Should "peripheral" online services openly discuss SEO?

I've noticed that a number of supports to websites or
marketing have
SEO "add-ons," "purported benefits," or
"services" that they include
or offer alongside their core offering.

One is a major forum/bulletin board software maker. The SEO
service is
often linked to openly from the footers of the forums which
increases
visibility of the service, even though it's only aimed at
the board
owner, not the users.

A major newswire service includes a discussion of their
special SEO
"service" as part of their core literature.

I'm wondering: do you think this kind of open discussion of
the "SEO
benefit" of tweaking titles, using a particular
newswire service, or
engaging in some kind of light link scheme, is healthy?
Aren't the
purveyors of these services just tempting fate by making
such a big
deal out of them, drawing the attention of search engines,
and thus
potentially negating the benefit (as well as misleading
customers)?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "SEM 2.0" group.

To post to this group, send email to SEM2googlegroups.com

**The moderators highly recommend you visit http://groups.goo
gle.com/group/SEM2 and log into the forum on the web, to
access the full range of posting, reading, and searching
options. To make your subscription "web-only" (no
email), you can set your preferences while logged into the
forum.**

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SEM2-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

It makes me think of the gold rush mentality at play. SEO is
so hot
and faddish, companies of all stripes are trying to take
advantage of
the demand. It's fairly ridiculous. In some services, a
search
marketing component may make sense, but in many it's more
about being
noticed for using the term "SEO" than any real
worth. It's a
shortsighted view. Thing is, I'm sure it sells well, because
the web
populous at large is still mostly uneducated about what
search engine
optimization actually is. Which brings me to...

... this discussion: http://www.traffick.com/2007/10/my-next-target-titl
e-tag.asp.
To paraphrase your post (please correct me if I clobber it
here),
you're saying, why invest heavy resources into adjusting
(something
like) title tags? How important is it *really* - not in
terms of the
technique itself (which obviously IS important, from a
usability as
well as SEO angle) - but within the greater marketing
strategy for a
site? This especially has import for large web inventories
(usually on
the corporate side), where tons of technology, money, and
horsepower
are sometimes necessary to affect sitewide changes of this
nature.

As Lee wrote recently - http://www.toprankblog.com/2007/10/optimizing-uni
versal-search/
- universal search is here. The days of thinking about SEO
as only
optimizing web pages are shortlived. With increased
competition, and
increased sophistication from search engines, the current is
moving
towards a bigger more holistic process. New strategies
include
auditing a site's digital assets, deciding on keyword
messaging, and
tagging them for visibility - within the search engines,
influential
social networks, emerging important platforms, etc. And
using
technologies like XML to push data to search engines for
consumption
(Google Base, RSS, sitemaps). And optimizing video, images,
PDFs,
local verticals, category verticals, etc.

Once you start thinking about approaching search marketing
in a more
holistic way, I think the SEO of old starts to look kinda
primitive.
It's going to be harder and harder for consultants to get by
selling
the techniques of keywords in the title tag, in header tags,
and in
the content. That's sometimes an essential step; sometimes
it's
assumed; and sometimes it gives way to more important
concerns that
have higher ROI. What if a site can get great, relevant,
targeted
organic traffic without having any web pages at all? Where
does that
leave the SEO of old?

Which brings me back to your post here. I agree completely.
Unless the
SEO package is part of a broader approach that integrates
search
marketing within the service offering, it's a sure sign to
me of the
bandwagon mentality at work. And probably easy money for
them.

-Adam


On Oct 19, 3:55 pm, Andrew Goodman <agood...gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed that a number of supports to websites or
marketing have
> SEO "add-ons," "purported
benefits," or "services" that they include
> or offer alongside their core offering.
>
> One is a major forum/bulletin board software maker. The
SEO service is
> often linked to openly from the footers of the forums
which increases
> visibility of the service, even though it's only aimed
at the board
> owner, not the users.
>
> A major newswire service includes a discussion of their
special SEO
> "service" as part of their core literature.
>
> I'm wondering: do you think this kind of open
discussion of the "SEO
> benefit" of tweaking titles, using a particular
newswire service, or
> engaging in some kind of light link scheme, is healthy?
Aren't the
> purveyors of these services just tempting fate by
making such a big
> deal out of them, drawing the attention of search
engines, and thus
> potentially negating the benefit (as well as misleading
customers)?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "SEM 2.0" group.

To post to this group, send email to SEM2googlegroups.com

**The moderators highly recommend you visit http://groups.goo
gle.com/group/SEM2 and log into the forum on the web, to
access the full range of posting, reading, and searching
options. To make your subscription "web-only" (no
email), you can set your preferences while logged into the
forum.**

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SEM2-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On deeper reflection, I do like title tags quite a bit, but
in some of
the related areas of SEO, I think there is a LOT we need to
expose as
hype. Hope that doesn't tick anyone off.  But I'll
try to explain
further here in the next few days...

Lee Odden obviously has good ideas, because he runs a real
world
public relations firm that happens to do SEO.

In search of a topic here. But maybe it's really just a
topic along
the lines of why many of us find "on page factors"
tedious -- most of
all when they are pursued in the wrong ways or sold to
people as the
holy grail.

Andrew

On Oct 20, 11:56 pm, Adam Audette <p...audettemedia.com> wrote:
> It makes me think of the gold rush mentality at play.
SEO is so hot
> and faddish, companies of all stripes are trying to
take advantage of
> the demand. It's fairly ridiculous. In some services, a
search
> marketing component may make sense, but in many it's
more about being
> noticed for using the term "SEO" than any
real worth. It's a
> shortsighted view. Thing is, I'm sure it sells well,
because the web
> populous at large is still mostly uneducated about what
search engine
> optimization actually is. Which brings me to...
>
> ... this discussion:http://www.traffick.com/2007/10/my-next-target-titl
e-tag.asp.
> To paraphrase your post (please correct me if I clobber
it here),
> you're saying, why invest heavy resources into
adjusting (something
> like) title tags? How important is it *really* - not in
terms of the
> technique itself (which obviously IS important, from a
usability as
> well as SEO angle) - but within the greater marketing
strategy for a
> site? This especially has import for large web
inventories (usually on
> the corporate side), where tons of technology, money,
and horsepower
> are sometimes necessary to affect sitewide changes of
this nature.
>
> As Lee wrote recently -http://www.toprankblog.com/2007/10/optimizing-uni
versal-search/
> - universal search is here. The days of thinking about
SEO as only
> optimizing web pages are shortlived. With increased
competition, and
> increased sophistication from search engines, the
current is moving
> towards a bigger more holistic process. New strategies
include
> auditing a site's digital assets, deciding on keyword
messaging, and
> tagging them for visibility - within the search
engines, influential
> social networks, emerging important platforms, etc. And
using
> technologies like XML to push data to search engines
for consumption
> (Google Base, RSS, sitemaps). And optimizing video,
images, PDFs,
> local verticals, category verticals, etc.
>
> Once you start thinking about approaching search
marketing in a more
> holistic way, I think the SEO of old starts to look
kinda primitive.
> It's going to be harder and harder for consultants to
get by selling
> the techniques of keywords in the title tag, in header
tags, and in
> the content. That's sometimes an essential step;
sometimes it's
> assumed; and sometimes it gives way to more important
concerns that
> have higher ROI. What if a site can get great,
relevant, targeted
> organic traffic without having any web pages at all?
Where does that
> leave the SEO of old?
>
> Which brings me back to your post here. I agree
completely. Unless the
> SEO package is part of a broader approach that
integrates search
> marketing within the service offering, it's a sure sign
to me of the
> bandwagon mentality at work. And probably easy money
for them.
>
> -Adam
>
> On Oct 19, 3:55 pm, Andrew Goodman <agood...gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've noticed that a number of supports to websites
or marketing have
> > SEO "add-ons," "purported
benefits," or "services" that they include
> > or offer alongside their core offering.
>
> > One is a major forum/bulletin board software
maker. The SEO service is
> > often linked to openly from the footers of the
forums which increases
> > visibility of the service, even though it's only
aimed at the board
> > owner, not the users.
>
> > A major newswire service includes a discussion of
their special SEO
> > "service" as part of their core
literature.
>
> > I'm wondering: do you think this kind of open
discussion of the "SEO
> > benefit" of tweaking titles, using a
particular newswire service, or
> > engaging in some kind of light link scheme, is
healthy? Aren't the
> > purveyors of these services just tempting fate by
making such a big
> > deal out of them, drawing the attention of search
engines, and thus
> > potentially negating the benefit (as well as
misleading customers)?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "SEM 2.0" group.

To post to this group, send email to SEM2googlegroups.com

**The moderators highly recommend you visit http://groups.goo
gle.com/group/SEM2 and log into the forum on the web, to
access the full range of posting, reading, and searching
options. To make your subscription "web-only" (no
email), you can set your preferences while logged into the
forum.**

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SEM2-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---