Is this article telling facts?

I had a discussion at WebProWorld Forums, and one member who had a different opinion, posted an article in her blog http://www.geeksonsteroids.com/blog-geeks/seo-workers/.

And I would like to ask you all, what you think is right and what is wrong?

Thanks for helping me out.

 

I disagree 100% with this. Most good SEO's are too busy to worry about their own sites.

 

lol

The point of the article is that onsite SEO plays a very small role in ranking a site. Without links it is a waste of time.

 

I mean this in more than just one way. Lets say that I wanted to rank a site for "website design" I could check out who was ranked for "web hosting" and find out if they use and outside company or if they do everything in-house.

Since we are not in competition for the same words we could use the same SEO.

 

No Janeth. The point of the article is not that onsite SEO plays a very small role in ranking a site.

It is about that you tell there that the following have nothing to do with on-page SEO:

1: Semantic programming errors
2: Semantic (X)HTML
3. Semantic web
4. LSI

Got it?

I hope the members here will read the thread we had at WPW, so they can make their own opinion.

 

Those have very little if anything to do with ranking a site.

I got it

 

For example:

Semantic Web has too little to do with ranking a site?

So don't we need feeds? Should I delete my RDF feeds? Don't they help me when submitting them in RSS feeds directories?

LOL

 

no doubt about that links helps Seo , but its a business that involed into much more than this article says , and i dont think any article willl be 100 % right with Seo . all this thing is So dinamic.

 

It is a lot of hard work but clean code, a lot of pages of good text, good page names, good titles and links will get a site ranked.