• Register
• Log in

SEO Theory - SEO Theory and Analysis Blog

Algorithm analysis, Web community relationship analysis, SEO practices and techniques, industry news, etc.

• Home
• About SEO Theory
• SEO Glossary

Who wants to be an SEO theorist?

Posted by Michael Martinez on November 16, 2007 in General

What a loaded question.

People in the SEO community are, for the most part, only informally trained in the SEO Arts (as we describe our skill sets here at 1st Query). Nonetheless, there are some very good, knowledgable SEOs out there who rarely comment or blog (and I don’t mean the so-called “A-listers” whose blogs have been going silent all year long). Several thousand of you read this blog every month. You’re some pretty hard-core folks as a LOT of you keep coming back.

And I know you don’t all blog or post in forums.

Nonetheless, I think part of the SEO Theory discussion has gone unmanaged all year long. That is, I have only occasionally shared case studies and to be honest I think that you cannot seriously analyze search engine results unless you do case studies.

I’d like to put together an informal journal (to be distributed from this site as a .PDF file). I think the name Case Studies in SEO Theory would be appropriate. Now, I’m not saying I want people from the academic community to start writing papers on the mathematics and theorems of SEO (although that would be cool, having read several hundred academic papers on search technology I feel the academics are generally as qualified to comment on SEO as Kindergartners, and I offer my most sincere apologies to Kindergartners as they at least don’t have any wildly inaccurate preconceived notions).

What I’d like to see is a group of hard-working SEO professionals step forward to share their experiences through case studies about specific projects. What was the goal? What was the plan? What were the resources? What was the timeframe? How did you measure results?

Every aspect of search engine optimization is open to discussion: client-provider relationships, SEO business building, evaluating SEO forums and blogs, testing ideas in search engines, building successful ecommerce sites, etc.

I’m not suggesting we share specific techniques beyond the general strategies. If you have a favorite linking source, keep it to yourself. Call it “Linking Source 1″. If you have a favorite site template design, describe it in general terms (”Javascript navigation, top-side and left-margin, rotating copy in right, rights and disclaimers in footer”, etc.). SEO techniques can be fun to share but once you tell people exactly how you did something they will run with it and burn out its usefulness.

What I’d like to see is a collection of informally written case studies where people tell us how they launched, managed, and adjusted (if necessary) campaigns for themselves. Talk about the verticals but don’t disclose sensitive URLs and keywords. Include screen captures if appropriate (we can fuzz the images). Include names of tools you used but tell us how you used them.

Now, that may seem like a lot of work but it would be well worthwhile, and each published submission would be accompanied by an appropriate biography (you can have a picture and URL if you wish) of the contributor.

But here is the cool part: I’d like these case studies to be peer-reviewed. I’m your peer but I’m not just calling for papers, I’m calling for reviewers. You don’t have to be deep into SEO theory and black hat SEO, etc. Just have a basic understanding of the way people in the SEO community do their thing.

You don’t have to agree with everyone else. Your contribution as a reviewer will not be considered or presented as an endorsement.

What I’d like to do is collect some names and contact information for people who are willing to review the case studies. I’ll assign 2 reviewers to each case study on a random basis. The reviewers will have 1 week to write their responses. Responses will be anonymized and sent to the case study author(s). Case study author(s) will have 1 week to revise their case study (if they feel it would be helpful). I’ll keep open the option of adding an editorial comment if a case study is not updated but reviewers made a strong argument (in my opinion) for changes.

I promise I will NOT rebut any case studies in any way. This will be a totally “hands off” project. I’ll write an introduction and I’ll profile the reviewers and contributors. That will be all. This is an opportunity for you to speak out on the SEO Theory platform.

What sort of response would I expect/want to see from a reviewer? Basically, ask yourself if the case study you’re reading raises any questions that it doesn’t answer. Does the case study make sense? Can you follow the path of the narrative so that the project’s events are clear?

I am not asking for anyone to present the “Unified SEO Theory”. I’m not asking for mathematical formulae. I’m not asking for stringent replicable experiments.

I’m asking people to open the doors of their personal experience and share with others in a formal, professional way some of the things they have done. You can use whatever terms and expressions you want, including the various Google update names (but please give a calendar timeframe for stuff like that). You can talk about “PR” or “PageRank” or whatever.

It’s your opportunity to participate in the SEO Theory discussion without having to live up to anynoe’s interpretations of reality except your own. The purpose of the reviews is to help people make good presentations. Let’s come together and make a FREE professional resource that helps everyone in the SEO community.

Please feel free to contact me privately if you would like to review or contribute a case study. I’d like to publish the journal in January.

This is an opportunity for some good in-house SEOs to earn much-needed professional recognition. This is an opportunity for many regional SEO firms to show that while they don’t ride the A-Train on the conference circuit they still earn an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work.

All I ask is that you allow for independent editorial verification of your claims if you choose not to divulge identifiable information in your case study. I affirm that I WILL NOT seek to steal your clients or invade your query spaces. I hope that, after years of evaluating people’s SEO campaigns confidentially through many search updates, I have earned the SEO community’s trust and confidence in my professionalism and personal guarantee that I don’t poach clients or keywords.

As far as qualifications for reviewers go, I ask that you have been professionally engaged (full-time work) in SEO for at least one year. You can be my worst SEO critic or someone I’ve never heard of/from before. You don’t have to hold any particular points of view on SEO practices as long as you commit to being fair and honest (and polite) in your reviews.

For the case studies, I’d like people to query me first with their ideas. You should be able to describe a completed project (yes, SEO is ongoing but a project is completed once you hit your goal for this context). Projects should be business-related, charitable, or otherwise non-self promotional. I don’t really want to see people write advertisements for their SEO businesses. That’s not what this is about.

I don’t want to see case studies about eBooks, Web hosting services, blackhat tools, etc. These case studies should just be SEOs sharing experiences with SEOs. “There was this one client who came to me with a 5 page Web site. He wanted to rank for 500 terms. Took me 2 years but I did it.”

How did you do it?

So I’ll come back to this topic around the end of November. If there is enough interest we’ll go forward with the project. People are more than welcome to ask questions or make suggestions here. Every idea will be considered but I’m not going to do this on my own. I’m already writing the SEO Theory blog on my own.

Think about it.