33 replies to this topic

[swainzy]

There has been some debate (The debate-SEO: Rocket science or not?)going on out there for a couple of weeks involving Dave Pasternack and Danny Sullivan and some others. Here, Mike Grehan writes about it.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I can tell you: SEO is not rocket science. Not even remotely. Regular readers of this column will know I've been hauled over the coals a few times by the SEO community for daring to suggest that it's becoming a dying art. And that classic SEO, or textbook SEO, as I refer to it, doesn't really cut it any more when it comes to achieving those top ten hits.

Truth is, I could probably train a monkey to do "textbook SEO" in an afternoon. What seems to have gone without any mention at all in the ongoing debate, however, is the real science behind search. And that, believe me, is very much akin to rocket science.

[bwelford]

I was pleased to see the bottom line on all this seemed to be that we've all got to become 'marketers'. Dat's ma man.

[Evmikna]

Mike Grehan has not only discredited his industry, he has insulted those who are the true geniuses in our trade. Oh well, we know who has THE conference.

Grehan's article is incoherent. Further, he does not make any conclusions. However, from the overall gist, I know of no serious marketer (isn't that what we are involved in?) that dismisses the science behind it. He is not considering the overwhelming scientific data available to him from other disciplines.

IMHO, he lost the argument. If he made one :-)

Edited by Evmikna, 08 January 2007 - 09:50 PM.

[cre8pc]

I wouldn't know where to dip my toe into this pool, other than to say that in Mike's case, he has always had a keen interest in the science, R & D side of search. His grasp of it, and his research into it, made him famous.

My gut tells me the questions are wrong. Search technology IS science, math, and tech stuff for brainiacs and forward thinkers. The interaction with it, where we as users and marketers come in, is methodology, skill, manipulation and/or usage of data, etc. Those can be taught to the masses.

The "art", for myself, comes in the creativity of application.

[A.N.Onym]

Unfortunately, Mike doesn't make the process fo transition from textbook SEO to marketing at all. He says "Textbook SEO is dead" and then "SEOs will be marketers or die". Yet he doesn't say how they should do it.

I know Mike Grehan is a respected figure, but generally this kind of response is like firing an empty shot in the air - just the noise, no effect.

[bragadocchio]

Glad to see that book recommendation from Mike.

Looking forward to getting a copy.

To a carpenter, every problem one might face could be related to building a house, to a surgeon a scapel is often the preferred tool. How complex is SEO? Probably more than some are giving it credit, and I'm not talking the textbook SEO that Mike disdains.

I'm happy to see that his article is mostly an attempt to get people to look more at some of the science behind search, and the marketing behind being found on the web.

[swainzy]

I'm happy to see that his article is mostly an attempt to get people to look more at some of the science behind search, and the marketing behind being found on the web.

Yes, Bill, that was the redeeming point in his article for me also.

[projectphp]

Love it! This very thread proves why Mike rocks: he has y'all talking and reading his stuff. Check that: he has y'all talking about him. Say what you will about specifics, but he is a great markerter, no doubt, and we could all learn a thing or fifty from the man.

IMHO, he is almost 100% right (see below for the tiny caveat). SEO is a simple, three part process:
1. Build a site SE spiders can crawl, that uses straight <a href=""> links.
2. Write lots of content that uses terms people search for as relevant.
3. Get links from other sites.

That is it, the whole ball and dice. Now, sure, it gets complicated on occasion, but that is usually as a result of people getting those three points wrong, and needing to fix them, not because the concepts are terrible challenging.

IMHO, if SEO is rocket science, then fly me to the moon, Chimpanzees, cause you ave the brain power.

Marketing is what it is all about, and when Mike said "We become true marketers or die, that's what" he was 100%, unequivocally correct.

Story time. I had a woman harangue me about what SEO is at this industry do tother day. Turns out she was a "standards advocate". "How are they different", she kept saying, claiming that a well marked up site is what search engines like. After trying to placate her for a while with "they share a lot in common", I finally had enough and gave her a rant back.

The difference between SEO and all the coding things it is similar to, such as accessibility, standards etc is simple: the goals are different. A well marked up site is the goal of standards. Who cares if it makes money. That isn't the coders job. Who cares if it attracts search visits. That isn't the coders job. All that matters is that it comforms to certain rules.

That is why SEO exists, or at least began, to bridge the gap between code monkeys and wankers in suits that say things like "core demographic" and use tech buzzwords not out of an understanding of the technology (and its limitations), but in a vain attempt to sound knowledgable (hae a read of the boo.com fiasco, a fantastic read, for a timely reminder of why such people are so painful).

As coders get better at building SE friendly sites, and marketers begin to learn how to write SE friendly content, where will that leave SEOs? IMHO, there will always be terrible sites that need help, but these sorts of easy gigs won't last, and the best SEOs will either become, and here Mike and I agree, marketers or, and here is that tiny caveat, code monkeys who build SE friendly sites. In other words, either SEOs evolve to use search to achieve a business's higher goals, in the context of a marketing plan, or they will just build sites so that others can come in and do that themselves.

As a wrap up, I think examples can really paint a good picture. An example of what I believe is a great use of SEO as a marketing tool beyond simple, textbook SEO, read these two - articles by Ammon (aka black knight), and see how SEO can be a marketing tool, rather than just a paint by numbers exercise. I am guessing here, but I would say these are great examples of exactly the sort of thing that Mike Grehan advocates.

[joedolson]

I've felt lately that Mike has fallen back too frequently on this concept of "textbook SEO" - I agree that there are _aspects_ of SEO which are extremely simple; very easy; and which could be taught to a monkey...

However, the overarching nature of a competent search engine marketer goes well beyond the simplistic definition of "textbook SEO" which Mike seems to be using.

He doesn't really define the term very tightly - but the feeling I get is of rather a denigrating sort, implying that "textbook SEO" is the same SEO that Danny Sullivan is talking about when he says that it's a challenging art and science. I don't really think that they're talking about the same things, however.

[swainzy]

but these sorts of easy gigs won't last, and the best SEOs will either become, and here Mike and I agree, marketers or, and here is that tiny caveat, code monkeys who build SE friendly sites.

The reason I came across that topic is because I was wondering where SEO is headed and was out searching for topics. I wasn't so interested in turning the discussion towards Grehan but towards the future of SEO.

[Kal]

As I commented in Danny's post on this issue, it's all about perspective. SEO is rocket science to some and child's play to others. What's important is education. As long as we, as search engine marketers, continually educate our clients about the process and remove the complexity of SEO/SEM to enable them to achieve results, then who cares what anyone else thinks? All this highbrow debate about whether SEO is academic or not seems pointless to me.

[projectphp]

Good point Joe, but I think you are actually agreeing with Mike.

Allow me to give a definition that (I hope) Mike would like: Textbook SEO, even the excellent stuff Rand writes about, is tactical, i.e. it is all about how to do specific things.

Compare this, OYTOH, with marketing, which is all about strategy: what you do versus what do we want to achieve?

SEO, as a tactical pursuit, is trivially easy, and comes down to the three points I mentioned above. hard work and talent usually win out with these three points (i.e. better writing talent, better personality, willing to stick at it more).

But SEO as strategy, as a way of integrating Search into a business's strategic goals, that is a whole different kettle of fish.

As an example, I have a client that wants to "win" tjhe hitwise rankings for their industry. Eseentially, they want to be number one in a meaningless ranking for no real reason. Well, there is a reason, but it isn't immediately apparent nor something SEo is inherently about, i.e. there is strategic value, for the business, in winning this ranking.

I had a similar experience a few years ago with job sites and Red Sheriff: there was a race for number two, and number four was likely to go bust (ended up being Monster that lost).

As an SEO, my goal in both cases is to help facilitate that, and that comes down not to textbook SEO, i.e. keyword research about the business combined with an SE friendly site and linbks, but understanding what the rankings measure, and finding ways to do better in that "game", using search.

IMHO, SEOs will increasingly need to play this role, of understanding the marketing and strategic goals of businesses, not just how to achieve simnple things, like rankings, and even revenue gains, to survive.

[SEOigloo]

Good points, Joe. I agree.

I don't know folks. The very fact that Mike's grumbling about textbook SEO is referring to SEO and meta tags as though they relate to each other kind of confirms for me that the amount of misinformation out there is going to create work for folks like me for some time to come.

In his article defining textbook SEO, he makes the following statement:

"Is there really a case where someone was at 856 in the SERPs (define), then added a meta tag that rocketed the site to number 1? "

Perhaps he's just trying to give some kind of example here, but anyone who has studied 'textbook SEO' knows meta tags have nothing to do with search engine rankings...they have to do with making a pitch and getting click-throughs. I'm positive Mike Grehan knows this, but the very fact that he's using this as his example calls to mind the thousands of times I've seen newbies asking about meta tags and SEO.

My point...if we know meta tags have nothing to do with rankings, why are they even part of an article about SEO, and if Mike Grehan is saying things like this, wouldn't the general public still be years away from 'textbook SEO' becoming a normal skillset for every man, woman and child? Hmm...
Miriam

[bragadocchio]

One area of SEO that isn't "textbook SEO" but which many SEOs fail to recognize these days is the concept of how search engines are increasingly extracting information for things from definitions, to local search, to Q&A, and others.

Writing for search engines is different from writing for other visitors in that some things need to be made a lot more obvious for search engines. Some of the technical aspects of SEO have changed drastically even within the last year or two. There's a new edition of the textbook, and it hasn't shipped for many.

Sadly, many of the folks I see saying that SEO isn't rocket science are saying it for the wrong reasons. Mike's monkeys are a bad analogy, because if the textbook he's referring to is the 1998 edition, or even the 2004 edition, it's hopelessly outdated.

"Is there really a case where someone was at 856 in the SERPs (define), then added a meta tag that rocketed the site to number 1? "

How about having someone add two words to each page of a site, and increasing their traffic by an additional 40% within 3 weeks? It's sometimes possible. Been there, done that.


Yet, his example is redeemed by the mention of clickthroughs, user behavior, and other notions of what search engines are looking at these days, and an understanding of marketing is one of the best ways to get those visitor eyeballs on pages when it comes to persuading visitors to come to your pages, and to spend some time on them.

And I agree completely, Mike, on your analysis of Tactics and Strategy.

[bwelford]

I'm always struck by the distinction between necessary and sufficient. Some things are absolutely necessary, but they're not sufficient to enable you to achieve your goals.

So text-book SEO is necessary. If you don't follow the rules, then your web pages will languish in search-engine invisibility. It doesn't matter what else you do, you won't succeed. However that isn't enough to achieve your real goals, which presumably are to have traffic to your website, to persuade prospects to want to buy from you and to grow your sales.

To do what is sufficient to achieve your goals requires you to understand what will work for your prospects. That requires the customer-centric viewpoint, which is what marketing is all about.

[projectphp]

I don't really agree with that SEOigloo.

I think that basic SEO is well understood. http://www.google.co...=hotel auckland shows pretty SEOed results.

The point Mike is making is that SEO needs to be about marketing. You know, getting people that are likely to want something excited. Textbook SEO, meta tags, link building, keyword research, all of that is secondary to marketing.

As an analogy, making a better missle doesn't tell the maker when it is better to use it, or when to use diplomacy. Simialrly, SEO can be made to do may things, but who decides, and how?

Everyone goes after the same searches in the same way. Where is the point of difference, the differentiator that marks great products? Compare an iPod to a TV remote. One is elegant, simple to use and beautiful. The other convoluted, overly complicated and ugly. This is what makes an iPod great, and it is why ppl want them.

Where is that in SEO? With SEO, there is a sameness that is, IMHO at least, often counter productive.

I think education has gone past the point of me needing to educate my clients, in many cases. Usually, they know why what I do makes sense, and why getting found for dog busicuits when that is what they sell makes sense.

Rather, it is more likely that SEOs will need to understand, and make suggestions on, where to point the tool, i.e. what direction is best to go to utilise search to its fullest as a marketing device.

That is why I see SEOs either moving towards being brainless code monkleys, building sites that are friendly and well keyworded in a same same way, or becoming true marketers who use search to achieve more strategic goals. That is the evolution I see coming, and I think what Mike says makes sense.

[EGOL]

The battle is not fought in the SEO. The battle is in the content.

(this will sound contradictory... but...)

In the most highly contested SERPs... and in the least contested SERPs, on-page SEO makes or breaks you.

[Kal]

Rather, it is more likely that SEOs will need to understand, and make suggestions on, where to point the tool, i.e. what direction is best to go to utilise search to its fullest as a marketing device.

That is why I see SEOs either moving towards being brainless code monkleys, building sites that are friendly and well keyworded in a same same way, or becoming true marketers who use search to achieve more strategic goals. That is the evolution I see coming, and I think what Mike says makes sense.

Ah yes. There I agree. Semantics aside, guiding clients towards the smartest ways to USE search in their marketing toolkit seems to be the way the biz is going. Whether we help them integrate SEO/PPC or whatever - what we are really doing is consulting. We recently changed our company name from Web Rank to Jordan Consulting Group because it better described what we had been doing for the past 12 months. If SEOs keep moving in the direction of providing consulting advice, then they will have to become marketers, just as Mike suggests.

[SEOigloo]

Hi ProjectPHP,
It may be that our disagreement stems from our different client bases. Perhaps yours are more tech-oriented than ours. You'll just have to take my word for it that I find myself explaining what a header tag is on a daily basis. Our clients are generally small business owners who are just getting their feet wet in the Internet marketplace. Are yours?

I appreciate the points you've made...very sound, but at the same time, I don't think someone trying to open their first e-commerce site is past the need for basic SEO education. Make sense?
Miriam

[vangogh]

Miriam and think you and I share the same client base. I know I find myself teaching the basics to many of my clients, and sometimes have to explain what the letters in seo stand for.

projectphp I think your search shows that hotels in Auckland know about seo and have done seo on their sites. But what about all the sites that still use "Welcome to domain.com" as a page title or the ones that don't have a title at all.

I agree that we should all spend less time chasing algorithms and more time marketing, but that doesn't mean we should abandon text book seo. We just need the latest edition of the text book.

Egol I don't see any contradiction at all in what you said. The content may be serving different needs in the highest and least competitive SERPs, but it will still make or break your site.