that it's harder to drive "earned" LINKS for insurance or incontinence products than it is to astroturf your way there with blackhat techniques.

notahacker 16y ago

You seem to be in violent agreement with the author; his objection is that content creation is better handled by writers than SEO-experts. That said, if I didn't think I could excite the linkerati with my single phase diode bridge rectifiers, I'd much rather my content was handled by someone focused on long tail search terms appealing to those potentially interested in purchasing single phase diode bridge rectifiers than a Pulitzer-prize winning writer.

mekoka 16y ago

I feel that your view may be as simplistic as the one you're criticizing. I'm not an SEO, but my understanding of this field from people who actually work in it is that things are not so black and white. The author went a little over the top, but I generally agree with his sentiment that not everything is worth the effort to make it interesting. It really does depend of the results you want and what you have in your wallet. If you're a little fridge repair-n-resell shop, without the marketing resources and budget required to turn your really bland business into an eye-magnet, I think it would be reasonable to dabble in the cheaper gray areas, provided an acknowledgement of the risks and rewards.