I went to read the SEO article (since SEO is part of what I do) -- it's a very skewed, one-side article, for the record. Take it with a HUGE grain of salt!
It's one-sided and paints *everyone* with the same brush without distinguishing between Black Hat and White Hat SEO. Plus, the claim that SEO "ruined" the Internet is a huge stretch. The article quotes Matt Cutts saying that the problem is likely internal at Google, which would contradict this claim. I also found its attack on click-bait -- which isn't SEO, technically speaking -- to be ironic given the click-baity nature of the headline.
These were a few of my problems with the article! It seems like maybe it's trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. Or, it's just bad journalism. Either way, there's that huge grain of salt I referred to... lol
Hey Punit - great as ever!
I went to read the SEO article (since SEO is part of what I do) -- it's a very skewed, one-side article, for the record. Take it with a HUGE grain of salt!
Thanks Graham, that's really helpful. What are the parts of it that don't make sense?
It's one-sided and paints *everyone* with the same brush without distinguishing between Black Hat and White Hat SEO. Plus, the claim that SEO "ruined" the Internet is a huge stretch. The article quotes Matt Cutts saying that the problem is likely internal at Google, which would contradict this claim. I also found its attack on click-bait -- which isn't SEO, technically speaking -- to be ironic given the click-baity nature of the headline.
These were a few of my problems with the article! It seems like maybe it's trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. Or, it's just bad journalism. Either way, there's that huge grain of salt I referred to... lol
Haha makes sense. There definitely is an agenda there.