Good SEO vs. Bad SEO

by Suzan Gray

So here we are. For my sins, I am the new SEO manager at Quirk.

On the blank canvas of “SEO things” to talk about at Quirk, I’ll start by talking about something rather mundane, because it needs saying.
Good SEO vs. Bad SEO – it sounds like a cheesy line from a TV crime series.

To put things in perspective, these are the approximate stats for search engines global traffic:

Google: +/- 65%
Yahoo: +/- 22%
MSN: +/- 10%

Google is double both its nearest competitors combined and triple the volume of its next search engine competitor.
We all know Google is Big – but going back to these basic figures puts things in stark perspective.

So how does this relate to Good SEO vs. Bad SEO?

First off, we know Google sets the tone. If you try “game” or “spam” Google with bad SEO tactics, expect to be slapped by Google and don’t cry to anyone when it happens.

Expect the Web pain of such a Google slap to last a lo-o-ong time:
…ZERO page ranks.
…dropping SERPS,
…a sense of profound web rejection,
…existential Web angst.

The list could go on….

And Google doesn’t care whether you are the one doing “it” – or the Lousy SEO expert you hired is doing “it”. They’ll penalise you and your Website just the same.

It might not happen today, it might not happen tomorrow, next week or next month – but invariably bad SEO tactics will get you on the wrong side of Google – and that’s a dismal place to be on the Web.

Secondly, where Google goes, the rest of the world will follow. Read Kat’s GottaQuirk post about usage data.

This is just the beginning. A sign of the emerging trends. Google has a cunning plan in store for the world at large, we suspect. And we’re game for the ride because it’s going to be exciting.

Thirdly – I have a problem with the term SEO – especially when you apply it to Google. Trying to “optimise” to trick Google is a fool’s game. It’s like trying to tickle King Kong, hoping he’ll share his meal with you in gratitude. It’s plain naïve. Maybe he will, but you have no leverage over him if he doesn’t.

At best, you can align with Google. Think Search Engine Alignment. This is increasingly the case. Bad SEO tactics will not align you with Google in the medium to long term.

As a reality check:

Do a search on the term “SEO” and you’ll get loads of results (233 Million to be exact). Many of them the Web equivalent of snake oil salesmen, trying to tell you how they can get you top positions on Google.
Reality is that the Google search engine algorithm which ranks your Website’s pages and often determines your online fate, changes on a daily basis. And it’s like the recipe for Coca Cola. It’s carefully guarded secret. Only about 3 people in the world know it. And it confounds people more intelligent than you and I.

There are no silver bullets for long term SEO results and search engine page success.

The best approach for a sustainable presence on the Web is to

Avoid Bad SEO tactics.
Proactively adopt Good SEO practices – even if they require some investment and effort upfront.

Align with where the search engines (read: Google) are going in future.

So what, you may ask, is Good SEO?
What is Bad SEO?
Where are the search engines heading?

Those are questions and dilemmas for a whole series of posts in future.

In the meantime, the take away is:

Google is not a religion.
Google is not your buddy.
Google matters.
Google is your Web business partner, whether you like it or not….And a capricious one at that. Deal with it.

2008/05/22 | permalink | comments (0) | trackbacks (0)

Comments

RSS to Email

Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.

eMarketing News

Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter which is packed with interesting eMarketing news, views and other quirky titbits.

January

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

« Dec

Feb »

Recent Comments

Kat on Engaging as a Company

I agree with you. There are some things that should ideally not be discussed by an employee in the public sphere.
Would a communications policy have stopped the said journo from speaking out? He/she must have known a huge risk was being taken? I suppose it's also an incredibly difficult thing to predict. The lack of control can be alarming.
I'm definitely interested in seeing a more specific list, so if you find it do share.
Thank you for your comments :). Here's hoping there's a good coffee shop close to you..
vincent on Engaging as a Company

I guess the mark of a well crafted brand starts at HR policy for new recruits - ensuring that they fit the brand's/corporate's persona. So in that sense yes you could argue that left to their own devices employees would, regardless of an online communications policy, communicate in a style the sponsor would approve of. Not sure if that's always the case but I'm inclined to agree with this generalization.
I think what is also important is that the individual writing within the bounds of a sponsor's site does so in a restricted locale. You can police your own domain if you're a corporate, you can't necessarily control the individuals mouth outside of it. For instance on twitter, personal blogs and forums. Owing to the nature of niche stardom you could argue that the employee comes to represent the brand, more so than that personifies the brand in organic conversation with consumers and would carry significant weight both within corporate sites and externally. Making some individuals very wary to write for their companies at all.
For instance in our not too distant past a prominent journo got the boot for publishing his gripes with his employers and their professional ability - he was promptly fired...He would no doubt have been policed on a company blog but owing to the fact that he chose to represent the company elsewhere he took his brand and the papers brand with him - dragging both through the mud as traipsed on towards epic-failuredom...
So to come back to a point, there is definitely a sense that the policies as listed above are quite ambiguous. Even you yourself suggest that requisite legalese is absent, and I have to assume that such legalese would include a fairly long list of do's and dont's. I have a list somewhere laying about which dictates in a very bland corporate fashion how to represent the brand in public - if I find it I will share it with you.
Perhaps its worthwhile to enforce points like "don't tell secrets" and my own favourite, "for the love of god don't gripe about the boss who you've publicly named online"...
That's my mental-riff for the day, I'm afraid I veered rather uncharitably off course but such is the nature of thought.
Now if only the company I worked for had some decent coffee!!
Kat on Engaging as a Company

Transparency is a key issue - as is allowing people to carve their own niche.
My thinking is that people engage with a personality - an individual personality - in conversation more than with a collective. It's just easier. A company personality surely reflects the people who work there as well as a crafted (constructed?) image that the stakeholders choose to present. While you want engagement it's not the same as speaking to an individual.
There are definite risks involved - but I would lean towards allowing people to carve a niche.
vincent on Engaging as a Company

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post, it is most certainly something corporates are going to struggle with. How much transparency is too much? Who should be allowed to represent a brand and to what extent should the individual be given the opportunity to carve their own niche rather than extol the virtues of the mother - brand?
Who knows. We shall soon see as this year pans out and we find out how the big media players tackle the rise of the cost effective digital media channel.
Kat on Engaging as a Company

It is a tough issue, and I can understand why you've never published. I would encourage you to do so though - you probably have a feeling for when your writing reflects your voice and when it doesn't - and the rewards are worth it.
Thanks for reading Wendy. :)

More photos of the QuirkStars At Play

Name:
Friends of Quirk
Websites:
www.quirk.biz

Skribit: Social Suggestions

Name:
E-mail:
Url:
Comments:
Markup guide: makes text bold // makes text italic // -- creates a link -- (two dashes, no http://)
Remember personal info?
Notify me of follow-up comments?
SPAMCHECK:
Captcha:

Good SEO vs. Bad SEO

by Suzan Gray

Comments

Subscribe

RSS to Email

eMarketing News

January

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments