Comments on: 10 Misconceptions Why SEO is Better than SMO Refuted

By: raj

raj — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:58:17 +0000

While it’s utter bullshit most normal people assume that SEO is shady manipulation only somewhere along the spam you get via email. So business owners are often very hesitant to even admit they do SEO. In fact that’s one of the reasons why SEO has such a bad rep because you only see the bad one as a normal user and nobody will tell how the New York Times optimizes it’s website. SEO 2.0 or SMO is out there in the open. In a way it’s about showing off you and your business or company. You d not have to lie to your clients about it. so it s great to read.

By: bram

bram — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:36:41 +0000

@ onreact: When will the follow up be released? I'm anctious to read it.

By: On-page Social Media Optimization: Double Your Traffic With These Simple Tips | Blogging Bits

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:54:47 +0000

[...] pre-social media days, webmasters wrote and optimized content for search engines. Now things are different. Traditional SEO has got a competitor: which is SMO (social media optimization). Social media [...]

By: onreact

onreact — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:21:42 +0000

At all: I’ll write a follow up on this, at least one ;-)
So be prepared!

By: Doug Heil

Doug Heil — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:22:11 +0000

I don’t believe they compliment each other at all. I see a bunch of self-promotion within the industry that doesn’t look pretty in any way. I have to believe that a site selling real products like lights or jewelry, etc would look silly bouncing around from digg to reddit to stumpleupyours, etc. Not very professional looking if you ask me. I also see almost zero benefit SEO wise as well.

My teen-age daughter use to love myspace with all her “friends”….. with the word friends being used loosely, and now she also thinks it’s childish to play with. I think so as well.

By: david deangelo

david deangelo — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:42:52 +0000

I believe both methods (Tads Seo 2.0 and SEO in the traditional sense) should be employed if suitable to the website business. I don’t believe one is better than the other. These methods would compliment each other.

By: Doug Heil

Doug Heil — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:54:58 +0000

Oh good. I have more sites coming up on my name now in Google. I like that PR Tad, so thanks!

But again; you actually seem to think that SEO = link building or meta tags or something like that. That is just blatantly false Tad. Totally false. You really should actually read in my forums when you get the chance to learn what real SEO actually is.

BTW: I know that it’s really not your fault as to why you think about SEO like you do. I understand totally about the utter lack of real teaching that goes on out there. I also understand about the totally crappy “so-called” SEO’s out there and what they offer and what they believe SEO is. Too many sites out there offer up “submission” and “linking” as their service offerings. It’s no wonder that people think that is what SEO is.

Do you know the date of when I last submitted a site anywhere? I can’t even remember when. It might have been back in the day of the “Infoseek” search engine….maybe 1997 ?

Let’s make some kind of truce; If you stop equating SEO to SMO, I’ll stop calling you out on it… ok? The reality is they are two very different types of “internet marketing”. Very different. They are not similar in any way. SMO is also “not” a part of search engine marketing either. SMO is a part of internet marketing.

Equating SEO with SMO is like equating SEO with email marketing…. just isn’t any comparisons to be made as both are very different forms of marketing.

By: onreact

onreact — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:43:08 +0000

What’s your problem man? That I rank at #5 and #6 for your name in Google.com ? Who failed in SEO? You probably even don’t know what repuation management is!
Nonetheless this time you are at least brave enough to bring up your concerns where it matters and not hiding in your forums.

It’s exactly why I advocate SEO of the 2.0 kind because I got bored of the tedious, inefficient and obsolete methods like “link building” I had to practice for years while now the links come to me almost by themselves.

I got 16 “authority links” from weblogs in the last 3 days alone. In the last ten days my Technorati authority went up by 40 and my blog was featured 3 times on Sphinn.

Don’t tell me about ROI. I’m the avantgarde of ROI! Indeed my full name is Tad ROI Chef. While the usual suspect SEO will sell you link building I will a blog or site does gain links by itself. It’s like the GMO food industry who does want to resell the poor Indian farmers the seed each year.

I plant the truly natural organic seeds that will flourish as full fledged trees even after I’m not there anymore to earn money on you by link building.

I will review the book “Web Design for ROI” soon so then I’ll tell you about ROI.

But do you know what? I’m not angry at you anymore. I even plan to include your site in the follow up of
http://seo2.0.onreact.com/the-15-best-seo-company-website-designs-worldwide
so be polite any play by the rules of SEO 2.0 – community, respect, cooperation and it’s a win2win situation.

By: Doug Heil

Doug Heil — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:44:55 +0000

Oh, and further:

If you think for one second that real seo consists of “linking” and meta tags, you never learned how to do real SEO to begin with.

If I want my clients to generate traffic for traffic’s sake, I’ll hire you to get me Stumble traffic. If I want to get targeted referrals for my clients that might actually buy something, I’ll hire me. In other words; “generate good ROI”.

By: Doug Heil

Doug Heil — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:33:43 +0000

You just cannot be serious?

I’m thinking you failed at REAL SEO, right?

Are you going to allow this post or don’t you like someone who disagrees with you in “every” way possible?