With every tweak and change that comes to Google, it seems there's a new round of questions and blog posts and hand-wringing that follows the same old formula:
With the release of their new yippdy goobledy wobbledy, Google has changed the search game forever. Forget classic SEO, from now on, it's going to be all about blah blah blah.
It happened with:
- Personalization
- Local Results & Geo-Targeting
- Instant Answers & OneBox Results
- Google Knol
- Customization Based on History
- Universal Search
And now it's happening again with SearchWiki. Yet, in the 5+ years I've been doing SEO, the game has stayed remarkably similar through nearly every one of these "massive shifts." Actually, the biggest true changes I've seen to SEO have come from directional shifts at Google that typically received far less publicity and media attention:
- When Google rolled out the Florida update in Winter 2003 and many affiliate, thin content and low quality sites lost rankings (and the ability to pass good link juice)
- In 2004-5 as the Google Sandbox became a major part of new sites' experience in Google
- In 2005 when nofollow started to be implemented across blog comments and we could no longer buy our way to the top of the rankings with spammy blog links (although it really took a year or two to take full effect)
- In November 2006 when the search engines officially agreed to support the Sitemaps.org format
It's not that Google's other shifts haven't had an impact on SEO, it's just that they haven't been earth-shattering or groundbreaking or given us new paradigms to conquer. SEO remains, at its core, remarkably similar to what it was in 2002:
- Make pages accessible
- Target with keywords that searchers employ
- Build content that users will find useful and valuable
- Earn editorial links from good sources
Honestly, every time the "sky is falling" from some new change at Google, ask yourself if this 4 step process has been fundamentally undermined. Until then, you can relax - which is not to say you can stop learning, evolving and investigating every tactic that might give you an edge, but you don't have to go overboard chasing fads in SEO. As my mother often says, "Moderation in all things, including moderation."
p.s. If there are major shifts in the last 5 years that you've felt have had a tremendous impact on how you do SEO, please do share. It's late and I've got an early meeting, so I'm sure I've missed a few.
p.p.s. I would say that for some sites and content types, the introduction of the maps results for local queries was actually earth-shattering.
Rand, if you could take your "rational" and "level-headed" approach to SEO somewhere else, the bloggers need something to obsess over today. Thaaanks. :)
Yeah. I'm going to need you to go ahead and blog about how the sky is falling, mmmkay? That would be greaaaaat.
:P
Time to set the building on fire, I think...
Don't bother. There's a talking chicken outside gesticulating wildly at the sky. It keeps going on about something 'gobble' or 'google' or something like that.
I'll be contrary.
The Florida update did receive massive media attention.
The Sandbox was a big change but largely restricted to new, lower quality sites. So one of the biggest true changes? Dunno.
I guess nofollow was an impact for those who were trying to buy their way to the top from spammy blog links, as you say. For other sites, it seems to have had virtually no impact. So half-and-half?
Sitemaps was a major step for the search engines, did get lots of media attention but still is hobbled by being an "optional" thing. At SMX East, Yahoo was the only one that came out and said it definitely was something that guaranteed would help with inclusion.
Totally appreciate the level-headedness in pointing out that lots of things that have long worked since 1995 (good content, ability to be spidered, good links, good keyword research, good titles) remains important.
One major earthquake -- true shift -- we've had that wiped classic SEO was the heavy use of link analysis by Google in 1998 that spread to the other search engines. Classic SEO was on-page optimization; suddenly, dramatically and somewhat overnight, it became all about the links.
Another major earthquake -- true shift -- was the dropping of directory results. Don't forget, back in 1999, the majority of major search engines used human-compiled results to form their listings. You wanted traffic, you had to be in Yahoo with the right title and description. If you consider SEO to include getting any natural listings, not just crawler-based ones, that was a massive alteration. Huge, but few remember it.
Universal search is another earthquake, another true shift.The entire top of Google given over to a map in a local search (and yes, I see the PPS you've added about it before I wrote this, but that tells me for you -- like for too many -- this paradigm shift isn't top of mind). Similarly, the ability to pull in traffic from video or through blog search, pick up traffic right from the Google main results, these were major changes. But go compare the amount of discussion online about video search optimization to that about link sculpting and nofollow debates and tell me where the fad chasing is?
Being contrary, but I do agree -- fad chasing can be dangerous. For me, those fads have tended to be oh, it's LSI. Oh, build theme pyramids. Oh, let's do quadratic link building.
SearchWiki potentially is an earthquake. I don't think it's the sky falling, but look:
https://www.google.com/search?q=seo&swm=2
First in, first submitted, is what generally got to the top of the list, and it might stay that way for some time. I've been through all the key search marketing terms, and I see SEOmoz all over the place. Did you submit? If so, were you chasing a fad? Or just being prudent and explore the system?
Absolutely, I wouldn't abandoned what is working and has been working for some time. But this is worth the time for anyone to explore.
I'll agree, as I posted earlier. Google says SearchWiki doesn't directly affect results, but with thousands of users rating a site as "good" or "bad", I think Google would take notice.
I think it would be a mistake to ignore this and say nothing will ever change, even if after 5 years nothing has substantially changed.
Danny - I won't argue any of your points (other than that, to me, the press in the SEO world was huge, but in the mainstream online and offline media, it was less so - but perhaps that's because in 2002-4, not everything Google did was front page news like it is now).
I'd also say that the other trends you ID'd are totally accurate, but it would be somewhat unfair of me to include them, since I was using my personal experience in the sphere (and that only goes back to 2002ish).
On SEOmoz submitting something to Google for SearchWiki - we've done nothing of the sort. Maybe our users have? I don't actually see the results you're talking about when I paste that link...
Florida did get some pretty hefty coverage in the mainstream press. Hit before Christmas, lots of retailers screamed, folks did take notice. But no, no the attention that some Google rollouts get.
That link brings up the public SearchWiki notes for a query on SEO. You won't see them if you're not logged in. And if your users are submitting for you, you owe them some thanks. And if you or others haven't checked how you're listed for some key terms, well, I'd recommend that you do so.
SearchWiki might fade away similar to Yahoo's MyWeb. But then again, Google's rolled it out with a link at the bottom of every regular search page. Think this has some legs; think it's worth paying attention to. And I'm pretty much no fad chaser.
My criteria for "Has the sky turned purple and fallen down" is always this:
Invariably, the answer is no (for the "big" changes). Don't ignore them, but don't think they change SEO. They just don't.
@Peter Absolutely!
IMO the only really major changes have been in SEM/PPC.
SEO methods have incrementally evolved slightly, but common sense SEO remains basically unchanged.
Almost seems like Google launched this thing to taunt SEOs. In some sick way it was satisfying to "promote" my clients to the top of a SERP. Who else would want so bady to just shift those results around other than an SEO? (Also all the job security issues this somehow raised.)
But really, no one is going to use this. The comments are dumb and you can only ever read the most recent ten (not that I want access to all of them, but what's the point of even making a comment if it's going to be buried into obscurity in minutes if it's a popular site, or never be seen if it's not a popular site?)
Unless Google IS going to be using data gathered by SearchWiki to influence regular SERPS, as they claim will not happen, let's all just ignore this.
In the words of Mike Tyson, SearchWiki is going to fade into Bolivian.
I think you make a very valid point. Since it came out (wiki that is) I've only used the up and down feature for the novelty of it. That's not to say, that if given the appropriate weight that some would be motivated to abuse it depending on where Google takes this. BUT...it is simply there for personal usage as it seems right now...probability is that most won't use it.
I'm sure I'll be eating my words soon :P
I agree with Danny none of the things Rand claim were important are. They were only important if they affected your rank and they only affected your rank because you were foolish enough to believe that the algo wouldn't take away what it gave.
Universal Search should be changing SEO because it affects the above the fold results. It started out being a small subset of searches and has continually grown it's share of searches. That a lot of it is affected by content choices is a paradigm shift in SEO content strategies. It is only manipulated by content choices and as near spam proof as you can get.
I thought blogs were BS... now I'm telling clients, not only do they need a blog, it should be a video blog. This is the only significant change to how I do things in 13 years. I started adjusting the strategy before Universal Search. I started advising this strategy change with the purchase of YouTube by Google and the big increase in users with broadband and mobile phones. Users cause the shift not SEs they are actually jusrt reacting to what the users want. IMO, Google was the only company that saw that shift when YouTube was for sale. The rest it was just about the destination. Google seemed to see how they could use it to enhance their SERPs.
But how else are those seos with not enough client work to keep them busy going to cope, they have to fret about something.
Change always offers opportunity, embrace it and love it like the soft warm cuddly thing that it is.
Exactly! Isn't the change part of what makes this work so exciting!
SearchWiki:
My immediate thought is, "Oh no, how do I make my site cool enough to have searchwiki users not delete me from search"!!, cuz you know the data obtained will be used to clean up "organic search" eventually.
If you are an SEO believe me, Google is no longer your friend.
Hi Rand, folks, long time! :)
I can't honestly say what the biggest changes in SEO have been for the past 5 years, having only been doing it for just over a year.
I know that for the right clients, local search has been a tremendously powerful way to get to the top of the page in Google.
Generally speaking, I hope Google continues to innovate in ways that make sense and doesn't try to 'keep up with the Joneses' in terms of implementing trendy but useless search fads.
I would also like to see a strong competitor to Google.
Definitely agreed. Actually if a google shift affects SEO at all, it's a chance to improve your tactics and to become more robust.
Off-topic: tell your mother to read Oscar Wilde - from Picture of Dorian Gray, maybe she'll change her mind:
;-) just kidding
Thanks for the shoutout, Rand. Credit for the quote, 'Moderation in all things, including moderation.' which I freely admit I apply to numerous situations, belongs to Benjamin Franklin.
Michael - Oscar certainly had a point and there are times when such counsel is needed. In the same vein as Oscar, I have been heard to say, "It's never enough until it's too much." I used this phrase when demonstrating to my children just how to pour maple syrup onto fresh hot pancakes on a cold weekend morning.
I just see SEO becoming more of a team work rather than dissapearing.More creative writers, artists, communicators will be involved in the process.
While not a ranking change, the loss of the Google Dance has had a huge impact on us.
Thankfully the Dancing Days of 1-2 weeks of massive ranking flutuations, sites being dropped, unrelated sites ranking #1 are in the past.
With Google's new continuous update algorithm it is much easier to test, evaluate, and implement SEO.
At PubCon there was a session called "How Universal Search And Personalization Changes Everything" - although at the session most speakers then agreed changes would be minor. I found this discrepancy between title and content annoying, as I probably would have gone to a different session had this one been called "Universal Search And Personalization Changes Little". Perhaps most people would have, which is why they had to go with the title they did...
I just like to say "the sky is falling"
SEO is dead. We're all out of work. Death cannot be more than 10 minutes away.
Still...
My optimized sites are *still* ranking high and clients are still paying me to keep them there.
Call me chicken little.
Personally, I can't see searchwiki taking off. But if it does, I think all it'll do is undermine Google's search dominance. Here's why:
The big problem is that there’s no real value in being able to Promote/bookmark a listing. The value of proper bookmarking is:
1) you’ve found a good page (searchwiki fail - all searchwiki tells you is the title & description; you don’t know if it’s good ’til you get there);
2) you quickly save that page (searchwiki fail - you have to press back first and find the listing); and
3) you can quickly retrieve it (searchwiki fail - you have to open searchwiki, remember the search query, perform the search, and click the promoted listing)
So who’s going to use it? Who’d would WANT to bookmark a page before they see it? And who’d want to use searchwiki to bookmark when there are so many better ways of doing that?
I reckon Google will realise that most people won’t use it for the above reasons, and those who do will simply be getting less value out of Google search. So it won’t last long.
What’s more, as a bookmarking system, it’s pretty lame because it only allows you to bookmark those pages that you find thru search. In my experience, most people (power user webmasters & SEOs aside) use one method for bookmarking. They’re not going to want to use one method for pages they find thru search and another for pages they find through some other method!
And finally, there’s the question of who’s likely to actually perform the same search repeatedly. People who are after different results each time, of course! And what use will they have for it?
BUUUUUT… If it does happen to take off, I think there are fundamental problems with its logic that will diminish Google’s value to searchers who use it.
Firstly, I can understand why a user might want to see a particular listing repeatedly at no.1 for a specific search, but I can’t see why they’d want that same listing AUTOMATICALLY at no.1 for an entirely different search???! (I know that this situation is only likely to arise for very similar searches (as it’s page-based, not domain based), but still, doesn’t it seem strange to everyone else?)
Also, I think there’s real danger in allowing users to lock off the entire first page of SERPs. It sounds like it’s empowering the user, but in reality, it’s simply limiting their choice. Who’s to say the listings they promote today are going to be the most relevant or helpful in two weeks’ time? I know the user could simply use the de-promote option, but they may not think to do that. Not all users are that proficient. What’s more, without seeing a more relevant listing pop up in front of them, they may not stop to think that there might actually be one.
As to whether searchwiki will change the value of SEO? If anything, I reckon it’s now more critical than ever to be on the first page for a first-time search (before users start promoting other listings and locking you out).
But I still think Google will dump it.
Cheers Glenn (Twitter: @divinewrite)
OMG, Google's Hot or Not is going to completely ruin SEO forever. haha I think search wiki is horrible and it's my guess that it wont gain much traction. I think that people in general trust G results and dont really have the need to create their own results.
I don't know about that, I can totally see my web illiterate husband using this a lot, and if Google can use it to learn about individuals search preferances (I move all of the results about spinning wool to the top, and remove all of the results about poi spinning for instance) and vastly improve personalised search I think it would be af even more use to people.
I think if anything this one is probably more useful to peope who use the web less frequently, and once they start to learn about it they could go to town, as it is far more accessable to that demographic then the existing social bookmarking sites.
Agreed, Yoshimi. This is targeted at less savvy users.
Plus who really has the time
It always reminds me of the rabbles in South Park whenever these announcements are made - classic.
At most these changes may mean tweaking of the 'seo game' but we're never going to forget classic SEO, lets be honest. What we see when Google makes a change or announces a new beta test is a mass rush to grab the headlines by bloggers.
While this is no bad thing, remember the boy who cried wolf you cheeky bloggers - one day when you've got some real news no one will care.
Cuil post, Rand! :)
Ok, seriously though: Mobile search is the only new tech that is really shaking things up. Same concepts for SEO, its the users who are behaving differently and our landing pages/content is what needs to adapt.
(pardon the weak jab at Cuil. I know they are trying)
Fortunately for Search Engine Optimization companies, the ongoing changes by google and the like, are job security. Our customers that are serious about their web presence are willing to invest in ongoing SEO efforts and their online marketing.
Haven't seen a single negative comment in this thread...wondering who thumbed this post down? It's succinct and completely true, IMHO.
There is always going to be a need for SEO, and most of the core principles of SEO are going to remain true until Google (and the other search engines) decide accessible content and links aren't important to any of their universal algorithms anymore. SearchWiki signals a *possible* move away from that direction, but you've still got to get your site to the top in the first place, in order for it to be voted on.
As a Local SEO, as much as I appreciate your "p.p.s" that
I'd say that it hasn't been as earth-shattering as I would have predicted when Google first introduced the 10-pack. Which certainly falls in line with the general point you're trying to make with this post.
Average users are not even going to notice wiki search. A few may discover it and use it to promote particular sites that they want at the top of their lists but in general I agree that it isn't a revolutionary change.
I agree. That is exactly what I was thinking.
I'm kind of digging the search wiki. I've been doing a little research here for niche job sites I can potentially add one of my clients to. It's cool being able to delete sites that are obviously useless so I don't end up wasting my time and going back to the same crap site twice.
Hopefully Google remembers everything I've deleted. At the end of it all, I'll have a decent list of potential job sites we can post jobs on!
I still don't quite see the advantage of doing that over just bookmarking the good job sites...
I have been deleting the ones that have been definite "no's". I haven't actually come across any good ones worthy of a bookmark yet. It only takes one click for a result to disappear ...
Shortly after deleting a bunch of sites from the search engine results page (and writing the above response), I was booted off Google for a bit citing that my queries were suspicious behaviour. I didn't have any other tools running at the time ... so I'm curious why I was booted after manipulating the SERPs ...
IMO the biggest threat to SEO was (and continues to be)...ads!
Keeping your points in mind, I would still say the Internet will see some major changes, and sooner than later, and I would welcome these.
With some search queries, the SERPs are littered with spam-like sites, making it impossible to get objective content. Even the best Google algorithm can't replace human viewers, and the Google-bot can't judge a site on how appealing it looks. For the same reason Google values certain directories more because humans view and allow/disallow, it seems they will in the future use humans to help rate sites.
I like being able to remove a site from the SERPs, especially about.com, and Google states that this doesn't directly affect others SERPs: "It's important to remember that all the changes are saved to your Google account and they won't affect the search results for everyone, at least not directly." That means the results may affect results for others, if indirectly.
Bruce Clay had interesting comments on this: "Ranking is Dead"
Whatever the case, those who work with SEO should adapt to these changes and not ignore them.
@stuartp can't get enough of the rabbles. thumbs up.
As long as the search experience remains centered on the user, there will be a need for to make relevant content more readily accessible in the SERPs.
I was tempted just to post a picture of one as my comment but I don't think that meets moz relevance criteria...
I'd have gotten the reference! Love the rabbles. :D
People are lazy by nature. A small percentage will make use of the new possibilities but will it be mainstream? Not by a long shot.
Why?
They have to do something. The minute a user has to do something other than just click and read, you lose a large part of your audience.
Other than that, Rand is spot on. Keep producing quality content and respect the basic SEO principles. This will give the most return on investment any day.
LOL well put Rand. I've got a few contacts outside of marketing convinced this is the next big thing, and right now they're happily disagreeing with me. And I'm the SEO! Noone will be talking about this in about another week...
Rand, the only people who should be worried are the "third party hacks" who don't deserve to be in our profession. For the people who know what they're doing, SearchWiki isn't going to be an issue.
Well,
Just shortly. Any major shifts Google would launch it will actually bring us working in SEO more opportunities. SEO will evolve, will be more complex. SEO can die only if Google dies :))
So, don't panic.
And personally with regards the search wiki, I cannot see the advantage of it yet. I know there's been a lot of mixed reactions to it, and most have been negative from what I've seen. Bookmarking your sites is still the way to do it for me.
Bookmarking, is like, so 2007.
(Kidding!)
Two years later and counting. Still good advice. Thank you.
Good post Rand,
I want to say when your ranking is not stay stable in SERP. And difficult to get ranking of your website in Google, at that time we should to give more concentration on our attractive designing, easy web structure, unique content and need to make analysis of consumer…
I am thinking that if any visitor comes on my website …. Then they want to buy something from my website and they buy…. Then will not leave my website without buying anything …. In short we should to generate more business anyhow …
Because client finally wants business..
Change "editorial" by "paid" for ecommerce website and you will not be doomed forever. It's a pitty, but if the others are doing, you can't live without it. You need at least 1 paid link. And it better be PR8.
As long as there are search engines there will be some from of SEO, it's just a matter of altering your approach were necessary.
Hopefully we won't see anymore of these posts, ha yea right! I think I may even dabble in a post or two like that, after all there's no better form of link bait than something controversial.
Best,
Wes
I think BrowseRank will be one of the next major changes. I'm not sure if it's going to be as important as the Florida update but it's going to be close.
Then after that my nano-technology rant.
Yes Rand, I agree completely. Keep a cool head, read, learn and adjust as needed....
Read, learn and adjust. That is it. :) Nice summary.
Very little mention here about intent based searching and personalisation of results. I think they will have more effect on SEO because it is going to be difficult to second guess where you might appear in your potential site visitor's SERPs.
So, it will all still boil down to the core formula of good site design, good content, good products. Doesn't matter how much you spend on SEO or what Google does if your product/price stinks, does it?!
Hi Rand,
SearchWiki is in effect now. Lets see what will be the effect.
Totaly agree with what you had to say in the article. I think that when following the basics and the SEO goes as planned, it is ususally succesfull.
when quized at SMX East a common answer agreed that their had been a shift in peoples behaviour and that the below the fold or the second page was mostly ignored.
personlisation means a massive uplift for the first 2-3 results on every search, good luck if your seo strategy is we promise to get our clients onto the first few pages or your money back...
interesting that this article was written over a year ago... How some of your points are still valid...SEO is not dead nor is it dying it has to conform to new standards. For example how to intergrate all your SEO efforts and reach out towards the social networks available. Specialization is key in my humble opinion. Thanks for such timeless copy.
I agree that the search wiki sucks, I avoid it like the plague.
Why would I want to usurp my bookmark system?
On the other hand, most people probably never really adopted bookmarks on their computers, and are still using internet explorer?
Perhaps this searchwiki will catch on and become the major player in the new search algorithms?
Its all possible, only time will tell.
If your fundamentals are right then you need not worry.
My first reaction is that this is bookmarking for people who don't know how to add a bookmark. On the other side of the coin, don't most web-savvy users already know how to bookmark in a way they're comfortable with?
OF COURSE Google will utilize the data they gather from this. Could this be viewed as casting a "vote" in the same light as an inbound link? If so, that's pretty heavy duty. It's as if they're allowing micro-blogging at a search-results level.
Will this affect paid results? And, why WOULDN'T they offer this on ads? Could an AdWords campaign be allowed to target SearchWiki results?
Now I have to keep two different browsers open at work: one for me to use Google's tools, and one to see Coke Classic results (to coin a term).
isnt the job of the SEO that of a good project manager too? no matter how much google alters their algorithms, websites will always need someone to manage their optimisation. Let's remember that SEO is not just about leveraging our sites with the SE algoritms but good usability, good design, good IA.... wasnt there a post from rand on this platform that talked about that? i searched for it but wanst able to find it
Lets face it, it's amazing some people have come out of their Y2K bunkers...you can't ask them to give up on all of their end of the world predictions, the rest of us would have nothing left to feel smug about :)
I'm wondering how they're going get an ROI out of this feature.
Perhaps they'll use down and up votes as a weak modifier or maybe they''ve a trust metric for users (eg webmasters holding sites that don't carry advertising think this si a good link, etc...) and then use that to weight the up/down votes?
Or perhaps they're just doing it for their users?
Second, will this increase search ad revenues, sites being removed by users will have to try harder to get noticed.
I agree 100% rand, and particularly in this case with searchwiki. Frankly I don't see it as being a particularly useful thing. As Jac commented above, the only way I can see this having an effect on SEO is if google start amalgamating people's votes to influence global search rankings. But that depends on millions of people using it...
I guess the main failing of SearchWiki is it's a nod in the direction of StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit etc, but WITHOUT the (kinda crucial) social aspects! If Google were to include community elements into it that's the only way I see it not being a lame duck.
I had a major freakout recently about how Google was trying to ruin my life, but this post made me realize that personalization can only help. You present good content that's easily searchable and people will rank it higher than you necessarily could otherwise.
Thanks so much for this amazing post!!!
I feel this reinforces the need for site structure and optimising individual pages relative to the theme of content for that page. So meta description needs to be tailored too. Most users will 'promote' a page based on whether they see the page as being relevant to their search criteria. If while searching for a remote control car for a nephew at xmas, an organic landing page resulting in the girls dolls toys department is likely to result in a 'remove', whereas a search resulting in boys electronic toys is more likely to be 'promoted'.
So, i'd say adding to Rand's list #5. Ensure on-page content is relevant.
Good post. Just shows why it's so important to stay at the top of your game in SEO, its a job which never remains static.....forever learning or adapting :-)
Not sure when Google cleaned up the index in relation to duplicate content and sites....I know of a few sites that enjoyed multiple listings for a period of time with duplicate content on multiple domains, of which the site/s got banned early/mid 07
Ive heard and would somewhat agree it's no longer about rankings anymore for 2009 with personalised results (being able to vote up sites and clear sites from your google results when logged in).
Will be interesting to see what 2009 brings. :-)
GREAT post! I had start to look into SEO and love your post!
That is so true.
Actually Google and some other biggies have brought 'best practices' that peeople have to follow if they want to have any success in the internet world. The basic policies of 'don't be fake' and 'don't be evil' make every one follow the rules- not because every net business is genuinely nice, but because if the do not follow, they fail. The rules do not change- just the method of policing/moderation changes.
A similar thoughthere:
https://chasingthestorm.com/the-web-is-its-own-criminal-its-own-police-and-its-own-crime-reporter-multiple-domains-and-good-vs-bad-seo/
At most the changes have been a greater focus on off site optimization in the recent years. Or maybe that's just another bloggers hype!
Rand... i thought you had been in this longer than 5 years...
since webcrawler started and BEFORE yahoo! had anything other then directory... it's pretty much been..
As someone fairly new to SEO it's exciting for me to keep learning and adapting to these changes in the game.
It's great to know I don't have to panic just yet.
Great post!
i agree. I looked at the latest new google thing, where you can customise the results, and first panicked, then thought, nah usually these things don't make that much difference
Congrats for bringing it up! I've been searching for an article on the subject since Google SearchWiki launch, and your post is the very first I came up with.
In time: Have you noticed quite a few bugs possibly derived from the new feature? Here is the anecdotal evidence:
Google Blog Search (Blogger, others)
1. Instead of a summary for each post , Google Blog Search has been showing , since SearchWiki introduction, the Blog description metatag. This issue "contaminates" Google Blog Search results: because all recent posts have the same description, they only become "visible" as you proceed with repeat the search with the omitted results included.
2. Blog Post titles have become too long. Google Blog Search is now showing Blog Title + Post Title. As a direct consequence, a large number of post titles appear truncated.
3. Besides, "the "more results from a determined site" feature is almost duplicating the number of posts across the board.
Google SearchWiki
1.Some deleted comments remain, after removal.
2. Comments added to a site at the highest level (homepage) are eventually repeated at the articles/posts level, where the article/post content summary should appear.
Short, sweet and to the point , so far the new feature in my view has downgraded Google Search services.
E.
I still got to research it a little more but I think the changes just keep us on our toes. Just as with all the other developments the strategy for a successful site seems to generally stay the same.
Good post Rand.
Ill say that each SEO change I have seen has actually made SEO more accible for myself, someone who focuses on local SEO. Its refreshing to say the least.
I agree with u!
Great post!
Greetings form Italy!
A good clarification Rand :)
Ohhh yeah! all the new features that comes to Google has always aroused fear and terror in the SEO world.
I only read that as a constant attempt by Google to improve the real function of a search-engine, namely...
"provide the best relevant results to an expressed need..."
and your 4 points listed here are simply the most logical approach to
pursue this type of goal.
Best Regards from Italy...
ehm!! forgive my bad English! :)
Hi Andrea!
How's Italy!
Hello Rand,
I've wrote a small article few days ago about SearchWiki at YOUmoz but it haven't been approved and know no need to be.
But what i would like to say that SearchWiki should fight aganst spam resources which should clear Google SERP, however we have another problem. External\manual influence on ranking would be the main problem as Dupont says:“We’re always looking at user data as a signal.”
I just wonder if that universal search fluke mentioned a few months ago (with only 5 search results first page) shown in seobook and the theory about bounce rate being involved in an algorithm mentioned by the seoblackhat.com will be a factor or not.
Them along with search wiki would be make it a crazy busy world for SEOs afterwards. SEO will be a lot more valuable, labor intensive and thus expensive. If any of these flukes are actually tests; Google is waiting for after the new year to make any major changes from happening in the algorithm. It is all speculation of course.
Good article to calm people down.
Great article, I found it very informative. Many people would like to know that Google has published their own SEO Starter Guide which covers the basics of search engine optimization as it relates to the Google search engine algorithm.
If you’re reasonable familiar with SEO there’s not really anything new here.
However, if you’re trying to educate a client or an internal stakeholder on this topic it’s helpful to reference a document that is sanctioned by the world’s largest search engine
Sincerely, MAXBURST Web Design https://www.maxburst.com
It does seem that the same principles for search and SEO with White hat techniques have stood the test of time. LT
I agree - the evolution of blogs have been huge. Had a big effect on how I generate target my new content.
I dont think that SearchWiki will have a very big impact, Google has too much backed into their backrub algorithm to make much use of voting data like this to determine rank.
Just my 2 cents. Cheers from Toronto.