SEO Linguistics

A lot of our best SEO tips are shared on the blog here. That strategy originally came to be because my original business model (for this site) was to sell an ebook, and it was hard to stuff everything inside 1 ebook and expect it to come out congruent, especially
  • while selling it to a wide audience
  • when revising it many times
  • with SEO touching upon so many other disciplines like psychology, sociology, public relations, branding, advertising, content creation, information architecture, social networking, algorithm testing, etc.
Admitedly the ebook was a work in progress. As the search algorithms evolved and my knowledge of the field of marketing improved there were always new ideas I could add (or remove or change)...things where I said "hey I could make this part way better." But to be able to do that, you have to be able to look at your old work and admit where you were wrong or ignorant (or correct, but shortsighted). After 4 years of making such updates, you get a lot better at seeing some of your own flaws and thinking about things you could do better, and you get better at seeing underlying trends in the search algorithms...especially as you grow your sites, track the search results, read customer feedback, read search research, read algorithm patents, read Google's internal company documents, and listen to engineers speak in Fed Speak. Each data point adds value to the next. When I was new to the SEO field, learning SEO was much less complex because the algorithms were less complex and because the market did not have the noise it has in it today. Today there is no shortage of complexity in the SEO industry. But then the SEO industry is made to seem even more complex than it is by people playing semantic games, people willfully misinforming others, and those so desperate for attention that they are willing to write anything in hopes of getting a link or a mention in social media channels. Rather than calling the update an update (as they are traditionally called) Matt Cutts preferred to call (what we saw as an update) a change, but as Michael Gray mentioned, those semantics are irrelevant unless Matt chooses to share more information When you go around stating there was no update (your definition), when we can clearly see there was an update (our definition), we've got a problem. It looks like you're trying to perform some Jedi mind trick, if you keep repeating there was no update and waving your hand eventually we'll all believe you. Even worse it's like you're trying to tell us what we're seeing isn't really there and this is one of those "these aren't my pants officer" moments from cops. Language is powerful. If you control the language you control the conversation. Even after Matt Cutts said in a video that they made a change, people began passing around that video on Twitter noting how I was wrong about the update and that there was no update. Some of them were probably the same people who denounced the position 6 issue we mentioned - a penalty/filter that was denied, changed/fixed, and then - and only then - a glitch. I am not sure what sort of bizarro world those "I told you it was not an update" people claiming to be SEOs come from, but I thank them for polluting the free SEO content available on the web and misinforming so many people...they are part of what makes our training program so popular and profitable. They also make the search results less competitive - anyone who is listening to them is heading in the wrong direction building a weak foundation. :)

print this article

Return to marketing news headlines
View Marketing News Archive

Share with: