There is no shortage of SEO checklists out there, and they all go something like this:
- Research keywords
- Write optimized title tags
- Write optimized headlines
- Write optimized body copy
- Optimize internal link text
- …
If you’ve been learning about SEO for any amount of time you’ve no doubt read a few of these.
And the truth is that most of them are accurate. At least, the tasks they describe generally improve the signals search engines pick up to determine what your pages are about.
But here’s the thing: you’re still unlikely to rank competitively even when you get the on-site stuff right.
Almost everyone gets the on-site signals right
Take a good look at your competitors. Chances are they’ve already done a lot of the on-site optimization you were planning on doing. Many of them are doing all of it right.
So what do you do when you’ve optimized your pages and your competition is still outranking you?
- Stuff more keywords into your pages?
- Tweak those title tags a few more times?
- Adjust your image ALT text?
Waste. Of. Time.
You can’t beat out more established and linked-to competitors by optimizing your pages. Period.
Even if you could, the on-site stuff is easy – so what would stop your competitors from stepping up their game a bit and beating you out again? The search results would be a non-stop shuffle.
What you need to do is build trust.
Trust is social
Social proof is important. Without it we’d have to spend a lot more time finding out for ourselves, and the hard way, what is and isn’t valuable. This is why testimonials and referrals work so well. We know that business owners all, for better or worse, toot their own horns dry. If someone else is telling us how valuable something is, someone who doesn’t stand to benefit, we’re much more likely to be on board.
This is fundamentally the way trust works for search engines.
Before PageRank (a link-based evaluation of web pages) search engines relied on webmasters to tell them what their pages were relevant to. The results spoke for themselves. Porn websites showed up for searches like “white house.” Actually, porn showed up for just about everything.
Focusing on links allowed Google to cut through the noise and determine what pages were really about. Because links, unlike on-page elements, come mostly from other webmasters – who, unless they’ve been given a specific incentive, have no interest in promoting someone else’s website to the top of search results.
Links are central to search algorithms because links gives search engines a signal of trust they can trust.
The fact is, you don’t need on-page SEO to get search engine traffic. You need people using, talking about and linking to your website, because search engines follow people – not the other way around.
Trust is:
- Powerful – even websites that don’t get on-site SEO right will get top ranks with enough inbound links
- Defensible – competitors can’t easily catch up
So here’s the deal:
When resources are limited (and they always are) figure out how to leverage them to get people talking about and linking to your stuff. Do that and you’ll win – in due time. Simple, but not easy.
Related posts from around the web:
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
I spent some time mulling over how to respond to your point. I have decided I should just be blunt–I know you can take it. :)
You are wrong.
Low-hanging fruit is usually there for most websites and it makes a huge difference. However, you can only grab it once. If fixing your titles, tags and content doesn’t get you where you need to be then you need to move on to the more complicated tactics.
Yes, links should be part of a healthy search strategy, but how do you defend the statement that “on-page seo” isn’t necessary for search traffic? If you are off-topic you use metrics will tank as people bounce right back to the search engine looking for one of your competitors that fulfills the promise. In turn you rank will be unstable AND you will lose buyers & brand trust.
While I appreciate the strong position you take you are creating a duality that doesn’t exist: Links vs Content. If you are dependent on only one leg you are always going to be the slowest person in the race.
I certainly expected counterpoints – so I welcome the response. :)
For websites with an established presence / link profile who haven’t taken advantage of on-site SEO I agree – fixing the on-site stuff can have a drastic and immediate effect.
I also agree that all else being equal, on-site SEO can be the tipping point. And I still recommend on-site SEO for new websites – in the long run it’ll play a part.
But, I guess things like the age-old “click here” example have me solidly convinced that links/trust are all you need if you can get enough of them. Adobe Reader ranks #1 for that term – and it occurs nowhere on the page or in the code.
Of course, if the on-site SEO was so pitiful that this page wasn’t even indexed that would be a moot point.
On-site SEO is nothing without links/trust. Links are powerful enough on their own to build rankings/traffic.
I’m not sure I get the “off-topic” part of your argument – what does on-site SEO have to do with being on-topic? I consider that a matter of giving users what they want.
Quite often the need for on page SEO is because the client wants the page or site to rank for something they are not representing or presenting. As a result few sites link to them, and certainly never link with optimal anchor text.
Example site starts something like this:
Your best online directory for credit issue nullification services.
Seriously, what is that? No one cares and it doesn’t communicate well to anyone.
And we change it to:
We help you solve credit problems.
For both humans and robots the revised version fulfills the need “solve credit problems,” one of those phrases that people actually search.
One version keeps the visitor and the other confuses the visitor.
“As a result few sites link to them, and certainly never link with optimal anchor text.”
Doesn’t that support my argument? If nobody’s going to link to your page that’s not a problem with your on-page SEO – it’s because your page sucks and doesn’t fulfill a need. So you lose, because you don’t build links and nobody talks about what you’ve built.
On the other hand, if you fulfill the need and the word spreads you can screw up your on-page SEO all you want – you’ll still get traffic/links – and the links themselves (and anchor text) describe the need fulfilled. In other words, won’t the linkers be doing your SEO for you?
The example you give seems to me to be a plain usability issue. The first example is just ugly writing that doesn’t communicate to the user as to the benefit you’re providing. You’re right, nobody searches for “credit issue nullification services” – nobody thinks that way either. However, your second example is better because it speaks clearly to users. The fact that it’s also better for on-page SEO is secondary in my mind.
There’s a feedback cycle between SEO and usability that makes this argument difficult – a sort of chicken/egg situation that could be argued either way.
I’m not saying on-page SEO is worthless. I’m saying that if you’ve got to choose where to focus first, focus on fulfilling the need and helping the word spread. If you can’t do that on-page SEO is not going to help you.
Page content is what you use to lead the conversation.
If you don’t use the language you want in your links you won’t get the anchor text–just the link. In low to medium competition phrases anchor text isn’t as necessary, but in high competition searches you can’t buy enough links to overcome the language you present your visitors.
Well, I’ve got to concede that point I think – using the wrong language on your page can lead to the wrong anchor text. And anchor text is certainly powerful – especially where competition is strong.
It also depends somewhat on the link building method. In a situation like Matt Inman using quiz badges to build thousands of links the “Free Online Dating” text was a lock-in. He could have been totally off-topic with his on-page SEO elements and still ranked #1 for that term.
But I definitely see your point on leading the conversation. If you somehow generate buzz/links on your “credit issue nullification services” – and that language becomes the context – that’s the wrong anchor text, and you’ll get it.
But I have a hard time seeing how you’d possibly generate buzz/links using crappy language like that.
I definitely appreciate your input – you raise some excellent points, and I find myself considering the situation from new angles – always valuable. I’m OK with being wrong if I learned something in the course of argument. :)
Great article.
They say “content” is king, but “inbound anchor text links” are the queen.
Not sure what this means, but I’ve got 8,495 inbound links, and I’m on top of my SERP for my KW phrases.
@Matt Thanks. I think what it means is you’re kicking ass and taking names. :)
I agree with the fact that the quantity and quality of the links pointing to your content is the main force behind your website’s ascension within search engine rankings.
As search engines evolve, the need for SEO will decrease and eventually SEO will die out as there will not be any need to do any optimization to your site, search engines will be able to gather the information they need without you making special preparations for it, of course, as long as you obey to a specific type of markup language and don’t make a mash out of your content.
At this time, I consider that, for new websites, besides taking the actions to ensure at least a minimal SEO for your content (I seriously think that many people are over-optimizing their sites), the best way to start is advertising. Either you run banners, or text ads, or television/radio/newspaper ads it’s all the same, ads work.
1. Minimal SEO
2. Advertising
3. Do it yourself, or hire someone on the long term, to make your website known on the internet. Posting links on forums and blogs might not be nice but it works, and if you’re on-topic and your linked content is on-topic you’re not doing any harm.
@Criss Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
While I agree that search engines will continue to improve their technology I don’t think they’re going to be able to read around any and all human error in development any time soon. They still rely on webmasters to provide signals on a page’s topic via content/code/links, and I don’t see why that will change in the near future (or why it should, frankly). Beyond the technical issues if you’re not using the right language in the right places you’re not properly “tagging” your content.
Additionally I’d say I’m not ready/willing to wait around for search engines to step up their game – and I wouldn’t recommend anybody else bank on an unpredictable eventuality either.
I agree for new websites 100% – a little upfront SEO is all you really need when it comes to working keywords into the right places and ensuring no technical issues. And you’re right that once that’s done it becomes a promotional game. Especially with CMS platforms like WordPress leveling the on-page playing field in many ways.