<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SEO: Why Gamble Against the House?</title>
	<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/</link>
	<description>Advice. Assistance. Attitude. For Business Owners Who Need to "Get There"</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: The Secret Of Blackjack - Top Pay! &#124; 7Wins.eu</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-1096</link>
		<author>The Secret Of Blackjack - Top Pay! &#124; 7Wins.eu</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:34:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-1096</guid>
		<description>[...] game – information for novicesgee bobg </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] game – information for novicesgee bobg</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bk</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-1078</link>
		<author>bk</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-1078</guid>
		<description>The *subject* and "meat" of the article are vague and some of the responses seem to follow the generalization. "SEO", unlike a PPC campaign (where landing pages are a must) require no outside funding whatsoever. As in, you shouldn't be paying someone for this. You need good page copy, meta page names, key words and other script. Given a little time, if your pages do not pop on 1 to 2, then you have a way-lame site, selling nothing no one wants. We're not talking tough stuff here. ~Duh~ We have written *everything* ourselves and show up on page one of both G &#38; Y for the top 25% of our best selling product lines (over 18,000 cached pages). Andy, write some stuff about the PPC sellers! Who really uses the "top &#38; right" is where I base my skepticism for outsourcing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The *subject* and &#8220;meat&#8221; of the article are vague and some of the responses seem to follow the generalization. &#8220;SEO&#8221;, unlike a PPC campaign (where landing pages are a must) require no outside funding whatsoever. As in, you shouldn&#8217;t be paying someone for this. You need good page copy, meta page names, key words and other script. Given a little time, if your pages do not pop on 1 to 2, then you have a way-lame site, selling nothing no one wants. We&#8217;re not talking tough stuff here. ~Duh~ We have written *everything* ourselves and show up on page one of both G &amp; Y for the top 25% of our best selling product lines (over 18,000 cached pages). Andy, write some stuff about the PPC sellers! Who really uses the &#8220;top &amp; right&#8221; is where I base my skepticism for outsourcing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Les Proctor</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-783</link>
		<author>Les Proctor</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:16:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-783</guid>
		<description>If I hear what you're saying, unless you've got a website with a compelling reason for people to do business with you, SEO is a ticket to nowhere.

The reason that the Wright Brothers got it right, and were the first ones to fly, is because while everyone else was working on manufacturing the most powerful engines, they were working on the plane itself, particularly making it lighter and giving it the wings it needed to fly.

So instead of focusing exclusively on "tricks" to achieve top rankings, focus on the message and the offers that will make people want to do business with you in the first place. This is not only the thing that will make a page relevant and drive pagerank; it's also the relevance that will turn browsers into buyers.

Thank you Andy, and I am sorry to contradict you, but SEO and DM are 100% analogous, and SEO should be, if it is not already, held similarly accountable for results. Google offers A/B Splits, Multivariate Testing, Continuous process improvement and all. If it's not results-accountable, that's the fault of the practitioner, not the medium.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I hear what you&#8217;re saying, unless you&#8217;ve got a website with a compelling reason for people to do business with you, SEO is a ticket to nowhere.</p>
<p>The reason that the Wright Brothers got it right, and were the first ones to fly, is because while everyone else was working on manufacturing the most powerful engines, they were working on the plane itself, particularly making it lighter and giving it the wings it needed to fly.</p>
<p>So instead of focusing exclusively on &#8220;tricks&#8221; to achieve top rankings, focus on the message and the offers that will make people want to do business with you in the first place. This is not only the thing that will make a page relevant and drive pagerank; it&#8217;s also the relevance that will turn browsers into buyers.</p>
<p>Thank you Andy, and I am sorry to contradict you, but SEO and DM are 100% analogous, and SEO should be, if it is not already, held similarly accountable for results. Google offers A/B Splits, Multivariate Testing, Continuous process improvement and all. If it&#8217;s not results-accountable, that&#8217;s the fault of the practitioner, not the medium.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Race</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-774</link>
		<author>Paul Race</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-774</guid>
		<description>Andy, I used to develop web sites for Fortune 500 companies; now I have other work, but I still keep my hand in.  I would have to say that I have seen competitors "buy their way" temporarily to the first page, but fade in a few weeks because it was a "quick fix."  For the long haul, I rely on reliable, professional, frequently updated content that relates to my core.  If people find what they're looking for, bookmark the site, add links to articles on the site, tell their friends, and so on, that results in "organic" positions that have staying power.  

I'm sure paid SEO consultants have a role, just like anyone else who knows more than the average businessperson about a particular area of expertise. I just agree with Andy that it's no magic bullet, especially if folks follow the link back to your site and don't find what they wanted.

There really CAN BE an "if you build it people will come" aspect to a good web site, but you have to have something worth coming for if you want them to come back.  And, by the way, by building that content, you're automatically doing most of the things the optimizing pros would tell you to do and more.

Paul Race
Breakthrough Communications, Springfield Ohio</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andy, I used to develop web sites for Fortune 500 companies; now I have other work, but I still keep my hand in.  I would have to say that I have seen competitors &#8220;buy their way&#8221; temporarily to the first page, but fade in a few weeks because it was a &#8220;quick fix.&#8221;  For the long haul, I rely on reliable, professional, frequently updated content that relates to my core.  If people find what they&#8217;re looking for, bookmark the site, add links to articles on the site, tell their friends, and so on, that results in &#8220;organic&#8221; positions that have staying power.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure paid SEO consultants have a role, just like anyone else who knows more than the average businessperson about a particular area of expertise. I just agree with Andy that it&#8217;s no magic bullet, especially if folks follow the link back to your site and don&#8217;t find what they wanted.</p>
<p>There really CAN BE an &#8220;if you build it people will come&#8221; aspect to a good web site, but you have to have something worth coming for if you want them to come back.  And, by the way, by building that content, you&#8217;re automatically doing most of the things the optimizing pros would tell you to do and more.</p>
<p>Paul Race<br />
Breakthrough Communications, Springfield Ohio</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Birol</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-773</link>
		<author>Andy Birol</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:04:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-773</guid>
		<description>I knew I would draw the fire of the good folks who make a living selling what I have critiqued, but I would hope that a few actual customers who have paid real money and have enjoyed real results would respond to defend their SEO suppliers. So far no owners of buying firms have responded which is remarkable given 95% of my newsletter readers are business owners and likely buyers of SEO.

Still, thank you, Les, for the DM 101 primer, which we all follow regardless of SEO, which is not similarly accountable for results or ROI; Alan, I think your response is in agreement with my three points; and Ron, you humble me with your idea that I am smart enough to play the SEO game back at you!

Let's hear from some buyers of SEO who can speak to their success and how their SEO providers delivered this! 

And wouldn't it be great if a business owner could buy SEO on a success fee, just as they buy consulting, investment banking, venture capital and other professional services, Jeff.  But time will tell who survives in the professional services business as making our clients  more successful, profitable and wealthy will always separate successful providers from pretenders!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I knew I would draw the fire of the good folks who make a living selling what I have critiqued, but I would hope that a few actual customers who have paid real money and have enjoyed real results would respond to defend their SEO suppliers. So far no owners of buying firms have responded which is remarkable given 95% of my newsletter readers are business owners and likely buyers of SEO.</p>
<p>Still, thank you, Les, for the DM 101 primer, which we all follow regardless of SEO, which is not similarly accountable for results or ROI; Alan, I think your response is in agreement with my three points; and Ron, you humble me with your idea that I am smart enough to play the SEO game back at you!</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s hear from some buyers of SEO who can speak to their success and how their SEO providers delivered this! </p>
<p>And wouldn&#8217;t it be great if a business owner could buy SEO on a success fee, just as they buy consulting, investment banking, venture capital and other professional services, Jeff.  But time will tell who survives in the professional services business as making our clients  more successful, profitable and wealthy will always separate successful providers from pretenders!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buzzoodle Ron</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-772</link>
		<author>Buzzoodle Ron</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-772</guid>
		<description>Hi Andy.

I have to agree with some of the people here that your take on it is a bit shaky.  Whoever told you that you were tricking the search engines was not a professional.  

I also think many SEO experts will take a lot of money tweaking a site that might have been better used on a writer just putting out a lot of quality content.

You could also be brilliant, if your goal with writing this was to get a bunch of SEO Experts to link to your website - their sites would be well optimized and you would get a nice bump.

I am going to take a chance and say that was part of your rational.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Andy.</p>
<p>I have to agree with some of the people here that your take on it is a bit shaky.  Whoever told you that you were tricking the search engines was not a professional.  </p>
<p>I also think many SEO experts will take a lot of money tweaking a site that might have been better used on a writer just putting out a lot of quality content.</p>
<p>You could also be brilliant, if your goal with writing this was to get a bunch of SEO Experts to link to your website - their sites would be well optimized and you would get a nice bump.</p>
<p>I am going to take a chance and say that was part of your rational.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Bayer</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-771</link>
		<author>Alan Bayer</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-771</guid>
		<description>True SEO (as done by a true professional) is not about tricking or cheating the search engines into ranking your site  higher. It is about providing relevant and useful content, then communicating to the search engines that your site has relevant and useful content about a certain topic. Search engine optimization is NOT a "get rich quick" scheme, and often times optimizing a site will not result in increased traffic for months or years. SEO is such a hot topic because Organic Google results can make up over 50% of your web traffic, and any company that does business online would be foolish not to try to capture this traffic. I can sympathize with the author's frustration, however--As there are tons of unscrupulous SEOs out there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True SEO (as done by a true professional) is not about tricking or cheating the search engines into ranking your site  higher. It is about providing relevant and useful content, then communicating to the search engines that your site has relevant and useful content about a certain topic. Search engine optimization is NOT a &#8220;get rich quick&#8221; scheme, and often times optimizing a site will not result in increased traffic for months or years. SEO is such a hot topic because Organic Google results can make up over 50% of your web traffic, and any company that does business online would be foolish not to try to capture this traffic. I can sympathize with the author&#8217;s frustration, however&#8211;As there are tons of unscrupulous SEOs out there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Quipp</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-769</link>
		<author>Jeff Quipp</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-769</guid>
		<description>Another misguided and misinformed business consultant ... showing just how naive he really is by spouting mis-truths and rumors as fact. I for one think the management consultant industry needs better quality control. How are people like this permitted to practice?

Any good professional knows that facts speak volumes ... and any consultant worth his weight in salt would base suggestions and recommendations on fact and not speculation.

Are some SEOs snake oil salemen ... yes. Are some management consultants snake oil salesmen ... again yes. Should all management consultants be regarded as snake oil salesmen, or their advice disgarded as 'weak' ... no. 

In the future ... make sure you're speaking based on fact before making an ass out of yourself.

In the end ... you've now showed that people are also gambling on business consultants.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another misguided and misinformed business consultant &#8230; showing just how naive he really is by spouting mis-truths and rumors as fact. I for one think the management consultant industry needs better quality control. How are people like this permitted to practice?</p>
<p>Any good professional knows that facts speak volumes &#8230; and any consultant worth his weight in salt would base suggestions and recommendations on fact and not speculation.</p>
<p>Are some SEOs snake oil salemen &#8230; yes. Are some management consultants snake oil salesmen &#8230; again yes. Should all management consultants be regarded as snake oil salesmen, or their advice disgarded as &#8216;weak&#8217; &#8230; no. </p>
<p>In the future &#8230; make sure you&#8217;re speaking based on fact before making an ass out of yourself.</p>
<p>In the end &#8230; you&#8217;ve now showed that people are also gambling on business consultants.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SEO: Why Gamble Against The House? &#124; theomurdock</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-764</link>
		<author>SEO: Why Gamble Against The House? &#124; theomurdock</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-764</guid>
		<description>[...] read more [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] read more [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SEO: Why Gamble Against The House? &#124; judonbart</title>
		<link>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-763</link>
		<author>SEO: Why Gamble Against The House? &#124; judonbart</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:14:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.birolsblog.com/2008/04/19/seo-why-gamble-against-the-house/#comment-763</guid>
		<description>[...] read more [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] read more [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
