Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnScott
This idea makes sense until you realize the implications.
Google's home page only mentions the word Google once in the page title, and once on the page. So if the SEO copywriters got their way, a search for Google would be dominated by any hack who loaded their page with obnoxious repetitions of the word Google.
If Google implemented an SEO copywriter's algorithm, Google wouldn't even be included in the search results for "search engine".
If Google implemented such an algorithm, the search results for Computers would not include www.apple.com, www.dell.com, www.compaq.com or IBM's home page.
If Google implemented such an algorithm, the SERPs would be dominated by keyword spamming trash. |
I applaud your rational - and I actually don't disagree with your "single page" argument. Websites are not normally a single page though and there is a ton of things - you're not saying. I also have a big problem with your implied meaning of "content" (
SEO or otherwise) in association with copywriting and subsequently "brand".
First: using "copywriters" - implies professional writing - adding "content" suggests informative, and adding actual "on-page"
SEO techniques seems to reflect - page optimization or among other things editing page elements - even though you have suggested you never said that:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnScott
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:33 pm
Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Fathom,
You know that I never said that page elements SEO was dead. I'd be much obliged if you refrain from taking my statements out of context. |
Yet your discussion posts says (bolded):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnScott
The Content SEO
The first group I call the copywriters. This group likes to place the chosen keywords in the page titles, in H* tags and in optimized density within the body copy. This group usually also believes in creating redundant "content pages" targeting less than competitive keywords.
|
Second:
The "Google" brand drives Google to be #1 for Google which would be one of those "irrelevant keywords" or zero competitiveness keywords that you discussed had they not been as successful as they are. They don't solicit links to get ranked either thus using them to bolster your argument lacks something. As a matter of principle I strongly doubt they use any
SEO's at all - yet your argument is quite suggestive that Google's position is based on some
SEO ability to "develop links".
In the case of Dell, IBM and many others -- "brand" also drives them to be
synonymous with a generic word (or keyword) - not some
SEO developing a link strategy for them... thus your argument is
a bit flawed in my estimation.
In contrast - "content" information/products/services and alot of marketing and more content, and customer service and support and yet more content made these companies who they are - they don't need "Link Monger" anything or "link acquisition" -- people naturally link to them because they are who they are - not because something else is dead, died or dying but become of their information, products/services - or just "known for quality content".
Notwithstanding, I tend to agree that keyword, keyword, keyword, on any
single page and by itself is worth less... but telling people that you can be as successful as "Dell" or "Google" without any "content writing" (regardless of who wrote it) just add links -- is pure rubbish.
I know you didn't say that last part - however you are suggesting these big name companies are doing "link acquisition" to gain their positioning -- right? or wrong?
On the other hand -- if you actually mean
keyword spamming and
doorway pages rather than content writing or copywriting and just wanted to make the discussion "lively" ;) - this is old news (1998) and why Google is so successful.