SEOs Are Not Growth Hackers(johnfdoherty.com)
johnfdoherty.com
SEOs Are Not Growth Hackers
http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth-hackers/#comment-11777
10 comments
Sigh. The snake oil argument again. I thought we were done with this? Apparently not.
Well, here's an SEO (and I can point you to probably 300 others) that don't feel slimy. We don't do "10 paragraphs with no substance". We help companies make their websites more usable, more targeted, and with better content so that they deserve to rank. I wish I could show you the websites that we work with that are actively doing SEO. Any big site is.
Well, here's an SEO (and I can point you to probably 300 others) that don't feel slimy. We don't do "10 paragraphs with no substance". We help companies make their websites more usable, more targeted, and with better content so that they deserve to rank. I wish I could show you the websites that we work with that are actively doing SEO. Any big site is.
The stigma is there because thats all I have experienced, now don't get me wrong I believe there are excellent individuals out there but unfortunately I have not clearly penetrated any of those circles of individuals.
If anyone wants to show me the networks where I need to keep my foot in the door then thats going to be really helpful and go a long way into changing my views.
I suppose part of the problem is the low barrier to entry combined with the fact that it's the web (which is also there playground) so you see and hear more of the bad ones than you do good
I suppose part of the problem is the low barrier to entry combined with the fact that it's the web (which is also there playground) so you see and hear more of the bad ones than you do good
It's unfortunate that there isn't, and really cannot be, an accreditation for SEO -- the industry move too fast, and the techniques are in flux, it's just the nature of things.
But I look at it the way the way I look at mechanics: There are a lot of great ones out there, and a lot of slimy ones out there. The slimy ones make a bad name for all their peers, despite the many people doing hard, important, quality work.
There are many wonderful SEOs (and Mechanics) out there, but if you're ever in doubt, just ask to speak to some of their clients. You'll know the good SEOs because their clients will be ambiguous in praise, with clear definable results they can discuss.
But I look at it the way the way I look at mechanics: There are a lot of great ones out there, and a lot of slimy ones out there. The slimy ones make a bad name for all their peers, despite the many people doing hard, important, quality work.
There are many wonderful SEOs (and Mechanics) out there, but if you're ever in doubt, just ask to speak to some of their clients. You'll know the good SEOs because their clients will be ambiguous in praise, with clear definable results they can discuss.
Not disagreeing, but I'm curious. What you described sounds, to me, like "good marketing." What makes SEO a distinction from that?
I just read this before hitting HN, but isn't the title supposed to be "SEOs ARE Growth Hackers"? Some would argue that "SEOs are the original growth hackers", but that's just a very short sighted view as their domain of expertise is siloed in the domain of all things search engine related. I can see the overlap, as some more technically inclined SEOs have already made the jump, but there needs to be proficiency in understanding many different platforms (not just Google) and of course the ability to actually code to smartly exploit and scale marketing efforts. SEO is just one piece of the puzzle.
[deleted](1)
I personally see and feel better taking the approach of building a technically sound websites with good UX, getting a dedicated marketing manager who can write good copy (and not this SEO drivel of 10 paragraphs with no substance) and then know how to engage with customers instead.