Mindy Gofton

Like Me? Follow Me.

When people find out I work in search engine optimisation I get two reactions. The first is confusion from people who have never heard of SEO. The second is disgust - from people who have.

SEO consultants are like the used car salesmen of the internet, or so people seem to think. Even other industry professionals seem to believe that an SEO expert will as soon steal your wallet and use your credit cards to squat on 1000 different domains that will rank above your website by repeating keywords ad nauseum before they'll actually help your business.

I have gotten used to the sneers and eye rolling that accompany my telling web designers, developers, public relations people and technology journalists that I work in SEO because I know that they have no idea what I actually do all day.

The average person who has heard of SEO thinks that the role of a search engine optimiser is to get websites ranking at #1 in Google for as many terms as possible by whatever means necessary. The search engine optimiser, as most people understand it, is responsible for 100% of webspam by producing incoherent website text stuffed with keywords, building hundreds of thousands of content-free link farms and generally destroying websites by ignoring visitors in favour of search engines.

This is what SEO was about in 2001, it is not what SEO is about in 2009.

SEO in 2009 is about taking a website and improving it so that search engines can find every page and understand what that page is about, but it's also about helping users find the information they need on a website straight from the search engine and then helping them complete the task they set out to do - whether that's research, feedback or a purchase.

Today, any decent SEO consultant is an internet marketing expert whose concern is increasing the sales of his or her clients - and not with ubiquitous keyword rankings in Google. When we target a keyword to improve its rankings it's because we feel that keyword describes our client's services and that keyword is what people looking for those services will type into Google. Ranking a keyword in a search engine is only the means to the end - what we're looking to do is bring targeted traffic to the websites we promote.

The idea that SEO is a dark art practised solely by maniacs conspiring to pollute search results with gibberish related to gambling, adult sites and pharmaceuticals is as ludicrous as the idea that every blogger secretly wants to be a journalist and that those who can't do, teach.

Our goal is ultimately to improve search results by helping search engines to understand websites better. Whether you're looking to find a portable wheelchair ramp or a bed, our job is to help Google serve you a result so you can. We make sure that you can find the best solicitor to help you write a will or represent you in an employment tribunal. We want you to find job listings if you're looking to change your career path or a new apartment if you need to move. We even do our best to help communities tackle the problem of violence by making sure they know where to get help.

So the next time you meet an SEO, don't sneer, say thank you, because we're actually trying to improve the internet - one website at a time.

Tags: Ethical Seo, Google, Search Engine Rankings

Discussion

Posted by David Leonhardt on Jun 15th, 2009
I don't tend to get that reaction from web designers and others. I would say the assumptions of what I do are pretty much all over the map. Many wrong, some partlky accurate, others not very well defined. By I don't run into any disgust.
Posted by Mindy on Jun 15th, 2009
"All over the map" is a pretty good description for it. But I have encountered disgust - usually by people claiming to work in the internet industry.

Even as SEO becomes a fairly mainstream service we are still fighting an uphill battle to help businesses understand what we actually do - and to overcome the negative image of SEO caused by the proliferation of snake oil salesmen due to lack of regulation.
Posted by Matt Davies on Jun 16th, 2009
Was with you all the way up until those last two paragraphs. Lets not pretend we're doing anything altruistic here! Google is perfectly capable of serving up decent results without our help - we want those good results to point to *our* clients and not anyone else's, even if it means putting irrelevant anchor text links on our own blogs. We'd only "improve the internet - one website at a time" so long as we got paid \one website at a time".

Bill Hicks wanted marketers dead and so do a lot of other "creative" types. I don't there being a sea change any time soon, certainly not to the point where people say "yeah, THANKS for being an SEO". If that bothers you, you're in the wrong industry.
Posted by Sadie on Jun 16th, 2009
I agree with Matt, shamefull links in the bottom of this article to your clients!

Other than that though there is a lot of confusion about what SEO is and with a lot of bad companies it is hard to set yourself aside. Especially since every man and his dog seems to offer SEO services now.

You also get old school seo companies who have not changed to incorporate the modern search techniques and pride themselves on getting uncompetitive keywords to number one then point the client to the terms and conditions of the contract when they don't get traffic from this.

I find you are only as good as your clients websites if they have a well optimised site they will get results and the site will just get better and better with your help.

Happy client, happy SEO, money in the bank...
Posted by Mindy on Jun 16th, 2009
"Shameful" links? This is a commercial blog...and I was making a point (and a joke). By doing what I do I'm helping businesses of all shapes and sizes from large retail chains to non-profits and charities explain their services to search engines - and visitors.

Yes, it may be marketing, but I'm not trying to sell cigarettes and hand grenades to children. I am trying to make sure that my clients rank for keyword searches that apply to them so people find them when they want their services and aren't bothered by them if they don't. The end result helps the businesses who pay me, but it also helps the searcher - and it does help the search engine.

The better websites are coded and described in the text within their pages, the better the overall search listings will be.

Here's some SEO 101: Google is clever, but if you don't put the words on the page - they won't know that the words apply to your site.

The number of websites we see who don't actually say what they do on their homepage would astound people - and, funnily enough, you won't see these sites yourself when you're searching for the service they provide BECAUSE THEY DON'T RANK IN SEARCH ENGINES.

Think about it.
Posted by anon on Jun 16th, 2009
The outbound links in the last paragraph are spammy and pointless. I get the point that it is done as a joke, but that is not abundantly clear in your article and I am sure your clients would not be too impressed.

The piece does have some valid points about the perception of SEO. However you make some very vague observations... "The better websites are coded and described in the text within their pages, the better the overall search listings will be. "

That is the sort of woolly advice you get from someone who doesn't really know much about SEO. Precisely the kind of people you are criticising in your article.
Posted by Matt Davies on Jun 16th, 2009
But there's a flip side to that arguement. Lets take an example from your post - Dreams. Whether or not Dreams was well optimised or linked to, or for that matter existed in the first place, searchers would always have found what they were looking for when they searched for "beds"(although perhaps not what you wanted them to find). Also, for every position you improve your client's rankings, another site has to drop down a notch. The owner of that site might not thank you for being an SEO.

I work in SEO myself so I'm not trying to tell you it's wrong or that you deserve sneers and eye rolling (never happened to me personally but I can imagine it might), but I'd never say I'm "improving the internet" for anyone other than myself and my clients.
Posted by Mindy on Jun 16th, 2009
@anon, if that is indeed your real name, it's a blog post/comment - hardly the space for a 10,000 word thesis on the specifics of coding and copywriting a website. You want specifics read further down in this blog or phone us up. A less ethical firm would be trying to sell you microsites, content stuffed with keywords chosen because they get high search volumes, not because they drive conversions, wouldn't be concerned about information architecture and would probably damage your brand in the process.

@Matt I disagree entirely. If only 1% of the bed stores can be spidered by Google and understood to be bed stores then people are missing out on the choice of the other 99% of the market when they search. If all the bed stores are well coded, easy to use, have clear text directing you to the products you want and Google understands the sites then they have a wider selection for their search results. How is this not good for searchers?
Posted by Matt Davies on Jun 16th, 2009
But success in competitive SERPs such as "beds" (the type clients typically want to show for) is not just about having a well coded, easy to use site with clear anchor text. Your inbound links and the anchor text used is what makes the real difference for these "money" terms (hence our example Dreams showing up 3rd with their 36 links using the anchor text "beds" - what are the chances of those links being given naturally?). Google say that SEOs shouldn't "participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking", but we do, cos it works (just don't push it too far).

This is not "good for searchers" because, where Google was the one making the decisions, we're now influencing that decision. But the searcher asked and trusts Google, not you or me.

Again, I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. It's all in the game.
Posted by bisnis online on Jun 17th, 2009
For commercial website, SEO is very important, because it will increase sales dan get targeted traffic. Thanks for your review.
Posted by anon on Jun 17th, 2009
Matt is correct, SEO's don't improve the internet, they improve rankings, traffic and revenue for their clients.

Do a search for "supermarket" and what do you find - Tesco or Sainsbury's - not a chance. However do a define:supermarket command and you get a totally different answer.
Posted by Mindy on Jun 17th, 2009
@Matt Buy links? I am horrified at the very thought. Advertising, yes, links for PR...that's wrong wrong wrong I tell you.

Google has a problem with it's algorithm - it's easy to game. By game, I mean anybody can rank well if they throw enough money at links. This does lead to a lot of crap cluttering up SERPS. If Google were better at figuring out the real "votes" from the garbage then the SERPS would be a better measure of the sites people think are best and buying links would be done for advertising alone.

If new websites and small businesses could compete equally without a little manipulation then that would be fab (unrealistic, but fantastic) - but I'm sure we'd all rather not have search engines dominated by nothing but big brands, and SEO can and does bring a little more variety to your choices online.

I think, though, the point I was making has perhaps slipped out of sight here - SEO is not just some evil art practised by opportunists to make money. Yes, there are those guys out there still practising (which is why the rest of us sometimes do have to be more aggressive than people would like) - but any good (and ethical) SEO selling services to clients should and does do more than just produce reams of spam which clog up the SERPS.

A good SEO is working to get sites ranking where they should be by putting all the right markers in place - and is also working to make sites easier to use for visitors.

And @anon - that example you cite is not because SEO's are evil - it's because Tescos and Sainsbury's haven't described their businesses very well on their websites - neither Tescos or Sainsburys uses the word "SUPERMARKET" anywhere on their home pages. If they don't say it on the site, Google doesn't know it describes them. That's not SEO's manipulating search results, that's just the nature of using a machine to determine the subject of a page. If they hired me, I could have told them that (assuming people search for them that way), and they'd be ranking for "supermarket" now. Voila.
Posted by ady berry on Jun 17th, 2009
Anon - The "supermarket" example is terrible example - neither Tesco's nor Sainsbury's would want to be found for a term such as "supermarket" - the term has absolutely no brand value to them. And by citing use of the define: advanced operator it makes your arguement even less effective as these are simply definitions. If search engines were to ignore brands and searchers' own brand awareness in the listings they would remove many relevant listings from searches - Do you recommend that the apple brand would be removed from relevant listings to be replaced by the fruit?

If anything the recent Google.com updates have leant more toward brands - check out http://www.google.com/search?q=laptop&btnG=Search
Posted by Matt Davies on Jun 18th, 2009
TBH I agree with Ady Berry, the supermarket example isn't the greatest. I do wonder, however, if either Tesco or Sainsburys would manage to move into the top 10 just by virtue of adding "supermarket" to the titles and headers. With the amount of money that must be being piled into links for moneysupermarket, travelsupermarket et al (using "supermarket" in the anchor text) they'd be very difficult to shift.

Mindy, you say "SEO is not just some evil art practised by opportunists to make money". I put it to you that, like most jobs, very few of us would do be doing this if it didn't pay. How "evil" you are for doing your job is purely down to your point of view - we all have to work after all and it's not like you're a bailiff or a parking attendant (although I'm sure they have perfectly formed arguements for why their jobs aren't evil - and they're actually performing a valuable service - too).

I know the kind of spam you're referring to - it's a tactic used heavily in the past by a certain Manchester based "SEO" company, but never really worked then and I seriously doubt works at all nowadays. But you can't turn round and use another agency's aggressive behaviour as an excuse for your own. At the end of the day it's a big competition with us all vying for position and we have to do what it takes to improve our client's rankings, or lose them to someone who will.

"A good SEO is working to get sites ranking where they should be..."

Shouldn't that be "where they want them to be"? Noone can say any site "should" be in any position other than the search engine in question, and as we all know they can be fickle animals.

If Google decides that a site "should be" at position 15 for its main keyword once the on-site work has been done, it's a poor SEO that decides to leave it at that without attempting a little "manipulation". And if the top 10 is already filled with relevant sites that can adequately answer any searches for that query, a good SEO will still think nothing about breaking into that top 10 and knocking a potentially more relevant site out of the way (again, relevance is totally down to the point of view of the search, and so there's no way an SEO can definitely say the site they're working on is "more relevant" than their competition). And there's the rub. As SEOs we, first and foremost, do what's right for the clients and ourselves. Of course we have to take Google and the searchers into account as they are both vital points in the process, but they aren't why we do what we do.
Posted by anon on Jun 18th, 2009
@ady berry

Probably didn't explain what I meant very well...

I agree the "supermarket" term bears no benefit really for those grocery retailers in the UK. However It was written to highlight the fact that Google's results are based on what it thinks are the most relevant results based on it's algorithm.
Even though Tesco / Sainsbury's are not in the top 10, would you not concede that they would be highly relevant to this phrase given the generally accepted definition relates to food retailers? And that they are not there is because other sites are better optimised for this phrase, despite them being LESS relevant.

So the most relevant sites are not on page one because other sites have better SEO. No issue there, unless you argue that your "goal is ultimately to improve search results".
Posted by Mindy on Jun 18th, 2009
Matt, I don't think we particularly disagree. You're 100% right that companies don't own the right to a particular ranking or result - it's Google's decision (or Yahoo or Bing, or whatever) and if tomorrow they decide that green sites should be banned we really can't do anything about that but change the colour of green sites.

This is why we don't talk to clients about "getting to #1 in Google" but instead about making overall improvements to the content and code of their sites which by nature of these changes will tend to improve their rankings at the same time.

I think people are taking what was a bit of a vent far too seriously though. I'm not declaring SEO's to be the saviors of the internet, all I'm saying is that SEO when done ethically benefits both businesses and searchers. For example, the top 10 may be the most relevant sites, but what if you're looking for something specific that isn't contained in that top 10 but you can't find the site that has it because it's not anywhere in the results for any keywords you'd logically use? SEO work done well will make that one site findable.

Ultimately I think most things aren't done solely for the greater good, but things done for personal gain can also benefit others. It's kind of what capitalism is based on - we do things for self-interest but in an ideal world those interests benefit everyone. For example, improving your business means you make more money and can hire more people. It also means your customers get a better service.

If you've really improved and word gets out then you'll win new business which means all your competitors will then have to improve as well in order to keep up and keep their customers. So everybody wins. If I improve my site and move up from page 40 to page 1 and other sites move down then shouldn't that just prompt other sites to improve the quality of their offerings?

Obviously, things don't work like this all the time (aggressive link building means in many verticals you have to do the same just to keep pace) - but that's the general idea and it applies both online and offline.

People complaining about their competitors moving above them in Google because they've changed their navigation, rewritten some content (ok, and got a few relevant links in) should tell them that maybe their site needs work.

(I laugh everytime I read a thread in a forum about "My site has been at #2 in Google for 'blue widgets' for 4 years and now some new site is above it, Google is broken! I hate Google!")

Oh, and I wasn't referring to a specific SEO firm in terms of those tactics, I've seen them flogged by a number of people and no, they don't work anymore unless you're very clever about it - but 2-3 years ago they worked very well.
Posted by Mike Blackburn on Jun 18th, 2009
Bit off topic this I must admit but if anyone reading this might be interested in working for a dynamic white hat SEO firm where healthy debate and opinion are positively encouraged get in touch.

We're currently on the look out for new SEO people to meet the demands of some significant contract wins, so if you're interested then email us at careers@i-com.net.
Posted by Mindy on Jun 18th, 2009
@Anon Money Supermarket aren't targeting "supermarket" either. They're ranking for that term because they have an authoritative site - and they have "supermarket" in their name so the word is all over the site which means Google thinks the site is about "supermarket." If more of the brands that you class as "supermarkets" described themselves that way, then more of those brands would be in the SERP. The issue isn't with some dodgy SEO tactic they're using, it's with the algorithm.

I notice Tesco does just fine competing with Money Supermarket in areas where they want to compete for keywords - such as "loans" where arguably the results are reasonably diverse as you have comparison sites, advice sites, banks and other loan providers all in the top 10.
Posted by Danny Johan on Jun 18th, 2009
Hi Mike, I take it that you consider paid links with targeted anchor text to be white hat then?
Posted by Mike Blackburn on Jun 18th, 2009
Hi Danny,

I think that purchasing advertising for our clients on relevant sites that might bring them targeted traffic is an integral part of any overall internet marketing campaign.
Posted by Black Stone on Sep 21st, 2010
I am also an SEO specialist and trying to increase the sales of my client website. i do not think, the situation is so worse as described in article. yes, i agree, people are doring black hat seo or do not know the real spirit of it, but not all people do it.
according to my finding, seo works on two ways. one is through global search and other is local queries through business listing sites. SEO is not a part of development, but a part of marketing and branding.
Leave a Reply



(Your email will not be publicly displayed.)