SEO Should Be Dead

[janeth]

I want to start by saying I do not believe in onsite SEO or believe that it will still exist five years from now.

SEO is about things like; optimizing a keyword in the H1 tag, enhancing the title tag, keyword density, keyword proximity, internal linking with proper anchor text, validating your code, using CSS over tables, optimal use of flash and Java, we know the search engines like certain standards, so we use them.

However, if your web designer is on top of his/her game then they should be developing quality websites that go by the book.

Your site should validate!

They should reduce the size of your images!

They should design the site without tables!

Flash should be a movie or used sparingly and not be the entire website!

If your web designer builds a quality, well built website, by the book then it is optimized for the search engines.

Now, as the website owner, if you want people to come back to your site then you need to have fresh content. And you also need to understand the jargon people use when searching for your product or service and implement that into the text.

You do this for your website visitors however, the search engines will love you for it and it’s the final step in onsite optimization.

Onsite optimization is about the design and common sense.

But What about Off-Site Optimization, which carries more weight than on-site optimization?

If you have a local business then common sense says handout flyers, business cards, run ads on the local cable channel, put signs on your car, attend trade shows, chamber meetings and speak at local events as well as get involved in school, sports and church.

If you have an internet business then common sense should say post on forums, blogs, and directories, write articles, create profiles on social media sites and do videos. Those things will also build back links and increase the visibility and ranking of your website.

Social media is a part of online marketing just like schools, sporting events and church is part of offline marketing, rather we like it or now.

Google understands more then we think or want to give them credit for, the best way to rank in Google is too ignore them.

Just My Two Cents

[Doc]

Originally Posted by janeth

I want to start by saying I do not believe in onsite SEO or believe that it will still exist five years from now.

SEO is about things like; optimizing a keyword in the H1 tag, enhancing the title tag, keyword density, keyword proximity, internal linking with proper anchor text, validating your code, using CSS over tables, optimal use of flash and Java, we know the search engines like certain standards, so we use them.

However, if your web designer is on top of his/her game then they should be developing quality websites that go by the book.

Your site should validate!

They should reduce the size of your images!

They should design the site without tables!

Flash should be a movie or used sparingly and not be the entire website!

If your web designer builds a quality, well built website, by the book then it is optimized for the search engines.

Now, as the website owner, if you want people to come back to your site then you need to have fresh content. And you also need to understand the jargon people use when searching for your product or service and implement that into the text.

You do this for your website visitors however, the search engines will love you for it and it’s the final step in onsite optimization.

Onsite optimization is about the design and common sense.

But What about Off-Site Optimization, which carries more weight than on-site optimization?

If you have a local business then common sense says handout flyers, business cards, run ads on the local cable channel, put signs on your car, attend trade shows, chamber meetings and speak at local events as well as get involved in school, sports and church.

If you have an internet business then common sense should say post on forums, blogs, and directories, write articles, create profiles on social media sites and do videos. Those things will also build back links and increase the visibility and ranking of your website.

Social media is a part of online marketing just like schools, sporting events and church is part of offline marketing, rather we like it or now.

Google understands more then we think or want to give them credit for, the best way to rank in Google is too ignore them.

Just My Two Cents

I agree, Janeth. The designer's efforts should address all the on-site issues, following established standards. The external efforts should be the SEO's responsibility. Obviously, the standards have to be strictly followed, in order for that to work.

And there's the rub!

[ogletreeseo]

First off validation and tables vs css is very optional and has zero to do with SEO. Second onsite SEO is not going anywhere. Designers have no interest in on-site SEO. They don't know what it is nor do they care because clients don't know what it is. They are hired to make something pretty.

A designer would have to charge extra to validate and clients are not going to pay for that. Having 200 nested tables on one page is bad because it is hard to make changes to later but has zero to do with SEO. Doing a complicated design in CSS takes longer and people are not going to want to pay extra for that. Not to mention if they have to make the CSS look the same in all browsers.

[weegillis]

Sums it up nicely. Can I borrow it? If only clients knew what THEIR role is in their own site's success in the SE's. The part about building a proper document is still lost on a lot of people who think it takes more work, it's harder, it's full of problems, &c. It is very helpful to tomorrow's web if documents are strictly presented in a universal fashion but browsers of tomorrow (and SE's) will still render and crawl old style code long into the future, I'm sure. So let folks do what they will.

I'm sure Google would like it if we just ignored them, too. My two cents.

[williamc]

I have yet to see any proof that any of the major SE's gives a damn about validated code, or css over tables. The one advantage I 'can' see about css is that you can position text on the page to be seen first in a textual scan of the page (SE's) and yet have the text be positioned where you actually want it for visitors.

[ogletreeseo]

I will admit that on page SEO does not play a huge roll for hard-to-get terms. It might move you up a few spaces and can be made up with some links. On page can increase traffic quite a bit when it comes to long tail. People are always going to need SEO's to tell them what to do. Even if a designer does all the stuff you mention the client still needs to be told to create more content and how to seo that content. Designers don't think past front page and the template. It is our job after that.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by ogletreeseo

I will admit that on page SEO does not play a huge roll for hard-to-get terms. It might move you up a few spaces and can be made up with some links. On page can increase traffic quite a bit when it comes to long tail. People are always going to need SEO's to tell them what to do. Even if a designer does all the stuff you mention the client still needs to be told to create more content and how to seo that content. Designers don't think past front page and the template. It is our job after that.

I agree, but if there one day exists a solid standard, and some meaningful way of enforcing it, I think it will simplify the SEO's job, when the designer follows those standards.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by williamc

I have yet to see any proof that any of the major SE's gives a damn about validated code, or css over tables. The one advantage I 'can' see about css is that you can position text on the page to be seen first in a textual scan of the page (SE's) and yet have the text be positioned where you actually want it for visitors.

I agree 100% but since so many people claim it does I figured I'd include it here.

[williamc]

People used to claim that links were not important too. We didn't stop setting that record straight.

The people claiming validation and css over tables matters to search spiders are the people wanting to try to make a name for themselves any way they can. Personally I see no percentage in allowing them to even think they might be right, when everything to date has shown otherwise.

[Tubby]

I suspect SEO of the future. will be more like a commercial real estate agent. something akin to Offering rented space in shopping malls.

not a re-run of the web ring. . but a similar philosophy with a single agent (SEO) creating and implementing a precise cross flow of text and other links between a cooperative (mall) of maybe 20 or 30 separate but interlinking sites.

I think the SEO possibilities will prosper. But based on 'trust' The SEO being the trusted one to manipulate the linking structures, and any other inter-site cooperative duties. like a team captain, a coach, property manager approach.

I am looking at this possibility, and how it could be implemented.

[Tubby]

I can visualise for example buying a watch online, and finding yourself as a registered customer of the jewelry shop next door, (already a recognised customer) .

With the SEOs job to create the entire online shopping experience for this customer. picking and sorting acceptable services. competing with other seo's for the best network, the best services, the most traffic.

I can visualise a new store having a positive need to join a cooperative managed network. I can visualise this need taking over from the current need to get listed in google.

Of course just because I can visualise it, does not mean it will happen. But I think the concept could be sold . to website owner with good products an no customers. .

[inertia]

SEO is about things like; optimizing a keyword in the H1 tag, enhancing the title tag, keyword density, keyword proximity, internal linking with proper anchor text, validating your code, using CSS over tables, optimal use of flash and Java, we know the search engines like certain standards, so we use them.

However, if your web designer is on top of his/her game then they should be developing quality websites that go by the book.

I agree on some points but disagree on others. Firstly, I think it's worth saying that most designers (but maybe you mean developers?) that I know don't know how a search engine works and they don't seem too interested. But why should they? It's not their job to make a site rank well, pick up relevant traffic and make money IMO. It's their job to build it and make sure it works. Once that bit has been done they should be in a position where they are no longer needed; except for changes or maintenance further down the line.

I'm sure many SEOs here would love for developers to do a better job and leave us with more time to do the interesting stuff! But the fact is, they don't. They dont lable images correctly, they dont get the titles, metas and semantics right - time and time again. An SEO shouldnt just concern themselves with putting keywords into coding. What about optimising for image, blog, news, video and shopping search? What about continual adjusting of the titles and metas to yield better click throughs? Would a designer/developer be expected to know how to remove the DMoz description from your search engine listing for example? Why should they?

Should they also be able to explain why a site has dropped in rankings and be able to report back statistics on bounce rate and click through? Should they have to stay abreast of the latest developments in algos and search technology?

Now were moving towards snippets/microformatting being displayed in the SERPS... Who should know about that, the SEO or the designer/developer? What about geo-targeting etc? These are all areas which are primarily focussed on search engine performance.

Also, you've listed all the textual areas where keywords should be placed by designers but you've made no mention of the initial keyword research and content development. These are my two biggest tasks within my role as an SEO.

First off validation and tables vs css is very optional and has zero to do with SEO.

Valid code loads quicker, definately hasnt got any errors and it corrects any SEO mistakes you've made (ever missed an alt tag?). It's the great way to check your SEO and a validation check should be done as a matter of course in any SEO work. Even if its just to see what errors there are without nessecarily sorting them out. The same thing goes with accessiblity - as SEOs we should be thinking about this!!!!

CSS is much better for a SEO because it loads quicker, it uses less code, it validates far easier, it's more accessbile and it's more future proof. All issues that a well rounded SEO should be aware of IMO.

I think if you take the name "Search Engine Optimiser(zer)" literally then there's not a lot too it but in reality we do a lot more than that nowadays and we've had to evolved to keep up! Think about the fireman (or woman), theyre no longer restricted to putting out fires, they deal with crashed cars, terrorist attacks, cats in trees etc...

[inertia]

I suspect SEO of the future. will be more like a commercial real estate agent. something akin to Offering rented space in shopping malls.

Erm, isnt this just affiliate marketing?

[Hsekhar]

SEO is nothing but helping search engines find your sites better. Search Engines have got their own limitations like they can't crawl iframes, So the search engines advise you to not to use iframes for important information on your site ... The REAL SEO is a set of these kinds of rules.

But our greed has encouraged our brains to find some ways to get better rankings by exploiting the weaknesses of Search Engines. There comes the theory of ranking better with relevant, quality Backlinks. All the link building process and other kind of unethical ways is what I call Forced SEO. And, yeah, I follow it.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Hsekhar

SEO is nothing but helping search engines find your sites better. Search Engines have got their own limitations like they can't crawl iframes, So the search engines advise you to not to use iframes for important information on your site ... The REAL SEO is a set of these kinds of rules.

But our greed has encouraged our brains to find some ways to get better rankings by exploiting the weaknesses of Search Engines. There comes the theory of ranking better with relevant, quality Backlinks. All the link building process and other kind of unethical ways is what I call Forced SEO. And, yeah, I follow it.

I certainly wouldn't call link-building "unethical", Hsekhar. Carried to its extremes, it can become unethical, I suppose, but I think it's an integral part of responsible SEO efforts, and a part that is recommended by Google.

[hasmat]

I agree with Tubby. SEO should be more competitive & commercial in future. Demand of SEO professionals also increasing.

[weegillis]

Who will be the certification body for SEO? Is there one now? What are the metrics to an SEO's personal success (or failure)?

We can go to any garage, and see that they have licensed mechanics in their bays, all with certification of one form or another, but all vetted through a professional body or government regulatory agency. They all passed their tests. Does that make them a good mechanic?

[Uncle Dog]

weegillis - Who will be the certification body for SEO? I think you'll find it's me - and for £50 I'll send you your certificate.

Seriously, I'm not sure that you can have any meaningful certification. Your mechanic analogy is a good one - there are garages where you can pay for a roadworthiness certificate - there are garages that break things deliberately - there are garages that charge for work not done - there are garages that sell deathtraps - there are garages that do a good job for a reasonable price. There are professional bodies and government regulatory agencies overseing them all... and still they exist.

[williamc]

The problem is that unlike internal combustion engines, where most facets of repair really have not changed a whole lot in 50 years, SEO is an ever changing landscape. We would need to recertify every month in some cases. I just do not see it as plausable.

[Uncle Dog]

New business opportunity William?

[williamc]

Heck no, some have tried it, thinking their name would be enough to carry it. They never work as nobody can agree on what a standard should be. Without a standard, there can be no honest certification.

[weegillis]

Is there a recognized Trade Journal? Accountants receive weekly Interpretation Bulletins, etc., lawyers have their Gazettes, doctors and pharmacists their CLC's (?), even mechanics their recall and service manual updates. What does SEO have that parallels this? The Google Blog?

[morestar]

and so we're back to tables, validation and putting this all together into the SEO box...

well as many are saying, seo has nothing to do with table design/css design...

in the next 5 years seo won't be gone either...

in the next 10 years you will have people creating their car parts pages and naming them parts.php while the seo will name that particlular page, Car-Parts.php...

in the end, with no backlinks for each of them, the Car-Parts.php page will rank higher just because of the fact that google/search engines can tell what the page is about more easily...

why are you so mad at SEO janeth?

[morestar]

Originally Posted by ogletreeseo

First off validation and tables vs css is very optional and has zero to do with SEO. Second onsite SEO is not going anywhere. Designers have no interest in on-site SEO. They don't know what it is nor do they care because clients don't know what it is. They are hired to make something pretty.

A designer would have to charge extra to validate and clients are not going to pay for that. Having 200 nested tables on one page is bad because it is hard to make changes to later but has zero to do with SEO. Doing a complicated design in CSS takes longer and people are not going to want to pay extra for that. Not to mention if they have to make the CSS look the same in all browsers.

This man knows what he's talking about...yes CSS is very difficult to edit especially if you haven't coded it yourself...

[janeth]

WordCamp SF: Google & What You Need to Know WordPress Publisher Blog

Matt Cutts

WordPress takes care of 80-90% of (the mechanics of) Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

[morestar]

Originally Posted by inertia

Valid code loads quicker...

no it doesn't.

If a page with invalid CSS/XHTML code has errors in it, it will load just as fast as a page without any errors...

[blogdawg1]

I would only agree with you if you changed this sentence:
However, if your web designer is on top of his/her game then they should [ALSO] be developing quality websites that go by the book.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by morestar

and so we're back to tables, validation and putting this all together into the SEO box...

well as many are saying, seo has nothing to do with table design/css design...

in the next 5 years seo won't be gone either...

in the next 10 years you will have people creating their car parts pages and naming them parts.php while the seo will name that particlular page, Car-Parts.php...

in the end, with no backlinks for each of them, the Car-Parts.php page will rank higher just because of the fact that google/search engines can tell what the page is about more easily...

why are you so mad at SEO janeth?

lol, I'm not mad at SEO just pointing out that it's all common sense and as designers get better and customers begin understanding more the job of the SEO has to change.

As far as tables designs and sites that validate I through that in just in case some of the CSS only designers or validating SEO’s wanted to say something about it.

But the other I believe, people are starting to ask for websites that validate and programs are getting smart enough to add in the page names, title and meta tags.

Just take a look at wordpress.

[weslinda]

Interesting post. Ironic that the original poster who shares SEO Should Be Dead has a link for Search Engine Optimization in her signature. This world is filled with great irony, and this is just another prime example.

[compar]

I haven't been on one of these forums in about 5 years. We were having this identical debate, arguement, discussion then. In fact it was so old and trite that that is why I abandoned the forums. It's hard to believe 5 years later it is still going on word for word exactly the same.

Janeth, you must have written this same thing a thousand times. You even acknowledged that you wrote things you don't believe. Why? How is that productive? How does that contribute to the knowledge database?

It's hard to believe there isn't some point to all this, but I'm obviously missing it.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by janeth

SEO is about things like; optimizing a keyword in the H1 tag, enhancing the title tag, keyword density, keyword proximity, internal linking with proper anchor text,

those things you mentioned are all part of the Marketing not the web design.. a web designer is not a professional copy writer and should never be touching the content on a page.

Many SEOs work more like project managers, identifying what needs correction and then consulting with the marketing department to let them reword their content to up the game. also coaching designers and developers on which coding practices they need to pay attention to and where to correct things..

I do agree that much of what we call optimization (valid code, accessibility, usability, rdfa etc.) should be a given, and automatically done correctly. If that was the case, then you would be correct in saying that SEO is dead.. but until all web designers are doing what they are supposed to it won't die.

Most small businesses could not afford to let someone actually take the time to properly design their site, the time involved is too heavy on the front end. so most sites get put up with the basics, and then the rest is added as they go along.

[morestar]

Originally Posted by janeth

lol, I'm not mad at SEO just pointing out that it's all common sense and as designers get better and customers begin understanding more the job of the SEO has to change.

As far as tables designs and sites that validate I through that in just in case some of the CSS only designers or validating SEO’s wanted to say something about it.

But the other I believe, people are starting to ask for websites that validate and programs are getting smart enough to add in the page names, title and meta tags.

Just take a look at wordpress.

I guess I hear you there, but really, are you getting customers that are asking you to create sites that validate?

Personally I have never been asked to validate a website - so I'm just wondering...

[flhu]

With all the drag-n-drop WYSIWYG software out, web design should be dead... but it isn't.

But it's amazing how little one needs to keep in mind to do effective SEO, yet few do.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by morestar

why are you so mad at SEO janeth?

Would you add in your signature here a link "Search Engine Optimization" if you were mad with SEO? And I am wondering why would you do that and the same time spread the word that search engine optimization is dead.

Did I miss something?

[rickvidallon]

Originally Posted by ogletreeseo

First off validation and tables vs css is very optional and has zero to do with SEO. Second onsite SEO is not going anywhere. Designers have no interest in on-site SEO. They don't know what it is nor do they care because clients don't know what it is. They are hired to make something pretty.

A designer would have to charge extra to validate and clients are not going to pay for that. Having 200 nested tables on one page is bad because it is hard to make changes to later but has zero to do with SEO. Doing a complicated design in CSS takes longer and people are not going to want to pay extra for that. Not to mention if they have to make the CSS look the same in all browsers.

KUDOS TO ogletreeseo

Validation has NOTHING to do with SEO and neither does CSS versus tables.I wrote an article about this a few years ago when my client was approached by another web company claiming that the site we built did not pass validation.

Here is the article:

Like it or not, industry jargon often coughs up terms that become buzzwords. When this occurs—and it occurs across the board; web development is no exception—the terms can become diluted, even ambiguous. Two such terms lately include “validation” and “web standards.”

To be clear, the W3C provides specifications and recommendations, not mandates. In a rigorous sense, it can be argued that true web standards do not exist: they are a myth. Scary word! But don’t be alarmed. Don’t confuse myth with falsehood. So-called “web standards” are a myth in the sense that they describe an oft-repeated ideology that strives to establish popular convention.


Thinking optimistically, we might call these an ever-evolving ideal, something we as a community are still working toward perfecting. What we have, at present, are de facto guidelines, principles that serve an objective without being legally enforceable.
If a house’s wiring and electrical components are not UL-listed, the home inspector may refuse to issue occupancy permits. When ISO compliance isn’t met, products don’t ship. These are high stakes. On the other hand, in the face of invalid web markup, websites march on. The overwhelming majorities of surfers don’t bat an eyelash and don’t need to.

Provided the developer has written functional markup, failure to meet W3C validation means nothing more than the fact that a document contains something that is either not in the specification or is in disagreement with the specification. Invalid markup is therefore not necessarily in violation of anything.

These strong words—“invalid,” “violation”—may pack a punch to the layman, but in context of the web developer’s lexicon, they reflect markup that may be an addition to the specification or something the validator simply doesn’t recognize. Certain JavaScript that is universally understood by user agents, for example, does not appear in the HTML specifications.
Let’s not misunderstand. Poorly formed HTML can be a hassle to update. It may be a factor in search engine optimization (whose “standards” change often, to the chagrin of SEO subject matter experts). In some cases, it can cause content to load slowly (or appear to load slowly).

Validators are great for quickly spot-checking possible deal-breaker gaffes among copious volumes of markup. But validators are servants, not masters. W3C badges are effectively academic badges of honor. Such validation is an admirable enough goal, but is not always worth the return on investment in a production environment. Far more important is to ensure that markup is efficiently written.
Let’s see if the big boys agree.

Google and Yahoo! handle some of the thickest traffic on the market. As of this writing, neither site complies with the W3C validator. How about heavy-hitters CNET and eBay? Failed. Adobe’s and Macromedia’s websites? Failed. What about php.net and python.org? These are the home bases of open-source developers who themselves rely on evolving quasi-authorities like the W3C … but no; these sites fail, as well. How about netscape.com? Staffs of Netscape Communications Corp. are members the W3C, after all, and Netscape is responsible for JavaScript, one of the worlds’s most widely used client side technologies. Yet their site does not comply. Surely useit.com, the site of the esteemed usability guru, Jacob Nielson, is compliant. Surely! Guess again.
W3C validation is not the web developer’s Holy Grail. Validation does not guarantee a site will look the same from platform to platform, from browser to browser. Validation does not assure that markup is efficiently written or adheres to a given entity’s assessment of best practices. What it means is that the developer has coded a functional document and used no markup in addition to that specified by the guidelines.

Wearing suspenders in addition to a belt isn’t illegal, it’s just … extra.

No harm in that, is there?

[morestar]

Originally Posted by flhu

With all the drag-n-drop WYSIWYG software out, web design should be dead... but it isn't.

But it's amazing how little one needs to keep in mind to do effective SEO, yet few do.

WYSIWYG or not, the world has over 7 billion people and not even 1% of them know how to develop a website nor use a WYSIWYG !

we're fine, we'll all have good jobs in the next 30 years...

[morestar]

Originally Posted by rickvidallon

[B]To be clear, the W3C provides specifications and recommendations, not mandates. In a rigorous sense, it can be argued that true web standards do not exist: they are a myth.

Yes every time I read the word Validate I want to ask, who the hell is Validating my code? My neighbour could probably validate my code and do a great job doing it!

Who's W3 to me anyways?

They have NEVER in one way at all helped me make money nor helped my sites rank, nor help my clients make money...

[simonm]

Janeth, What a wonderful comment you have made and I hope that all of my competitors read and misunderstand it!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by morestar

I guess I hear you there, but really, are you getting customers that are asking you to create sites that validate?

Personally I have never been asked to validate a website - so I'm just wondering...

About 3 last month.

Not many but enough to make me take notice.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Interesting post. Ironic that the original poster who shares SEO Should Be Dead has a link for Search Engine Optimization in her signature. This world is filled with great irony, and this is just another prime example.

And your point?

I can tell you how to wash a car and still sale it as a service.

[morestar]

I hope you told them validation costs more money in the short and long run.

short cause it will take you more time to go through the whole validation process...
and long-term cause their future developer if it isn't you will have to trace your code and figure out what you had in mind when you add a 15 pixel margin to that footer div so it would work in FF and Safari back in 2009 versions of the browsers too!!!

: )

[findconstructionjobs]

I have been into seo for sometime. But it doesn't look easy as it was few years back. Great is the competition and google's taste bud has changed rapidly

[weslinda]

Originally Posted by janeth

And your point?

I can tell you how to wash a car and still sale it as a service.

Well, but you're declaring that washing my car is dead or should be, and then telling me you're selling it as a service. Just ironic IMHO.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by morestar

WYSIWYG or not, the world has over 7 billion people and not even 1% of them know how to develop a website nor use a WYSIWYG !

we're fine, we'll all have good jobs in the next 30 years...

The reason we are still able to design and create websites and the job want go away is because designing websites is an art.

It’s the ability to take all types of artwork from different formats and put them together in such a way that they are able to guide a visitor in the direction we want them to go and react in the way we want them to react.

At this time knowing how to use a tool does not make one able to do the job.

However, in search engine optimization, Wordpress, is a perfect example of a tool that can pretty much optimize the site for you.

As Matt Cutts said, 90% of the onsite SEO is already done.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by morestar

I hope you told them validation costs more money in the short and long run.

short cause it will take you more time to go through the whole validation process...
and long-term cause their future developer if it isn't you will have to trace your code and figure out what you had in mind when you add a 15 pixel margin to that footer div so it would work in FF and Safari back in 2009 versions of the browsers too!!!

: )

Yes, it is something that cost more money and the problem was caused by SEO's saying that your site had to validate before it would rank.

[morestar]

Originally Posted by janeth

Yes, it is something that cost more money and the problem was caused by SEO's saying that your site had to validate before it would rank.

did SEs really say that? serious question...

I remember a bunch of pompous web developers (such as myself in those days) claiming that SEs wanted 'valid' code but...

[ogletreeseo]

SEO to web design is like Ford is to Saline. Ford knows how to make a pretty car that works and is not in the business of making a fast car. Saline is in the business of making it perform better and go faster.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by morestar

did SEs really say that? serious question...

I remember a bunch of pompous web developers (such as myself in those days) claiming that SEs wanted 'valid' code but...

I was away from the forum for a couple years and then I returned for a short time and it was all over this forum.

There were SEO’s (some of who are posting in this tread) who was claiming at that time that validating your site improved your ranking.

I posted against them but finally just gave up and went my own way.

Now it seems everyone has given up the idea but if you look through some old threads they should not be hard to find.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ogletreeseo

SEO to web design is like Ford is to Saline. Ford knows how to make a pretty car that works and is not in the business of making a fast car. Saline is in the business of making it perform better and go faster.

Not sure who Saline is but did they work on the Ford GT-90?

[claybutler]

I handle the seo and the design for my clients. I also handle all their branding. I regularly have to fix sites because the previous designer didn't know a thing about how search engines work, about conversions or any usability issues. Nor did they care. Which is very sad and professionally negligent as far as I'm concerned.

From my point of view a client is hiring me to make a website that performs. To just make it pretty without any concerns to ROI issues is simply not acceptable. Unfortunately this is the norm. I'm shocked at how many designers simply don't care if the website they designed performs or not. I'm a firm believer that a good web designer must also have fundamental SEO and marketing knowledge and build the site from the ground up with this in mind. To simply brush off a poorly performing website as someone else's problem is not acceptable.

You know what I do if a client gives me bad copy? I rewrite it myself or tell them to. I'll also explain why good copy is important and how they could improve it. If a client asks for historically poorly performing features (like a flash splash page) I explain the problem and I steer them towards a better solution. That's why they are hiring me. To provide the best solution to their problem. If they wanted someone who would blindly follow whatever they wanted regardless of how it effected their brand, their positioning, their image and ultimately their ROI, they would just hire a design sweatshop in India. They'll implement anything you want no matter how ridiculous.

I think designers who say SEO, copy, calls to action, architecture, usability, branding and positioning are someone else's problem are just coping out. How can you take money from someone and not care? I'm not saying you must be an expert in all, but you better have the professionalism and integrity to at least offer a suggestion when you see a client doing something that is clearly going to work against their best interests.