Comments on: Is SEO Science or Marketing? http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/ Website Promotion, Generating Revenue, Website Management Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:09:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 By: Medith http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-41385 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:19:01 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-41385 i must say SEO is a scientific technology very much applicable to make marketing on the web effective..

]]> By: Marc Taylor http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-12213 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:27:47 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-12213 In my opinion SEO will be treated, or, if you wish be judged by the background of the persons working with SEO. Someone with a strong developed scientific mind will have a scientific approach on SEO and an artist will go for the idea that SEO is a kind of art and you need, for example, intuition to reach your goal.
In fact I think SEO, as many other items in this world, is a mixture of several areas, and results are more driven by common sense rather then by a specific approach.

]]> By: jhay http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7816 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:35:12 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7816 Science or art as long as it works for set goals of a site owner then it’s good.

]]> By: SEO Best Practices http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7804 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 05:33:07 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7804 SEO is a relatively new field; it’s just emerging as a science. Science is built through a process, time, and principles. So I would say is very young to qualify as a science, it’s definitely an important part of the whole online marketing process.

]]> By: Ken Barbalace http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7797 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:36:05 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7797 The reasons for the unknowns is because of a failure to apply the principles of scientific research to SEO. In regards to Marcel’s comment maybe it would be better stated that SEO is a marketing tool and you need science to improve that tool.

]]> By: Marc http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7790 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:50:27 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7790 I’ve always thought of SEO as being like Alchemy.
Part science, part art, lots gurus and self appointed authorities. And still plenty of unknowns.

]]> By: Marcel Wagemeesters | SEO consultant http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7775 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:46:09 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7775 I think that SEO is a marketing tool. You need science to use the tool.

]]> By: Kyle http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7772 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:30:27 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7772 I forgot to add something related to experimentation…

Remember Google has a habit of taking an old, established website, dropping their ranking entirely on their primary keywords, then deciding 1 or 2 months later for them to rank again (without any changes being done by the webmaster).

]]> By: Kyle http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7770 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:25:40 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7770 It is both, however the science side is so very limited. The fundamentals are still all you have to worry about when it comes to proper SEO. Everything is fairly obvious when it comes to SEO. The only reason there is any learning curve is due to misinformation, idiot sites confusing the beginners out there (like your examples of people saying without doubt that domain age effects your rankings). I run into this crap a lot when I deal with old clients who read SEO advice on their own time (which is often bad advice).

The science part is simply coming up with better ways to code your site, making the content cleaner to read (going from tables to CSS could influence rankings). Science would be coming up with more advanced site structures allowing pagerank to flow properly. However, the science side of SEO doesn’t change much. Once you have the a complete understanding of the core of SEO (easy to learn without misinformation), the rest of the work is coming up with new ways to create content. Which in my opinion falls under marketing.

Experimentation has really gotten screwed over as well. Ever since the Google dances stopped, making changes and waiting for ranking fluctuations is so hard to monitor. Especially when you throw in “sandbox-esque” wait times when ranking on primary keywords for new sites. By sandbox, i mean one or all of the following: 1) Delays in your site obtaining link weight from external links. 2) Delays in ranking for the primary term your site is targetting. 3) Google’s emphasis on weighing incoming links not only on pagerank value, but on how topic-related they are. ALL of these things are so hard to measure, and make observation almost impossible. Which in the end, makes a better case that SEO is more marketing than science (today). What we do know is if a new site on Blue Widgets obtains 50 great incoming links with anchor text “blue widgets”, you will often see a slow increase in rankings over many many months, without change to content OR additional incoming links added. Unlike in the past, where a new site on Blue Widgets would rank instantly if enough incoming links were obtained. If the past Google ranking methods still applied, SEO would still be a science. Google does not want SEO to be a science, and they continue to get better at limiting our abilities to ‘figure things out’.

Brainstorming new article ideas, which encourage others to link to you, falls under marketing. In reality, this is now where all the SEO work is. Once you have mastered a proper way to structure your site, the rest of the work falls under content creation. I’d have to say that keyword research, as well as keyword selection in articles would all fall under marketing. This includes selecting keywords or article ideas for ecommerce sites, and even affiliate sites.

If Google dances still went on…and the “sandbox” effects never started happening, SEO would be a very strong science. Now it is more of a joke, where all debate is based on idiots making outrageous claims with confidence.

]]> By: Ken Barbalace http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7768 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:02:27 +0000 http://www.websitepublisher.net/blog/2007/04/04/is-seo-science-or-marketing/#comment-7768 Chris, you have provided what probably is the easiest to understand explanation of scientific study I have ever seen. I am very impressed and you have tremendously increased my respect in your SEO advice.

Traditionally SEO is more marketing than science because I think very, very few SEO “experts” actually understand the principles of scientific study let alone apply scientific principles to their SEO research.

If there are any secrets in SEO it is that scientific principles should be applied to SEO research.

]]>