SEOs spilling the beans to Mr. Cutts

Sharpseo · 03-01-2006, 12:27 PM

http://www.sharpseo.com/blog/index.php/archives/19

I've been thinking about this for a while - Why do SEOs seem to share secrets with Matt Cutts? I posted a couple examples on my blog and posed 3 possible explanations:

#1 - It's basically an exchange of info, seo tells matt some secrets, matt gives some tidbits about Google's algo.

#2 - Google pays seos and spammers to tell them trade secrets, new techniques, etc (like anti-virus companies hiring hackers).

#3 - Google gets SEOs drunk at conferences, then extracts secrets while they're intoxicated.

I've never been to any of the big conferences, so I'd love to hear from people who have been and might have some real experience with this type of situation.

WorldwideTrading · 03-01-2006, 12:30 PM

Since Alcohol is technically a drug are you accusing Google of drugging people to take advantage of them?

Sharpseo · 03-01-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgreen

Since Alcohol is technically a drug are you accusing Google of drugging people to take advantage of them?

No, that last one is more of a joke than anything else. In my blog post I said "Maybe I'm just reaching with this last one".

Ferre · 03-01-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgreen

Since Alcohol is technically a drug are you accusing Google of drugging people to take advantage of them?

Most multinationals do that, it would be weird if spammed by gooooooooogle didn't do that.

The Founder · 03-01-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

Most multinationals do that, it would be weird if spammed by gooooooooogle didn't do that.

I agree with you... google is like a bunch sharmootas running wild stealing content .. LOL!

Dustin07 · 03-01-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Since Alcohol is technically a drug are you accusing Google of drugging people to take advantage of them?

if no one else will step up and accuse a great company of horrible things then I will. what they hey, I accused the Steelers of cheating on XL.

so yes.

John Scott · 03-01-2006, 07:20 PM

I think that sharing opinions on Google with the intention of making it a better search engine is a good thing.

bobking · 03-01-2006, 07:54 PM

As human beings there is one thing above all others that we crave. It is not money or even sex. It is validation. To be acknowledged as an SEO by Google is to be validated as an SEO.

Of course John is right that SEO's communicating to search engines is a good thing, but, businessmen play their cards close to their chest and would never disclose things to a third party that give them a competitive edge without some type of suitable return. So, when one does that you can be sure it is not done out of a motivation to improve profitablity. It is done to get the attention of someone you feel important enough to validate you.

It's not a bad thing at all. It is just a human thing. It is also the reason we post in forums and write blogs by the way. I try not to judge, but I'm not above recognizing it and considering it in commercial endeavors. If you get my drift ;
I bet Matt does.

John Scott · 03-01-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

To be acknowledged as an SEO by Google is to be validated as an SEO.

I'm more dense when it comes to divining ulterior motives, but that one seems about right.

Sharpseo · 03-02-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I think that sharing opinions on Google with the intention of making it a better search engine is a good thing.

For end-users? Most definitely. But I wouldn't be eager to tell Google any SEO secrets that were making my sites rank well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobking

As human beings there is one thing above all others that we crave. It is not money or even sex. It is validation. To be acknowledged as an SEO by Google is to be validated as an SEO.

Very interesting. Sounds pretty plausible.

John Scott · 03-02-2006, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpseo

For end-users? Most definitely. But I wouldn't be eager to tell Google any SEO secrets that were making my sites rank well.

Pretty sure they know better than you what makes your sites rank well.

GeorgeB · 03-02-2006, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Pretty sure they know better than you what makes your sites rank well.

Hmmm, I would both agree and disagree with you there John.

Of course they are the SE so they know what you would need to rank well. But... they also find themselves combating new tactics by webmasters all the time that trick their algos into giving up the good spots (example: Google Bombing). So to that end, they kind of are behind the curve and could use some good intel into what's going on in our little webmaster/SEO minds.

Simple analogy: Just becaue they are the ones that programmed it doesn't mean it can't be hacked.

Sharpseo · 03-02-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeB

Of course they are the SE so they know what you would need to rank well. But... they also find themselves combating new tactics by webmasters all the time that trick their algos into giving up the good spots

Agreed George. Also of interest to Google would be - Where are webmasters buying links? What types of reciprocal programs are they using? Automated link exchange programs, etc.

I think there is a lot Google wants to know from webmasters.

Mong · 03-02-2006, 02:16 PM

I think none of above options

DarkNinja · 03-02-2006, 03:42 PM

you might be closer with observation #1..
I think the SEO's are sucking up to Matt just trying to find out if:
A) The techique is consider black hat or white hat by the goog search bots
B) by the initial reaction of cutts to see if there little trick is even weighted at all

awall19 · 03-03-2006, 12:50 AM

I don't think there is typically tons of beans spilling about what is cutting edge... maybe problems that are already starting to be mass exploited and are already on the way out...and by helping solve the mass market problems advanced SEOs only increase the competitive bar for new potential competitors entering the marketplace.

I think the need for validity is a good reason for communication, but from what I have seen many of the people who hover around Matt at conferences are pulled in by a small crowd becoming a big crowd...people see others there and feel that they are missing out if they do not listen in. Surprisingly some of those people do not even notice when a Google founder walks by.

case and point:
At the Googleplex last year Matt was in a corner with waves of people surounding him. A few minutes later I saw Larry Page walk by and nobody even noticed him.

I think Matt is a funny guy and has an alternative perspective worth realizing and trying to understand...for all SEOs. One only needs to look at Google's recent reply to the DOJ
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/...oj-motion.html
to see how important he is to Google. I think the opportunity to chat with him for a few minutes in small groups where he is accessible is pretty damn cool. Because of the Matt gravity effect you can't do that too well at conferences, but can after hours.

I think you can also probably learn from Matt's nonverbal communications, but he is probably better than average at learning from others.

He and Danny Sullivan are surprisingly alike, in that in spite of having a rediculous amount of things on their plate they are both really accessible. I have a hard time keeping up with stuff and have like 0.00000001% of the responsibility they do...I don't know how the heck they do it all.

John Scott · 03-03-2006, 12:57 AM

Mine eyes deceive me. Aaron Wall posteth.