You can’t say I didnt offer.

If new content is not generated, and links are bought – how could a site do anything but rank only whilst they pay an SEO. No one seems to be doing any work (after the initial on-site stuff) with long-term benefit. I’m happy to see evidence against this.

I am not an SEO, I’m going only on the work I’ve seen done for my clients and what they have told me they have been sold compared to what has actually been done.

If I’m missing a big area of the work and it is long lasting, fair enough, please point me to evidence and I’ll happily recommend clients hire the companies who do such a thing.

“To advise and lead is the modern SEO’s job, not simply to accept medicore and crap text you read from a book (You’re the one that said you got your SEO form a book. I hate to say it mate, but if you learn this gig from a book, then you’re crap and I for one hail that. I much prefer to NOT have talented competition)”

Surely the reason you don’t need to learn it from a book is because it’s so simple, and not a technical skill. How long would it really take you to teach someone everything they need to know? Books on it just end up as padding after padding (with the exception of David George’s book, who actually seems to know his stuff).

I’m not an SEO myself, I just learnt the skills as I was looking into promoting my own site, and was shocked how spammy the whole thing was, even by supposedly reputable companies.

“I actually think your views aren’t that different from mine, I just use more colourful language and you’re anally retentive.”

Personally, I think it’s useful to have paradigms to work from. It’s how logic works. If we don’t agree on the definition of a main term, then it’s pointless moving on anywhere else in a discussion.

A few things.

1stly and most importantly,

I, and I don’t believe anyone else other than YOU, in this thread, has said anything about taking a client’s money and running / spamming / only ranking while they pay us etc etc etc.

That includes giving and/or not giving full disclosure about what is being undertaken including defining and stating risks and rewards with the client looking at the options, recomendations and making the decision based on a risk reward strategy.

But all of that sounds far too corporate for me to say in blog comment, but I tell you what, everyone in this thread who I’ve seen work (and its most, if not all of them) would be the consumate professional with their clients. Whether that be an internal or external client or even themselves as the client!

Let me put this to you. If you DON’T tell the client the strategy that has massive risk yet humungous rewards, then that is very very very wrong too!

To advise and lead is the modern SEO’s job, not simply to accept medicore and crap text you read from a book (You’re the one that said you got your SEO form a book. I hate to say it mate, but if you learn this gig from a book, then you’re crap and I for one hail that. I much prefer to NOT have talented competition)

2ndly, Re Wikipedia

Wikipedia is full of SEOs, based on your viewpoints I wouldn’t trust it too much

3rdly, re Wikipeda Definition

I actually don’t have an issue with that definition but here is the truth of the matter. If you consciously go out of your way, whether it be adapting the title tag, or abusing 1,000,000 3rd party blogs for links, to gain a foothold in the SERPs then it’s abuse of a 3rd party’s websites’ algorithmn (the search engine)

I know I’ve been VERY consistent in this view. The photo above is dated (and it’s me with Danny Sullivan and Brett Tabke, the joint godfather’s of search marketing) and my mention of this exact same viewpoint from the excellent and well missed Threadwatch almost 5 years ago can be seen by what is now Europe’s largest search business.

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/5677#comment-34539

Ergo it’s SPAM!

I will admit that there are different levels of SPAM but just like there are thousands of different types of salami, all catering to the myriad of tastes, that doesn’t stop one man’s chopped meat and ham NOT being SPAM.

Do you like a bland plain smoked pork sausage – salami
Do you like a blow your head off chilli fuelled beast – salami
Do you want more or less Paprika – salami, salami, salami

Let me put this out to you – My contact details are out there and real. Let’s have a chinwag on the phone, let’s get to know each other, let’s discuss, laugh, disagree and have a discussion.

I actually think your views aren’t that different from mine, I just use more colourful language and you’re anally retentive.

BTW that’s nothing wrong with being Anal, some of the best spammers I know are as well

If you agree that it’s spam, fair enough. At least you’re honest. More than most!

Personally I stand by Wikipedia’s definition of SEO – “Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of improving the visibility of a web site or a web page in search engines via the “natural” or un-paid (“organic” or “algorithmic”) search results.” – but that’s semantics and beside the point.

If you believe that SEO is just ranking during the time a client pays you, rather than improving a site’s code and content for permanent benefit, would you not say that pages like this which are arguing over on-site dev issues (as most SEO blogs seem to be) are ultimately pointless and just an attempt to disguise from the spamming links side? Perhaps an attempt to make the job look as if it’s skilled technical work, worth the costs, rather than something anyone can do with a few hours training?

Ultimately, if SEO gained permanent links, then a monthly fee would be out of the question as natural links do not fall away so fast. Is this why crappy links and spamming seem to be favoured, because long lasting links would mean the SEO was no longer required?

(Again, if an SEO here does not just spam crappy links, please give an example of your success – as I’d be interested to see it and am willing to change my opinion if given evidence)

SL .com shows how wrong you are about what SEO is about. It is about defining a target, winning it and delivering against it. SL .com site does that.

Re Bateman. As a man I wouldn’t call myself a Mr Bate, but I do yearn back to the times of youth, of being a Master Baiter. Now whether that be for links, or self fulfillment, I’ll let you decide.

Rhys, Dude, Mate, Pal,

Wake up and smell the PG Tips and full English fry up.

Let me explain SEO 101 (to coin an American phrase) to you.

Find a topic, have some fun with it, and then see where it gets you. If it works, rinse & repeat. If not then keep on trying.

As to that being Spam, well I think I can live with that -http://equitymind.blogspot.com/2005/10/danny-sullivan-and-brett-tabke-embrace.html

My point was that SEOs do not tell people what exactly it is that they are doing. They distract that it is technical “you couldn’t possibly understand” on-site stuff, when in fact it is mostly just spamming for bad or paid links and thus very temporary results. I would say unless a client is told this, then the practise is incredibly dishonest.

“Dude, look at the name of the job title. Optimise for the Search Engines – IE Rank! NOT Optimise to the specifications that the search engines tell you to.”

Most people are sold on it meaning optimising the site’s code, not getting them as many links as possible. Often they are blinded with science, even though SEO theory is simple to explain in layman’s terms. People think they are paying for permanence, when their results will vanish quickly.

If SEO just means “rank”, then why do SEO books focus on the optimisation of the site. Link building is not optimisation, it is spamming. As I mentioned, if it is not – give me examples.

There *is* a skill in building a site with strong code and link structure, however I see your own site is built entirely in images with no alt tags – so I’m assuming that you don’t value accessibility or on-site SEO much in the work you do?

What would you say your specialist skills are in your work that your clients could not do for themselves?

RE: “re Vomit Comment: The more you dislike it the less competition I have. This means more results for me, less for you and a fatter wallet every day.”

I was vomiting at the fact that you can seriously judge things on how much money they make you personally, and nothing to do with SEO. I can understand people enjoying the challenge and statistics of SEO, though you appear to be rather more Patrick Bateman in your reasons for doing it.

You also say, “point me to an example of their work where they have given a site perfect on-site SEO / created interesting content and haven’t just linked to them from thousands of russian directories, I’ll be flabbergasted.”

Dude, look at the name of the job title. Optimise for the Search Engines – IE Rank!

NOT Optimise to the specifications that the search engines tell you to.

thankyou