Last Friday, Donna wrote about an article in Google News on Breaking SEO Myths. The article suggests that SEOs are primarily scam artists (not a new accusation by any means) and that even the more legitimate industry personalities hide behind veils of secrecy because - according to the author - any idiot can do SEO and it's only by shrouding ourselves in mystery that we can get any work at all.

Daniel Dessinger, who wrote the article, doesn't strike me as especially daft. His writing is clear, concise and relatively compelling. But, unlike Donna, I think Daniel's article suffers from a lack of research and a healthy dose of envy. His article leverages tactics popular in partisan politics - leveling charges of selfish bias, using circular logic and making heavy-handed proclamations supported by gross generalisms. Here's a few of my favorites:

So what exactly makes a person an SEO expert? Seriously. Don't accept someone's claims without critically examining them. There's no federal or industry-wide standard. So who makes an expert an expert? What’s the difference between an expert and an expert fake? And how can you tell one from the other?

Those are great questions, but Daniel doesn't provide answers (I've written about what I think makes an SEO expert). His goals are fear and uncertainty.

Am I going to present clear-cut evidence here of my claims? Not a chance. I don't have to, and I don’t want to make any specific enemies. I learned what I know by studying SEO online wherever I could because I was trying to join the industry.

This is a gem. He skips over providing evidence using the excuse that it's more noble to be anonymous and overarching with his claims. Then, he states that his knowledge of SEO comes from studying SEO online, yet he's already told us that SEOs don't share their knowledge and obsfucate the practice purposefully to drive business. If he claimed that he had learned SEO on his own, through trial and error testing or by reading IR books, search engine patents and programming his own engines, his claims would have far greater veracity.

If you don't believe me, subscribe to a few SEO newsletters and catch up on your SEO articles. See for yourself if you don't read the same thing over and over, only presented in a different order or from a different angle. Study which groups or individuals support and compliment each other in SEO articles, forums, and blogs. Notice how they build a castle of thoughts out of thin air.

Daniel's manipulating his readers using the same tactics he accuses the SEO world of employing. Rather than point out specifics or go into detail, he glosses over anything that would back up his opinions and makes the argument that when those of us in the SEO world cite each others work, it is part of a vast conspiracy designed to draw in business to customers who have no need of our work.

Daniel, if you're reading this, here's what I want you to do to clear your name:

1. Visit this list and point out exactly who you accuse of masking the practice of SEO to prevent clients from learning how to do it themselves.
2. Read the Beginner's Guide to SEO and tell me how it obsfucates the truth.
3. Give a full and honest disclosure about your goals & experiences - you offer SEO writing services, run several blogs with AdSense and write for several article submission sites - why the venom towards paid SEO consulting and marketing? What made you write the article?

p.s. I rarely disagree with Donna, but I really couldn't stomach this one. Vitriol and Monday mornings don't make for a happy Rand.