There used to be a time when SEO meant accumulating links to your site. What, you thought that was still the case? That's probably why you're spending so much time on SEO.
What they don't tell you
So let's just say for a moment that everything you know about SEO is a lie. Well, perhaps not a complete lie; it was true at one point in time, and might still be true to some extent. Why, then, are all these "lies" so well established as fact? Everyone knows you need backlinks.
Simply put, if everyone knew how SEO worked, then search engines would be ineffective. The people who need SEO are the people with irrelevant content--that's stretching it a bit, but you probably don't need SEO if you're running Facebook, for example. The people who want their content on top are, ipso facto, the ones with the least relevant content. So if established SEO worked, search engines wouldn't.
So they don't tell you how SEO really works. Conflict of interest, you see.
What they do tell you
If we take a look at what Google frequently says about SEO, they don't quite lie: they're just a bit misleading. Yes, backlinks are important, but not in the same way that you might expect. The importance that they often emphasize has long been deprecated. Why? People figured it out and abused it.
They do tell you one very important thing: the best thing that you can do in terms of SEO is not try to trick the search engine. This is the exact opposite of what everyone seems to think, even though it's well-established. Take a look in your browser's address bar: if this hasn't been plagiarized, and we haven't finished our upgrades yet, you're on a .html page. .html means static content, and this is most definitely not static. The vbSEO plugin that we use--which is no longer maintained, for obvious reasons--thinks it's a good idea to turn every thread into a .html page--or at least, make it look like it's doing that. This is not a good idea. It confuses search engines, which are used to typical web servers hosted by typical people who are being transparent about what they're doing. When a search engine sees that .html extension, it's going to say, "Great, this content is only going to change rarely; I'll crawl this much less often than the .php pages." Obviously, this is not what we want. Waste of time and effort on all accounts.
That was a pretty intuitive example. Some of the other no-nos might surprise you. Don't try to hide keywords: Google knows what's going on. Got a backlink section? Google's going to see that as a sign of trouble. White text on white background? Nice try.
if you're considering using traditional SEO techniques, you are probably better off doing absolutely nothing. Seriously.
Blackhat
I classify blackhat SEO as the use of abnormal behavior or content to attempt to increase search engine rankings. This is a very broad definition of blackhat. NP Clicks falls under it. So do backlinks. Why do I take on this definition? Because this is Google's definition. Use it, and you will be severely penalized.
Let me give you an intuitive example. Bounce rate is quite important. Visitor count... not so much. We're looking for relevance, not popularity. If most of your visitors only view one page, your search rankings will drop. If your bounce rate is higher than 25-30%, you forfeit most SEO advantages. Bouncing has the greatest impact of any user behavior. Downvotes weigh more than upvotes. A lot more.
The worst kind of bounce is a search result bounce. This is when a user clicks your link in the search results, doesn't like what they see, and hits the back button. A script notifies Google of this event. If enough users do it, you'll effectively be blacklisted for corresponding search phrases. The algorithm is most likely based on a complex balance between ratio and absolute count, and is probably pseudo-exponential.
Backlinks
...are pointless. The model is out of date. Far too many people stubbornly swear by it.
For one, it's too easy to manipulate. Search engines have no guarantee that web site owner aren't tampering with the system--in fact, they're guaranteed that people are tampering with the system. Google places almost no weight on links. There are hundreds of sources of them saying otherwise. It's all nonsense. They'd have to be crazy to do it.
Secondly, link count is not indicative of relevance. It holds little association with keywords, aside from marking potentially related sites. If you use a browser plugin to observe all of the links on a web site, you'll see that most are unrelated to the general subject of the subject site. It's useless information on today's Internet.
However
Stockpiling backlinks will still hurt your rank. You have nothing to gain and plenty to lose. If Google thinks you are playing games with links, it'll be a demerit on your record.
What they don't want you to know
You can't beat the system, but you can play along.
What they don't tell you
So let's just say for a moment that everything you know about SEO is a lie. Well, perhaps not a complete lie; it was true at one point in time, and might still be true to some extent. Why, then, are all these "lies" so well established as fact? Everyone knows you need backlinks.
Simply put, if everyone knew how SEO worked, then search engines would be ineffective. The people who need SEO are the people with irrelevant content--that's stretching it a bit, but you probably don't need SEO if you're running Facebook, for example. The people who want their content on top are, ipso facto, the ones with the least relevant content. So if established SEO worked, search engines wouldn't.
So they don't tell you how SEO really works. Conflict of interest, you see.
What they do tell you
If we take a look at what Google frequently says about SEO, they don't quite lie: they're just a bit misleading. Yes, backlinks are important, but not in the same way that you might expect. The importance that they often emphasize has long been deprecated. Why? People figured it out and abused it.
They do tell you one very important thing: the best thing that you can do in terms of SEO is not try to trick the search engine. This is the exact opposite of what everyone seems to think, even though it's well-established. Take a look in your browser's address bar: if this hasn't been plagiarized, and we haven't finished our upgrades yet, you're on a .html page. .html means static content, and this is most definitely not static. The vbSEO plugin that we use--which is no longer maintained, for obvious reasons--thinks it's a good idea to turn every thread into a .html page--or at least, make it look like it's doing that. This is not a good idea. It confuses search engines, which are used to typical web servers hosted by typical people who are being transparent about what they're doing. When a search engine sees that .html extension, it's going to say, "Great, this content is only going to change rarely; I'll crawl this much less often than the .php pages." Obviously, this is not what we want. Waste of time and effort on all accounts.
That was a pretty intuitive example. Some of the other no-nos might surprise you. Don't try to hide keywords: Google knows what's going on. Got a backlink section? Google's going to see that as a sign of trouble. White text on white background? Nice try.
if you're considering using traditional SEO techniques, you are probably better off doing absolutely nothing. Seriously.
Blackhat
I classify blackhat SEO as the use of abnormal behavior or content to attempt to increase search engine rankings. This is a very broad definition of blackhat. NP Clicks falls under it. So do backlinks. Why do I take on this definition? Because this is Google's definition. Use it, and you will be severely penalized.
Let me give you an intuitive example. Bounce rate is quite important. Visitor count... not so much. We're looking for relevance, not popularity. If most of your visitors only view one page, your search rankings will drop. If your bounce rate is higher than 25-30%, you forfeit most SEO advantages. Bouncing has the greatest impact of any user behavior. Downvotes weigh more than upvotes. A lot more.
The worst kind of bounce is a search result bounce. This is when a user clicks your link in the search results, doesn't like what they see, and hits the back button. A script notifies Google of this event. If enough users do it, you'll effectively be blacklisted for corresponding search phrases. The algorithm is most likely based on a complex balance between ratio and absolute count, and is probably pseudo-exponential.
Backlinks
...are pointless. The model is out of date. Far too many people stubbornly swear by it.
For one, it's too easy to manipulate. Search engines have no guarantee that web site owner aren't tampering with the system--in fact, they're guaranteed that people are tampering with the system. Google places almost no weight on links. There are hundreds of sources of them saying otherwise. It's all nonsense. They'd have to be crazy to do it.
Secondly, link count is not indicative of relevance. It holds little association with keywords, aside from marking potentially related sites. If you use a browser plugin to observe all of the links on a web site, you'll see that most are unrelated to the general subject of the subject site. It's useless information on today's Internet.
However
Stockpiling backlinks will still hurt your rank. You have nothing to gain and plenty to lose. If Google thinks you are playing games with links, it'll be a demerit on your record.
What they don't want you to know
You can't beat the system, but you can play along.
- Publish interactive content. Informative content is nice, but it leads to high bounce rates. SaaS (Software as a Service) applications work great. You can find plenty available for free. Forums are also a classic example. Blogs are a bad choice for SEO.
- Real users are the best way to increase your rank. You'll need to find some way to get users other than appearing in search results, as that alone isn't enough. Advertising works, but it's generally too expensive for the average domainer. At lower prices it doesn't pay for itself.
- Don't use gimmicks to trick users into joining. You want loyal users. Google knows the difference.
- Format your code well, without syntax error or deprecated tags. Use XHTML 1.1 with HTML 5 features. Choose XHTML over HTML when you have the choice. If you think any of these have existed in the past decade, you're doing it wrong: <center>, <font>, <i>, <b>, <marquee>, <blink>
- Use the new HTML 5/XHTML 1.1 sectioning elements. Search engines will understand them and provide extra features. For example, put your navigation in <nav>.
- Use <h#> for logical headers, not to style content.
- Don't use <meta> tags to set keywords or descriptions. Let the search engines handle that.
- Always use a descriptive <title> tag, and make sure that your favicon is named /favicon.ico, even if you have a <link> tag for it.
