Chris Garrett

Seth Godin writes about search engine optimization. As I said over on Chris Garrett's post, I agree with the basic principles of having decent content; but there's no guarantee when you start keyword-stuffing, and try to take advantage of the...

Gotta disagree with you Chris. SEO is crap. But what he's saying is, there are no standards, there are no guidelines, there are no checks and balances, so it's a crap shoot if you hire someone.

Of course, SEO is important. But I wouldn't recommend anyone that sells it as a service.

Want to optimize your website for Google? Here's a hint: TITLES TITLES TITLES

As I am someone who sells SEO (as part of an integrated marketing service) I would like to know why you think SEO is crap and you wouldn't recommend anyone that sells it as a service .. especially as you think SEO is important? Do you mean you COULDNT recommend or WOULDNT?

Hiring anyone involved in marketing is a crap shoot unless you go by recommendation or look into the persons past successes in your field/market, just like its very easy to hire a bad programmer or a bad builder.

I think the point trying to be made by Seth is that SEO really is just trial and error, it's not something you can test the quality of, unlike programming or building.

That's not to say all of SEO is bad - I agree with having decent content, well-formed html and descriptions for images etc. But there's no guarantee when you start keyword-stuffing, and try to take advantage of the semantic importance of H tags, for instance - and then it just becomes a gamble, as opposed to proper marketing.

Not to mention that you start polluting your product with meaningless information, at the detriment of your customers. You're right about the credibility though, which is why people will always try to take advantage of search engines.

Thanks for posting this, looking forward to reading what other people think.

I have to agree with Seth to a certain extent on this (and not because hes a guru). It all depends on the expenses incurred. If it cost $100.00 to have someone do some SEO for you, then fine...why not? Somehow, I doubt costs in that range are the norm (else the earlier poster wouldn't base his life on the business).

Just for fun, consider what Seth would say if he were to take the opposite stance?:

1.) SEO is great because you can spend LOTS of money and see only a fraction of the ROI you might see spending that money on a more credible and creative marketing idea.

2.) SEO is awesome because there is only a substantial possibility that someone else will do a better job than you and totally null and void your effort!

3.) SEO rocks because it gives your company an obvious "do anything for a buck" image - especially when it accidentally comes up first on searches that have nothing to do with your content.

My basic issue with SEO has always been that there's no *real* way to evaluate the results or even know your algorithm for improving your ranking is correct. To take a development analogy, imagine being forced to use a pricing algorithm where you're never allowed to see the output and you can't inspect it's workings - would you trust the algorithm?
SEO is problematic, we have used a few companies and their basic suggestions have been awful - we even have some test stuck in-line, visible to the user but which is only designed to be used for Search Engines - page looks really ugly with no percievable benefit fot the search results. There's even a bunch of FUD around CSS - with some companies believing that if you use CSS to hide 'Engine Only' content then the engine wouldn't index it! Basically what I want is an independently auditable way of approving SEO companies - I need real PROOF that the methods work and thet they're not just another bunch of Snake-Oil salesmen...

I think the points made above are fair. My issue with Seths blog is that nobody should dismiss a marketing tactic out of hand. Of course he was being deliberately provocotave - so was I when I said it was his worst ever blog <g>

You do not NEED an SEO professional necessarily and there are good and bad SEOs. Definately, without a doubt, do not just hire one if you do not know how to validate how good they are. Especially those who cold-call and promise the earth, the forums are full of stories of SEOs claiming other peoples work as their own, using unethical sales and SEO practices. This does not mean there are no GOOD SEOs and does not mean that optimising your site is a bad idea.

What I advocate is building a site for your audience, usability, effective design, accessibility, information architecture, great copy. Do it with what works for search engines AS WELL. Sure if you want to build a flash site if you can make the business case with all the facts but do it in such a way that it will also work with organic search results.

Sites that work well with visitors and are coded well usually do the best in search engines over the long term. Black Hat SEO != "SEO" - doing what is right and correct is not manipulative, dirty, wrong or a crap shoot, just good sense.

People lose money in direct marketing all the time, and I have seen people practically over night lose thousands with google adwords. There are so-called experts in both who would happily rip you off. Bad work is bad work, the tactic is not at fault.

Ron:
1) SEO can also bring in great returns on an ongoing basis for less than the cost of one short-term campaign. Look in your hit reports and see where your traffic is coming from, then see where your most costly traffic is coming from and which is cheapest, then work out the cost of aquisition from each. Each case will different and nobody should depend on one source of traffic but organic SE referrals are sometimes among cheapest and best converting

2) Do you think there is not a possibility someone will bid higher or write a better ad? Does that make adwords useless or a crap shoot?

3) Not sure I understand this one

Chris - so how do you spot a good SEO? Surely they're always the first hit in Google for Search Engine Optimization :-)

Scott: The current top result is not necessarily the best - if that persons site has been the top result for that phrase for a year then I would say they are probably very good :O)

I don't think you "spot" a good SEO, I think you ask around and get good referrals from people you trust that are in your (or related) industry. Before you do that you get someone in your organisation or yourself as educated on the subject as you can. I highly recommend even clients do as much of it as possible, they know their subject domain better than anyone and it really helps with the rest of their marketing work when they see through the eyes of their audience in a really structured way.

The real meat behind SEO is having well-written, focused, meaningful (and keyword-laden, of course) content for your visitors anyway, so if you spend time to have good content you've already done the bulk of the work behind SEO. You can't avoid SEO while at the same time developing good content for your site. The two are inseparable - indeed, they are one in the same!

Chris,
If I am understanding correctly, you are basically saying that you think big blanket statements such as "SEO is worthless" do not do anyone a bit of good. If so, I completely agree with you.

My second item was in reference to the idea that an SEO effort has the possibility of proving competely worthless. With a magazine ad, even if better ads are next to yours, yours is still there. SEO has the real possibility of being a flush down the toliet.

As before, I reiterate it's all a matter of expense.

In addition, to further explain my third item:

When I think about examples of SEO, the first thing that comes to mind are the sites that completely abuse it. They seemingly have an entire dictionary loaded in their meta data because they show up first on the list for almost any search. Then it turns out to be porn or gambling or something. It gives the entire idea of SEO a bad name.

In my mind, SEO is much like telemarketing. It definately works. Some companies use it responsibly, but many more abuse it to a point that the whole thing takes a bad wrap.

I definately see your point. I don't like anyone making blanket statements about anything. That's why I say its all a matter of expense.

I think everyone has a point. There are a lot of issues at play with this. Basically I agree with the premise of your argument, Chris. But I didn't get exactly the same feeling from Seth's post. I thought that even though he blasted SEO in the beginning, at the end he intimated that SEO does in fact have a place in a comprehensive plan.

But you're right.

And so is he. Except I disagree with his idea that keyword buys are the best way to go. Are you telling me a system that allows bidding on a keyword (like "diet" for example) to start at $2, and climb to $75 is workable and plannable?

I like keywords, but IMO we'll reach a point real soon when the big boys start playing, and a majority of the fortune 1000 get into keywords, and the bidding will get out of control, and certainly beyond the reach of the smaller folks.

I call it keyword inflation, and we're already seeing it.

With all the hoohah about search, let's remember that only 20-30% of all visits come from keyword search. Let's not forget direct navigation, links from friends, blogs, ezines, news & display ads etc.

Any internet advertising solution provider should do their best to integrate as many channels as possible.

You know what they say, Caveat Emptor.

by the way, i absolutely love the comment above by Scott Galloway about SEO firms and their own google rankings. It's just hilarious the way they all say they're the best, they can put you on page1, etc. - and when you look at their site, they're on page 34. It just cracks me up.

There is a limited amount of things a search engine can grade a page on.

The "art" of SEO is just getting people to link to you with your keywords in the text. There are many different ways you can do that, but when it comes down to it that is really most of what SEO is.

Also for those who expect high rankings on an SEOs website you must remember that they may be busy on clients sites, and it is many many many hours of hard work and many many many dollars to rank well for stuff like "seo" or "search engine marketing."