inter:digital strategies

Well, first, read a particular August 20th article supposedly on search engine optimization.

Done?

Well, I hope that in your reading, you managed to ignore a good chunk of what was said. Although in principle the article was positive about the importance of search engine marketing, it does manage to completely miss the point. Take statements such as:

If you sell widgets, for example, you are going to need plenty of content with the word ‘widgets’ in it, said Murray.

Well, there’s SOME truth to this. If you sell widgets, you better mention widgets. But, taken literally, this statement is bound to encourage keyword stuffing of the first order.

Link popularity is also important. If there are lots of links to your site, the search engine will see your site as an authority, and that will push you up the rankings. The key is to submit your site to as many online directories as you can.

Oh, boy - let’s bring out those trucks of BS now! It’s hard to suffer through major publications which will publish something like this. Here comes a flood of people who will certainly hire Internet Advancement to do their optimization.

The article continues, paragraph after paragraph, providing incorrect or misleading information. Amongst these:

• Suggests using Google’s "link:" command to identify competitors inbound links.
• Informs the unwary reader that having "a blog with links back to your site" will push you up the ratings.
• Amongst simple steps to get ahead, it suggests registering with all the big search engines.
• "Use as many key words, including misspelt versions, as you think a potential customer is likely to put in the search box to find you."
• "Use these key words as often as possible" (although it does warn against "mindless repetition")

In general, the grossly over-simplified perspective and occasionally mis-guided advice espoused in this article is of no benefit to the search marketing industry. It’s unfortunate that this kind of article is what commonly hits the mainstream media.

For more about this topic, read the commentary at Search Engine Roundtable or review the discussion at Search Engine Watch Forums. Also note that there are some better articles available in the media - in USA Today or the Wall Street Journal.

From Patrick Gavin and Andy Hagans’ Link Building Blog comes this interesting hypothesis. Backed up with Patrick’s personal statistics showing 2600 sites approached with 133 reciprocal links accomplished, one is bound to suspect that reciprocal links are a dying custom.

And good riddance.

Patrick says that he’ll take any link he can get; and I’ll agree with that. But I certainly won’t give a link just to receive the exchange.

Why don’t I like reciprocal links?

Reciprocity is an admirable quality. If somebody has done you a favor, then it is entirely reasonable that you should do that person a favor. But this really isn’t the way reciprocal links work. Rather than being an indication of trust, friendship, or a commendation for work well done they have become a barter system to attempt to make both business more successful in search results. Linking is a corrupt currency.

Too many people go out begging for links to exchange because they are unwilling to give a link if they have not received one. I have worked on projects where clients insisted on having a page of resources to link to - but wouldn’t allow me to add any resources who hadn’t already linked to the site. This is hardly a list of resources. Instead, it’s a list of "people who’ve done me a favor".

On the plus side, at least this list of links was all relevant. However, for a very long time the page was also completely useless.

The fact is, it’s not the idea of trading links that I dislike, but the term "reciprocal link" has come to leave me feeling dirty.

So what do I do instead?

Bluntly, I link to whatever sites I feel merit a link. I link freely, with no expectations or requirements that I receive a link back. The only requirement I maintain is that a site be link-worthy. If I want a link from a site, I will email them, and request a link. I will let them know that I’ve linked to their site, and tell them why. I’ll suggest a page in specific that they may find interesting on my site. And then I’ll let it go. If they respond and give me a link, that’s great. If not; oh well. My site wasn’t good enough. I’ll need to write more content to make certain that people can find something unique and worthwhile to link to.

First and foremost, I’m concerned with making certain the content of sites I work on is of the best quality. This means that I’m not going to link to anything that falls short of my standards. I’m not interested in "reciprocal linking" - instead, I’m interested in sharing value.

So, it’s taken me awhile, but I’m finally listening to these famous video clips from Matt Cutts, and trying to draw some kind of conclusions.

Basically, as far as I can tell so far, he’s not suggesting anything really surprising. It’s essentially a beginner’s guide to Google’s search guidelines presented via video. Why is Matt doing this?

There have been a number of discussions about the value of these videos, and one big criticism has been that he really doesn’t handle anything higher level, anything really complex, etc. Well…here’s a big question:

What audience are these videos directed at?

Is Matt speaking to the professional SEO’s like those at SEOmoz, elite professionals like Aaron Wall, or Ammon Johns, Danny Sullivan - or anybody else discussed here? Or, possibly, is Matt speaking to experienced webmasters with little search engine optimization knowledge, mom and pop shops, and other beginners?

I’d argue that the entire point of these videos is to create a version of information which is more accessible to beginner SEO’s. Yep, it doesn’t cover the really in depth, difficult issues. Yep, it’s pretty basic. Yep, it may not be for you. I think that Google really wants to connect to the average webmaster - one of the many millions of designers who may be doing the wrong thing purely out of ignorance.

Does Google want to take people’s sites out of their index just because they didn’t know what was "black hat" practice? No way - they’d rather be able to focus on the real problems - people spawning thousands of spamsense sites, etc. If they can educate more webmasters about their activities and policies, they will (ideally) have fewer and fewer suspect sites due to ignorance. Problems, therefore, will become more transparent.

So, in summary, the fact that some SEO experts were disappointed in Matt’s lack of comprehensiveness is probably pretty insignificant. Matt wasn’t talking to them.