Why Vanessa Fox’s 2008 Interview with Eric Enge About User-First & Holistic SEO is Still Relevant Today (and Tomorrow), a Hamsterdam History Lesson
By Ethan Lazuk
Last updated:
Welcome to another week of Hamsterdam History!
If you’re new here, this is where we look at vintage SEO articles to celebrate their contributors, gain historical context, and discuss how things have changed since.
Or in the case of this week’s article, how things haven’t changed much …
We’ll be looking at an interview Vanessa Fox gave with Eric Enge in 2008:
In the interview, she talks about:
- Prioritizing user experience
- Not chasing algorithms
- Building brand reputation
- Integrating online marketing
- Aligning with search intent
Basically, it’s timeless advice on how to do well at SEO, including in our current era (amidst AI Overviews, Perplexity pages, social media/Search overlap, and much else).
Typically, we look at articles that, given their age, have notable differences from today’s SEO.
Not this time, really.
We’re simply going to revisit the lessons of the interview, because what was said in 2008 largely applies just as much today (as it did yesterday or will tomorrow).
To that end, I’ve included modern parallels, as well. 😉
Before getting to the interview, here are a few notes on why I chose the topic.
I have a book co-authored by Eric, “The Art of SEO,” on my Kindle app.
I got the latest edition when it was released, yet I’m still about halfway through reading it:
I usually read it while balancing on the elliptical in the gym, but I haven’t worked out in weeks …
I do take evening walks though …
So that’s to say I largely know Eric’s work through that book.
As for Vanessa Fox, I didn’t know (or recall knowing) much about her work prior to reading the interview.
My bad! She’s quite accomplished in the field. Here’s her bio on Keylime Toolbox circa 2014:
Why 2014, exactly?
Well, SMX Advanced 2024 was this week (June 11th-12th), so I thought it’d be fun to look back 10 years at SMX 2014 to see what SEOs were discussing a decade ago.
As you can see — or just in case, I’ll tell you 😉 — Danny Sullivan is at the podium introducing panelists including Mathew Brown, Marianne Sweeney, and Marcus Tober.
I particularly took note of Marianne Sweeney’s presentation in that post, “How UX Affects SEO Ranking Factors.”
I’ve enjoyed her recent takes on topics like LLMs and generative AI. (They were partly what influenced my creation of Hamsterdam Research.)
One of the topics Mark Traphagen mentions in that 2014 recap of Marianne’s presentation was the Vanessa Fox interview by Eric Enge (just to the left of the angry Panda):
In the interview post, the word “holistic” is mentioned five times.
Here’s an example:
Eric Enge: “If we backup again to the broader topic of holistic online marketing, I may think everything we have been talking about has been oriented around broader, purest views of online marketing divorced from SEO, and building customer relationships and these sorts of things. But, at the end of the day, isn’t this potentially a brilliant SEO strategy?”
Vanessa Fox: “Oh, of course. …”
– Vanessa Fox Interviewed by Eric Enge (2008)
That was the final indicator to me that this was a great article/interview to explore.
I became a full-time consultant in January of this year, and one of the first things I did was put “holistic” in front of the word “strategy” on my service page:
And across my website:
You can also see my “holistic SEO” identity hinted at in my social profile banner references to Lester Freamon in The Wire:
I’d be remiss not to mention early influences that got me thinking this way, though, which include the “kitchen sink” concept by Glenn Gabe and the brand SERP strategies of Jason Barnard.
Here’s an example where I mentioned them both, as well as the word “holistic,” in another blog post about SEO basics:
I have a few of my own phrasings or labels for related concepts, like:
I’ll also say that learning more about neural networks has influenced my thinking about why holistic approaches are impactful.
At the core, though, it comes down to a simple belief — “all the pieces matter.”
Let’s now revisit Vanessa Fox’s interview with Eric Enge from 2008 to explore key excerpts with modern parallels!
Ok, this is going to get tough.
The first question and answer have a lot of great information.
Eric brings up something that immediately felt familiar and timeless.
And if you visit that “people-first SEO” link above, it pretty much is an independently derived rephrasing of what Vanessa explains in her answer.
Everything old is new again (or likely never went anywhere). 😉
What I’ll do, rather than edit the answers, is give the full text of the questions and answers in thematic chunks, with select highlights followed by modern parallels.
Let’s boogie!
Optimizing for users first (or simultaneously)
Eric Enge: “A lot of people think of SEO as the practice of manipulating search engines. It’s really interesting because sometimes outsiders write these inflammatory pieces about how SEO is comprised mostly of crooks. For that matter, some people who are in SEO are in fact spending their time trying to do just that. They are trying to manipulate search engines, and that’s the way they view their job.
But, I’d like to back up to a more strategic level and talk about some of the issues of customer experiences. And, we’ll get into this more later, but also figuring out the types of people that come to your site, how they interact with it, and how that affects website design. So, this is stepping aside a bit from SEO and into a broader look at online marketing.
So, any thoughts on that that you’d like to start us with, and how you design a site from a customer experience perspective?”
Vanessa Fox: “Absolutely. That’s where the name for Jane and Robot originated. When you build a website, you shouldn’t just think about SEO, you can think of users and SEO at the same time. And so, Jane obviously is the user, and then the robot would be the search engines. You should really take a holistic view when you are building your website, because you can do things that will work well for all the different important aspects, and they don’t have to contradict each other.
Some think that if you are doing SEO, that means you are ignoring your user. I think if you focus on the user, it’s the other way around. You focus on your user, and that’s going to cause SEO, usability, and all types of other things to fall into place. Some people in SEO try to chase the algorithms. The algorithms always change from the search engines, and there are all of these little factors, hundreds of different little things, that affect it.
Some people still will jump up and go after them. If you do that, you are spending a lot of time and a lot of effort on things that are just fluctuating all the time. Whereas, if you really think about what the search engines are looking for, which is the best possible result for users, then all of the fluctuations aren’t really going to impact you as much and your website is ultimately going to align really, really well with what the search engine is looking for.
The other thing that’s positive is that if you really think about your user and what the user experience should be, then when you do get the traffic from search, you are going to hang on to those users. Because that’s really ultimately what your goal is, to add to the customer base and engage with people. So, if you really think about engaging users when you build the site, then all the traffic is really going to get you somewhere.”
– Vanessa Fox Interviewed by Eric Enge (2008)
Here are a few things that came to mind, but since this all started with SMX 2014 and Danny Sullivan at the podium, I’ll use his (fairly) recent tweets:
“Inflammatory pieces about how SEO is comprised mostly of crooks” — Eric (2008)
“You shouldn’t just think about SEO, you can think of users and SEO at the same time” — Vanessa (2008)
“Some people in SEO try to chase the algorithms” — Vanessa (2008)
Ranking system updates (algorithm changes)
Eric Enge: “The other thing I have noticed from the sites we’ve worked on when these algorithm changes come through, is that there a raging reaction on the forums of everybody who has been setback by the algorithm changes. The sites that we work on keep going up.”
Vanessa Fox: “Yes”
Eric Enge: “Because, the search engines are striving towards an ideal. And, if you strive towards that same ideal, they get closer and closer to it, and you end up winning as a result.”
Vanessa Fox: “That’s absolutely the case.“
My first thought was the third HCU in September of 2023 and the months afterward (and similarly some chatter before and after the March 2024 core and spam updates).
Here’s one affair I recall in late 2023 involving commenters on Search Engine Roundtable.
“A raging reaction on the forums of everybody who has been setback by the algorithm changes” — Eric (2008)
Brand reputation and credibility (offline and online)
Eric Enge: “Indeed. So, you and I talked a little bit about the customer coming back, and just having their goodwill. Reputation has a lot of levels of impact, doesn’t it?“
Vanessa Fox: “Yes, absolutely. I think the idea has always been, offline and online, that if a brand really builds up a relationship with customers and builds up their reputation and credibility, it’s only going to help them overall. A customer is likely to come back or likely to tell other people about it and recommend it; bringing that from the offline world into the online world.
Look at Zappos for instance. They are a shoe company, but really they tell people that they are a customer service company, not a shoe store. You know that if you’ve ordered shoes from them, you can return any of them that you want, and they will pay the shipping.
If you ever have a problem, they are super responsive. So they build themselves up to be more than a place to buy shoes, but as this credible, reputable source that people end up having a relationship with. I think that really starts to just build on itself.”
In this case, the two examples that came to mind were both from Miriam Ellis.
“Offline and online, that if a brand really builds up a relationship with customers and builds up their reputation and credibility, it’s only going to help them overall” — Vanessa (2008)
“But really they tell people that they are a customer service company, not a shoe store” — Vanessa (2008)
By the way, if you’re wondering where all these tweets are coming from, they’re largely from X (Twitter) …
JK. 😉 Specifically, they’re from my weekly Hamsterdam recaps. Check ’em out! (But after we’re finished here …)
Big brand advantage
Ok, I said earlier that we wouldn’t need to make any modifications to the SEO themes from this interview, and that’s still kind of true.
Except, this section does reference brands going from the offline to the online world.
It’s not really as applicable today, but it’s still fun history to revisit. Here’s an excerpt from Vanessa’s answer:
“If you look at some of these older brands, they are used to printing brochures or magazine ads, that type of thing. So, they might build a site entirely in Flash, and they might be less open to the idea of doing a lot of social networking. They might think they don’t want to have a blog or a discussion area, because they want to have control over the way the brand is discussed.
They may miss the point that now that we are in an online world, they don’t have control over their brand anyway. People are going to talk about them, so they may as well be involved one way or the other.”
However, this other part that came before about established vs. new brands is super relevant today:
Eric Enge: “Right. So, it often seems to me that people that already have an established brand have a major advantage. A big name company is going to get lots of links and lots of visibility no matter what they do; but what’s the recourse for somebody who doesn’t have the advantage of leveraging a major brand?”
Vanessa Fox: “You are right that a major brand has already built up their brand in other ways before they came online. So, it’s just like anything else — if someone is starting a company new now, whether it’s offline or online, you have to go through that; the period of building up your brand. I think that somebody’s smaller or newer company in a way is having advantage on the other hand, because they don’t have all of the legacy offline type of marketing to start with.”
The big brand bias, of course, reminded me of AJ Kohn’s post.
“A big name company is going to get lots of links and lots of visibility no matter what they do” — Eric (2008)
The general discussion of building a brand made me think, again, of the lessons learned in the post-HCU world.
“If someone is starting a company new now, whether it’s offline or online, you have to go through that; the period of building up your brand” — Vanessa (2008)
Differentiation
Eric Enge: “Yeah, absolutely. So, I mean it’s the heart of all this; here we are, we are thinking about launching a new website to do something. And, you gave a great customer experience, but a couple of things still have to have a real deep level of value.
It has to be distinctive as well. You can’t be the fifteenth version of something else that’s been put out there. Like the Jane and Robot site, you are clearly striving to bring something new and help a different group of people in a different and distinct way that really adds value to their day.”
Vanessa Fox: “Right. That’s certainly one thing that you should look at which is what do you have that’s going to cause users to come to you versus the choices that are already out there. Because, if there is already something that’s serving them well; they need a reason to switch. People just don’t switch for no reason. What can you bring that is different and new from what they have?“
In terms of standing out for its unique perspective, this reminded me of 11x content, and the 10x framework it was iterated from (in its original sense).
More to the root of differentiation, in general, it reminded me of several aspects of Google Search Central’s advice around creating helpful content.
“What can you bring that is different and new from what they have?” — Vanessa (2008)
In particular, the final bullet in that excerpt above stands out: “Does the content provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results.”
Authorship
Eric Enge: “Yes, indeed. Ultimately, we are just trying to give the search engine as many clues as possible as to who the original author of the content at the end of the day basically?“
Vanessa Fox: “Absolutely.“
This came after a discussion of syndication and blog scrapers (the latter topic we’ve covered in a past history article), but it generally reminded me of some takeaways from the recent Google API Content Warehouse leak.
“Give the search engine as many clues as possible as to who the original author of the content at the end of the day basically?” — Eric (2008)
Target users and usability testing
Eric Enge: “Yes, indeed. The other thing to remember is you are not the target audience for your website.“
Vanessa Fox: “Right. Even, if you think you are, you are not. You can’t possibly be, because you are too involved with it.“
We’ve covered usability in a past history lesson based on a Cre8tive Flow post. I also like to use Microsoft Clarity when user testing isn’t in the budget.
The larger topic of bias, though, is timeless in both micro and macro senses.
“You are not the target audience for your website” — Eric (2008)
Backlinks
Eric Enge: “Right. The sites you get links from are ones that actually care about their visitors.“
Vanessa Fox: “Right. And so, those types of sites are the ones that search engines are probably going to think of as the most authoritative, because they have already been evaluated as being a useful site. And so, those are obviously the sites you want links from, and you are only going to be able to achieve those links if you have a useful site. So, there is certainly no manipulation involved or any tricks, it’s pretty straightforward.”
The first thought that came to mind here were excerpts from Mike King’s blog post about the API leak regarding links.
“Those types of sites are the ones that search engines are probably going to think of as the most authoritative” — Vanessa (2008)
Here are a few excerpts, but I’d suggest reading the full post for context:
Cross-channel collaboration
Eric Enge: “Alright, great. Do you have some other things that you think would be good to add to the conversation?“
Vanessa Fox: “Well, I just think that it’s really useful when you are doing any online marketing to think about how what you are doing is going to impact the other silos of online marketing, and think about how the things that they are doing can help you out. I find often that you’ve got a company where someone is doing SEO on the site, and someone else is doing paid stuff.
Then you’ve got the product people who are interested in marketing and their products. And, a lot of times those divisions work on isolation, whereas if they shared their information they have on their customers, they’d all have a more complete picture of their customers. If you had email marketing, and you are sending people to a page, you want that page to be as useful as possible.
That also may be the same page that comes up in a search result, and it maybe the same page that is linked to a PPC ad, but maybe you have a different page for each one. Certainly if those people talked more and had a really good and comprehensive strategy, it makes for a more seamless experience for the customer. I think just the data alone can really help you out.
A lot of times each of those divisions feel that the other may overrun them and that the impact would hurt them if they were to work with the other. But, I think the opposite can be the case, where they can actually help each other and the whole can be greater than the parts.”
This is a topic that has long been a focus of mine, as well.
When I was agency side, having teams collaborate on strategy and reporting was always a goal, particularly SEO with email, paid search, and organic social.
Some of the neatest discoveries I’ve been a part of involved contributions from several marketing channels.
“If they shared their information they have on their customers, they’d all have a more complete picture of their customers” — Vanessa (2008)
Summary!
As we saw, many key themes Vanessa Fox discussed in her 2008 interview with Eric Enge — prioritizing user experience, not chasing algorithms, building brand reputation, integrating online marketing, etc. — all have modern parallels.
In other words, they still apply today! 😉
There were differences, of course. In 2008, there were Flash-built sites and companies new to the online world, in general. In 2024, we take being online for granted, yet have new customer journeys from generative AI, like AI Overviews.
Yet, by and large, creating websites for users in a way search engines can understand is a timeless practice.
Elizabeth Tucker even said so herself at SMX Advanced this week:
“SEOs play two wonderful roles, according to Tucker:
– 13 SEO takeaways from Google’s Elizabeth Tucker at SMX Advanced, Danny Goodwin, SEL (2024)
- Making great websites: SEOs help create great content and page experiences for people – that Google Search can also understand so it can ‘surface the best of the web.’
- Providing feedback: Tucker said SEOs are a group that holds Google to its own ‘high standards. So a huge shout out and thank you to everyone in the SEO community.’
The enduring adventures of “Jane and robot.” 😉
Outro
I hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s Hamsterdam History lesson!
Feel free to share your feedback (or this article!) or contact me.
Stay tuned for another lesson next week, or check out related articles below.
Until next time, enjoy the vibes:
Thanks for reading. Happy optimizing! 🙂
Related history posts:
Revisiting the Cre8tive Flow Blog in 2005 to Learn about Jared Spool and the Timelessness of Usability (for SEO), A Hamsterdam History Lesson
Jared Spool was called the “bad boy” of usability. Looking back at a 2005 post from Cre8tive Flow Blog, we can see the timelessness of…
Google’s Search Quality: Blog Scrapers & Content Farms in 2011 vs. AI Spam in 2024
In 2011, Google’s search quality had issues from scraper sites and content farms. Explore parallels with AI spam in 2024 in this Hamsterdam History lesson.
Looking Natural vs. Being Natural: What a Cre8site Discussion on Links from 2005 Can Tell Us About Search Today, A Hamsterdam History Lesson
Learn how a 2005 discussion on links about looking natural versus being natural relates to today’s era of machine learning-driven ranking systems.
Leave a Reply