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
-
What would be the best course of action to nullify negative effects of our website's content being duplicated (Negative SEO)
Hello, everyone About 3 months ago I joined a company that deals in manufacturing of transportation and packaging items. Once I started digging into the website, I noticed that a lot of their content was "plagiarized". I use quotes as it really was not, but they seemed to have been hit with a negative SEO campaign last year where their content was taken and being posted across at least 15 different websites. Literally every page on their website had the same problem - and some content was even company specific (going as far as using the company's very unique name). In all my years of working in SEO and marketing I have never seen something at the scale of this. Sure, there are always spammy links here and there, but this seems very deliberate. In fact, some of the duplicate content was posted on legitimate websites that may have been hacked/compromised (some examples include charity websites. I am wondering if there is anything that I can do besides contacting the webmasters of these websites and nicely asking for a removal of the content? Or does this duplicate content not hold as much weight anymore as it used to. Especially since our content was posted years before the duplicate content started popping up. Thanks,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Hasanovic0 -
Active, Old Large site with SEO issues... Fix or Rebuild?
Looking for opinions and guidance here. Would sincerely appreciate help. I started a site long, long ago (1996 to be exact) focused on travel in the US. The site did very well in the search results up until panda as I built it off templates using public databases to fill in the blanks where I didn't have curated content. The site currently indexes around 310,000 pages. I haven't been actively working on the site for years and while user content has kept things somewhat current, I am jumping back into this site as it provides income for my parents (who are retired). My questions is this. Will it be easier to track through all my issues and repair, or rebuild as a new site so I can insure everything is in order with today's SEO? and bonus points for this answer ... how do you handle 301 redirects for thousands of incoming links 😕 Some info to help: CURRENTLY DA is in the low 40s some pages still rank on first page of SERPs (long-tail mainly) urls are dynamic (I have built multiple versions through the years and the last major overhaul was prior to CMS popularity for this size of site) domain is short (4 letters) but not really what I want at this point Lots of original content, but oddly that content has been copied by other sites through the years WHAT I WANT TO DO get into a CMS so that anyone can add/curate content without needing tech knowledge change to a more relevant domain (I have a different vision) remove old, boilerplate content, but keep original
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Millibit1 -
What could go wrong? SEO on mobile site is different than desktop site.
We have a desktop site that has been getting worked on over the year regarding improving SEO. Since the mobile site is separate, the business decided to not spend the time to keep it updated and just turned it off. So any mobile user that finds a link to us in search engines, goes to a desktop site that is not responsive. Now that we're hearing Google is going to start incorporating mobile user friendliness into rankings, the business wants to turn the mobile site back on while we spend months making the desktop site responsive. The mobile site basically has no SEO. The title tag is uniform across the site, etc. How much will it hurt us to turn on that SEO horrid mobile site? Or how much will it hurt us to not turn it on?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Domain name for seo
Lets say that my competitor has the domain name and website called remotecontrolcar.com , .net and .org . And he has great links and good white hat google juice. What if I get MyRemoteControlCar.com , .net, and .org domain name.. Would my domain name help me in rank against him as long as I have similar google juice? Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | zsyed0 -
Is this a clear sign that one of our competitors is doing some serious black-hat SEO?
One of our competitors just recently increased their total external followed looks pretty drastically. Is it safe to say they are doing some pretty black-hat stuff? What actions exactly could this be attributed to? They've been online and in business for 10+ years and I've seen some pretty nasty drops in traffic on compete.com for them over the years. If this is black-hat work in action, would these two things be most likely related? Wh10b97
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Kibin0 -
Search query for SEO Brisbane
Would love to get some opinions on the latest Penguin 2.0 update and how on earth the #1 rank is #1 ranked, very, very peculiar... http://www.google.com/search?gs_rn=14&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=sila&cp=8&gs_id=10&xhr=t&q=seo+brisbane&pf=p&client=safari&rls=en&sclient=psy-ab&oq=seo+bris&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.aGc&biw=1300&bih=569 Any and all theories welcomed and appreciated. Thanks, Mike
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MichaelYork0 -
UK SEO Agency Recommendations
Hi, I am currently looking for a new SEO agency to manage strategies on 3 websites, budget of about £15k pm in total. Any recommendations would be really appreciated as trying to navigate through all the usual sales waffle and hollow promises of most SEO agencies is becoming rather difficult. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | cewe0 -
Huge diifference linking root domains in SEO MOZ and opensite explorer
Hi there, I have fairly large site that has never really been optimised. I think an old forum i hosted has either been spammed or my webmaster at the time used some black hat techniques to get me more root linking domains. I am a newbie and would really appreciate if someone could just quickly look at my donain and confirm that this is a problem and something i should fix before i start my SEO campaign. I am also worried this will negatively effect my domain authority. I dont really want to broadcast my domain so if anyoone would be so kind to confirm the problem so i cant start to research the answer. Thanks v much
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | nimble0