Live data from Hacker News

Sick of SEO Scumbags

thehodge.co.uk

101–110 of 132 posts

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#101
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what a lot of modern SEO is, actually. I think we'll see increasing amounts of information made available by private companies over this next year in an effort to rank higher for their key phrases. Also genuinely useful tools/web apps/calculators. The rest is site structure. I know people can and do still game the system, but that's not a good long-term plan and it's a flat return. Creating a good site with g…

It sounds like a strange motivator to make good content for the wrong reasons...

At a more abstract level, the reason is "money," which is also the reason for a lot of other good content.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#102
post #51
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many SEO techniques are in line with the user's best interest. Sitemaps, Keywords, accessibility (clean source code) etc. help Google to understand the content of your page better. That's the reason why people like Matt Cutts exist. Of course, much of SEO IS dirty, and I am not sure if there is serious movement of "ethical SEO".

If there is some group of N companies competing for some keyword, starting from the same 'lower quality' web sites, and they all do the same 'good' SEO stuff, then they'll all be right where they started again in terms of rankings, very likely. It's an arms race. Competing for a ranking is pretty much a zero-sum game because no matter how much money you sink into it, only one can come out on top. Compare and contrast…

Unless no one ever hears about your life changing stuff. Telling Google what you think your service or product is about via SEO ultimately tells the users who find the search result. THEN you win the game.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#103
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, but isn't what I think of when I think SEO. It sounds a lot like getting good search results by making a good site, which I'm all for!

This is what a lot of modern SEO is, actually. I think we'll see increasing amounts of information made available by private companies over this next year in an effort to rank higher for their key phrases. Also genuinely useful tools/web apps/calculators. The rest is site structure. I know people can and do still game the system, but that's not a good long-term plan and it's a flat return. Creating a good site with g…

Why do you say over the next year? You can see all the changes Google has made over the last ~8 years and say the same thing each time an update came out. Black hatters seem to find the constant adapting part of thrill of the chase. The chase of money from Google rankings really. If they can make money, why would they stop? I see Cutt's job as making it just difficult enough to catch the black hatters, but easy enough to celebrate and promote the best knowledge and content. It's an ever changing game.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#104
I'm sick of SEO people pointing the finger at "evil" SEO people. SEO is basically gaming search engines instead of contributing anything of value. It's not a respectable business, it's a self-perpetuating protection racket. If there weren't any SEO people we wouldn't need any SEO people.

You only hire an SEO for one of two reasons: 1) too cheat Google, and 2) to compete with all the other sites that hire SEO's... There isn't an ethical element in this whole equation.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#105

I'm sick of SEO people pointing the finger at "evil" SEO people. SEO is basically gaming search engines instead of contributing anything of value. It's not a respectable business, it's a self-perpetuating protection racket. If there weren't any SEO people we wouldn't need any SEO people. You only hire an SEO for one of two reasons: 1) too cheat Google, and 2) to compete with all the other sites that hire SEO's... The…

I have to disagree with you at one level. Yes, a lot of SEO is pure crap. Agreed.

Where SEO is of value is in helping those who do not understand how the internet works optimize their sites to have them be more relevant. Perhaps a new term ought to be coined. Something like SRO (Site Relevance Optimization)?

Anyone with even a basic understand of what search engines are looking for (or trying to do) has come across sites that just make you want to cry due to the lost opportunities. A lot of these are smaller local shops that just don't have the tech and marketing horsepower to deal with it.

Being in the business of advising business owners on such things as posting content-relevant articles, carefully choosing titles and related tags, etc. is not evil at all. This is actually a good wholesome service.

SRO (or whatever) is what most sites should be doing. Ranking higher would come as a side-effect of SRO.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#106
post #23

There's only one search engine that anyone cares about. Companies live or die by their inclusion in that index. SEO is a nasty little cottage industry that benefits from the algorithmic monoculture in search. On a somewhat related note, there is only one display advertising program that anyone cares about. If you get banned from Adsense because a competitor hammered an ad on your site, say - you're out. Forever. With…

Companies live or die by their inclusion in that index

In a way that's true, but it's also true that some companies make a choice about how critical search engine traffic is to their core business. Other companies live or die based on things like word of mouth, repeat business, critical reviews, protected niches, the whims of fashion, cronyism, whatever.

Every time I see people spend time and money on "SEO", it makes me wonder about what could have been if that time and money were spent on making the core product more awesome or indispensable or beloved or well-known through other means.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#107

From the article: If your telling the client your doing high quality link building, then buying the cheapest package you can from a link seller, that’s fraud and in todays world, you can cause serious damage. The mom and pop store that got hit... It is a shame. But: This mom and pop store certainly has their own responsibility. Especially if they rely on Google to keep their business afloat. They are webmasters, and…

For many small business owners, they simply don't have time to be looking after a website in the same way you or I would. In many cases, web presence isn't make or break for the business, and a website is just one of many things they do that involve telling a company "we need X", handing over money, and getting X.

If you are the company whose job it is to do whatever they asked for - build a website, see if anything can be done to help improve traffic, install a gas oven - it is your job to not defraud them. Charging them to boost their ranking temporarily, knowing full well it will fall again soon, is fraud.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#108
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble with this idea is that Google can't magically see private links/recommendations on social networks any more than anyone else can. For example, one site I help with has just a few inbound links from low PR sites as far as Google is concerned, and gets a page rank of zero accordingly. In reality, it probably gets more inbound links via social networking in a single day on most days, and unsurprisingly those…

> Google's basic premise of ranking the importance of a site based on how many links it gets and where from is wildly inaccurate in the era of social networking. Normal people mostly don't run their own public web sites or blogs any more, they share stuff on sites like Facebook and often only with their "friends". I'm not sure that I understand this point. I thought that Google wants to index Twitter (for example) bu…

I'm sure Google would like to index all kinds of private content, but since they can't see it, they can't index it. Moreover, a lot of public forums based on user-generated content automatically annotate their links so they don't contribute to page rank either; this is done for sensible reasons to prevent blatant spamming, but does mean that a lot of legitimate positive links also don't count. This combination undermines the entire idea that a page rank based on the quality and quantity of incoming links that Google can see and will count is a good indicator of the value of a site.

In other news, searching for things on Google increasingly seems to turn up large, commercial sites first and only to reach smaller, more personal, and often more informative/less biased sites several pages down. Meanwhile, posting a question to my friends on any private forum we share will often get better results within a few minutes anyway.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#109

I'm sick of SEO people pointing the finger at "evil" SEO people. SEO is basically gaming search engines instead of contributing anything of value. It's not a respectable business, it's a self-perpetuating protection racket. If there weren't any SEO people we wouldn't need any SEO people. You only hire an SEO for one of two reasons: 1) too cheat Google, and 2) to compete with all the other sites that hire SEO's... The…

so you're saying the best website should win without "cheating" right? its not that simple.

you could make the same argument about all advertising/marketing.

the best product should win on its own standards, without advertising, right? for example, wouldn't we all have better insurance rates if geico, progressive and esurance didn't have to spend their money on advertising?

But the truth is these insurance companies are disrupting old school insurance models that are less efficient and bringing value to more consumers faster with their advertising.

companies adapt, consumers adapt, markets adapt, search engines adapt. companies and people are going to work toward their self interest, and SEO is one way to do this. its called capitalism.

Re: Sick of SEO Scumbags

#110
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble with this idea is that Google can't magically see private links/recommendations on social networks any more than anyone else can. For example, one site I help with has just a few inbound links from low PR sites as far as Google is concerned, and gets a page rank of zero accordingly. In reality, it probably gets more inbound links via social networking in a single day on most days, and unsurprisingly those…

In your example, I see it like this: Google sees those links and gives low page rank but quantity helps too. So if you're getting a bunch of links on social media, it follows that eventually people will blog about it (crawlable content) and link back to the site. Sure it may be a crappy blogger blog but it's legit and Google does count that. Over time a ton of non-spam PR0 backlinks can and will help rank for search…

I guess my point is that, talking generally now rather than about any one specific site, we just don't need to put as much weight as perhaps we used to on what Google think of our pages this week. More and more of our traffic comes from personal mentions, passed on by people who are actually interested in what we have to their friends with similar interests, and people who find us that way are far more likely to be genuinely interested themselves and to enjoy our material, increase our income, or otherwise match whatever we created the site for.

People use buzzwords like "going viral", but really this is just the same old exponential growth of word-of-mouth recommendations for good products, speeded up thanks to modern communication technologies and the social networks they support.

Obviously we still make our sites accessible to search engines. It's not like it's difficult to do that if you've got real content and a sensible information architecture, and after all, a bit of extra traffic never hurt anyone. Maybe, if an enthusiastic person finds us that way, it could even seed a new network of people finding us.

But I see this becoming less and less of a priority and dedicated search engines becoming less and less relevant for a lot of sites as people learn to use social networks to spread the word. In particular, I don't see cbeach's original idea of a "search engine that ranks mainly on social-graph recommendation" adding much value in that scenario, simply because the social networks will probably offer similar functionality without needing a third party anyway.

Post reply on HN