Trying to capitalise on the fact that there are loads of crap Web designers out there isn't big, hard or clever.
Bingo. And that's the only reason the SEO "industry" exists.
There was me thinking it was because of the methods used by Search Engines to index and list websites, not the fact there are so many bad developers/designers.
Bingo. And that's the only reason the SEO "industry" exists. Because there are so many negligent, irresponsible and—as Ken put it—crap designers and developers out there.
Seconded.That's a load of bull.
It would exist anyway, as Richard points out.The reason the SEO industry exists is because the design industry ignored search.
Seconded.
Eoghan I personally think you are so wide of the mark that I decided not to even engage you on your post. If you really believe you're own words it's no wonder you're not selling 'SEO'.
Pray tell how your theory stacks up in ultra-competitive niches where all the top sites have excellent design and content? There are only 10 positions on page 1 - how does Google decide which to elevate to #1? The nicest design? The cleanist code? I'm all ears to hear your designer best practice solution to that little issue.
A question for the SEO's if I may: Should the companies who can afford to throw a lot of money at SEO dominate Google while others, although they may have more relevant content, fail to rank well? Doesn't anyone see this as a looming risk that threatens to completely destroy search altogether? Guess what happens when Google's organic listings are effectively paid for and aren't necessarily delivering the most relevant results for their users? That's right...
Ken I can think of no other online medium that empowers people with websites at all levels to compete regardless of financial resources. Of all web channels to level your argument against I think organic search is perhaps the least relevant.A question for the SEO's if I may: Should the companies who can afford to throw a lot of money at SEO dominate Google while others, although they may have more relevant content, fail to rank well? Doesn't anyone see this as a looming risk that threatens to completely destroy search altogether? Guess what happens when Google's organic listings are effectively paid for and aren't necessarily delivering the most relevant results for their users? That's right...
I don't pretend to understand what you're saying, Richard. Suffice to say that there is a growing dependency to throw money at the ranking problem/SEO which will lead to the increased commercialisation of organic search in many sectors. So financial resources are a factor in being able to compete, no?