|
Don't Turn SEO Into Spam
By Scott Boyd
Expert Author
Article Date: 2008-02-26
I 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.
Comments
About the Author:
Scott Boyd (aka Marketing Guy) is an Edinburgh based online marketing consultant with over 6 years experience in the industry. He is the founder of SEO agency eFlaunt, where he mixes a
blend of traditional marketing and SEO.
Scott's musings relating to the marketing and SEO industries can be found on his blog - Fused Nation.
|
|
