Google says it won't index content that isn't visible on page load. Sometimes. Other times, Google admits it does, but that it won't for mobile devices. Except, sometimes. Real SEOs know this confusion is reflective of the game of search -- you can't be a legitimate web search engine if you don't index web content, but if you index all web content on its visible merits, smart SEOs will win. The root of this "problem" Google suffers, is Google's perverted will. And we explore that here, on this blog that is not only not-visible-on-page-load, but has been at times banned by Google, penalized by Google, deindexed, reindex, indexed sans content, and purposefully excluded from Google (by request, by technical directive, by outright blocking, and other means -- none of which were 100% effective). In other news...(PDF)
Appreciate the opportunity to read this blog? Say so on your social media.... referencing John Andrews at johnon.com. Or even better, link to it from your own website. Your voice matters, and your public comment will be counted as a success metric, encouraging more (and more specific) writing.
I encourage those pursuing edge seo to reconsider such ruinous, disconnected SEO efforts.
At some point someone needs to discuss the clever, unsavory stuff in SEO World. It won't be the "search media", due to obvious conflict of interest. If you're reading this and you think Danny Sullivan or the "Rusty Brick" guy or any of the current crop of high-profile non-male SEOs (formerly self-identified as "women" seos or "girl SEOs", but currently seemingly either at odds with the English language, or lacking courage) are going to voluntarily discuss Google's cheating in public, then stop reading. This essay is only going to trigger you.
And if you think I'm going to highlight specifics, show examples, and point to actual evidence of cheats, tricks, and deceptions live on the web, then you, too should stop reading. You don't know me very well. I am not interested in educating the dysfunctional "growth hacker", the lazy ex-realtor now wearing a sash with "Top SEO" embroidered upon it, nor the make-money-fast interloper with 1200 connections on LinkedIn. I am also loathe to inform Googlers of my or our collective awareness of their deceptions and scams.
Why empower your competition? Why awake your bloated, cumbersome, distracted enemy corporation to your strategic intelligence?
What follows is a set of fun facts to consider. Under oath in a court of law, we would likely learn they can only be proven to be opinion, assertions, allegations, accusations, or claims... all of which any half-baked Googler could "debunk", mostly because even half-baked Googlers are backed by one of the best (i.e. most expensive) legal teasms in the history of mankind, and a mostly immoral and corrupt media.
So.. DISCLAIMER: Let it be clearly known this this is all fiction -- it's clearly and obviously satire and entertainment, and not insidious harmful rumor,nor anything that anyone should take seriously! If I call them facts, I mean fiction. And if I call something true, it is false. Up is down, and down is... haha now down is down, you dolt! Keep up! This is my essay... it flows the way I want it to.
And if, in light of the above pronouncements, and the announcements and denouncements to follow, you still want to "discuss" how Google has, is, and is likely to be cheating us all, please continue.
If you could go back in time and create alibis in the past, would you be more likely to lie in the future?
You betcha wood.
The Google has the power to change history, in addition to the lesser degree of the same power: create reasonable doubt that inhibits inquiry into malfeasance.
Given that ability, it seems likely Googlers will be more apt to lie, knowing they can provide cover as might be needed.
So as a competitor of The Google (and every decent SEO understands that as truth), you keep this in mind not only when listening to what-the-google-says, but when listening to what any public-facing search personality says.
Googlers make more mistakes these days than at any time in my 20+ years of watching Googlers and SEO. If there is enough public backlash on any issue, they respond at the corporate level. These days, Google's senior leadership apparently don't trust their own people very much, so the responses are less transparent than previously. We get to observe at our granular SEO community level... more chaos. And that's opportunity for SEOs! With every lie comes coverup... and that means more details, which tend to betray the lies, despite intentions to function as cover-up.
The more they cover up, the more evidence we gain to understand the truth.
Of course they knew of this propensity for exposure before it happened... they knew it would happen. That's why... in my opinion, deeply committed search personalities like Matt Cutts were replaced not with new mini-Matts, but with Danny Sullivans (aka lying propagandists) and WhatsHirNames (any of the dozen or so swappable "personalities" we've seen presented as webmaster-helping Googlers these days).
I call this crop of Googlers the Lessers, while those worthy of SEO respect are/were the Greater Googlers.
The strategy for managing the risk of exposure of the deceptions was to control not just the public-facing search ecosystem messaging, but also the public SEO community's face.
When you see the Google personalities prioritize issues, you can bet next months affiliate check that they've been told what to do. They will operate within their scopes towards that end.
If you watch carefully, you will learn those (limited) scopes. They are all flawed humans... just like us. They have egos and talents and abilities, and ambitions beyond the current granted grace from their Senior Managers (or robotic upline of remote commands-from-on-high).
Modern day Googlers don't like each other very much, except when they like specific colleagues, or tolerate specific others. And through that lens of human understandng, we can better see The Dirty Google.
Honestly, this has not been even remotely difficult to date. It could have been much,much harder than it is. I'm very grateful the big egos at Google chased much, much grander objectives, like owning the world, while not letting go of control of search (instead putting it into puppet hands).
If you watch Google (and you should watch Google carefully), you will see this next behavior quite readily. When they need to distract the SEO world, they either release news themselves, or encourage their Google-serving podium SEO puppets to "help" with new SEO publications. And, one would initially suspect due to laziness and lack of creativity, this is typically just old news (repackaged).
I note here that the more astute SEO knows this is not entirely due to laziness nor lack of creativity; this is due to the risk-averse nature of today's Lesser Googlers. The less they say, the less likely they are to make mistakes and be chastised by their remote upper management Masters.
What sort of "Old News" qualifies?
Many years ago I "did the math" and worked out the specifics of canonicalizing the index files for Google SEO. Modern SEOs might not properly understand that language, due to the propensity of disinformation peddled by Lesser Googlers since then, so allow me to explain.
"Canonical" is an old word. In Math and Engineering, it is used to describe a general base form of a solution's structure or foundation. While there may be many different paths to the same answer, usually only one path is the most efficient/direct/minimally-distracted path. That canonical form is often difficult to ascertain -- and our Ph.D. types spend their Ivory Tower time figuring those out for complex problems, to be written into reference texts for everyone else to cite as "as authoritative as is currently known".
A true canonical form of a solution cannot be reduced any further. It is the base solution.
The HTML perversion known as "rel canonical" is a modern thing... poorly named for reasons I won't go into here. In practice, the SEO "canonical" is the original version, or the one, true URL for the content which may have copies or near copies published elsewhere.
The "index" today is understood to refer to Google's mythical "index of web content" or "indexed table of URLs" (neither of which actually exist anymore?), but internet technology originally defined the "index" as the root of a folder on the filesystem housing a set of interconnected web pages.
The root, or "web root", would have an index file, and the web dispatcher must decide what actual file to deliver for every specific request made to the web server. Originally, this file was named "index.html" or "index.htm".
If you ask for example.com, what actual resource is streamed out as a response to that request? Probably the index.html file in the root folder of the web site. What if you ask for example.com/ (with the trailing slash)? And if the request was for www.example.com, or www.example.com/ or example.com/index.html?
In the old days, web sites were based on file systems, and this mattered to SEOs. It mattered a great deal, because Google would index what it found according to its own rules for indexing.
So "I did the math", and explained on this SEO blog 18 unique, potentially different web requests that might end up at a web server (or front end, or dispatcher), describing the same actual request when we consider intent. They might ask for any of these 18 technically different URLs, when they actually want the same thing: the root index content.
I did this work as part of an SEO-informed contribution to the then-emerging Zend Framework, whom I had lobbied (pleaded with?) to add a much-needed front controler (dispatcher). Zend Framework became the foundation of modern PHP, and enabled that language to advance from its very popular but super problematic web language to a usable framework that today supports Wordpress and Laravel and many large, successful, web sites.
The Zend Framework community evolved a few front controllers, argued the merits of each, agreed to the importance of achieving compatibility with the essential SEO aspects of canonicalized index files, including the Google behaviors of the time. Eventually they committed to one of those, and it was the right one. I wholeheartedly approved.
One of the reasons we all agreed was Matt Cutts of Google. In his influential SEO blog of the day, Matt highlighted my essay on those 18 potential valid forms of the index file, and noted how significant the essay was for web publishers. This helped the Zend guys recognize the value, and the legitimacy, of the detailed specification proposed for the future Zend front-controller.
I note that prior to incorporating a Zend-grown front controller, dispatching was handled by the web server, of course, because we servers represented the file system interface, and it is the file system interface that decides how to dispatch requests to.. the file system.
But Apache was not up to the task at that time, for reasons they held dear. NGINX didn't exist yet.
This is important to note because a modern and future-thinking SEO (back then) anticipated no-file-system web serving and rendering. In fact, that was a powerful component of effective SEO back then -- and was poorly supported by web servers that firmy believed all web sites should be firmly based in file systems (e.g. Apache).
In other words, in order to do my job as an effective SEO (known back then as an "advanced" SEO), I needed tech to evolve further than it otherwise wanted to evolve.
I needed to work out those 18 variants in order to configure Apache to properly serve my content to Google, just as you need some tech to do that for you today. My best effort, lacking any better tech.
I also needed to help make better tech.
Today you all take this for granted... virtually every system today incorporates a form of a front controller, since it is basically the only right way to do the dynamic web serving you all consider standard, and Google and others have settled onto almost-standards (not yet!) for interpreting.
(Hand wave to the static sites crowd... keep going! Ask if you need SEO assistance!)
Now let's circle back to the Lesser Googlers, the need to distract, and the promotion of Old News in order to keep Google-facing SEOs busy, engaged, and distracted.
Yes, that's right... you're seeing SEO articles espousing the proper forms of the "index" files needed to serve content that Google will properly index, and consider "canonical", and that you need to do this to avoid "duplicate content". Etc, etc, etc.
Helpful instructional content, or Old News? Who cares... but recognzie these for what they are -- rehashed fundamental content published by Google-supportive public figures, which keeps the competitive web publisher community distracted.
I did that work almost 15 years ago. Why would today's SEO practitioners need a foundational refresher like that?
Pay attention...the story I outlined here is just one example of what it means (meant?) to be an actual, competitive web publisher, competing with or at the very least debating with Google on how to best publish content for public consumption.
Serious SEOs don't wait for Google to tell them how to publish.
Serious SEOs compete in the web economy against other SEOs and web publishers, and in that competition we encounter the need for technical accuracy according to not some set of official standards or guidelines, but what Google actually does.
The end result of publishing content is the product of what Google Apache, NGINX, Wordpress, or whatever actually does! As an effective, professional SEO you need to know not what Google SAYS it does or SAYS it will do, but what Google actually does. You need to be able to estimate the likelihood of how your web publishing meshes with the public web and search ecosystem to achieve the desired end result: indexed, ranked, SERP listings that get clicked by real people who react -- behave -- in hopefully predictable and at least measurable ways.
I lament how many of you SEOs just memorize and amplify Google's declarations, including those from the Lesser Googlers, as-if they were truth. Do you even know?
I am saddened by the republishing of Old News by Podium SEOs who appear to be responding to the call from Lesser Googlers to "help" by highlighting such things, for whatever their reasons. Educate, sure... but it sure does smell funny when you only bother to educate when and in ways that align with the Google's public messaging desires, instead of contributing the the debate that should always persist between and amongst Googlers of all levels, and SEOs of all levels. Publishers depend on the SEOs to defend publishing from Google and other monopolies. Only responsible SEOs can do that.
Beware the distractions -- especially when they show up shortly after major Google updates. If we SEOs work together to hold Googlers accountable to true web progress, we may see vulnerabilities hiding in those public efforts, since it would be likely that promoting something like canonicalization or rel=whatever, or the effectiveness of content that is hidden on page load, would suggest the new update doesn't work as well as it should due to those kinds of issues. Clues!
If we don't hold up our part of the responsibility due to web publishers, those public communications from Googlers may be just true distractions aimed at the obedient, unthinking SEO media, intended to keep competitive SEOs uncompetitive while problems are fixed or new monopoly controls cemented into place. Hopw does that make anything better?
Those of us who have watched Google over the years know how much the staff culture has changed. Today's Google is quite differemt from the Google that built Internet search.
These days, while one set of personalities is coordinating public messaging to influence and persuade publishers and their SEO consultants, another group of Googlers is planning cultural attacks on any of dozens of facets of society. They have agendas... and have every intention of working those agendas, while on Google time.
And they do.
We are now seeing the latest power trip through censorship. Open, public admissions that "they" will censor certain viewpoints from search results, because... well... the Googlers don't like those opinions.
This week it might be pregnancy counseling that irritates the emotionally unbridled power mongers inside Google. Who knows or even cares why... whether they are resentful because they themselves are barren, or perhaps simply unable to maintain a healthy relationship with a member of the opposite sex, or were emotionally mal-nurished as children... who knows.. and we shouldn't have to know, right?
Yesterday, or tomorrow, it might be (or have been) an anti-religious ferver taking the reigns in the Googler Camp,steering emotional energies towards "direct action" in the SERPs and the public messaging. Is that an expression of devout atheism? Satanism? Or just an obscene counter-cultural revolt aiomed at Daddy's culture, perhaps because Daddy didn't love them or abandoned Mommy or whatever? Seriously.. why are we even here discussing this? Why are emotionally unstable Googlers altering search results (directly and indirectly) while boasting of it?
This will likely all be denied. It usually is denied. The truth can be too much for the corrupt and emotionally weak to bear.
Even in the face of clear email evidence of ex-Googlers asking for and receiving help investiogating SEO client problems... evidence of current Google employees willingly helping with SEO consulting (from their Google email accounts, during business hours, aware that the ex-Googler was taking $5000+ per day as an SEO consultant committed to ONLY finding out what they can if there's an issue with Google... all clearly expressed in the emails...), current Googlers deny these truths. They apparently have too much invested to believe the evidence.
The core problems inside Google are, of course, is endemic, and beyond any mere surface analysis. But for SEOs, it is essential to recognize the mental and emotional state of things at Google. All is not at all "well", so adust your expectations accordingly.
Not entirely coincidentally, all is similarly not "well" in the SEO industry. But fortunately for merit-based SEOs, the wins will continue despite morale. The wins will be curtailed by injustice, sadly, but if you "STFU" about your wins, I believe you can continue to succeed with reasonable expectations along the same patterns we have previously enjoyed during competitive times.
If you've paid attention and put in the work, you've seen the current status with Google and Google search develop over time. The perhaps justifiably arrogant braniacs of the late 90s, who not only never made mistakes, but were justified in defending Google.com by overreacting to perceived threats. The near pandemic spread of "Suddenly Wealthy Syndrome" that overwhelmed emotionally unprepared Googlers in the early 2000s, causing a willing flight from rationality, and leaving in its wake a staff of ethically-challenged imposters with near expert knowledge of "imposter syndrome" (including why that was the right doagnosis for every single one of them).
We students of Google watched closely as these less-than-trustworthy "leaders" from Google took the podium positions at search conferences to declare their expert knowledge (and their employer's moral superiority) while in their personal lives, they simultaneously Live Journaled often desperate and nearly always untreated (yet clearly clinically significant) depression, anxiety, and general dissatisfaction with mankind... especially the mankind that was of the same child-bearing age and the opposite sex.
We outsiders were remarkably kind back then... never mentioning in public how while Speaker X was at the podium joking about hir fabulous personal life as a wildly successful technology industry elite with a book on the way, hir personal social media account was lamenting near suicidal urges, and deep disappointment in the Meaning of Life. Yes, some of us pointed support resources in the proper directions. No, it didn't always help. And Google continued to "progress" from there.
The young Christian conservatives slid into position shortly thereafter, bringing the ice cream soda stand to directly compete with alcohol at the Google Dance (dosed with a suitable amount of righteous indignation), and a battle ensued between the metal-and-tatoo set and the clean-cut-innocents, albeity only briefly (you can guess who won on that front).
Lazy opportunists linked-in via media connections and partner channels during the rise of the Google Advertising juggernaut. From then on, the true story would be whatever they all agreed would be published as true. And on and on Google "progressed", with individuals "representing" their identity groups within senior and middle management... the Jewish woman, the credentialed Protestant Man, the Futurist, the Unsocialized Genius, etc., along with coincident small affinity groups organized to "represent" their own positions and agendas within the corporate workplace culture.
All of this eventually expressed itself through the performance (and the public face) of Google.
A monopoly position protects all of this, so in a very unnatural way, Google the company doesn't financially fail, despite the corrupt and perverted chaos. You, the SEO, ride the waves of this surf, on behalf of your client publishers.
Perhaps the most interesting thing to me, a performance-based SEO, is that this has become a battle between those who have so much money they don't need to worry about making or losing money, and those who are simply striving to make money endeavoring. A battle between individuals who largely understand the Meaning of Life (yet need to make a living to support themselves and their families), and individuals who largely lack such an understanding of life's purpose, yet have adequate resources to often very inefficiently fuel their journies often thought to be steered towards a better understanding of The Meaning, but actually steered towards making a mess -- a "disorder".
And the SEO, as always, is challenged to find order in the disorder, cpontrary to the will of most of the parts of the machine, and #win.
Subscribe to Ample. on Substack if you want to follow along:
Where are the Old Posts? So many are missing..
Most old posts are deleted. They had value to me when current, but the value proposition changed when they aged, towards value gained by others (such as search engines and LinkedIn Professionals). Therefore, old essays are routinely deleted.
Also worth noting : my legal team pursues those who publish my copyrighted work elsewhere, and my reputation management team takes on all cases where those kind, legal efforts fail to get the content removed. After all, thieves only steal things if the gains exceed the costs of stealing them -- hence we make sure the costs associated with stealing are, shall we say, excessive.
Are you a cowboy SEO, or an Indian SEO?
Lots of LOLs there... as I trigger at least 3 communities : the actual SEOs out of India, who would love to rank for Indian SEO, the actual indigenous peoples of the Americas who for much of history were called Indians, and the white liberal SEOs who spend more time defending their pets than ranking web URLs in search. I won the TriFecta!
In fact, I used the term in historical context. The role playing game "Cowboys and Indians" was real, whether you wish history would just go away or not. And it defined generations of American characters, both real (mostly) and imaginary.
Looking at today's SEO game, I wonder -- are you a Cowboy, or an Indian?
Before you extend my allegory on your own, permit me to explain my use of it here. Thanks in advance.. (By the way... the cowboys almost always win).
In SEO, one might be an Indian if one lives in the space, engaging on a daily basis with the surroundings, and enjoying the fruits (while they last). Then, when either the fruit has ceased or the land has been exhausted or the seasons shift, or whatever factor changes, you move along to another area.
As an Indian SEO, you "live off the land", allegedly (or perhaps) in peace and harmony with nature.
As you have already guessed, the Cowboy SEO lives otherwise.
Now, again, the ignorant and prejudiced (or perhaps just brainwashed) readers might jump the gun here and declare the cowboy an aggressor, violent, abusive, or otherwise bad, before continuing to allow me to explain my allegorical reference. Sigh.
Instead, the reality is that I will highlight here how the Cowboy SEO moves into an environment, seeking resources or pathways or perhaps simply knowledge, utilizing found resources to accomplish goals.
These are two distinct types of SEOs I see operating today.
Now OF COURSE one could expound on how Cowboys ruined natural environments while Indians coexisted with nature, how Cowboys were violent while Indians were peaceful, or how Cowboy style was not sustainable while Indian living was naturally sustainable; (I note that most of this is not actually true, and easily shown to be false, if you care about facts).
The modern public SEO community is extremely liberal, virtually consumed by liberal rationalism/modernism. I can't say why this is, but it certainly is true. For that factual reason, most SEOs will not be reading this web site, and most of those who do will self-identify as "the kind & virtuous, indigenous people kind of SEO" at this point in the essay.
The truth, however, is that most of those self-declared SEOs would better fit the label of Cowboy, when you consider their own prejudiced interpretation of the Cowboys and Indians SEO allegory. Confusing.
With respect to SEO, they move into areas of rumored plentiful resources, take what they can get (often through misrepresentation), and move on as soon as the fruit trees get bare. And no, they don't clean up before they leave, lol.
By reference, one could extend the allegorical symbolism to Indian SEOs, perhaps suggesting they are long-term committed to their land (niche market), not just coming in to raid the harvest, and that they work with the ecosystem to ensure long term success of their cooperating community.
On the contrary, we know for fact that many American Indian tribes were fundamentally violent, warring on other tribes routinely to procure resources (instead of cultivating). We also know that much of the worst behaviors of the Cowboys were fueled/encouraged/funded by a small number of far-away people with political influence, who exploited the economics to work the puppet strings.
No need to injure the liberal SEO reader with more facts at this point. We know that the traditional Cowboys and Indians role playing game was legitimate -- which is probably why it was such a favorite among innocent developing kids. And it (not surprisingly) describes the behavior of modern (ultra-liberal) SEO community, even if the way it fits the SEO industry is counter to their own individual beliefs and understandings.
Following their own limited and relatively ignorant understanding of actual history, today's public SEOs are much more like Cowboys than Indians. If, instead of feelings, we follow actual history -- to the extent we are permitted to see truth in today's historical records -- we see SEO follow a development cycle typical of most of human development. Just like we saw with the Cowboys and Indians of the pioneer American west.
Was there some good to the westward expansion? Was there some bad? Of course! Literally. And when judging "good" and "bad", everything comes down to values. The why behind the behaviors.
Are you a Cowboy SEO, or an Indian SEO? Or maybe you are so indoctrinated into Modernist Thinking that you can't even get past the "boy" part of Cowboy, to consider the question?
There's a dramatic photo circulating on social media right now, showing a mountain of buffalo skulls from the days when the US government tried to starve the Indians from the plains by killing all of the buffalo. It's a horrid reminder of bad policy, and an example of the dumb exploitation of the natural economics, as a means of coercement. I see lots of viral circulation of that photo, often with praise for positive virtues like declaring how evil that was, etc.
What I don't see is any acknowledgement that in these modern SEO times, Google is that "remote government", exploiting the natural economics of search to induce bad behaviors by Cowboy SEOs, and to hurt "Indians" who attempt to live (publish) in-concert with their environments.
Although there aren't any dramatic photographs this time, the crimes as just as horrid, if in a digital, internet ecosystem sense.
I think it fair to say that every time you publicly support Google's manipulation of search, whether by exerting influence over publishers, or manipulating ranked pages and advertising, you are rooting for killing all the buffalo to eliminate those savage Indians that are in the way of (Google) expansion.
As I prepare Ample. I am struck by the obvious, over and over again. In case you’ve been out of touch with the world for a week or so, sigh, Twitter was just "purchased" by Elon Musk & Friends. Within days many famous accounts were restored from censorship, with numerous reports of liberal & progressive outrage etc.
But within that chaos, there is a resurgence of "SEO Twitter" aka "Marketing Twitter". A loose community of self-described web entrepreneurs who seek fast money via the internet. Back in the late 1990s we used to call it MMF for "make money fast".
When Google introduced AdSense (the ad serving program that shared revenues with web publishers), we saw the rise of the MFA Sites -- MMF endeavors that sought to exploit the AdSense program.
Today I see "niche websites" and "Content" as the Make-Money-Fast! of today.
All things cycle. But not all people learn history.
Here’s a hint for those wondering -- today, as before, and before that… the money is usually in selling shovels & blue jeans to enthusiastic miners, not actually mining.
"What does that even mean???", you might ask. Well, I bet you’re a candidate not only for the long sales page on Niche Websites in the Age of COVID, but the optimized lander for my Gumroad coarse on How I Grew a Brand New Niche Website from Zero to 1 Million Visitors in Just 6 Months, Enabling Me to Quit my Day Job and Retire to the Beach, where I now Work Just 4 Hours per Week while Banking not only my Retirement, but a House for my Ailing Mom", as well.
New paradigms for a new age - this is my reality right now. Nearly everything has been changed by the past 5-7 years in the United States. Infrastructure, society and culture; even basic expectations have changed.
I have always been watching the world as I lived within it, and traveled through it. I have always known of my limited perspective. I have always acknowledged the importance of moving through space and time, to observe, and gain new perspectives. I have always noticed the essential importance of communication as an influencer of the aggregate cultural expression we call "society". Ever since my first meeting with "Doc" Herman Estrin back in the late 1980s, I've had words to describe this, with which I could guide my intentful endeavors.
Eandeavors which, not coincidentally, include web publishing and SEO.
I remember when I first learned the word "paradigm". I'm certain of why I learned it. I am not at all certain of why I remember learnng it.
I learned the word "paradigm" from a communist at Queens College in New York City. He was teaching a summer course in Political Science, while raising funds for the Sandinista's in El Salvador.
At the end of the session, that professor took my picture, and told me that someday he would notice that an important figure in world politics was once a student of his, at Queens College, and that he would have that picture.
LOL. I was an Engineering student, sojourning at Queens College just to gain some summer elective credits, in order to keep from falling behind in my grueling 21-credit-per-semester requirement for a legitimate 4 year degree Engineering degree. I would never be in politics.
No, I don't remember his name. I don't have a picture, either.
Last night I discussed some of what I used to call "advanced SEO" with a collegue. The use of words to persuade both search engines and readers. Back when Danny Sullivan was selling "networking in the hall with your friends and collegues" for premium dollar per hour pricing, by calling it "SMX Advanced", I was studing Cialdini's earlier writing and framing an approach to using persuasion to influence Google. As I gained experience doing that, I learned of the necessity of combining reader persuasion with Google persuasion, since Google started dynamically adusting in attempts to track (and later influence ) reader behaviors.
SEO was changing in a big way. The evidence was quite clear. The serp rankings granted to test URLs proved without a doubt not only what Google was doing, but how the language of persuasion was alternately powerful and counter-productive, depending on specific context within SEO: which queries, when, were conducted by whom, and how.
Over time, and with experimentation, new paradigms of search/seo emerged. More complex than ever, yet, often more "simplistic" as well. Apparently, it seems to me in hindsight, Google no longer needed the money, and didn't care as much about providing a high-quality search experience as it once did.
Google the monopoly had new plans, and they were political.
In commerce,"friction" describes the force(s) that oppose a sale or conversion. Friction in ecommerce generally reduces performance. The more friction, the less success.
Of course that is an over simplification. Of course there are cases where increased friction might encourage a bigger total sale, or sculpt a more committed customer with a greater life time value, etc. But in general, friction at the time of sale is a bad thing, to be reduced/avoided.
In a free market; a competitive marketplace.
In a corrupt market, or in cases where profits flow regardless of performance, this concept of friction may not apply uniformly.
Lesson : investigate your target marketplace early in your venture, to ensure that you understand the status of "fiction" in your sales/marketing stream. You best perform this due diligence before investing heavily in the venture, because you may determine that your planned approach to achiveing your business goals is anathema to the market dynamics.
How does one engage in this kind of due diligence?
I've already stated that this needs to be done before investing resources. I've asserted that this form of the concept of efficiency/avoiding friction may not be relatively important, depending on your particular market status and dynamics. So if you don't know how to conduct the investigation, you cannot safely proceed.
If you lack any other awareness of methods to conduct market research, you can at least engage in scenario planning, to support your own estimation of relative risk and costs.
I prefer this approach for those unsure of themselves, because, almost recursively, the scanario planning engages the entrepreneur into a process of validating hir own preparedness, or likelihood for success in the endeavor.
If you aren't sure of your target market dynamics with respect to conversion friction, then imagining a set of customer journey scenarios (and the associated process-oriented experiences, and ultimately sales friction), walks you through your own understanding of the market you are approaching as an entrepreneur.
You'll learn about yourself and your own readiness to go-to-market.
Friction always "happens", to some degree. When each specific identified type of friction happens in your scenario, does it lead to achieving your return on investment goals for your enterprise's expended resources? Does each discovered type of friction increase ROI, or decrease ROI?
In some cases, an immediate information result supports an empty brand impression, with corresponding low-impact branding, and low lifetime value potential.
Think of a "people finder" that has been clicked for information on a named individual. If the web page immediately produces a list of available information, the reader gains awareness of what-is-available, and isn't likely impressed enough to buy anything further. In this specific industry example, if instead the user is additionally queried for various associated hints of the value of the available information to them, that additional friction may actually increase customer interest in obtaining the full set of results (for a membership fee).
Various analysis will note such things as emotional investment, increased awareness of the effort invested in producing results, etc., but the bottom line is this : more friction increased the publisher's return on investment.
The web entrepreneur need not investigate, nor understand, nor master all of the fine points associated with persuasion and conversion. However, a low-cost analysis that reveals a situation in the marketplace where a delayed conversion with INCREASED friction adds value, has significant value.
Going to market better/faster/cheaper will not succeed in that marketplace.
A less obvious example: a food vendor at an event declines cash transactions, requiring instead that all sales be pushed through an app. Each customer must install and use the app, in order to buy food. Despite seemingly low prices, the lines are very long, and people are frustrated.
A hasty hustler might see an outstanding opportunity to offer fast food for easy cash transactions, right nearby. With visions of stealing customers from the long app-driven sales line, efficiently serving everyone with a conversion stream sans all that friction, she plans to coordinate a small set of sexy food trucks directly across the parking lot, and get rich.
Without ever asking "why" the original vendor allowed all of that friction to interfere with sales?
She might discover that someone else was subsidizing those food sales, based solely on the documented sales flowing through the app. That prices were artificially low, due to that subsidy. The challenger will not only fail to participate in the true marketplace (by sharing in the subsidies strategically planned for various reasons), but will have to compete with subsidized prices (which directly reduces bottom line profits).
Simple scenario planning would have asked -- why might the app be so essential as to ban cash, in light of obvious sales friction? The more experienced hustler would have seen the other signs... such as the use of entrance wrist bands but not food tickets; a tiered pay-one-price setup; and the obviously over-the-top branding of the "VIP Experience" highlighted throughout the environment, none of which is supported by sexy independent food trucks parked nearby.
This was a real life example, which I easily investigated. There was, indeed, profitable opportunity there, but not based primarily in efficiency, even when that reduction of friction would have obviously increased customer happiness and brand impression. The market was not "free". Each customer had some interest beyond immediate hunger, and the event owner had a very significant interest in how those customers were processed.
Interested in an SEO career? I'd first ask you "why", before offering any advice.
There are many kinds of SEOs, and many of them are quite different from others. Which one do you want to be?
SEO work spans a wide spectrum of activities... you can be "working as an SEO" but doing very, very different work than someone else legitimately "working as an SEO".
One of the biggest "red flags" when looking at any job offering is the clause that says "other duties as required" or "requested". No matter what the job, that clause needs to prompt some questions from the SEO candidate, during the application process.
In SEO World, some hiring people have been known to exploit that clause. They rely on it to permit near infinite flexibility regarding what, exactly, you will be doing with your time, while they (the employer) avoid any responsibility for you gaining SEO experience on the job.
Professional, contract, or "in-house" SEO is simply a classification of work supporting web technology or web publishing (which includes content generation). The work is directed by someone else (the typical "SEO Lead" or "Marketing Director" or founder/CEO).
The reason SEO jobs exist has to do with the unique specialization of the minutia of web publishing that impacts search marketing performance. That combined with the super dynamic nature of the need for direction of SEO efforts. SEO is always changing, and only experienced, insightful people who know SEO can see how those market changes are likely to impact the traditional SEO worker production.
The same applies to interpreting performance measures. The significance of various measures changes frequently, and only experienced people can wisely interpret most important SEO outcome/success metrics.
For those very same reasons, you don't ever really know what the SEO job work will be, until you are in the work, being directed by the lead (or discovering the needs as part of your work).
Link building is part of SEO. Content editing for web marketing purposes, is part of SEO. Content generation is often considered part of SEO (especially when small teams are expected to be "creative" meaning not only deciding what content would perform, but also making that content.
Outreach is part of SEO, especially when it could involve link building. This can be buried into "B2B" work, where relationship building for the specific purposes of gaining mentions and links, or otherwise driving traffic, is part of SEO.
What about technical SEO, the most notable stuff that literally defines SEO, and is so attractive a skill in the job market?
Yes, Technical SEO is important and valuable. Both on-page and off-page/on-site SEO, including the poorly-named and more poorly executed "edge SEO" pushed by some practitioners.
But will you actually engage in this part of SEO work, on your job?
That is a key consideration for the SEO job applicant. The only way you can possibly engage in technical SEO is as a web developer, or as a key member of a team that brings together developers, content makers, and SEOs of various types.
That is why Wordpress SEO is so ubiquitous. If the publishing is done on Wordpress, there are a few levels of integrated technical SEO methods avalable via the editorial dashboards. Or, as some have done, developers can create custom admin screens to allow meta management of various SEO components, for the SEO workers to utilize.
Of course this can be done in any platform, or custom-coded. It isn't something unique to Wordpress. But... market dynamics strongly support the re-use of solutions thus far generated on the Wordpress platform, and so it is a popular "standard" for such SEO work.
Almost none of the high-functioning professional SEOs I know use Wordpress, btw, but everyone of them knows it cold. For many reasons.
Start working in a publishing support capacity, and try to remain focused on learning ABOUT every aspect of publishing that already acknowledges that there are unique considerations that matter, and are considered part of SEO.
First learn ABOUT those on the job, by asking what your company does to meet the identified need. Then, research that for yourself by reading all about that process on the internet.
You'll learn what your team thinks the issues are. You'll learn how your team believes they should address those issues. You'll learn how the broader SEO industry believes those issues should be addressed.
If your team has someone who "adjust the meta data for SEO", go look at what they do. You can see it right in the published code. If you don't know how to do that, this endeavior will force you to learn that (and essential skill for anyone desiring an SEO career). Then, read about "SEO and meta data" on the internet. Compare what they do, to what others say should be done.
If your team gets editorial guidance from an SEO, look closely at what your team publishes vs. what your team publishes according to that SEO guidance. Ask about details, so you start to learn about content targeting as part of SEO.
If you team has an SEO editor, see if you can get access to pre-edited content, so you can see what changes are made. Read up on SEO copywriting and Content SEO etc. to learn how it could be done, while you watch how it is done.
Ditto for "conversion optimization". Look at the stated need. Look at the changes made. Listen to the discussions of performance. Learn.
This is how you learn to become an SEO. This is how you learn how to become qualified to apply to SEO positions. This is how you prepare yourself to be tasked with true SEO activities, while part of a publishing team, no matter what job title they have given you.
This is how you learn SEO and can become a successful SEO. You start working in web publishing, and learn while on the job, supplementing real world observations about your team's SEO efforts, with online learnings.
Someone once told me that when they hear a conference speaker describe some SEO issue, they prioritize finding out "what would JA do..." as their next step. This blog was named "JohnOn" because it represents my opinions "on" a variety of topics (most related to entreprenuring using the web, in competition with other publishers).
"To an experimentalist, everything is an experiment. Observations are rarely what they appear to be."
"Confidently chase market share as an SEO success metric. Document your many assumptions (of course), but do boldly estimate market share based on real data you collect on queries, user distributions by intent, geo, and other factors. Always, always pursue higher market share."
MediaPost highlighted a blog post of mine about healthcare search marketing consultants and agencies. I had noted that ranking for a healthcare search term was not always associated with servicing the searchers finding the top-ranking result. If you were good at SEO you could rank for a term, even if you didn't deserve to be top-ranked for that term (https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/68284/top-ranked-search-firms-all-aint-the-same.html).
After that, I decided to rank myself for "healthcare search marketing" and promptly earned the top #1 position. I held for over a year. During that time, I received emails from professionals in the health space, complaining that I had insulted them. Remember, this was back when people actually believed Google was a benefactor for the web. Some successful yet amazingly ignorant programmers back then were so sheltered, they openly hated on SEO (even technical SEO), preaching that you could rank for relevance by just-making-good-content (Cal Evans, "Just Say No to SEO", July 2007 updated Feb 2019).
Prior to Threadwatch I mostly stayed out of forums and the like, due to frustrations I felt dealing with those who quietly "managed the message" as moderators. People only see what gets published, and they want to believe it’s the whole story. If they are told "we only edit out obscenities" then they believe that what they see is what was written, perhaps sans obscenities. Sadly, that is far from the truth. Posts are edited and deleted as needed to manage discussions, and often there are strong agendas at work behind that process. Threadwatch started as a place that promised not to do that, and it didn’t. I was one of the first 3 editors of Threadwatch, and I didn’t even get any instructions for doing the job. It was simply assumed that we would only fix problems, delete obvious spam and bring questionable issues up for discussion. Everyone had a voice if they exercised it. If there were too many UFO posts the community complained to the posters before any moderators did.
I follow the consultant model in my business, rather than an agency or practice model. That means I focus strategically on those aspects of search marketing (and competitive webmastering) that bring business success rather than simply SEO success. I believe that a business looking to succeed in search marketing is actually looking to succeed online in general, not just gain more search traffic. Unfortunately, many businesses don’t have that general online success model worked out yet, and their SEO efforts fail to perform cost-effectively even if they succeed based on SEO metrics alone.
Fortunately, the same knowledge an SEO needs to achieve SEO success can be used by the business itself to refine the online success portion of the overall Internet marketing equation. This can be done at the same time, and with relatively little incremental cost, via the consulting model. I hope to demonstrate that for the Search Fest audience, by showing how working effectively with an SEO at the strategy level can guide you towards overall online success, while simultaneously empowering you to effectively manage your SEO engagement and empowering your SEO to succeed on your behalf.
Much of what we do as search optimizers is really just good web publishing, following proper technical and usability guidelines. But as search becomes the default access channel for Internet users, building for search (search friendly publishing, or SEO) is actually necessary.
And that is a self-reinforcing thing -- the more search works for people, the more they use search. If every webmaster optimizes, they all need to optimize further to compete. So if you expect to be competitive today, you need to be search optimized. If tomorrow we have something new that is more important than search, we webmasters will need to accommodate that as well. In general, you are a competitive webmaster.
Content. That word, is so important. And when you read it.... like when you read it above, you believed more than the type expressed. You projected into the typed word on my web site, your own committed belief of what it meant. And not just the meaning, but the pronunciation, as well.
Chances are very good that you read "CAHN-tent" as in the content of this web site post. But I wrote "content" pronounced "cunn-TENT", meaning at peace, pleased, satisfied, or perhaps some flavor of happy.
Stop projecting your own meaning into other people's words. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. You look like an idiot when you do that.
*If there is a way to contact me, it is provided at the bottom of the page.
For all the GodFather fans out there (the original, not "II" lol), we now have an update on the proper definition of a rat.
"you give up people around you, to save yourself (from a prison sentence). The people that you were in bed with, the people that you trusted, that trusted you -- to save yourself, you bury them, whether they were your friend or not. That is not something that you're supposed to do" - Michael Franceze
Now you can debate whether the guy who violated his oath and left the life is a rat or not, but like everyone else you have to work within a proper definition of "rat" so here we are with one that not only works but seems to match the working definition defined by decades of street life.
Not everyone is courageous. No everyone is wise. Not everyone has the skills needed to manage every situation. But no one, ever, should be a rat. It's not just ugly, or disgusting, or wrong. It's quite simply inhumane. Which is why the rodent was chosen as the model.
Do whatever you can to not be a rat. There is nothing better for you to do.
Need to reach me? Call me, or text me, or hit me up on Slack, Discord, Telegram, or other. I'm not active on Facebook, nor am I on LinkedIn.
If you need my contact details or phone number, just find someone you know who already has it, and ask them for it. #simple.
If you discover that you don't know anyone who knows me, well... sorry about that. Maybe you can you ask every SEO person you know "Do you know how to contact John Andrews?". That sometimes works well.
"However precarious our situation may be, yet such is the present calm composure of the people that a stranger would hardly think that ten thousand pounds sterling of the East India Company’s tea was destroy’d," Andrews wrote. And yet he called it "a serious truth" that Boston will feel "the whole weight of ministerial vengeance."
But, he pointed out, most people think Boston stands an equal chance of receiving troops whether they threw the tea in the harbor or not. "Had it been stored," wrote Andrews, "we should inevitably have had ’em, to enforce the sale of it."
He characterized the Tea Party as "transacted with the greatest regularity and despatch." --from letters between John Andrews and his brother.
Copyright 2022 All rights reserved.