How Important is the "Small Stuff" in SEO?

[Kevin Newcomb]

It seems that a debate has emerged about the importance of "the small stuff" in SEO. Over at Search Engine Land, Jill Whalen wrote a column, Don't Sweat the Small SEO Stuff (http://searchengineland.com/070510-073836.php), advising SEOs not to let worries over minor on-page details distract you from more important issues, or prevent you from doing anything at all.

Meanwhile, over at the Bruce Clay Blog, Lisa Barone has a differing opinion on the importance of the so-called minor details. In Sweat The Small Stuff: Search Engine Optimization Is In The Details (http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/archives/2007/05/sweat_the_small.html), Barone agrees that the small stuff is not going to make or break a campaign, but she insists they are too important to forget about.

I've written a summary of the issues on the SEW blog (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/070510-173604), but I'd certainly recommend reading through both articles. Both Jill and Lisa make good points, and they're not really disagreeing on all that much.

The main difference in opinion comes down to whether the small stuff should be skipped over, or done with care while understanding they are not the most important things that need to be done.

I'm of the opinion that every incremental thing you can do to improve your site is worthwhile, even if it helps in a very small way. The important thing is to keep the effort required to do the small things in line with the potential return, and to prioritize your time to make sure the big stuff gets done first.

How Important do you think the "small stuff" is? What do you consider "big stuff" vs. "small stuff" in SEO? Should we, or shouldn't we, sweat the small stuff?

[Marcia]

There are well over 100 factors in the Google algo, and more than just a few in the others'. Which of the 100 or so is unimportant enough to ignore? One seemingly little detail may at any time be an important element in any particular algo.

I say don't sweat the small stuff, just DO the small stuff.

[mcanerin]

I think it depends on the site and the competition.

For someone trying to rank a small site in a small city (ie David VS David), then it's probably a waste of time to sweat the small stuff, unless there is nothing left to do.

Sometimes inexperienced people spend so much time on the small stuff (which are often easier to do) they don't do the harder stuff - like creating great content and doing proper link building.

You have to start with the basics first, and newbies who start doing the "small stuff" have, in my experience, a disturbing tendency to treat the small stuff like it was a magic trick or something. For them, focussing on the small stuff could be a bad idea.

However, once you have the basics in place, and are in a "Goliath VS Goliath" type of fight, the small stuff might just be the tie breaker.

It's like Olympic swimming. If you are not competing at a high level, where the limits of human ability are being pushed, then wearing a speedo or shaving your head isn't going to make the slightest difference.

Worse, you'll get some idiots thinking that if they shave their head they will be better swimmers. Nonsense. Learn to swim, first. Then we can talk about shaved heads.

But for a competitor where the difference between first and last place might be measured in fractions of a second, every single thing matters, from what you ate last night, to how much drag you create in the water, to the altitude of the pool and your blood oxygen levels.

None of these matter to anyone but the best competing with the best. But they can be very important at that point.

Myself, it sounds like I fall in between Jill and Lisa - I do basic SEO for clients in uncompetitive areas (with some easy small stuff) but use every single allowable tactic known (and a few less known ones) to the best of my abilities for the competitive ones.

I don't think it's a good idea to overcharge a small business for overkill, and I don't think it's a good idea to not use every tool I have for clients that require it.

Disclaimer: I wrote this without reading either article (I'm in Korea and watching my bandwidth right now) so if I've misrepresented/misunderstood either Jills or Lisa positions, it's entirely my fault. This post should be read and understood with that in mind.

Ian

[caugas]

IMO -

I would always practice SEO discipline i.e. sweating the small stuff; it creates great SEO habits, which in turns equates to more successes. Additional, who know when Google will change their algo, and it may turn out that one of the small factors become more weighted.

[glengara]

*.. don't sweat the small stuff, just DO the small stuff.*

Pretty much sums it up for me too....

[Jill Whalen]

Myself, it sounds like I fall in between Jill and Lisa - I do basic SEO for clients in uncompetitive areas (with some easy small stuff) but use every single allowable tactic known (and a few less known ones) to the best of my abilities for the competitive ones.

Ian, you actually are saying exactly the same thing I said, so I don't think you're in between us at all.

Off to go read Lisa's to see what she's actually said also....

[beu]

There are well over 100 factors in the Google algo, and more than just a few in the others'. Which of the 100 or so is unimportant enough to ignore? One seemingly little detail may at any time be an important element in any particular algo.

I say don't sweat the small stuff, just DO the small stuff.

So true, "one little thing" can be the difference between ranking 1 and 101 in 10,000,000!

[AussieWebmaster]

Well I think a Rock Em Sock Em Robots challenge is called for.... or a sumo event at the Google Dance in August......

Yeah I know I am always stirring things up.....

[Jill Whalen]

Be nice, Aussie Webmaster or I won't help you buy cigarettes again! ;)

[AussieWebmaster]

Be nice, Aussie Webmaster or I won't help you buy cigarettes again! ;)

Oh my god I forgot about that.... being underage is a bitch....

thanks Jill I needed a laugh to end the work week... okay no more stirring.... well on this topic anyway

[beu]

Well I think a Rock Em Sock Em Robots challenge is called for.... or a sumo event at the Google Dance in August......

Yeah I know I am always stirring things up.....
Me too! Can't wait to see :) sumo at the Google Dance this year.

[Robert_Charlton]

I think it helps to have an idea which stuff is the small stuff that matters, and which stuff doesn't matter at all. The small stuff that matters isn't always that small.

[beu]

I think it helps to have an idea which stuff is the small stuff that matters, and which stuff doesn't matter at all. The small stuff that matters isn't always that small.
Very true! "Small stuff" like knowing when to use a 301 and not a 302 can have a BIG impact.

[netidme]

I think it depends on the site and the competition.
I do basic SEO for clients in uncompetitive areas (with some easy small stuff) but use every single allowable tactic known (and a few less known ones) to the best of my abilities for the competitive ones.

I don't think it's a good idea to overcharge a small business for overkill, and I don't think it's a good idea to not use every tool I have for clients that require it.
Ian

This sounds like an entirely sensible, & fair approach to me - btw I'm commenting as an SEO client, just trying to learn the basics, rather than an SEO expert.

[AussieWebmaster]

This sounds like an entirely sensible, & fair approach to me - btw I'm commenting as an SEO client, just trying to learn the basics, rather than an SEO expert.

They have search in Scotland.... I thought it was only looking through the heather....

[netidme]

thats right - we search through the heather looking for wee furry haggis to shoot...

[beu]

thats right - we search through the heather looking for wee furry haggis to shoot...

If it's not Scottish it's CRAP!

[Marcia]

Going back onto the topic of the thread,

Kevin, whether it's a quote or a paraphrase, let me quote a paragraph out of your blog post:

By the small stuff, I mean the picky details that paralyze people. Things like how many words or characters should be in a title tag. Or in what order those words should be placed. Or how many times a keyword phrase should be in the copy. Or how many keyword phrases any page can be optimized for. Or should commas be used in the Meta keyword tag. Or should file names have hyphens in them. Or should headlines use H1 tags (or H2 tags, or whatever).

Guess what? None of that stuff matters!With the exception of commas in meta keywords - which isn't necessary to have, but does have other points to look at, like if you're going to keyword stuff it, it's better to just leave it out...

Point by point, those are all things that aren't small stuff and they're all things that do matter. They aren't paralyzing at all, there's a reason for each of those details, and they're just a normal, everyday part of plain vanilla SEO.

[Kevin Newcomb]

That was a quote from Jill's article.

I tend to agree with you, that many of the things Jill calls the "small stuff" are necessary and important.

That said, I think the larger point of her article was intended to be that it's not worth it to focus on those things too much, at the expense of the larger issues that may carry more weight, like keyword research, or site architecture.

I think if she made that point without saying the "small stuff" didn't matter, there'd be no argument. Then, we'd also not be talking about it, so maybe that was her intention.

[Jill Whalen]

I think if she made that point without saying the "small stuff" didn't matter, there'd be no argument. Then, we'd also not be talking about it, so maybe that was her intention.

Smart man, Kevin! :D

[Dogger]

Considering the number of variables in the algo, do we really know what separates number one from number 2 or number 9 from number 10. If it comes down to a tiebreaker which is based on "something small", do you want to sacrifice one position? Probably not.

[ExposureTim]

So should we do the small stuff? yes, Yes or YES!
I agree with all of the above.

[Daria_Goetsch]

I say don't sweat the small stuff, just DO the small stuff.

I agree. Each client is different according to the competitiveness of the situation. Even a small clients competitor site may give a clue as to what to focus on. Its all about the details and research.

[mcanerin]

I think one of the issues here is: what is the "small stuff"?

Here are some things that I consider to be "small stuff" from an SEO standpoint - the general pattern being the "small stuff" makes has a minor (if any) effect on SEO, but is time consuming or difficult to do:

1. Redesigning the website in CSS even if the tabled version is doing well.
2. Spending a lot of time making sure a site validates regarding something that search engines don't care about (ie visual elements).
3. Spending significant time doing research on whether a title should be 15 words long or 30.
4. Buying dozens (or hundreds!) of domains and creating "mini-portals".

To me, writing a good title or heading is second nature, and part of SEO. It's not "small stuff", it's just SEO.

Small stuff to me are those "flavor of the week" SEO tactics and ideas that some people spend so much time and energy on - creating PR weighted link maps, or using themes and so forth.

I'll word it another way - what if you found out that your SEO had spent hours creating "perfect" (as if anything ever is) H3 header on a minor page and neglected to actually do a linking campaign as a result?

Obviously that would be stupid. SEO is about making good, prioritized choices, not going through a checklist with no regard as to the effectiveness and cost of each item.

If at any point you find yourself spending time on a minor task that is taking that time away from a more critical task, you have made a bad decision, IMO.

Sure, once you've got basic SEO in place, then you can start looking at the less effective stuff.

Maybe that's a better way of wording it: replace "small stuff" with "less effective stuff" and you would be closer to my view of things.

There are some things in SEO that take very little time, but are nontheless very important - I don't consider that them to be "small stuff".

Small stuff is, to my mind, achieving less and less while spending more and more time/money. To me, once you have reached a certain point of diminishing returns, a wise person stops.

FTR, I don't consider creating a good title to be small stuff, but I do consider doing long term studies on whether 56 characters is more effective than 60 to be a waste of time (for example). Just make it short and effective, and leave the experiments for your own site.

Sure, there might be a very slight difference, but it would be so small that making a client pay for it when you could be writing press releases or adding content seems to be irresponsible to me.

I don't think Marcia and the others are necessarily claiming anything different (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I think there is more of an issue of the definition of "small stuff" than of whether it should be sweated or not here.

Ian

[Marcia]

I don't think Marcia and the others are necessarily claiming anything differentIan, what I was saying is that everything on Kevin's quoted list as being unimportant is important, IMHO.

For example, sure, there's a difference between writing riveting copy and headlines to capture visitor attention and increase interest, pageviews and conversions, and doing H(n) with keywords for SEO, but if the compelling headline is in the H1, then the keywords for SEO had better be in an H2.

Link development is one thing; sitewide things like site architecture and a site being search engine friendly and crawlable are another. But on-page optimization is on-page optimization, which is what I gathered was being referred to, and there's nothing small about it - every detail can have a significant impact for a given page.

I think sometimes it's all to easy to forget that Google is not the only crap game in town.

[caugas]

I can't believe we are still debating sweating the small stuff.

In SEO what works for someone's site, may not work for someone else's site,
But as a general rule, I can think of about 25 golden rules right off the top of my head, that I live an die by.

But, if someone says don't sweat the small stuff, which may in fact happens to be one of the basic SEO principals/foundations, then they are sending mixed messages to readers, posters, and visitors.

As a general rule of thumb "sweat the small stuff" it all counts. If you personally don't sweat the small stuff GOOD FOR YOU, but don't say it's not important.

JMO. Caugas

[mcanerin]

I finally read the article :o .I think this quote is telling:

For instance, arguably one of the most important SEO things you can do is in-depth keyword research. Yet time and again those who have no data on what people are really typing into search engines will ask in what order the keywords should appear in their titles. Half the time, they're using words that people don't type into the search engines!

Ok, I'm totally on board with the idea that you should not be worrying about keyword placement or usage if you don't know what your keywords are yet.

Let's look at the other quote and turn it into a list. The first thing I notice is this list makes sense easily in context of the above quote (none of it should be done before you know what your keywords are in the first place).

I hope that's it, because, like others, there are things on this list that (assuming you know what your target keyword is) I consider important.

* Things like how many words or characters should be in a title tag - There is some debate over the "correct" title structure - do you put branding first? Last? At all? Titles are obviously important, as are keywords in them. The issue here really isn't SEO, but branding. I've been in meetings where 2 hours of my life was spent with the client deciding on a title structure. I sure felt paralyzed. By boredom. From an SEO standpoint, titles should be first. From a branding standpoint, it's more complicated. A website has more things to think about than SEO.

*Or in what order those words should be placed. See above. Sure you should plan this stuff out, but a 2 hour meeting? On the other hand, any SEO who thinks they can "just do it" for titles is not speaking with experience with large corporations or governments, IMO. They really do delay website launches, sometimes for months, while every department covers their ass with inane "best practices" and so forth.

*Or how many times a keyword phrase should be in the copy. Should you have the keyword phrase in the copy? Duh. Should it be 9 times at a KWD of 14.8% Double duh. If SEO was as simple as counting keywords then it would not exist. Yet this is one of the most common questions newbies ask in SEO forums "What's the ideal number of times I should use a keyword on a page? What is the best Keyword density?" I have an idea. Write some damn content with your keywords in it first, then think about target KW placement. Usually, if you do it that way, you don't have to. At least, I don't.

*Or how many keyword phrases any page can be optimized for. I'm seeing a trend here, this is also one of the most common newbie questions. Maybe she's saying that instead of asking these questions, they should just go out and do it. Myself, I don't have a specific number. I know it's usually 3-5, but sometimes it should be 1, and sometimes it can be dozens. There is no hard and fast rule.

*Or should commas be used in the Meta keyword tag. Again, newbie question that takes up space and time on forums. Over, and over, and over again.

*Or should file names have hyphens in them. Also, a common newbie question. I think it's a good idea, if you can. If your CMS doesn't allow it, then deal with it by either getting a new CMS or just doing SEO without worrying about names in files. Yeah, it should be a hyphen instead of an underscore if you can. But I have clients that have underscores in filenames because it would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to redo them, and since 301 redirects don't work instantly for rankings, I don't see a justifiable business case given their traffic and rankings. I sure as hell would not "just do it" because it's on a checklist somewhere. I think about client impact.

*Or should headlines use H1 tags (or H2 tags, or whatever). Of course they should. It's good coding practice. Will it fix a crappy site? Nope. I've also seen evidence that suggests that making a "heading" big and bold, but not with an H1, seems to treat it like a pseudo-heading. Personally, I don't take that chance because it's such a simple fix, but I doubt there are any sites right now that are failing to rank solely due to this.

I'm a little unsure what Jill was trying to say, but if it was that you should not do the above list, then I disagree. But I don't think that's what she was saying. I agree it could have been a little more clear.

I have seen people who will not try to launch a site because they are still asking questions like the ones above, and I think that's a shame. Basic research is good, but sometimes you just have to go out and do it before you really understand what is needed.

An amateur needs to learn the rules and guidelines, but an expert needs to know when to break them, and that comes from practice, not forums and books.

It's 6AM and I'm in Beijing right now, so I have no idea if that made any sense....

Ian

[AussieWebmaster]

Great post Ian....

[beu]

Fair to say, a lot of small things make up the algorithm but what is "small" to one may not be "small" to others?

[Marcia]

It can be some small thing that can land a page out in 950+ "penalty" land for a phrase, and it's entirely possible that it's the small things that can put it back in the ball park, ranking and getting traffic again.

I've seen it happen; it can take 10-15 minutes worth of study and 5 minutes worth of attention to what would be considered a small detail to make the necessary change that can make the difference between #951 and #1. True, a lot of it might be just luck, but luck doesn't generally come without doing something to encourage it along.

It's the small things that add up to whether a page is optimized well enough to rank, because the ones who do give attention to the small details that all add onto scoring points are the ones who will get the points that give the edge, that the once-over page approach will miss out on.

As a case in point, there was a HUGE penalty situation that affected a ton of sites 4 years ago, and in many cases it was caused by nothing more complicated than a simple term frequency issue.

[Black_Knight]

As someone I've admired fr many years, Ron Carnel, put it so elegantly and concisely in the past: "SEO is often a game of inches rather than yards".

In competitive areas, the big differences often aren't there - especially when the competition is between multiple vendors with the same product. The details matter. Of course the solid foundation must be there first. But to say that one only has to worry about the foundation, and to 'forget the details' ecause they 'don't matter' is futile.

Try being the realtor selling the incredibly well built house that forgot those unimportant details like plumbing or electrical sockets. :D

Things like how many words or characters should be in a title tag. Or in what order those words should be placed. Or how many times a keyword phrase should be in the copy. Or how many keyword phrases any page can be optimized for. Or should commas be used in the Meta keyword tag. Or should file names have hyphens in them. Or should headlines use H1 tags (or H2 tags, or whatever).

Guess what? None of that stuff matters! Pretty crazy coming from an SEO, huh? But seriously, it really doesn't matter.
Er... guess what? Those things do matter, they just aren't everything that matters. Perhaps saying otherwise is good link-bait, but it sure as heck isn't very accurate.

Kevin's summary of what he thought you were getting at was actually far more concise, effective and accurate:
not to let worries over minor on-page details distract you from more important issues, or prevent you from doing anything at all
Spot on. It isn't that the small things don't matter, it is that they don't matter enough for any amount of perfection over them to be worth missing the bigger picture. I don't think any of us disagree with that, just as I don't think many people could agree that "None of that stuff matters" as an absolute statement.