Jim Kukral – Beware of Search Hypocrites

As a “small blogger”, when a guy who’s name I instantly recognize from the industry posts a comment on my blog, it usually gives me a warm feeling inside.

When I got an email from WordPress telling me Jim Kukral had left a comment, I was excited. That is, until I read the comment. Then it felt more like he had brought his poodle over to drop a shinny brown hot dog on my lawn.

To sum up:

“Google doesn’t want you manipulating the search results. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, you should just be sneakier about it, that’s all.”  (quoted from post)

Very, very bad advice. (Jim’s comment)

To this I say:

“Jim, you’ve been blogging for a long time, don’t you plainly see such comments are extremely weak? Why is that bad advice? Because you say so? Would it kill you to grace me with an explanation of your judgment?”

Jim, I’m sorry but in one go you’ve hit more of my pet peeves than I can shut my mouth for.

Opinion without argument is the first one.

So I obligingly dragged my butt over to this post on your blog where you discuss the same subject, namely how John Chow lost rankings for “make money online”.

Here are some excerpts:

“Read my lips. Google doesn’t like when you try to manipulate them. Especially when you flaunt it in public.”

Yes, Jim, I agree, that’s why you have to be sneaky about it…

“I don’t guess this… I know this. I’m not making this up. I’ve talked to people at high levels at Google. Listen to me… or don’t.”

You went to a barbecue with Matt Cutts and he told you Google doesn’t like spam and search engine manipulators? That is news to me. In 2 years of Black Hat SEO fueled existence, I have never heard that before.

“DO NOT TRY TO MANIPULATE GOOGLE. DO NOT SELL LINKS FOR PR. DO NOT DO ANYTHING EXCEPT WRITE HIGH-QUALITY, HELPFUL ORIGINAL CONTENT.”

I don’t sell links on this blog and I don’t buy them from services that use obvious scripts or other easily traceable ways to “sponsor” some content. Link juice is a currency, it may be the online equivalent of a “black market” but it’s not going anywhere.

I don’t care how many eggheads or nerds with ugly goatees Google hires, the war has just begun and the real SEOs know who’s winning…

There are too many content parrots already… Content is king, squawk. Content is king, squawk.

Content is the king without a kingdom if it doesn’t have links. It’s a king that wears a paper crown for lack of money to afford a real one.

Sure, great content gets you links but you have to start somewhere. Relevant links are better but not-so-relevant links are still factored in to the general equation and they are not detrimental unless they come from bad neighborhoods…

And what about linkbaiting and directory submissions, keyword optimization and the lot, should they all be ignored?

Undeniably, you are drinking from the “white hat” Kool-Aid like it’s the fountain of youth.

Such unilateral opinions can be but harmful. They border on propaganda and willful omission.

It’s all too easy for someone in your situation to take stand on the holy content higher ground. After all, you benefit from the “Wikipedia Effect” where droves of lesser thinkers shower links upon you because of your visibility rather than the actual value of what you write.

In more places that one, you state that you want to be “helpful”. Moderating your opinions and backing them up would be a darn good place to start.