Aaron Wall recently released a post on SEO Book titled “Who Are The Top 10 SEOs in the World?”. In any normal circumstance this article would be a game-changer, as Mr. Wall is one of most reputable names in the industry and an authority for any and all SEO information.
This time, however, Wall slipped up.
Before getting into the list, Wall gets into his own definition of what makes “the greatest SEO in the world”. His definition, as defined in the post, is as follows:
To me, the measure of an SEO’s success is not in their knowledge, but in their ability to leverage their knowledge to build cashflow.
Aaron then goes on to rattle off a list of “The Top 10 Most Successful SEOs”. I would argue that four people on the article, Jason Calacanis, Richard Rosenblatt, Patrick Gavin, and Andy Hagans, would not appear on one standard, reputable list of “Top 10 SEOs”.
In any typical scenario, this definition would be completely acceptable. However, the way Aaron pitches the article in both the article title and the URL makes this a relatively large problem.
Again, the article title is “Who Are The Top 10 SEOs in the World?”.
And the URL is: http://www.seobook.com/top-10-seos
The Issue
The general reading public would not go into the article expecting Wall’s definition, and are entering the post expecting to see the top 10 SEOs defined as this: Those SEOs with the most expertise in the field, established by a history of proven ability to improve and sustain search engine traffic in the organic SERPs, as determined by Aaron Wall’s experience dealing with them and hearing about them professionally. Instead, we get a list that is as far from this atypical “best SEOs” definition as possibly could be expected.
Therefore, this same general reading public, with established expectations and a short attention span, are unlikely to read the article with any depth, and will often take it on a very shallow level – that very shallow level being the definition I supplied.
My opinion is backed up by the comments on the thread. Often, commentators are more intelligent/read up on the article than the average person who scans it, yet these three still seem to have a “surface level” analysis of the post:
The Ramifications
If we go by these standards, a relatively high number of people who read this will take the list on the surface level, and interpret it by my definition. Those who don’t don’t matter – they’re more likely well-read and intelligent SEOs, for whom this list really had no impact in the first place.
However, there are a relatively decent number of people in the tech community that will read this and use it to inform potential business decisions. Even if they go talk to the reputable six SEOs on the post, some of whom don’t really even belong on a top SEO list (but I wouldn’t be afraid of having work on my website), this list will be used as a vote for these people, or otherwise, a vote against those who weren’t included.
Wall purposely designed the title structure and URL of the post to rank for “Top 10 SEOs”, as the general public defines it. Given his domain strength, he’s going to rank for this term, and he ranks relatively well.
Businesses are going to search for the term, looking for a popular opinion of the “Top 10 SEOs” so they can begin an evaluation process for their SEO efforts. This post will often be taken incorrectly, the wrong people will get a “vote”, the right people won’t get a “vote”, and a process will begin where the best people won’t get the credit, and the wrong people will.
Wall could have easily rectified this by simply rephrasing the title or the URL structure – my suggestion is “Who are the 10 Most Successful SEOs in the World?” – with a similar URL, but he doesn’t. He goes the link bait/tweet bait/attention bait route, that creates some unfortunate ethical dilemmas.
Wall offers a pretty disingenuous book cover, which is somewhat against the atypical white-knight standard he has established in the industry, and is an unfortunate stain on an otherwise clean slate. I’m sure this is just a blip on the radar, and it’s a relatively small issue, but it was still disconcerting to see Wall take an approach that had more to do with inauthentic marketing tactics than what was best for the industry.
Related posts:
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Nice post.
SEO isn’t the NFL, where you can argue the league’s best quarterback with the stats to back it up. Hell, in SEO, we don’t even know who all the players are. The occupation/skillset lends itself perfectly to locking yourself in your basement, growing a lumberjack beard, and hacking away until you retire.
In short, I would wager there are far more than 10 SEOs out there that nobody has ever heard of who are better than anyone on this list.
Thanks Kevin. I’m not saying that Aaron’s post is wrong, though. In many ways his list is the closest to a truly measurable SEO list in the history of SEO lists. However, his SEO list isn’t “the best SEOs” as it is normally defined, his list is “the most successful in terms of money accumulated”.
The actual #s involved ($) make the list potentially more accurate than many other “SEO people” lists ever had been.
Ironically, it was a tweet from Aaron Wall that got me to your blog, Ross, and this article that will keep me coming back.
By and large I find Aaron’s blog very useful, but I thought that this “Top 10″ list was at best a silly diversion and at worst, as you allude, blatant misinformation that could affect business decisions.
I’ll agree with Kevin’s comment that there are likely SEOs hidden in the dark spaces of the world hammering away at websites, outranking the vocal ones on competitive (and commercially viable) keywords and quietly wheeling their money to the bank. Unless you want to sell your services to someone else (or a potential employer), it is an enormous waste of time to blog or comment or tweet about SEO (…or social media…or affiliate marketing…or anything for that matter…).
All that aside, Wall is a virtual demi-god in this space and you confidently challenged his approach. That’s fuckin’ rad. Good on ya. I’ll be tuning in now.
Bryon,
I greatly appreciate the comments. Aaron does an amazing job criticizing where criticism is needed, but it is only fair that any missteps he takes be identified, if and when he does make them. I’m glad you enjoyed it and I hope I can provide more valid criticism, where deserved, in the future.
If Aaron would just add these three words onto the end of his quote, I’d buy it:
“To me, the measure of an SEO’s success is not in their knowledge, but in their ability to leverage their knowledge to build cashflow” (FOR THEIR CLIENTS)
Maybe if I link here i can be #11!!!
No?