For years SEO has been regarded as a dark art; the cowboys of the internet running amok on the new frontier. To some extent this was a well earned reputation, with earlier search engines proving almost too easy to manipulate. It was a boom-time when anyone with half a brain and the motivation could make money from SEO. However, things have now moved on and this reputation is proving difficult to shake.
Recently we have been seeing some really interesting articles coming out of publications like NMA, Revolution and Marketing that present SEO well, making the most of best-practice strategies, smart link generation tactics and providing a useful resource for organizations looking to engage with an agency.
However, there are some major publications that are still peddling that dark and dirty image, blissfully unaware that some of us have worked damn hard to distance ourselves from it.
On Saturday, the Guardian published a seemingly naïve article that talks about SEO in the most dismissive terms, describing it as a dark art
and quoting the Guardian’s head of SEO as saying A common way to get a lot of links very quickly is by getting people in India or somewhere to make them for you
.
The majority of big agencies are unwilling to take such risks with their clients. Major high street names will not tolerate a swift banning from the search results and are usually very prescriptive with their requirements. Increasingly, they are seeing SEO as a long-term strategy and their brand reputation is paramount.
Similarly, many of the bigger agencies are very transparent and very open about the methods they use and even provide training to organizations wishing to carry out their own SEO. At the top, SEO is far from being a dark art.
Don’t get me wrong though, not all of the top agencies are as clean as they make out; I know of a few that indulge in paid linking from the aforementioned Indians and aren’t adverse to dishing out the lies to keep the balance-sheet looking good (I will not name names).
However despite there being a fair degree of openness and maturity at the top, there are still plenty selling snake oil to small businesses at the bottom. Small companies often see SEO as a magic bullet that will bring them an untold bounty in sales, and there are people that will capitalize on that perception, using any tactic they can to drive search engine positioning.
Ultimately, for all the Guardian uses some very sweeping generalizations about the industry, there is plenty of merit in the article. Content does need to survive on its own merits and a site needs to deserve its popularity. For all we strive to rise above the low and dirty image, there is still plenty of tar on the brush and it is inevitable that some will get splashed around, but invective like this doesn’t help the tarnished reputation of an industry trying to better itself.
Paul Roach says:
December 11, 2008
Hello,
thank you for your comments on the article in the guardian. just to clear up a couple of points, the article was originally focussed around "what are the biggest search terms on the internet" after Yahoo released their end of year top searches. this quickly changed to "how do people get traffic to websites", which obviously covers SEO.
the article may seem naive to anyone who has worked in SEO for any length of time, but please remember this was a feature article in a UK broadsheet aimed at a very wide demographic, not a technical explanation of how SEO works for an SEO (or even tech) savvy audience.
Your main issue seems to be with the article using the common reference to SEO as a "dark art" and the quote about outsourcing links. I completely agree that the larger and more reputable agencies do not outsource links and run very effective campaigns for major clients. I’ve worked agency side for over 7 years so I know what goes on. However if you’re telling me that outsourcing link building doesn’t take place, especially in the lower tiers of the agency SEO world, then we will have to agree to disagree. you go on to say yourself that you know of agencies who outsource link building and use paid links. perhaps the reason that SEO is still tagged as a "dark art" is because we know this still goes on, and don’t say much about it. (NOTE: I’m not advocating some sort of whistle-blowing "they buy paid links" programme, just making the point that *some* agencies do outsource their link building).
Anyway, just wanted to provide feedback to your points. I said to Aida when we were discussing the article that the SEO community hates it when big media "gets SEO wrong" so it was nice to see the largely positive response at Sphinn. The article was meant to show various ways that websites (and in particular media websites) drive traffic to their sites and I think, in the main, it did that.
thanks
Paul
Chris Dugdale says:
December 12, 2008
Paul, thanks for the feedback.
I will admit that when I first started reading the article, my ire grew and I thought there was going to be a whole bunch of spleen venting happening on my part (oh to be anything but typical of my industry), but as I read on, most of my annoyance dissipated quite quickly. All-in-all the article was a good one with plenty of merit and to a large extent it echoes a lot of the top-line strategic advice we kick out to our clients.
I also recognize that this article was aimed at the layman and that more detail was inappropriate. However, as it was aimed at a broad spread of the general public and tags an entire industry with fairly negative phraseology, it does nothing for the public perception of an already heavily tarnished industry. It is akin to dismissing the used car trade as a bunch of shady dealers – it might be true at certain levels, but there are plenty of reputable second-hand car dealers out there that won’t try and sell you a lemon. Some might say that such a statement would be naïve.
We can agree on the fact that there is a lot of link outsourcing going on and that there is a lot of dubious advice being peddled, but the leaders of this industry work hard to achieve results ethically and it smarts a little to be lumped in with the dregs without even a passing acknowledgement of this. We are not alone in our efforts to educate our clients about SEO and demystify it as much as possible, but stereotyping such as this (especially in a media channel with such a wide reach) only signals a setback on that front.
To an extent, I was taken somewhat by surprise by the language. I guess I have spent too long with my head buried in the world of transparency and squeaky-clean credentials that I haven’t sat back and taken a hard look at all levels of the industry for some time. But we are getting there; with the ever-growing number of online SEO communities available and search engines ‘ increasing vigilance at stamping out abuse of their indices, there are fewer places for charlatans to hide. Information availability is greater than ever and even a small amount of forearming can protect you from the worst of the industry.
Dug