Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
The Future Of Seo
Posted 04 December 2007 - 09:10 PM
Everybody who builds web pages or has a website now knows virtually everything there is to know about SEO and puts it to practice. In other words, eveybody is an SEO expert.
How will you get a page to rank #1 for a KW with all the competition?
How will a SE decide who gets #1. #2, #3, etc?
Will search engines be vastly different 5 years from today?
Posted 04 December 2007 - 09:16 PM
Because they wont, we will be deciding.
Posted 04 December 2007 - 10:40 PM
Its a competition between websites.
If everyone becomes more relevant - great. All the results will be better.
Not everyone can become more important, authoratative, popular or whatever you want to call it because that's relative.
If everyone 'knows about SEO', (basically meaning that everyone is 'doing' SEO the same) that means that everyone will give their sites the best chance. And the competition is the same as if noone knew about SEO, accept with better results. Google wins.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 12:02 AM
From what I've seen of your posts here, you seem like an interesting person. You have a way of putting things in order. And that's good!
Posted 05 December 2007 - 12:57 AM
I don't think it is likely, besides the other mentions here...and Humans would be winners too.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 03:27 PM
Eg: Web designers for small businesses in Essex that also does SEO and copywriting and can reset my alarm clock.
Thats the only one I can think of on the top of my head ATM.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 07:19 PM
This premise is completely WRONG! C'mon, there are so many web sites out there that can't or won't even get PCI certified. What makes you think that they'll utilize ALL of the SEO tips/tricks?
As SEs evolve so too will the those that actually WORK to take advantage of their changes. Have you ever heard of Prohibition? How many different ways did people make millions by creatively beating the Feds? What about the drug trade? Some drug lords are even using submarines to bypass detection. Same thing applies to SEO. As they evolve so too will the dedicated SEO. Where there's a will there's a way for the dedicated.
No, everyone does not and will not know all there is to know about SEO. This forum is a perfect example of that. Look at how many post very basic questions or assumptions and still get it wrong--EVERY DAY. Bad premise period and not worth what if'n.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 07:58 PM
Google would like all sites to be the best they can be, so that they could do the relevancy decision making all on their own. But how would they do it? What factors would they choose? It does seem that it would have to come down to popularity (i.e. some sort of PageRank scoring) in which every site could not be equal.
In other words, the BEST sites will show up first, etc.
Other than that, my guess is that it will then come down to paying for your position. Whomever pays more gets the top spots...perhaps it will be all PPC and no organic at that point? At least as far as commercial entities go.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 09:56 PM
Conversion and ROI will finally start to become more important than simply attracting traffic, no matter if the traffic is relevant to the site or not.
As it should have always been.
SEOs who only do SEO and not SEM will be a dime a dozen. Those who understand what's really important (Sales/Conversions) will continue to be in ever higher demad. Especially if they can demonstrate a track record of success.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 10:24 PM
Posted 05 December 2007 - 10:40 PM
That's an interesting possibilty that I have been thinking about every since G introduced the new way of deciding whether or not a top box appear for sponsored results. It seems they prefer to have a top box for all terms that fetch 1-2 bucks+ at the top end. Understandable considering it's not just general relevance that makes G want higher CTR. Higher sponsored CTR, more sponsored clicks, more searches that mean money for old G.
Google's VPV- 'value per visitor' (searcher) is ave. CPC (aggregated average for all the advertisers) X Average CTR (aggregated average for all the advertisers). The former is determined by competition which is determined by their advertisers' VPV, the number of advertisers and a few other factors that are difficult for them to influence.
The latter is determined largely by how they lay out the SERP. (and also the searchers' love of the ads- something they can improve a little bit)
Posted 06 December 2007 - 05:20 PM
This is what it may be leading to. Money talks and everything else walks, hey?
Then again, up may pop a new search engine that will keep the ball rolling in the traditional sense of what's it's been up to this point. Or, more definitively, a point in time of a couple years or so back.
So is now the time for some industrious individual to hole up and create the next big SE that everybody'll be fightin for the #1' spots in.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 06:39 PM
I was listening to a Seth Godin presentation (presented to Google Staff) & he made one point that I woner if is clear to all Search engineers. 'Its not really about relevence. Its not really about technology.'
Sure relevence/technology plays a part. It's not a linear battle at all though. I mean its not the most relevant results that wiil yield the greatest search market share. The one with bigger market share will have good results but not nessecarilly the best. In fact, Google sells their search results, don't they. Why don't those engines end up with a share of the market. People are used to google, so they keep using it. As long as it seves them well, they may keep using it. But they are not the only ones that can serve searchers.
When you think of it that way, you notice how thin the ice that Google is standing on.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 07:24 PM
Google therefore exists only as long as people are going to use the Internet to buy items - if they are just hunting for information then G makes no money - and the sellers make no money - who pays the bills and makes the stockholders rich. (Yes, long tail sales, future sells based on knowing about the company etc play in, but keeping the lights on requires people to buy now!)
So G has to juggle the SERP to give what people want, but also the ads / first shown results so that people click on those ads WHEN they do want to buy something. If people see that the first results always are to companies that sell items more expensively (or via higher shipping and handling costs, harder returns, restocking fees etc) then people will start to NOT click on the first seen ads, but go lower down and find 3rd 4th 12th tier sellers and spend more time to see the real costs of the purchase.
Then of course G makes less money.
People, at some point, always settle for "good enough" for the majority of items they ever buy - and only get the very top for a few things they are passionate about. Look around your room / house - how many items are top of the line best of breed top dollar items? If G only delievered the top dollar results to users to see to purchase from - no matter how revelant - and people's standards are "good enough" - then the conflict over time people will beomce ad-blind to them and look down 'below the fold' to shop from. No facts behind this, just the way I see people usually operate - myself included.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users