PDA

View Full Version : The Worst SEO Mistake You Can Make



KristineS
08-25-2008, 05:10 PM
According to this blog post (http://rainmakerwebdesign.com/diy-seo/the-worst-seo-mistake-you-can-make/), this is the worst SEO mistake you can make:


So what is the worst SEO mistake that a company can make?

The most common mistake that organizations make with regard to SEO is bringing their SEO consultants into the process too late. Many companies fail to give SEO its due consideration during a website’s design phase.

Do you agree or disagree?

billbenson
08-25-2008, 05:29 PM
SEO should be done starting at the time you register your domain. You just have to be sure who you choose as a SEO. Ideally you have a designer who is good at SEO depending on the type of site.

vangogh
08-25-2008, 06:05 PM
SEO should be part of the design and development phase. If your site isn't built to be search engine friendly the first thing your SEO will want to do is rebuild your site. How you develop code, organize your content, etc impacts your SEO.

Going beyond SEO your marketing should really be included in the process from day 1. It's no longer enough to have a product and then figure out how to market it. You should build marketing into the product itself. You should do research to see if there's a market for your product before building it. You should think about your unique selling point so it can be built into your product. YOu really need to consider marketing as early as possible.

And you need to consider SEO early in the design phase of your site. As someone who offers both design and SEO services, trust me when I tell you it'll cost you a lot less money to build SEO in from the start than it will be to try to tack it on later. It'll also be more effective if you build it in from the start.

cbscreative
08-25-2008, 06:34 PM
I think anyone who does SEO will tell you it needs to be planned in from the start, and that's it's much easier and less expensive than to try and do it later. It usually does involve a redesign, but redesign doesn't necessarily mean changing the look. I've done projects where the end result was not too noticably different from the user perspective, but serious (and sometimes expensive) changes needed to be done to make it good for search engines.

vangogh
08-25-2008, 07:11 PM
It's the more the development that will need to be changed, but it can also be the information architecture which could mean changing the navigation around and thus changing the look. In general though it's less about changing the look of the site and more about changing the code behind the site, but I have seen where the look does change.

One thing we haven't mentioned yet is choice of domain. You should be thinking marketing when choosing a domain. I think it's best to pick one for branding, but I do like researching keywords prior to choosing a domain. The research often leads to a domain choice.

graphic3
08-26-2008, 10:25 AM
when you both say built into the site

your referring to content keywords using tags such as <p>, <h1>, <ol> the basic html tags used appropriately , right?

and using css not so much tables

theGypsy
08-26-2008, 10:44 AM
Well, to be honest we're brought in after the fact in most cases... so I am hard pressed to call it 'the biggest mistake'. Sure, in a perfect world I'd love to be consulted as part of the initial business development...but that is rare.

To me the worst thing one can do (via DIY SEO or in-house etc..) is hap-hazard link building.

Another common thing is peeps that come to us once they have tanked from the ranks. In most cases, 80%+ it is because of bad link building practices and the mighty G has given them the slap.

So for me, 'bad link buidling practices' are easily near the top if I had to list 'the biggest mistake'.

I can always work the onpage/onsite and build links... getting a site back from the dead... is a long and expensive process.

KristineS
08-26-2008, 10:47 AM
So for me, 'bad link buidling practices' are easily near the top if I had to list 'the biggest mistake'.

I can always work the onpage/onsite and build links... getting a site back from the dead... is a long and expensive process.

You certainly have a point. I would think reviving a site would be harder than starting a site out and doing some rebuilding if that's required. Once Google puts the ban of death on a site, I'm guessing there isn't a lot you can do to bring it back.

theGypsy
08-26-2008, 10:55 AM
yea, it's no fun... but I used to specialize in dealing with Google penalties.... so bad mistakes become my profit ;o)

It can be a serious problem and take many months to rectify. In the end one has to add plenty of value into the site and high quality links to balance out the link profile.... and ask real nice

Many times it can be as simple as folks that start a new sites and;

Add 300+ Directory links
Add 150+ Article marketing links

And given the query space, that alone over a 3 month period can tank a site....

...and on that topic I did a recent post called; the Link Builders Guide to Historical Ranking factors (http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Link-Builders-Guide-to-Historical-Ranking-Factors.html)

... it is one of the more important factors (along with diversity) when crafting a strong link profile.

cbscreative
08-26-2008, 11:10 AM
You raise some excellent points, Gypsy. Being consulted from the start is not always the case, but fortunately for me, if I am building a new site, then is is planned from the start. You also have an experience that I have not yet had to deal with: having someone come to you after tanking. I'm sure resurrecting a site is far more difficult. The situations I have dealt with were taking sites from oblivion to page one.

With your question, Graphic3, yes good coding is part of the process. Attention to detail is required to win because sloppiness is rampant, so good coding does stand out. Yes, absolutely do good coding and use tags properly. That is your foundation. Once you have a good foundation, you're ready to build a good site. From there, it's hard work, patience, and time. Quality content is your next step. Once you have quality content, then you need exposure so you get inbound, relevant links. The methods of getting exposure can vary, but you need to make plans that work for your situation.

theGypsy
08-26-2008, 11:22 AM
if I am building a new site, then is is planned from the start. The situations I have dealt with were taking sites from oblivion to page one.


And once more, even if it is 'from the start' - bad link building practices are easily still be 'the biggest mistake' since they are the hardest to recover from.

The problem is that Google knows what is 'natural' in a given query space and we do not. This means a 'one size fits all' approach to link building is truly hap-hazard. I would suggest even tracking the link growth/velocity of top sites (and a few from say page 5 of the SERPs) in a niche before even beginning your own endeavors.




With your question, Graphic3, yes good coding is part of the process. Attention to detail is required to win because sloppiness is rampant, so good coding does stand out.

Ok, let's not get carried away. One of the worst myths in SEO is code... clean code, code to text ratio and so forth.

There are NO code related ranking signals. As long as the page parses and displays... yer good to go. As a certain Googler once told me (paraphrasing)

"If professor X from University Y doesn't know how to formulate good HTML, it doesn't mean what he is publishing is not of value"

So, while I do believe in quality as an asset (http://collective-thoughts.com/2008/07/31/quality-the-ultimate-marketing-tool/), coding has nada to do with SEO for the most part...

Now, if we're talking usage of H1-5 tags, bold, italics, lists and so forth.... they are known as 'prominence factors' which Yahoo tends to like more than Google...

....but code... nope... not an SEO consideration.

I'm just sayin.....

cbscreative
08-26-2008, 12:13 PM
Yes, I emphasize code as a foundation, not the building itself. You also hit on a big difference I've noticed between Google and Yahoo. Yahoo does tend to place a much stronger emphasis on page structure.

Aside from SEO, much of the coding and organizational structure is more about usability than SEO. If usability is lacking (and it quite often is when I'm looking at doing SEO), then SEO just creates more traffic that will bail once they arrive.

vangogh
08-26-2008, 01:00 PM
Good points about link building Dave.

I'm a little in between on the coding. I agree that, especially with Google, things like hx tags aren't going to be key. No search engine cares either if your code validates and things like that. A strong link profile is also going to outweigh site coding for the most part.

However there are coding mistakes that can practically doom you from the start. A Flash navigation with no alternative for example. If search spiders can't find your pages they're going to have a hard time listing them in the results.

I also think a search friendly coded site helps to increase your chances of success. Organizing your content around keyword themes, fixing up SEO gotchas, etc. Most coding problems can be overcome by a strong link profile, but the more you get right with the code the less strong your profile might need to be. And in low competitive markets coding (with a few good links) can be enough to make you competitive.

In the end I think it all works together. The more you don't get right in one aspect, the more you need to get right in another. Overall though, yes, links still outweigh most everything else.

theGypsy
08-26-2008, 01:06 PM
I suppose we could even go beyond links and say 'any ban-able offense' - because many things can be fixed but recovering from a slap is by far the most problematic...

Links are merely the most common screw up I see.... understanding how to craft timely, relevant link profiles is still important. For now....

The more engines evolve, the more signals we're seeing being used... I for one can't wait until links become less important and we see more relevance signals emerge... and even behavioral signals. I am big on relevance (phrase based/semantics) signals and 'social' signals in the form of behavioral metrics and personalized search... but U knew that he he....

yankeerudy
08-26-2008, 01:13 PM
Coming in a bit late to the party, enjoyed reading through the back-and-forth.

Another consideration for "in at the start" is the structural aspect of the site. Things like domain name, folder names, and page names all play a part in the searchable-ness (?) of your content, and by extension your choice of website development tools/frameworks. (Ever use an open source forum that insists on naming posts with cryptic page names? Good luck trying to get that to be more searchable.)

I agree, though, that getting in on the ground floor is not always an option. That's why it's important for us SEO types to rise through the ranks and seize control of our company so we can be sure that we're there!!

vangogh
08-26-2008, 01:23 PM
@Dave - yeah penalties can be hard to come back from. Google places so much emphasis on signals of trust that once you break that trust you have to do a lot to earn it back. I'm looking forward to more emphasis being placed on content again too. Not the add one more tag kind of thing, but placing the emphasis on content people actually enjoy and revisit. I have a hard time seeing links going away. There are good reasons for using links, but somewhere along the line too much emphasis was given to them.

@Rudy - I think all the things you mentioned play a part. To me the whole "in at the start" thing is about understanding your general marketing as early as possible. Some people will create a product that no one really wants. A little marketing research could have saved a lot of time.

But I do also think it's a good idea to consider SEO itself early on. Dave is right that links will outweigh your code, but at the same time good code reduces your reliance on links to some degree and I don't know too many SEOs who are going to ignore what you're doing internally so might as well get it right from the start.

cbscreative
08-26-2008, 01:27 PM
You raised a good point there, yankeerudy. I've seen some database stuff that was obviously expensive to have created, yet it was an SEO nightmare. I like your forum example, which is why vangogh installed the vBSEO plugin here.

billbenson
08-26-2008, 02:47 PM
So do you think the recip links from 5 years ago that are still at least linking to your site from non relevant sites or spam sites hurt even if you pulled the outgoing links on your site or will G largely ignore those if you are currently following accepted linking practices?

vangogh
08-26-2008, 02:53 PM
Dave might know better than me, but I would think as long as you're not linking back out you're probably ok. I think other than extreme cases that recip linking practice most likely didn't result in a penalty. Might depend a little though on how many recip links we're talking about and the sites in question.

There's nothing inherently wrong with exchanging links with another site. If I sell tires and you sell rims it makes sense for our sites to link to each other. The issue is more when you're linking back and forth to a bunch of random sites solely for the purpose of manipulating search results. Naturally search engines don't want to see that.

I think in most instances the links are just discounted, though they may hurt a little, but I think in most cases this hasn't been a penalty things. I believe some sites have been penalized so it may depend on your situation.

billbenson
08-26-2008, 03:57 PM
I really don't have any sites that matter where I did a lot of link exchanges. Just curious.

theGypsy
08-26-2008, 06:19 PM
So do you think the recip links from 5 years ago that are still at least linking to your site from non relevant sites or spam sites hurt even if you pulled the outgoing links on your site or will G largely ignore those if you are currently following accepted linking practices?

Well, as Steven alluded to... links pointing TO YOUR SITE cannot hurt you.... (almost).. That is to say there are nefarious ways in which one can be harmed, but being on of 'the good guys' I never discuss such things in public ;0)

As far as recips go... the worst we can envision is Google devaluing them. Meaning, that once a recip threshold has been established the links are devalued thus making it no more than a waste of time.

There are many instances when we link to sites that link to us in a legitimate fashion, as such there is likely a threshold in place. Let's say Steven is linking to me in one of his round-ups; considering he is in my blog roll, it is effectively a recip link

Now this is where attributes such as page segmentation come in. Increasingly search engines understand where a link resides (header, side panel, main content, footer, comments, forum post) and are accounted for. These are what can be considered thresholds.

Further to that, we have page naming conventions and page content. If your link is on a page that is named links.htm and the recip is on a page named resources.html it is very likely this form of recip is devalued as it is a page of links with little actual content.

There are many forms of recips that occur and search engines tend to valuate them on many levels....

In many cases over the last few years they have been devaluing recips... so for me... they aren't a part of any of our campaigns... though they do occur in natural fashions as outlined above...

... recips aren't worth much really... I don't actively pursue them....

billbenson
08-26-2008, 07:12 PM
actually, what I was referring to is footer recip linking was a common practice up until two years ago when G even figured out how to track A->B->C links. At that time it helped sites rank. I don't know any webmasters that do this anymore and all the credible ones I know have dropped what footer links they have (or wherever they put the links such as link farm pages).

Since the recip links were obviously an attempt to manipulate SERPS, G doesn't like it. I'm just kind of wondering if the ones that were done when G wasn't able to look at this are being granfathered in so to speak.

I'm not referring to content or any other type of quality linking.

vangogh
08-26-2008, 07:41 PM
I'd still say it's more a case of the links no longer counting. Since Google can determine where on the page a link is and they can determine if a link is being reciprocated or part of a three way exchange it's easy enough for them to just not give any weight to the link making them effectively useless.

That could easily appear to be a penalty to some as their pages would drop radically and rapidly in the SERPs, but instead of a penalty it's likely just a site that used to rank on the basis of a lot of links that are now no longer present.

Also as Dave mentioned other sites linking to you are generally not going to hurt you. However, generally does not mean always. If your link profile is filled with nothing more than questionable links back to you it probably will hurt your site. Fortunately building in some good links and building trust in your profile should alleviate the problem.

I don't think there's going to be any kind of grandfather clause. I can't imagine Google thinking, "well since your spam existed before June 4th 2003 we'll let it go" Google likes doing everything algorithmically. Not to say their above and hand edit, but in general if they see something that can be improved with their results they want to write an algorithm, test it, and put it in place so it then catches every site and page instead of just the ones for human review. So if they decide recip links shouln't count, they add something algorithmically and let it go. It should then catch all or most all recips and discount them or whatever they decide to do.

billbenson
08-26-2008, 08:14 PM
Makes sense VG, although back in the day, some people went crazy link building this way. You still see people promoting it.

Kind of why I want to cut over to xhtml and be standards compliant. What may not matter so much today, may be very important in the future. JavaScript, for example, can be used for cloaking. I avoid it if at all possible. I suppose html behind flash could have the same impact (I think we discussed this in a different thread). Another reason not to use flash.

cbscreative
08-26-2008, 08:44 PM
I think judging on code languages alone may be going too far, though they may be watching for certain patterns. As for XHTML, I think the primary benefit is tighter control. Future browsers are more likely to favor it because it eliminates some of the looser standards of plain HTML. I forsee a day when depricated tags will fall from grace, but that is likely several years away. I suppose it's possible that search engines may look closer at code standards some day, but I mostly doubt it will happen.

With that said, I believe that search engines do pay attention to code. If all things are equal, and one site has better use of tags (h1 and such), and code structure is clean, my observation suggests that the better code wins.

It sounds like you're very anti-Flash. I agree that it gets misused and even over used. But in cases such as a photographer site, it seems silly to not utilize the benefits that Flash offers. But I would still make allowance for non-Flash visitors.

vangogh
08-26-2008, 10:04 PM
I don't know that one or another language will be preferred by search engines. I usually make those decisions for development reasons. I do think standards compliant code is a good thing, but I doubt it's going to play a major role in search at any point for a variety of reasons.

One of the best and worst (depending on your point of view) things about the internet is that it's very easy to have a website up and running in a short amount of time. Generally those super quick sites are not going to be great code. One of the reasons I like WordPress a lot is because they do work in better coding practices than many.

You're just always going to have garbage code and the companies that could enforce it don't really have a reason to enforce it. Browsers want to be somewhat forgiving because they want to be used. Imagine a browser that only displayed standards compliant code correctly. The majority of sites wouldn't work so the browser wouldn't get used. It's in their interest to display poor code.

Search engines are concerned with presenting their users with content relevant to a query. The code used to display that content isn't all that important as long as the content can be indexed. If you search for the declaration of independence you should find the document somewhere. Whether that document is sitting on top of perfect xhtml with an all css layout or it's sitting on a table based layout using deprecated html isn't all that important to the end user of a search engine. As long as they get to that content they're happy with the search engine.

billbenson
08-26-2008, 11:53 PM
Steve or Steve?? I do think Flash has a place. That includes some flash only sites. I represent a product and put a page on a pr1 site, actually the first site I ever made that pitches their product. The manufacturer has a flash site that is at least 5 years old. In a search, my page comes up one and the manufacturers site doesn't appear. Just checked.

When I say use standards I really mean "make G's life easier". They will certainly index good pages that are old for years to come. But, if you write a sloppy page that doesn't validate today or tomorrow, will they give you that same courtesy in 3 years? No idea, but I'd rather hedge my bet and write pages that validate. Worst case, its better on browser compatibility.

vangogh
08-27-2008, 01:18 AM
I can't imagine search engines placing criteria for validation on pages. Most pages are not going to validate for a long time. Validation is based on standards and standards move at a slower pace than technology. People are going to use new technology regardless of whether or not a standards body has said it's ok.

Search engines aren't going to stop showing pages because someone is trying to do something new on a site. It's true you want to make it easy for search engines to spider your content and I think there are things you can do to help your rank purely through the way you code things, but I can't see search engines requiring validation for the most part.

yankeerudy
08-27-2008, 12:06 PM
this thread is like every forum owner's dream. we have a really good discussion going on here, and i forgot what the original question was about two pages ago.

vangogh
08-27-2008, 01:08 PM
What? There was an original question? Hmm?

Actually it was about the worst SEO mistake being not including SEO early in the design process of your site. I think that's where we started, though we've ambled along in a different direction.

Glad the thread is helpful.

cbscreative
08-27-2008, 02:05 PM
Rudy, I think we'll be having a lot more interesting discussions, and have several here already. We have the best members from the old SBF, and there's a few we still hope will find us, but the members here make this a great forum.

vangogh
08-27-2008, 03:59 PM
Funny what happens when you eliminate the noise and have mostly signal. I know in time as search engines start sending us traffic and we grow some of the noise will creep back in, but I think we're all committed to limited the noise as much as possible.

cbscreative
08-27-2008, 04:35 PM
And when trouble comes, they will find out they're not welcome here. My noise squelching artillery is ready to make an example out of them and send unwanted noise to a fiery grave. Bwah haa haa haa haa.

KristineS
08-29-2008, 04:02 PM
We definitely have a good group here and the quality of the discussions is really amazing. I'm very proud to be a part of this forum. I think a lot of others are too, and I think the pride shows through.

Bill Slawski
09-26-2008, 07:14 PM
Biggest SEO Mistake?

Not knowing who your audiences are, and not creating content for them.

As Dave wrote earlier in this post, it's much more rare that someone considers SEO at the start of development than after the fact. While that's a mistake, it's a pretty common one.

When you do everything right from an SEO stance, but you focus your site on what you have to offer, instead of focusing upon who you have to offer it to, you're going to miss out on a lot of the searches from people who may actually want what you offer because they will look for you, but never find you.

When you create pages, when you select keywords, when you write blog posts, when you consider your site structure and information achitecture, that's when you need to know things like:

What problems do my goods or services solve?
What benefits do my goods or services bring to people?
What industries would be interested in my site?
What interests do my intended visitors have that I can match?

If I sell exotic woods, I could fill a site with information about the different types of woods that I offer.

Or, I could fill a site with information about which woods are best for people who make guitars, violins, cellos, fine furniture, bowls, statutes, automobile dashboards, clocks, and jewelry boxes. I could include a number of craft guides for woodworking, information about woodworking tools and machinery. I could discuss which kinds of finishes work best with what kinds of woods.

I would want to create enthusiasm and desire with one of my audiences - hobbyists who like to make stuff with wood, and expand the range of keywords with which they could find me.

I would want to excite and interest another one of my audiences - manufacturers who need large stocks of woods to make their products.

I might engage another audience completely, by describing the efforts made by my company to replenish the sources that I sell, with my efforts to harvest what I use in an earth friendly way, my attempts to preserve rainforests, my use of fairtrade practices, my efforts to plant new trees.

Or I could just describe the kinds of woods that I sell.

SEO is just a tool. You can use it as if it were a sledge hammer, or you can use it as if it were a much more finely tuned instrument. Using it as a sledge hammer is the biggest SEO mistake you can make.

vangogh
09-26-2008, 07:43 PM
That's a great point and I think it's one of the harder things small business owners have to determine. I remember when first going into business as a web designer trying to decide who my market was. At first I thought anyone who didn't have a website was my market, followed quickly by everyone who had a website and might want a redesign.

That left my market as pretty much everyone, which was no market at all and gave me no direction toward finding a unique selling proposition.

A few years later, a better understanding of my skills and who I really wanted to work with, and comments from clients about why they like working with me, and I have a much better understanding of who my site should appeal to. It's led to changes in the way I write copy and the content I decided to include on the site.

Bill, your example with exotic woods is a perfect one to illustrate the point. Once you understand who your market is everything else, including SEO follows more easily and more successfully.

theGypsy
09-26-2008, 07:49 PM
Nice to see you out and about monsieur Bill ;0)

I like the analogy - as someone that plays a few instruments as well as many years in the martial arts, I think the term 'those skilled in the art' within patents always appealed to me and as with many arts one finds it more natural a task after many hours of seeking to learn more...

It is funny when one finds themselves telling clients to create/offer something of value that appeals to their end user/market. Search engines seek to please the end user and websites that do so also often tend to have qualities that make a search engine happy.

Funny how that works...

I am all about the quality content as it is great for end users who in turn create signals that search engines like... as long as the fundamentals are down architecturally and strategically on the site.... quality content/offerings do much of the work from there..

Anyhoo... always nice to see U out and about ... still enjoy forums (old dog alas) as I can go on more than 140 characters and like to be able to reference things easily later on.... pleasure having U around :0)

KristineS
09-26-2008, 08:27 PM
SEO is just a tool. You can use it as if it were a sledge hammer, or you can use it as if it were a much more finely tuned instrument. Using it as a sledge hammer is the biggest SEO mistake you can make.

This is a great point Bill.

I am constantly amazed by the companies that will spend time and energy and money building a web site and completely miss or bypass the fact that people come to a web site for information. The more targeted and relevant information you can provide them, the more likely they are to use your site. Fine tuning your information and your content can be of such benefit, yet so many companies take the firehose approach. My theory is that they think that if they spray a large enough audience there are bound to be some of their customers who are getting wet.

Bill Slawski
09-26-2008, 08:41 PM
Hi Steve and Dave,

My pleasure to be here.

I do really like rolling up my sleaves and delving into the inner workings of a website, and delving into the technical and architectual issues involved with those pages. If your foundation is strong, you're definitely capable of doing good things, and that is important.


It is funny when one finds themselves telling clients to create/offer something of value that appeals to their end user/market. Search engines seek to please the end user and websites that do so also often tend to have qualities that make a search engine happy.

Sometimes when you tell a client that, they get a look of fear in their eyes. With other clients, you can see the lightbulb go on over their heads, and the excitement on their faces. It can be a lot of fun when they get it, and start spitting out ideas faster then they can write them down. :)


Once you understand who your market is everything else, including SEO follows more easily and more successfully.

Absolutely. It's like writing or telling a story - it's a lot easier when you know who you're telling it to.


Anyhoo... always nice to see U out and about ... still enjoy forums (old dog alas) as I can go on more than 140 characters and like to be able to reference things easily later on.... pleasure having U around :0)

Thanks. Forums can be a lot of fun. Keeping a message down to 140 characters is hard. :D

Bill Slawski
09-26-2008, 08:49 PM
Thanks, Kristine

I share your amazement.

Make it easy for your customers to make an informed decision, make it easy for them to learn about what you offer, make it easy for them to understand how what you offer can benefit them, and then make it easy for them to order. It may not be easy to do that, but it's worth the effort.

cbscreative
09-26-2008, 10:09 PM
I expected great posts from you based on your intro, Bill, and I'm not disappointed. Those perspectives should help anyone willing to listen. Feel free to exceed 140 characters any time with good info like that. Excellent analogy too.

Bill Slawski
09-27-2008, 09:50 AM
Thank you Steve,

Hopefully I'll be able to learn with you all, exchanging ideas here, and sharing some different perspectives. I think that's a lot of the fun of participating in a forum - we can all bring our own ideas in. Looking forward to hearing some of yours.

optimizeyorkshire
10-05-2008, 01:07 PM
Great points. I actually have a fine example regarding this. i was doing some work for a company that made Joomla! components. They have leads funnel or anything in place, I got to figure out who there customers were, i.e web designers and web developers not who they thought were there target audience and re-worked the website based on this.

I think we come into a project halfway through and things arent happening, we need to engage with the clients customers, through survey's or forums, and find out who they are.