Richard is cool and a couple of others are alright, but generally speaking I don't like them either.

Sure they know all of the Google guidelines and they are very quick to pick out coding errors etc. But try asking them about how to rank your site high on Google and they come up short, I have got the impression that they believe anyone who builds a link to their website is evil?

Try asking one of them how you get links to your website. They call web directory listings spam and they would probably even say posting your stuff to a social networking site is spam, if you followed their advice you would get no links and no traffic.

Some of them are just not nice people either, take this thread for example:

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=75bfcefb4c8c4035&hl=en

I asked for some help, they denied there was a penalty, called me a spammer, mocked me for being an SEO who needs help and pointed out a coding error.

One of the bionic posters then went on to threaten me, saying he would tell my client about the thread.

These people should not be dubbed as certified Google SEOs until they are.

The real Googlers like John and Matt are cool because they never lie and they never make assumptions.

Barry, I didn't take this short snip to be an endorsement of certified SEO's but simply a backing of key contributors of their forum. As you know I believe, a forum has to reward top posters, especially helpful ones. What could be more valuable to a company than an active advocate and tech support person answering questions for you, that you do not have to pay? You give them a Title, Logo and an attaboy and you have a new employee. PS: How can I become a certified Brick Mason?

This discussion can get interesting...

I agree with Jerry - John definitely did not endorse the Top Contributors as SEOs - and they're certainly not self professed SEO experts either.

They're interested only in the very narrow confines of what occurs in Google's webmaster guidelines - which is fine - the forum is webmaster help not SEO help.

"One of the bionic posters then went on to threaten me, saying he would tell my client about the thread."

Not a threat, old son, a promise. It's in the snailmail. Putting over 40KB of white-on-white hidden links on the bottom of a client's page without them knowing may cause them to incur a Google penalty for something they haven't done. Maybe I should post that page on my site for others to judge you by - I still have it.

What hidden links are you talking about Phil? How do you know I did it?

As a top contributor, I can tell you seo is NOT a factor at all. We can and do get help for questions not easily answered from Googlers and some training. For an SEO standpoint, the Googlers advice is the exact same for us as stated in their guidelines. No "secret" tips on how to get a site to rank better. Typically if it's a question on "why my site isn't ranking", it's more of looking for legitimate technical answers and sometimes with a few "seo" tips that is our opinions only and NOT endorsed by Google. Remember, anybody can answer on the forums and none of us are Google employees. If a Googler chimes in, it is much more important to listen to them then what is stated by us.

Good post Loius - but I don't like this misconception that SEO is supposed to be some kind of smoke and mirrors game.

I'm head of SEO for a great UK agency and our policy from beginning to end is that SEO needs to be a transparent and most importantly, scientific process.

SEO isn't a shady backwater topic though unfortunately there's a huge spate of really terrible SEOs who have absolutely no idea about either Google's webmaster guidelines or even how a search engine actually works!

Knowing how a search engine works should be fundamental to SEOs. My department can build a search crawler that follows robots.txt exclusion standards, understands how to spot duplicate content and so on. We're tirelessly working on automating complex processes but copy is never one of them! SEOs at the base level should do exactly what the team in the webmaster help forum do free of charge - just follow the Google guidelines!

And Phil Payne - threatening to undo his business - even when he's obviously not terribly good at reading is a bit of a low blow.

Google's already dealt with him - he's not going to get his client indexed and he's going to get flak for it.

Guys, the point of this post is not about threats, it is about how Google's JohnMu thinks of the Top Contributors. :)

I have to apologise for my previous post - a case of mistaken identity. I've just reread David's thread and not only was it not he but I think he was remarkable patient considering what was said. Two options - let both of my posts stand (with my apoloy to David in this one) or the moderators may delete both at their discretion.

Once again my apology.

Hi Phil, apology accepted, hidden links aren't my think, I'm more of a cloaking kind of guy!

As far as I know - not a single one of us view it as an "endorsement" of any sort regarding our services.
To the point - I don't believe many of us even do SEO as a service/living.
Most of those in the related Group (pointing out there are many other Groups/Languages), are simply website owners like most others in the group - or web-designers, programmers or, in some cases, people that sit, watch and chip in every so often ;).
- - -
All the label of "Bionic", or the status of "Top Contributor" means is that Google has found us to be helpful, informative and dedicated.

Would you prefer it if anyone could become a TC?
(Before answering that question - please go and see some of the SEO companies/persons that post/ask questions - then answer ;)).
- - -
Part of the problem we have is that we cannot win.
If we provide links to our sites and our email details - we are accused of "fishing for work".
If we don't do these things - we are accused of "hiding our ineptitude".
- - -
I'd also like to point out that none of us get any "benefit" from what we do - apart from personal pleasure and social interaction.
If anything - it can be a burden. I know I feel obliged to look in and post every day… just to help out a little and give back to a community that answered my questions. Else I feel bad.
And - if I'm 'naughty' ... Susan tells me off!
(Scary ... ;)).
- - -
So - sincerely - before making comments on this subject, do come to the group and have a look around.
See who we are, what we do, how we do it etc.
We would love to have some of the bigger SEO's come in ... but I don't see any offer their help/services for free in the group... (subtle aren’t I ;)).

So, there's your invitation folks - come have a look & play ... and if we are lucky, you'll join in and help out too.

Kindest,
Autocrat.

>>> The real Googlers like John and Matt
>>> are cool because they never lie and
>>> they never make assumptions.

Well, I hope this doesn't imply you think anybody blatantly lies over there? And of
course it's the private posters' privilege
including the one of TCs to make assumptions ;-) Matt Cutts or JohnMu couldn't possibly indulge in publishing "assumptions" about their own machine? Many of an assumption made in the
forum has suddenly worked out in helping others.

There are other negative threads in the forum and there will be more. You just need to ask yourself whether they would exist if those opening them weren't frustrated with their own website. Perceived by some as representatives of Google, Top Contributors are a natural target for that frustration.

Useful to remember that top Contributors are not Google representatives, may not wish to be, they're just people posting on a forum. A couple are professional SEOs, some run successful websites of their own, a fair number build or manage sites for others. Simply a representative and reasonably experienced peer group who offer their time.

You might also note there are many posts in the forum pointing out very specifically the place is not an SEO forum and should not be labelled as such. A more common SEO connection is via those posting for help, who offer SEO services but seem to have little knowledge of websites or Google. That isn't meant to be defamatory to the whole sector, people like Richard who was mentioned earlier, or Phill Midwinter who commented may bring true value to their clients but they are obliged to work under a much misused term.

So not all members of the community would see themselves as SEOs, or choose to be. Good luck to the OP here for a pleasant, neutral post, that might attract a little attention, yet the statement:

"...it also leads John and Google to basically certifying them as certified SEOs..."

is more than stretching a point, simply innacurate. There is no pretence of that being an appropriate label, nor a wish for there to be from everyone involved.

If you spend all day helping people fix broken sites you learn what glitches are preventing them to rank in Google. It is natural and a fair reward for helping other webmasters out!

There also is a private forum for "bionics" where all the good stuff/info. is distributed...I found this post in there, we are also watching you. ;)

Happy Friday!

Just wanted to say, being able to resolve technical site issues is one critical element in SEO and peanut butter is one critical element in PB&J. Just as peanut butter isn't a sandwich, technical savvy doesn't seem like SEO me. I don't see recognition for technical expertise as implying anything about SEO or being slippery ground for Google in the least.

Just my two cents :)

Hi Phil, I am sorry that I implied that SEO is dodgy in anyway. I was trying to say (poorly I suppose) that we aren't being told by Google any techniques of SEO besides what are stated by them publicly. Sorry for the confusion.

I cannot imagine a more incompetent group of "experts" than the people slinging nonsense at the Google Webmaster Help forums. I don't care what Google thinks of them -- they regularly miss very basic issues when "advising" people on how to improve their sites and their analyses are among the worst on the Web.

Let them have a field day with that criticism. I wouldn't ask them for advice if they were the last helpful people on Earth.

And now we have one of SEO's biggest whingers chiming in. Curious Michael - I haven't seen you helping out too many webmasters, EVER. If we are all incompetent why don't you do something about it and help out a little.

You obviously seem to believe that when we offer FREE advice we should go and perform some high level of due-diligence, blissfully ignoring that as volunteers we likely have very limited bandwidth to do so.

And as regards incompetence - in my honest opinion there's more SEO knowledge in that small group of volunteers than there is in many of the largest agencies around the globe. And yes I have had lots of experience upon which to base that opinion.

Don't even know why I'm responding to you TBH. It's a true, true shame that someone with so much inherent knowledge and expertise in the industry has to be such a negative troll...

Ah ... new I'd see nthat name before ... isn't that the guy that says looking up link info in Yahoo is pointless and you are better off using the (limited) info in Google?

Whats that you say?
No - I'm serious ... thats what he says!
Apparently all those helpful SEO people like Rand and Aaron Wall etc. haven't got a clue!
Only that guy knows what he is on about.
(double entendre ;))

SEO guys don't need any Certification from Google.

Michael Martinez tends to get his panties in a bind often, he stirs the pot to seek out new business in an attempt to only go where no SEO has gone before! :)

>>> technical site issues
>>> is one critical element in SEO and peanut
>>> butter is one critical element in PB&J

Brian, :D

Google Webmaster Help treats technicals as pre-requisites for SEO, like: Does a site work with search engines? What is the correct setup for a site to get visible in results? Where are flaws on-site or between site and search engines that hamper proper ranking (indexing, crawling, whatever)? Even things like: How do I organize my site to prevent any surprise in regards to search engines in the future? If you want to call that SEO - you can. Nothing unpublished, no secrets. Many people do that there, it's not restricted to TCs and Googlers or something at all. Many answers get a kind of Google approval being flagged "Best" for people of all "levels" TC or "Highest Level Four"(!)

JohnMu does post that kind of comment on a semi-regular basis just to take the heat out of a situation. People arrive with a website in trouble, are understandably angry, frustrated and want immediate answers and if they aren't forthcoming - and what the poster wants to hear - tend to shoot the messengers.

This can head into a pointless downward spiral if a line isn't drawn under it. Hence the postings by John when the aggression is pointed at the Bionics.

We none of us claim to be SEO's, neither do any of us promote our services. We just try and help where we can and know that many times we can't give the poster what they are looking for.

Becky

[SEOs] are obliged to work under a much misused term

I very much like the way you put that! It reflects how I feel about the term quite accurately. If you read my blog in fact it says as much!

People are pointing out the line between what the guys in the webmaster help forum do and what SEO is. Entirely accurate - I have in fact posted a fair number of responses to questions in there but ultimately I packed it in.

The responses I gave - whilst ok - just don't reflect what the users are looking for. People like Autocrat have a huge amount of experience dealing with those queries day in and day out. Nobody gives them any reward for it and they deserve a lot of praise for that.

Some websites rank high for no particular reasons
Huh? Seriously? this comes from a top SEO? sites rank for no reason? So you recommend putting no effort into a website because success is all just chance? Tell this to the google engineers.

Not a threat, old son, a promise. It's in the snailmail.... Maybe I should post that page on my site for others to judge you by - I still have it.

This could be potentially libelous activity and could expose the user and google to a lot of liability.

If Google is specifically endorsing individuals with no formal training and no legal constraints there could be problems down the road.

I commend users working for free in google's forums to try to help other webmasters, but if individual vendettas and personal attacks prevail this is a negative for everyone involved.

Richard Hearne: "... Curious Michael - I haven't seen you helping out too many webmasters, EVER...."

Hah! That's only because you don't get out enough to look around. Proving your incompetence and ignorance by challenging me on the help I've given to thousands of webmasters through the years on blogs and forums is not making your case.

Aaron Pratt: "...he stirs the pot to seek out new business in an attempt to only go where no SEO has gone before! :)"

Not hardly.

The top posters in the Google Webmaster Help Forums -- including those who are posting here -- are essentially incompetent and useless SEO advisors.

So promoting one site is better than more....right

@Michael - I've seen you pissing in the wind for quite a few years now, and your negativity here only further cements your place in SEO history as someone with immense talent, wasted through bitterness and resentment, and with a massive desire to prove to the world how great you are at other people's expense. Keep pissing Michael - the only one getting wet is you.