SEO Blog - Internet marketing news and views  

Bad SEO Part I

Written by David Harry   
Sunday, 28 January 2007 09:35

accahd.gifI decided to start a new series called ‘Bad SEO’ – to highlight what to look for and funny anecdotes about encounters with some uh.. not-so-professional Search Engine Optimization providers out there. I am certainly NOT going to start ‘outing’ people (naming offenders) – simply posting chronicles as a warning to the consumer; and a good laugh for the professional (hard working) SEO craftsperson. ‘Tis borne from unfortunate tales and wary consumers all in need of reassurance.

So I say to all you SEO Hacks out there – the Reality Train is a comin’ – Get off the tracks or get run over.

12 Step Program - Things you DON’T want to see on a SEO provider’s website;
<< Much of this rant is based on a REAL SEO site/provider, tho a few are JUST ME ranting – let the debate begin! >>

Here we go...

chldply.gif1. Submitting to SEs; Any good SEO knows one doesn’t need to submit to the major Search Engines (SEs). A proper campaign will naturally encourage indexation I do not want to see a ‘Manual Search Engine Site Submissions’ program if you please.

2. ToolBar PageRank; <IMO> Love me – hate me – but gaining TBPR is not a viable focus of ones SEO endeavors nor budgets. It is a natural by-product of a quality program. Nothing to see here.

3. Keyword Density; <IMO> It is the age of relevance. Think semantics and phrase based optimization. ( shout out to PaIR Brother Bill )

4. Alexa; Ha ha ha ha ha ha – Ok come on!

5. Compliant code - code/text ratio; <IMO>These are largely concerns of ‘accessibility’ and ‘usability’ more than ranking considerations. Leave it alone would ya?

6. SandBox; <IMO>sure it’s just me – but the common definition(s) are a moving target. I would rather hear about ‘link maturity’ or ‘domain aging’ factors… at least it is a tangible concept.

slippry2.gif7. Questionable methods; obviously doorway pages (not target pages), cloaking, sketchy link building and their ilk is cause for concern.

8. Guaranteed rankings; Until the Search Engines Start publishing the algo data and letting us know ahead of time when the next major update will be – nothing is guaranteed. Sure, there are performance based contracts, but that is a different beast than the ‘Guaranteed Google #1!”

9. Non competitive KW testimonials/case studies; proudly standing behind client rankings for terms that in truth, are not all that competitive shows a lack of understanding of the value of a given target.

10. Talk about ANY engine other than the Big 3.5; Really, outside of Google, Yahoo, MSN/Live – Ask – don’t mention it .. There isn’t much more I can say about that…

11. A Blog full of OTHER PEOPLES Articles; That really somehow defeats the purpose of a Blog now don’t it?

chldply.gif12. Stuffing your Meta-Keywords; its bad enough MKW are barely viable in 21st Century SEO, but a SEO company shouldn’t be STUFFING them on their site...that’s for certain.

Actually… the site’s Meta Data should NEVER look like this;

<meta NAME="robots" CONTENT="index"> -- Yes I believe that why they came to the site. You cannot tame the beast as such ( u need to train). It is NOINDEX/NOFOLLOW that we care about ever using

<meta NAME="robots" CONTENT="follow"> same as above. We only care about the NOFOLLOW/NOINDEX

<meta NAME="coverage" content="Worldwide"> ha ha ha ha ha

<meta NAME="revisit-after" content="3 days"> this is NOT how crawl rates are established. REALLY. No SEO company should have this tag, it is simply sad.

<meta NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="URL REMOVED"> Important stuff



<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> YAAAYY Look Billy got one right auntie May!! Get him a cookie.

Incorrect stats - data –claims; we all love to state fancy numbers and why not? Many of us are numbers freaks. But when there is nonsensical ‘cirle talk’, or quoted data that is known to be false, is in poor taste IMO.

dedend1.gifStay Current; if you are going to offer SEO news and Articles.. don’t use large amounts of other people's work and have something more current than 2005 – shuddderrrrr

So there we have it. The first (last?) installment of Bad SEO. I may do another Part II and more .. .. shoddy providers do irk me. ..and I can't help myself ( what did he just say?)

Until next rant.. play safe


Search the Site

SEO Training

Tools of the Trade


On Twitter

Follow me on Twitter

Site Designed by Verve Developments.