SEO dead?
-
What does everyone think about this article?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkrogue/2 … l-content/
I tend to think its off base, Link building still works and there are tons of things that have to do with SEO that have nothing to do with link building...
I think its actually quite ridiculous and written by people that actually no nothing about SEO...kind of a lame attempt by Forbes, and if anything at all, this is just forbes practicing "SEO" with a link attraction post like this. Becase SEO, is NOT dead
-
The death of SEO has been greatly exaggerated at least as far back as 1997: https://plus.google.com/117235644077949816393/posts/ccq57PqfYXm
h/t: Wil Reynolds
I think EGOL's comment ends the debate.
-
Totally agreed - we did go back and optimize once our website went live.
-
Yes you are correct it is anathema. However it was the best use of our time with the resources we had when we were getting started.
We have gone back and optimized our site. But we knew we could more/quicker results with the path we took. Also, early on we started with a series of landing pages rather than a website - tested the concept (incl. PPC) and validated our hypothesis before we built a website.
But that definitely has me thinking that I should also go back and give PPC another try now that there is a website backing it up.
And finally another reason was that all of our clients were teachers. They were looking for freebies but we found that many would not complete reg - no matter what method we used. They weren't sure of who we were - brand new to the education vertical - so even if we did rank on Google I don't think it would have mattered much at that time (now it does).
So partnering with a 20+ year education industry veterans gave us the street cred. with the teachers. Also, teachers hearing from influencers in education were more likely to sign up rather than going through a Google search or PPC.
The first 6 - 9 months were really about the word or mouth credibility that came from partners and influencers that got us the biggest return.
-
Nice work on making this successful without search engines.
It's not too late to optimize those pages. You might make a lot more money.
-
EGOL,
As to forbes and you doing the SEO: I have sent them a letter telling them they would!
-
Ryan, as usual you and EGOL do a masterful job here. I do want to add one thing though: While Ken and Adam may have never heard of you, I have. This was an attempt at getting links by a couple of pikers. Sorry, that's how I see it. Frankly, I think:
THE UNINFORMED POSTING STUPID BLOGS TO OLD MEDIA SITES FOR LINKS IS DEAD!!!
Was tempted to link to something here.....
-
I was going to ignore all until I read this, so I will respond to the thread separately.
But, in your response to Igor, you state you essentially ignored on page optimization, failed at PPC, and used no PR agency. (and no bought links).
Then you state you did other marketing outside of web based: relationships, events, conferences and that worked.
So, here is my question: If you were going to go to this tremendous effort (and include social, content, etc. What was the purpose/reason for not doing on page optimization utilizing key words significant to the page?)
Do you get business from your site? Is it driven by a query on a search engine?To go to the trouble of creating dynamic content and then ignore basic SEO is anathema to me.
I did like all the rest though.
-
Don't worry Igor - SEO isn't dead but the way we do SEO is always evolving. I have "tested" lots of ways to do SEO - some good and some not so good.
But I have arrived at what I know works and the Fortune article is correct IMO on a couple of items.
I launched a new brand about 1-1/2 years ago. We were able to put over 100,000 users on the product, get over 220 earned press mentions (without a PR agency) and win 3 industry awards within 11 months.
What did I NOT do?
- I didn't even optimize the web pages for search terms.
- I tried PPC and it failed miserably - the vertical I was going after apparently hates PPC - go figure.
- No PR agency - they are overpriced and get so-so results. Sorry just my experience working with 4 of them.
- I didn't buy even one link.
What did we do? Exactly what the Fortune article points out and a few extras....
- Our biggest winner by far was building relationships with other companies (20 years in the industry) in the vertical we were new to. It now provides anywhere from 30 - 50% of all of our new users.
- A solid Content Marketing strategy. We created solid value and content and packed the site full of extremely valuable Free Resources. We hired an expert in the vertical and they did webinars and events for the new partners at no cost - we re-purposed this content and dropped it onto social sites as well as our site. We had a blog that was updated regularly with industry relevant info etc etc etc
- As far as outreach we had a strong social media plan and a dedicated and an experienced social manager. We were able to connect and build online relationships that translated into many articles, back links and natural SEO which was always our goal. No link building was done at all beyond the natural links we received.
- We attended industry events and conferences and had speakers at all of the events. We had booths at the events and had pre, during and post event strategies ready to go weeks before the events. We even had a guide of the top 15 infuencers that we wanted to meet and everyone from our company had a picture, bio and knew the "likes and dislikes" of each influencer. We connected with 12 of them at one event - this resulted in tweets, FB engagement, blog posts etc. = links (natural SEO).
These were just a few of the tactics and strategies we used. Did it support SEO for us? Sure, in the new sense of the word. I think SEO is evolving and getting truly engaged in your niche, vertical and industry are key. Find the thing that you really want to drive to be the best in and go for it. I think this is the new SEO - you will get links that you could have never bought, you will get exposure that a PR firm could have never secured and by gosh you may even succeed
-
"SEO is dead" is the internet version of the boy who cried wolf.
What it takes to create a well optimized website is constantly changing and expanding, but that's not necessarily a bad thing IMO.
-
It was a shoot-from-the-hip article done with zero research so that yada yada yada writing could get him content in under an hour.
Same type of content as discussed here...
http://www.seomoz.org/q/i-want-to-know-if-this-is-bogus-or-not
-
I agree with EGOL on everything and will elaborate a bit more and cross some lines.
Forbes is a very high profile publication, but if you think about it when was the last time you performed a search and found a Forbes article as the top result? As a company, Forbes does not perform as well as it could or should in search. They have no expertise in SEO and as EGOL suggested, they could benefit from some SEO advice.
So who wrote the article? Ken Krogue. Who is he? According to his own bio, "I'm a serial entrepreneur with a short attention span, so I need things to work really fast. " Is that the kind of person you want to take SEO advice from?
So is there ANY basis whatsoever for making such a claim? The only logical reason is the guy wanted a headline, and it worked. He claims the basis of the article is a conversation with Adam Torkildson, "one of the top SEO consultants in Utah". OK.
Well I never heard of Adam which is fine. He probably has never heard of me either. I was curious to find out about him and where better then the About page on his own site: http://adamtorkildson.com/about-2/. Umm...there is nothing really helpful there. His site is very basic, but who am I to judge since my site is still under construction.
According to his LinkedIn page, he is a PR Coordinator, although he previously worked for SEO.com. I am still trying to understand how the Forbes author felt a person who presently is employed as a PR Coordinator would be a great source for the statement "SEO will be dead in 2 years". Oh wait....I just found something. He is a PLUS author on EZine.
I do not ever wish to share anything negative about any person or company, especially in our industry, but when you make such a statement as "SEO will be dead in two years" you are truly opening yourself up to ridicule.
Here is what Matt Cutts has to share on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQArUFRb4Is
So the question to you is...who do you find more credible? Matt Cutts or the others?
-
As long as there are search engines, a person who understands how they work will have an enormous advantage over the ignorant person who just tosses up a website.
I bet Forbes.com would get a lot more traffic if I was doing their SEO.
-
Hoping its not true, as I am investing a ton of time and money to learn SEO...
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Disavow or not? Negative SEO
Since last November we have been receiving a lot of low quality backlinks from over 700 websites. It looks like one of our pages from our website has been copied with the links being kept as they are. I have left a link to an example of this here: https://goo.gl/eWQODJ Please note, all examples seem to be copied in the same way. We have also started seeing a decrease in the amount of organic traffic (Analytics Picture), As you can see the decrease is not yet so drastically high, but it is still a decrease and this is the third consecutive month we have seen this decrease. Do you think it is worth it to use Disavow tool for all of these bad link or not? uuuLt
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Tiedemann_Anselm1 -
SEO results hacked?
Hi there, Since last Saturday I noticed a big traffic drop on at least the following two pages:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MarcelMoz
http://www.smartphonehoesjes.nl/apple/ and http://www.smartphonehoesjes.nl/apple/iphone-6/. I did some research and I noticed something realy strange. Unknown sites seems to hijacked my organic results by using the exact same page title and META description but leading traffic to another their domain. Look at those pictures: http://imgur.com/v6kglLU and http://imgur.com/Whx4l8K. Edit: a competitor seems to have a same problem: http://imgur.com/Zzhter4. I just fetched both URL's in GWT as Google. In Bing there is a little sign of this problem too, so this is not a Google only thing. Can anybody please help me here? This has cost me some real money since Saturday. Tnx in advance. Marcel0 -
Black Hat SEO Case Study - Private Link Network - How is this still working?
I have been studying my competitor's link building strategies and one guy (affiliate) in particular really caught my attention. He has been using a strategy that has been working really well for the past six months or so. How well? He owns about 80% of search results for highly competitive keywords, in multiple industries, that add up to about 200,000 searches per month in total. As far as I can tell it's a private link network. Using Ahref and Open Site Explorer, I found out that he owns 1000s of bought domains, all linking to his sites. Recently, all he's been doing is essentially buying high pr domains, redesigning the site and adding new content to rank for his keywords. I reported his link-wheel scheme to Google and posted a message on the webmaster forum - no luck there. So I'm wondering how is he getting away with this? Isn't Google's algorithm sophisticated enough to catch something as obvious as this? Everyone preaches about White Hat SEO, but how can honest marketers/SEOs compete with guys like him? Any thoughts would be very helpful. I can include some of the reports I've gathered if anyone is interested to study this further. thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | howardd0 -
Changes to SEO with disavow?
Has the game changed a lot with the disavow tool I can see people still saying check out what our competitors are doing but with just going through a disavow myself how do you actually know what the correct link diversity is as 0 - 100% of the links could be disavowed. Also could a competitor not just buy a load of spammy links and disavow them to mask there real links. (I know in my backlinks on 150 are good and the rest is disavowed crap)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Redirecting an image url to a more SEO friendly image url
We are currently trying to find the best way of making the images on one of our sites more SEO friendly, the easiest way for us would be to redirect the image URL to a more SEO friendly image URL. For example: http://www.website.com/default/cache/file/F8325DA-0A9A-437F-B5D0A4255A066261_medium.jpg redirects to http://www.website.com/default/cache/file/spiral-staircase.jpg Would Google frown upon this as it's saying the image is one thing and then points the user somewhere else?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RedAntSolutions0 -
SEO expert advice needed :)
So I have a niche site that I'm pretty sure has received an over-optimization penalty. This was about nine months ago or so. I haven’t really done much with the site since however I’d like the site to start appearing in the serps again, as I am adding fresh content and trying to create a really useful resource. I don't appear in the serps for any keywords related to my niche anymore. The site IS still indexed though. I didn't get any messages telling me that I was penalized so I don't think it was manual. I didn't use any spam or anything like that but I believe the penalty was probably for anchor text over-optimization and/or too many links to non-home page urls in comparison to the total amount of links the site had. I know removing these links or changing the anchor can help but the thing is the site only has about 30 total linking root domains pointed at it. So I was wondering if I could just add more links to other pages/the home page and add more links with varied anchors/naked urls to change the ratios and make it appear more natural. Now, would/could this fix my penalty? I am frustrated that I even received a penalty at all because much of my competition is ranking for fairly competitive terms with no real solid links pointed at their site and tons of comment spam. I have some relevant links/quality links so I am hoping that fixing this penalty could help put me back where I was before I got knocked into oblivion. There is one example of a competitor with a PR0 site getting good traffic and ranking for some nice keywords with only a bunch of self-set up web properties (and some comment spam) containing one only page for the purpose of linking back to their money site (blogspot, wordpress, weebly, mywebstarts ect). On top of that a lot of the sites I'm competing again are MFA, garbage sites that are written by non-native English speakers that offer zero value to the visitor. I need to start out ranking these spammers again. What should I do? thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jmckiernan86_gmail.com0 -
Same content, different target area SEO
So ok, I have a gambling site that i want to target for Australia, Canada, USA and England separately and still have .com for world wide (or not, read further).The websites content will basically stays the same for all of them, perhaps just small changes of layout and information order (different order for top 10 gambling rooms) My question 1 would be: How should I mark the content for Google and other search engines that it would not be considered "duplicate content"? As I have mentioned the content will actually BE duplicate, but i want to target the users in different areas, so I believe search engines should have a proper way not to penalize my websites for trying to reach the users on their own country TLDs. What i thought of so far is: 1. Separate webmasterstools account for every domain -> we will need to setup the user targeting to specific country in it.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SEO_MediaInno
2. Use the hreflang tags to indicate, that this content is for GB users "en-GB" the same for other domains more info about it http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=189077
3. Get the country specific IP address (physical location of the server is not hugely important, just the IP)
4. It would be great if the IP address for co.uk is from different C-class than the one for the .com Is there anything I am missing here? Question 2: Should i target .com for USA market or is there some other options? (not based in USA so i believe .us is out of question) Thank you for your answers. T0 -
Yet another Negative SEO attack question.
I need help reconciling two points of view on spammy links. On one hand, Google seems to say, "Don't build spammy links to your website - it will hurt your ranking." Of course, we've seen the consequences of this from the Penguin update, of those who built bad links got whacked. From the Penguin update, there was then lots of speculation of Negative SEO attacks. From this, Google is saying, "We're smart enough to detect a negative SEO attack.", i.e: http://youtu.be/HWJUU-g5U_I So, its seems like Google is saying, "Build spammy links to your website in an attempt to game rank, and you'll be penalized; build spammy links to a competitors website, and we'll detect it and not let it hurt them." Well, to me, it doesn't seem like Google can have it both ways, can they? Really, I don't understand why Competitor A doesn't just go to Fiverr and buy a boatload of crappy exact match anchor links to Competitor B in an attempt to hurt Competitor B. Sure, Competitor B can disavow those links, but that still takes time and effort. Furthermore, the analysis needed for an unsophisticated webmaster could be daunting. Your thoughts here? Can Google have their cake and eat it too?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ExploreConsulting0