SEOmoz Daily SEO Blog |
| Summary of the #FutureSearch Talk with Google, Bing & Blekko Posted: 01 Feb 2011 03:12 AM PST Posted by Tom_C Wow. Today has been interesting - I woke up to the news that Bing copies Google search results and I've ended my day watching a live cast debate between Google, Bing and Blekko over on BigThink. This post wraps up some of my thoughts and insights from the news and the discussion because I think there were lots of very interesting tidbits and hints from the search engines. For a more complete blow-by-blow account check out the live blogging coverage from SearchEngineLand. Image credit used with permission Although there was talk of other things in the discussion, the two main points of interest in my eyes were: 1) Bing "Cheating" by Copying Google's ResultsDanny does a phenomenal job of explaining the issue over on SEL so I'm not going to re-hash the details but the conversation got pretty heated between Matt Cutts and Harry Shum from Bing. Matt is typically very calm on these kinds of panels and this was the most heated I've seen him for a while(the last time I saw him mad like this was at SMX Advanced 2008 when paid links were a hot topic). Matt clearly pointed the finger at Bing and accused them of copying results. Harry's answer was a little elusive but essentially boiled down to "we both do it". While clearly both Google and Bing are using user data to influence rankings Matt did say (and I'm paraphrasing here but the sentiment is correct) "we categorically deny that Google uses clicks on Bings website to influence Google results". The discussion then descended into a debate about HOW Google and Bing get their data - the most obvious data sources being the Bing toolbar and the Google toolbar. The discussion here become a little bit finger pointing with Matt accusing Bing of sneaking the toolbar onto user's PCs via IE, while Bing responded by essentially saying no one reads T&Cs anyway so what does it matter (a pretty weak argument!). I could write a whole post about this but let's stay on topic shall we? The conversation boiled down to the fact that yes, Bing uses user data on Google as a ranking signal - but that these keywords were outliers and that Bing does not just copy results. An official blog post from Bing reiterates this position. So where does this leave us? The thing that most excites me here is that people are starting to talk about how user data might affect rankings. This is something I've long suspected influences rankings but there's been real division within the industry. Rand even did a whiteboard friday a year ago essentially saying user data isn't much of a signal. One of Rand's arguments is that usage signals are easily gamed - but it's clear that Google are watching these things closely. Personally, I really hope this starts more of a discussion and more transparency from the search engines about how usage data influences rankings. TL:DR:
2) Is Demand Media Spam?The second question boiled down to, "should Google ban Demand Media from the index?". I'll paraphrase the responses here:
Wait, what? Blekko really came into their own on this question - revealing lots of very interesting information. Blekko said that they have banned many content farms from their index as a result of enough people marking URLs from their domains as spam. TechCrunch broke the news this morning. The top 20 sites banned are: ehow.com, experts-exchange.com, naymz.com, activehotels.com, robtex.com, encyclopedia.com, fixya.com, chacha.com, 123people.com, download3k.com, petitionspot.com, thefreedictionary.com, networkedblogs.com, buzzillions.com, shopwiki.com, wowxos.com, answerbag.com, allexperts.com, freewebs.com, and copygator.com. Rich from Blekko went on to make the point that analysing massive data sets (I missed where from exactly? anyone know?) we can see that the total number of URLs getting visits from search engines is in the region of half a million. Compared the the 100s of billions of URLs that search engines know about. Rich used this data to say that if someone's searching for health related content they should land on one of the top 50 health sites where the content is written by medical professionals. Later on in the discussion, Rich talks about how Blekko wants to bring a wikipedia-style level of control to web search by letting anyone create a slashtag of niche sites (an example he gave included "gluten free"). Matt countered this by saying that if you search for decormyeyes (the glasses merchant that got a lot of press a few weeks ago) on blekko you don't get the website, suggesting that this is a negative user experience. Compare the following:
I think that specific example is kind of moot. We're talking about a niche query for a banned domain. More interesting in my eyes is the question of what do you do with demand media? I don't have the answer (otherwise I'd be rich!). I think Blekko's approach is interesting but ultimately will fall short since I don't believe that restricting queries to a certain subset of sites is the right approach - people want to be able to find forum postings, blog posts etc even about authoritative topics. Remember that user intent can vary wildly between two users, even for the same search query. I think Google's approach here is terms of providing a sampling of results for different intents (QDD - query deserves diversity). In essence however there was nothing new from Google on the topic of content farms and Demand Media. The only news is that Google are developing a Chrome extension to allow you to block certain sites from your personal search results (and share that data with Google). This should be released soon, Matt has a working copy on his laptop apparently. Bing, on the other hand, dropped in a fascinating comment. While talking about how you might go about determining algorithmically the level of experience of the author there was a suggestion that the authority of a piece of content might be tied to the author independently of the site. I don't think this is necessarily that new, after all the concept of citations in Google Scholar has been around for ages, but it got me thinking that especially with social data playing more of a role I wonder if we'll see personal brand authority being passed (somehow?!) to the piece of content they write. So for example if you all retweet this post, next time I write a blog post for Distilled perhaps that page will have slightly more authority than it would have otherwise. Could this be how we solve the problem of trusted sites rolling out millions of pages of low quality content? Out of interest - this makes the humans.txt protocol a little more interesting.... TL;DR
Wrapping UpWell it's been a rollercoaster day. Personally I don't think this news is that revolutionary (good article by Matt McGee here about how it's not as big as we've been making out) but I do think we'll see a lot more public discussion of user data, how it's collected and how it influences rankings which is a good thing in my eyes. In closing - I'd like to give Danny a massive pat on the back, I think the level of journalism in the original article was world class. Keep up the good work Danny.       |
| Posted: 31 Jan 2011 04:00 PM PST Posted by randfish Inquiring Quorites want to know: Is SEO immoral? We search for relevance via the search engine. By learning and manipulating the system to accomplish its goal, SEO makes it more likely that you will come upon a target that is irrelevant. Thereby, wasting the user's time and resources. It could be considered advertising in the form of a search result. Is this misleading and counter to the public welfare? Normally, I'd just leave a response on the Q+A site itself, but in this case, I felt the topic warranted some broader coverage. Let's start by dissecting the points of the question, then tackle the overarching theme. "By learning and manipulating the system to accomplish its goal, SEO makes it more likely that you will come upon a target that is irrelevant." This statement strikes me as fundamentally untrue. SEO, like any form of influence humans can have on one another, can be used for good or evil. The great part about SEO, in particular, is that using it to promote irrelevant results is, generally speaking, a fool's errand. I'll illustrate why: SEO is almost never applied to make non-relevant results rank for unrelated queries. And, I'd go one step further, arguing that if white hat SEO didn't exist, millions of search results would be far worse, as fewer high quality, relevant results would make their content accessible to search engines and well-targeted toward queries. Complaining about SEO in this fashion seems akin to complaining about demographic profiling in brand advertising. It may irk you that when watching Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, clever advertisers have figured out that you enjoy the delicious, salty cheesiness of Cheetos® snacks* and thus, interrupt Jon's witty banter with pictures and sounds about their product. However, a world without ratings metrics, profiling and advertiser savvy would almost certainly show you far less tempting commercials. The practice of SEO (Search Engine Optimization) attracts billions of investment dollars and massive amounts of marketers' energies to accomplish three key goals:
The beauty is that in an open, commercial market, those who do the best job creating useful content and marketing it in smart ways earn links and references that lead to higher rankings and greater traffic. "It could be considered advertising in the form of a search result." That strikes me as an extremely astute statement, and one that has a host of logic to back it up. Search results are like advertisements, in that you can show to ignore them or engage with them. They require far less time/energy than a traditional brand advertisement, but they also carry no greater weight or special impact. They're merely opportunities to click and discover if you've found something useful + relevant. I also like the advertising analogy because in SEO, as with advertising, the goal isn't simply to show the ad, it's to inspire action. A terrible ad for a great product is just as useless as a great ad for a terrible product (perhaps worse). Thus, showing irrelevant results or attracting clicks that won't convert or take action is futile. The ad only works if the product can close the deal. "Is this misleading and counter to the public welfare?" If SEO is misleading, then so is every other form of influence and marketing (and in many cases, SEO less so than the others). Human beings who were born in the 20th and 21st century recognize marketing and know what it means, how it works and who it serves. I had a good Twitter discussion with Paul Martin of Epiphany on this subject today: Admittedly, my responses are terse and not as TAGFEE as they should be (challenging to achieve this and provide content in 140 chars. but worth trying harder in the future). But, I'd stand by the general assertion that Google doesn't need a warning label, nor is their sometimes less-than-exemplary fight against content farms cause to abandon hope of good search results or paint them as immoral/unethical. If a site is producing bad content, fight fire with fire - make something better and/or link to something better. I'll start - this is how to make Sardine Spaghetti. Now it's more likely that those querying for a delicious dinner will come across that great link vs. content farmed junk. Oh man that looks good... Let's wrap up by talking about the central tenet of the question - Is SEO Immoral? I believe it would be hard to find a human being on the planet who believes that all three aspects of SEO - researching and producing content people want; making content accessible to machines and promoting already accessible content - are a violation of generally accepted moral principles. There are certainly those on the web who take offense to the manipulation inherent in SEO, but I believe that to be intellectually honest, those who do must also accept that this same manipulation exists in all forms of marketing and promotion. From polishing apples in grade school to writing college applications and resumes to optimizing our Facebook photos to ensure that ex-boyfriends/girlfriends see only our good side, life involves marketing. It's the "how" that determines whether a marketer or a search engine passes vs. fails the morality litmus test. p.s. Credit for the inspiration goes to someone made anonymous by Quora; thanks to Outspoken Media for their recent coverage of the site. * Cheetos® is a registered trademark of a bunch of geniuses who put addictive chemicals in plastic bags.     |
| You are subscribed to email updates from SEOmoz Daily SEO Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Postări
