The Guardian have tried today to explain what SEO, in the context of an article on link-building blog spam. It seems to be that they don't get what this is about.
First of all, the say that there are only three ways to get listed on Google - natural algorithms, PPC and link spam:
"To be noticed quickly in search engine results pages, achieving a high page ranking, is essential. That keenly sought and often competitive place may come naturally through a website's importance (as calculated by search engine algorithms) or via sponsored links such as Google AdWords, which charge advertisers when visitors click through to their websites.
There is a third way: leaving links in the comments pages of blogs - so-called 'link spam'. And with the recession biting, link spam, which is almost free, suddenly looks a lot cheaper than AdWords to some companies".
So, what do we do in Fulltraffic and what do they do in fellow SEO agencies all day if there's only those three ways? Clearly The Guardian launched into a tirade on some SEO agency that spammed a Guardian blog. That agency made a not so friendly social media campaign - they posted links from completely irrelevant articles to relatively well-branded clients. However, there is a difference between this and saying SEO has nothing to do.
In an interview with Google, The Guardian managed to present a balanced article, however, the end is a little surprising:
"Being advised to pay for Google AdWords would have saved him much time and trouble".
Do you think of a better ad for Google AdWords? Well, at least they demonstrate that some old-style traditional media can still do some viral buzz. However, business does actually need SEO agencies' help them to get their pages indexed by Google.
