I completely agree with the notion that good content should drive traffic to a website instead of beefing the content up with keywords and other such techniques to direct  traffic to a particular website. If a website provides a service that people find helpful and effective on a daily basis, and has good user interface and design, then it's going to gain good word of mouth, hence getting more traffic. Google actually rewards sites that users find helpful by posting their ads on them, which I think is a great initiative.

@mtechie,

Thanks for sharing that. But they are crooks in every business. I'm not surprised. 

I am not comfortable with the idea of deliberately injecting keywords into the content to increase ratings. Although it works but it distorts the message that was supposed to be delivered. 

I have read posts written by self-proclaimed SEO experts who provide tools, tips, and tricks on how to get people top rankings. Some tips are valid, while I'm on the fence about others--particularly the one about injecting keywords and keyword density. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but I'm saying that the primary goal should be quality content. There are talented copywriters out there who can make keyword-laced articles sound good, but I've read my fair share of these types of posts that just make me cringe.

Agreed, mtechie.  Seems like a good URL and good original content has always been a good thing.  Nice to see Google acknowledging this in SEO.

I was reading articles about some Facebook advertisers who felt that each and every one of their posts was not being pushed out to users.

Thinking about my Facebook experiences, I wondered if this was not a good thing.  I often dial down organizations, and even friends who flood my timeline with posts especially if they are of a similar nature.

I also think -- what do "advertisers" want to do on Facebook.  I think that what they should be doing is not simply putting up posts that are ads like posters on a subway train.   They need to think of themselves as content streams.

The closest analogy might be the old "soap operas" of 1950s television.  They were called soap operas because each show had a specific sponsor, like a detergent company.   The company wholly funded the show, in exchange for product mentions.

Facebook style advertising (and twitter and blog posts) might take this into consideration.  Instead of just buying places to put "ads", instead, hire people to put on a show...a Facebook web show of content and posts that people will actually want to read and get everyday, even if its five posts a day!  It should be as interesting as your sister's cat pictures (which everyone loves...right?).

If the content is that good, you don't have to worry about reach...the "listeners" will repost it to their friends...and so on, and so on, and so on.

Look two posts up the page.  There's a company that has a "me too" post, and it's only slightly less annoying that the shoe factory ads.  That's the kind of nonsense we can all live without.  Dan's no doubt done more sneaky things to get websites noticed than the rest of us, but I think he overlooks another reason why traditional SEO no longer works:  when everybody's doing it, nobody gains anything.  It's all status quo, if messily amusing.  He's absolutely right, though, in insisting that quality content will get your site liked and linked a heck of a lot quicker than puffery and nonsense will.  I salute Google's efforts to get rid of unsubtle manipulation in search results.  One thought springs to mind, though: can you imagine how hard it would be to promote a SEO site on Google?  Might be easier to hand out hand bills....

It's worth mentioning that Google still seems to give megapoints for URL name.  If someone is looking for widgets in Boston and types "boston widgets" into Google, and your website is "bostonwidgets.com," absent some real blackhat techniques that will get you penalized, that still counts for a lot.