Comments on: SEO is in the Details: Bruce Busts the Boondoggle

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:24:47 +0000

A very thoughtful, well written post, and like everyone else who has commented here, I enjoyed it very much.

I think it's important to note that the Boondoggle article, which I have been following closely since it was published, is essentially making the same point you are: there is no one solution or magic trick to SEO.

That post's author was just being a little more controversial with her rhetoric, and it turned out to be an effective way to generate debate and probably traffic to her website/blog.

By: SEO Aware

SEO Aware — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:09:41 +0000

Bruce, you said everything so well and you clearly and simply explained the differences between those that really know and those that offer it, but have no clue. I wish I could put this post in my local paper. Great post!

By: Adam Webster

Adam Webster — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:22:41 +0000

Finally someone with authority speaks up and gives a logical and rational viewpoint. Thanks Bruce. Great comment Alex.

By: Peter Lowish

Peter Lowish — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:48:03 +0000

Great post. Have been following you (as well as other creditable seo people) as a valuable source of seo information since the late 90’s.
SEO in my view is common sense – thinking like a customer – avoid cheating (white hat) and knowing what works and doesn’t by experimenting and listening to experts such as yourself.
Thanks again
Peter

By: Dennis Yu

Dennis Yu — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:27:52 +0000

Bruce,

Well put! I'd have to say that most SEOs are overcharging for their services compared with true benefit derived-- but it certainly is true that much of SEO is client education and getting the client to agree to make the recommended changes. Easier said than done.

By: Craig Tomlin

Craig Tomlin — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:42:32 +0000

Great post Bruce!
Having been through your SEO and SEOToolSet training courses it becomes clear that, as you mentioned in the post, it’s the accumulation of many small correctly produced elements that creates the whole.
Thanks for the reminder that it’s the attention to the small details and expert body of knowledge (based on quality training) that produces good SEO results.

By: Troy Dunn

Troy Dunn — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:59:22 +0000

I’ve been watching your site for the last ten years Bruce and I couldn’t agree more with this post. Build a great site, from top to bottom, and people will come. Try to approach SEO with the get traffic-rich quick mentality and you’re not going to do anyone, any good.

By: Alex Juel

Alex Juel — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:42:59 +0000

Awesome, awesome article.
As I was reading Jill’s article, I felt like I was reading old news. I agree with some of the stuff Jill mentioned in her article, but it was obvious stuff that any good SEO wouldn’t do.
This article on the other hand explains how and why the little things DO count. Small things don’t always take that long to implement and I think any little bit helps as well.

By: Aaron Bradley

Aaron Bradley — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:44:31 +0000

Great post. One of things that I've always stressed to those I've worked with is that SEO is not a single activity, but a thousand different details that need to be continually addressed for success in the search engines.

All things being equal with submission of an XML sitemap bring me to the top of the engines? A link from a relevant PR7 site? Modification of a img alt attribute? Removal of twenty lines of code on a page to reduce bloat? Microscopic manipulation of a title tag? Singly, no. In conjunction with one another, yes.

For those practitioners that claim so-and-so technique "doesn't matter," I don't think anybody in the biz has either enough insider knowledge of search engine algorithms or the wherewithal to conduct sufficient testing to say that for sure in regard to any single tactic (in the case of testing, not necessarily for lack of expertise, but because of inherent problems with testing for optimization). So the "all things being equal" law applies. E.g., is a div rather than table structure better for rankings? All things being equal, it may help, and since it's good web architecture anyway, why not use it?

By: Stacey Morgan Smith

Stacey Morgan Smith — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:34:20 +0000

I had a discussion on whether or not to bother with the keywords tag. I continue to do so as a best practice, though some in the discussion considered it a waste of time.
This sums up my feelings exactly! “Rather than trying to predict how important each HTML tag is to search engine rankings, I find more consistent results come from using HTML as intended.”