| 5:53 pm on Oct 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
There's another thread about Schmidt's talk [webmasterworld.com] in our Google Business Operations forum, so let's focus here on the Search aspects of his remarks.
I am particuarly struck by Schmidt's use of the word "trust" since we know that it has a technical meaning for Google (see Trust and Authority - they are not the same thing [webmasterworld.com]).
So this gets me wondering if Google has a metric that translates into "brand". For example, if your domain name is example.com, citations that link to you with the anchor text "example" with no TLD could be seen as evidence that your site is becoming a brand name. Then the level of branding you've achieved might also be part of the trust metric.
| 5:57 pm on Oct 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
This bodes well for generic domains.
| 6:04 pm on Oct 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If I were in their position I would be looking at search phrases for use of brand too
| 6:14 pm on Oct 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|This bodes well for generic domains. |
As I've intimated in past rants, I wouldn't take Mr. Schmidt's proclamations as anything more than executive "noise"
(However, if we want to take Eric's comments at face value on the future of search, I have a large running list of things he's said that are more pertinent for webmasters to focus on)
| 1:47 am on Oct 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
More likely to those greedy minds at Google branding means adding Adsense to every page of a web site. Of course they wouldn’t consider that as being part of the cesspool.
| 3:41 pm on Oct 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
brands are not seed sites but are often linked from seed sites.
Google can give troubled domains such status, though it's not the generic trend.
They have enough support anyway. and if not, they buy some ( no kidding, you should see these links *heh* )
On the other hand, if Mr. Google #1's comments ( what was his number again? ) singled out the press in general...
yeah. those do have some seed sites among them. ( not all and only some of them are US/EN )
| 3:54 pm on Oct 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|On the other hand, if Mr. Google #1's comments ( what was his number again? ) |
lol, was just thinking the other day, when i saw Google Exec# 2 on CNBC (Marissa), that i needed to re-number everyone.
Instead we'll go with Goog Exec and Goog Employee tags. For clarity sake =P
Whenever i hear Goog Exec #1 speak, I'm reminded of the Futurama episode where 80's - 90's "corporate executive guy" gets unfrozen.
"think outside the box"
"shift the paradigm"
"branding is everything" <---------
"Don't you worry about blank, let me worry about blank"
blah blah blah,
Executive speak for the intended crowd,
NOT for serious webmasters who should know better and DO!
| 5:45 pm on Oct 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I agree that taking executive comments at face value is not a wise thing to do. But there are often hidden cues in their language that can tip us off to certain useful ideas about the current mind-set.
| 6:15 pm on Oct 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|But there are often hidden cues in their language that can tip us off to certain useful ideas about the current mind-set. |
im missing why we need to look for "hidden clues"
A. Google doesn't give "hidden clues". heck, they don't even give ANY clues.
This is WHAT they are known for.
Why are we acting like Eric is trying to help someone game Goog?!
B. We JUST had a conversation about the value of TRUST.
I assumed that from that thread, we had all pretty much agreed, that while TRUST has some nice fringe benefits, it has little SEO benefits, no?
D. Back to Point A. and my long standing rant about "reading into what ANY Goog Employee or Exec" says.
We JUST had a thread about the 10 year anniversary of Goog and how much or HOW LITTLE the algo has changed over that time.
There is simply no need to READ INTO THE INTENTIONALLY VAGUE (some might say "misleading") comments of Goog.
All the HINTS are right there in the algo.
If one "figured out" the algo 10 years and went on vacation for 9 years,
they would STILL know much of how to rank in Goog NOW.
And rest assured, anyone "figuring out" the algo NOW will have no problem adapting to Goog in the next 3-5 years.
UNLESS, Goog decides to throws out EVERYTHING and creates a completely new SE.
then there's little to nothing a Google employee or exec can say thats a "hint" of anything actionable
or won't be immediately evident to someone who spends their time more wisely tracking the algo.
E. As I said in an earlier thread where I quoted Goog Exec #1 - if he really is dropping "hints" about the future of Goog search,
then he's clueless and Goog will be losing market share rapidly over the next 3 years.
Of course, I DON'T believe Goog Exec #1's vague, pandering comments to whatever crowd he's currently talking to.
I don't think he's that clueless, and I don't believe he would even come close to giving away any hints to webmasters, competitors, or stockholders about what they have under wraps.
I simply think it's an utter waste of time to be constantly "looking for hints" for the above reasons,
when the algo is right there in front of everyone
with all the "hints" one needs to be successful or even dominate their niches for MANY years to come.
[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 9:27 am (utc) on Dec. 3, 2008]
[edit reason] ToS #20 [/edit]
| 6:45 pm on Oct 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"The fundamental way to increase your rank is to increase your relevance,"
Okay, so is blurb isn't all that current, but has appeared to stay the course.