SEO is dead - It's about creating compelling content constantly on a Web 2.0 site

2005

created on Sun, 2005-01-16 18:10

Search engine optimisation in the classic sense of link spam, referer spam, buying ads, keyword optimisation, starting link farms, sending off "link exchange requests", etc. is dead. Content driven SEO which means creating compelling content constantly using a Web 2.0 site is not only a more legitimate method to get high search rankings; it's also the only way that really works in 2005.

From Seth's Blog: In violent agreement!.:

QUOTE

"Search marketing is more than buying ads -- SEO is the search world's equivalent to public relations. It also doesn't mean that you have to link spam, comment spam or content spam. Content-driven SEO -- I'm writing more about this next week -- is something anyone should be considering.

You can have all the great content you want. Neglect some basic things to make your site search engine friendly, and you aren't getting in. It's like saying that you need never reach out to the press, they'll just somehow magically discover you've launched a new product, done something interesting. Search engines are better at discover, but outreach still helps -- SEO is that type of outreach."

UNQUOTE

[Tagged with: bryght seo seoisdead]

Add new comment

semantic argument

On March 17th, 2005 Lloyd D Budd@bmannconsulting.com (not verified) says:

Your argument is so semantic . Semantic arguments fail .

Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Watch has it rite .

What I get out of it , SEO is using Web 2.0 (sic) .

PS. Maybe it is a blog thang , but it seems better to ref. the orig instead of someone quoting someone else .

More than semantics

On May 5th, 2005 Rob Cottingham (not verified) says:

Sorry to wade in a month and a half later...

...but this argument is about much more than semantics. A huge chunk of the SEO industry is premised on, basically, tricking Google into thinking your site is more useful / important / popular than it actually is, using exactly the tools Roland describes. And a huge chunk of the SEO industry's potential customer base is prepared to shell out money to do just that.

The result is a constant tit-for-tat battle between the search engines and the people intent on finding exploitable weaknesses in their ranking algorithms. Victories on either side will probably be temporary.

My read of Seth's and Roland's point is that the one proven, lasting way to rise in an engine's rankings is to actually BE useful and important -- and to get the word out about your usefulness and importance -- which will lead to popularity and that coveted Google ranking. Put it this way: why just optimize for search engines, when you can optimize for search engines AND your users?