Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why The SEO Folks Were Mad At You, Jason

searchengineland.com — Jason Calacanis is riled up about SEO, telling the world that "90% of the SEO market is made up of snake oil salesman" but Jason -- and a lot of other people -- need some more education about the myths and misperceptions of SEO. So let this open letter do both.

Bury

SearchRank 1 year 97 days ago, made popular 1 year 96 days ago

189 diggs
digg it

pleeker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25JC reminds me of my mom's favorite life lesson: It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're stupid then to open it and prove them right.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -20/+16Yeah, but in this case, he's actually right. SEO is a load of *****. Or, to put it finely, it is trivial next to the challenges of creating great content, designing user-friendly interfaces, writing code, managing a server farm, etc.
- shadus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Unfortunately, Jason is right that SEO is full of "snake oil salesmen".
  
  There are a lot of valid industries, especially online, though that suffer from the same issue its not exclusive to SEO.
  
  The problem isn't so much the companies that are doing online marketing but the people they subcontract out to... they largely amount to nothing more than spammers of various types.
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6I was going to write the same thing shadus so consider this a dupe.
  
  BTW, as a former "SEOer" he's 100% correct, SEO is a profit padding for companies offering other margin-baron services.
  
  Marked as inaccurate, and would mark as spam if I could vote twice.
- surfing, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I used my vote for "Spam" for you.
- surfing, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2<button type=submit name="Delete Comment" >
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Well, since I wrote the article, I guess I clearly don't agree with Jason. It's funny, because I was joking to someone that I perhaps should write a new version called something like 25 Common Misconceptions About SEO and do it all in bulletpoints, so that perhaps the Digg crowd might be interested in actually learning more. But heck, let's dive in.
  
  > SEO is a load of *****. Or, to put it finely, it is trivial next to the challenges of creating great content, designing user-friendly interfaces, writing code, managing a server farm, etc.
  
  Dude, read the article. Scroll down to the part where you've got the sex bloggers trying to figure out WTF with Google. Ah, but it's so trivial. I mean a monkey could do this stuff. No idea why Google itself has to provide loads and loads of information and help. Answer? Some of it is trivial, and some of it ain't. And when things go beyond the basics, suddenly having some skill to understand that search engines interact with sites in particular ways is useful. Not snake oil.
  
  > There are a lot of valid industries, especially online, though that suffer from the same issue its not exclusive to SEO.
  
  Yep, but somehow that perspective always gets lost when we have the biyearly slam against SEO.
  
  > Mark as spam if I could vote twice.
  
  Because you disagree with it? Hope you mark everything you disagree with as spam. Or did you actually read it? Bury it if you don't like it, but spam? Please.
- DonWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Uhh, correction. Wilson from Home Improvement said that. =)
- Asdfglpwglion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
  --Abraham Lincoln
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have a digg RSS through google's homepage and when I read my name (Jason) I was really taken aback. Hilarious :)
  
  (It's been a long day...)
fabianoblog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I am new to On line Marketing (6 months), including SEO.
Bottom line.. when you can turn 350 visitors on a given site to 3,500 the next month through your SEO efforts, there is something to be said about the credibility of your strategies and implementations.

Not sure why so many people are eager to destroy the credibility of what we do in the SEO industry, but think it has something to do with the fact that they can't.

For those of doing it correctly and backing it up with results, these comments and opinions have little effect.

My 2cents.
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36 months?
  
  be sure to report back next month when your site growth goes from 1000% to 950'd. :) But enjoy that instant growth whilst its there.
- mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2The problem with the entire field of SEO is that many in the industry use practices that are considered unethical to achieve said results. Results are not the only factor in this as you, and many SEOs wish we'd believe. If you use a spam bot to spam blogs and forums to get a higher Google page rank as part of your SEO process, then capital punishment would not suffice as a payment of your debt to society. Simply put, most spammers do classify themselves as members of the SEO 'industry'. Continuing on this statement, most in the SEO 'industry' do things that tip-toe on the line of web ethics. SEOs will likely always find themselves hated by those whom their tactics adversely affect. If the SEO industry doesn't want to be hated, it needs to distance itself from spammers, otherwise the world+dog will continue to associate SEO with SPAM.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7> The problem with the entire field of SEO is that many in the industry use practices that are considered unethical to achieve said results.
  And many don't.
  
  > Continuing on this statement, most in the SEO 'industry' do things that tip-toe on the line of web ethics.
  Really? I mean are you just pulling this out of thin air, like Jason did? If you actually read the article, it cites how Google (which sees a lot of SEO) does NOT say that most SEO work tip-toes. It says most SEO is just fine and that only a few give the industry a black eye. But what would they know, eh?
- mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@dannysullivan:
  Beyond what SEO firms actually do, it really doesn't matter as long as people associate them with spammers. Just because the author (oh wait that's you) quoted and cited Google does not automatically justify his(your) message, nor does it automatically support his(your) message. Simply stating the facts is not enough to win an argument. Attacking a person in an article only increases the divide, and this (your) article was a full bodied attack on Calacanis. If you actually read the article this becomes apparent (I surely hope you read it, for you were the one who wrote it). Besides that, Jason may have been talking about the 90% of the SEO industry that he knows, which very well could be ***** spammers since the ones that do the wrong things get the most attention. When people pull up figures, they typically extrapolate from personal knowledge/experience, typically the ones seen most will reflect the group as a whole even if they are a minority. What SEO has right now is a PR problem, and the(your) article did not further the cause due to its attacking nature. Since this article is visible to the public, the author became a representative of the entire SEO field through the article in the public's eyes. The last thing you want to do is look 'rabid' against criticizers for that is what the public will see the entire SEO industry as. If the article was an attack, it succeeds; but if it was for PR, you just took two steps backwards.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9> Beyond what SEO firms actually do, it really doesn't matter as long as people associate them with spammers. Just because the author (oh wait that's you) quoted and cited Google does not automatically justify his(your) message, nor does it automatically support his(your) message. Simply stating the facts is not enough to win an argument.
  
  Right -- so that I'm clear. Jason pulls a figure he makes up out of the air to say that 90 percent of the industry is bad. I write that I don't know of any figure like this. So then I also write that one good authority on whether SEOs are all bad might be the leading search engine they target. And then I cite that this authority says no, they aren't all bad. That's a fact. Facts are the basis of argument. Facts, in fact, should win arguments -- if those listening to argument actually care about the truth. Now if you just want hype -- hey, I can't help you there.
  
  > What SEO has right now is a PR problem
  
  Sure, and it had one in 1998, and in 2002, and in 2004, and in 2005. Back to the article, it's a PR problem that hasn't gone away. Don't know if it will ever go away, but...
  
  > and the(your) article did not further the cause due to its attacking nature. Since this article is visible to the public, the author became a representative of the entire SEO field through the article in the public's eyes. The last thing you want to do is look 'rabid' against criticizers for that is what the public will see the entire SEO industry as. If the article was an attack, it succeeds; but if it was for PR, you just took two steps backwards.
  
  Wow -- and you read the article? I mean, it's OK that Jason's article was fully in attack mode but my article was mostly joking in an "attack" on him and instead full of explanation and perspective. That didn't help with you. Didn't enhance your understanding of the SEO industry in anyway? I mean seriously -- you read it, and didn't just read it to pick out stuff to argue a point?
  
  I've written several of these articles over the years. I've talked to prominent people who have told me they've helped them better understand things. Jason himself told me today he understands stuff much better. Sorry that this didn't help you -- and perhaps you're right. But I'll hope it does open some eyes and generate some much needed balance.
- penbeatssword, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@mtekk
  
  I don't see how you read the article and decided it was an attack. I read it, and saw it as a discussion. If anything, Jason's original post was much more of an attack than this measured response.
- mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@dannysullivan:
  The fact of the matter is most people can't tell the difference from when someone is parodying an attack, as you claim to be doing, and when they are actually attacking. Most people can't take a joke either, if they could the world would be a better place as I'm sure you'd agree. I know there is a difference, and to me your article still came off as an attack. However I didn't read Jason's article, but I'll assume you are correct that his article was an attack (I really wouldn't doubt that his article was an attack).
  
  "...Facts are the basis of argument. Facts, in fact, should win arguments -- if those listening to argument actually care about the truth...."
  Facts can be the basis of an argument, but the real basis of an argument is a difference in agenda/opinion, arguments need conflict not facts. Facts alone don't win arguments, hell look at O.J. he won yet the facts point to him as the best suspect. In arguing the truth doesn't matter as much as how well the parties involved use their "facts". Feelings/emotions have more power, and that's where PR comes in and all the FUD causes a land slide in which people such as yourself try to clean up. Its how the world works, sad but its true.
  
  "That didn't help with you. Didn't enhance your understanding of the SEO industry in anyway? I mean seriously -- you read it, and didn't just read it to pick out stuff to argue a point?"
  Just completely disregard my first post, I wasn't finished reading the article and subscribed to "intellectual dishonesty" in it. In my response I assure you I did read the article, and it did come off as an attack. After reading the article for a second time, I realize that if I had been at the conference that you were talking about that Jason did the old foot-in-mouth thing the article wouldn't have come off as so. Some context is missing around the conference, though you did do a decent job in laying out the story.
  
  FTA
  "SEO does not mean "gaming the system" to 90 percent of us if you're talking the SEO industry itself. Heck, I don't even know if 90 percent of the general public thinks that."
  
  I'd assume he was talking about people like him, which could boil down to 90% of the blog sphere who has had to deal with spam. Though I'd estimate it to more like 40-70% of the blog sphere as many don't even know of SEO as you stated in the article. Again it's a misconception as you stated in the article. It needs to be overcome but as your second article points at, digg is the perfect example of why there is such a PR problem with SEO. The best thing that could be done is as you are trying to do, educate the people, and to attack and call out the "black hats" instead of writing (Yes i know you are working on it/have done it in the past) something that may be perceived as an attack on the ignorant. The link bombing that some in the SEO field are doing on Jason is not helping at all to which you agreed the actions are "childish". I'd rather not discuss the SMO thing, as the idea of paying someone so that your article gets to the front page of Digg (for example) is unethical. I realize that may not be the full story to SMO, so don't quote me on that as how SMO works.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11> The fact of the matter is most people can't tell the difference from when someone is parodying an attack, as you claim to be doing, and when they are actually attacking.
  
  Second paragraph of the story:
  "I love Jason. I really do -- he says what he thinks, with passion and clearly deeply cares about things. And I've enjoyed some of the arguments we've had via instant messaging on this topic recently. But Jason -- and a lot of other people -- need some more education about the myths and misperceptions of SEO. So let this open letter do both."
  
  I think the initial reference to loving him, that he cares, that I've enjoyed arguments we've had on instant message all pretty clearly say we know each other, having a relationship to some degree and that I'm not actually attacking him.
  
  As for the issue of facts over emotion, I feel like I'm in some odd Stephen Colbert moment where he talks about truth being whatever you want it to be, screw the reality. Yes, I understand SEO has a PR problem in some quarters (despite this, the industry keeps growing, so it's not as bad as you might think). My contribution to the issue is to deal with the facts and try to bring in some balance. I guess I have some faith that facts can actually be a powerful tool for convincing people, too.
  
  > The best thing that could be done is as you are trying to do, educate the people, and to attack and call out the "black hats" instead of writing (Yes i know you are working on it/have done it in the past)
  
  Ah -- pleased you're reading more. See, it was already a long article, so I didn't get into the entire black hat / white hat debate. There are some things that aren't going to freak people on Digg or elsewhere out. Say you have an all Flash page. Google has no text to latch on to. So you decide to use a CSS layer to put out text it can read. Technically, you're cloaking and being "black hat." But you probably haven't hurt anyone. You may have even helped improve relevancy. So is it that black hat? In some cases, even Google would turn a blind eye to this. But it can be hotly debated -- and has -- because not everyone agrees on the rules in some gray areas (that are far, far removed from blog spamming or Digg slamming).
  
  I was, in the article, going to talk more about the standards that some wanted to push for in 2004. But what I found was some black hat were upset over white hats overselling services or selling services that didn't do anything. They felt that was as misleading as what white hats accused them of. And you'd have some white hats who were effective with just white hat stuff, some black hat that didn't get people into trouble.
  
  With Jason, you can see this. He's both upset with firms that might be "white hat" but he feels do nothing; black hat but feels do nothing; black hat and produce spam and so on. So it's not just a black hat/white hat thing.
  
  > I'd rather not discuss the SMO thing, as the idea of paying someone so that your article gets to the front page of Digg (for example) is unethical. I realize that may not be the full story to SMO, so don't quote me on that as how SMO works.
  
  That well deserves more attention. My big concern here was Jason was equating SMO with pay for the front page. I don't. I equate it with someone who understand say the Digg community, who can help you produce content they might be interested in and promote it in an appropriate way. That is exactly how things work with much of SEO. There's no guarantee of a front page hit with Google in SEO. But SEO might help, and even Google wants this if done correctly. So, too, with Digg. If someone does have something interesting, the community should have a chance to vote on it, to Digg it. But if the interest is buried by a bad headline, bad story organization and so on, potentially it's a loss all around.
- mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@dannysullivan:
  "With Jason, you can see this. He's both upset with firms that might be "white hat" but he feels do nothing; black hat but feels do nothing; black hat and produce spam and so on. So it's not just a black hat/white hat thing."
  
  I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here other than Jason is oversimplifying things.
  
  "Second paragraph of the story:
  "I love Jason. I really do -- he says what he thinks, with passion and clearly deeply cares about things. And I've enjoyed some of the arguments we've had via instant messaging on this topic recently. But Jason -- and a lot of other people -- need some more education about the myths and misperceptions of SEO. So let this open letter do both.""
  
  Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I guess I shouldn't try reading a legal case and then other things back to back. That does make all the difference in the world for the tone of the article. Also, I realize I mucked up my parentheses, they should have been a word or two in front of where they ended up, but you got the gist of it.
  
  As for SMO its on a completely different page than SEO, yet as you said faces a similar situation ahead of it. I haven't found a really good article yet on it but what I implied before involved schemes where they use "dummy" accounts to get enough votes to get to a homepage (a la Google link bombing but with digg). Jason was probably getting at that but made an oversimplification. I'm sure there are other SMO methods but that's what stuck out the most. That'd constitute as a "black hat" method for SMO.
- xxclixxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@fabianoblog - It's the same with many other industries. People fail to do it right, and so they automatically say it's bad. No, they just don't know what they are doing.
Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8This is one time I agree with Calacanis: 90% of SEO's *ARE* snake oil salesmen.
jehochman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13There are two different professions: SEO and Spamdexing. These are not the same, but unfortunately the ignoratti tend to confuse them.
- penbeatssword, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Just because someone calls themselves an SEO, doesn't make them an SEO.
  
  Many of you here are bloggers. If I make a blog and fill it with garbage, or steal other people's content and try to profit from that, does that make me a blogger? What if I call myself a blogger? Obviously, all it makes me is a spammer. Would you then come to the conclusion that all bloggers are spammers? No, you'd classify them separately, knowing that they are two different groups.
  
  So when unethical charlatans calling themselves SEOs fill the search engines with garbage, and try to profit from clients' ignorance, they're not being SEOs, no matter what they call themselves.
seharness, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0If you believe in all the patent talk related to TrustRank http://www.jasontchandler.com/google-services/google-trustrank.htm then you should be interested at the very least, what a true search engine optimization service provider has to say.

The way to tell a real marketer from a snake oil salesmen is by the terms of the contract. If you are paying monthly fees for search engine rankings then you have been swindled.
jetsetta14, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's unfair to categorize all SEO's as anything. Sure, there are a lot of snake oil salesmen out there, but I'd like to think there are a lot more that aren't.
totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crud" , including SEOs and imitation DIGG ripoffs ;p
- sweepthelegnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I suppose this makes 90% of digg users button pushing morons.
eurokc98, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I have been in the industry for 3+ years. I would agree with the 90% mark.
Lomi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Am I the only one who doesn't know what the hell SEO stands for? The only thing I can think of that might work is Social Engineering Organization.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Search Engine Optimization
  
  you know when you accidently mistype a URL and get to one of those ***** typosquatting spam sites? Or the ***** blogspam on the "upcoming stories" page about foot cream or whatever? that's SEO in action
  
  scum of the earth, they are...
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9> you know when you accidently mistype a URL and get to one of those ***** typosquatting spam sites? Or the ***** blogspam on the "upcoming stories" page about foot cream or whatever? that's SEO in action
  
  Actually, those domains are called Google AdSense For Domains, largely. They don't get traffic from search engines. They get direct navigation traffic from people typing directly into the browser. Nothing to do with SEO at all, and easily killed if Google and Yahoo would better police the sites.
  
  Again, if you actually read the story (I know, it's hard. No bulletpoint, lots of references and explanations in an attempt to try and educate people), blog spam is not necessarily SEO. Some people do it entirely not for SEO reasons. But hey, you know when you get that email spam? That's all email marketing, right? Let's characterize and entire industry by one bad practice.
  
  Now you know when you try to find some company, and you can't get to them because they accidentally blocked their entire site from Google with a bad robots.txt file? Fixing that is SEO. Or you know when someone explains to you that giving each of your blog posts a unique title will make them more relevant to the search engines? And you do it? And that "simple" tip that was simple to someone who knows search engines but not you causes your traffic to skyrocket, causes people to find more relevant content in search engines? That's SEO as well.
Cynoclast, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a euphemism for link spam in -all- cases.

Sites that truly deserve to be among the first results in a search will end up there without link spammers. Therefore, any site that needs these link spammers to get them there do not deserve to be. Therefore all search engine optimization is just link spam.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7> Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a euphemism for link spam in -all- cases.
  Gosh, let me check what Google says about SEO again. I think they have a definition. In fact, it was in the actual article that you're commenting on. You read the article, right? I mean, comments on Digg aren't just a euphemism for I spouted anything I thought of based on reading just a headline and a one or two line description. I'd like to think you're contributing to the conversation. But in case you missed it, good old Google says:
  
  SEO is an abbreviation for "search engine optimizer." Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, a few unethical SEOs have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.
  http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35291
  
  Guess I missed the section on SEO as meaning link spam.
civperc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Jason was right.
- starfighter01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Jason was wrong.
  
  // gosh, isn't this easy?
mpeters13, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2lulz. I love how that article sites the fact that the SEO hires women... like that's the deal maker to the legitmacy or honesty of a business. PLEASE accept my token of appreciation at your nasty attempt to build pathos using women as your crutch. Marked as spam.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Thanks. Yes, I wrote this long look at SEO and really hoped that one sentence about women being part of the industry would really redeem SEO in the eyes of many. It was the backbone of the piece. Definitely deserves being marked as spam. Hey, thanks for the considered read that you clearly gave it.
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@dannysullivan - I think you should work on the attitude of your writing. The article was interesting - as was Jason's - but the article and all of your comments here on digg have a very defensive / negative connotation which is why you keep getting dugg down or marked as spam. You have some useful points but they'd be better received if you left out things like "really hoped that one sentence about women being part of the industry would really redeem SEO in the eyes of many. It was the backbone of the piece." and "You read the article, right? I mean, comments on Digg aren't just a euphemism for I spouted anything I thought of based on reading just a headline and a one or two line description." and "Again, if you actually read the story (I know, it's hard...." and "you might want to demonstrate some degree of authority and background".
  
  Lay off the sarcasm and negativity.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5> I think you should work on the attitude of your writing. The article was interesting - as was Jason's - but the article and all of your comments here on digg have a very defensive / negative connotation
  
  You have read the tone of the comments I've been responding to, correct? People who haven't read the article, who aren't actually responding to points in it, who are being sarcastic and so on?
  
  If anything, my responses are actually pretty mild. Sure, I could play them down even more, I suppose. I'll keep that in mind, Similarly, you might consider a few responses to those with comments that are attacking in nature to perhaps being up the standards of Digg commenting.
voyetra8, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Submitter: "SearchRank"
Source: "searchengineland.com"

Buried as spam.
- penbeatssword, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@voyetra8:
  
  It's sad that your attitude is so widespread here. If Digg is ever going to be taken seriously as a legitimate source for news of any sort beyond the latest Bush-bashing or Apple-loving stories, users need to understand that "spam" does not equate with "something I don't like, based on a stereotype."
  
  From Digg's "How Digg Works" page:
  Bury. If you find stories with bad links, off-topic content, or duplicate entries, click “Bury.” That’s how we get the spam out of the system.
  
  This story does not fit any of those definitions.
- SearchStudent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You didn't read it, but marked it as spam based on the user name and domain name? Wouldn't you say that's a bit ignorant? This is actually a compelling read and a firey topic.
SearchRank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Out of all of the SEOs in the world, I would believe 40, maybe 50% are snake oil saleman but not 90%. Not even close. Also one has to factor in that a lot of SEOs offer a vaiety of other services beyond SEO itself.
marksmayo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Jason's comments also further extended and discussed on http://digg.com/tech_news/Social_Media_Optimization_The_Backlash
dgarallenpoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whether the purveyors of SEO are ***** artists is rather beside the point. What is more relevant is the fact that Google is not really able to determine based on content alone, whether a site is relevant to a particular topic. It uses inbound links among other things to make this determination, and this system is particularly vulnerable to manipulation of all sorts. The bottom line is that you can make your site as relevant as you care too, and it ultimately won't matter. What will is how much money you have to pay for links, and adjust your site so that it is SE friendly--hardly and ideal situation. Moreover, this is a system which, as usual, favors those with deep pockets which is to say blatantly unfair.
DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6As part of my normal web design services I do some basic SEO for my customers. I tell them up front my services are basic and results are hit or miss but it's better than nothing. As a whole I've gotten several of my customers to the top ten in Google for their desired search terms and even landed 5 number one slots all for virtually nothing on top of the regular development price.

But some people want more and so I've also had plenty of customers go the 3rd party SEO route. Some of these SEO companies charged my clients more than I did for development and broke aspects of the webiste during their optimization. Virtually none of them got my clients any noteworthy traffic and some even ruined their rankings. Because of this I've also come to the conclusion that -most- SEO companies are snake-oil salesmen. They do nothing of value for the customer.

Yes SEO works but finding an honest company to do it is not always easy.
- penbeatssword, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think every ethical SEO practitioner would agree with you there. It is hard to find an honest SEO practitioner. They would be just as happy as everyone here to see those snake oil salesmen disappear, or move on to the next industry that gets hot and they think they can exploit. But those shady characters are not representative of a majority of the industry, not by a long shot.
  
  Your clients are lucky to have found someone like you who at least understands the basics of SEO. Since you've had such good results, perhaps you're underestimating your knowledge. Unfortunately, some designers do not have a clue, and their clients are the ones who really need an SEO. In more competitive areas, even a well-designed site is not enough to compete. In those industries, a good SEO is invaluable.
dgarallenpoe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Getting to Jason's point, I would say that labeling SEO practioners Snake Oil salesmen is too light. A better term would be con artists. One particularly odious firm is eTrafficjams.
dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8There are two kinds of SEOs. One will charge you loads of money and get your sites penalized or blacklisted. The other will fix all the problems that get sites penalized or improperly indexed, and make other corrections based on what customers will search for when looking for your products. Their strategies are so different, they're almost opposite. They really shouldn't have the same acronym, except that the former calls itself SEO and the latter really is SEO.
masona3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Well, here's the thing. If you don't know how to optimize your own website for search engines, you DESERVE to get screwed... because you probably shouldn't be in web design in the first place. It's not that hard to tag things.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10No, it's not hard to tag things. Of course, only Yahoo uses the meta keywords tag, and it carries little weight. So if you've been thinking tagging your pages have been helping, um, you're pretty screwed.
  
  Look, I've spent 11 years now dealing with site owners big and small, with great content, who make lots of basic mistakes with even the simple stuff. They don't necessarily build their own sites, and being a site designer doesn't mean you are a marketer or an SEO or a conversion expert or many other things. People have all types of different skills. If you lack certain ones, you find someone that can help. And you don't deserve to be skilled because you don't know every single thing under the sun.
haggie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I just joined this new trade organization. It's called Search Engine Optimization Association of America .

I love their motto. It is "Making used car salesman look reputable by comparison since late 2006".
groperdude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Everyone ***** posing here as if they know crap about SEO. If all of you really knew it was, you'd be making ***** of money too. Wannabes.

SEO is not some stupid rocket science.

btw, what does ***** Ann Coulter ads have to do with this story???
theshaze, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Ok,

So when you do you NEED to be an expert to question other people's methods? He craps on Jason for insulting an audience, but then fails in his (HUGE response) to point out WHY Jason is wrong. If you work in Marketing or Sales, you know that you can hide behind ***** only for so long. Cause that's what you're doing; putting a dollar value on EVERYTHING, intrinsic to some bent statistic you created or stole.

It's not a technical complaint he had per se; he simply just called out an entire industry known for being crooks and liars, and it offended them, because the truth hurts. And as my good friend Bill Hicks once put it,

"By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root, I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good." - RIP you gentle soul...
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9You don't have to be an expert, but if you're going to make sweeping statements and put figures about an industry, you might want to demonstrate some degree of authority and background.
  
  As for pointing out why Jason is wrong, maybe the HUGE article was so huge you simply missed the many points where I did exactly that?
  
  The industry was also offended because many of them are not crooks or liars. It wasn't the truth that hurt. It was the untruth that did.
mcanerin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Isn't Digging something as "spam" when in fact it's something else actually spam? Attempting to change the ranking of something based on your own goals and biases rather than objective criteria?

Seems that so far all the "spammers" in this thread are Diggers, not SEO's.

I don't really have a point, I just like irony.

Ian
- sloppygamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Very well said mcanerin. The vast majority of Digg users are ignorant fanboys who know very little about what they digg and/or bury. It's sad when some stupid top 10 list about Family Guy makes it to the front page when legitimate stories are buried based on some hidden group agenda. Digg fanboys are nothing more than time-wasters who are sitting at their $35,000 per year job and throwing away company money.
mbertulli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Didn't we all learn the childhood lesson that goes something like this: "the few will spoil it for everybody" ?

In every industry/profession/specialty there are going to be a few idiots who claim they can when they can't. I for one have hired a few "senior programmers" who have managed to walk right through a pretty thorough interview process only because they've gotten really good at interviewing/taking tests. They sucked at their job, and were quickly let go, but they still left a bad taste in my superiors mouths when hiring this certain skillset.

Point is, everybody is affected by the same crap that the SEO world is going through. A few idiots are allowing for a nasty stereotype to be built that may or may not be true.
multimediamj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Great job, Jason.

That is the exact backward thinking which incites prejudice and hatred while giving those without an opinion misleading information. It's like saying, "A tree fell on my house and made a hole in the roof, therefore all trees are bad".

I happen to work for a company that DOES specialize in SEO and our clients are Fortune 500 companies. Our company has won awards including "One of the 25 best companies to work for in America" and most recently won an award from Forbes magazine.

Don't go espousing SEO as if you know what you are talking about when it's clear that you were upset by one article.

Thanks,

MJ
turbulence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Danny,

Trying to win an argument on DIGG comments is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. You're too smart to continue with this, let it go. When these people start running a business, they'll see the need in proper SEO.
- bz3p19, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like it. Problem is, Danny will probably be retired by the time these comment spammers are of the age to run businesses...
- starfighter01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm impressed, Danny has done a very good job. Now he can just get back to work, and let the rest of them go.
  
  "When these people start running a business"
  
  That requires leadership.
xicoperon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"WHAT ARE WE YELLING ABOUT!?"
gegan249, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Try designing 'a clean website with content' and poor keyword selection and see if you "do well in the search engines." Why are Jason's comments *****? Because he doesn't know the difference between SEO and web design. I am an SEO and work with web designers to determine WHAT content we will present. If you don't know how people 'search' you cannot possibly get traffic to your site. Why? 'keywords' but, wait, 'keywords?" Isn't that an SEO term? Ask a web designer what 'keywords' you should use on your new $5000+ designer website. See what answer you get from, well, 90% of them.

Jason, what a jackass. POT MEET KETTLE.

Danny, EXCELLENT VC FIRM ANALOGY.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Why The SEO Folks Were Mad At You, Jason

Login or register to add a comment