I formulated my first equation…..
I sat in a room recently where people discussed an seo ‘exam’.
Flow charts, diagrams, excell sheets, server protocols, maths tests, LDA, LSI, tools to do this and that, search engine patents….. for sure, if there was an seo exam that included those things I probably wouldn’t even bother turning up because i would have failed it. I’d have probably just built links to my site while the exam was on to get a head start.
You see I have always thought that seo was about:
- looking at Google rankings all night long,
- keyword research
- observations about ranking performance of your own pages and that of others (though not in a controlled environment)
- putting relevant, co-ocurring words you want to rank for on pages
- putting words in links to pages you want to rank for
- understanding what you put in your title, that’s what you are going to rank best for
- getting links from other websites pointing to yours
- getting real quality links that will last from sites that are pretty trustworthy
- publishing lots and lots of content (did I say lots? I meant tons)
- focusing on the long tail of search!!!
- understanding it will take time to beat all this competition
i always expected to get a site demoted by:
- getting too many links with the same anchor text pointing to a page
- keyword stuffing a page
- trying to manipulate google too much on a site
- creating a “frustrating user experience”
- chasing the algorithm too much
- getting links I shouldn’t have
- buying links
Not that any of the above is automatically penalised all the time.
I was always of the mind I don’t need to understand the maths to get a view on the human idea behind what a Google engineer might want to do. I don’t know the maths behind somebody punching me in the face either but I can observe the cause and effect, note the implications and weigh up the pros and cons of it.
The biggest challenge these days are to get really trusted sites (or online entities/brands) to link to you, but the rewards are worth it. To do it, you probably should be investing in some sort of marketable content, or compelling benefits for the linking party (that’s not just paying for links somebody else can pay more for).
I was so curious about about the science of seo I studied what I could but it left me a little cold.
I think building links, creating lots of decent content and learning how to monitise that content better (whilst not breaking any major TOS of Google) would have been a more worthwhile use of my time. Getting better and faster at doing all that would be nice too.
What’s your views on all this seo science, or Pseudoscience as I have mentioned, you see in the seo industry these days?
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice posing as science, but which does not constitute or adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology…
I know marketers who do seo, artists who do seo, scientists who do seo. Hell, I know alcoholics who do seo.
I know there is a ton of different ways of doing seo, which work, what do you put your faith in?
I couldn’t disagree more! WTF do you think you are badmouthing quack science without a clue? Doh!
Yes Sebastian I know – It’s all about spamming dofollow blogs as we both know ;p ! :)
There are some good points made here. I think what people often lose site of the fact that you’re trying to influence human behaviour, ie: get more paying customers on your clients’ sites. Influencing the machines is only part of that. Coming from a developer background, I try to put myself in the position of the Google engineers when considering whether or not I should engage in a particular SEO activity, I ask myself two questions: 1) Is there any legitimate reason for doing this? ie: Could this be natural behaviour? 2) Is it computationally feasible to detect me doing this? An example that springs to mind is the practice of crudely spinning content automatically. Is it computationally feasible to “fingerprint” bodies of text and find other texts that simply have had some words swapped for synonyms? Of course it is! Is there a legitimate non-SEO reason for posting such content? No there isn’t so don’t do it, simple! It’s all about making a lot of small efforts in a lot of places on an ongoing basis. Automation is a big help with this, but as you say, watch our for TOS gotchas.
Yes, but Google can easily spot a lot of things it doesn’t necessarily do a lot about. Have you ever thought it needs spam in index…. :)
True, but I don’t want to be “that guy” :-D
Glad you hit the road, Shaun. ;-)
haha very nice post.. sometimes i also think people are wasting their time trying to understand how important is each factor on yours site visibility.. but also, thanks to these peole/scientists we have important information on our market =) so let them do their work, we do our =)
It’s perfectly legitimate to apply science to art, one of the highest achievements of an artist is to draw a perfect mathematical circle, freehand, and a quick google image search for “maths art” demonstrates how much visually appealing art can be created through mathematical principals. Does that mean that all artists have to be mathematicians? No, art can be created by mathematicians or artists, in my mind, SEO really is no different.
Don’t you read Stephen Hawking? There is no such thing as ‘perfect’ anywhere in nature – it’s an illusion we humans have come up with :)
100% with you Shaun – it’s all about the journey to get to that realisation too though eh…otherwise you’d be focussing on the ‘mysteries’ behind why you were doing well and would be wondering if you could be doing that little bit better through understanding the science um pseudoscience! :D
Indeed. I think that’s what you learn with experience. :)
This post has made me feel so much better! SEO is a fascinating concept but I’ve always been intimidated by the science behind it. As a content person I’m delighted to hear you say how important new, interesting, relevant content is and as a human being I’m really pleased to read your comments on links. Is it simplistic to say that all these complicated algorithms are just ways to replicate human decision-making processses?
Not at all :)
Ha do I strike you as someone who reads Stephen hawking, Stephanie Meyer is about as much as I can manage lately!
Ha ha :) Good luck with your travels Sarah :)
Heh heh. Nice post. I’ve felt recently (in the past week or two) like I’ve run out of tricks to try or interesting blog posts to read. Time to buck up, write some content, and make it good enough that a good site would want to share what I have to say. Going for the “authority in your niche” route…not everyone has the $$ for a flashy infographic, and I think that’s fine.
The “science” behind SEO is rarely conducted in the same way that science is. For one, there are so many confounding variables, conducting experiments is really difficult, and impossible to do double blind. Control groups are also nearly impossible to create. However, the science of SEO holds a great mystic because Google won’t tell! The secretive corporation that knows so much about so many people only speaks in hints and riddles. That’s what makes the “science” of SEO a popular subject for so many players.
indeed :)
Hi Shaun I sometimes joke to myself that SEO is “the practice of doing the things you should have done from day one”, but that’s a bit of a tangent to the original thread. Hopefully I’ll bring it round. On the subject of SEO being a pseudo-science, I have to disagree. The procedures are often straightforward and logical, just laborious and on occasion, highly monotonous. For me, the most exciting aspects of SEO are the doors it opens. Furthermore, on the subject of psuedo-science, and something I personally disapprove of, is the fact that it does pay to keep knowledge out of reach of Joe Public. It’s not just an element restricted to search or online marketing either, but painting something as a black art, brain surgery, or as in the subject of this thread, a psuedo-science can often help somebody clinch a deal. Back to the monotonous nature of some aspects, and the number of man hours it can take to make a standardised change or addition to a website, catalogue, etc. I think that companies can succeed by treating the client with respect, and not pulling the wool over their eyes. Not by saying “I know something you don’t know” but by showing that “I have the resources that will help”. That’s how we’re doing it at TP. A clear, honest product, and a scalable solution. Happy Friday! Barnaby
You really need to change the title of this post to: It Works, B|tches. Just Upgrade to Premium This was one of those times where the picture actually said a thousand words, really no need to read the post once you see the chart. Are you going after that “Charts and Graphs” niche market now ;) Next thing you know you will tell me that I don’t need any SEO tools. (What? Did I miss something) I hope someday I can debate one of your SEO posts but so far, you win.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water! Your post reminds me of the inquisition and their treatment of Galileo and Marco Polo. I don’t understand it, cannot get my head around it; therefore it must be wrong. Recant! Recant!
Time will tell I suppose then :)
Got this post by email and was so glad there are SEO pros. who see the complete human side of search. Talking to some SEO professionals is like talking to a sales person crossed with a uber techy. Patronising talk mixed with acronyms and techno waffle. (some are great, but some are not.) Online marketing is marketing (and a process) and using the methods outlined all over the web to drive traffic and awareness – to get people talking and spreading the word in an effort to get people who are looking for your products or services to buy from you rather than your competitors. Where do people go online for your type of stuff? What do they search for? How do they search? Most clients glaze over when you show reports, pie charts and even heat maps, but it does make you look knowledgable! The trick is how you implement thoses processes and how long and far you take it. Reporting should be just to show where you are up to, how one thing worked against another or how you can improve. Basically, i totally agree with the article, but i think clients need to see SEO as part of a marketing campaign and measure conversions to sales.
Great post and an entertaining read for a Saturday morning. I have heard of a Scottish “Internet Marketing” company offering a pay £1000/learn everything you need to do SEO yourself in three days course. I bet they’d be bang up for putting on an exam at the end of it. Probably for another £300! Not met any alkie SEO’s myself yet….although time is on my side.
I like Dave’s idea: It Works Bitches No disagreement on the basic tenet regarding build more links/publish more content. That does seem to be at least 80% of the cause for improved rankings. Am curious. Did you intentionally leave out the stuff related to the more technical “on page” factors? (ie design and architecture) Seems there is some of it that would make your list of obvious, simple thing to get right. You did reference page title. What else?
Algorithms have a funny way of surprising people with their behavior. I suspect one of the greatest “secrets” in seo is that Google doesn’t always know how their algorithms perform. (I wouldn’t be surprised if they were flying more blind than not: “Hey! Let’s try this and see what happens. At least some of the time.)
Hey Shaun, If the majority chases their pseudoscience tail, it makes it easy for the minority that don’t. :) Seo is 50% common sense, 50% the ability to observe the obvious, and 90% hard work. I guess you can tell I’m not a mathematician. Seriously, as you say, it’s mainly quality content and quality links, and I would add, producing content that people need or want to read. I’m glad I’m in the minority on this one! :) Great graph by the way. Steve
Hey Shaun, All the SEO pseudoscience and whatever else these people wish to call it, doesn’t matter to me. I have your SEO guide all nicely printed and in a binder. I refer to it from time to time to make sure I’m implementing properly and keep it moving. My website is 6 months young and I believe it’s doing quite nicely. Once the dust of the Google dance settles my site will be ranking first page for several keyword phrases. Thank you and God bless.
The Google Algo. never has so much wanted to be known about so little by so many.!! Winston.C
What a refreshing article. Lots of businesses don’t have the $$$ to pay someone who knows the science behind SEO. Knowing the science becomes an academic exercise – and we all know that academic’s don’t necessarily translate to the real world all that well!! Think I’ll stop spending hours chasing a few miserable back links and get some good content together instead!
Does that mean there’s no ‘secret formula’? *gasp* As usual, I agree with this post and find it heartening to hear the point made with such clarity and humour : ) I very strongly hold the view that focussing on quality content, i.e. BEING the best result for the search you’re after, is by far the best option from both a moral and practical point of view. I think you probably could work out the science, but agree that it wouldn’t actually help get results. And anyway, it’s not like working out a natural law is it? Unless you consider Google brains to be a natural law – that’s possible I suppose…
Pseudoscience = Profitable Myths “Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood.” ~ John Taylor Gatto “As a brander/marketer what you are looking for is the way you can change someone’s perception that will create a more profitable story for you and then how you substantiate that perception.” ~ Dr. Ben Mack Just like the institutions of modern medicine and compulsory schooling – SEO is largely pseudo-scientific theory created by IM gurus, consultants and employees purely for self-preservation and profit. No matter how altruistic an institutional system begins life – eventually profits become an end rather than a means. The so-called “laws” of modern sciences, aka pseudosciences, are masterfully summed up by Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations: ‘Later, when I studied science in school and college, I found that most scientific “laws” were of this idealized character.They were not statements of what actually happens in the world or of what we observe through our senses, but rather were highly idealized and much oversimplified relationships that might occur if a great many other influences, which were always present, were neglected.’ SEO anyone? The secretive Google algorithm combined with a society that worships money, above all else, equals the perfect profit storm for huckster SEO silver bullet theories, products and programs. In the end, SEO is more art than science. More marketing than manipulation. More consistent effort than knowledge or luck. More legitimate value than tricks and tactics. SEO is also NOT about rankings but rather revenue. SEO that does not generate meaningful revenue is not SEO – it is a mistake! You hit the nail on the head Shaun. :)
Now i read the equation , the F, U , divided by the C , then got to the K… got bored… loocked at the SEO Science and… got it Nice post? SEO cannot be a science. It depends on what secret formula google has been using at some time. I always say that there cannot be any kind of certification for SEO because it all depends on trade secrets. What I think and say won’t stop the crooks from showing up though.
I still believe you have to do all the things mentioned above, but just to make a decent good website, on the otherhand there is no guarantee that it will work since there are so many factors that determine your rankings, not to mention this in comparison with the competitive websites. That’s why I gave up on trying to understand Google and put this energy toward other channels like comparison sites, blogs etc. and let my site(s) grow naturally over time, a long and slow process.