I'm pretty sure the verizonwireless.com domain has some serious trust within Google already, not to mention inbound links that have "droid" in the name. They don't need to do the on-page SEO Joe Blogger does.
That said, I really have to agree with this statement from the article: "As far as microsites and marketing landing pages go, DroidDoes.com is out of this world bad." I was really confused when I hit the page. It's like the opposite of Apple's pages and not in a good way.
Right, the site sucks (I hate Flash ad-sites especially) but that doesn't really have much to do with "SEO" which Verizon clearly does not need any of. What they need is a site that doesn't suck.
But Apple does? I think his point is valid: from a simple search of "iphone," I can go directly to, say, the official features page. I don't do that from a search for "droid." I first have to go through the obnoxious, contentless flash site.
I visited the site because I saw their commercial on TV. I imagine most folks will hear about it through their marketing campaigns.
They have plenty of smart folks over there - is it possible they did this intentionally? If their goal is to promote a phone launching later this week, perhaps SEO is not their top concern here?
Sure, why would they ever want extra hits from search engines (not just google remember, no other search engine can see this properly either). Why would they want extra traffic, surely they want to keep this a big a secret as possible??
The fact is that the people who did this have no idea, sure they can create fancy flash, but they are ignorant of almost everything else about the web.
Not what he means by SEO. Did you read the article?
The description of Droid from Google:
"Get to know Droid a little better. Droid Does the Network. Droid is exclusive to Verizon Wireless, the most reliable network available."
This tells me Droid is Verizon, but nothing else. Two of three sentences are useless. When I search for iPhone:
"iPhone 3GS is a GSM cell phone that's also an iPod, a video camera, and a mobile Internet device with email and GPS maps."
iPod, video camera, mobile Internet, email, GPS. If I don't know what an iPhone is, I do now. Meanwhile, a personal test I've run suggests the average college student doesn't know what Droid is, and this search doesn't help.
Subdomains for the Droid link:
{nil}
Subdomains for the iPhone link:
Buy iPhone
Features
Downloads
Support
Apps for iPhone
A Guided Tour
How Tos
Software Update
I can't think of anything else I'd need to know on first glance. Apple gives me everything.
I think parts of SEO are bullshit same as you, but this article made some great points and it bugs me that you're getting upvoted for saying something that had nothing to do with the article's point.
You're missing the point: try searching for something you want to know about the Droid...
"droid preorder"
"droid screen"
"droid apps"
"droid keyboard"
All of these subjects are covered in their Flash and they have content for but Google can't index or link you to any of it. So instead of Verizon owning these terms, which they easily could be, you're taken to 3rd party sites on the internet.
Even in their first result of "Droid" their misuse of a meta description (it's way too long) means you get 0 relevant information in the result Google displays.
"Get to know Droid a little better. Droid Does the Network. Droid is exclusive to Verizon Wireless, the most reliable network available."
If you didn't know what the Droid was, what would you think it was, and why would you care?
If you're not a VP of Marketing at Verizon, you're not going to like that copy.
It's getting harder and harder to claim that SEO is snake oil. Companies like Yelp and Mint have been built on SEO -- it's how they can out-market Citysearch and Intuit. Simple and standards-aware design and factual copy get you 90% of the way there; that last 10% is the difference between a solid site and a $170M buyout.
<annoyed>
It has first match because of massive in-linking and parent domain trust.
Search Engine Optmization is closer to standards compliance than it is to snake oil. Most developers are just too lazy to do it. Or they grant it the same amount of thought that was spent on the comment above. As an SEO Account Manager most of my job is cleaning up these messes and client education so they don't get ripped off by SEO shysters or lazy developers.
As for the craptastic Droid Flash site, it doesn't validate and is a nightmare in terms of usability and accessibility. As stated in the article, it won't even work on a Droid phone. It still ranks because just like anything else, you can concentrate resources in certain areas and make up for shortcomings in others. AT&T has abysmal customer service, but they spend enough money in other places, like iPhone exclusivity deals and FCC lobbying, that it doesn't matter. You're seeing something similar, here.
Verizon can give the big finger to standards compliant, accessible web design because they've spent enough money on a traditional marketing and PR campaign that the URL has hundreds of thousands of incoming links with the keyword "droid" in anchor text. That page could be blank and it would still rank for on a "droid" SERP, that doesn't mean there's no such thing as SEO or that it's a "good" website.
If he was worth anything, he should have figured out five searches that Verizon would want to rank high on, but don't because they're doing it all wrong. For an expert in the field, that would be simple, right?
[+] [-] flatline|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnid|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dabent|16 years ago|reply
That said, I really have to agree with this statement from the article: "As far as microsites and marketing landing pages go, DroidDoes.com is out of this world bad." I was really confused when I hit the page. It's like the opposite of Apple's pages and not in a good way.
[+] [-] tumult|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scott_s|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radley|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nym|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goodkarma|16 years ago|reply
They have plenty of smart folks over there - is it possible they did this intentionally? If their goal is to promote a phone launching later this week, perhaps SEO is not their top concern here?
[+] [-] cakesy|16 years ago|reply
The fact is that the people who did this have no idea, sure they can create fancy flash, but they are ignorant of almost everything else about the web.
[+] [-] tumult|16 years ago|reply
"Droid". First match. Has summary.
SEO is snake oil.
[+] [-] unalone|16 years ago|reply
The description of Droid from Google:
"Get to know Droid a little better. Droid Does the Network. Droid is exclusive to Verizon Wireless, the most reliable network available."
This tells me Droid is Verizon, but nothing else. Two of three sentences are useless. When I search for iPhone:
"iPhone 3GS is a GSM cell phone that's also an iPod, a video camera, and a mobile Internet device with email and GPS maps."
iPod, video camera, mobile Internet, email, GPS. If I don't know what an iPhone is, I do now. Meanwhile, a personal test I've run suggests the average college student doesn't know what Droid is, and this search doesn't help.
Subdomains for the Droid link:
Subdomains for the iPhone link: I can't think of anything else I'd need to know on first glance. Apple gives me everything.I think parts of SEO are bullshit same as you, but this article made some great points and it bugs me that you're getting upvoted for saying something that had nothing to do with the article's point.
[+] [-] KrisJordan|16 years ago|reply
All of these subjects are covered in their Flash and they have content for but Google can't index or link you to any of it. So instead of Verizon owning these terms, which they easily could be, you're taken to 3rd party sites on the internet.
Even in their first result of "Droid" their misuse of a meta description (it's way too long) means you get 0 relevant information in the result Google displays.
[+] [-] byrneseyeview|16 years ago|reply
"Get to know Droid a little better. Droid Does the Network. Droid is exclusive to Verizon Wireless, the most reliable network available."
If you didn't know what the Droid was, what would you think it was, and why would you care?
If you're not a VP of Marketing at Verizon, you're not going to like that copy.
It's getting harder and harder to claim that SEO is snake oil. Companies like Yelp and Mint have been built on SEO -- it's how they can out-market Citysearch and Intuit. Simple and standards-aware design and factual copy get you 90% of the way there; that last 10% is the difference between a solid site and a $170M buyout.
[+] [-] wmeredith|16 years ago|reply
Search Engine Optmization is closer to standards compliance than it is to snake oil. Most developers are just too lazy to do it. Or they grant it the same amount of thought that was spent on the comment above. As an SEO Account Manager most of my job is cleaning up these messes and client education so they don't get ripped off by SEO shysters or lazy developers.
As for the craptastic Droid Flash site, it doesn't validate and is a nightmare in terms of usability and accessibility. As stated in the article, it won't even work on a Droid phone. It still ranks because just like anything else, you can concentrate resources in certain areas and make up for shortcomings in others. AT&T has abysmal customer service, but they spend enough money in other places, like iPhone exclusivity deals and FCC lobbying, that it doesn't matter. You're seeing something similar, here.
Verizon can give the big finger to standards compliant, accessible web design because they've spent enough money on a traditional marketing and PR campaign that the URL has hundreds of thousands of incoming links with the keyword "droid" in anchor text. That page could be blank and it would still rank for on a "droid" SERP, that doesn't mean there's no such thing as SEO or that it's a "good" website.
[+] [-] mseebach|16 years ago|reply
If he was worth anything, he should have figured out five searches that Verizon would want to rank high on, but don't because they're doing it all wrong. For an expert in the field, that would be simple, right?
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]