Being a web developer for awhile, I've grown a huge distrust in SEO gurus etc. Most of what they say is just hearsay that no one can really prove. And at this point, I would take a lot of pride in calling them out on their deprecated b/s. :D
Does anyone know a source of solid SEO information I can find?
I suggest you read Matt Cutts blog http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/, hes one of the people behind google's searh engine and google's starter guide http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/11/googles-seo-starter-guide.html
Other thing to keep in mind is that, if your goal is to disprove the effectiveness of SEO tactics, then an SEO blog may not be the best source to use. But if your desire is to disprove a tactic of a specific SEO expert, then likewise look for blogs by other SEO experts.
I agree, by the way, that most of it is VooDoo. But dont discount it completely. SEO is a valid skill, but because it cannot be proven definitively without the various Search Engines publishing their proprietary alogrithms (sp?), they all take the shotgun approach to SEO. Try everything and maybe one or two of the things tried in a given situation will help.
I recommend the information Google provides about SEO as a starting point:
Search Engine Optimization (includes tips on evaluating a SEO "guru"): http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35291
SEO getting started guide (PDF): http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf
In my experience working with reputable SEO experts, a lot of the recommendations turned out to be just plain common-sense. For example, a URL like www.example.com/2007/01/SamplePage.htm is more search engine friendly than www.example.com/?id=3657. Or, another example: Google doesn't use "keywords" meta data, so any extra effort expended by Marketing departments to populate that data may be wasted.
A "huckster" might try to recommend something like creating multiple landing pages with similar content to boost search rankings, or automatically swap page content for SEO optimized text when a search engine crawler visits. Suggestions like these should raise red flags (big time).
A good rule of thumb when dealing with vendors (SEO or otherwise) of any persuasion is that if it sounds like they're selling snake oil, they probably are.
There are a number of reputable SEO companies and sites out there. The truth is, investigate them before you start using their information. SEO information is a dime a dozen and sifting through the BS is an art form in and of itself. However, in addition to Matt Cutts' blog, I have two other sources of SEO that I trust: Rand Fishkin and seomoz.org and Aaron Wall and SEOBook.com. These two sites are EXCELLENT sources of SEO info (just look at all the places SEOBook.com has been featured, that doesn't happen by accident).
Both of these sites (and their founders) have been in the SEO community for quite some time and really have a handle on things. The other piece of information I would offer would be that while it may difficult wading through the abyss of SEO "advice" out there, the more often you see the same piece of advice, the more likely it is to be true. Not always, but usually. Take everything with a grain of salt, and if you doubt ANYTHING when it comes to SEO, do your own research.
Type SEO into google and whatever company comes top use them. They obviously know how to get to the top :-)
Reputable or not.... I always feel like when the internet zigs... Google zags... all in order to keep page-ranking "cheaters" from beating them at their own game of ranking web content using 200 threads/streams of data.... and yet, I STILL can't find what I am looking for half the time and end up in link-farms, and ad-bogs instead of finding useful pages on programming tips/forums....
So, even if the SEO folks are not just Voodo Priests, they will certainly NEVER attain a lasting level of expertise as long as things are not standardized or stabilized.
The companies with more money will always be able to buy more outside links, faster web servers, and better programmers... so does that mean their sites are actually more RELEVANT to the people who are searching for information?
I don't think so.
And that is why I really think SEO is more like a merry-go-round than a con.
It is a self-perpetuating system of reactionary commerce with no hope of ever getting off.
you may want to try out the page analyzer on http://www.pearanalytics.com it's a handy guide to let you know what you need to do in order to get google to analyze your page properly. small things like a title tag being too long, or having duplicate title tags across pages can help you organize your content. they're in a beta stage, so there is no cost right now.
Google doesn't use meta keywords. Here is the official Google post which verifies that : http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-does-not-use-keywords-meta-tag.html
However putting in meta keywords is still good practice.