Despite more than a decade of search marketers attempting to educate web surfers about how the search engines operate and how to properly engage in a search marketing campaign, we’ve still got a very, very long way to go. Tonight I came across a few examples of this that drove the point home.
#1 – Horrifying Marketing that’s Nightmarishly Effective
The folks over at Berankednumber1.com (link condom applied) offer the kind of service that makes me nauseous. What’s worse is that apparently, their conversions are sky high (heard it through the grapevine). Snake oil salesmen like this (of which there are hundreds in the field) not only give the rest of us a bad name, but continue to misinform individuals and businesses about the process, effectiveness and basics behind search marketing. Just read their “more information” about the service:
Why Do We Not Ask You For “Keywords”
Since we are already submitting all the “text” on your website we do not need to ask you for keywords. Your keywords are already on your site. The keywords generally come directly from your website’s text. For example we presume that if you are selling “Ford Trucks” in “Omaha” that you will have the word “Ford”, “Trucks” and “Omaha” somewhere on your website. As a result “Omaha Ford Trucks” , “Ford Trucks Omaha” would automatically be submitted (along with many other keyword combinations). As long as your website has “text” on it you are generally not going to have any problem at all.
May the SEO Gods have pity. The worst part? They’re not nearly as bad as many other similar services.
#2 – Searches that Make a Legitimate Search Marketer Vomit with Rage
Now, not all of these are awful, but the vast majority show continued ignorance about the process of search marketing and indicate that, despite years of effort, the industry has failed to even change the dialog or vocabulary of SEM. On the plus side, the trends point to at least some decline in the use of terms like “search engine submission” and “meta tag optimization,” but we’ve still got a long way to go.
#3 – Cringe-Worthy Answer Selection
Check out the following exchange on Yahoo! Answers:
The sad part is, Vic is really trying to help, and some of his advice is even relatively good. But, the focus on meta tags as the primary ranking element at the engines recalls the mid-1990’s, yet this answer was selected only a week ago.
#4 – Hypocrisy from the Search Engine Guidelines
I know that it’s impossible for the search engines to completely limit the influence of paid links (and I’m not even sure that as a search marketer, I’d want them to), but the contrast between the links that are helping many, if not most of the sites ranking for competitive queries in specific, commercial fields and the party line – don’t buy links – are in direct conflict.
I have to agree with Dave on this one – the SERPs are, by and large, influenced, if not ruled by, financial considerations. For example, try looking at the backlinks of this search:
Honestly, I had trouble identifying a single link to any of those sites that appeared to be editorially given. Granted, in the grand scheme of misinformation about search engines, this is probably the least offensive, but it certainly makes it very challenging for a new entrant to the field to understand how the search engines can claim one position, threaten actions against violators and yet appear to be all but enthralled by those who practice that same technique.
#5 – Wikipedia’s Error of Omission
As most folks know, I’m not a big fan of Wikipedia. However, I was somewhat optimistic about the promotion of the Search Engine Optimization (link condom again) article to the home page yesterday. However, despite the article’s relative accuracy and balance, the lack of any information about how search engines rank web pages and how SEO is actually performed left me severely disappointed. What better opportunity to educate and inform the myriad of visitors (and searchers, as the piece still ranks atop queries for SEO & Search Engine Optimization) seeking information about the practice than here?
It’s sad to think that in spite of hard work by good folks like Jon Hochman, the piece still can’t deliver a succinct look at what to expect from an SEO and what to consider if you’re taking on the project yourself. The bickering over accuracy and bias eventually removed entire sections that could have provided some insight and background for those poor souls.
So what are we to do, fellow SEOs? After 10 years of attempting to educate the outside world, is it time to give up the game and just accept the fact that SEO will always have negative, inaccurate associations and a shroud of mystery? Or… are there new approaches that could be taken to better inform a clearly curious and often desperate public?
