Years ago I first encountered a mysterious acronym: SEO. I bristled when I learned what it meant: Search Engine Optimization. The term can be both innocuous and poisonous. In its innocuous form, it means, quite simply, presenting your site in a way that is most likely to lead to prominent placement in search results. In its poisonous form, it means deceiving the algorithms search engines use, in essence, tricking the search engines into listing your site when they shouldn’t.
That the latter connotation has become the primary meaning of the term is unfortunate, as there is a legitimate role in web design and development for tuning your website for maximum effectiveness in search engine listings. Doing it the right way does not involve gaming the system. In fact, the principles of sound search engine optimization aren’t really about search engines at all: they’re simply rules of good design, ensuring that your site is well-formed, well-organized and intuitive. In short, the best honest ways of appealing to a search engine’s algorithms are going to be the same ways of appealing to the real target of your website: human users. After all, the goal of a search engine like Google is to deliver the most relevant results to its users. And if your site isn’t relevant to a particular user, it shouldn’t be coming up in their search results anyway.
Derek Powazek has an excellent blog entry called Spammers, Evildoers and Opportunists that pulls no punches in criticizing the dark side of SEO. So much so, in fact, that one questions whether there is any other side to it. Ultimately, maybe not. The question then is what to call the best practices in web design and development that just happen to also be the most effective legitimate ways to optimize your site for search engine placement. I don’t have an answer, but I have to admit that after reading his blog, I’m reluctant to use the term “Search Engine Optimization” any longer.
Some background here: for the past year or so I’ve been including a brief section in all proposals I’ve created for new clients, entitled “Search Engine Optimization,” wherein I talk about these best practices, criticize unscrupulous SEO tactics, and give my recommendations for how best to build a website (in ways that also just happen to be good for search engine placement). I give this information away for free. I do, however, charge my clients for work I do to these ends. It’s not smoke and mirrors, and it’s not snake oil. But it is actual work, it does take time, and if it’s not something the client can or will do for themselves, then it’s something I need to bill them for. Powazek says:
Look under the hood of any SEO plan and you’ll find advice like this: make sure to use keywords in the headline, use proper formatting, provide summaries of the content, include links to relevant information. All of this is a good idea, and none of it is a secret. It’s so obvious, anyone who pays for it is a fool.
Right on, brother. But here’s the thing: while I will gladly share this information with any client for free, there is still work involved to implement these ideas. And if I’m the one doing the work, I bill for it, just like any other work I do. I believe what he’s really criticizing is the practice of charging simply for sharing this information. Much like the late-night infomercials that promise riches in real estate, the real get-rich-quick scheme is in selling the information itself; the person who’s going to get rich is the one selling training books and videos, not land.
Let the information be free. Here, word for word, is the information I include in every proposal I write:
Search Engine Optimization
“Search Engine Optimization” (SEO) is a common buzzword today, but what does it really mean? Many web consultants will offer “advanced SEO techniques” and submission to thousands of search engines. But most of these techniques are dubious at best, and most of the thousands of search engines are irrelevant to directing significant traffic to a website.
Ultimately there are a few simple principles that, when implemented on a website, will help to ensure the site receives proper placement in the search results of the most popular search engines, like Google, Yahoo! and MSN. Because the principles are so basic, and correspond so closely with the principles of simple, clean, well-organized web design in general, Room 34 offers these recommendations, free of charge, as a standard part of all website proposals:
Title Bar
The web browser’s title bar is easy to ignore, but a well-structured page title is one of the most important ways to ensure that your site is listed prominently in search engine results. The title should be clear, relevant, detailed, and specific. Each page of the site should have a title that accurately reflects what is on the page. The page title should begin with this specific information, followed by general information that is the same for every page: your business name, the nature of your business, and if relevant, your city and state.
Meta Tags
Meta tags do not appear anywhere on the web page, but they are included in the HTML header of the page to assist search engines in identifying the relevance of a web page if its textual content does not fully reflect its purpose. There are two primary meta tags used by search engines: keywords and description. Keywords is a comma-separated list of words or phrases that describe the content of your page. The description is a sentence or two that can be used in search engine results to summarize the content of your page. Meta tags should be as concise and accurate as possible. Excessive repetition of terms, or content that does not accurately reflect what is on the page will hurt search engine rankings rather than help them.
Semantic HTML
Semantic HTML means HTML that is built to reflect the logical structure of a web page document, with visual presentation separated into CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) rather than embedded within the HTML. Fonts, colors and visual layout elements should be restricted to the CSS. HTML tables should be used for tabular information only, not layout and positioning. The content of the page within the HTML should be organized such that the page is logical and readable with CSS turned off. Also, it is increasingly important that documents be formated with valid XHTML rather than older HTML specifications. Pages should be checked against an XHTML validator (http://validator.w3.org) to ensure accuracy.
Accessibility
Building web pages with proper accessibility for visually-impaired visitors also helps to ensure a semantic HTML structure that will improve search engine rankings. All images and other visual content should include “alt” text. Content that requires Flash, JavaScript or other browser plug-ins should also include a standard fallback version to allow them to “degrade gracefully” for screen readers, browsers without these add-on features, mobile devices, and search engines. By organizing features like site navigation into standard HTML unordered lists instead of elaborate table layouts or Flash elements, pages will be both more widely accessible and more relevant in search engine results.
Relevant Links
Most modern search engines like Google use cross-site links as an indication of a site’s popularity and relevance in a particular field. By exchanging meaningful links with relevant sites in a particular field, a site can improve its search engine results. There may be a temptation here to exchange links with sites that are simply aggregators of links. This might provide a temporary boost to search engine placement, but ultimately if the links are not on sites that offer real live users a meaningful web experience, they will not provide long-term benefit. Before exchanging links with another site, consider whether or not it is a site you would visit and trust as a resource. If not, it is probably not worth the effort.
No Magic Bullet
There is no secret weapon to ensure top search engine placement. Many promises of search engine optimization rely on short-term “gaming” of a search engine’s relevance ranking algorithms. But just as the “gamers” evolve their tactics, the search engines are constantly being enhanced to counteract them. Ultimately the best way to ensure long-term relevance within search engine listings is to stick to the principles of well-organized, validated XHTML documents and meaningful content.
Comments
15 responses to “Search Engine Optimization (SEO): the good, the bad and the (mostly) ugly”
Scott, this is a fantastic post, and probably what I should have written. Thanks for writing it.
I especially like the way you’re educating your clients on what “SEO” really is. Well done.
Derek,
Thanks for your feedback. A few things I’m thinking about now as I reread this:
1) The standard bit from my proposals probably needs sone updating. It was written in a pre-Bing, pre-HTML 5 (at least pre-HTML 5-being-relevant) era.
2) I should clarify that I charge clients for this SEO work only when I’m renovating an existing website. On a new project, it’s simply a given that these principles will be incorporated into how I design and build the website.
Definitely well said.
We have been throwing around new copy for our own site, which is going to be redesigned this month to include these best practices in “SEO”. (I started a company in February, and rushed to get something up, but now have to compete with the web design companies who don’t do their jobs well, but get all of the jobs, because my site as it stands is invisible, so we are pushing to make it “findable”).
I stick with calling this service “findability” or “improving findability”… I think its catchy, and makes sense to clients.
I’d like to see it adapted more outward from ALA, even though it was just a made up word from this article.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/findabilityorphan/
For others directed to your post from Derek’s and by your well written article, I recommend Aaron’s Walters book:
http://www.amazon.com/Building-Findable-Websites-Standards-Beyond/dp/0321526287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255502872&sr=8-1
I agree with Derek that this is the post he should have written. But calling a lot of good people cockroaches, bastards, evildoers, spammers, and jerkwads (sorry if I missed any) gets more attention than a fair and well thought out post like this one. I do think the issue is a little deeper than you present, though. In almost any field there are basic principles. Do the right thing and you won’t need PR or lawyers. Eat right and exercise and you won’t need a doctor. Build a great product and tell people and you won’t need marketing, write good code and test it yourself and you won’t need QA. Like most things, the basics get you pretty far, the snake oil salesmen will try to steal you blind, and you may be able to benefit from genuine experts who specialize in an area that to you looks like a 10 minute course. But thank you for the intelligent post and I hope we can all keep the discussion on this level of exchanging ideas with mutual respect. Thank you.
Great article Scott!
Derek… I agree, you should have written this first :-p (ha ha). I read your article and I was upset at first until I started reading further and then into your comments…
I personally like to look at SEO as a intricate part of SEM. Marketing is how we help our clients increase leads and sales. In order to do that optimally we need to have our clients as high up in the SERPs as possible, all while implementing White Hat Techniques such as the ones you have listed in your proposals. I think where things get a little sketchy is when you have clients that are hounding you to rank for 50 or 100 different terms that all rank page 1 in the SERPs… not gonna happen with Short Tail Keywords! Do the keyword research and locate the top 2-3 keywords that have the highest Search Volume… target those while implementing White Hat Techniques and let the chips fall where they may!
Great Article!!
– Ed
You say “let the information be free” as if it isn’t. As if there are all these evil SEO people locking it up in vaults and charging you vast fortunes to get at it.
But guess what: there is no information conspiracy here. The information is free and available anywhere. I first got interested in SEO when I bought a used “SEO for Dummies” book on Half.com, but even that was $8 more than I needed to pay as I’ve since found most of it online.
But just like the gym trainer who uses common sense and general info, there are honest SEO consultants whose job it is to keep you on track and offer common sense advice. They’re not selling keys to some secret kingdom, they’re assisting and consulting.
Keep in mind that when you’re working on a website larger than a blog, other SEO strategies and issues come into play. Sometimes entire sites have to be moved to new platforms, and a redirect strategy is required. Sometimes business partners ask design teams to do something that isn’t search-engine friendly and you need an SEO specialist to devise a workable solution. Right now, I’m trying to find fix the problem of my company’s multiple geo-specific URLs so that our content doesn’t get indexed multiple times.
You and Derek have spent a lot of energy attacking what you rightly see as the bad side of SEO — the salepeople who are out for a quick buck. But there really is more to the industry than that, I promise you, and you’d do well not to tar everyone with the same thick brush.
I think some of the comments on Derek’s original post hit on the key to this debate, or at least to why it quickly becomes so heated: it’s really all about semantics. To one person “Search Engine Optimization” means best practices, and to another it means gaming the system. Hence the tension.
However, I do have a bit of trouble grasping the concept of someone specializing in SEO, to the exclusion of any other skills. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that I am dealing mostly with small- to mid-sized clients who do not have the budget to hire a roomful of consultants at a collective rate of thousands of dollars per hour, each offering their own narrowly-specialized skill set. I’m dealing with clients who, for the most part, are working with me for the whole shebang. I’m often collaborating with another designer, but in most cases I’m doing everything else: HTML/CSS build-out (which inherently incorporates so-called “white hat” SEO), functional development, server admin, DNS configuration, Google Analytics/Webmaster Tools set-up. And, of course, project management.
I wear many hats in my daily interactions with my clients and their projects. SEO is in there, but it’s just a small part of what I do. Because I’m used to dealing with projects of this scale, it’s almost impossible for me to fathom being in a situation where SEO would be a full-time job. And, frankly, I find it a depressing thought, but that’s mostly because I like my work to be varied, and I like to be involved in the full scope of a project. I like working on my own and being able to take on whatever the client needs, rather than parceling out specific tasks to a group of people who each just work in their one narrow area of expertise.
At least, that’s how I perceive it, because that’s how it would feel to me if I were the one doing it. I disparage it because I would personally find it an unpleasant way to work, but I realize that I am probably different from a lot of people who work in the field, and that’s OK.
“Scott, this is a fantastic post, and probably what I should have written. Thanks for writing it.” – Derek Powazek
Unfortunately you don’t have the intelligence or the self control to pull something like that off. Way to piggy back on someone else’s opinion there guy.
I’ve got one for Scott though:
We supply our clients with about 3X more free information than that of what you posted. We, like most of the SEO firms out there (you know, the ones that work with Microsoft, Dell, Expedia, MTV, Sony, Delta etc) work in all facets of online marketing (app creation, smm, paid advert, media buys, mobile, seo etc) as well as web design, web development and offline marketing.
All of these areas I work with on a daily basis, but you know what? I’m an SEO. That’s my job title. Am I going to put that on my business card? No. Are all of those areas part of my job? Yes. That’s why people get upset when mouthbreathers like Derek Powazek spew inane waffle to the masses. His knowledge of SEO is circa 2003 at best and helps perpetuate a negative stereotype that he himself has helped create. I’ve known plenty of web designers and developers who have screwed their fair share of clients over during my many years in the industry, much more so than any SEO company I have come across. You will always get what you pay for. Want eLocal to do good SEO for you for $100 a month. Good luck with that. If you base your opinion on an entire industry off a few bad eggs that populate every single facet of business the world over, I feel extremely sorry for you.
And BTW Powazek, D. Sullivan fucking OWNED you:
http://searchengineland.com/seo-faq-thats-not-from-the-land-of-un
Also Scott, as an act of good faith, Powazek has refused to post any comments from people defending SEO (even if they don’t advertise their site through a link), only from those who bash the industry. I know, as I’ve tried to comment numerous times but have had my comments removed. That’s what I call a healthy dialogue.
It is a shame that Derek has taken down so many good comments. It would have been a much healthier debate. Cheers to Scott for being bigger than that.
Search Engine’s generally don’t look at the Meta Keyword tag – Google does not at all and Yahoo at least claimed not too (http://searchengineland.com/sorry-yahoo-you-do-index-the-meta-keywords-tag-27743)
While I agree with much of what you say (most of the time SEO is fairly straightforward) you’re missing concepts like robots.txt, .htaccess, page rank funneling, keyword research etc etc.
A lot of what I do involves fixing things created by designers, which would probably not be required if the designers had a basic understanding of SEO.
But I think what the SEO industry is basically saying boils down to the following:
1. SEO is not ALWAYS as simple as you are saying it is
2. MOST websites are not ‘out of the box’ optimized as much as they could be due web designers lack of SEO knowledge.
3. If SEO is not as simple as you say it is, and SEO’s can deliver increases in traffic that result in higher revenue for clients – then it is a worthwhile industry.
I love what you’ve written here, and I’m in a very similar boat to yourself: I build websites, and these techniques are part of what I do to try to be as good as I can be at my job.
FWIW, I’d absolutely concur with Tony Krol above: the word you’re looking for might be “findability”.
Just like good web design involves usability and accessibility, at least from a business perpective, findability is just as important. And, just like there are usability specialists and accessibility specialists who don’t ever fire up Photoshop, so is there room for genuine findability specialists. Me, I like to dabble in all of them as best I can.
If there were get-rich-quick schemes to be made out of usability and accessibility, I imagine we’d have similar problems there too.
I honestly believe the main reason people hate SEO is that they are so frustrated. I actually feel for you.
If you don’t believe you can rank for the good stuff (the big keywords) of course you’ll hate it. Because you’re fighting over the scraps. And the majority of people fighting for the scraps aren’t even going to come up with a result.
That’s the nature of search. You have an incredible number of people competing for just a few spots. So unless you are among the top few in your industry of course you will get disgruntled especially if you’re paying someone to deliver that result. But you have to realize that you MUST hire the absolute best people because there are just a handful of spots available that count.
If these SEO haters KNEW beyond the shadow of a doubt that they had the skills or the people to outrank the big boys for the big money terms, would they still be shouting about how evil SEO is?
…probably not.
I can see your point, webventures. But the main reason I, at least, dislike (I won’t say “hate”) SEO is because I think it’s a red herring.
In order to justify an extra expense for SEO, you have to convince your client that they need prominent search engine listings, and that’s not necessarily the case. There are plenty of other ways people get to a website besides Google.
It depends a lot on the client, of course. If your client is an absolute unknown, then the search engine rank is going to be pretty important. But the chances of a literally unknown company achieving success solely through prominent search engine placement is almost zero anyway.
If a company has a niche and knows it well, they’ll know how to leverage it. If it’s local, they’ll promote locally. If it’s B2B, they’ll promote it in trade publications. If they’ve already got an established offline identity, they’ll promote the website through their existing channels. And of course, there’s always networking, both personal and professional. That extends online too — I’m seeing a major trend among the “big” tech bloggers saying that they’re now getting a majority of their traffic not from Google but from Twitter. And I think that trend is just going to continue.