Free your content by breaking the shackles of search engine optimisation
Posted by: Marketing Guy Date posted: February 14th, 2008 Published in: Copywriting for SEO, Search Engine Optimisation, SpamI think most of us know the difference between a quality article and a spammy optimised one, but there is a line in the middle that a lot of us tread. The line itself is very grey for most people, but personally I think there is a clear difference that is very easy to spot. Unfortunately, my thoughts on the matter would suggest that a large percentage of “optimised” content out there is in fact spam. Controversial, I know!
Let me clarify. I don’t think search engine optimisers are spammers. Some are, clearly, but most aren’t. I just think some are a little bit liberal with how far to take the optimisation process and need to expand their borders a little.
Take my article about SEO agency copywriting sins. That is what I would consider to be an “optimised” article. Why? The focus is on the content, not the optimisation. It isn’t particularly targeted very well but then again I don’t think every article you write should be focused so tightly on keywords.
OK if it isn’t technically targeting juicy keywords then it isn’t particularly well optimised - I know. But my point is the technical process of optimising an article not the actual targeting itself.
One of the main things I think the SEO industry is guilty of is stifling creativity and narrowing focus. Not everything needs to be about the keywords! The point is that breaking the mold of intensive keyword targeting can be a form of optimisation in itself. Just like using the same title tag on every page is bad, using the same generic form of copy optimisation can be bad too. Not bad in terms of direct SEO, but more for how users perceive your content.
A “perfect” example
A perfect example of this is from 2006. I wrote a somewhat sarcastic review of an article written by Bigmouthmedia, which was entitled, “Google PageRank Update, Page Rank Update and Page Rank Explained” - read my take on it here.
Keyword stuffing in the title. Misssspellings. No real solid information. It’s not real spam (as spam might be defined by most of the SEO industry), but it’s not a real article either is it? It doesn’t mean BMM are spammers - it’s just a badly written article.
The point I’m making here is that “made for SEO” articles isn’t search engine optimisation in my opinion. The clue is in the name. Optimisation. You optimise existing copy or write new copy with optimisation in mind. Creating an article that has no value just for the sake of having a page rank for that term is just spam in my opinion. Maybe a nice cherry coloured spam, but spam nonetheless.
Don’t get me wrong, we’ve all done it (me included), but more and more these days I’m starting to think it’s getting out of hand. You visit some websites and it’s like browsing through an elaborate Wordtracker printout.
Content can have different objectives
Every page on your site should have its own mini content strategy. Perhaps not something formal, but certainly a general rule of thumb should be attached to each content type.
Consider these examples:
- A forum thread
- A news article
- A blog post
- A product page
- A category page
- A social media page
- A directory page
Should each of these pages follow the same optimisation process? No.
You don’t want to be ranking for high money terms with a forum thread - you don’t want a core product page to be treated like a news item. You should be carefully crafting your different content areas to accommodate for different types of searches.
Using the BMM example - that, IMO, is just plain lazy. They’ve used their news CMS to pubish an article that attempts to target a generic term. What’s the point in that? They don’t allow comments - the page doesn’t sell anything. That was just an ego optimisation that they tried and failed to rank for.
If a page has no purpose other than an attempt to rank for a random term, then it is spam.
The Sphinn / Search Engine Land example
This is one I’ve been thinking about for a while. I don’t think Third door media are really managing their content well.
Search Engine Land has loads of great content - it has all the makings of a great news site, but has been confined in a stuffy little blog format with a poor comments system. Bad archiving (for users) means it’s pretty hard to find anything of use - it seems more like it has been optimised for RSS than for users or search eninges.
Sphinn approaches the news format using a Digg model (which personally I don’t think works very well, but that’s just my personal opinion) - again, there are issues there. From a user’s point of view you really have to browse through lists and hope you find something - the front page stuff is usually worth a read but it isn’t for everyone.
The issue is that there’s tonnes of awesome content there - from guest columns on SEL to mentions of great blog posts on Sphinn. It’s just the way that the content is presented to users that holds the sites back (IMO) - they have the potential to be an awesome resource. But the narrow approach taken (Digg clone / blog format) has also narrowed the potential of the sites.
What do you reckon?
Optimise or don’t bother trying? Does every page on your site really need to be nailed solidly to anything with a good KEI? Can every page on your site be presented in the same manner? When you think of “optimising your content”, do you restrict yourself solely to what keywords are targeted or do you think about the end user?
If you stick to solidly to the concept of SEO, then you run the risk of taking your business along a predetermined set of tracks. You really need to break free from those tracks - while you can still use them as a guide, you need to explore the surrounding areas. Digg is a success because it was an innovation - Digg clones can fail because they have the flaws of the system, without the momentum to sail through them.
Take a peek in the Forest of Quality Editorials, bathe in the Pools of User Experience, run wild with the Wildebeast of Imagination and fornicate with the Longtail Vixens of Serendipity Falls. Or just follow the same old road that everyone else does. I think it leads to the town of Mediocrity.
Scott
ADDED - a good example of the flaws of the Digg type system used by Sphinn - the Valentines day post made the homepage on Feb 15th - a day late. The way the content is presented is flawed because the community hasn’t reached the critical mass required to maintain the model.
Comments
Forgive for maybe missing the point, but isnt good SEO all about content.
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.
No, you make good points - all I was trying to say is that in a lot of cases, SEO restricts the potential of some sites because consider to be the end of the process or in some cases, it’s the only part of the process. SEO is about good content to a certain degree, but without exposure, focus or technically presenting that content well, the content is meaningless.
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