Really, SEO is no different than any other job in the world; some people get it and some people don’t… but that shouldn’t stop you from using their services. Look at it this way:

I understand the basics of how my car runs, but try not to open the hood unless I have to; to me, everything in there is essentially a black box… but I still drive

I understand the basics of how my government works, but the internal workings of a cabinet are a mystery to me… but I still vote

I like going to the grocers and picking up fresh(ish) fruit in the winter, but I don’t understand how my bananas get from Costa Rica to me while they are still green… but I still eat them.

I make my living but using a computer, I can replace parts whenever I need to. But when I look at a chip or a board, I cannot comprehend the mystery of the little metal paths that criss-cross the surface… but I still use my computer.

You do not understand the internal workings of a search engine… So let me do my job.

Of course Google has to be opaque. But again, it’s a perceptions game. Is Google being more opaque than it has to be. Is it colluding with SEOs to keep the system more opaque. Probably not, especially the latter, but in an opaque system you just have to take everyone’s word for it. So no evil by default. Just the inherent suspicion of what you can’t fully comprehend.

If they talk down to you, run. If you read their blogs and you see any signs of arrogance, run.

You got it, BUT sometimes you want the doctor with the big ego doing the operation yes? I am an SEO and I judge other SEOs by how they treat people in the areas you listed. The ones who also spend time in Google Groups and SEO forums helping (while asking for nothing in return) are the ones to hire. Though these individuals are not often easy to find, in “SEO” those who yell louder often get the microphone even if what they are saying is from the devil’s tongue.

These individuals self promote a close circle of friends via text links to control the conversation. I have been called stupid by a few of the popular SEO elites simply because I pointed out the obvious about incorrect snake oil advice. It is true of any industry though, their will always be snakes on the train.

Very observant for someone who blogs from outside the circle Scott, I have been watching this whole thing closely.

The advice I would give is to hire one outstanding, honest individual to take care of your needs, if you need another have him hire someone who mirrors his/her excellence. You also might find that a webmaster who also knows about SEO will go the distance in building a larger, longer lasting internet footprint. This SEO is serious work.

Good luck,

Aaron (no relation to Aaron Wall) Pratt

It’s a matterof degrees. What seperates a group effort to take over someone’s search results page and a one-time post that will rank for someone’s name is a matter of degrees. It’s also a matter of intentions, but the result is the same.

When other people have attacked me personally in comments here or outside of the title of the post, of course I react differently. Ad hominem is ad hominem. I’m also reacting differently now because I’m dealing with people who understand how the system works, and thus understand the consequences of how they post.

Gerry,

The difference is transparency. If you ask a librarian to explain the Dewey Decimal System, they would explain it in excuriating detail, if you so desire. If I asked Google to explain in detail how it organizes information, I’d be told, sorry, that’s proprietary. Lack of transparency is not inherently evil, and I never suggested that was. BUT, it does leave you to wonder what is going on behind the curtain.

The search engines have made billions because search engine optimization specialists have organized, titled, tagged and given descriptions to a very confusing mass of content. Without these professionals the web would be chaos.

However, looking through some of the posts that do rank for your name, you’ll notice that those authors also used you name in the title, without complaint from you. You’ve only “taken this into consideration” when a post spoke negatively of you in respone to an issue you raised.

So yes, those of us who have been at this awhile know we can rank (often temporarily) for someone’s name by posting about them and including the subject’s name in the title, but I still don’t think we’re talking about the same thing here. Look at the SEO moves against Ted Leonis for example. That was more akin to what you think was going on with you. I just don’t see it here.

I like you way to much to fight about this, but you also know I’m not one to keep my mouth shut either. So there you have it.

Looks like I’ve opened a very interesting can of worms here. See my response to Natasha here.

I agree with you that I’m appropriating a term beyond its previous use. But I believe I’ve latched on to a real issue of online ettiquete here, and I’m not backing down, just yet.

Here’s the gist of it again: To effectively disagree with someone publicly, it is NOT necessary to put their name in the title of the post with a phrase like “Scott Karp Doesn’t Have a Clue.” Just like it’s not necessary for me to disagree with you by calling you an idiot. I can say, more politely, Brian, I respectfully disagree. SO, if somone chooses to diagree with such a post title, knowing that they will have done more than publicly disagree, but also ensure that the post title shows up in someone’s Google result, THAT action, like calling someone an idiot, comes across as an escalation, i.e. making it personal.

So, Brian, with all due respect, it’s not that I didn’t understand the concept of “Google bombing,” it’s that I believe I have identified another aspect to this issue that many have failed to take in to consideration. And I think they should.

Now wait a minute Scott. Someone using your name in the title of a rebuttal post is nothing more than that — a rebuttal. You’ve made a name for yourself with contrarian opinions and often antagonistic posting… and that’s part of what makes me pay attention to you. Agree or disagree, you are always worth listening to because you are always thought provoking.

However, accusing someone who disagrees with you of “name bombing” is wrong. It’s as if you just discovered that the inflammatory conversations you like to start can go on your “permanent record” with Google, and you don’t like it. Sorry, that’s the way it is.

It’s not “name bombing.” You’re using that term in a way that is a bastardization of an entirely different concept. What was done to you is rebuttal; it’s not the same as the “Google bombing ” that was done to George W. Bush using the anchor text “miserable failure.” If you don’t understand the difference, I’m sure Aaron Wall or Natasha will take the time to explain it to you. Or do a quick Google search. This isn’t rocket science and every question you’ve raised about SEO could have been answered by your own research.