68 replies to this topic

[rmccarley]

I like how you all think and thought you may be interested in this: http://www.14thc.com/seo-future.html Rand got me started with his post on seomoz and it went from there...

I've been thinking a lot about the future of SEO and it's struggles and I don't think it will be able to hold its own after a couple years. Instead I see it being swallowed up as concepts within larger online marketing programs.

[kensplace]

At its most basic level, SEO is coding and structuring a web site so that it doesn't interfere with the spiders’ ability to crawl while providing content that the search engines will eat up and making sure the pages actually get in the index. Everything past that becomes search manipulation (as pointed out by Jammer).

Its not really just enough to make sure pages just get "in the index" and I dont see it as search manipulation to try and get pages to rank higher, its just marketing.

After all, in the real world a marketer could easily get a person to remember a name of a chocolate bar, but the REAL marketing is in getting that person to think of that chocolate bar before any others. Its not manipulating, its just plain old marketing.

So as long as no out and out tricks are used, which adversely affect the customers experience, ranking sites higher is not manipulation in my eyes, just effective marketing.


I think a lot of people do know about seo, far to many don't though, or worse have totally the wrong idea about it (not helped by the press, or search engines themselves really).

Personally I cant see SEO's disapearing, as with most areas in computing, its so complex that it cannot just become another "job function" for a marketer to add to
their todo list.

People can do self-seo, but the best results will always come from those few soles who dedicate themselves totally to the subject. Its impossible to be the best SEO and the best developer, or the best SEO and the best whatever else, as its a full time job learning and keeping up to date on each area.

Try and keep up to date on two or more areas, and one or more of those areas of your knowlege will suffer.

Yes I can see some uni's in the future (or even today) including SEO as part of a marketing course, but god help the firm that hires those graduates - seo, just like development is not something that can be succesfully taught at a college or uni.
Its a lifestyle, and a mindset. No book, teacher or course can ever change a non programmer, or non seo into the best there is. That takes time, dedication, sweat, hair tearing episodes, late nights, headaches, and lots of patience, mistakes and experience.


Ideally, everyone would be in a position to hire the best, but not everyone can afford that, so many have to make do with learning what they can, which is fine - but for large corporations, and companies with money to spare - they really need to hire a specialist for each job they require.

[worldisavampire]

I agree.

The facts change so quickly that if you step outside for a moment, you'll become more of a n00b than me, and I just started.

I have been trying to learn, and it's funny that I'm getting used to knowing what's valid or not based on date online.

2003 vs 2004 vs 2005

All very different SEO techniques. There are some guys still using 2003 methods and arguing it on 2005 forums, who get flamed to hell.

It's very very hard to learn because of this.

But, I've also read that this will become totally a google scam, where it's all about paying them marketing $ or else you get nothing. Which has been countered with people saying no one will then use google anymore because it will get spammed by sites who payout the big bucks to stay ontop, and a person browsing doesn't want to see sites like that.

Edited by worldisavampire, 29 December 2005 - 09:36 PM.

[rmccarley]

I think you are talking about search marketing and not *just* SEO. SEO at it's basic level just makes a site receptive to the SEs. It doesn't have as much to do with ranking as indexing. Getting better SERPs is often considered SEO but really when you are doing things out of the Guidelines, like getting BLs, you aren't letting the site stand on its own merits and that is manipulation.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I do think it's beyond the intention of SEO.

I think a lot of people do know about seo, far to many don't though, or worse have totally the wrong idea about it (not helped by the press, or search engines themselves really).

Shouldn't positive-SEO web sites outrank negative ones? With all the marketing people involved in SEO shouldn't it have a better reputation? We have the ability but for some reason we lack the drive. I think part of it is we like our segregation. Forums like this one are the only times we really get together. Beyond that it's every man for himself!

And without a sense of "bigger picture" or togetherness or whatever it really is just a matter of time before it's broken up. It's smoke and mirrors to the general public with no legitimacy.

And I agree SEO won't go away. It will just be absorbed as yet another task someone is responsible for.

As a side note: it occurs to me that another issue SEOs face is a lack of standards. Every SEO charges a different way on a different scale. It makes it almost impossible to compare bids or see the real value associated with the service.

[worldisavampire]

http://www.google.ca...le Search&meta=

check that out. notice the first result, and result to the far right

I say that's the future. And yes you guys don't stick together because of the secrecy of the trade, that's just how it is. Why tell your secret when it makes you $100k/year? And demolishes everyone else.

If you tell someone like me, I will make 10x sites like that, and you may drop to $50k/year.

There could be a bomb in this profession, just like the dot bomb. Either by someone letting all the secrets out, or google as you seen above taking it over themselves.

[kensplace]

The second google got shareholders wsa the same second I lost all trust in google.

I have had first hand experience of one multi-national software firm that personally f*cked my life up, I have no reason to believe google will be any different now money is involved.

In fact, they appear similar in many ways, they both they say they do a lot of things, the difference is I know for a fact the Sage group did not do what they say (note to mods, I can prove this, so no removal please) and they openly have lied and to the best of my knowledge still do so, on many issues.


So now money is involved, I strongly supsect google will change dramatically from what it claimed to be in the past. Already the proof is in the pudding, its breaking down left right and center. Yeah we have matt cutts blogging, great, but a marketing aspect for google, but thats no comfort to me, if they dont work!

Everyone will have different opinions, but sadly, the only opinions that now matter at google (or any firm on the stock market) are the opinions of the shareholders.

Thats just my opinion, other peoples may differ.

Edited by kensplace, 29 December 2005 - 10:18 PM.

[Nadir]

Excuse me but I don't know if it's because I'm tired or I don't get your point you two, Vampire what did you mean with the Syriana thing? Google is going controversial?
Kensplace, do you suspect Google to actually modify the rankings manually, for the satisfaction of their shareholders??

[worldisavampire]

Excuse me but I don't know if it's because I'm tired or I don't get your point you two, Vampire what did you mean with the Syriana thing? Google is going controversial?
Kensplace, do you suspect Google to actually modify the rankings manually, for the satisfaction of their shareholders??

i meant, the first result shows the movie's showtimes. and the right side has an ad up

normally u'd expect the first results to be from whomever won top spots in the search rankings through their own sweat and effort..

But, no, google has it.

If this proliferates, bad news. no?

[kensplace]

Nadir, I dont know if they are, but I would not be suprised in the slightest if they are, or if they are planning to do so.

Money is the loot of all evil as they say.

Google is now about money.

[Nadir]

i meant, the first result shows the movie's showtimes.  and the right side has an ad up

normally u'd expect the first results to be from whomever won top spots in the search rankings through their own sweat and effort..

But, no, google has it.

If this proliferates, bad news. no?

Hmm, yes, maybe, but I don't think the showtimes disturbs the results behind... Many times Google displays related results from their applications: news, froogle and so on. But I don't think it has a bad effect on people's rankings yet.... Don't forget one thing, you don't own Google, they can do whatever you want, even if you killed yourself getting a good ranking, do you think they care if you lost it?

[Nadir]

Nadir, I dont know if they are, but I would not be suprised in the slightest if they are, or if they are planning to do so.

I don't think they would even think about trying to change the organic rankings manually, it's very risky, they don't want to get their business screwed up.

No, they do like what SEO do, thanks to us, rankings are becoming more relevant, but that's not only for Google's contentment who gets more narcissistic everyday, but for people who use their SE, who like to use Google, because they always find what they want. Google is becoming the most popular SE thanks to our effort in a certain way, they don't want to get people against them. So they just let us do our job and for their income, don't worry, they have Adsense and other applications that people are going to use, because they like Google....

[kensplace]

Its been a long long time since I have ever found what I want on google without a struggle to filter out the bad results first.

As for google not risking doing it, how could anyone prove they are manually doing it unless they have access to the google code?

[Nadir]

lol, yes no one can prove it, you just have to trust your own feelings sometimes, and even if you think they're doing it, how do you wanna show to the world you're right?

I know a company that claimed to be the only one who can produce an operating system for computers, many people disagree but the fight is just impossible, so people have to live with injustice sometimes, that's the way it is.

[kensplace]

I know what you mean, with the sage group, my health both mental and physical was so crushed by the tactics they used to destroy me, that even now, a few years later, I still have nightmares even thinking about the firm.

At the end of the day, it is hard to prove what you feel, or even to suggest that something may be amiss. But one thing I have learned from the whole experience, is I dont care anymore, as long as I dont specfically say a company is doing something, and if I ever do, its accidental, I can say what I feel may be the case.

I know what the facts are with the sage group, but as far as google is concerned, the proof is in the pudding for me, and they spend far to much time promoting people (who in my mind is just a puppet) matt cutts, rather than providing a working service.


rant over

[meriweather]

check that out. notice the first result, and result to the far right

normally u'd expect the first results to be from whomever won top spots in the search rankings through their own sweat and effort..

since when? Google, and all the other SEs have been placing a few, labeled, sponsored links at the top of their organic results for popular searches for ages. At least they're marked "Paid." Yahoo and MSN have them surrounding the organic listings, (top + right + bottom).

  The second google got shareholders wsa the same second I lost all trust in google.

I don't see where anything has changed with Google. Sergei and Lary started out with one dream, to "index the world's information", have done a pretty damn good job of it so far, IMO, and no doubt will continue to do so, for as long as it continues to interest them. You can't honestly be saying that $money is an issue to these guys, can you? While I'm sure they haven't caught up with Bill Gates, (who has?) they are hardly in a position to be worrying about money. There's been no indication that they even dabble in extravegent lifestyles, and from all indications their main passion is the technology and implementation of "the dream."

Everyone will have different opinions, but sadly, the only opinions that now matter at google (or any firm on the stock market) are the opinions of the shareholders.

If you have any doubt as to who's in charge over there just look at the fact that the whole public offering was formatted on Brin and Page's insistence on maintaining not just a voting majority but also the managerial reins as well. I'm sorry if you had a bad personal experience, but to imply that everyone acts in less than an ethical way simply because a lot of money is involved is pure horse s**t.

<rant="complete">

[kensplace]

If money isnt a interest to these guys why did they go on the the stock market?

Edited by kensplace, 30 December 2005 - 12:06 AM.

[Nadir]

Sergey and Lary are not "these guys", there are plenty of tough decision makers behind the machine.

[meriweather]

Beats me . . . if I had to guess though, I'd say it's an expensive task organizing all the worlds information, and the information doesn't stand still, it continues to grow. Maybe they figure they can do it faster, and better with the added capital. Same reason that any company goes public.

[kensplace]

Time will tell, my money is on google showing its true colours now, more so than it already has done so.

And seeing as they have done LOTS of evil, its hard to imagine how bad things could get.

This is a open invitation to the founders of google, convince me your not doing evil.

[Nadir]

Damn, you are a provocative guy!