ook around online for a few minutes and you can find a million and one articles and blog posts debunking the old-school search engine optimization myths of search engine submission, meta tags and invisible text. Where it gets a little more difficult is when you start looking at some of the newer "myths" of the industry. Not being one to shy away from a challenge, Shari Thurow tackles three such SEO myths in her ClickZ column this week. If you're one of the ones still trying to sort out fact from fiction, Shari's column is a must read.

She starts off with "get spidered more often and you'll rank better" and does a nice job of explaining why this isn't a clear cut cause and effect relationship. She then moves on to the issue of graphical text verses CSS text and finishes up with my personal favorite...the myth of Web 2.0 sites.

OK, Web 2.0 evangelists, pay attention. I understand your enthusiasm and zeal for Web standards and new technologies. Really, I do. But to make the bold statement that Web 2.0 sites rank better than non-2.0 sites? Completely false.

Many SEO professionals and Web developers who make this statement are merely trying to promote their unique selling proposition (USP), to separate themselves from other design firms. I understand that. I'm sure every professional marketer on the planet understands that.

Go back to those fundamental principles. Repeat them. Make them a mantra. Tattoo them somewhere on your body, if that's what it will take. I love many Web 2.0 sites and create them as well. But making inaccurate cause-and-effect statements as a USP just to close a sale? Maybe the SEO professionals honestly believe those statements and that's why they make them.

Get the full story at ClickZ