"SEO" is a bug in the Google Algorithm...(b*tch if you want but...)

CPC is down in the latest quarter, they've been getting more people to click on ads over the last several years with their quality score algo for adwords.So ding the sites doing SEO cuz they're paying for SEO anyways, people will likely flock to adwords when that happens.

Really, you say keywords are a dying business model?

Do you think that the billions of keywords promoted on Adwords is a dying business model?

Keywords pay the bills, If you don't believe me go check Googles latest quarterly earnings report.

True, quality content is key for return traffic, but building content on the wrong things will have you ranking #1 on a keyword that very few people will ever search for.

You can build a brand & target keywords at the same time, it's been going on for years & will continue to happen years from now.

Think about that for a second...in one sense you can say that greedy Google just wants people to start buying into adwords. Yes they do. But adwords aint what it use to be. It's now geared more toward real businesses and brands. (meaning not many quick hit affiliates, etc.)

Keyword marketing makes sense from a PPC stand point. Keywords help businesses connect relevant products and services to the people searching for them. To Google it makes more sense for a real business to just pay for PPC/Ads then pay for SEO....

Why?..because that's how it works in all other mediums and channels for the most part and thats what Google wants. Businesses off-line buy advertising and paid marketing in some form. Free advertising comes from publicity and word of mouth. That's what Google is trying to model.

SEO as it is today was never suppose to be an industry or part of a business model. On-line brand optimization & campaign management is what they had in mind. But getting to that point has and will take time. But it will happen for sure.

Well, there are many high quality sites, but only 10 spots on Google´s first page. If nobody does SEO who or what decides who is the most beautiful in town?

When there is something everybody wants to have, but not everybody can have, then there is going to be a fight. So far it´s who can make the most/best backlinks. What kind of fight will be there without SEO. How can you make money without building a shop/affiliate site without researching keywords and find the best places to sell? Or shouldn´t anyone want to make money at all? Should you build your store in the desert and believe in "Build it and they will come"? That´s what they tell us, don´t do any SEO at all.

Are the happy ones that replaced the penalized ones, not doing any SEO at all? Didn´t they optimize their pages and also made links to manipulate the search results? That´s the game and everybody is doing it. Large companies may have whole SEO departments.

The only way to decide the proper result is by having indicators telling the algorithm what the proper result is. These indicators will forever be dependent on some percentage of human interaction (backlinks, discussion, popularity, likes ect..) so as long as there is search then people will have some control over rankings.

umm... Just one question Daniel - how do sites or pages get authority?

IF you can answer the question above without SEO playing any part whatsoever then you have a point but if you can't or it can be shown that SEO can play a part in gaining authority then you will be shown to be blowing a whole lot of hot air.

Great post.

Long term, the industry must start focusing on offering value instead of trying to make quick cash.

I have to agree and disagree at the same time. Let me explain.

If it were the case, if the algorithm "worked" as we are told it is allegedly supposed to work, it would be the greatest thing ever.

It would be that we all "just" need to make great sites with great content, and do not EVER anymore to care about rankings, backlinks etc.

Give me a day, i make you a great site. Give me some days or weeks...i fill the site with great and helpful content. The problem: In the past, the subsequent link building and the SEO made the MAJORITY of the work. Without any links or SEO your site is not worth **** since no one will know it even exists.

Do you think we "like" to spend the biggest part on a site to actually rank it? 20% of actual work to create a site, the remaining 80% attempts to give the site rankings?

You know, if it was true, any SEO and webmaster would be the luckiest man on Earth, because it would mean from now on, we can ignore all the link building and SEO and focus on simply making sites which "rank by themselves using magic"?

Here is the problem: It won't happen!

Because it's not a "bug" in Google's algorithm, it's simply how Google works, the simple fact that Google lists sites in a sequential/hierarchical order 1. 2. 3. - 10. etc. and beyond. According to Google's fundamentally flawed philosophy, eg. there can not be several sites which are on-par in terms of value since ONE site will always be either below or above one other.

This goes so far that the vast majority of traffic to sites is almost exclusively happening for sites which are listed as 1., 2. or 3. in Google -with all the zillion other sites which are not in the "top" #3 barely getting any traffic whatsoever. Flawed? You bet!

Google can tell us what they want - there is ALWAYS factors which will influence the rankings, and there is reason to assume there will always be ways to influence and manipulate those factors.

I would be first person here jumping up and down happily if i was convinced that "the age of SEO" is over, because this would actually save me a *******load of time. No backlinks needed anymore, no article submissions, no bookmarks, no outsourcing etc. What a wonderful world that would be! You just make a nice site and two weeks later you are on-top with other high quality sites.

But: I am not buying this in the slightest.

Do you really believe this?

The intention was and still is that according to Google, even with BILLIONS of web sites today, only 10 can be listed on the first page. Do you think that from, say, 5 Million of "Acne" sites, 4.999.990 are crap and only 10 are worthy to be on the first page (where only 1., 2., 3. get the most of the traffic?)

It doesn't need a high IQ to see that the whole system is flawed, somehow, no matter how many pandas, penguins, sheeps or flamingos they will let loose in the future. And as long as Google retains the idiocy to "rank" sites in a hierarchical way, as long there will be bugs and unfairness and unfair advantages...which should be a logical thing because it is hardly normal that from millions of sites only a select few getting all the traffic. The flaw and the "bug" sits much, much deeper...it sits at the core of how Google functions as a search engine.

Nice post Daniel.

I agree with what you have said here and sadly I new that as I read it that a large amount of the replies that come after it would venomusly disagree with you. Sad.

The best way to build good search rankings is to have a real business that offers real value and does real marketing.

Cheers Peter