22
Feb
2007
Dear Diggers,
Actually, I guess I should say, Dear Fellow Diggers,
I have to admit it, you’ve hooked me. I now get most of my news and online entertainment from your stories. I even learn things every now and then. Did you know there are now tracking devices the size of a grain of dust? I didn’t. At least until you told me. Anyway I have, as they say, become “adiggted” (pun completely intended). I’ve even begun to climb the ranks of Digg, submitting 300+ stories and getting 35 of them promoted to the front page. I’m not trying to brag or boast, I’m simply trying to say, I am one of you.
However… I think we need to talk.
You see, I’m also an SEO. That’s right. I optimize websites to improve their rankings in Search Engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc). I realize I probably lost quite a few of you right there, but I’ll continue none the less. I’m not sure when it happened, but the letters SEO in succession have practically become a swear word on Digg. Having SEO in the URL of my site make me feel like I’m walking around a Hawthorne novel with a scarlet A on my chest. In fact, many of you probably think “spam” is spelled S-E-O.
Don’t get me wrong, unlike in some of my past relationships, I actually DO know how we got to this point. In fact, it’s almost understandable. A bunch of people calling themselves SEOs have submitted absolute rubbish over and over to Digg in hopes of getting a little bit of attention and maybe a few links. Here’s the thing though, those people aren’t SEOs. They’re spammers. Sure people discuss the differences between white-hat and black-hat SEO, but I’m not talking about breaking Google’s terms of service or exchanging links. I’m talking about people who spam guest books, blog comments, forums, and most importantly in this conversation, our beloved Digg.
I understand your feelings, I really do. But here’s the thing… Those people aren’t practicing SEO! They are, quite simply, spammers and believe it or not, SEOs hate them just as much as you do. Not only do they target our sites, compete with our legitimate sites for rankings, and fill our in-boxes with complete drivel, but they also tarnish our profession by calling themselves SEOs. You see Diggers, spammers have come between us.
Thanks to spammers nearly every story submitted from this site has at least one comment about how SEOs should “die in a train wreck” or that the story is just “SEO blog spam crap“. Thanks to spammers’ actions on Digg, this very article will likely not be judged by the quality of the content, but by the first three letters of the URL. And that, my fellow Diggers is wrong.
In an attempt to remedy this situation I’d like to give you an exaggeratedly simplistic overview of what a true SEO does. I know, I know… you think you already know, but just hear me out. You see, a “real” SEO first focuses on the website itself. We’ll make sure the site has a nice clear title and a quality description. Basically, we do to the website what Diggers do every day when submitting a story.
Next, we make sure the site can be read properly by Google, Yahoo, and the rest of the search engines. This is pretty much self explanatory. I mean you wouldn’t submit a story to Digg in Chinese and expect it to make it to the front page would you?
Lastly, we make sure people and search engines alike can find the site. This is where the links come in and also where, from what I gather, the growing SEO hatred emerges. The fact is, getting links to a website helps that site rank better in Google. As with any profession, there are different ways to go about doing this.
However, contrary to what you may believe, SEOs (including myself) don’t spam for links. Spammers spam for links. SEOs submit our clients’ sites to directories, we send out press releases, we create useful tools and articles that people will want to link to. We buy advertisements and pay-per-click ads. Basically, we market the hell out of our sites. Spammers spam. See the distinction?
Admittedly, there’s much more to SEO than that, but you get my point. You can’t simply judge an entire industry based upon the actions of a few. Surely you don’t view journalists from the Wall Street Journal in the same light as those that write for the National Enquirer. I doubt you view Supreme Court Justices the same way you look at sleazy ambulance chasers. The examples go on and on but you get my point.
So please, dear Diggers, the next time you see an article on Digg talking about Search Engine Optimization, before burying it on sight, take just a moment to actually read the story and decide whether it was in fact written by an SEO or a Spammer, and remember, the two are NOT the same thing.
Sincerely yours,
Skitzzo (an SEO)
Update: This article did briefly make it to Digg’s front page. The argument it presented obviously fell on deaf ears though as it was buried just minutes later. I can’t say that I’m entirely surprised though, especially considering some of the comments left by Digg members.
“Please,
SEO is nothing more then deceptive traffic manipulation. You haven’t earned the traffic, you hijacked it.If a link on digg doesn’t go straight to the content source rather then some weak-ass blog server it’s worthless to the digg audience and is completely self-serving to whatever asshat SEO, Astroturfer, Scubber, idiot posted it in the first place. Your blog has nothing meaningful to add to the subject at hand and more often then not misconstrues the facts beyond belief.
SEO itself is a term, but it’s a lot easier to refer to people then saying Search Engine Upper. “
I’ve not yet figured out how getting traffic from search engines such as Google constitutes a “hijacking.” Nevertheless the point remains that this individual believes that no blog post has any value to the Digg community. Unfortunately, the ignorance didn’t stop there.
“Why do people who refer to themselves as SEOs always think they’re such big shit? Is it because it the acronym looks similar to Executive Officer acronyms? How are they any different than the rest of us that work with the internet? I always get this air of retarded confidence when I see them post anywhere, like they think they’re some secret cult of internet puppeteers. Put your tiny back in your pants.”
I think I’ll let that one speak for itself. Then of course we have our Mr. Fish who at least was man (or I suppose possibly woman) enough to comment on our site. His comment on Digg also mentioned Matt Cutt’s blog as well as SEOmoz as SEO sites that “really add something to the community and don’t WHINE!!!” I believe Pops’ response was pretty much the only way to go with that one but I will say that thanks to Mr Fish, the next time I’m a Google engineer I’ll be SURE to leverage my power to create a valuable blog.
However, despite the incredible ignorance and idiocy displayed by these comments, there were some positive comments left on Digg as well. As in any good relationship there need to be some mixed signals right?
“Good article, Skittzo.
I wish more people in the Digg comunity took note of the differences and treated SEO as a bit less of a swear word.”
And that wasn’t the only one! I’m pretty sure this one was a compliment, although I must say, I’m a bit disturbed by the imagery.
“Well Skittzo, it looks like this attempt to educate our fellow diggers has back-fired, I feel for you. People like miked123 up there will cling to their vision of you as a small penis-ed Satan dancing around their otherwise pure intarwebs. I honestly respect the job you’re doing because I know that without good SEO’s my websites and my company have but a snowballs chance.”
All in all, I’d say the letter went largely undelivered… The post only lasted a few minutes on the front page (the true test of a Digg submission) but it was dugg by well over 100 people. I suppose every little bit helps but I’m afraid Digg and I are just growing apart. I mean I’ve made some friends on Digg and do not by any means think these idiots represent all of digg. Sadly though, at this rate I don’t think it will be long before one of us is telling the other that “It’s not you… it’s me.” If that IS the case, I just hope there are fewer Mr Fish’s in the sea.
Popularity: 15% [?]

© 2007 SEO Refugee - Search Engine Optimization Blog and Forums web design by studioJMC powered by WordPress

22 Responses
Joomba
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
1The majority of time those seo articles are just pure spam. They’re copy + pasted and they add very little.
Skitzzo
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
2Joomba, if the article is just copy and paste that’s fine. By all means, bury it. However, don’t act like the copy and paste jobs are only done by SEOs. I can’t count the number of stories that I see with the first comment having to link to the original source of the article.
Take this one for instance: http://digg.com/space/Guy_Uses_100_Million_Radio_Telescope_to_Find_Laptop
Is that guy an SEO? I doubt it.
Also, by painting it as “the majority of time those seo articles are spam” you’re totally missing my point.
Don’t generalize stories by their topic. If you read the article and think it’s worthless that’s fine. I bury stuff all the time that are dupes, copy and paste jobs, spam, or inaccurate. The point is that I read them first.
All I’m asking is that Diggers give SEO stories a chance rather than hitting the Bury as Spam option just because they see SEO in the title or URL.
links for 2007-02-22 at Baron VC
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
3[…] The Scarlet Letters - an SEO’s Open Letter to Diggers Another futile post that will only penalize the author? Unfortunately, many Digg users don’t know that some of the most active users are also SEOs. Why wouldn’t they be? They’re experts at getting websites noticed so they have an eye for good content. (tags: digg seo social_media) […]
Search Engine Land: News About Search Engines & Search Marketing
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
4SearchCap: The Day In Search, Feb. 22, 2007
Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the web:…
Andrew Ferguson
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
5Thanks for putting this up, I hope it gets read by the whole Digg community.
The fine line between spam and SEO is indistinguishable for a lot of people, but it is there. Thanks for helping show people.
Burying is for spam. There’s nothing wrong with using SEO to ensure that your quality original content gets properly marketed.
MrFish
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
6Ok sure, you want some legitimacy. Isn’t that what all SEO’s want. Here’s the point though ok! You get paid to make somebody’s site be interesting when it really isn’t! Get it?
We are not stupid and so don’t insult us when you say we don’t know the difference between spammers and SEO’s. It’s simple. SEO’s are just marketing departments for web sites. So that still makes you annoying, fake, tripe and oh did I say annoying. So good luck in getting legitimacy because you just black listed yourself as being insulting to generally everyone, as well as a spammer… oh sorry, SEO.
skitzzos_pop
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
7big·ot [big-uht]: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
rmccarley
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
8MrFish,
If it weren’t for marketing you wouldn’t have the latest Mac-Addicted, Google-loving stories Diggers are so fond of. Both of those companies are built on smart marketing.
I like Skitz’ letter. But I would point out that SEOs are often Diggers too (including myself) and that we have every right to promote stories that interest us in Digg as well.
Just because something is SEO-related isn’t cause for hate. And the more the bury brigade works the less people get the opportunity to even form an educated oppinion. Is it so difficult to just skip past the stories that don’t interest you?
Oh, and SEO is a legit industry. There are over one billions reasons per year saying so. But if you close your eyes and hope real hard maybe it will go away…
You can either accept it and work with it or continue to fracture your community. The choice is yours.
McClud
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
9> Thanks to spammers’ actions on Digg, this very article will likely not be judged by the quality of the content, but by the first three letters of the URL.
I’m tired of all this “htt” crap!
Yuri
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
10SEO is not only putting effort in promoting a website (mostly, and that’s the best part of the game, SEOs help previously unnoticed genious products get noticed), SEO is also about simply making the website more search engine friendly to get its deserved visitors from the search engines.
How bad can be to get the deserved customers?
If you are a blogger, wouldn’t you want to get more readers and subscribers? That’s where SEO is game and like it or not, you do it too by using the words your people understand.
Ah. Sorry. Almost turned this response to a rant.
jrothra
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
11MrFish,
You made the following statements in your comment which I found quite interesting:
“You get paid to make somebody’s site be interesting when it really isn’t!”
“SEO’s are just marketing departments for web sites.”
“You just black listed yourself as being insulting to generally everyone, as well as a spammer”
What’s interesting is that you believe SEO’s are marketers who specialize in getting people to ’sell’ what may be a low-quality product. Therefore, you conclude that they are spammers and go so far as to threaten one with blacklisting. In short, you seem to have a problem with website marketing. However, I must ask a few questions.
1. Do you run AdSense on your website? If so, chances are over 50% of the ads your site displays were purchased by SEO’s. If those ads vanished, your income will vanish as well because the number of available ads would drastically decrease.
2. What kind of car do you drive? Would you have known about it if that company hadn’t advertised (aka, marketed) their product? Probably not. Instead, you’d be left to discover for yourself what companies are out there. Remember Lee Iacocca? Part of his method to keep Chrysler Corp. from going bankrupt was to market the product. Yes, the quality had to improve, but marketing had to take place. The point here is that marketing is not bad.
3. Do you enjoy watching the Super Bowl commercials? Many around the world do, including myself. However, these ads are one more avenue of marketing a product. In fact, GoDaddy.com markets their website this way. I guess their ad agency is a spam machine and should be blacklisted.
4. Do you own a Mac? Do you know someone who does? Do you hate them for owning a Mac? If you are the owner, do you hate yourself for owning one? Did you know that Mac, technologically, has been as good or better than Microsoft in many ways. The major problem it faced was lack of exposure. So, Mac has recently been on the offensive in marketing. They pay ad agencies and consultants (the equivalent of SEOs) to help them improve the product and market it. As a result, Apple’s market share has skyrocketed… largely due to marketing. If you own a Mac, you can thank marketing because it helped keep the company solvent and, therefore, in business. Otherwise, you or your friends would be using some other system… probably Microsoft.
Overall, I found your tone surprising in that you want to make a point, but you offer no logical arguments, no evidence; only emotive innuendo and accusations. Your response shows that, contrary to your claim that, “we are not stupid and so don’t insult us when you say we don’t know the difference between spammers and SEO’s,” you don’t know the difference between spamming and true SEO. In truth, it’s as different as night and day. Both exist, but they are not the same.
skitzzos_pop
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
12I got a kick out of “You get paid to make somebody’s site be interesting when it really isn’t!”
This is a bad thing?
Support boredom, fire your SEO!
jrothra
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
13skitzzos_pop,
Definitely! I want more useless, boring, pointless sites on the web! I want sites that are badly designed, badly written, and have no editing done dominating the web.
Much of what SEO’s do is like having a skilled proofreader go over a paper in school. People who write papers proofread and have others proofread. SEO’s are, basically, proofreaders/editors.
Friday Favorites 2/23/07 - Stuntdubl - Search Engine Marketing Consultant
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
14[…] I really like Skittzo’s letter, and Michael fuels the fire a bit, but I learned myself, it’s better to just have thick skin to the haterz most the time, and focus on commonality - or just stay focused on things that really matter. Defending SEO to the unconverted is the new blackhat/whitehat debate (*tinfoilhat - perhaps it’s concocted by a brilliant mind at google to keep us from actually WORKING /tinfoilhat:) […]
Audrey - The Matt Cutts Makes Me Google Girl
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
15I think that the reason a lot of people have a problem with SEO is mostly due to the fact that they don’t UNDERSTAND it. It doesn’t really matter what color your hat is, SEO takes time, patience, creativity… I don’t really care how other people need to define it.
Oh, and just a quick note.. I highly doubt that I’ll be dying in a train wreck, seeing as I work in SEO and thus can afford to have my own car ;)
Enjoy the bicycle lane Brain!
Things You May Have Missed 2-25-2007
February 25th, 2007 at 3:58 am
16[…] Diggers Can’t we all get along …. The Scarlet Letters - an SEO’s Open Letter to Diggers So please, dear Diggers, the next time you see an article on Digg talking about Search Engine Optimization, before burying it on sight, take just a moment to actually read the story and decide whether it was in fact written by an SEO or a Spammer, and remember, the two are NOT the same thing. […]
This Week In SEO - 2/23/07 - TheVanBlog
February 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
17[…] The Scarlet Letters - an SEO’s Open Letter to Diggers […]
AZhitman
February 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
18GOD BLESS YOU SKITZO!!!
I enjoyed your letter thoroughly - I’m currently engaged in a similar spat with Wankerpedia.
Probably not as exciting as your tiff with Digg, but equally important in the grand scheme of things.
Should you care to view it, here’s the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Disagreement_as_to_Wikipedia.27s_treatment_of_External_Links_.28in_this_instance.29
Yan
February 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
19You weren’t serious in your attempt to educate the high-school kids, were you? ;-)
Although I did see Digg unban a few sites recently and I partially contribute it to this wonderful write up:
http://www.naffziger.net/blog/2007/02/19/the-secret-list-of-sites-banned-by-digg/
This however is not the same case as the decision of banning/unbanning basically lies in the hands on one (?) man.
Matt Larson
March 30th, 2007 at 9:20 am
20And yet again, more ignorance about the true role of a SEO.
Sneezy Melon
November 25th, 2007 at 11:08 am
21^
I agree. there’s more to SEO than “basic editing”
This Week In SEO - 2/23/07 | TheVanBlog
January 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
22[…] The Scarlet Letters - an SEO’s Open Letter to Diggers […]
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
previous post: Yahoo Selling Search Results?
next post: Gather ’round - It’s a Spam Roast!
to top of page...