78 replies to this topic

[Aaron Pratt]

Mike Grehan latest Clickz article says that textbook SEO is pretty much dead.

Do you agree?

(this post has been optimized by Aaron)



[Moderator note: Just to be clear, if anyone were to run a search on Mike's article, the word "dead" does not appear. The following thread contains some very strong opinions on article writers, rather than the article topic itself. It is being monitored. K.K.B.]

[cpdohman]

aaron you hit on a topic that i find very interesting. i don't think we can ignore that seo is moving away from the traditional on the page techniques and more to off page sem. big daddy will most likely continue this trend.

mike says:

As far as my own experience goes, links and end-user behavior are the important, upwardly mobile components for decent ranking. So that's where I'd rather focus my own time and attention.

then mike poses the question:

should we waste our time on textbook SEO techniques as a "just for good measure" effort? Or should we spend more time using creative thinking and promotional efforts to succeed?

i think we need to do the textbook seo as basic first steps of building a page but the bulk of efforts should go to creating original and useful content with innovative marketing and promotion.

thanks for the topic aaron (and mike!),
chris

[Black_Knight]

Is Textbook SEO dead?

Kind of depends on which textbooks you use, I'd say.

Unless Mike is telling us not to buy his next book by some chance?

My textbooks have always drawn a lot from traditional marketing, from observation of user-behaviour and customer profiling. If anything, I'd say that the demand for those kind of textbooks for SEO has massively increased year on year over quite some time.

However, I fully agree with Mike's actual point - that SEO today is not so much a code thing as a marketing thing. In fact, I think I specifically mentioned that somewhere recently.

[bragadocchio]

One of the fun things about SEO is that there really aren't any textbooks. There are some practices that you can follow from a technical stance to find tune a site, and make sure that search engines can crawl its pages, or at least the pages that should be crawled.

It doesn't hurt to create pages that are easy to find by the people who might be looking for them, and to build them in a manner that makes people want to link to, and bookmark, and send other people towards them.

Or to make sites that are credible, persuasive, engaging, and evoke some level of attachment and emotion, and that provide a reason for returning on a regular basis. Those things might all be considered part of a larger marketing plan.

I'm not sure that text book SEO is dead. Maybe instead, it's just one chapter in the book.

[Aaron Pratt]

Black Knight - I have also found that blogs in their default format are very noisy and do get better results when optimized correctly.

There are also still things that can be done in the code to get the carrot, but Mike wouldn't know about this, he can't seem to even fix his blog template. Muhaha!

[cpdohman]

ammon and bill, i was happy to see you guys share your thoughts on this topic. you have a lot of enlightening info that you share. thanks.

i'm in sponge mode trying to learn as much as i can on search marketing. i am currently developing a business and website/s for the long haul rather than a bunch of throw away sites. with this in mind, the seo/m i find most intriguing is more about overall marketing and promotion, and less of on-page coding. i don't think the on page optimization is useless, i just think you can only do so much of it before there are no returns or negative effects. after that, the amount of marketing you can do is unlimited. the evolution of seo to sem is a fascinating one to me.

ammon, in your interview with rand you said

Some of the hare-brained theories people come up with are some of the best entertainment you can get. In many cases this is exactly the kind of issue that arises from lack of understanding of the search engines own objectives.

i am sure i am one of those entertainment sources from time to time when i throw out a theory for people to comment on. i'm a bit stubborn at times but i appreciate all the feedback offered. a while back here at cre8 i(as siXcrookedhighways) was writing about a "pull effect" and if a domain or business name searched along with the keyword will bring attention to your site(better rankings) for that keyword. i couldn't get much support on that one, but thanks for hanging in there with me.

aaron, yeah i agree. i wish mike would fix his site :thumbs:

thanks guys,
chris

[seoannie]

I don't think it's dead, but I do think it has lost some of its impact. Certain aspects of textbook SEO are being adapted and integrated into a full blown marketing plan. As multimedia becomes more prevalent on the web, I'm sure its impact will even lessen more.

[EGOL]

Google has the ability to measure how people engage with your pages. They need to have their heads examined if they are not using that information.

[projectphp]

It also depends upon your market and goals. In many, many markets, "textbook SEO" works just fine thank you very much.

We tend to forget that there are still many, many searches and many industries for which the results do not show enough of the business operators.

As an example, I had a client once who offerred obscure testing facilities for a niche medical product. Niche of a niche ofa niche you could say. Basic, textbook SEO got him to number one for terms that don't register enough searches to show on any keyword research tool. We are talking less than 10 a week.

Big deal you may think, but given he won 3 contracts worth upwards of half a million ion 6 months, all from search, and I would say the result was well worth it.

As always, when Mike Grehan makes big, sweeping claims, as he is wont to do and I am glad he does, remember that no statement is really universal. Textbook SEO, as a "do A, then do B, then do C" idea was never a terribly good idea, and for the market Clickz and Mike most likely want, a move away from "10 keywords for $19.95" is a better proposition for all concerned (IMHO at least!)

[sanity]

It also depends upon your market and goals. In many, many markets, "textbook SEO" works just fine thank you very much.

We tend to forget that there are still many, many searches and many industries for which the results do not show enough of the business operators.

Too true. Targeting locality based products and services is one such niche with a lot of room still. For these sorts of sites textbook SEO usually works just fine.

[Ruud]

That it would depend on the "textbook" makes sense to me. Since search engines don't sit back and say "this is good enough, let's get some coffee" it has been impossible for years now to sit back and say the same. SEO is a very dynamic field. I bet that if you left it for a sabbatical and came back a year later you have some real catching up to do.

"Textbook" SEO as in old-school SEO just had the advantage that it would work - dot. But SE's have changed a lot and more often than not SEO has become a "it depends" issue.

Google has the ability to measure how people engage with your pages. They need to have their heads examined if they are not using that information.

Even before localised search and even before personalised search the single most important change in SE & SEO for years to come, I think. The potential is huge -- especially when combined with a personal profile. I find working towards this time very exciting. Won't be long before companies will start to sell tracking results, trying to deliver to us the same type of information Google has.

Google's recent analysis of web documents then comes as no surprise. To make sense of user behaviour you have to be able to correlate it with the page, the site. You have to understand or try to understand what it is they're looking at. An average visit of 30 seconds on a reference site is short -- but 30 seconds on a directory page is quite good.

[joedolson]

I think the whole idea of 'textbook' is obsolete is almost any technical field - sure, there are some basic elements of SEO, web design, PHP, you name it which are essentially constants - but the field as a whole changes too rapidly to use it as a guideline for RIGHT NOW. And, especially in the realm of SEO/M, RIGHT NOW is all that really matters.

There's no way we can continue to move the discipline and our clients' sites forward without an emphasis on what works today. The first step of any project is going to be largely based on those basic elements - web standards, semantic markup, and the basics of building a quality site - like writing interesting content or good product descriptions. But, like Bragadocchio said, that's just one chapter in the book.

Off Topic

Ruud, I just noticed your "Home Made Bread" signature link and read the article - as a happy @home baker of bread myself (when I have time), I really appreciated that perspective!

[bwelford]

I think projectphp's thoughts are right on the money. It's so important to define what kinds of customers you are talking about. With microniches, you've got to try to rank high for the searches the few players will actually use. A current version of the SEO text-book will work just fine for such websites.

You'll never get much traffic. However if you're getting a high percentage of whatever traffic there is, then that's success.

[FP_Guy]

I've noticed that the better search engines get at ranking sites the more natural the searches. I mean the less tips and tricks are going to be used and having a clean straight forward site is what the rankings will become.

Of course there is always going to be some hack out there looking for a loophole.

I think that SEO is dying and will become merged with SEM and become something totally new where instead of worrying about how many keywords are on the page you will be interested in where to get links to drive in traffic.

[Paul J. Bruemmer]

I believe, people who complain without providing a solution ([edited] are people who A) have huge egos, 'B) lack education, C) could be much more productive if they would apply themselves, D) generally appear to be self-absorbed, E) are usually opinionated in a way that shovels negative engery onto others, ....should I go on?

Basically, there are plenty of people in the world with opposite charateristics whom I would prefer reading, talking and sharing my time with; people who are positive about life, their work, their industry and the people around them, etc..

[edited]

I've read plenty of opinions and commentary about search engine optimization wherein the author expresses professional concerns about the industry, in a positive and professional manner. I do respect those writers and their opinions; I think opinons are a good thing, especially when framed with the intention for making improvements, providing solutions and a call to action.


Respectfully,

Paul J. Bruemmer
ClickZ's first Search Engine Optimization writer 1999-2001

[Post edited as per Rules. We are discussing an article topic, not its author.]

[Edgecraft]

Hi to all,

I just read the "SEO is Dead" article by Mike Grehan in ClickZ. Judging from his writings of past years, it seems that Mike's thinking has evolved beyond those super-complex algorithms. I think I understand what Mike Grehan is saying NOW, and it's hard to see the need for anyone to take it personally.

I'm sure that there are still special areas where "classical/textbook/whatever" SEO still "works." But frankly, it shouldn't have to "work."

Ken Evoy, the President of SiteSell, first said the same thing and published a book, "The Tao Of SBI!," which is subtitled "Why SEO is doomed," in Feb/2005. Ken revealed it to the LED list some months later and it leaked out to ClickZ (I think?) and from there, a lot of personal insults and uproar.

Weird.

The book is, I believe, simply saying the same thing Mike Grehan is now. It's all about how the ultimate goal of search engines is to be as smart as you or me.

"Relevance" is done.

"Quality" is being tracked by monitoring human visitor behavior before, during and after a visit.

What comes next? Increasing levels of intelligence that are NOT based on visitor reaction.

What's the solution? Very simple. Keep it real. Deliver great and valuable content that your visitor actually wants to read. In other words, "please the humans and the engines will follow."

Classical SEO is done. Nothing personal.

If you'd like more about this, here's that book...

http://buildit.sites...om/TaoOfSBI.pdf

It looks like the rest of the world is slowly catching up.

[kensplace]

Texbook stuff is just that, textbook.

Usually, in the real world, text book does not cut it where it counts.

The text book will never tell you the things that really matter, or things that only experience can teach.

They can be useful, to save re-inventing the wheel when it comes to learning, but never a substitute for experience.

[bwelford]

Welcome to the Forums, relish. :wave: .. and hello, Paul_Bruemmer. I haven't had a chance to say hello.

Clearly there's a good deal of truth in what you're saying, relish, and in the Tao book. However I think it's what most of us have been doing for the last year or two. Make sure it works well for human visitors (important for conversion reasons) and do it in such a way that you don't trip up the search engine spiders and the search engine algorithms. Sounds simple.

The fly in the ointment is that human beings are good at pattern recognition and less good at absorbing long strings of information. Search engine spiders love long strings of information (bytes) but have no concept of patterns. That's what you've got to look out for. One of the best tools here is the cached text version that Google keeps of a web page. Do a search and then look at the cached version of your favourite URL. Click on the cached text version. It will show you the keywords highlighted but you may be surprised at how little the spider is assessing in its figuring.

So SEO still has a part to play in assuring that you don't inadvertently shoot yourself in the foot in the way you've presented it to the human visitors. The SEO text book is pretty good for that.

[JohnMu]

Once a computer can give you a detailed interpretation of works by Eugene Ionesco or Samuel Beckett I'll start to believe that classical SEO might need to start looking for other goals. But even then - content is content: you will always be able to "manipulate" the interpreter (search engine) to work for your goals.

And as long as people search for words, the art of keyword research will remain something that needs to be done.

This might also change if search engines changed to an Adwords-Style system where sites can bid on words, phrases, ideas.

Au contraire - it is going to get a lot harder and more detailed. "Personal search" anyone? How do you optimize a site for people in a city 1000 miles away who have interestes in classical music and historical documents? They might want to buy chocolates as well over easter - how do you make sure your pages end up in their personal listing for "chocolate shop online"? Do you really want them to find you? How do they convert in your shop? Which navigation system do you want to show to them (just see the thread about men/women online shopping preferences)? Which of your pages do you think are best for them, which should they never see?

It is moving SEO from a one-to-many to a one-to-one stage, probably faster than traditional marketing will manage that step. That does not make it easier or even make SEO obsolete, it will require even more work to produce constant, reproducable, verified results.

You cannot move the work of finding relevance and quality completely to the search engine. We simply do not have the technology to make something like that work. I spent a lot of time working in artificial intelligence for robotics - you would be surprised how "stupid" things still are. You'd think it would be a "walk in the park" to make a robot learn how to walk by itself - it's still impossible: you have to tell it what to do, how to do it and then it can start learn to optimize it based on the parameters you give it. It's been how long now? Why should search engines suddenly make that jump?

John

[Edgecraft]

Mr. Welford,

Edgecraft here. I assume you mean me, given the context ("relish" is the name of my login and dog). :-)

I agree with you.

When I said that "relevance is done," I meant "textbook SEO" is done and put to bed. The engines still need the right on-page hooks, of course, just enough to know that the page is about Labrador Retrievers and not Chihuahuas. But if anyone is still sweating keyword density to the first or second decimal point, they're heading in the wrong direction.

Quality, as measured by the countless things that humans can do before (for example, the old Direct Hit stuff), during (imagine Google Analytics info) and after (e.g., inbound links) a visit, is how Google "simulates" human judgment about a visit. Just imagine how many off-page factors 300 computer science Ph.Ds who worry ONLY about search can think of to track. They can't program human intelligence yet, though, so they track human response.

And "intelligence" will come. So if you are writing pages NOW, assuming that Google eventually will be as smart as you or me at "reading" a page and understanding it (and I know that may be 10 years off), you simply can't go wrong.

As Google gets smarter, Ken Evoy's Site Build It! customers simply keep doing better and better. Site Build It! does still have an Analyze It! module ("textbook SEO"), but Evoy has for years been saying that it's just to make sure you get the on-page "big picture" right. The off-page stuff, and way more than just inbound links, is what spells Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y more than R-E-L-E-V-A-N-C-E to Google (although obviously there is some relevance there, too).

What does Google want now? Both relevance AND quality.

What does Google want to have in 10 years? The same thing as the Tin Man:

A Brain. When that happens, SEO really will be dead. It will be ALL about quality content.

P.S. Ken Evoy is in Montreal, too. You should say hello to him! :-)