8 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
randfish said in June 7th, 2007 at 12:51 am

David – I respect your opinions, but I think you’ve got to remember that you have a very unique viewpoint on things. You’re an experienced SEO who plays in this stuff all the time and reads the blogs/forums/etc. To ask for a conference that’s more advanced than all of that would be to truly exclude folks who are coming to learn.

There’s got to be two audiences – the highly experienced SEOs, who may pick up one or two gems during the sessions, but who are primarily there for networking, and those who come to learn, for which you have to provide a slightly more basic approach.

I’m with you that the content could be brought up a level, but I don’t know that it could ever be “high enough” to be truly valuable for someone like you (or me) and still get 1000 attendees.

mygif
Jeff said in June 7th, 2007 at 8:31 am

I agree that the best thing about the conference was the opportunity to speak individually with experts and reps from the engines. (The food was good, too!)

Though I am a big fan of Rand and SEOMoz, I differ in regard to what was appropriate for this conference, especially since it was billed as advanced.

I guess there are probably 3 audiences:

1. There are people who go to learn something and do some networking. Those are experienced SEOs like Dave here.

2. There are people who are new to SEO or search marketing and

3. Then there are the experts, like Rand, who are either on a panel or there to network, or both.

The difference between 2 and 3 may seem small but it’s important. Established SEO experts have a network or experience that may preclude the need to pick up a couple gems at a conference like this. Experienced SEOs may have experience but could really use one of those gems to take things to the next level.

I think if the conference is billed as “advanced,” then the panelists should support that billing. The fact that there was only one track for organic search implied that it would be geared toward an advanced audience – you wouldn’t need to choose one session over another. At SES there are multiple tracks and skill levels, so you can split off if something is too advanced or too basic.

The burden is on the attendee to take that into account beforehand, evaluate their own level of knowledge. You either prepare as much as possible before the conference or you wait for a more general conference. A year ago, I would not have attended a conference billed as advanced because I knew I wasn’t ready.

Overall, though, it was a good and useful experience. It was nice to attend such a small search conference. It would have been nice if certain sessions were more detailed, but I’ll save the review for the SMX feedback form.

mygif
Danny Sullivan said in June 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am

Thanks for the feedback, Dave. I depend on feedback to try and reshape and improve any show for the future. One of my favorite questions to attendees is often “what didn’t you like.”

I was exceptionally glad not to have examples at the Duplicate Content Summit. That was not the point of that session. As I explained, the point that summit was to come up with long-term solutions so that we don’t have to keep having sessions on duplicate content workarounds.

This was a hard concept to communicate, and I know people were disappointed that some were expecting to deal with specific issues rather than the issue as a whole. In retrospect, I would have prepped the search engines even better to come with a hitlist of things they were considering doing or changing or wanted feedback on rather than the short summaries of how they deal with duplicate content. I’d have also jumped into the audience directly and really worked them more into solution-mode.

In contrast, the Penalty Box Summit I think better helped everyone understand the goal — not to solve particular problems but improve the general state overall. Like I said at the show, if in six to nine months you suddenly get a tool that lets you look up any pages considered to be duplicates on your site, perhaps with ways to directly change them into “originating” documents, then perhaps you and others will look more kindly on the session.

I didn’t consider site clinics here because those have tended to be more for beginners, and this was designed for advanced people. I’ll keep it in mind.

Examples are generally provided in more beginning to intermediate sessions, which wasn’t the focus here. In generally, however, speakers are always advised to use examples where appropriate. That’s part of the speaking guidelines all speakers get. I think your suggestion for this comes off your disappointment over the duplicate content session and as I said, examples weren’t the goal there.

As for speakers rushing through slides, they don’t have to rush unless they’ve not timed themselves right. Rand knew exactly how much time he had. He just wanted to show more, which I completely understand. You also have to remember while you might feel you know all this stuff from reading his blog, not everyone in the audience is the same. In fact, many attendees felt this session opened their eyes to stuff they never realized even as advanced marketers. And this was a case where I though advanced marketers needed a fast eye opening, then they’ve got our SMX Social Media event for a two day drill down for even more help. I could have shoved in more time on social media, I supposed — but that would have turned the advanced event into something else.

mygif
Dave said in June 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am

Danny,

Overall I have to give you a lot of credit for pulling off another great show and I will be attending more of them.

I really didn’t want this post I did at the airport to come off too negative – perhaps now that I re-read it – it might seem that way.

When the conference was over and I was waiting in the parking lot I had this sense that I was just part of something special. So I give you a lot credit for that.

I hope my comments can help you a little bit for the next conference.

I just spoke with 5-6 people about the sessions not being advanced enough – so I don’t know what the other 500 people thought – so you could be totally right. Perhaps the 5-6 people are very similar to me and others are at a different level than us. So please just take this post with a grain of salt.

Dave

mygif

[...] SMX Advanced Conference Review, Rentvine [...]

mygif
Dixon said in June 9th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I had a great time. (Apart from Northwest Airlines sending me from Gatwick > Detroit (STORM) > Cleveland > Detroit > MEMPHIS? > Seattle.)

Rand and Jeff – I don’t accept the premise that there was a need to talk to non-experts in the room. The whole point of the conference was that non-experts were not in the room! It was – after all SMX ADVANCED.

That said, I also don’t think that raising the level of the content is going to be easy next time round. In a room full of experts, though, there must be a formula that will get the best out of the audience communicated back to the audience.

How might that be achieved?

Dixon.

mygif

[...] If you listen to Danny Sullivan’s show today he pretty much address my post about the duplication content “summit” without saying my name (about 40 minutes in to the show). Danny if you are reading this, I will [...]

mygif
SMX Advanced 2008 Roundup [Video] said in June 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am

[...] of doing a writeup like I did for last year’s SMX Advanced conference, I made a video so my friends at home could get an idea what the conference is [...]

Leave A Reply

 Username (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (*optional)