Comments on: Human Optimized Content

By: Derek

Derek — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:51:35 +0000

@steve: provided your article is longer than 100 words, you’ll have the opportunity to include both terms–CO2 and carbon dioxide–somewhere in the body of the article.

@gareth:Do you really think SEO copies do all of the conversion work? I thought so too, before. The Internet as we know it today is more about usaility and good content. Now, I don’t mean the *great* content Matt Cutts glorifies. It’s impossible to regularly produce great content in order to get that elusive traffic and tons of organic links from PR5+ sites. My point is, content has to be above average quality nowadays.

Yes, Google is smart enough to analyze a user’s browsing habbits and so this is what forces SEO 2.0 to get smarter, too. Spamming FFA sites is so long in the past!

Finally, there’s a chance that Facebook is going to win over Google in search. So, while we all do classic SEO, which is actually Google Optimization, we fail to optimize for the future of the search. Just a thought…
.-= Derek recently posted: Why you need research paper writing skills =-.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 28 May 2010 04:33:31 +0000

I have to agree with Aaron on the false dichotomy aspect — and it’s a common myth: I think I’ve left this comment on three blogs in the past two weeks.

Humans go to search engines and they type something in the search box. Search engines know what they click on, and they know when they click on multiple sites on a search — the last result they click on is going to be what they were looking for most of the time.

So search engines do factor in the human angle. Sites that are stuffed with crap content may briefly rise to the top, but they’re knocked off quickly by good content.

What you have to optimize for is the way humans search. If you write about “CO2” but people are searching for “carbon dioxide,” you can be creating top-notch content and no one would ever find you via a search engine, because you never actually use the phrase they’re looking for.

It’s a matter of writing for humans, and also of figuring out how humans are going to find you.
.-= Josh recently posted: What is the involvement fair? =-.

By: Phil Buckley

Phil Buckley — Tue, 25 May 2010 02:06:14 +0000

Great post Meaghan. I’ve been carrying this banner at work for the past few months against a skeptical eye, but it’s all starting to fall into place now.
.-= Phil Buckley recently posted: Getting Better Data From Your Links =-.

By: Gareth Rees

Gareth Rees — Fri, 21 May 2010 15:40:29 +0000

Great piece Meaghan. SEO copywriting is all well and good but the end game is a conversion so if the writing doesn’t achieve that essentially the SEO copy is useless and not doing it’s job. I’m amazed how easily the end game gets lost sometimes.

By: Meaghan Olson

Meaghan Olson — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:37:48 +0000

I’m thrilled we’re having these conversations! Thanks, everyone.

‘SEO writing is dead’ is not a new idea, but it’s more relevant because of the drastic developments in search. Over the last few years, social networking has shifted the search winds (instead of search engines relying heavily on technical cues to determine the value of a page, they’re increasingly looking to people for value indicators).

In addition, search bots are better equipped to weigh the value of a link (and they’re leaning toward editorial links), they’re more closely examining click-through rates, and they’re paying more attention to how long a person spends on a page, among other factors.

I believe in SEO, but I don’t believe in getting to the top just through traditional SEO writing. Most SEOs agree with that concept, but many companies (who may not have an SEO professional on hand) are still executing their search strategy based on outdated or misguided advice. That content is what’s clogging up the web and giving SEO a bad name.

Edith, thanks for the thoughtful comment. As someone who started off in the newspaper industry, I understand your frustration. We just need to elbow our way to the front instead of being butted to the corner (we have the bigger muscles, anyway!). In the end, companies are cutting back. Unfortunately, creatives are feeling those effects; however, when it comes down to it, I only want to work for a company that believes in the power of professional writers.

Josh, I appreciated your line “It’s a matter of writing for humans, and also of figuring out how humans are going to find you.” Well said!

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 20 May 2010 12:58:48 +0000

I have to agree with Aaron on the false dichotomy aspect — and it’s a common myth: I think I’ve left this comment on three blogs in the past two weeks.

So search engines do factor in the human angle. Sites that are stuffed with crap content may briefly rise to the top, but they’re knocked off quickly by good content.

It’s a matter of writing for humans, and also of figuring out how humans are going to find you.
.-= Josh recently posted: What is the involvement fair? =-.

By: Richard Cummings

Richard Cummings — Thu, 20 May 2010 12:15:47 +0000

I totally agree with the premise of this post. However, you still need to write for SEO, ensuring to use the keyword at a minimum in the title. I am an English major and I wish it weren’t so because writing for SEO thwarts a bit of creativity. While junk sites are being weeded out, I believe that you still need to write SEO’d copy, just not to the degree that many SEO folks say.
.-= Richard Cummings recently posted: How To Redirect Web Image Results To Web Page =-.

By: Nancy E. Wigal

Nancy E. Wigal — Thu, 20 May 2010 12:12:44 +0000

Write your content for your human reader, first and always. Lightly optimizing with a keyword is fine in moderation.

Because whoever writes content should keep this in mind:

“When was the last time a search engine bought your product or service?”

Great article; thanks!

By: edith naaman

edith naaman — Thu, 20 May 2010 12:07:48 +0000

hi Meaghan,
Before all, I want to say I liked the post very much. In fact, I found it on my PC as I walked in from my morning walk, where I discussed this very subject with my walking partner.
Main problem seems to be the payment issue. For some reason, writing – no matter what or how – doesn’t pay-off as it used to, in this net environment, where everyone is encouraged to become a blog writer, an electronic book creator, tips and FAQs provider… in short, we became a world of Falkner-wanna-be’s, and proffessional writers are being pushed to the corner.
That’s at least how I see it here, in Israel, which is a small market, with great expectations!
However, regardless of quality, capability and proffessional integrity, there is something else, that kills SEO as it used to be: social networks. Social networks, given an extra power with Google’s new algorithm, changed the game, evolvung the need to talk to and attract real people, as well as creat meaningful presence, rather than feed bots with keywords.
I loved your HOC opption, as I too feel this is the change that’s happaning right infront of our eyes, a change I personally like, because at the end of the line – SEO is about commercial visibility and effectiveness. It is people that we do business with, there for it is people that we need to talk to, influence, convince and sell to. So we might as well talk to them in the first place (Yet, make it clear what we talk about)!

Edith

By: Search Engine Optimization Service

Search Engine Optimization Service — Thu, 20 May 2010 05:33:08 +0000

The SEO writing is dead mantra has been around for a long time, and sadly, those that profess it are often operating under poor assumptions, such as, SEO is full of scam artists, or a poor understanding of what SEO actually is.