Ads

Compete Search Analytics

Archives

When I posted the article “Top Search Engine Optimization Myths” by United Worx to Sphinn I was greeted with an incredible amount of criticism, mainly due to some details from the article which just show that it has been written a while ago.

The overtly negative backlash was more due to overzealous elitism than to real issues in my opinion. Thus I decided to update, “remix” the article and republish my version of the top 10 SEO myths. Yes, Tad strikes back!

While I think that there are bigger myths out there like “SEO is spam” or “you can’t optimize for highly competitive terms without paid links” I nonetheless will follow the more down to earth points made by the original article.

1. “Your top ten search engine ranking can be guaranteed.”
Some SEO firms will advertise a “guarantee” to have you listed in the top ten rankings. No one other than the search engines themselves can guarantee any ranking. Don’t believe it. Trust their results for other clients and make your decision from actual client successes, not empty promises and guarantees.
Google states in it’s Webmaster Help Center: No one can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google.”
What can be
guaranteed though is that when a top 10 or #1 ranking is achieved the payment or rather bonus payment is due. Then it’s so called “performance based payment“. PBP based on rankings is not recommended though, as rankings themselves do not guarantee sales or overall profits.

2. “My in-house webmaster/web designer/programmer can do the SEO cheaper.”
Most SEO professionals can get higher rankings faster because search engine optimization and Marketing is complex, technical and has a steep learning curve. SEO companies also place a team at your disposal, including copywriters, web developers and link builders and unless you have a room full of marketing staff dedicated to SEO it is hard to keep up.

3. “Search engine traffic is worthless or not as good as other kinds of targeted traffic”
Search engine traffic is probably the most qualified traffic, because it comes from people searching for the exact products and services which the search engines have you indexed. They are looking for you, not the other way around. Keep in mind you must be targeting the right keywords, but that is the job of your SEO firm, to help you choose the right keywords.

4. “Websites are optimized for search engines out of the box”
A minority of designers and developers actually optimize pages for the search engines while they are building them. Most search engine optimization is done afterwards, if at all. You can lower the cost of SEO substantially if you include SEO from the start, even before the design part.

5. “Simply inserting keywords in the keyword meta tag will help list your site for that keyword”
Most major search engines do not use the meta keywords tag as a ranking factor and those that do, if the keyword is not also in the copy of the same page, it’s considered a factor which could lower your rankings, not raise it. At best the keyword tag is used by directories or social bookmarking sites when submitting your site. The only really important meta tag is the description as it is displayed in the search results by Google.

6. “The more times you repeat the keyword in the page, the higher it will rank”
So called “keyword density” does not matter as a major ranking factor outside the requirement that the actual keyword is present on the page in the way of natural language. Depending on where on the page and how the keyword is displayed the ranking can be positively or negatively affected. A keyword density that is too high will get you listed lower or penalized.

7. “Hidden links or text in a page can get your page ranked higher”
Keyword stuffing and hidden links in the page can get your site penalized or banned if detected. It is considered spamming by search engines. Most people think it’s not worth the risk. Google states in it’s Webmaster Guidelines: “Avoid hidden text or hidden links.”

8. “You don’t need to update your site to keep your rankings”
By routine maintenance (removing outdated material, fixing broken links, queries, etc.) and updating your pages regularly, you are signaling the bots and crawlers to come back and re-crawl your site for changes to their listings. To maintain high rankings, you need to keep at it and tweak the pages for better results if necessary. Also content freshness is one of the more important ranking factors. If neglected, your pages could easily slip out of the top rankings as new competing sites get indexed and optimized.

9. “You can achieve higher rankings on a keyword without changing the code or content of the pages in your site”
After Google introduced the Google bombing filter getting a higher ranking solely based on links pointing to your site does not work anymore as already mentioned at 6). If you want to steadily improve your rankings, you must make changes to your site that help the search engines spider it. Steady results are dependent on your willingness to optimize and tweak the code and content of your pages. A simple thing like fixing broken links can contribute to elevating your listings. It’s one of the most overlooked search engine tweaks.

10. “Google PageRank is the single most important ranking factor for your site in Google”
While PageRank was never the only factor in ranking sites, it was in the early days of Google the most important one. Google added more and more ranking factors to their overall algorithm while devaluing PagRank more and more. Nowadays ranking is based on more than 200 so called “signals” among others.

So what’s wrong now you naysayers? Get real and stop nagging. Negative people concentrate on the 2 or 20% which is bad while they ignore the 98 or 80% which is great. I’m positive, I concentrate on the positive aspects.

If you think the glass is half empty why tip away the other half?

Do you know other frequently encountered SEO myths? Tell me!

del.icio.us StumbleUpon Facebook Google Mixx Sphinn TwitThis
March, 2008 | You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback.

This thing has 16 Comments

  1. Posted March 4, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Hey Tad a nice comeback. I think however you’re always going to run into “naysayers’ LOL with black and white statements about “how search engines work”.

    For instance….No9 - what if the page was fairly well designed in the first place, and all you had to do was build a few quality links first - but yes, Google Bombing is ‘reported’ not to work - splitting hairs here of course - but do you believe everything Google reps tell you?

    Also, in no10 when discussing PageRank, it might be worth mentioning the nuance between real pagerank and google toolbar page rank although I appreciate you are trying to keep this simple.

    On the whole a better piece than the one you were ‘harassed’ for! :)

  2. Posted March 4, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Hobo for the quick feedback.

    As to #9: You are right to distrust Google. I tried it myself though and besides there were no other really successful Google bombs reported. The ones that worked either were really easy terms or the pages contained the term as in “failure” and George Bush.

    As to #10: This is a primer for the SEO newbie or rather client not familiar with real SEO. I do not want to add every possible info but to create an easily digestible overview. Thus the toolbar PageRank/internal PageRank differentiation is in the linked article.

  3. Posted March 4, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Cheers Tad - This is fun isn’t it :)

    “To maintain high rankings, you need to keep at it and tweak the pages for better results if necessary.”

    That would depend I think on the amount of trust and authority a site has, and it’s ranking history, and the level of competition a term has, and of course, how well optimised it was in the first place.

    Of course, optimisation is better over time, with analysis, but I fear some will continue to pick holes!

  4. Posted March 4, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Nicely cleared up, though I don’t get the “I was greeted with an incredible amount of criticism” sentiment.

    The way I see it, Sebastian and the others who commented were being critical of the original article, not making a personal attack on you Tad.

    A bit of healthy debate is always useful, no?

  5. Posted March 4, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Yeah Hobo. Do not forget though that ranking factors change over time so you really have to tweak your site.

    Gavin: Thanks for pointing out my great/greet typo.
    There was indeed no direct personal attack on me like saying that “I’m an idiot” or something but if you read through the “desphinn” explanations you start to wonder why these people, some of them do not submit anathing much to Sphinn, get this overzelous in putting the thing down.

    A simple comment saying “there is mistake in the article” would be perfectly enough.

  6. Posted March 4, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    While I agree certain Ranking Factors are subject to change over time, could we agree the basic principles for ranking a site have not changed for many a year? :)

    Not that I’m arguing the point too strongly - if I were employed to optimise a site, I certainly wouldn’t do it once and then leave it - athough actualy that depends on how much I am being paid and if it is an ongoing arrangement.

    SEO for me is a very creative process based on observations - every time I look at a job I make tweaks as you get new ideas or hear about or observe something you may have forgotten.

    For me it is about constant change, but then again I am always ‘experimenting’ - and is ‘experimentation’ ‘optimisation’?

  7. Posted March 4, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    Actually there has been a very recent Googlebomb that has done fairly well. The Anonymous Scientology Googlebomb has pushed Scientology’s site to number one for Dangerous Cult and pushed Operation Clambake near the top for the term Scientology. I wrote a bit about it on my blog “The Mother of All Googlebombs”.

  8. Posted March 4, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Hobo: Basically the emphasis is on the fresh content. You certainly won’t tweak the code daily just for the sake of SEO ;-)

    Mark: Yes, I know the first case which is not in the top 10 currently:
    http://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl=en&q=Dangerous+Cult
    While “dangerous cult” was not really a “competitive term” before so it may have worked for a few days due to lack of other good results.

    “Operation Clambake” has “Scientology” in its title etc. so it’s not Google bombing without onsite factors.

  9. SisterSledge
    Posted March 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Quite being so sensitive…the original article was crap. Badly presented. Not factual. Promotional.

    If an article is presenting “truths” to dispute “myths” then it needs to be 100% correct.

    It isn’t very positive to promote non-truths or bad content.

    I’ve never thumbed something down and it was my first desphinn ever and I stand by my opinion of the original piece.

    Correcting the article with your own opinions here is commendable, but your attitude throughout this process (including here) has only served to further antagonize negative feedback.

  10. Posted March 5, 2008 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    I also particularly like how people get fixated on getting their site submitted to [insert ridiculously high number here] search engines.

  11. Rowena
    Posted March 5, 2008 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    I am contacting you through this contact form as there was no email address available. We would be interested in purchasing advertising on your blog. Please get back to me using the email address I have entered if you would be interested in discussing this further.

  12. Doug Heil
    Posted March 5, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Hi Tad, I don’t agree with you on some things, but I DO agree with you totally on your 10 myths. Very good.

    Matter of fact; I read that article you “spinned” the other day and could not believe the backlash it got from the “inner circle” people. I actually thought the article was not bad at all. Oh sure; a couple of things could have been better, but sheesh; from what I see at that spin site that gets to the front page, that article was VERY good stuff. Most stuff at that place is very poor shite and that article you spinned was NOT one of those. The only part of it I didn’t think was right was the thing about the % for keyword density…. that’s it. It shouldn’t have been in there at all.

    For all of you bozos in our industry who are claiming you can guarantee ranks…. you are wrong. For how long? one day, one hour, one week, one month?…. for what phrases?… I could go on and on. ANYONE who claims a guaranteed position will never explain it in detail to the client. The guarantee is baseless and is only stated as a marketing ploy to deceive a poor sole who visits the page on your site with that silly guarantee. Period. Anyone can claim a guarantee, but it’s the details of it that will get you in the end. Stay far away from jerks in our industry who claim a guarantee.

    I criticize when I think it’s necessary, but I always praise when I think praise is due as well………nice job.

  13. Doug Heil
    Posted March 5, 2008 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    I’ll give an example:

    About two years ago I talked to a prior client of a firm the poor guy hired just because they were a speaker at SES. The client told me they had a guarantee as well. I read that guarantee’s fine print. It did not mention in what way they guaranteed anything. At the end, the poor guy got hosed. He did not get any first page positions on phrases he wanted, but the firm told him he actually did. They pointed to the Google Adwords listing on the first page and told him that satisfied their guarantee.

    YES: it’s true. No name will be outed here as I do think the firm has went strictly to doing PPC stuff now and has changed it’s ways. Just goes to show that being a speaker can be very deceiving…… as it’s proved MANY times over the years…..TopPile anyone? Also goes to show that it’s the details of a guarantee you must read and totally understand.

  14. Posted March 7, 2008 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    The biggest bull out of the whole bunch is the PR myth. I for one don’t give a damn and could care less if my PR was 0 or 10 for that matter. Nice writeup btw.

    -Tibi

  15. Posted March 23, 2008 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    I think number 4 is especially relevant. Many web designers like to boast that their sites are SEO friendly. Yet, their own sites don’t even rank in the top 30 for web design in their location. This alone should be a red flag.

  16. Posted August 28, 2008 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    well the age of the website seems to be an important factor these days. Google will favor older website a lot more and will rank them a lot faster than a fresh website with a fresh domain.

This thing has 7 Trackbacks

  1. Posted March 4, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    […] Top 10 SEO Myths V2 […]

  2. Posted March 5, 2008 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    […] Top 10 SEO Myths V2 - Latest myth on SEO. […]

  3. Posted March 5, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    […] by the title? Well, I thought I might venture deeper into the SEO myth realm and I uncovered some other SEO myths lists that I mostly liked. What’s most interesting about […]

  4. Posted March 7, 2008 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    […] over at SEO2.0 blog writes the Version 2 of Top 10 SEO Myths. He explained remarkably well what are the myths that roam around in the SEO […]

  5. Posted March 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    […] Chef of SEO 2.0 does a great job at busting 10 SEO related myths we aren’t all completely safe from. If you’re new to SEO and think of hiring someone […]

  6. Posted March 17, 2008 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    […] over at SEO2.0 blog writes the Version 2 of Top 10 SEO Myths. He explained remarkably well what are the myths that roam around in the SEO […]

  7. Posted July 3, 2008 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    […] Jill Whalen’s Top 10 SEO Organic Myths Lee Odden’s 5 Myths About SEO Tadeusz Szewczyk’s Top 10 SEO Myths V2 […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*