There is much to be admired about this article by veteran SEO Bill Belew. Still, I’ve got to take issue with a couple of things.
First, we don’t really need a new definition of SEO. The same definition that has always existed is just fine.
Secondly, what is this business about
creating good content on a web site in the form of pages and posts that real people want to read
Define what “real people want to read?”
Set aside the redundancies in this definition (content “on a web site” – where else? – “in the form of pages and posts” – what else? – etc.) and there’s really not much of a definition here. Different people want to read different stuff. If 40% of searchers who find a page online don’t like what they read, does that mean it is poorly SEOd? What if 60% don’t like it? 80%?
These kind of vague definitions don’t really help anyone, especially when they are packaged as “new.”
Search engine optimization isn’t rocket science. There’s nothing particularly hard about it. If the search engine indexes your web page, it can be found. It may not be found by very many people, but if it’s indexed, then it CAN be found.
The object of SEO is to use the search engines to place your content in front of a specific audience so that you might deliver valuable information that can help them with a problem. If you do that – well or poorly – then you’ve performed SEO. What you want your SEOd content to do for you is convert your traffic into leads and customers. Whether it does or doesn’t, it can still be SEOd well. It just may not convert well. When that happens, the problem isn’t your SEO. It’s the persuasiveness of your content.