Ripping into Google's Information for Webmasters.
Posted Monday, December 19th, 2005. Filed under CEO not SEO Stuff, Google, Internet Marketing Tips, SEO FAQ's, SEO Research.
Today I re-read Google's "Information for Webmasters" page. I agree with much of it, but a few items make me scratch my head. Google says useful SEO services include writing copy, but isn't the best copy written by site owners who know the topic, not the SEO?
Google says you should never have to link to an SEO, but I don't see why that's bad if a client wants to, just like linking to a website designer. Google also says it never sells better ranking, yet around that time the New York Times reported Google agreed to give favored placement to AOL content throughout its site.
Google suggests asking how long a company has been in business and how many employees it has — I'm not sure size or years in business really tells you if an SEO is good. And Google says you should insist on a full, unconditional money-back guarantee, while also warning to beware of SEOs that guarantee rankings. Those two pieces of advice seem to contradict each other — the first thing an unhappy client asking for a refund will cite is "they didn't get me rankings."
I agree with most of what Google says on that page, just these few points I have issues with. Do you agree?
December 19th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Yes, absolutely agreed on all points Jim. I have read those pages at Google a couple of times, and these things have awlays made me brow.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
I agree with you.
As far as I see. All Google cares about is linking popularity. If you have decent websites with quality content, unique without links, you would never show up in their listings.
The ultimate SEO strategy is linking strategies from article distribution, press releases and direcotry submissions.
Nabil Khoury, MD
The MLM doctor
December 20th, 2005 at 1:28 am
Thats pretty funny! I’ve been watching the whole AOL thing very closely. Interesting to see how Google’s definition of “evil” quickly changes when money is involved (ie: AOL image ads on the SERPs.)
December 20th, 2005 at 6:31 am
ÐечиÑтоплотноÑÑ‚ÑŒ Google?
Один из учаÑтников форума Cre8asiteforums.com в одной из диÑкуÑÑий привел цитату из NY Times:
Finally, around 9 p.m., Richard D. Parsons, chief executive of Time Warner told Eric E. Schmidt, chief…
December 20th, 2005 at 10:20 am
Well said Jim. It it coming.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Yeah, that last one is especially egregious - dictating hypocritical business practices leaves a very bad taste in one’s mouth.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:39 am
[...] Google has updated it’s Webmaster guidelines. [...]
December 21st, 2005 at 9:26 am
[quote]hum….seo’s write copy?….maybe, but isn’t the best copy written by site owners who know the topic…not the SEO?….do SEO’s really write copy?…that’s advisable for an SEO?? writing copy for clients websites? Really?[/quote]
Jim, you are correct that SEOs should not be the ones writing copy. But neither should clients unless they are a copywriter, or have a copywriter on staff.
Copy should only be written by professional copywriters. Period. But any good SEO worth their salt should have a professional copywriter (or two or three) on staff or on call if they outsource.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:33 am
actually we work with about 26 writers… I was just suprised that Google was saying that “writing copy” was part of the “SEO’s” job.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:34 am
I should add that I’m totally suprised (well, not really) that “getting links” isn’t mentioned…to me that’s the biggest job of an SEO.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:28 am
[quote]to me that’s the biggest job of an SEO[/quote]
Different strokes for different folks, Jim. You must know by now that there are many different ways of skinning the SEO cat!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:56 am
Jill - you’re totally right about different ways to skin the SEO cat….any maybe I’m wrong on the writing content part….we approach SEO from different angles, I’ve read your books and newsletters and forum and I can totally see that what you’re doing works great (how can I argue with someone who’s #3 in Google for “search engine optimization”?)
I approach SEO from the “link angle”, you from the “content writing angle”. (and you’re one of the best at the “content angle”)
I agree that SEO’s should work on content, or should I say, Optimizing content, or helping the client to writing content.
perhaps I was wrong to imply that SEO’s shouldn’t be writing content.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:23 pm
I don’t want to put fuel on the fire but I believe they should just have a few words about SEO companies in their guidelines.
SEO Companies
[seo companies]Only 1-2% are any good so be careful![/seo companies]
Might as well be honest, I agree.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
[...] I am constantly baffled by Google’s insistence that there is such a low level of human discretion and editorial control in their organic search result determination. Isn’t the decision to leave editorial control up to a silicon based form of intelligence even SOME level of editorial control to begin with? Determining which forms of user data from the toolbar and other sources must certainly qualify as a certain level of editorial control based on human bias. There is nothing inherently wrong with human bias, and it becomes less of a bias if the views and decisions are directly expressed. I think Yahoo is a bit more open about their level of editorial control, but not really much. I really hope that the transparency of these decisions improves with both engines over time. Insight to this process would help to MEET those guidelines and stay within less ambiguous confines of the terms of service. [...]
January 7th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Jim, I just found this post from Todd’s blog. Well said!