Search Engine Optimization worth it?
I have been reading about SEO and various SEO techniques both because of personal interest and the interest of my managers to improve rankings.

In my searching, I have come across many articles talking about how keyword density measuring is dead, and some other articles stating that it is not dead and the other articles are quite wrong. Those that say that keyword density is still viable/important tend to be from SEO companies, so I find it harder to believe them as this is obviously in support of their trade.  I would post some example articles, but they're very easy to find with a simple search.

The problem is, I'm really not sure what to believe.  Even if keyword density measuring does have a measurable effect on page ranking, is this important for the company to flourish? Is it worth it?

My interest in this was especially sparked from a discussion I had with a new hire.  He apparently just left an SEO company, and he said to me:

> You have to get well worded articles with very specific keyword densities out on the net linking back to you

I was very skeptical about this statement, and it almost makes me believe that the concept of a company who does SEO for you is selling you a lot of snake oil.

The real questions are: does SEO make a difference?  If it does, does it make enough of a difference to merit spending resources on it? Is there a direct correlation between time spent on SEO (e.g. keyword density) and monetary gain for a company?

Based on my research, here are my arguments against spending any significant time on SEO for SEO's sake, especially when it comes to keyword densities:

* Correlation vs. causation? A site is likely to be well-ranked based on its nature rather than what can be considered SEO tricks. Spending time improving URLs, articles, etc. benefits the site itself. SEO evolves naturally out of this.
* The goal of a website is to get users to the page that you want them to see.  An easily-navigable website is better for users, and SEO at once.  You should design for users.
* Some SEO techniques may have the *potential* to reduce site usability.  In other words more people may *come* to your site, but at the same time those people may leave your site faster.  Additionally, you may end up attracting users that are not useful to you.
* If your site/product is any good, external sites are going to link to you.
* It's not all about articles.  A lot of my SEO reading talks about blogs and articles almost exclusively.  This is a problem because there are so many sites that have no reason to write anything that can be considered an article.
* Search engine algorithms are continuously changing, and site-wide SEO techniques probably cannot keep up.

My favorite example of the falsehood of keyword density is the fact that at one point, Dell.com was ranked #1 for the keyword "computer" even though that word did not actually appear on the site at all.

Another argument I have heard against keyword density is a hypothetical comparison of two websites.  One is a blog that has, let's say, the best-written article about Paris of all time.  This is a long, involved article and the word Paris only appears a few times so the keyword density for Paris is extremely low.  The other site is not a blog, but a picture site (again, no articles!)  On this site are some of the best pictures taken of Paris.  The word Paris appears once on this page, and it is the only word (i.e. 100% keyword density).  You would expect that both of these sites would have excellent rankings for a search for Paris due to their quality with respect to the topic.

So should I take the time to excoriate this new guy, or am I the one who doesn't get it?  Are there specific parts of SEO that have a measurable benefit purely for the sake of SEO?
Search Engine Optimization worth it?
===

I have been reading about SEO and various SEO techniques both because of personal interest and the interest of my managers to improve rankings.

In my searching, I have come across many articles talking about how keyword density measuring is dead, and some other articles stating that it is not dead and the other articles are quite wrong. Those that say that keyword density is still viable/important tend to be from SEO companies, so I find it harder to believe them as this is obviously in support of their trade.  I would post some example articles, but they're very easy to find with a simple search.

The problem is, I'm really not sure what to believe.  Even if keyword density measuring does have a measurable effect on page ranking, is this important for the company to flourish? Is it worth it?

My interest in this was especially sparked from a discussion I had with a new hire.  He apparently just left an SEO company, and he said to me:

> You have to get well worded articles with very specific keyword densities out on the net linking back to you

I was very skeptical about this statement, and it almost makes me believe that the concept of a company who does SEO for you is selling you a lot of snake oil.

The real questions are: does SEO make a difference?  If it does, does it make enough of a difference to merit spending resources on it? Is there a direct correlation between time spent on SEO (e.g. keyword density) and monetary gain for a company?

Based on my research, here are my arguments against spending any significant time on SEO for SEO's sake, especially when it comes to keyword densities:

* Correlation vs. causation? A site is likely to be well-ranked based on its nature rather than what can be considered SEO tricks. Spending time improving URLs, articles, etc. benefits the site itself. SEO evolves naturally out of this.
* The goal of a website is to get users to the page that you want them to see.  An easily-navigable website is better for users, and SEO at once.  You should design for users.
* Some SEO techniques may have the *potential* to reduce site usability.  In other words more people may *come* to your site, but at the same time those people may leave your site faster.  Additionally, you may end up attracting users that are not useful to you.
* If your site/product is any good, external sites are going to link to you.
* It's not all about articles.  A lot of my SEO reading talks about blogs and articles almost exclusively.  This is a problem because there are so many sites that have no reason to write anything that can be considered an article.
* Search engine algorithms are continuously changing, and site-wide SEO techniques probably cannot keep up.

My favorite example of the falsehood of keyword density is the fact that at one point, Dell.com was ranked #1 for the keyword "computer" even though that word did not actually appear on the site at all.

Another argument I have heard against keyword density is a hypothetical comparison of two websites.  One is a blog that has, let's say, the best-written article about Paris of all time.  This is a long, involved article and the word Paris only appears a few times so the keyword density for Paris is extremely low.  The other site is not a blog, but a picture site (again, no articles!)  On this site are some of the best pictures taken of Paris.  The word Paris appears once on this page, and it is the only word (i.e. 100% keyword density).  You would expect that both of these sites would have excellent rankings for a search for Paris due to their quality with respect to the topic.

So should I take the time to excoriate this new guy, or am I the one who doesn't get it?  Are there specific parts of SEO that have a measurable benefit purely for the sake of SEO?