3 ms·
> Could you expand on this? I'm interested in your thoughts. Sure! Here goes... SEO was supposed to give you a competitive advantage, with your highly-optimiz
by alphadevx 12y ago
> Could you expand on this? I'm interested in your thoughts.
Sure! Here goes...
SEO was supposed to give you a competitive advantage, with your highly-optimized site appearing ahead of your (supposedly) less-optimized rivals in the search rankings. With the majority of above-the-fold space on Google being taken up by ads, those looking for free traffic via organic SEO are really just fighting for scraps.
For the past few years, the companies I have been working with have been competing for rankings on relevant search key terms on Adwords with their rivals, meaning the guys with the biggest advertising budgets wins (and Google wins either way). Organic SEO does not suit Google, in terms of their business model. They want you to pay for placement.
- kendallpark 12y agoWhen you talk about "organic" links do you mean non-advertising links from other websites like blogs/news sites? It seems like you get diminishing returns on SEO. What's the point at which you'd recommended a site stop SEO and try other means of maximizing exposures. What would these other means be?
- alphadevx 12y ago> When you talk about "organic" links do you mean non-advertising links from other websites like blogs/news sites? Correct. > It seems like you get diminishing returns on SEO. I agree, better to spend the money on ads than SEO consultancy. > What's the point at which you'd recommended a site stop SEO and try other means of maximizing exposures. What would these other means be? I consider SEO at this point to be about breaking even with the search engine bots: if your _don't_ do it then they might actually penalize you (e.g. your site is slow, you have broken links, broken redirects etc.), but if you do optimize then they will take benign view of you, but not necessarily a favorable one.