DaedTech

Stories about Software

By

Why SEO Consulting Shouldn’t Exist

This isn’t a clickbait title.  I genuinely stand by the position that “SEO consulting” is a service that shouldn’t exist in the economy.

But before I dive into specifics and my case, I do want to offer a couple of important caveats.

  1. I wouldn’t dispute that some SEO consultants offer some economic value and provide helpful services.  There is economic value to increasing the visibility of content.
  2. The fact that I don’t think the role should exist isn’t a commentary, per se, on people occupying that role.  I don’t think “bathroom attendant” should exist as a role, either, but I’m sure many of them are lovely human beings with friendly demeanors and a good work ethic.

With that out of the way, let me build my case for why the role shouldn’t exist—and what should exist instead.

 Spidermen pointing at each other

Read More

By

Creating a Company-Engineer Blogging Program

(Editorial note: I originally wrote this post over on the Hit Subscribe blog.)

I’ve been on a listening tour of late, talking to product marketers that own their business’s content production, among others.  My aim has been to discover subtle pain points, identify patterns, and possibly develop productized services to help.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard something interesting.  “We have in-house engineers that want to contribute to the blog, but there are some barriers.”

This is exactly the kind of tidbit that I like to dig into, and it exemplifies what I mean about looking for patterns.  Hit Subscribe has been around for six years, and we’ve occasionally, on request, taken on client engineers as if they were in our author pool to help produce content for the company.  And, as a long-time blogger before that, I’ve also observed companies, often app dev consultancies, try to tease a steady content stream out of their engineering groups.

I suppose I could hurriedly try to roll out a productized service and scoop up the opportunity, but that’s not really my style.  Even if we didn’t phase productized service rollouts (alpha, beta, general), I like to run lean.  Why roll out some kind of offering when I could just write about it and see if anyone finds this interesting?

So today, I’d like to explore the idea of using internal engineers to create content.  Assuming you have folks that are interested in creating content (I wouldn’t try to force it), here’s a series of steps I’d recommend to establish a successful program.

Courtesy of Danial Igdery (https://unsplash.com/@ricaros)

Read More

By

Gut Check Time: The “Are You Sure You Want Organic Traffic” Checklist

(Editorial note: I originally wrote this post over on the Hit Subscribe blog.)

Today I’m going to dive into a topic and a situation that comes up constantly among clients and prospects.  It’s the “You say you want organic traffic, but do you really?” conversation.

Historically, I’ve tended to have this conversation live.  But it comes up so often that I’m going to immortalize it here, in written form, and hope that it’s broadly helpful.

The lede here is that only maybe half of the businesses that come to us asking about organic traffic are actually prepared to make it a reality.  Thus if you’re reading this, there’s a coin-flip chance that you’ve said you want it but you’re actually going to beg off when the rubber meets the road.  It’s probably even more of a coin-flip if someone linked you here.

So let’s walk through a list of questions to ask yourself.  You should come away with a sense that, yes, you’re all in, or no, it’s not the distribution channel for you.  Either outcome is good since it points you in the direction of what to do next.

Of Course You Want Organic Traffic

I’d like to start out with a brief clarification.  Of course you want search engine traffic, in a vacuum.  Who wouldn’t?

After all, framed this way, your choice is “Would you like a search engine to deposit people on your site or not?”

Who would say no to that?

Sadly, though, whatever anyone may have told you, that’s the wrong question.  Or at least it’s not a refined enough question.

A better version reads as follows.

Are you prepared to turn a decent portion of your site into a somewhat basic form of Q&A, writ large?

Not quite as clear-cut now, is it?  I can psychically hear the doubt creeping in:

  • But we have original ideas we should talk about!
  • Why would we write about something other people have already written about on the internet?
  • Our users will think we don’t know what we’re talking about if we cover basic subjects.

If you’re having thoughts like these, you’re going to either need to change your mental model of using your blog and your site or else think of a different content distribution paradigm than search traffic.

Read More

By

The Agency Client Bill of Rights

(Editorial note: I originally wrote this post over on the Hit Subscribe blog)

Lately, within the account management function of Hit Subscribe, we’ve been swatting around a philosophical question.

Rather than having disparate sales and account management departments, could a unified customer success group serve both functions for our business?

We currently, tentatively believe that the answer is “yes,” and we’re proceeding accordingly.  But to make this work, we realized that we’d need to provide collateral about how we work with clients prior to when we’ve historically done this: during kickoff and onboarding.

This realization dovetailed nicely with the fact that a lot of the reader/viewer questions I answer in my freelancer Q&A video series are essentially about how to conduct yourself as the owner of a practice.  So I figured I’d write it up, get buy-in from Hit Subscribe’s account managers, and publish the results.

And that’s what this post is.

Scroll with your rights written on it

I’m framing this as a list of rights (with a table of contents for navigability), and I intend our clients and prospects to be the primary audience, with newly hired account managers as a secondary audience.  If any other readers enjoy this or get some use out of it, hey, it’s always nice to put a little collateral good into the world when you can.

What follows is what you can expect from Hit Subscribe—and what we hope you’ll hold us to account on.  We also have a PDF, cheat sheet version you can download, if you like.

  1. The Right to Freedom from Gimmicks
  2. The Right to Minimize Your Risk
  3. The Right to the Best Deal
  4. The Right to Non-Commitment
  5. The Right to Refunds
  6. The Right to Know Prices Up Front
  7. The Right to Labor Transparency
  8. The Right to Unconflicted Advice
  9. The Right to Easily Understood Deliverables
  10. The Right to Vendor Accountability
  11. The Right Not to Play Referee
  12. The Right to Fast, Predictable Responses

Read More

By

My Experience at DevOps World, 2023: Empowering Enterprise Engineers

Editorial note: This post originally appeared on the DevOps World blog, arising from me attending that event as “press.”  I’m going to be at the next one, this Thursday, in Silicon Valley.  If you’re in the area and able to make it, let me know and we can have lunch.)

I have a renewed sense of hope for the condition of the enterprise software developer.

For anyone familiar with me or my career, this is quite a statement. For the rest of you, to whom I’m some internet rando, I won’t bore you with more details about me than are absolutely necessary to understand my take. Suffice it to say that in 2017, I wrote a book whose central thesis was that software developers should initiate an exodus from the enterprise.

Fast forward 6 years to now, when I just spent the day as “press” at DevOps World, listening to a series of talks and interacting with participants and sponsors. Based on what I’ve seen here, my outlook for the future of enterprise developers is far less bleak than it was back then.

I’ll dive into the specifics of why, but the overarching theme is that it seems organizational change in the enterprise has evolved from a long history of something being done to software developers into something being done for them.

At this conference, I heard and saw a lot of innovation aimed at earning developer buy-in, relieving their toil, and sending them back to their various enterprises with pragmatic, actionable ways to improve their situations.

Where It Started: The Endless Agile Transformation

One more biographical detail, and then I’m done. I promise.

In the mid-aughts, starting about 10 years ago and running up until I wrote my book, I earned my living as a management consultant in software, almost exclusively in the enterprise. I specialized in static code analysis for strategic decisions, but often found myself in enterprises, helping them answer the basic question, “why is our agile transformation not working?”

Back then, DevOps was scarcely on the radar for enterprises. Instead, everyone was doing a so-called “agile transformation,” which generally meant having a different, Scrum-flavored series of meetings and changing very little else. These firms were usually in year 6 of a 2 year transformation, and were still working on the “define what agile means” OKR.

The Bad Old Days of Shifting Burdens to the Left

If that sounds cynical, fair enough. But ask anyone in those orgs at the time, and they’ll almost certainly laugh ruefully and call it accurate.

One of the day’s speakers, Thomas Haver, referred to these sorts of institutions as “technology museums,” and I can’t think of a better turn of phrase. When you’re gluing Perl scripts to mainframes as part of some internal line of business initiative, you’re not using the latest and greatest, and you’re probably not knocking out that agile transformation any time soon.

But I think the central problem that engineering groups in these organizations encountered back then was neither the comically old technology nor the glacial pace of organizational change, per se. Rather, developers found themselves buried under the crushing weight of endless todo lists, as their employers heaped an ever-growing mountain of burdens on them.

Organizational Change Done To Developers

I can remember some interesting characters that I met during my consulting travels:

  • The “schema specialist,” who did nothing but review developer-proposed changes to any database, anywhere, and give them notes on what to do instead.
  • The “environment administrator,” who did nothing but review (and usually reject) requests to move JARs from one non-prod environment to another, and make sure the proper digital paperwork had been submitted.
  • The “integration architect,” whose contributions I never managed to figure out, but could reject seemingly anything that created an interface between two dev teams.
  • The “demo guy,” who engineers would have to work with to create power points for their sprint demos (instead of the customary “working software”).

I could go on, but I’m trying to make a point, not supply fodder for xkcd. And my point is that everything these organizations did heaped work on the engineers, including the creation of roles that seem like they should theoretically specialize work away from those same engineers.

To earn a living as an enterprise developer in the age of the agile transformation was to be an endless collector of bureaucratic toil. Write your software, submit compliant schema requests, fill out the JAR movement form in triplicate, please the integration architect, and make sure the power point guy knows that you’ve been delivering enough story points.

By the end of my consulting years, I hit peak cynicism. I thought developers should leave and not tolerate this situation, and I thought enterprises should give up on creating software and delegate that activity to vendors and future acquisition targets.

I’m pleased to see that things look different than when I left consulting 6 years ago.

Moving to Organizational Change For Developers

DevOps World had a common, refreshing theme. Tracy Bannon captured it well during a discussion panel: “The idea of shift left is not ‘dump it on the development team’.”

In opening remarks for the event, CloudBees CEO Anuj Kapur pointed out that a poll of CloudBees customers found that developers only spend 30% of their time, well, developing. The rest is lost in some flavor of dark work or another.

Everyone at the event seemed to agree that this is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs, and that the path forward is one that involves a rethinking of what is asked of developers and what is done for them.

Removal of Toil

The first main event theme that I observed centered around eliminating toil. Rather than schema and integration specialists forcing checklists on the developers, conference participants explored the use of tooling and organizational tactics to eliminate as much toil as possible from the world of enterprise engineers.

In the conference keynote, “Go Big, Say Yes,” CloudBees announced product changes with a direct impact. They made CloudBeesCI highly available and highly scalable, meaning that organizations have immediate relief from problems such as bottlenecked jobs, needless time waiting for workspace downloads, and infrastructure-related build failures. All of this rolls up to a very simple value proposition: developers using their time instead of killing it, waiting for infrastructure.

When the engineers present saw the new Pipeline Explorer feature demonstrated, they burst into spontaneous applause, even though there was no break in the presentation. And the reason is obvious: they could see an end to loading some gigantic text file into an IDE so that they could search awkwardly for the reason a build bombed out. Pipeline Explorer lets them get there immediately, without the pain.

This idea wasn’t limited, either, to product announcements or even the talks. I watched the folks at Gradle, one of the sponsors, demonstrate a way to identify and troubleshoot flaky unit tests and the ability to use machine learning to prioritize executed tests based on changes to the codebase.

And Redgate did a demo of an offering that allowed source controlling database schema changes and keeping them consistent, in sync, and drift-free across environments. And all of this without a “schema specialist” in sight to scold them – just engineers safely changing the schema as needed.

Developer Buy-In

The engineer enablement theme wasn’t limited to tooling, either. One of the main takeaways that a recovering management consultant like myself couldn’t help but notice was the theme of getting buy-in to broader goals from the folks tasked with delivering them.

For instance, Katie Norton explained the concept of a software bill of materials (SBOM) and the broader concept of a software supply chain. Rather than a checklist of context-free “best practices,” this talk, aimed at an engineering audience, used practical analogies and diagrams to illustrate the challenges around and the gravity of managing the risk presented by using open source components.

This seems a lot better to me than how this risk was typically managed 10 years ago in enterprises: “don’t use open source.”

There was a talk that explained the idea of attestation and why it matters, encouraging teams to move compliance from a rote series of tasks to an objective, auditable and, most importantly, automated set of data. The mission was to avoid what presenter John Willis referred to as “governance theater,” wherein engineers would rename incidents to “cases” because of the reduced scrutiny that invited, or simply upload the same screenshot of a test run for 2 years to demonstrate that they had achieved code coverage.

Instead of tsk-tsking, this deceit was recounted with understanding. Of course teams did this when they were trying to ship features on time – it was the only way to get their work done. The developers here don’t need to change; the organization does.

Practical, Actionable Advice

Perhaps the most powerful motif of the event was that it distilled advanced practices and industry insights into easily actionable takeaways for participants.

For instance, speaker Julia Furst talked about the impact of generative AI on DevOps practices and suggested a series of tools that attendees could go and investigate. Ali Ravji and Mihir Vora from Capital One distilled hard-won experience building scalable CI/CD pipelines into concrete suggestions: focus on reusability, parallelization, and failure planning.

And, how’s this for practical and actionable? “Contribute to open source and adopt a plugin.”

Mark Waite, Senior Engineering Manager at CloudBees gave a really cool talk about how contributing to open source goes well beyond putting collateral good into the world and is actually good business. He relayed his experience building a CI solution for his XP team back in 2003, before Jenkins existed, and how that required a dedicated team member to maintain.

A much better solution, had it existed, would have been to contribute to Jenkins and use it. So he encouraged attendees to go contribute to open source to improve it, fix defects, and patch vulnerabilities that can help their organizations upstream, before things become expensive.

The Joy of Being Less Cynical

While I certainly enjoy a good, cathartic rant from time to time, it’s not exactly fun being cynical. Usually, it’s a sign that you need to take a vacation or start a different job.

So it was nice to circle back to the world of enterprise software development, after years away from it, and find it far more promising than I remember. It was nice to see an enterprise less focused on crushing engineers under the weight of endless compliance tasks and more focused on helping them ease that burden.

If schema specialists and build administrators must exist, at least they can do so in supporting roles and with powerful tools, instead of the promise of toil for their colleagues. DevOps World was a fun event, sure, but it was also a philosophical palette cleanser for me.

Incidentally, the next stop on the tour is in Silicon Valley October 18th and 19th, and I’m planning to attend that event as well. If you’re in the neighborhood and so inclined, grab yourself a pass and we can have lunch or a beer at the happy hour.