As a webmaster, something’s been bugging me for a long time. The concept of SEO – Search Engine Optimisation. Why is it, why should it, be necessary? I follow SEO closely because I have to, not necessarily because I want to although I do find it interesting. But I wonder why Google, Yahoo and MSN (as examples) put so much ranking weight on factors that can clearly be manipulated.
We’re in the 21st century, and I’d have thought technology would be at a stage now where it would be possible to determine relevance based on behaviour, if not entirely, certainly predominantly. Yes yes, I know a lot of people have this privacy issue and count me among them, but anonymous tracking of my online search habits – anonymous being the key word here – doesn’t unduly worry me. And targetting advertising to my tastes? I’m fine with that – advertising is part of everyday life in just about everything we do, and it’s my choice to ignore it or pay attention. Let’s be honest, without it we would probably not have the technology at our fingertips that we have today, or at least, not without a much higher price to pay.
So, why do search engines insist on giving extra weight to webpages that have certain code in certain places, or even more oddly, that have more incoming links from other sites? 10 years ago perhaps, when the web was less commercial then I can understand it. Natural links to quality content would have been far more important before people learned how to “game” them. But the over-reliance on this aspect of ranking has created a situation where the search engines in a never-ending loop of trying to stop gaming. And many search engine results suffer a decrease in relevance as a result.
Now I’m not into “link building”. Sure, I try to get a few because of the factors forced on me, but it’s not something I like doing or feel that comfortable doing. I’m much more into the idea of providing quality content where possible. But if I’m honest, in some areas that’s hard. I work as an affilite for example in the world of online casinos, a subject that as a long time player I know a lot about. I like the ethical approach – call out the bad ones, show people the good ones, but it’s a very competitive industry as you’d expect. So honesty in my text aside, just how do you get quality?
I like the notion that myself, and other affiliates like me, who try to provide real experiences rather than promotional text, can rise above the fodder. After all, it’s in a player’s best interests to know where they can play safely and where they could get shafted, especially in a world where head-in-the-sand regulatory changes (in the USA in particular) have allowed rogues in through the back door.
As an example, if you search Google.com for “online casino”, the first result is 888.com. Now admittedly, no rogue, but in a Top 100 of online casinos it wouldn’t be anywhere near the top in my book for several reasons, not least because a) they don’t take US players and b) they pay far slower than the majority of casinos out there. There are other reasons too. In fact, I could name 20 casinos just off the top of my head that are far better propositions for players. But, 888 have been around for years, they have a ton of inbound links, and they employ SEO people. So there you go.
Also in that Top 10 search results are affiliate sites that promote rogue online casinos. Most of those sites gush off about how great every casino is, while clearly the owners haven’t played at them and are just out to convert where they can, who they can. That’s not quality content. But how is Google to know that? How do you get to know an “authority” in such a field as this? Tough.
Add into the mix that because of “SEO”, most people in my field are wary about linking to other sites in case they leak “pagerank” or traffic – incidentally, I consider this a misconception if you link well – and it becomes nigh on impossible to get good quality inbound links unless you actively pay for them or do “reciprocal” or “3-way” linking. Again, not something I’m generally happy doing unless I’m forced to in order to compete. Google feels the same way. Common sense says linking patterns like these shouldn’t help ranking, though it clearly still does, even if it’s on a declining scale.
Surely therefore, watching how the public search, anonymosuly, holds the long term key to good search results. For example, if a Googler searches for “investing in shares”, goes to the #1 result, returns to Google, goes to #2 and doesn’t come back, this is a small indication that #1 didn’t have the right info. Now clearly, this isn’t an accurate reflection that says site #1 is better than site #2 as you don’t know exactly what they wanted. But as a small part of a much larger sample, a trend will build up. If, over a range of similar search terms, 85% of your searchers are doing the same, then surely site #2 is showing a little more relevance?
It’s not something that could become accurate without a ton of searches, but then Google in particular is surely in a position to work with the volumes required? So why not more emphasis on this aspect of search ranking? In my opinion, the sooner that factors that can be manipulated are removed from the search engine algorithms, the closer we will get to the perfect search engine. Not only that, but it creates more of a level playing field for webmasters, bloggers and the “little man” who is knowledgable about his/her subject, but perhaps not aware of the workings of SEO.
Dreaming? Or are we already on the way? Quality content is ultimately what everyone wants, but we’re not necessarily going to see it until someone comes along and determines exactly how a machine can judge it.