Excuse Me, Your SEO is Showing
Not to date myself here, but I started writing before SEO was part of modern vocabulary. I learned to write with conviction and clarity, to creatively communicate meaning, and to carefully choose words that would draw in a human reader rather than attract a robot. I learned the craft of writing as an art, not a science.
Writing has changed now with the desire to have a strong online presence and to show up first in a Google search or on Digg’s front page. Writing, at least the online sort, seems to have taken a turn for the science, often abandoning the art. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance of SEO in online content, but it seems that SEO has become of primary concern in most online writing. There are an overabundance of SEO keyword dense headlines and articles floating around out there, and it always seems so obvious which are written with SEO as the primary goal.
Keyword driven headlines and content may be search friendly, but when they show up in a search, are they compelling enough for a human to respond, click and read? Or does that not matter anymore? Copyblogger recently posted an article by Dave Navarro about the importance of headlines. In the article, it was stated that, “it’s well known that many Digg users vote on articles based on article titles and descriptions without ever actually reading the stories.” I find it a little disheartening that people aren’t reading content anymore, just headlines. If this is true, does this mean that the written word, the actual meaning the words has taken a backseat to searchable terms?
The creative soul that I am can’t help but want to make a pretty sentence that a human might read and respond to. I admittedly spend way too much time crafting and editing everything that I write. I have to consciously force the science in once the art is done. In my book, art comes first and science comes second. Just the same, the scientists among us also have to try to remember to bring art into their writing. Take the SEO formula and add a few swipes of a paintbrush to it, so it is compelling and appealing to humans as well as robots. I guess the trick is for the artists and the scientists to begin to mingle and mix it up a bit. You know, like in the old Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup commercial: you got peanut butter on my chocolate or you got chocolate in my peanut butter. Maybe art and science should rub up against each other a little bit more. When the two elements are put together in the right amounts, they can actually taste pretty good.


































Greg Satell
wrote on September 10, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Cheryl,
Great post! I’m becoming a big fan of your blog.
I completely agree with your opinion, but I would go even further. I don’t really think it’s effective SEO.
As far as I know about how search engines work (although I’m not an expert), results are determined by two factors:
Importance: This is the famous Page Rank algorithm which is based on the same principles as cites in scientific journals. As I understand it, the total number of links is calculated, but weighted for the number of links that incoming links have (i.e. the more important the page that links to your page, the higher your page ranks)
Relevance: This is based on keywords, but not only the key words in your page, but also the keywords in linking pages.
I don’t profess to be an expert (and I don’t know who can be, the algorithms change daily). However it seems to me that the best SEO is to have good content that people want to link to.
For instance, if you had a political site, you would be much better off having an incoming link from CNN than peppering your site with political keywords.
My primary piece of evidence is that the search engines actually do work and work well. Moreover, a lot of money is riding on them continuing to work and some very smart people put forth enormous effort towards making them work. I just have a very hard time believing that they are going to be outsmarted by a bunch of pimple-faced kids with a dollar and a dream.
A ceteris paribus assumption is only valid if things actually are equal. I really don’t see how crappy content can improve SEO as a general strategy (there are some exceptions – sites that already have a strong PageRank have a bit more leeway).
As someone who has actually managed sites with a PageRank of 8, I can attest to the value of good content.
Keep up the good work. Your site is fantastic!
- Greg
Cheryl Andonian aka Momblebee
wrote on September 10, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Hey Greg,
So I guess it is who you know, not what you know or maybe more accurately, it’s if who you know is popular enough and likes what you know enough to link. Hmm, I better start making some important friends who regularly use stellar keywords!
Thanks for being a fan. You’ll be one of the first to get a t-shirt!
Cheryl