SEO is bullshit

Published on October 27th, 2008 at 2:05pm

Tags: bullshit, h tags, healthy internet, microformats, semantic, seo

“SEO is using deodorant instead of washing. SEO is masking bad coffee with sugar. SEO is cramming instead of studying. SEO is using pain killers instead of going to the dentist. SEO is taking weight loss pills instead of exercising. SEO is a comb-over. SEO is Scientology. SEO is Paris Hilton. SEO is the Zune. SEO is the morning-after pill. SEO is astroturf. SEO is not the real thing. SEO is cutting corners. SEO is not the solution. SEO is bullshit.”

- Contrast (via Marco)

I agree and I disagree. Legitimate SEO is crucial to keeping the internet healthy. Making it easier for engines to crawl your content and link to your material correctly is indispensable. Microformats fits in this category. The problem is that very few people view SEO by this definition. Instead it is used as a “gaming” technique. Push your content to the front of the list, even it isn’t the best match to a search.

I list “SEO” as one of my skillsets because, when you a build a site correctly, it tends to be optimized by default. Proper usage of H tags, semantic code, simple yet sturdy architectures, all of these features will get you on Google’s radar, and then it is up to you to create quality content. Those who deny this, who practice the “other” SEO, are in fact dispensing bullshit.

Popularity: 10% [?]

404CommentsSEO+is+bullshit2008-10-27+18%3A05%3A52Eli to “SEO is bullshit”

Chaz Oct 27

There’s also stuff I consider to be a gray area.

For example, I heard from a SEO guy that for a while tons of spam sites were using a 301* redirect. Google’s statistical analysis noticed this and it became one of the many variables in their algorithm – a significant enough one that people on the outside noticed. There are tons of legitimate reasons to use 3xx redirects and to an end user there’s usually not a difference between one code and another, so webmasters who aren’t huge HTTP nerds tend to pick a code arbitrarily. Some people who pay close attention to their rankings but weren’t doing shady things stopped using 301 and instead used 302.

I don’t view that as evil behavior, or at least not as bad as people loading META keywords back in the late 90’s. I imagine others disagree with me, though.

* I don’t remember the actual codes. There were two different 3xx codes. I just picked 301 and 302 to simplify my prose.
Eli Oct 27

I agree. There are certain techniques that have been blacklisted because of abuse by “blackhats,” yet still serve a very useful purpose for those with good intentions.

It was interesting to note that as I was composing this post, the zemanta tool I use to suggest links and tags was going berserk with innacurrate suggestions that were the clearly the result of SEO abuse. By merely talking about SEO, I made myself available to the full onslaught of “britney spears”, “barack obama”, and “viagra” suggestions that plague the results list.
SEO Oct 27

Hold on for a second.
Since when the 301 became a problem to Google???
Eli Oct 27

@SEO – it’s not that its necessarily a “problem,” but like a lot of SEO techniques, it isn’t known exactly how Google and the like will respond to your use of them. Security through obscurity.

If you’d like to read more about the history and usage of 30* redirects, check out this page http://www.seobuzzbox.com/understanding-the-301-redirect/

Or just google it!