issues

This page discusses search engine optimisation myths.

It covers -

• introduction
• optimisation is the only way
• guaranteed top rankings
• for a thousand engines
• submission is the solution
• killer metadata and magic keywords
• the quick-fix deal
• all audiences are equal
• all SEO services are alike

It supplements discussion elsewhere on this site regarding search engines (and popular search terms), metadata, online resource identification and networks.

     introduction

The scepticism evident in the preceding page reflects disquiet about common SEO myths, including claims peddled very lucratively by major SEO specialists.

Much of the search engine industry is founded on myths, which often have a core of truth but frequently reflect both the credulity of the customer and the commercial interest of the SEO provider.

Those myths have provoked criticisms by regulators, by consumer advocates and by experts whose assessment is based on solid empirical research.

They have also resulted in suggestions that common sense responses to the challenges of being found online (in particular found by the right people) are likely to be more effective than expensive snake oil peddled by some SEO vendors.

Myths include -

• optimisation is the only way
• guaranteed top rankings
• optimisation for a thousand engines
• submission is the solution
• killer metadata and magic keywords
• a quick-fix deal
• all audiences are equal
• all SEO services are alike

     myth 1: optimisation is the only way

One of our more irreverent clients commented that claims by some SEO providers are reminiscent of the spam from viagra retailers that clogs her email box each day. Both are targeted to the consumer's purported inadequacy (or merely insecurity); both offer a sure-fire solution.

Some optimisation measures may well be of value. The concluding paragraphs of this page and other parts of this site for example note the significance of accessibility, including attention to compliant code and questions of navigation.

However, there are a range of ways to be found online, including 'pointers' in print formats, in other electronic media (eg television ads) and even word of mouth (distressingly old-fashioned for some pundits but, like retro attributes such as politeness and clean socks, often very effective). Not every way is best for every site and for every potential visitor. Some sites are not found through search engines or through domain names. They may instead be identified by a link in an email message, a brochure, a link from another site (particularly from a site that the viewer considers to be authoritative) or a poster on the side of a bus.

Optimisation may thus ensure a pleasant or sustained viewing experience but will not necessarily ensure that a site is found or that a site is revisited.

That is important because the 'best and only solution' message is sometimes coupled with problematical claims of guaranteed rankings.

     myth 2: guaranteed top rankings

If the early dot com business was a digital wild wild west, many SEO specialists are the snake oil vendors of silicon gulch, making claims that are simply untrue. One such claim is that 'top rankings' - often expressed as appearance in the top ten results on a search page - are "guaranteed".

Practitioners in the SEO industry can guarantee their commitment to the client and may even be able to refer to real expertise, rather than merely the ability to use buzzwords such as Web 2.0 and emulate peers in the faith-based end of the advertising industry. They cannot however guarantee that a particular optimisation will necessarily put the specific site in the top ten results - or even at the top - of all and any search results from the major search engines.

Such guarantees are a key reason why many observers regard the SEO industry with distaste and question claims of "professionalism".

Guarantees are meaningless because -

• most SEO services do not have access to specifics of (and often do not understand principles underlying) the algorithms used by the major search engines in ranking search results from their databases, algorithms that are proprietary
• those algorithms are subject to change
• those algorithms do not emphasise metadata (which thus is not a silver bullet available to SEO services
• search engines may penalise 'spamdexing', ie crude efforts to gain a higher ranking by use of 'white text' in the body of a page or recurrent use of supposed keywords in a page's metadata
• major engines such as Google are biased towards independent measures of quality such as links from 'respected' other pages (algorithms for respect discount links from simplistic link farms)
• major engines also rate sites on the basis of the 'integrity' of the site, including how long it has been online, whether it is stable, whether it has a large number of broken links or links that primarily point to sites that are not 'respected'.

An optimiser may be able to identify and resolve major structural problems, such as defective navigation between parts of a site that prevents a search engine spider from visiting every page, but cannot truly guarantee that the site will be ranked number one by all major engines in a range of searches.

In essence, an SEO service can only ensure that a site is compatible for gaining high positions in search engine rankings. There is only one sure way to appear at or near the top of a list of results on a commercial search engine: that is to pay the engine's fee and to keep on paying for paid placement. The downside of paid placement is that some users, who might be your target audience, will recognise paid placement as advertising and react accordingly.

     myth 3: for a thousand engines

It is common to encounter claims that an SEO service will optimise a site for a thousand search engines and alert those engines to the site's existence or significance.

As discussed elsewhere, there is disagreement about the number of online site directories and engines. It is clear that there are a large number of directories, some of which are quite specialised and highly credible. There are also a few hundred 'whole of web' search engines (somewhat fewer than the 2,500+ engines hyped in SEO promotional literature and many being targeted at languages other than English).

In practice, a handful of those directories and engines -

• garner most visits by users
• account for over 90% of searches
• are important for sites aimed at the general public

There have been no major independent studies of submission practice and it is therefore not possible to offer a definitive assessment of whether SEO service clients are being mislead. It is arguable that some client are over-paying for submission to a large number of engines and directories, on the basis that those tools are not encountered by most users and will not result in meaningful traffic to the client's site. One acerbic contact, for example, during heated conversation with an SEO service cold caller, asked what benefit she would get from appearing in Farsi, Urdu or Japanese directories when her business was grooming dogs in suburban Melbourne.

It appears that many of the 'search engines' claimed by some of the more brazen SEO services are simply link farms. That is of potential concern as inclusion on such pages may erode an organisation's brand and may lead some search engines to downgrade the site's search rank.

     myth 4: submission is the solution

Submission to search engines and directories - ie alerting them that a site exists and features particular content - is not a black art. It is mechanistic and can be undertaken by people with meagre information technology skills, simply by using a multi-engine tool such as DMOZ or by adding information in response to questions in the submission page of each of the major directories and engines.

Claims by SEO services that submission is a specialised task requiring extensive expertise (and appropriate rewards) or advanced software are thus problematical. Some discernment may be required in describing a site, particularly suggesting which part of a directory that site should appear in.

However, submission merely indicates to the engine or directory operator that the site exists and prompts spidering. It does not ensure that the site will gain a high ranking. Ranking may instead be determined by factors that are entirely independent of submission, for example the engine's assessment of whether the site is for real (rather than a page redirecting traffic to an adult content site) and whether it is more worthy of a visit than similar sites.

     myth 5: killer metadata and magic keywords

One of the more entertaining myths is that search engines are predominantly dependent on metadata, even on a standard set of "power terms" or "search engine keywords" that are known to SEO specialists but somehow have not been divulged to the digitally unwashed. Some particularly disingenuous SEO services even market on the basis of extra payments for additional "power words" in a web page's metadata or in its text.

Alas, the notion of special metadata terms is as deceptive as secret magic passwords that will turn your prince back into a frog or cause your enemies to wither. Major engines and directories such as Google and Yahoo! do not place much reliance on metadata and as noted elsewhere on this site are known to have penalised sites that feature egregious repetitions of supposed power terms (eg repeating the word 'sex' fifty times in a page's header). There are no magic terms or special keywords that will automatically result in a page or site being found.

Metadata is used, often precisely and effectively, by cultural and scientific institutions. That use is targeted to specialist search engines, for example those that use protocols such as Dublin Core or national geospatial data sets, rather than the searching undertaken by most users. It appears that the SEO industry has largely neglected those specialist engines and their audiences, arguably both because work is already being undertaken by librarians or other skilled personnel and because there is a tradition of rigorous independent assessment of that work.

     myth 6: a quick-fix deal

Contrary to claims such as "guaranteed top placement within 48 hours", there are no quick fixes. SEO services will not ensure that a wholly new site (or merely an existing site that has contracted with an SEO specialist) is found overnight on major search engines and directories.

One reason is that scrutiny by humans of submissions takes time: many directories indicate that delays of several weeks or even months can be expected (and exploit that delay by charging a premium for accelerated scrutiny).

Another reason is that some engines 'sandbox' new sites, either not listing them at all or not giving them a high ranking for weeks or even months (depending on factors such as how well they meet automated assessment criteria) on the basis that many sites are evanescent - eg result from domain name tasting - or are exploited by purveyors of malware and adult content.

As with much commerce, the luckiest SEO service clients get what they pay for. Identifying navigation problems that inhibit full recognition by search engines takes time and effort. Considering whether text and other code on a page could be fine-tuned also takes time, particularly if there are disagreements between an SEO guru and stakeholders within the client organisation (eg lawyers aware that misuse of a competitor's trademarks may attract penalties, designers whose aesthetic conflicts with the guru's mantra or who merely resent the involvement of an interloper).

Adding new content and encouraging links from other sites also requires activity that is unlikely to be completed overnight and show significant results during the following 24 hours.

     myth 7: all audiences are equal

Online no one may be able to tell that you are a dog, as a famous New Yorker cartoon noted, but tastes and priorities differ. Not all dogs want the same things; some dogs are cats or even fish. Suggestions by some SEO services that all online audiences are the same and can addressed through the same methods (or through the same search engines) are thus problematical.

We have suggested elsewhere that, as in the offline world, the challenge facing many website operators is to be found by the right audience. If your site is concerned with the sale of specialist scientific instrumentation or human rights advocacy you may wish to attract relevant viewers, rather than "hordes of school kids" in search of a cut & paste resource for their homework. (That is why we have Wikipedia)

Much SEO marketing is predicated on the notion of a uniform audience, disregarding the past century of insights about targeting communications to existing contacts and to those demographics that are likely to be contacts.

All audiences are not equal and much of the best SEO involves a mix of advertising and innovative content creation designed to attract a particular set of people. It is underpinned by ongoing analysis of site metrics to assess whether the particular site is attracting more visitors and whether the onsite experience of those visitors is richer, eg are they staying longer and are they less likely to exit from the site at specific points.

     myth 8: all SEO services are alike

An early theme in the emergence of e-commerce was the assertion that the '14 year old nephew' could build an effective site. In some instances it is clear that webmonkeys were paid peanuts but developed sites that equal the best of the Aeron-equipped digital creatives. Paying a lot of money for design and site maintenance - or for SEO services - doe not necessarily give great value. Equally, when you pay peanuts you sometimes get poor results.

The lack of independent scrutiny and meaningful benchmarks means that much SEO contracting is a walk in the dark. Consumers are advised to ask exactly what they are being promised and to seek comparisons from competitors, rather than making a decision based solely on price or the disdain with which the specialist treats the potential client. One contact lamented "that is fine, but all those guys talk very fast and use the same jargon".

   next page  (responses to SEO)