Like many fans of the web, I've been a great admirer of Robert Scoble, noted technology blogger and former Microsoftee, since I first saw his work (probably around 2004). However, after watching this bizarre video on how Mahalo, Facebook & Techmeme are going to beat Google in search, I think I'll have a tough time respecting his opinions on future topics.
Let me get this straight for the record - I have no problem with Robert attacking SEO - he's certainly welcome to do so, and there have been plenty of intelligent attacks on the practice and on the negative impacts it often has on search results (most notable among these for me is my fiancee, who helps remind me of the weaknesses of this job that I love). What really bothers me is his seemingly complete lack of understanding of the search market, the search engine user or how to effectively argue his position. I went into the video expecting quite a bit of great discussion on the topic and came away incredibly disappointed. I think Robert actually damages Mahalo's credibility by attempting to defend them in this video.
Let's walk through the various points he makes and I'll attempt to show you where my thoughts (and, in my opinion, reality) diverged from what Robert had to say. I've done my best to grab the audio sound bytes as accurately as possible, but I won't claim to have it perfect, and I am excerpting here.
...the social graph system (which he uses to refer to the social technologies behind sites like Mahalo, Techmeme and Facebook) is going to upend Google in about 4 years.
I'm not precisely sure why this is Robert's deadline, but he seems pretty firm about sticking to it later in the video, so he must have a reason for this belief.
Do a search on Google for HDTV and do a search on Mahalo for HDTV.
OK. I've done 'em both. Here you go - side by side:
My personal opinion - Mahalo has more links, and they're trying to guess at what I mean when I ask for HDTV by disambiguating and giving me multiple types of results for other related queries. At Google, I get the descriptions and the URLs, which is really nice, because at Mahalo, I don't know necessarily where I'm going if I click those links and there's not much information attached to them except their 2-3 word titles. However, I concede the point that to a power user like Robert, maybe the Mahalo results are "better."
Why do we care about Alfred Poor and what he thinks?
I have to say that I'm kinda pissed at Robert for making fun of Alfred Poor and acting as though no one should care what he thinks about HDTVs. I don't personally know Mr. Poor, and after visiting his site, I can say that I'm actually not a huge fan, although he does have some pretty good information there. However, just seeing Robert bash him with that smirky grin and knowing that he never even bothered to visit the site to see if it was a good result is incredibly irksome.
All of them mention HDTV in their title tags, their H1 tags, their P tags and have a lot of inbound links
Robert's point is that this is a bad thing - websites and page shouldn't have to (in his mind) label their pages properly from a semantic point of view just to be ranked well at the search engines. If the pages are relevant and high quality, the engine should list them regardless of keyword usage or links.
What don't you see? You don't see HDTV manufacturers.
All I can really say here is - if you wanted manufacturers, why didn't you tell Google (and Mahalo) that, instead of doing the broad search for "HDTV?" This whole time you've been playing the role of a power user who doesn't need Google to hold your hand or give you extra information, but now when Mahalo will do it for you, it's suddenly a good thing. If your spidey senses aren't tingling just yet, wait.
The first thing you need to know is the manufacturers.
Why isn't the first thing you need to know retailers? Or about the technology? Or what the picture looks like in comparison with regular TVs? Or even what the heck HDTV stands for? I'm not sure why Robert thinks that he's the arbiter for what everyone in the world searching for HDTVs intended with that query.
On the Google page there's no manufacturers.
Umm... The 1st, 3rd and 4th results at Google all show fairly comprehensive lists of manufacturers. And, besides that, I'm still kind of stuck on why you didn't search for "list of hdtv manufacturers" if that was your goal.
The noise level on the Google page has gotten wacky, and I've seen this over and over and over again.
Really? I see a lot of signal on the Google page. In fact, I'd say that categorically, the only results that have any "noise" to them in relation to the general query, HDTV, are the 2nd result - HDTV.net (which is kind of junky) and the 8th result, HDTVprofessor, which we mentioned above.
On the search for New York Hotels, you don't find any New York Hotels; you have to click on the local thing, but it's out of order and most people don't know to click on those links. Right? This is Google's problem; they have 118 services and we don't know what they are.
Huh? You've completely lost me. I'm looking at the New York Hotels page results and I see a lot of New York Hotels. And if you're missing the local results, you must have some serious eye problems; just look:
That big map up top - yeah, that's the local results. If you can't see it, or you assume that no one knows to use it, I think you should spend some time with the folks who do eye-tracking and clickthrough heatmaps. They'll probably tell you that those maps work pretty well for most users. And, even if you're not happy with the map, or don't like the ordering of the local results, just click any of the listings on the page! They all take you to really good pages with lists of New York hotels. I'm really struggling with your disdain for these search results.
How many people use Google Mail? Not many, not out of the world - Yahoo! mail still has a lot more users and Hotmail still has a lot more users.
You've lost me here. If I understand your logic, you're trying to say that Google has done a poor job in search because it hasn't gotten users to adopt Picasa and Gmail as widely as other services, right? And this somehow relates to how Mahalo is going to beat them? Very perplexing...
I go to Mahalo... and I see the top 7, I see HDTV information & reviews, I see HDTV manufacturers and HDTV retailers. Wow! That's much better. Because, first of all, I can skip all that stuff and go right to the manufacturers and see all the manufacturers and, actually, the list is really incomplete right now
Alright - I won't argue that you seem to like the Mahalo search results page a lot more. I don't doubt that for some users it might actually be a better experience. But, if I've learned anything in my years of watching people search, it's that people on the web are really happy with their blue links and their descriptions and their green URLs and when you change that, even a little, they start searching for their favorite term - Google.
But if you do a search at Google for HDTV manufacturers, this (the Mahalo) list has no noise. No SEO! God damn it! No SEO! It's great. No noise. OK?
OK, I get it - you despise SEO. You hate it with such a passion that its practically oozing out of your pores. This point in the video is the most animated and excited you'll see Robert on the whole tape. He's psyched to be calling out SEO - he's swearing and pointing and laughing in an exceptionally condescending way. Let me say again - I've got no problem with this. If Robert thinks that SEO is what's wrong with Google, he's certainly entitled to that opinion. Thus far, I think he's done a miserable job of pleading that case, but let's stay with it and see if it gets better.
And if you want to get your Mitsubishis on this page you probably can because a human being is really good at saying 'Mitsubishi, yeah, I've heard of them, they make HDTVs, they deserve to be on this page. And they're not there yet, but I'm sure the crew will work on that.
Robert's certainly right about the crew "fixing it up," as, by the time I took the screenshot, the Mahalonians (?) had patched it up. However, I've got to call Robert out for choosing an example page that wasn't even high quality to begin with - what's up with that? If he wanted to make a strong argument about Mahalo's ability to have better results, couldn't he have at least put in some foresight and chosen a page that was categorically excellent? I know if I were making the video, I would have put in a little extra effort, especially knowing that since I'm Robert Scoble, those damn rat bastard bloggers in the SEO world would try to pick me apart.
This is a beautiful single page and you don't need to search again. At Google I would have to search again. I would need to search for HDTV manufacturers and then if that page didn't work, which it doesn't, I would have to make a manual lift... and I would have to search for HDTV Mitsubishi, HDTV Sony, HDTV Panasonic just to get around the noise on Google. I don't have that problem on Mahalo.
I'm not really sure why Robert would have to make his "manual lift" since the top results for "hdtv manufacturers" at Google will take him to perfectly good pages that list and link to all the major manufacturers (quite a few more, actually, than what you see on the current Mahalo page).
"Remember, I'm giving these guys 4 years to kick Google's ass."
I don't know about you, but at this point, I'm questioning the scalability of the Mahalo model. I'm not sure why Robert hasn't grasped that yet, particularly when you look at data that says that 25% of Google's queries in a year are completely unique and have never been seen before. If I were a Mahaloner, I'd be getting a little scared by the potential workload of building good pages for 1.75 billion queries every month. I guess if Mahalo had 100,000 employees and each one could build 1000 quality pages each day, they'd hit almost 10% of those searches...
Now why can't Google change to be more like Mahalo? Simple. The algorithms that Google has chosen are stuck in cement. Changing a company the size of Google is gonna prove impossible. This is why Microsoft could not compete with Google. They did not understand how to change fast enough to compete with Google, and Google is gonna have the same problem with Mahalo and with Techmeme and with Facebook.
Google's algorithms are stuck in cement? Really? This is where I start to really lose faith in a man I've idolized for years. Honestly, it makes me think that he doesn't know much at all about this industry that he's claiming will change radically in 4 years.
Google does not understand social behaviors... They have not demonstrated any proficiency at doing so. They even own Orkut and they are not using it in their search. Why is that? Because they can't.
I think they deserve at least a little credit for using search data so incredibly well - the data mining from queries has made things like QDF (Query Deserves Freshness) and temporal link data and personalized search possible and those are all pretty impressive technologies. If you ask me, I'd say that Google may not have a lot of participation in the social media sphere of the web (with the notable exception of YouTube), but they certainly understand search behavior better than anyone out there. As to the question of why Orkut data isn't in the SERPs... I'm really not sure why Robert wants them to use - maybe if you do a search for a friend, you'll see their Orkut profile? Or if lots of users on Orkut link to Scobleizer, he'll rank better (oh wait, that's probably true).
The fact is that if they changed their algorithms and how they work there would be such an outcry from businesses and from SEOs and people who care about search that Google would prove to be ineffectual against that. They would have to roll back and cut out some of the new social features because they would put too much change into a system too quickly and they would mess up what we believe about Google.
If there was one moment in the video where I decided that I simply had to write a post exposing the lunacy of Robert's statements, this was it. The idea that Google can't change its algorithms and rankings because businesses and SEOs would complain is the height of shallow thinking and displays a remarkable lack of historical perspective. If you've been in the SEO world or relied on Google traffic for your business over the last 4 years, you've seen more ups and downs and changes in algorithms than ears of corn in Iowa. Google pushes out changes to the ranking system on a near consistent basis. We monitor thousands of search phrases at SEOmoz regularly and see almost daily flux based on the data that Google gathers, computes and pushes out.
I can't believe that Robert truly thinks that if Google saw a way to improve its users' search experience for the better, they wouldn't leap at the chance. Can this really be a guy who understands the world of search?
Google - in our heads we have learned what it does. We learn what it does when we search on it. We like it, it works fast, it's reliable, it's consistent, it also has a lot of noise.
I'm in total agreement with him once again, but I fail to see why he'd rather put bets on Mahalo to build billions of great, hand-ordered search results, then look at Google honestly and see the massive amount of improvement and growth they make in search technology every day.
Mahalo & Facebook & Techmeme can come in and write their own rules.
Yes, and so can Google. If the new rules they write make their users happier and make them flock over from MSN/Live and Yahoo! and Ask, and click on results and ads and conduct more and more searches, why, exactly, should we expect their downfall by 2011?
The video goes on for considerably longer and Robert actually makes some interesting, though, in my opinion, questionable points about how the technologies of Facebook, Techmeme and Mahalo can integrate and produce exciting search results. I wish I had time to go through the entire piece, but it's nearly 3am and I've got some morning calls tomorrow. Maybe some others can take a stab an unraveling the rest of Robert's logic.
While the man's no idiot, I have to say that after watching him speak on a topic I actually know quite a bit about, I'm less than impressed, and for me, at least, it calls into question the depth of understanding and quality of his previous and future works. Hopefully, he'll prove me wrong with a brilliant look at the search market in the next few months, and I can forget all about this episode. After all, everyone makes mistakes, right?
p.s. Did you note how he said on his blog that the post wouldn't show up in Techmeme because he was sure he had reverse engineered their algo, yet there it is....
p.p.s. If you want to revel in the absolute numbskullery of Robert's post even more, read Danny's take on it:
Want to be like Robert -- and Jason Calacanis -- and keep equating SEO with spam? Then fuck off.
Yep, that's right, Danny dropped the f-bomb. I think I hear angels singing in the distance...
Isn't Mahalo what DMOZ.org was suppose to turn into?
I still don't get why the world needs Mahalo. Even with the glowing endorcement from Robert, the site is pretty lame. 4 years till it's bankrupt or sold out to Ask.com is a more likely future prediction.
Jason better hope Mahalo doesnt go the way of DMOZ... that's like a 4 letter word to me. Oh, wait, it IS a 4 letter word.
I think I've said it here before, but it bears repeating, any time people talk about something that you yourself know a lot about you very rarely come out impressed on the other side. Some pople just like to talk a lot about anything and everything.
As for Mahalo I really find it to be very much like a glorified (without much glory) Yahoo! Directory. I'm sure Yahoo could double their value if they did something similar.. Web 2.0 and all that cr*p ;)
To get the response I want, I'll answer my own comment..
Just checked out this https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6965238.stm story on the BBC News site, on the right hand side of the page.. basically Mahalo.
RE:" Some pople just like to talk a lot about anything and everything." I couldn't agree more.
I'm certain many of us on here have done SEO on Web 2.0 sites, Social Search and Social Networtking sites (including myself) ... and I'd be willing to bet money that once Facebook moves from behind the walled garden that it will hire some SEOs...
Scoble lost me as a reader after this rediculus comment last year: "Jay Z is a rapper. But he breaks all the stereotypes. He's astute. Personable. And is interesting to listen to." Like that was supposed to be a compliment. That's like the Chris Rock joke about when Colin Powell ran for president and people said “oh he speaks so well, he is so well spoken, yes he speaks very well”. That’s not a compliment. Scoble knows about as much about SEO as he does about Hip-Hop
And the huge generalizations they throw out are infuriating ... Scoble's comment about rappers (by the way, I'd be tempted to challenge him to name more than 3 rap artists. I doubt he'd be able to) reminds me of people who respond to "What kind of music do you listen to?" with the answer "Anything but rap and country."
My response is usually, "Really? So you love Celine Dion and hate Johnny Cash? Wow."
I agree with Natasha and Rand on the posting. While I've had the opportunity to meet Scoble in person and even had dinner with the guy, I think he and I differ in that he's way more optimistic geek technophile than I am.
Scoble comes from a more "geek" perspective, which is evident when he shares his thoughts on Twitter as a powerful social force - something I'll have to disagree on despite my love for Twitter, Dodgeball and Pownce. I'm a Silicone Valley geek, who assumes no one else would ever use such services while still enjoying them.
But Rand, I'm not sure if its apporpriate to make such comments on your corporate website? I feel like these kinda of posts is best suited for pundits and personal blogs, something I wouldnt associate SEOMoz with.
Daniel - I actually really like mixing the personal and the business side of things on SEOmoz. I think it brings more of a community feel and less of a "corporate" zombie attitude to the blog and that's something we really like to cultivate :)
"Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool..." sure rings true right about now.
I found the usability in actually trying to get to see Part II deplorable. I was going around in circles since the Scoble/Seagate system seemed to want me to see Part III. However I guess that's irrelevant.
When I got to it, I was completely underwhelmed as you were, Rand. I presume this is a paid info-mercial. Mahalo is a flawed concept. You can't just add dollars on to DMOZ and expect it to work. Only hyper-marketing is keeping it in the public eye.
I'm not sure how much in the public eye it is, BWelford -- Mahalo wasn't even in the Top 52 most-used search engines, according to a presentation given by Hitwise's Bill Tancer at SES. I think it's in the SEO Community's eye, but I'd bet that 99% of the general public hasn't even heard of it. :)
p.p.s. If you want to revel in the absolute numbskullery of Robert's post even more, read Danny's take on it:
Yep, that's right, Danny dropped the f-bomb. I think I hear angels singing in the distance...
To Danny's quote I can only add one word...asshat!
Jumping all over SEO's seems to be the "in thing" right now. Maybe I should jump on that bandwagon too... NOT! (yes I just brought back the NOT joke!)
DB
Scoble's just asking for it. Debate aside, he's fallen far from where he was when he was at MSFT. Today, he's just annoying, and I think this post is more an attack hook than a well-researched opinion. He's doing what Jason Calacanis did a few months back: attack SEO and get attention.
I hope Valleywag smacks him silly today though. He usually takes the bait and makes a bigger fool of himself.
So THAT's what Philip Seymour Hoffman has been up to since Mission Impossible III. I've been wondering what happened to him.
"I'm Robert Scoble, those damn rat bastard bloggers in the SEO world would try to pick me apart." Maybe that should read: "I'm Robert Scoble, when I bash SEO those damn rat bastard bloggers in the SEO world will link to my video my pageviews will go through the roof." :)
I've been a big fan of Scoble as well, if only for showing how corporate blogging can work. But after buying Naked Conversations I found that I couldn't bear his berathless tone, which reminded me of a teenager writing about their favourite new band, and had to put it down. I get the feeling he may leap before he looks so to speak....
For me, the problems of Mahalo are:
1) There's no need for the mass of people to switch their favourite search engine if it doesn't seriously screw up. And screwing up in the eyes of a regular user, not in the eyes of an angry spammer.
2) They can't scale handpicked results.
3) If surprisingly Mahalo really got the better idea of how search should work, Google would notice it and catch up quickly.
4) Corruption. If Mahalo really get's big, the doors to editors being offered money are opened. Did anybody read shoemoneys recent post about a DMOZ editor asking for 5.000$ or he would remove his entry from DMOZ? End of story: shoe didn't pay and his site got removed.
All in all, Mahalo for me is like all those boybands which get hyped for a year, and after that nobody remembers.
I thought Truman Capote was dead? He seems alive and well in the video?
I don't get the big deal with Mahalo getting the top 20k results. For one, those are going to change regularly. Two - I'm too lazy to figure out if what I'm looking for MAY be in Mahalo. I KNOW it's in Google, and that's where I'll go.
I see that as the fundamental flaw in that system (that, and that it's essentially just a glorified directory, and that about.com has already done it).
Mahalo got funding off of the Calcanis name (who you can bet is focusing on selling the thing) and the ranting of guys like Scoble.
That raises some interesting questions that hadn't occurred to me before:
i agree... most qualified search leads are not broad terms.
Okay ... here goes:
What the heck is Mahalo? I have never heard of that. And I'm more informed that the average person. Also, I don't know what Techmeme is, nor how it could give me search results. And, interestingly enough, I have absolutely no inclination to look on either of those sites. I'm perfectly happy using the search engines I have now. I'm just not really sure what could happen in four years to change my mind. It seems like the problems Scoble lists are all presently happening - and still people aren't using anything besides Google or Yahoo to search. So perhaps us neophytes and Luddites are okay with things just as they are.
And one last thing: this poor man really needs to learn the basics of forming an argument, because he contradicts himself left and right. I don't have any idea of what he's talking about half the time, but here were two glaring problems with his logic that I decided to pick on (I've simplified them, obviously, but I think I got the gist of it):
1.) Google's algorithm is inflexible. This is bad. Microsoft is a big company, and could not change fast enough to keep up. But small companies are dynamic, and can compete.
What the heck? I don't get it. If companies need to change rapidly to keep up, doesn't that mean that Google is dynamic? Conversely, if Google is that static and inflexible, wouldn't it be easy to defeat them, since they're one big, lumbering dinosaur?
2.) Google doesn't understand social behaviors. Also, they don't change their algorithm because they don't want to incite backlash from the community.
Um ... doesn't that sort of imply that they understand social behaviors, if they are tweaking their actions to not piss people off? (a moot point, since what Rand said is true - Google does not seem to be trying to kowtow to SEOs. Matt Cutts' presentation about making paid links no-follow makes that pretty clear).
Good to know that even from an outsider perspective, Robert's arguments make him look foolish. I'm glad to hear that he won't be swaying the masses with those videos.
It is unfortunate to watch an intelligent person talk about something that they haven't really studied. Rand you love your job and I am sure have a better understanding than Robert, but that doesn't mean he can't still give you insight into things that you don't spend as much time learning about.
While Scoble makes some interesting points he is making a very personalized argument. When he makes a comment like "I don't see HDTV manufactures" he is making an assumption that people are looking at specs. If they are actually buying TVs manufacturer's sites often don't provide access to purchase.
He is arguing that search engines should work the way that serves him best. He shouldn't complain about Google he should just stop using it.
Look on the brightside Rand now you know that if Scoble has "Search" in the title you probably don't need to pay much attention.
Four years from now might as well be four hundred years in the search world. Nobody can accurately predict what will happen next week, much less 4 years from now. Of course you should still plan for the future, but as SEMs a big part of that plan should be staying flexible and adaptive to whatever the market throws at us.
The one thing that will remain intact is the financial motivation for people to attempt to influence search engine results. It doesn't matter what search engine is on top 4 years from now. Smart people (and some not so smart people) are going to try to rig the results to line their pockets and their clients' pockets. Search will always be a cat and mouse game, and to quote The Carpenters, "we've only just begun."
Robert Scoble and Jason Calacanis spoke for quite awhile in the hallway during Gnomedex. They were having quite the lively conversation and it appeared that they enjoyed each others' company.
As a side note, during Calacanis's Gnomedex presentation I watched the text chat accompanying the live stream. It was quite acerbic, which I thought was a sad.
I do not think that Mahalo will supplant Google or dynamic search. That does not mean it cannot coexist? I think it can. Obviously Google thought similarly when it chose to add DMOZ Open Directory Project as the source for the Google Directory.
Of course ODP, today, is a joke and thus the source for much of the derision towards Calacanis. Every time I look at DMOZ, or see a news item about the ODP, I breath a sad little sigh and ask myself what would have happened had it had strong, insightful leadership? I imagine Calacanis asked himself the same question, then decided to act on it.
Some day, after Mahalo's settles into a more established existence and the rhetoric subsides, Google and Mahalo may even find that they are good for each other and Google will replace ODP with Mahalo as the source of its static directory.
Who know what the future holds?
ODP died right around the time AOL bought netscape, well about a year afterwards..
One thing I quite don't get is SEOs obsession with Mahalo. I think that if Mahalo's model is sucessfull - and forces big players to envolve towards that directio it will make practiciioners life a lot more difficult and can understand their apprehension. But it should be blatantly obvious that Calacanis first and Sclobe now are exceptional baiters that have found on SEOs echo for their voices. Indeed, as Rich Skrenta puts it Mahalo is going to live or die by SEO:
Do read the comments and notice Jason's careful reply, as if wasn't clear enough. He is a very smart marketeer yes, he is.
I just don't think Mahalo can be scalable going forward. Their are always new hot topics and trends coming online everyday. People search for these before websites even have a chance to optimize for them. The websites that usually pick up on these search results are forums that are human powered and discuss the new topics. Mahalo wont being able to keep up.
Note to Scoble... SEOs have already "tainted" Mahalo. Sure there's a screening process, but if you have a somewhat relevant site and ask with a smile it's easy to get on multiple searches. And, at that point, what makes it any different from Google? SEOs fight for both large and small, quality and craptacular sites. Please don't lump us all in the same boat. Mmkay. Thanks
Rand - Very valid points! Really appreciated the comments about him not searching Google for what he actually wanted. That was killing me while watching the video.
The irony about Mahalo is, in my mind, that by constantly attacking SEO, Jason and his proponents are only going to attract the worst of the black-hat crowd. Mahalo is going to eventually be successfully attacked by people with bad intentions who have something to prove. At the same time, Mahalo won't benefit from well-intentioned SEOs, the army of people who work to make sites more usable for searchers and help end-users find what they need more quickly and effectively.
On the Facebook side, the idea that it and other social networking sites are somehow spam-free borders on total lunacy. I have no idea how that got thrown into the mix.
Like every industry, we will always have people that make rediculous statements. Whether they believe them or just use them for spin is another story.
I guess I am most shocked that Danny dropped an F-bomb on SEL. Sheesh...
- OldSchool
Hi Rand. Great points all. ...but the only thing I could think of when watching the video (and I watched it before I knew your opinion about it) was that even though I'd never heard or watched (only read) Mr. Scoble before today... I couldn't help but wonder if he was a little... tipsy? I know how over-exuberant he tends to get about whatever he talks about... but ... well I couldn't help but thinking...
Wow, he really got everyone whipped up about all of this. I think in that respect his videos were a big success.
I think it's totally awesome to have people imagining how Google could have some real competition in the future. Do we want to live in a world where information retrieval has only one master? Though I don't agree that Facebook + Mahalo is that winning combination. It's fun to talk about the possibility. And he does have some credibility at the core of his argument (which I think a lot of people are over looking because they hear Mahalo is great + SEO is evil and they go into defense mode). The real meat of his argument is that social networks can be leveraged to assign trust to things, including search results.
Yes he gets many of the details wrong, and he kinda goes overboard in his presentation. But haven't we all been excited by making a realization before and tried to explain it to a friend only to have them say WTF?
I'm not a Scoble fan boy or anything, but you gotta give him some credit for getting excited and sharing that with everyone. It's totally redicolous to say this was some sort of PR / value increasing publicity stunt. If you think that you obviously haven't read his blog much. He's excitable and doesn't hestitate to share his ideas even if they are half baked.
Rand, obviously you're not the only one that questions Scoble's opinion (see above!).
But you gotta admit that he's great for (at least) two things:
1) Identifying hot trends and news. I use his link blog and see lots of major blog post trends 12-36 hours before they hit any other site, and other post trends that should hit other sites, but never do. This is the only reason I have interesting things to say at parties! (or maybe people just humor me...)
2) Agitating healthy debate. Maybe he really says to himself, "Wow that Mahalo thing is never gonna work! But boy are they good for stirring up the internet and making people think. I better blog about them and get some traffic for my sponsor!" (I love his sponsorship model by the way)
I'm glad that you are here to foster even more healthy debate!
And by the way, you Mozzers are so good at healthy debate. No flames, well founded arguments, and good citation of sources.
Even though there have been some pretty impressive tech companies overthrowing competitors like Google's Adwords over Overture, I can't imagine Mahalo doing the same to Google. The brand power, the Wall Street love (at least for now), the overwhelming lead in search that just keeps growing and the overwhelming technology and employees should prove too much. If Yahoo and Microsoft with their gobs of money and brain power can't get anywhere close to Google, what chance does Mahalo have?
I know he says that Google doesn't include Orkut in their results, and they shouldn't at least in the US. Since it's the second most popular social network globally, they can include it in Brazil, India and other countries where it leads or could lead in the social market.
I would say that the biggest difference between Google and Mahalo is that while Google determines, through their hundreds of factors, what people want, Mahalo can only guess
Besides his inaccurate statements you point out, Rand, I have no faith in his prediction on Mahalo gaining dominance, simply because nobody outside the digerati even knows Mahalo exists. If the recent $$$ in advertising spent by Interactive/IAC to promote Ask.com's snappy search interface have not convinced millions to switch from Google - and stats show no evidence of this - how then is Mahalo going to dethrone Google?
As we know from Beta vs VHS (and Mac vs Windows), offering a better product means little in the face of brand recognition/acceptance and other market dynamics. And, stats show Google *gaining* - not losing - search-market share in recent months.
What awesome event could be the catalyst that prompts hundreds of millions of people worldwide to slap their foreheads and exclaim, "I should be using MAHALO, not Google!" Short of proof that Google is the sole cause of global warming *and* high oil prices, I can't think of one.
My US$0.02.
I guess this is why Mahalo says their goal is, "...to hand-write the top 20,000 search terms." They know that they can't be an answer to the long tail of search, but are hoping they can capture a large part of the top... Still, with the volume involved in search--1MM+ PPC campaigns are good examples--it seems like Mahalo is always going to be coming up short.
I think you are right about the scalability issue. For a general search like HDTV, the Mahalo results seem to be better. But how can they consistently produce these results for searches that cannot be easily categorized?
For example, someone I know was recently diagnosed with Sarcoidosis. I got the email, did a Google search and within minutes found out what it was, how to treat it, and where to research it even more by doing a Google search (all with a baby in the other hand). I just tried the same serach on Mahalo...no results from them, they had to give me the Google results.
The reason people use Google is because it works consistently for them. They know where to go to find answers. The may have to refine a search every once and awhile, but in the end, they always find what they want. If I only had Mahalo, I wouldn't even be able to refine my search in the example above, because if they couldn't find the results for the root of my search, how could I search any refinement of it? As you mention, people think of new things to search for every day and without MASSIVE human intervention (and cost) the Mahalo results will never compare to the almost fully automated and mostly relevant results at Google.
Mahalo wouldn't stand a chance if it weren't for Google's search engine. Where do the Mahalo editors get their content? Where?
"Microsoft Misfit Mangles Marketing Mission, Malapropos. Crazy Cretin Concocts Curious Construct."
"I WANT THAT ON THE BACK PAGE, BY 5! NO, MAKE IT 4! MAKE IT THE FRONT PAGE! WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? GO! GO!"
I've got to say "as an SEO myself" I'm fascinated with facebook. At the end of the day, it's going to be tricky to predict the future in the fast moving widget/social space.
10 years ago, who would have known that Google would become the giant that it has.. who would have predicted that Wikipedia would have been so successful...
All I can say, is that things change...
That's why we don't read newsgroups any more... right?
Where will Facebook/f8 and the social graph be in 10 years? I don't know but I do know that it's growing at an explosive rate and doesn't seem to be seeing any saturation effects.
I can see an analogy between Pagerank and The Social Graph, how this will be harnessed will be down the the imagination of the thousands of developers currently looking at f8 as a viable/operationally robust platform.
Besides the inherent gaming of the system and corruptability of the Mahalo model, it's the scalability limitations that make it just another flash in the pan to me.
Rand says:
and that pretty much sums it up for me...
Does anybody know any Mahalo editors, or "guides"? Who are they? What are their editorial policies? The FAQ seems a little vague. Even though anybody can write a results page, how selective are they? What is the turnaround time for approval and payment? Seems like a lot of work for $10.
You know, just after posting this I remembered that South Korea's most popular search engine isn't Google, but the peer-to-peer Naver... I think this is the vein that Robert was trying to expound on, but he sure didn't do well with it.
NYT article on Naver:https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/technology/05online.html?ex=1341374400&en=365b1973c6eebc9c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Business Week:https://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_05/b3969057.htm
I started realizing this video was whack when he said that Facebook was for "advanced people," as though he's some sort of genius elitist for having an account there. I seem to notice a lot of not very advanced people who have accounts.
Facebook and search???? You mean, perhaps all the non-personalized expensive ads that make their way into the news feeds will be aggregated into some sort of ad center we can search? Or the movies that people like and type the name of incorrectly will link to imdb? I also don't understand why he thinks that Google can't and won't change and adapt. They probably have a huge building at the Googleplex called "The Change and Adapt Building." I didn't know much about Robert before watching this video, and I'm sort of glad.
Rand,
Did you trigger a track-back from his blog post, because I don't see anything. Maybe he has to approve it and did not get around it yet.
We will see if it shows up later today. If you did not ping him, do it. I would like to see, if he lets the track-back on his blog to show people your response to his post.
If he doesn't, then I would be even more disappointed and not make him better than David Pasternack who did not accept any negative comments when he attacked SEO earlier this year. I hope Stroble considers this comparison to be an insult and will prove me wrong :)
I think he approves all of his comments manually but fear not, he's not afraid of controversy and would not reject the trackback if it does appear on his blog. He's damn good at PR and can make his way around big waves of criticism.
You raised some very good points and in particular I agree with the scalability issue.
There was a post on "thealarmclock" back in May talking about the least scalable businesses where they stated: "But Mahalo, the new search engine launched with much fanfare at the D event today is One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest Meets The Shining crazy."
I indeed like that one. :-)
But reading about the notable investors and the many millions that have been pumped into the concept, I agree with BWelford...this must be pure marketing. At least otherwise the statements in the video don't make any sense to me.But then Calacanis might seem admirable for Robert. Talking big in trying to conquer Google spiced up with some anti-SEO seasonings might appeal to him.
He calls Mahalo a "SEO-resistant technology" ...appears pretty WIT-resistant to me.
The problem with Mahalo is that they only link to Amazon, and Other Big Name sites. Alot of the time that is not best result. What if I had a site that sold HDTV's for cheaper than everyone, with wonderful service and free shipping. Mahalo would not link to me but I probably would be on the top ten in Google. Nobody is looking for HDTV Manufacturers when they look up "HDTV". Most people are looking for retailers, information or reviews.
You just nailed one of the pitfalls of hand-picked results. What happens when someone offers Mahalo a few thousand bucks (or a few hundred-thousand) for slightly better placement or a featured position? They may say "no" to the most blatant commercializing, but eventually dollars will begin to talk. At that point, what's worse: an engine where people game the system by manipulating algorithms, or an engine where people game the system by manipulating salespeople and editors?
Funny, I've successfully suggested several "thin affiliate" affiliate sites to Maholo, which I'd have to buy a bunch of darn expensive links for Google to notice!
Most of his points are just bull, but at the same time I think he does have a minor point, although I don't think Malhalo (what ever the hell that is) will take over the world, it does give the search results in nicely placed categories (which will soon enough get descriptions no doubt).
If for example I was a normal Mr. Joe Soap who wasn't up with the terminology or my English wasn't that great (probably half the population) and I search Google from "HDTV makers", I don't get one manufacture. Where with Malhalo I can choose what category I can browse be it reviews, information or manufactures, therefore I know every time I go to Malhalo I only need to know the topic (HDTV) not the "correct" Google search term "HDTV manufactures".
P.S please don't hurt me for backing this loony up haha :)
You're entirely right. BTW, I've been reading Alfred Poor's writings since his days at PC Mag in the late 1990s (maybe he started earlier?) Anyway, he always came across as professional and fair and lucid. That's more than I expect from a smarmy fat guy, preening for the camera in an interminably boring video.
"Mahalo to build billions of great, hand-ordered search results"
You raise some excellent points, but I think you undermine your case by setting up a straw man for Mahalo. They are explicitly targetting the top 10-25K (or whatever) search terms. If you think that business will fail, tell us why -- but don't pretend they are reaching for the impossible.
I agree with much of what is written here, but unfortunately I see this whole thing as being one big pile of link-bait. How often does SEOmoz write stuff just for the link love? I mean, come on, isn't that like rule#1 over here? Scoble has everyone talking and a lot of people linking. Sounds like he used a trick from SEOmoz.
I find it shocking that people are actually taking this seriously: the statements made by Scoble are obviously melodramatic. There are some legit points there, but not nearly enough to support such wild claims. In my opinion this shows us a paradox:
You use linkbait to improve credibility in the eyes of Google, yet you (Scoble in this case) completely discredit yourself in the eyes of real people.
Either way, the bottom line is that these claims are way too bold, and who knows, in a few months after Scoble realizes he is an idiot he will just go around bragging to all the SEOs about how much awesome link love he got from it and how it was just linkbait the whole time. So then, instead of being an idiot he is brilliant. I don't buy it. Linkbait is 100% stupid if you go about it like this; it turns you into a metaphoric "circus freakshow character" that everybody wants to stare at, but nobody wants to work with.
Great f**kin' article!! seriously GREAT!!!!
this says it best..
"The algorithms that Google has chosen are stuck in cement. "
the dude is clueless about SEO... their algoritms change weekly..
Mahalo needs to take off the ground....if at all!! with so much money behind it ....it is bomb about to burst. Danny too put his videos in perspective and dropped the F word. Shut this anti-seo out..........not optimized enough.
Mr. Randfish,
Thank you for your thorough commentary. I actually quite agree with you on a number of points, especially as they relate to the scalability of Mahalo and other such Google competitors.
However, I must respectfully dissent to your overall perspective on Mr. Scoble's video trilogy. I do so for the following (solitary) reason: it is woefully disingenuous to your audience to criticize a video in the same manner one would criticize the written word.
Video is a beast of its own, and it should be understood on it's own terms. Moving pictures, like internet video, is more than just "...a thousand words," it's also an expression of human thought through time. The written word, on th other hand, is an expression of human thought through, well, spell-checker.
Mr. Scoble, like many in the vlogging community, are "performing" their ideas as they go, almost spontaneously, as one would in a converstion with a friend. There is an improvisational element to vlogging, akin to Jazz, that is unlike blogging or writing in that your ability to edit is directly correlated to your individual capabilities as a public speaker. Thus, editing is often complex and imperfect--every fault, every little scar (literally and figuratively) is revealed to the objective eye and ear. In this regard, video makers simply don't have the privilege, as you have, Mr. Randfish, of crafting and re-crafting their perspective before publishing, at least not to the degree that one can through traditional communication methods like writing (and blogging).
With this in mind, it is necessary for passive viewers, like yourself, to at least attempt a more generous posture when considering online video content. As previously stated, Scoble is having a conversation, not writing a thesis, with citations and supporting documentation, etc. The peer-review process with vlogging is already a harrowing one, and more so when their online counterparts (members of a supposed "community") drop to the level of using terminology like "numbskullery" and "lunacy." You condemn Mr. Scoble for questioning search-related importance of someone named Alfred Poor, but give yourself a pass? Would you be so crass in a conversation over coffee? Do you have the juvenile gumption to say what you have written to his face? I certainly hope not.
And this, especially, irked me:
While the man's no idiot, I have to say that after watching him speak on a topic I actually know quite a bit about, I'm less than impressed, and for me, at least, it calls into question the depth of understanding and quality of his previous and future works. Hopefully, he'll prove me wrong with a brilliant look at the search market in the next few months, and I can forget all about this episode. After all, everyone makes mistakes, right?
I am authentically surprised to see such a radical and misguided conclusion after such well-articulated counterarguments. Is Scoble now worthless as a tech critic? Really, Mr. Randfish? Really? "The lady doth protest too muc," etc.
As an educator/advocate for expanded media literacy, I can tell you that the tech community (SEO folks, too) are all too often barriers to deeper understanding of media creativity and effect. Instead, like most who deal with 1s and 0s, form takes precedence over function, code-level over meta-level, and we all suffer because of it.
I encourage you, Mr. Randfish, to temper your rather unoriginal, written deconstructionism of Mr. Scoble's performance, and focus instead on continuing the conversation "in kind." A more sincere appraisal of his perspective should not, in my mind, include subtle attempts to undermine his humanity. Just talk to the man, not about him.
Oh Boy! [sigh]
So you think if one would pile up all the generousity he has and take in account that video is such a different media and then went to watch those videos over he'd see anything else but a huge percentage of bullsh*t?
Sorry, I don't get it.
Please tell me why a video can't be just as well prepared as written words can. It is not a matter of media IMO.
And yes, a piece that doesn't really demonstrate in depth knowledge or at least thorough preparation of the topic will lead people to question the quality of ones previous and future works. That is nothing but legitimate.
Missfits - Agreed!
That's the most ridiculous response I've ever read. Sorry rynsa, but people can/should be held accountable for their actions regardless of whether they come in written word, video or live speeches. Personally, I give more credit to someone that can portray themselves well in person or on video because it shows they have clarity of mind and are educated on the subject. Scoble came off as an uneducated twit. If he'd like to retract those statements and place them in writing with plenty of time to edit his statements, I'll reserve further judgment until then, but I doubt his ideas will change. The intent was clear, screw the medium.
Rhea,
"Scoble came off as an uneducated twit."
How should I respond to this, Ms. Rhea? More name-calling perhaps?
"...I'll reserve further judgment until then, but I doubt his ideas will change."
Given your previous personal attack, I simply have no ground on which to place trust in this statement. If you do indeed have "further judgement" seething somewhere inside you, please keep it to yourself.
Someone needs to put their big kid panties on.
Please note that I didn't call Scoble an "uneducated twit," but said he came off as one. I recently came off as an "arrogant twit" in an unrelated conversation because I said something without thinking it through first. Everyone has those moments. You had one when you chose to be condescending and referred to me as "Ms. Rhea."
If you want to get into a hard core intellectual battle on language, written word and video, I will. For the sake of time I keep things short, because I'm busy doing work.
ps - This is the Internet, please don't take things personally or you will be a wreck.
pps - (referencing your haughty response to missfits) I wrote my thesis on the first televised presidential debate and first televised primaries. If you want to throw down on that I'd be more than happy to! Please note those were TELEVISED as in no time to edit... I'll let you think about that one for a minute. Once you've digested the concept I hope understand that the comparison is absolutely ridculous for the sake of this argument.
missfits,
I take it by your written "[sigh]" that you not only disagree with my comment, but you are also terribly annoyed to have read it at all. In literary terms, this seems somewhat disrespectful. You'll notice, I did not take that tone with Mr. Randfish. I suppose it was too much to expect the same from a stranger. My mistake.
In any case, your lack of intellectual courtesy aside, I feel compelled to illustrate my point regarding the differences between the written/spoken word and moving pictures in a clearer fashion. I refer you to a now famous incident in American history: the first televised presidential debate in 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy.
Please see the following links for more info:
https://www.historynow.org/09_2004/historian2.html
https://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/K/htmlK/kennedy-nixon/kennedy-nixon.htm
For your benefit, missfits, I won't go into great detail by explaining the significance of this watershed moment in media literacy. But basically Nixon won on paper and Kennedy won because he looked good. That's a crude summary, of course, but I trust you can do your own analysis of the situation.
You asked:
"So you think if one would pile up all the generousity [sic] he has and take in account that video is such a different media and then went to watch those videos over he'd see anything else but a huge percentage of bullsh*t?"
First, "...percentage of bullsh*t" is a rather simplistic opinion statement. Outside a statistically small group of tech-literate individuals in the "developed" world, Mr. Scoble's perspective on the future of search would largely be misunderstood by the vast majority of humanity. I would hope that would have been obvious.
Perhaps you should get out of the well-lit office more, missfits. Not everyone has the benefit of reliable internet connectivity, much less a "community" of colleagues and aficionados with which to share ideas. We are blessed that way, are we not?
Second, and in answer to your questions (assuming it wasn't rhetorical), I can say that generosity is not an end in and of itself. If that is what you heard from my comment I am very sorry for my lack of skill as a writer. A literal interpretation is not what I intended. I was not asking for you to suddenly become a warm-hearted person, missfits. "Generous posture" was meant as a subtle suggestion that we (all of us) take a richer, more abundant look at the video we consume on the web, including that of Mr. Scoble. I was suggesting that we think a little deeper about how messages are sent and received, how visual imagery is interpreted, etc.
It is my opinion that most of us are excessively media-illiterate. We are unaware of the subtle implications inherent in any creative production, especially that involving moving images. There are untold signals in a picture, uncountable mini-messages, as it were, that affect the way people respond to the message. Often times an idea, no matter how sincere or well-crafted, can receive even greater ire if/when it is combined with the multitude of triggers that are natural consequences of a human, flawed as he/she is, standing before a camera, talking, sharing a perspective.
Mr. Randfish's quick and radical dismissal of Mr. Scoble is, in my mind, a testament to this fact. Does it not seem extreme to diminish Scoble's "...previous and future works," his complete involvement with technology, as Mr. Randfish proposed? It certainly seems extreme. Mr. Scoble has been an invaluable participant in a variety of tech-related movements. Can that be denied? Do I need to make a list of his contributions?
Also, you requested that I tell you why "...a video can't be just as well prepared as written words can." To this I would ask you go back and read my comments more carefully. I never made such a claim. I did, however, say this:
"...In this regard, video makers simply don't have the privilege, as you have, Mr. Randfish, of crafting and re-crafting their perspective before publishing, at least not to the degree that one can through traditional communication methods like writing (and blogging)."
I stand by this statement, missfits. Video cannot be crafted to the degree that it can with writing. There are too many "reveals," too many factors. Writers address the structure and style of words on paper and screen--little scratches meaning language. Videographers, on the other hand, address words, images, sound, and the delicate collage of those elements through time. If I can get metaphorical for a minute: writers drink from one cup, and video editors drink from many.
In closing, missfits, please note that my one and only criticism of Mr. Randfish was his apparent unwillingness to discriminate between Mr. Scoble the video personality and Mr. Scoble the techno-theorist. It seems short-sighted, a little cold ("numbskullery" and "lunacy"), and completely lacking in media awareness.
By the way, missfits, this will be the one and only time I will speak to you (among a few others). I look forward to your response, naturally, but I will not continue this discussion further. I am too busy to be engaging with individuals who will not edit their messages in such a way as to remove the disdain they hold for my ideas. I graduated from high school many, many years ago. I have no desire to return.
I have to admit that this litany in well chosen words makes a much better impression than the litany we saw on tape. So technically speaking this could even support your thesis, Rhynsa.
But then looking at the substance of what you write I don't find much more than this huge percentage I talked about before. Maybe apart from the more or less open sarcasm and the arrogance that shines through here and there.I stand by the opinion that video can be crafted to the degree that writing can.
BTW the "numerous variables (lighting, sound, costuming, facial expressions, gestures, framing, and so on.)" you named already imply the fact that video addresses more levels of perception than the written word does. So I'd raise the heretical thesis that video gives you even more options for crafting. :-)
While it may be more time-consuming than editing the written word, video bloggers do have the privilege of crafting and recrafting their perspectives, despite what you say rynsa. You can easily re-record your performance until you're satisfied with what you want to present.
Chris,
Before I respond to your statement, I would like to thank you for taking a higher road. I wish I could say the same for some of our cohorts on this list.
Anyway, as a video-blogger, documentary filmmaker, media student and eduator, I can assure you that my perspective is not spontaneous nor is it un-earned. But it is solid, and your words have not swayed me otherwise.
I fundamentally disagree with you when you say "...you can easily re-record your performance until you're satisfied with what you want to present." That is a myth. There are a variety of nuances in film and video that will always supercede your plans. It's simply not the same as writing.
Words can be manipulated in seconds. This paragraph, in fact, was worked and re-worked five times over before moving on to the next. The following paragraph likewise met the same fate and the same brief time period. Easy. This is known, this is understood.
Writing has a long and storied history in this way. People are largely more literate and critical when it comes to analysis of the written word. As I recall, there is no vlog critic for the New York Times. How long have people been debate the great texts of our wisdom traditions (the bible, the koran, the confucian analects, etc.)?
Contrarily, were I to perform the exact same words I so easily wrote in the previous paragraphs, were I to speak into the built-in camera on my laptop, re-record at will, edit the video, and then upload it to a server somewhere for public viewing (a very, very basic and quick videographic set-up, to say the least), it would take far too long and would ultimately fail as an edited product because of the numerous variables that cannot be easily addressed: lighting, sound, costuming, facial expressions, gestures, framing, and so on.
And none of the aforementioned production variables involve the complicated issues surrounding the audience's literacy level with moving images. Or how about the socio-economic and political realities? A child in the most impoverished corners of the earth can quite easily scratch poetry onto a wall with sandstone. But can he/she craft a documentary for the web? No, of course not. The technological curve is simply too steep, both for producers and for consumers.
For me, the contrast is stark.
Rynsa,
While I understand your point, I am left wondering "so what?" I don't mean that disrespectfully, but I read and re-read all your posts without finding any proposed solutions or compromises. Are you suggesting that vloggers should not express their true opinions for fear of more criticism, or would you rather the content's consumers treat it differently simply because it is video and not text? Perhaps by withholding judgement of the content itself?
I don't speak for everybody, but to me, content is content, whether it is written or verbalized. Sure, video elicits different reactions due to the subtleties of the medium, but it hardly seems fair to judge the viewer rather than the creator of that content. You seem very well versed in the matter, and I am just a bystander. But I think the responsibility lies with the creator, not the consumer.
In this case, Scoble chose the video medium to begin with. You can't criticize the consumers of content for their heightened reactions, as it is a direct response to the creator's chosen medium.The same content could have been printed verbatim and released in a regular blog post but the response would not have been as great. That might not accomplish the objectives of the content creator.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion and healthy discussion is part of what makes this a solid community. You raised some valid points, so now you know where at least I fall on the issue.
I'm interested in other opinions. Who thinks the responsibility for a piece of content lies with the content creator vs the consumer? What about the reaction to that content? Should consumers be criticized merely for reacting differently based on the creator's chosen medium?
Sorry rynsa, but Scoble asserts very strongly that he believes Google will go down the drain in 4 years because the algorithms are "stuck in cement." I've been reading SEO blogs for perhaps a little less than a year now, and even I know this is not so. This makes his argument void.
On his worthiness (or worthlessness) as a tech critic, I still read his blog, and will be still reading. I could have pulled off of it when I couldn't take any more of his ramblings over Twitter, and then Facebook, but I kept reading. Just like I won't simply ignore, say, Jane's posts just because she asked if Orkut was "really necessary." To Brazil, it is; to USA/NZ, it isn't. For Scoble, HDTV manufacturers are the thing to have on top of SERPs; to Rand, it isn't.
I guess the big lesson we could get from this whole mess is: research. If you feel like saying something, go research it. More often than not you'll discover something that will keep you from looking stupid. Been there, done that.
Is she serious? This is one of those things that's so ridiculous that I'm afraid I'm just missing the satirical point of it all.
This is a well thought out, intelligent, interesting post that I agree with.
But, that still doesn't change the fact that professional SEO is a self perpetuating drain on society and I can't stand SEO people.
Udi, I can't disagree with your second point more. Stating that you "can't stand SEO people" is a blanket statement, just like if I were to say I can't stand people named John (no offense to the Johns out there). Sure, a few bad apples get publicity and make us seem a little less credible, but I challenge you to name an industry that doesn't have external detractors and people that try to ruin its reputation from the inside. We just happen to work in a new industry that is somewhat more transparent and immature than others.
SEO is classified as part of SEM, with the "M" standing for "Marketing". Marketing has been around for centuries and will always be a driving force for businesses everywhere. As long as businesses want to continue growing, they will employ all types of marketing: sales, advertising (online, offline, traditional, guerilla, word of mouth, etc), public relations, business development, sponsorships, promotions...should I go on? SEO/SEM is just a small but growing part of that in the grand scheme of things. Given the growth of the internet and varying forms of search engines (web, video, image, local, mobile, social, etc), "Professional" SEO is not destined to go away any time soon.
As far as being a drain on society, you must be referring to the SEOs that are bent on making a profit at the expense of others. Unlike most SEOs, they don't consistently strive to improve the quality and relevance of search results in an effort to attract customers. "Professional" SEOs care greatly about the end user, knowing that search engines don't consume products and services, people do. Take care of the customer and the rest will take care of itself.
Maybe I had a little too much caffeine at lunch, and maybe you're just trying to bait people, but personally I'm getting tired of uninformed or misinformed people jumping to conclusions about things they don't know that much about. If you really have reservations about the industry, feel free to contact me and we can talk about what you may have heard or read that would cause you to make such general statements.
Hmm, I can't stand telemarketing, so I guess we're 1 for 1, aren't we?
/looking-at-registration-information-privileges