I cannot tell you how many horrible SEO articles I read at major publications. Be it from giving advice on SEO that is completely wrong and out-dated to trashing the SEO industry because of taking the wrong advice. The other day, John Dvorak decided to bash the SEO industry because he took the wrong advice from a so-called SEO. John's article was named SEO Fiascoes: The Trouble with Search Engine Optimization.
In his article, he explains how the advice given to him by an SEO totally killed his blog. He concludes from getting bad advice from one so-called SEO that the whole SEO product line is a scam and that you shouldn't waste your time and money with it, unless you have a site built in Flash.
I often skip writing about this articles, but this one took it to the heart of many SEOs.
There is a large Sphinn thread with tons of comments from our community on the topic. Let me isolate a few of those comments for you:
The problem with Dvorak's article is not that he's bashing SEO's and bad suggestions. He's bashing SEO as a principal, and that is where I feel this is an article that promotes ignorance. You would think a man who works for a tech magazine, and owns a website, would know how research basic seo methods.If this article would have taken the position that he got bad seo advice from bad seo's, then I would completely agree with you. However, it does not. It bashes seo as a principal, and that is just completely misinforming his readership and the readership of PCMag, and that is wrong. He is blaming SEO's for his own misguided problems.
He is a site owner, and he is not doing his due-diligence. It's like owning a car. We have two people that own cars. One does not put oil in his, and the other does. As a car owner, it's up to both to maintain their cars, and know that you should put oil in it. Now the guy not putting oil in his car is pissed because his car doen't work, so to hell with all cars. That, in essence is his argument.
I took on Dvorak's asinine attack on SEO, too. His ignorance certainly seems to have ruffled a great number of our feathers, but let's not forget one important fact: that is EXACTLY what it was intended to do. :)
Other than that, SEO defending SEO is like republicans defending Bush or Wall Street fat cats defending big bonuses. Zero credibility due to obvious bias. Outcries against Shoemoney saying "SEO has no future" or Calcanis saying "SEO is bullshit" or Dvorak saying "SEO = SOS" is a road to nowhere.
Let's not forget, Danny bashing Dvorak and his kind in his keynote yesterday.
Forum discussion at Sphinn.
