The click here example is a good one – that’s not a term people would actively target – the value there is seeing how different search engines handle the search term, which then can be analysed for an insight into their ranking algorithm. “Click here” is an anomoly within search algorithms – it is unlike most other search queries as the high link text weight vs on page factors are unique.

It is entirely possible for your web dev / copywriters / PR people to be doing a stellar job and yet your site doesn’t rank for anything. A good copywriter may see value in cross posting the same article over multiple pages on your site – that isn’t good for SEO. A good web developer might want to use Flash for navigation – that isn’t good for SEO. A good PR person might want to send out a press release with no link to the site – that isn’t good for SEO. SEO should be bringing these areas together – not to compromise the functions of these roles, but to help advise these areas of business on the best way to come together That not only adds new value (rankings), but increases existing value (different functions are providing more value).

Sites who rank naturally well aren’t lucky and aren’t necessarily SEO experts – after all, search engines set out with the goal to rank good sites highly. SEO really should be about helping that process (and sure, some sites don’t need that help) – if you want organic traffic for your business, then you need to move past the “I feel lucky” stage and stop assuming that you are owed these search engine rankings and referrals – they can go away at any time.

My main focus for this post was just to have a grumble about how certain content is presented. That’s not just SEO (although made-for-SEO articles are part of this problem) – it’s about web development (usability, function) – it’s about copywriting (writing copy with specific goals) – it’s about PR / marketing (targeting specific user groups with your copy). The buck shouldn’t stop with SEO – that just ends up with a horrendous site, just like tech-led design can end up with a bland looking site, or marketing-led design can lead to a jazzy site that doesn’t work for users. SEO is just another part of the process and it should be treated as such.

Certain areas of SEO may not be rocket science and it can focus on marketing principles but it isn’t as simple as that for a lot of sites. The second that you want to capitalise on rankings for your business, then SEO needs to be part of your business mix (but it shouldn’t dominate it IMO).

Scott

Lots of people spend lots of money paying lots of SEO experts to basically spell out the principles of marketing – namely if you have the right content and expose it in the right way, people will want to talk about it and link to it. If you get these links without forcing anyone’s hands (either cash or otherwise) you start to establish your authority – or at least credibility. It’s not really rocket science is it?

A great example I was shown recently was for ‘click here’. Now, nobody in their right mind would optimise for ‘click here’ as their SEO keywords of choice. However, guess who’s top of the pile? Adobe Acrobat downloader. Mentions of click or here? 0.

It comes top because people want to use the content (in this case a download). There was no effort to do SEO. All they did was apply the correct principles (or near enough) of web design, offer something that people want (and want/need to link to) and they come top of the list.

I mean, I do really wish life was that easy and that SEO was really as simple as that, but it makes the point that without good content you are nothing, even if it is completely offtopic with regards to keywords.

My theory – if your web designer is worth his salt, your site should be structurally optimised. If your copywriters are worth their salt, the content will be valuable. If your marketers (or PR agency) are worth their salt, your content will be found and used. If all three occur, you’re doing a fair job of SEO without doing ‘SEO’.

I know of many, many sites which when first built did not adhere (and in some cases still don’t) to SEO principles or best practice of today, let alone yesterday, and yet still they come top of the list. I can also guarantee that these same people don’t care about the algorithms, neither do they spam and neither do they behave unethically. Are these same people SEO experts – or just lucky? I think they would say they were neither, they just wanted to produce useful and informative information on the web.

Or am I completely missing the point.