|
Oct
10
5
|
The Special Olympics of Link Bait |
|||||
Is this the tale of a copywriter who can't even rank for his name artfully link baiting some of the most widely read SEO blogs? Who is in the 15-yard dash — us or him? I deconstructed his arguments regardless, but you decide … I found Breaking SEO Myths Part One: The SEO Experts by Daniel Dessinger via this article on SEO-Scoop. I feel Donna was too easy on Daniel. Daniel is seemingly misguided, and his article is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps he's bitter after getting burned by an unscrupulous SEO, or maybe he's just a daft individual. Regardless, he unfairly brands our whole industry as snakeoil salesmen, and his article has many, many holes in it. I will enumerate my problems with his argument below. First, let's see what I actually do vaguely agree with: The above statements prove nothing. There are cocky "professionals" in every industry. There are cocky lawyers, accountants, and scarily enough doctors. I once had a doctor argue with me about whether I was feeling pain. Yes, he was that cocky, and he was that wrong. So, certainly there are snakeoil salesmen and morons, but there are also real practitioners. Daniel even agrees when he says "Many of them aren't [scam artists]." Yes, the industry is unregulated and any idiot can start an SEO firm; perhaps there should be regulation, but I fail to see how that is relevant at all. Bill Slawski and Dr. Garcia are brilliant SEO-practitioners gleening out information from the synthesis of patents and a priori academic knowledge. They don't have the recipe for the secret sauce, but they're anything but snakeoil salesmen. I have a bachelors in Computer Science. I am not a snakeoil salesman. I do, however, see SEO-practitioning as evolving into 2 different fields: 1. Site Architecture 2. Marketing Now let's examine where Daniel is flat out wrong: Here's where I have a little field day. SEO in 1996 required little knowledge except HTML and some general statistics regarding optimal tags and keyword density. Duplicate content and site architecture mattered little. Now, in 2006, SEO is more about designing an architecturally sound web site and using marketing to get the traffic flowing. I'm impressed with what Aaron and Rand have to say about SEO. I've also been accused of posting some great stuff. Reading further, he demonstrates his total ignorance of management when he says that SEO should not be outsourced. I bring my car to the mechanic not because I couldn't do it myself, but because a trained professional can do it more effectively and quickly. Copywriting is painful, and it really is a skill. Furthermore, I find that side-projects tasked internally frequently never get done. And let's not forget potential opportunity costs (risk) from all the mistakes an amateur may make. Just about every SEO reinvents some "clever" black hat technique at some point. The nail in the coffin is driven in when he states:
So in other words, he doesn't have any empirical evidence. In the comments on Donna's article, Egol rhetorically asks " … if it was as easy as ths guy says, why is he still writing copy?" Why? Where are your millions? All I see is a bunch of e-zine spam content when I google your name. SEOs may write a lot about the same, but they're all doing it so they can rank for the golden phrase, "SEO." And many likely do have a few great secrets and techniques. There is new information out there, and plenty of prerequisite knowledge to swallow. I question the sanity of a copywriter who claims that a company should not employ more copywriters. Do you copy me, Daniel? I think not, but perhaps your entire article was artful link bait; if so, you win. Despite making yourself look totally stupid in the process, you got some great links! So welcome to our little snakeoil club — regardless of whether you're a genius or just plain retarded. Bravo! Moral of the story: Being really stupid can work too, but be prepared for an assault on your reputation. Related posts: A Little Link Bait Experiment QuadsZilla's latest link bait experiment is going to read like... Link Bait and its Electronic Cousin Aaron Wall of Seo Book states here that many sites... Sometimes even the Truth is Link Bait Link Bait is the hottest new fad in link building,... Forget Traditional SEO! Why Good Link Bait is Worth $50K Traditional SEO is dead. Gone are the days when we... Wikipedia Is Link Nazi Of 2006 No Links For You! I wrote the Wikipedia page on...
| ||||||
"5 Wise Comments Banged Out Somewhere On The Internet ..."
Writing like this proves to me what I had already supposed: many SEOs have wounded egos and look for the opportunity to lash out whenever challenged. Had anyone actually done their homework, they would have learned that my article was written and posted in January, 2006. It will all be okay, I promise. I work for an interactive marketing company that specializes in SEO (VIZION Interactive). It's fine to accuse me of writing nonsense for the simple purpose of linkbait. But then again, many blogs I won't name here constantly write about and/or link to popular SEO blogs and it is nothing more than linkbait. Is it really necessary to write a blog every time you agree with someone more famous than yourself? Or is it merely another opportunity to further your own fame and career? Writing doesn't have to be a bitter, strife-filled enterprise. You are welcome to disagree with me or anyone else. Just keep in mind that once words like "stupid" and "retarded" appear in the copy, the reader is immediately alerted to the presence of prejudice. By the way, daft is an adjective, not a noun. I may still be one, though.
Grammar error fixed. I fail to see what relevance the publication date has. Your post is still unsubstantiated and hollow. I'm a mean guy, what can I say?
So welcome to our little snakeoil club — regardless of whether you're a genius or just plain retarded. Bravo! Now that's funny. Well done senor (w/the ~ over the n). Daniel, I'm sorry to say but that's a pretty weak comeback to an incisively witty & insightfully attractive post. Frankly, it was my daft for the day. (yea, it's a colloquialism-adjective-cum-noun; how's that for a latin lesson in rhetoric?). Frankly, writing nonsense for linkbait would have been fine, according to egghead. But then you went and messed up what rep you could have saved by denouncing 'link love'. I say this as a sincerely proud c-list blogger (although I'm an A-list SEO). Link love is important, not for sake of ass-kissing but rather for sake of requisite participation in an industry which operates as a community. You should agree that (from your point of view down below) that the best knowledge (let alone seo tactics and strategies) are developed within a marketplace of ideas. (Here's an EXAMPLE: My most recent experience in this was when several of us were able to get to the bottom of Google's "competitive profiling" capabilities). That said, any industry that operates (at the highest levels) as a community would require participation and shun anyone who claims superiority from a perch or a soap box (or in this case behind some author profile on articlewarehouse.com ;). Wow. Now that was pretty funny too. Your post shows negativity on both sides of the fence: You say that SEOs want to lash out, and you say later that SEOs link to anyone they can for sake of linking forward. This sounds like you're just bitter. Further, it's a pretty contradictory claim from someone who writes that "discussion" on blogs is an important "seo link generation" technique! (http://www.vizioninteractive.com/seo-link-generation/) Way to go, Egghead. I'm definitely going to stick around. Keep the sharp tongue, just don't lash it at me (lest you seek rhetorical retribution).
First of all, I didn't write the piece you are referring to on the VIZION blog. That was written by one of my coworkers. Responding to these types of posts is getting old. Participation in an industry does not equal kissing everyone's butt that is above you. It also doesn't require you to regurgitate 20 other people's ideas. It's fine if you discuss important events in your industry. But here's a thought: how about being original every now and then? What would that hurt? When I can add 50+ seo blogs to my feed reader and get the same information 15-30 different ways, the space is bloated and needs to go on a diet. As for link bait, I'm not really against it. I've never been against it as anyone can see by Googling my name. The purpose of my previous response was to call out Rand. He put special attention on my article as "link bait". But if you read deep into his site and services, you'll see that link bait is one of the services he offers. My point was simply that you shouldn't criticize someone for doing the same thing you do. If you want to create link bait, go ahead. Just don't say the same thing that everyone else says. What makes SEO bloggers angry is that I noticed when they had nothing original to say and yet they were living off of other people's originality. That embarrassed them and they felt the need to lash out. No one out there seems to be willing to admit that they are trying to use other people's wisdom, experience, and originality to become famous in the SEO space. Really, there's not much to be embarrassed and defensive about once you admit to it. No one really makes a big deal about Bill Clinton's infidelity after they got the truth. He could have just been straightforward and honest and it wouldn't have made nearly the same impact. The irration comes from coming across the same dang posts over and over and over and realizing that so many of these bloggers are trying to make themselves the Ebert & Roeper of SEO. We don't need 100 critics/commentators if they can't come up with at least 25% original content each. Tropical SEO » Top 7 New(ish) SEO Blogs You Need to Be Reading[...] SEOEgghead. Awesome post: The Special Olympics of Link Bait [...]
|


















