41–50 of 142 posts
Am i the only one who thinks that SEO is more a plague then it is a real profession? Google making it hard for SEO is exactly the right thing to do. Making it impossible for SEO should be the ultimate _goal_ of a good search engine.
luckily, no. http://powazek.com/posts/2090
Am i the only one who thinks that SEO is more a plague then it is a real profession? Google making it hard for SEO is exactly the right thing to do. Making it impossible for SEO should be the ultimate _goal_ of a good search engine.
Depends what you mean. If you mean people whose goal it is to help site owners learn how to structure their data intelligently for dissection by machines, people who make companies think very hard about their content, people who encourage high-quality crosslinks and meta tags, and people who generally help sites manage data, then no, SEOs are great. They help users and companies alike. If you mean the dirtball black…
Nobody else read this as a joke? I read it as a joke (and a slightly racist one at that).
From the topics on their default page and his other communications, it seems to be sincere.
I think SEO is practically dead, and for good. The Social Web is supposedly lot more democratic and apparently a better choice.
They'll probably take on a different guise now, like calling it "Social Media Promotion" or some other malarkey. Plenty of companies want to be the talk of the town on FB and Twitter.
Keep up the good work Google. I hope this serves as encouragement for them to continue to screw over those who want to turn searching for relevant information into a war for who can cheat the system the best.
But the tone of this "article" makes this guy sound like he wears a black hat.
That robots.txt is so big that even with comments maybe google will drop it after trying to parse it for a while....
1. You have a business. 2. Said business has a website. 3. Said website is bringing in no discernable revenue for your business. 4. Poking around for reasons, you discover that your website ranks really lowly on Google. 5. You have no idea why. 6. You pay an SEO consultant. They take a look at your web site, and your overall web presence, to try and find out what's going wrong. 7. They discover that your markup is terrible, the wrong things are enclosed in header tags, etc. Also, you have little to no visibility outside of your website. 8. They advise some sensible changes to your markup, and force you to start posting things on Google+, Twitter, Facebook, etc. 9. Your ranking improves. As does your revenue.
Which bit of that process is evil and wrong?
Of course, there will always be a shady side to SEO (people taking it too far, etc), but there's a valid reason reason it exists: many people simply do not know enough to get the basic components right. SEO consultants help them do that, and improve revenue as a result.
Better yet, make it so that your CODE is readable and understandable easily by someone who doesn't have perfect vision.
If you achieve this and create great, relevant content, then Google will snap it up and the customers will appear. No other tricks needed.
An SEO consultant complaining about Google's frequent algo changes is like a mechanic complaining that cars break down too often.
It's more like new cars being introduced without service manuals, forcing the mechanic to continually figure out how to fix them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends what you mean. If you mean people whose goal it is to help site owners learn how to structure their data intelligently for dissection by machines, people who make companies think very hard about their content, people who encourage high-quality crosslinks and meta tags, and people who generally help sites manage data, then no, SEOs are great. They help users and companies alike. If you mean the dirtball black…
If you care about the underlying algorithms, I'd think it's pretty clear which kind of SEO we're talking about.