Originally covered in this thread was Dit-it.com's Dave Pasternack writing about how SEO is well, pretty simple, and only really needed to be done once.
He's back, and he's sticking to his guns - An SEO critic answers his critics
It’s clear that I touched a raw nerve and I’ve received a fair share of critical e-mail.
I’ve also received a much larger share of e-mail applauding the fact that I seem to be the first guy to say what’s obvious to anyone who’s worked in the SEO/SEM business for more than a few months: SEO isn’t rocket science, it isn’t worth paying a fortune for, and in all but a few rare cases, it’s not something you need to pay some uber-geek to do month after month.
Apparently it should work like this:
Patient: My website's not being found.
Doctor: Let's have a look. Cough please. I see the problem.
Patient: Is it bad, Doctor?
Doctor: Not really. Hands over medicine. Hands over instructions on how to use medicine. Accepts a goose/bushell of corn/10 groats.
Patient: Wow. Thanks. Will I need a repeat prescription?
Doctor: Not at all. Don't rinse. Don't repeat.
We’re not talking about treating chronic, incurable diseases here, folks. We’re talking about fixing your Web site so that its current and future content is optimized for search engines. This is not, repeat not, rocket science. Anyone who insists that it is, is nothing more than a quack selling you a bill of goods.
Can anyone be arsed to put the case for the defence?