SEO is bullshit(contrast.ie)
contrast.ie
SEO is bullshit
http://www.contrast.ie/blog/seo-is-bullshit/
43 comments
Anything that 'matters' you should be doing anyways for a good user experience. So explain what this 'optimization' for search engines exactly is?
Titles? That is for the user. Sitemaps? Actually they don't matter as long as your content is linked to internally. They can be produced trivially anyways if you really feel the need, but Google finds all my pages. Optimizing flash pages? That sounds like frowned upon injection. You should not change the way you write for a search engine. Have anchor text that represents what you are linking to? Come on, thats how it should be regardless. The best thing you can have is backlinks - which good content/interesting sites should naturally develop.
I don't know of a single thing you should do to optimize your site for a search engine. edit: If you are downmodding me be because this is incorrect, speak up.
This article is clearly garbage though.
Titles? That is for the user. Sitemaps? Actually they don't matter as long as your content is linked to internally. They can be produced trivially anyways if you really feel the need, but Google finds all my pages. Optimizing flash pages? That sounds like frowned upon injection. You should not change the way you write for a search engine. Have anchor text that represents what you are linking to? Come on, thats how it should be regardless. The best thing you can have is backlinks - which good content/interesting sites should naturally develop.
I don't know of a single thing you should do to optimize your site for a search engine. edit: If you are downmodding me be because this is incorrect, speak up.
This article is clearly garbage though.
Everything you mention is common-sense and easy to tech-savvy people like us. Not so much for "Joe the Plumber" (bad joke, I know) who just wants good search engine placement for his local business. He doesn't know what a "good user experience" means and he's not going to get it he builds his site using an off-the-shelf CMS or have his newphew build it.
Do you just not like the term "SEO"? Would you prefer "user experience consultant"?
My point is, there's a gap that skilled SEO people fill, regardless of semantics or the notion that optimization is inherent in a properly built site.
BTW, there's plenty to optimizing Flash sites that don't involve frowned upon methods. Yes, much of it is also about user experience.
Do you just not like the term "SEO"? Would you prefer "user experience consultant"?
My point is, there's a gap that skilled SEO people fill, regardless of semantics or the notion that optimization is inherent in a properly built site.
BTW, there's plenty to optimizing Flash sites that don't involve frowned upon methods. Yes, much of it is also about user experience.
My last boss wasn't technical, and he had all the "SEO" down that he needed - to the point that he had a string of SEO "experts" come in to see if they could do anything, and he figured out that he knew as much or more than them.
I have to come down on the side of "SEO is bullshit", even though the article in question was mostly content free. It's not that there's nothing to "SEO", just that there's not enough to justify it being a "career". The whole thing smells fishy to me, and I think that the market for it will eventually implode due to all the snake oil being sold. That or the structure will change radically as people who are honest and know their stuff start charging in a different way - perhaps something like getting money for training rather than working directly on a site.
Genuine designers/UI/user experience people are a different breed entirely, who know about making a site nice for people. That's not what "SEO Professionals" sell, though, generally.
Another few disjointed thoughts from my flu-ridden head:
* In terms of comparative advantage, if the thing you are relatively best at is attempting to fiddle with search engine results, as compared to, say, programming, or user interface work, or design work... what's that say?
* ... I had another one a few minutes ago, but my headache got the better of me. Oh, here it is: can't most of this stuff be automated somehow? That would be a legitimate business, creating tools that help people get things right.
I have to come down on the side of "SEO is bullshit", even though the article in question was mostly content free. It's not that there's nothing to "SEO", just that there's not enough to justify it being a "career". The whole thing smells fishy to me, and I think that the market for it will eventually implode due to all the snake oil being sold. That or the structure will change radically as people who are honest and know their stuff start charging in a different way - perhaps something like getting money for training rather than working directly on a site.
Genuine designers/UI/user experience people are a different breed entirely, who know about making a site nice for people. That's not what "SEO Professionals" sell, though, generally.
Another few disjointed thoughts from my flu-ridden head:
* In terms of comparative advantage, if the thing you are relatively best at is attempting to fiddle with search engine results, as compared to, say, programming, or user interface work, or design work... what's that say?
* ... I had another one a few minutes ago, but my headache got the better of me. Oh, here it is: can't most of this stuff be automated somehow? That would be a legitimate business, creating tools that help people get things right.
The only way to get higher search rankings without improving the overall quality of the site is by gaming the search engine's algorithms. If someone is selling that service, overall site improement, they are not doing SEO but traditional design and HCI work. And if they are getting better search rankings without making the site better for users, then they are selling snake oil.
Yes, I dislike the term SEO because it is misleading.
I agree with you here, but I don't think I said anything related to people who perform 'SEO'. I am talking about the general notion that is perpetuated that you should modify your site to 'improve SEO'. No, you should create a better user experience by conforming to standards and as a side effect search engines use these as markers.
I agree with you here, but I don't think I said anything related to people who perform 'SEO'. I am talking about the general notion that is perpetuated that you should modify your site to 'improve SEO'. No, you should create a better user experience by conforming to standards and as a side effect search engines use these as markers.
I can agree with this ... but I think there are still search engine ranking factors which have nothing to do with user experience.
Inbound links, for example, play a huge role in ranking–but are completely external to the site's user experience.
Inbound links, for example, play a huge role in ranking–but are completely external to the site's user experience.
So if all you can do to improve 'SEO' is spam backlinks...
"Anything that 'matters' you should be doing anyways for a good user experience."
Not true 'tall. I'll speak up. Here are a few SEO things that don't effect user experience positively, but do help SEO:
1) Meta descriptions (unless you're counting the SERP as your user experience) 2) Avoiding AJAX to expose more content and increase spiderability 3) optimizing anchor text for internal links to match the target keywords you get from thorough keyword research 4) systematically building backlinks with good anchor text. Yes, they "naturally develop". So what? If I spend 40 hours a week working on accelerating this in a non-sleezy way, which of our businesses is going to naturally develop faster? 5) Flat site organization, minimizing # of clicks to content pages (MIGHT benefit users, but not necessarily) 6) Tons of cross-linking on detail pages (again, MIGHT benefit users...) 7) SEO optimized title tags, header tags, etc. Is the best markup/text for users ALWAYS the best for SEO? 8) Keyword in domain name (vacuum-cleaner-house.com is better than suckit.com for SEO-- is it for the user or the brand?) 9) Age of the site (a "used/established" domain name) might be better for SEO 10) Keyword research. Understanding not only what people search for, but WHICH PHRASES ARE COMPETITIVE. You might sell shoes online, but learn that the search phrase "shoes" is locked up tightly-- and referring to it as "footwear" gives you business-critical traffic because you can get on Page 1 of the (less searched for) phrase.
I could go on.
Not true 'tall. I'll speak up. Here are a few SEO things that don't effect user experience positively, but do help SEO:
1) Meta descriptions (unless you're counting the SERP as your user experience) 2) Avoiding AJAX to expose more content and increase spiderability 3) optimizing anchor text for internal links to match the target keywords you get from thorough keyword research 4) systematically building backlinks with good anchor text. Yes, they "naturally develop". So what? If I spend 40 hours a week working on accelerating this in a non-sleezy way, which of our businesses is going to naturally develop faster? 5) Flat site organization, minimizing # of clicks to content pages (MIGHT benefit users, but not necessarily) 6) Tons of cross-linking on detail pages (again, MIGHT benefit users...) 7) SEO optimized title tags, header tags, etc. Is the best markup/text for users ALWAYS the best for SEO? 8) Keyword in domain name (vacuum-cleaner-house.com is better than suckit.com for SEO-- is it for the user or the brand?) 9) Age of the site (a "used/established" domain name) might be better for SEO 10) Keyword research. Understanding not only what people search for, but WHICH PHRASES ARE COMPETITIVE. You might sell shoes online, but learn that the search phrase "shoes" is locked up tightly-- and referring to it as "footwear" gives you business-critical traffic because you can get on Page 1 of the (less searched for) phrase.
I could go on.
What an utter waste of space (other than, perhaps, as a conversation starter?).
SEO means lots of things to lots of people, and certainly big slices of it are crap.
Here are a few bits of SEO that I'd defy anyone to call bullshit:
1) Unique and descriptive title tags, so that results in Google are findable and make sense when they are found (title tags are used for the "blue link" part of the SERP).
2) Meta descriptions in the event that Google doesn't use bits of the content (not uncommon) to describe to the searcher what's on the other side of your link (this is the 155 or so characters of black text under the link)
3) Keyword research to understand how your customers look for you-- so you can use words that they search for when you have that choice to make. Is your ecommerce site selling "shoes" or "footwear"? "Steaks" or "meat"?
4) Backlinks. Sorry, but this is the currency of the web. If you aren't in the business of trying to be link-worthy and encouraging folks to link to you, you'll fall behind those who are.
5) Eschewing ajaxy guitar solos so that your content is consumable by search spiders.
SEO means lots of things to lots of people, and certainly big slices of it are crap.
Here are a few bits of SEO that I'd defy anyone to call bullshit:
1) Unique and descriptive title tags, so that results in Google are findable and make sense when they are found (title tags are used for the "blue link" part of the SERP).
2) Meta descriptions in the event that Google doesn't use bits of the content (not uncommon) to describe to the searcher what's on the other side of your link (this is the 155 or so characters of black text under the link)
3) Keyword research to understand how your customers look for you-- so you can use words that they search for when you have that choice to make. Is your ecommerce site selling "shoes" or "footwear"? "Steaks" or "meat"?
4) Backlinks. Sorry, but this is the currency of the web. If you aren't in the business of trying to be link-worthy and encouraging folks to link to you, you'll fall behind those who are.
5) Eschewing ajaxy guitar solos so that your content is consumable by search spiders.
this IS bullshit - those 5 things you can do without paying so-called SEO Consultants
He didn't say "hiring SEO consultants is bullshit". He said "SEO is bullshit". Those things I listed are part of SEO.
And, FWIW, you can do ANYTHING without paying ANY consultants. File your tax return, sue somebody, build a bridge. You don't need a professional-- all you need is the time to self-educate.
With SEO, the questions are: "How easy is it to learn the SEO stuff I need to know?" and "How important is SEO to my business?"
And, FWIW, you can do ANYTHING without paying ANY consultants. File your tax return, sue somebody, build a bridge. You don't need a professional-- all you need is the time to self-educate.
With SEO, the questions are: "How easy is it to learn the SEO stuff I need to know?" and "How important is SEO to my business?"
Tony, please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think he was just advocating some simple best practices that improve SERP rankings NOT paying SEO consultants.
True 'nuff. And the OP was not attacking SEO consultants-- he was attacking SEO.
Sure, if you already know all of those things, and can do keyword research, etc... Many small business owners don't and can't. Hence the need for a service.
This is dumb, and essentially the same conversation that was had a week ago. I'll repeat what I said then:
A job is anything someone will pay you to do, and as long as there are companies that will pay employees to help them achieve better results on Google, SEO is and will remain a job.
From the [original] article: "Anybody today can achieve excellent search engine ranking for his own blog or website in his sparetime (sic)"
True. Anyone can also be a great cook and keep a house clean in their spare time, but that doesn't mean chefs and housekeepers don't have "real jobs."
I'll agree that there are a lot of overpaid SEO "consultants" who do nothing more than add META tags and ALT attributes and get paid $100+/hr to jerk off the rest of the time. However, speaking as an ex-employee of a company who has 3 results on Google's first page for "health insurance," there are legitimate companies out there who would drown if they didn't have SEO experts working full-time doing A/B split tests and careful traffic analysis on a daily basis.
A job is anything someone will pay you to do, and as long as there are companies that will pay employees to help them achieve better results on Google, SEO is and will remain a job.
From the [original] article: "Anybody today can achieve excellent search engine ranking for his own blog or website in his sparetime (sic)"
True. Anyone can also be a great cook and keep a house clean in their spare time, but that doesn't mean chefs and housekeepers don't have "real jobs."
I'll agree that there are a lot of overpaid SEO "consultants" who do nothing more than add META tags and ALT attributes and get paid $100+/hr to jerk off the rest of the time. However, speaking as an ex-employee of a company who has 3 results on Google's first page for "health insurance," there are legitimate companies out there who would drown if they didn't have SEO experts working full-time doing A/B split tests and careful traffic analysis on a daily basis.
> working full-time doing A/B split tests and careful traffic analysis on a daily basis.
If I did that kind of thing - actual work, I think I'd find a different thing to call myself to differentiate myself from the snake oil salesmen.
Still though, even that kind of thing strikes me as kind of "zero-sum"-ish... not really adding a lot of value to the world at large. Tournaments (search engine rankings in this case) are zero-sum, aren't they? Not that that's a reason it's "bullshit", but not high on my list of "people making the world a better place" either.
If I did that kind of thing - actual work, I think I'd find a different thing to call myself to differentiate myself from the snake oil salesmen.
Still though, even that kind of thing strikes me as kind of "zero-sum"-ish... not really adding a lot of value to the world at large. Tournaments (search engine rankings in this case) are zero-sum, aren't they? Not that that's a reason it's "bullshit", but not high on my list of "people making the world a better place" either.
"User experience > SEO" -Dustin Curtis
Many of the SEO best practices can be implemented without taking away from the user experience. However, once the SEO crap starts taking away from the user experience...Stop.
Many of the SEO best practices can be implemented without taking away from the user experience. However, once the SEO crap starts taking away from the user experience...Stop.
Agreed. Look at going.com, is that footer for a human or for a robot?!
Maybe User experience > SEO, but your users have to find you first right?
Read the second part.
And they have to come back.
And they have to come back.
I hesitate to wade into this, especially this late to the party, but what the heck...
I think a major fallacy of the crowd around here is to see SEO as primarily just code/content optimization. Good HTML, page structure, and tagging is a bit of an art, but business as usual to any top flight developer.
The elephant in the room with SEO is paid links. You may have a wonderful validating, user friendly page, but if your competition has 1000 backlink lead on you, you'll never see the top SERP spot for big keywords. Viral content can certainly help, but the unpredictable nature (esp of the links) tends to keep it in second place.
I think most programmers consider paid links 'beneath' them, and most marketers don't understand it (and technically it's grounds for a google ban, but that's only in blatant cases in my experience), but in reality:
1) Identifying proper backlink candidates, in your niche, and tracking contact info down
2) Crafting a non-spammy pitch, and following up on it
3) Making a deal, optimizing the link, and keeping it up to date
is not only a skill set to be mastered, it's a full time job for any site of large size.
Of course throwing down a technically sound site with good content is job #1 for any of us, but the idea that that alone will get you traffic, especially if your idea isn't novel/brilliant, is awfully optimistic. We all want to be Twitter, but somebody out there is getting rich selling wrenches, and the publicity/viral opportunities take real work to master.
Finally, many of the services good SEOs offer like advanced site analytics, integration with PPC campaigns, etc, can be major ROI gainers. They're not necessarily SEO, but they tend to fall under that community's expertise.
whew All that said, I too believe that 80% of the SEO experts out there are hawking snake oil, or black hat google-bomb of the month stuff that will have negative repercussions, but the idea that the whole industry is bunk comes from a large number of people that either all have a brilliant, novel idea, or are missing a serious ROI opportunity.
I think a major fallacy of the crowd around here is to see SEO as primarily just code/content optimization. Good HTML, page structure, and tagging is a bit of an art, but business as usual to any top flight developer.
The elephant in the room with SEO is paid links. You may have a wonderful validating, user friendly page, but if your competition has 1000 backlink lead on you, you'll never see the top SERP spot for big keywords. Viral content can certainly help, but the unpredictable nature (esp of the links) tends to keep it in second place.
I think most programmers consider paid links 'beneath' them, and most marketers don't understand it (and technically it's grounds for a google ban, but that's only in blatant cases in my experience), but in reality:
1) Identifying proper backlink candidates, in your niche, and tracking contact info down
2) Crafting a non-spammy pitch, and following up on it
3) Making a deal, optimizing the link, and keeping it up to date
is not only a skill set to be mastered, it's a full time job for any site of large size.
Of course throwing down a technically sound site with good content is job #1 for any of us, but the idea that that alone will get you traffic, especially if your idea isn't novel/brilliant, is awfully optimistic. We all want to be Twitter, but somebody out there is getting rich selling wrenches, and the publicity/viral opportunities take real work to master.
Finally, many of the services good SEOs offer like advanced site analytics, integration with PPC campaigns, etc, can be major ROI gainers. They're not necessarily SEO, but they tend to fall under that community's expertise.
whew All that said, I too believe that 80% of the SEO experts out there are hawking snake oil, or black hat google-bomb of the month stuff that will have negative repercussions, but the idea that the whole industry is bunk comes from a large number of people that either all have a brilliant, novel idea, or are missing a serious ROI opportunity.
SEO isn't bullshit. however, it is only a tool in a toolbox.
too many SEO firms are selling turd polish.
too many SEO firms are selling turd polish.
I couldn't agree with you more.
A lot of SEO can be done as you're building a site, but there are certain aspects to be made aware of. Unfortunately, too many companies sell these BS packages and belittle true SEO, instead of delivering actual results.
He'd also have more of a leg to stand on if he had given some _reasons_ to back his statements.
A lot of SEO can be done as you're building a site, but there are certain aspects to be made aware of. Unfortunately, too many companies sell these BS packages and belittle true SEO, instead of delivering actual results.
He'd also have more of a leg to stand on if he had given some _reasons_ to back his statements.
What this should say, is that SEO as an INDUSTRY is bullshit, proper search engine optimization should just be taken into account as you build whatever you're putting on the web. SEO is a feature not an app in startup terms
I was once involved in an SEO/PPC pitch for a major pizza company (by major I mean one of the top 3 players). One of the issues they wanted addressed was their ranking for the term 'pizza'. This is not something you'd think would be an issue for a company like this, but they weren't showing up on the first page of results.
We suggested that they might want to include the word 'pizza' somewhere on their homepage. That's right. The word pizza wasn't in the title, the meta-tags, the alt-tags, the body copy- it wasn't anywhere on the page. Apparently, that little tidbit had gotten lost among all the priorities of Branding, Marketing, Messaging, Promotions, etc., etc.
As soon as they added the word pizza into their title tag, they rocketed to the top of the results. Was that value worth paying for? Of course. Was the solution totally obvious? It should have been, but in case after case we find that, especially with larger/older companies, it's not.
IMO, SEO is completely natural at the one-man-sized-business level. Like most things, it gets increasingly complicated as you scale up.
We suggested that they might want to include the word 'pizza' somewhere on their homepage. That's right. The word pizza wasn't in the title, the meta-tags, the alt-tags, the body copy- it wasn't anywhere on the page. Apparently, that little tidbit had gotten lost among all the priorities of Branding, Marketing, Messaging, Promotions, etc., etc.
As soon as they added the word pizza into their title tag, they rocketed to the top of the results. Was that value worth paying for? Of course. Was the solution totally obvious? It should have been, but in case after case we find that, especially with larger/older companies, it's not.
IMO, SEO is completely natural at the one-man-sized-business level. Like most things, it gets increasingly complicated as you scale up.
Yawn. Haven't we had this conversation before?
If you think SEO is bullshit, you are probably isolated in web-app-make-believe-land and think the only way to build an internet business is coding an ajax heavy service, getting viral growth, and being acquired.
This is not the way most internet businesses operate. Most depend on search engines to deliver prospective buyers to their site.
If you think SEO is easy, or completely self explanatory, you have clearly never tried to get a site ranked for a semi-competitive keyword. The vast amounts money associate with commercial search terms makes ranking highly competitive and the constant updates to Google's algorithm make it a constantly moving target.
Maybe all this anti-SEO sentiment stems from jealousy. Good SEO sites can make millions and have a much higher probability of success (compared to web apps) when orchestrated by an experienced SEO.
This is not the way most internet businesses operate. Most depend on search engines to deliver prospective buyers to their site.
If you think SEO is easy, or completely self explanatory, you have clearly never tried to get a site ranked for a semi-competitive keyword. The vast amounts money associate with commercial search terms makes ranking highly competitive and the constant updates to Google's algorithm make it a constantly moving target.
Maybe all this anti-SEO sentiment stems from jealousy. Good SEO sites can make millions and have a much higher probability of success (compared to web apps) when orchestrated by an experienced SEO.
I think you're being harsh there. SEO is a byproduct of creating a good website/webapp.
Think about your users first, and they will link to you. You'll get inbound links. Make your site easy to use and navigate, and it'll be search engine friendly. It's far more useful to spend time making a good product, than trying to game the search engines.
Think about your users first, and they will link to you. You'll get inbound links. Make your site easy to use and navigate, and it'll be search engine friendly. It's far more useful to spend time making a good product, than trying to game the search engines.
SEO is mostly cleaning up after lazy developers or WYSWIG site builders who didn't write standards compliant, accessible, lean code and didn't know anything about information architecture. I know because I do it every day.
Search is how most people find most things online, period. Designing a website with such a contempt for SEO is a recipe for disaster. Yes, some websites don't need SEO or SEM, because they're naturally viral or sticky. Some products also don't need any marketing to catch on. In both cases, this is the exception and not the rule.
(SEO is also spending a large amount of your time defending your reputation against something that was left behind for you by snake-oil salesmen.)
Search is how most people find most things online, period. Designing a website with such a contempt for SEO is a recipe for disaster. Yes, some websites don't need SEO or SEM, because they're naturally viral or sticky. Some products also don't need any marketing to catch on. In both cases, this is the exception and not the rule.
(SEO is also spending a large amount of your time defending your reputation against something that was left behind for you by snake-oil salesmen.)
Just for the argument. Here is a SEO case study and how backlink can help you.
http://blog.ask2link.com/case-study-advertisers-get-great-re...
http://blog.ask2link.com/case-study-advertisers-get-great-re...
Interesting, but isn't this more "marketing" than "case study"?
This post is bullshit.
SEO, just like anything by itself, is not an answer. Simple logical way to look at this:
1) You need more customers, visitors, users,etc. 2) Google often drives them to you. The higher you are, the more of them you see. 3) You apply SEO tactics to increase ranking 4) More people come, you've achieved your goals.
Now, doing this alone doesnt mean anything:
a) if your product sucks, you can be number one on google. odds are, you still wont go anywhere. b) if your support sucks, the people you convery will leave. c) if you cant sell, these people will leave after talking to you.
Hope this makes sense, just giving a balanced opinion.
SEO, just like anything by itself, is not an answer. Simple logical way to look at this:
1) You need more customers, visitors, users,etc. 2) Google often drives them to you. The higher you are, the more of them you see. 3) You apply SEO tactics to increase ranking 4) More people come, you've achieved your goals.
Now, doing this alone doesnt mean anything:
a) if your product sucks, you can be number one on google. odds are, you still wont go anywhere. b) if your support sucks, the people you convery will leave. c) if you cant sell, these people will leave after talking to you.
Hope this makes sense, just giving a balanced opinion.
SEO in its most puerile form of purely gaming the system is indeed BS.
But SEO is also about making your website as friendly as possible for search engines and improving your linking for users while also helping with the search engines. It's about developing your links from other sites and helping get your site placed in front of as many eyes as possible.
Sure a great product or service will rise to the top. But for those who aren't the best, SEO is a tool that they can utilize.
But SEO is also about making your website as friendly as possible for search engines and improving your linking for users while also helping with the search engines. It's about developing your links from other sites and helping get your site placed in front of as many eyes as possible.
Sure a great product or service will rise to the top. But for those who aren't the best, SEO is a tool that they can utilize.
For people who want a more detailed follow-up: http://www.contrast.ie/blog/seo-is-still-bullshit/
BAD SEO is bullshit.
Well thought out SEO as part of a larger scale site impact consideration is AWESOME :D
Well thought out SEO as part of a larger scale site impact consideration is AWESOME :D
:( I thought that was a succint evaluation....
There are plenty of bad SEO firms out there who have no clue about what they are doing (and often do more harm than good to a site). Also SEO is seen as a fix-all solution - which it really isn't.
But SEO practices are an essential part of any website design, refresh or update.
At the end of the day it's just a buzzword that creates a market for selling their knowledge (knowt wrong with that of course!)
There are plenty of bad SEO firms out there who have no clue about what they are doing (and often do more harm than good to a site). Also SEO is seen as a fix-all solution - which it really isn't.
But SEO practices are an essential part of any website design, refresh or update.
At the end of the day it's just a buzzword that creates a market for selling their knowledge (knowt wrong with that of course!)
It's retarded posts like these that make me with HN had downmods...
Lol all this, and we all ask one question in return:
why?
why?
What's SEO?
What a shortsighted, lame argument. It's like taking anything you disagree with and then comparing it to a bunch of arbitrary truths in life.
Look at this article and replace "SEO" with any other word that you disagree with.
For entertainment, just replace "SEO" with "McCain."
Look at this article and replace "SEO" with any other word that you disagree with.
For entertainment, just replace "SEO" with "McCain."
Yes, valid/well structured sites give you an SEO head-start, but there's more to it: - Properly structured browser titles matter - The way you write matters - Sitemaps matter - Optimizing Flash-based sites/pages is important because there are a lot of them - Links matter ... A LOT
There is a valid need for honest, skilled SEO professionals. The fact that there are so many bogus ones simply underscores this. Businesses on the web simply need to be educated on when and how to find a good one, when not to use one, and what they can DIY.
I'm sorry, but this post doesn't show much "intellectual honesty".