10 February 2009 6 Comments
Looks like it’s that time of year again. Someone is attacking SEO, and as always, this someone has no idea what they are talking about. They are, again, basing their opinion on faulty logic and a poor experience.
But today, we get to see something even more interesting. Not only did our subject have a bad experience, he had such without even getting scammed. Nope, this isn’t a case of someone getting ripped off, instead it’s a case of someone who has no business eating at the big boy’s SEO table, playing with URL structures on his site.
So let’s talk about the ignorance of John Dvorak from PC Mag, and see where he went wrong.
Let’s start with my biggest beef. This is one I implemented on my own blog and now regret: the long URL. One of my friends (an SEO maven) had suggested during an IM chat that I was losing a lot of page views on the blog because I wasn’t using long URLs. “What’s that?” I asked.
I’m not sure who the hell suggested “long URLs,” but either Mr. Dvorak completely misunderstood what was being told to him, or he was talking to someone who didn’t know themselves (with reading some of his other stuff, my vote is on the prior, but I could be wrong).
My blog had typical, efficient WordPress default URLs, such as http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=3100 or some such thing. Now on my current blog, that particular URL—which used the simple story ID number to access the post—has been supposedly SEO-optimized behind this URL: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/10/20/hollywood-unions-want-cut-of-itunes-pie/.
I ask you, what is more efficient and reader-friendly: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=3100 or
http://www.dvorak.org/hollywood-unions-want-cut-of-itunes-pie/
Just because you don’t know what you’re doing, you kept dates in there.
With the new long URL you get the date and the headline of the post. In some instances with a long headline it’s ridiculous. Besides, the second URL is cumbersome, long-winded, and impossible to type by hand. It is supposed to be search-engine friendly and more likely to get the attention of Google. Check out the fact that 90 percent of the blogs and major Web sites all use this supposed trick to get attention.
It does nothing.
Supposed trick? You just stated that “90% of the blogs and major websites” do this. So, what does that tell you? It’s not a trick, you just need to learn a thing or 2 about usability.
Sigh. It seems like you were given a nugget of knowledge that you should probably take note of, but IM chat is not conducive to explaining the caveats and proper implementation of changing URL structure. It sounds like your friend was trying to get you to get more definition with your URLs (which would help) and you jumped at adding the dates (I have no idea why).
This is apparent when you compare the numbers on my blog. In fact, my total page views actually declined when I implemented this stupid practice. At first I thought it was a seasonal anomaly until I had a chat with a developer who was pitching me some new product she was doing. The developer mentioned that she was just recently at Google and involved in the search-engine strategy team in some way. She said she knew about SEO. I mentioned this trick, the long URL, and I swear she almost laughed in my face. She told me the idea was bogus, period.
So why is everyone doing it, and why does everyone think it works? I have stat packages on the blog and a million page views per month. I have enough traffic to see a difference when there is one. I had a run rate closing in on 1.2 million page views per month when I turned on this supposed SEO trick. Boom! I dropped to 900,000 instantly. It’s taken my site months to recover.
Oh, I see now. Looks like our new dunce changed URLs without telling Google. When you make such a change, you need to properly plan and implement as according to what Google needs you to do. (perfect plug for Google Advises on Moving Your Domain).
I think it’s because these long URLs are just crap and stupid. They are impossible to post anywhere or send in an e-mail because they get concatenated. You have to know to snip them with tinyURL or snurl. This stinks. I am going to turn them off and mock anyone using them and anyone who tells me to use them. And if you look around today, that means just about everyone!
So a guy that writes for PC Mag is having a hard time pasting a URL into an email without it concatenating? What in the hell are you using for a client?
Yeah they are crap and stupid (very professional, by the way). I would much rather share seo-factor.com/lkajsdnsdnf?=skdjf than seo-factor.com/dvorak-is-ignorant. When I see the first style in an email (assuming the people you email are anything like you) I’m not even going to click on it. I’ll be scared that the Interwebs will steal my credit card information.
And before you start mocking anyone, please note that you were the guy that decided to make a major change in your site’s structure without any previous knowledge or experience; and you did so at the advice over an instant message.
Moving on, you really have to read the rest of the post. He continues with a gross mis-use of the word “tags.” Apparently “tags” were used in the 90s to help rankings. That’s kinda true. But then he explains that he tagged categories of his own posts. Now it seems as if he’s talking about tags in the more recent form. It’s a little confusing, but makes for a good laugh.
While you’re there, go ahead and leave a response. Be sure to tag it with the word “ignorance.” 
Look, let’s just wrap this up. I have a lot to do today.
John, there’s a reason guys and gals like me charge a lot of money. It’s because some of this stuff is pretty tricky (I hear it’s also tricky to rock a rhyme), and if you haven’t the experience then you’ll end up in the same spot you always do. Sure, there are plenty of firms out there that do this stuff on the cheap, but they don’t actually know any more than you do.
I admit very openly that SEO seems very mysterious at first. But if you spend some time getting into it, you’ll find the mystery fades and turns into “confusing and tedious.” That’s better than mysterious as you will soon see how real SEO is, and what it takes to be efficient and successful.
Again, it’s expensive for a reason. If it were really so easy as to make a quick URL change (even a properly planned one) don’t you think everyone would be successful? There’s a playing field out here, John, and it isn’t level. It takes a lot of hard work and experience.
Oh and hey, do something about those URLs on your blog, will ya? They are horrible.
Thanks to my newfound Twitter account, Andy Beal pointed me(us) to an article, that referenced him, in which he referenced a Popular Mechanics aricle in which 20 questions were asked of Udi Manber, Vice President of Search for Google, describing his thoughts on the current state of search, and its future. (I had to rewrite that sentence 3 times, make sure it makes sense). One fo the questions asked of Udi, and his answer, was in my mind another vote for the validaty of SEO as an industry and service. I will touch on that in just one moment, but first, why this is important.