SEO Company, SEO and Search Engine Optimization Google Results Are a Disgrace
The SEO industry is outraged about search engine optimization leading figure Rand Fishkin of SEOmoz calling the Google (and Yahoo) results for "SEO company" an embarrassment. The main problem about that post seems to be "the outing" of the site currently at #1 for the term SEO company.
The website gets analyzed and their link structure which in fact is quite low quality gets dissected. While it might be indeed viewed as bad style to "out" a company like this, the point of the post, the embarrassment, is true and should be highlighted.
What we see here is that the US search results in this very competitive SEO niche are not the best ones to say the least.
You know what? The key phrase SEO company is not the exception. Take a look at the more generic terms SEO and search engine optimization and you'll quickly realize that they are even less relevant.
For SEO company we see from the US as of October 29th, 2008:
- At #1 a SEO company barely anybody has heard of that optimized its way up with link exchange it seems and probably their own projects, a "network" as SEOs tend to call it
- Google ranks second
- Then a company that states in their headline "Search engines and directories are the main way Internet users discover web sites." so it seems they haven't changed it since 2001
- Number 4 is a "News" search result which basically is a press release of a random SEO firm
- #5 is a no name no brand SEO company advertising, among others, SEO for AltaVista (good old days again)
So the top 5 are all irrelevant and bad results.
Let's compare it with other more generic SEO results. What do we see searching for SEO itself?
- Wikipedia entry, a SEO for noobs article you only read once in a life time
- Wikipedia entry for a Korean first name
- At three an infamous SEO forums which holds the official record for the most ads per pixel in the SEO industry
- #4 is Google again
- This result is basically an institution the initials of happen to be SEO but has nothing to do with the topic
Looking at the search engine optimization results is no good as well:
- Wikipedia
- The forums mentioned
- Another press release again
- Here we find a company offering "search engine submission" and "guaranteed results in major search engines" - just no comment.
The top 5 results in all three cases, SEO company, SEO and search engine optimization are either completely irrelevant, outdated and off topic or solely suitable for the first time searcher who never before has heard of SEO.
Do you really think someone searching for a SEO company needs a warning by Google? All of these results are both a disgrace for Google and the SEO industry as a whole. All those search marketers with incredible link power could easily propel the legit SEO resources to the top but most of them are too selfish to even link out. They rather will "PageRank sculpt" and "nofollow" all day.
I used the US based proxy service Proxbrowse to determine these results. In German Google.com they are quite different. The situation in the UK is by far better. At #2 for SEO company is a specialist I know personally and who does really great work I've seen some examples of already. His site The SEO Company aka seoco.co.uk can be recommended.
Please tell me, who in your opinion should rank in the top 5 for SEO company, SEO and search engine optimization? Please refrain from self promotion. If you ask me both SEOmoz and SEO Book deserve to be in the top 5 for SEO and search engine optimization.
What about the SEO company results? I've collected by now more than 50 SEO company websites or other companies offering SEO services for a follow up on this list. So stay tuned.
I’d pretty much go with the Live results for ‘SEO Company’, esp, that one that sits at #2 and #8 in Google.co.uk ;-)
Paul, I think you’re biased :->
I’d not have a big problem with the wiki entry. Sure…a lot of people are not looking for that basic type of in, but a lot are. I’d also agree that seomoz and Aaron’s site should both rank in the top 5. I thought seobook was #4, or maybe I recall Aaron saying that.
I would have to agree that the results are more of a failiure of the SEO industry rather than a failiure of Google. After all, we’re the guys that are supposed to be able to get clients up there!
The only caveat that I would add to that is to question the ‘worth’ of a search result for one of these terms. I’m still a firm believer that the majority of the better SEO clients are from referrals and relationships forged over time. In my experience many serach engine referrals tend to be the lower quality leads – the time and expense of getting up there make me question its worth.
As a branding and promotional tool though – that’s another arguement!
Well yes, but then you seem to be asking Google to do more than just rank the value, you want it to be listing results editorially? Making sure only the well known or good companies are found in those SERPs.
I can’t see Google doing that – it would open up a whole can of worms in terms of their editorial control and the extent to which SERPs are publications.
When I first got into the scene I got a decent showing on one of the main SEO terms. Fact is, it never brought any meaningful traffic. There’s a reason we call them “vanity terms”. I soon stopped bothering with the work there and focused on raising the profile of e3internet in other ways.
I’d guess that is a similar situation for other “well known” companies in this space. Simply put, they are just too busy to bother working on coverage in those SERPs. The R.O.I. just isn’t worth it. That’s my take on it though.
I know one person from India who does a fair job when it comes to SEO and SMO, named Manish Pandey.
Oh Tad; come on now. This cannot be a serious post. I agree with Nick above. You do seem to believe that Google should manually edit the serps based on who is well known to the inner circle of SEO? Really? I know of many a SEO firm out there who could care less about being ranked on those generic phrases that rarely result in a quality referral. Why go to the trouble?
Besides; I see nothing wrong with those serps at all. They are relevant to the query, so isn’t that what search engines should do? Or should they manually review each phrase and the sites on the front page?
What Rand did was pathetic. I strongly disagree with the outing of that firm. It’s not spamming at all. I started my own thread about it in my forums as well. If you actually believe only firms who speak at conferences, etc should be on that front page, …I can’t help you.
I think that the SERP results page reflects the impact of SEO changing it’s focus from Rankings, to Results. I’ve read article after article blasting away at the concept that rankings matter, they don’t, it’s about ROI. I feel that most SEO bloggers are whole heartedly embracing that idea, and seeing the benefit. If brand name SEOers really thought there was value in those terms, don’t you think they might have expended the effort to make their site rank for those terms? The only other answer is that hot shot bloggers are to busy talking about SEO to actualy use it to rank… Do you think that’s the case or that the focus is on value and not rankings?
Definitely not Rand’s finest moment; a cheap trick that doesn’t do anything for SEO or SEOmoz.
I agree with that somewhat as sure, it’s about value. The article in here was about his opinion that the serps are not relevant. That’s false. The poster believes that only firms who are known to the seo community are suppose to be on the front page. That’s false as well. If that were the case, then every industry/market in existence all have it’s own firms who are known better than others, so those firms should all be on the front page for their generic phrases as well. That’s ludicrous. Last I looked, Google was a search engine and not a directory of manually reviewed websites.
Thats why we love SEO, no rules, no regulations. Google should no be ashamed, but the big SEO companies who think they are so good, and best should be ashamed… and you know who you are
I agree with Marios’ comment above. Google search results caused embarassment to those so-called SEO experts and not the other way round.
Manipulation techniques by shady SEOs clearly show that Google can be tricked, but in the end, I think we should all remember that Google too is a non-human search engine.
I’m flummoxed by Google ranking itself at #4, though. It is one thing to promote Blogspot, Docs, YouTube etc within search results. The last time I checked, Google didn’t offer SEO services, so by Google’s own logic, they’re not relevant, right? :)
Again: It’s not about the outing. Also rankings are a metric of many, ROI, conversions etc. being more important. Last but not least: Nobody said Google needs to favor anybody or even hand edit.
Btw. Doug: You are always the first to complain about the state of the SEO industry. You sound dishonest when alleging these results are OK.
It’s very obvious how much the SEO industry is incapable of promoting the best of their pros as nobody even suggest a SEO company besides his or her own or a friend.
Those top 5 results are the findings of the average Joe who then discovers that SEO obviously sucks.
Irrelevant natural search results. Maybe you should try PPC advertising to get that first page visibility…
It’s not in their interest to be too good at giving good results, just good enough. It’s all about the ad revenues, the quality of the natural results will always be second.
[...] by the debate over the state of the SEO related Google results over on SEO Book’s SEO Police and Tad’s Onreact blog about Rand@SEOMoz [...]
Isn’t Googles position to rank sites that people find useful ie. view a number of pages and spend time on?. Who knows what their algo is, but I was under the impression that sites that people click away from quickly get dropped in rank. Ultimately search users dictate rankings.
“Don’t Make Google Look Stupid”
..and don’t get sucked into American SEO tabloid trash
peace.
I would expect that a seo advisor who wants to collect my bucks doing a better seo job than any competitor in the market uses his own page as showcase. That means: rank top on search terms I used to find him. Rank top on “seo”.
Having said that the results of Rands investigation and the comments above show a signaficant ignorance of seo advice vendors for their customers needs.
If for example a top Google ranking is not a main source for customers for some of the “inner circle of better seo experts” – what do I need their seo advice then for my website?
“The key phrase SEO company is not the exception. Take a look at the more generic terms SEO and search engine optimization and you’ll quickly realize that they are even less relevant.” pretty much upsetting.
I think the fact that that company is #1 discounts the SEO advice that many have been giving over the past few years. Apparently link swaps do work in the eyes of Google.
I’ve seen similar result pages in many areas on google.com. I also saw parked domains ranking above good sites just because the domain name was an exact match of the query.
I find it funny that Google is being blamed by Fishkin when the job of SEO is..well you know the answer to that. cheap trick.
[...] a the post ‘SEO Company, SEO and Search Engine Optimization Google Results Are a Disgrace’ by @onreact_com Tad, I came up with the notion that if the search results for SEO and Search Engine [...]
I guess it shows that Google is ‘human’ afterall. I have found a lot of weird results before and distinctly unhelpful results.
I think Google still has a way to come but they will constantly be evolving over the years so they can only get better.
Plus if the SEO companies are not doing what they need to get to the top of Google then it is hardly the fault of Google ;)
That´s why we have always predicted to concept websites for human and not robots. But some “SEO Experts” still doesn´t want to believe it!
it´s a good point to think.
But the main thing is to have good content, write for people and the results will come!
Great post.
I can also agree to the SEO Expert above. They need to start believe in it.
okay so it’s an older post, but it just showed up on the front page so I just read it. Eitherway, I have to agree with Matt Sawyer (above). Refferals are the best stream of substantial leads for us too. There is somehting to be said for “does an SEO company do for themselves what they say they can do for you?”. But if you can show that you rank for your selected keywords, then you have proven that.
In other words, just because and SEO company does not rank for “SEO Company” does not mean they are any less of an SEO company.
I love conversaitons like this though because they give me pause about what terms I am searchable for…LOL! Time to get to work!