Ponderances of SEO philosophy
The other night, I couldn’t sleep… as I was lying awake, the phrase “…when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks back at you” (F. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil) popped into my head. For some reason, I started thinking about “searching” – [tag]search engine ranking[/tag] and evaluation methods… how its development somewhat mirrors two forms of [tag]epistemology[/tag] (how we “know” something), one old, one new. Stick with me now…
The traditional way of thinking about how we “know” something, or relate to it, is to think of single objects interacting in space: I am in the world, interacting with object x. I know it as separate from me and able to be independently manipulated – like me looking at an apple on a table and noting that there are 3 things in the room:
- “self”
- “apple”
- “table”
This is the type of thinking modern science is based upon. (Roughly speaking, what I’m talking about is
empiricism.) Now… think about
old school search engines:
- data driven – 90s model;
- on-page factors like keyword density, TITLE and META tags are deciding search engine rankings
The search engine assesses websites as they exist in space, categorizes them by tacit, calculable qualities and serves them as non-[tag]contextual results[/tag] pages to the searcher. Yes, this is very comfortable feeling, but is it the best way to deliver quality results… to know what the searcher wants?
Take the next step in thinking about how we know something. Over time, pragmatists and phenomenalists said “Wait a minute, I never know something in space… there are always opinions, environments, relationships, sensations and gradations that aren’t independent.” When I am in a room with an apple on a table, I know those things only by how I perceive them: the feel of the table, how I see the color, the light in the room, my past experience with bad apples, etc. Everything we want to know, need to know is based upon the viewer him or herself bringing influences “to the table” and seeing that apple through particular eyes.
Still with me? Now think about where (I feel) search engines are going… starting with Google’s current algorithm. The traditional way of searching… of knowing the web is acknowledged, but is expanded by:
- consideration of off-page (“environmental”?) factors like incoming link quality and IP neighborhood in addition to on-page factors;
- increased importance of [tag]website authority[/tag] or community opinion as determined by quality & number of incoming links;
- contextual content analysis is used for assessment of quality – more than just keyword density, now we’re talking about grammar and site “theme”;
- profile of site is used to judge reputation and, therefore, authority – a timeline of site development + ownership information is used to assess (to “know”) the accuracy of results
Sounds a lot like pragmatism and phenomenalism to me; we’re no longer viewing web pages and chunks of information in a vacuum. The goal is to gather and view information in context with history and opinion.
So what’s next??? I definitely think we’ll see the other search engines move more toward the Google model but I also see more contextual & “outward reaching” methods being added to that winning model:
- [tag]social data[/tag] (like tagging) will be used to help rank results, giving those results increased weight to community opinion;
- searcher history will increasingly determine what results you are served – data collected through profiles, desktop search, mapping, referrer, etc. will be used to tell what you’re most likely looking for;
- sites based in and targeting the locality of the searcher will increasingly dominate results, bringing the real world into the mix as the ultimate way of helping the searcher “get to know” what they’re searching for
Yes, I know, all of this is opinion and not as well cross referenced as I’d like it to be but it does paint a general picture of web search mirroring how the West has grown to know and understand the world. While everyone is comfortable with this traditional model of knowing things (and searching the web) the more progressive ways of knowing and understanding seem to be coming to bear on search engine results. It appears the ways of the pragmatists, the phenomenalists and Nietzsche are being used to influence the accuracy of results — one where we may be obsessed with looking into the search abyss, but real answers are found when the abyss looks back into us.
Side note: I ran into an interesting article by Rich Brooks at FlyteBlog describing SEO professionals themselves in “philosophical” terms. It’s not quite the same focus as what I’ve gone over above, but I enjoyed reading about META approaches to SEO.
[tags]localization,tagging,SEO philosophy[/tags]
Written by jclayc on June 16th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on General SEO Discussion.
A new Google tool I enjoy using that I haven’t seen much press about is the Google Notebook. Tied to your “master” Google account (the one you probably have already for GMail, Adwords or Desktop Search), this handy utility installs as a tiny icon in the corner of your browser and gives you a way to quickly copy snippets of content, URLs, and nearly anything else you find to it. What’s cool is that all you have to do is highlight what you’re interested in, right click, and select “Note this” to copy it to your Notebook.
To peek inside your Notebook, you can click the icon in the corner of your browser to open a small preview or choose to view the whole thing as a page. The thing I like best about it (and what I think you’ll find useful as well) is that your Notebook effectively “moves” with you from computer to computer. If you’re at work and want to remember a URL, right click & copy it to your Notebook – when you’re at home, log in to the Notebook and you’re ready to pick up where you left off with all information perfectly preserved.
I know I’m never sure which computer I’ll be on, so this is a great way for me to write myself little notes about things I want to blog, URLs I want to re-visit or even snippets of code I use over and over again. As Google says,
“That’s why we built Google Notebook–to give you an online “notebook” where you can organize all your research, add personal notes to it, and share it with others. Google Notebook surfs along quietly with you as you browse, letting you clip and annotate whatever text, images, and links that help answer your question, all without ever leaving the webpage you’re on.”
Update: I thought I’d post a few links to public notebooks I’ve created. These are just a few of legally-focused ones:
[tags]Google Notebook, Google tools[/tags]
Written by jclayc on June 7th, 2006 with 1 comment.
Read more articles on General SEO Discussion.
It may seem like a discussion of [tag]paid advertising[/tag] is outside the realm of “[tag]SEO for Law Firms[/tag]“… after all, paid advertising is, by definition, the opposite of “natural” search engine optimization. But [tag]Google’s AdRank[/tag] rating system (along with the “[tag]AdsBot[/tag]” content crawler accompanying it) has brought good SEO practices to bear upon the success of your [tag]PPC program[/tag], blurring the lines between the two types of campaigns.
When placing a paid ad in Google’s [tag]sponsored search[/tag] program, advertisers enter a maximum cost per click (CPC) they’re willing to pay. In this auction-style ad market, one would think the firm willing to pay the most for a click gets to the top of the paid advertiser listings… not necessarily true! An ad’s ranking among the other [tag]paid placement[/tag] ads is determined not only by the max CPC bid for a term, but also by what Google calls the [tag]Quality Score[/tag] (“QS”) of the ad. The Quality Score takes into account “factors such as an ad’s relevancy and click-through rate (CTR) (i.e. how likely users are to click on a given ad)“. This is Google’s way of making sure their users get the best results for their click… Finally, max CPC and the Quality Score come together to result in the “AdRank” of your advertisement: Highest Quality Score * highest CPC = highest AdRank. In turn, ads with the highest AdRank get the top placements within Google’s sponsored search results. As Google says,
“An ad’s position is based on its Ad Rank, which is determined by your keyword or Ad Group’s maximum cost-per-click (CPC) times the matched keyword’s Quality Score.“
So we’ve learned that your ad copy and past success impacts your ad’s placement… This isn’t new news so what’s the big deal? How does [tag]natural SEO[/tag] impact this formula? Take into account Google’s December announcement hyping up their landing page content analysis and recent buzz about their [tag]“AdsBot” crawler[/tag] and it paints a new picture of how paid ads are ranked. They state,
“To further improve program quality, our system will soon visit and evaluate all landing pages specified in AdWords ads. The quality information collected will affect AdWords account performance in the future.“
Google’s AdRank is to be increasingly influenced by the quality of the content on the ad’s landing page, not just within the ad itself. In other words, the AdsBot crawls your landing page and “interprets” the content it finds there (perhaps using the same technology they use to target AdSense content network ads already). Hypothetically, if this system judges landing page content to be irrelevant or poorly developed, the ad’s overall AdRank will suffer, lowering its place within sponsored search results. Exactly how much lower is yet to be seen but one message is clear: content development and on-page SEO factors like keyword placement (formerly in the realm of only natural SEO) are crossing over to influence paid advertising. Just as many are ready to proclaim that traditional SEO is dead, the quest for more targeted paid advertising has revived the value of SEO efforts. Pretty cool stuff!
In summary, the addition of the AdsBot to Google’s AdRank formula means quality, targeted content rises to the top of the listings, whether they’re natural or paid. Good job Google!
Relevant Resources
[tags]Google adsense, AdRank, Google AdsBot, PPC advertising, website conversion rate, client development, max CPC[/tags]
Written by jclayc on June 1st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on General SEO Discussion and SEO for Law Firms.
