Forum Moderators: open
Visitors=Wvisiters, as a whole
Just like GNP=National Income (for the economists of us in the group)
Revelancy in its ideal is defined as:
Not only on-target to the search topic, but also:
Web site quality and contemporary design
Good products combined with good pricing- in the case of products and services
A clear message, contemporary topic, and sound thinking, in the case of ideas.
In short, a "salable" package.
Further:
Those that put the effort required into SEO whether by themselves, or by incorporating the use of an SEO pro, generally will have better site quality than those that don't. If you pay time & effort, or money to and SEO pro., for rankings in Google than generally you would want an revelant site once you have the visitors, or what would have been the point of the effort to begin with?
In the big picture:
Google & Webmasters are on the same side. There would be no reason for Google to discourage the most relevant results from showing up in the best ranking positions as far as I can see.
For Webmasters:
Achieving high rankings- does pay off IF your site is effective at promoting whatever it is promoting. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and/or money.
Google's algorithms do reflect these ideas apparently:
a) The have PR to reward those sites that have shown in quantifiable ways, that they have revelancy. This method has it's weaknesses, however since Google cannot measure visitors on every web site over a period of time, it's the next best thing.
b) The have content analysis added to PR, as a way to give newcomers nonetheless the chance to rank high with the established sites in a reasonable amount of time. To provide- diversity and dynamics in ranking results over time.
c) They incorporate more & more QC techniques to try and prevent those that would cut corners from rising to the top of the pack unfairly: Rules to try and insure that either you do put in the required effort, or alternatively bear the costs of using an SEO (Google should be indifferent as to which method a webmaster would use), to attempt to rise to the top. That you put up your good faith deposit, of endeavering to succeed. To the extent you put up your good faith deposit, it provides some degree of comfort to Google that your website also has true revelancy.
Am I right, or am I wrong? I put it to the tribunal, if anyone cares, and no one may.
Just a little adjustment. Pagerank is a measure of so called "importance", not necessarily of relevance. As well as the amount of visitors, that does not necessarily have to do with relevance in Google search results.
Good post abcdef! :)
Google says:
"PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important." "
[google.com...]
I believe that in a 'perfect' world, your scenario is correct - and everyone has the same goals, and there would be mutual respect etc etc.
But the reality of human nature is that for everyone who wants to play within the 'rules' (or the spirit of the rules - as defined here: [google.com...] )- there are also a whole heap who don't - and thats why search engines historically have little or no time for 'seo'.
Just the same way many of us have little or no time for 'email marketeers' - we lump the whole industry in one bucket due to the issues related to unsolicited commercial bulk emails.
The 'Javascript clowns'; the 'colour blind hidden text coders'; the 'align stuff off the edge of page coders'; the <no frames, alt, etc tag stuffers>; the cloakers, the link farmers - and the rest of the blatant spammers - have given 'search marketing', in general, a bad name.
Its the short cuts which create the problem - for the whole industry; the searchers, the SE's, the online businesses, their webmasters and the SEO's.
There needs to be a way that Webmasters and SEO's can work with Google - to make your perfect world happen abcdef. Some kind of 'approval' process by Google is my best suggestion.
Google does it right now with adwords - it could instigate a similar approval programme with algorithmic pages - for a fee? Maybe an accreditation programme?.
Try and use eg a betting term in a Google adwords campaign, geotargetting Germany, and you'll see the Adwords 'approval' process in action! Thats how they police compliance with the rules on the paid stuff!
Hope this helps abcdef
Chris_D
But relevancy is like beuty it is in the eye of the beholder. What is relevant to you and me is not nessesarily relevant to the actual user.
I use SEO to fit the SE's on aticipated relevancy.
Than design has to compensate for the shortcomings of either SE's or users.
Except for ASK all major SE's fail to gently guide and train the user to effective search.
Some now present alternative searches, seen from a user perspective this is great as it gives immediate alternatives and guidance to "focus" the search.
If you know you look for green widgets, great G blasts out results and may gently correct your spelling.
But if you actually look for blue witches G does nothing for the searcher (and neither can I).
I think this is one of the reasons why searchers bookmark and it's funny but still a lot of sites do not offer such easy viral marketing, and than stick to it.
Change is not a natural habit of mankind.....
Thus on the more long term I think SE's and SEO will dimish in importance superseeded by IM (Internet marketing).
M
what you propose is basically moving away from free listings, and into the realm of paid listings, which puts the whole conversation into a different ballpark, to me.
as things are,
I would rather have Google computers evaluate my site algorithmically, which after subjective determination of what counts is overwhelmingly an objective process across the board, than the humans over at DMOZ, a really good example of organization that really does not give a darn about it's listing consituency in any way shape or form. A terrible organization for listing sites.
that there are code breakers is a fact of life for webmasters, and Google. And Google, like the IRS does with tax returns, will be watching for it and dealing with it when it stands to corrupt the database of listings.
so those that play that game to the extreme, take the risk that the rules will be changed and that their sites will be banned by an adjusted algo., and maybe even lose the priviledge of listing that domain in the index again. you place your bets and takes your chances, and for those that want to, that is fine for me.
we submitted to them a few years back now, multiple times, within their guidelines for content and how to submit.
never got emails back. they never responded our follow-up emails, though the emails were submitted in accordance with their policies. never got a response. never got listed.
because we knew who to call to apply pressure, the people that DO matter to DMOZ, we were able to contact those folds, and complain. the response was swift and we were listed, along with an excuse as to how come the editor had not resonded, phrased as an apology.
but that was after hours of wasted time dealing with them. and i do not think our experience was unique in their complete disregard of those out there that are working hard to earn a living, and for which a listing in DMOZ to help.
no thank you. keep your human intervention directories if that is how they work. I'll stick with a system like Google where you don't have to beg and waste alot of time, just to seek a listing that is supposedly "free".
Lets play a game. It is called thinking. It requires some imagination.
Read your quote above a few times trying to put yourself in the shoes of a benevolent editor, spending his free time to build the best free directory ever.
You get the idea?
No?
Then write "complete disregard of those out there that are working hard to earn a living" on your forehead with a marker.
Then erease it with a sledge hammer, do your best.
When you will be finished, you may feel a lot better.
:)
Sorry, I am in some peotic mood today.
steveb
thank you for the complement on my rant. hahahah
i dont understand your comment? expand maybe.
MacGuru-
I'm guessing you are a Benevolent DMOZ editor. When you, as a moderator, tell people in this forum to hit themselves in the head with a hammer, it pretty much goes in line with what webmasters come to expect when dealing with these editors.
I am not involved with OPD in any way. I never enven filled the form to apply.
>>When you, as a moderator, tell people in this forum to hit themselves in the head with a hammer,
Then erease it with a sledge hammer, do your best.
Not the best way, I think.
Also, I sayed I was sorry for the poetic mood. I tried some figure of speach. English is not my native language, you see? It can get tricky, sometimes.
I was trying to get some people to get some perspective from a different point of view, whith an attempt of humour.
In the first place, why does this tread was posted in Google, did it derail?
It did Mac, I think we will put it back on topic now though.
<added>Off topic posts will be removed
In the big picture:
Google & Webmasters are on the same side. There would be no reason for Google to discourage the most relevant results from showing up in the best ranking positions as far as I can see.
With great respect for your opinion, I have to strongly disagree. Google and webmasters are on opposite sides of the fence.
Google is after relevance as it pertains to a users search engine query. Relevance to a search engine query is not even on the radar for most webmasters putting together a web site.
A webmaster is generally creating something that is pleasing to the eye, with marketing copy that barely mentions the product that is being sold. Pick up any instructional book of web design (or web redesign) and you will see what I mean.
I am having serious doubts [webmasterworld.com] about the underlying logic of search engine algorithms as it pertains to the average web site, and feel that the time has come for search engines to redefine what the term "relevance" means, and come to terms that they need the help of seo's to make their "user experience" more satisfactory.
Which is a top priority for sensible webmasters. Spammasters try to lure a jillion people to their sites to get one who accidentally might be interested in the junk there. Webmasters with good content love search engines that find good content to show to users, because that is what they offer, good content. It's a fundemental symbiotic relationship between sites/engines/users. The only one left out are those people with junk sites that neither users nor engines want much to do with. Those people have adversarial relationships with engines.
My opinion is that in the long term, Google would be better off if we didn't know anything about them. They would be indexing a web that was not altered to fit their algorithm, and over time they'd get it down pretty well. Instead they get a moving target, because a few people know some general principles of how it works.
The attitudes I see in so many of these threads is that we're entitled to be top 10, that we're entitled to be in DMOZ in a timely fashion, that our listings can't drop out of sight occasionally, and that Google or DMOZ is dumb if they don't do what we think is best. It all seems unrealistic and unproductive.
Let's face it: if you're an honest webmaster running a commercial site, it's far better to get those 100 visitors who BUY something, rather than 200,000 people you've fooled into clicking on your page and who want nothing to do with you.
I won't deny that being on the first page of results can make a lot of money even for a spam site. It's like UCE: some people have to be buying products offered via spam, or it wouldn't keep flowing. Server time is cheap, so slimey dealers can afford thousands of misses.
But for the honest business trying to reach real customers (particularly in niche categories) a search engine that returns relevant results to query is their friend.
The whole "Google needs us" mentality is flawed in my opinion.
Here is a direct quote from a search engine engineer
"I don't see why anybody needs seo. If you build a web site about cell phones, we'll know about it and index it accordingly."
My response was, "In general, web producers don't think to use the phrase "Cell" and "phone" in their cell phone web sites." For instance, go to Nokia's web site. The word "cell" and "phone" not only don't appear together, the word "cell" isn't even on the page!
I am only stating that the underlying premise of the algorithm is in conflict with the way "most" web sites are designed. The implication of this is that "most" web sites don't have a chance to find their audience, which is what search engines purport to do.
Please don't argue the point that those webmasters need to get it, because if you do, you are missing my point altogether.
The point is, the web looks like "A-R-X-DXY" but the search engines are looking for, and representing as relevant, "A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I..." which is an artificial construction because most web designers don't create web sites in that manner.
And I guarantee someone here will be crying that Google didn't disclose the fact that they had changed their search to understand meaning instead of just syntax.
I'm undecided about your argument, but the analogy you're using is certainly flawed. Nokia is not selling cell phones on their website (unless I'm quite mistaken). Nokia.com is a corporate storefront, intended to impress other businesses, investors, and the few lucrative customers who want to look at info pages on their most expensive, cutting-edge products.
So they don't need to be number one in the SERP for "cell phone" (or even on the first page).
Morgan,
You're making good points, and I wonder if that isn't in the future, what with Google acquiring Advanced Semantics. Doing effective searches is a learning process. In the future, I think we'll see search engines trying to intelligently anticipate what the user is really looking for (or at least ask the right followup questions). Google's "spelling" feature is a first step towards this.
With great respect for your opinion, I have to strongly disagree. Google and webmasters are on opposite sides of the fence.
Not necessarily. It really depends on the Webmaster. Google is simply an index, and there's no inherent conflict between the indexer and the person who's indexed. Conflict occurs only if one party deviates from the straight and narrow.
On the same side of the fence as Google: A Webmaster who structures a site for users and provides "spider food" in the form of descriptive titles, anchor text, etc. In this case, what's good for the Webmaster is also good for Google, and vice versa (and for the user as well).
On the opposite of the fence from Google: A Webmaster who analyzes Google's vulnerabilities and exploits them. This kind of "aggressive SEO" may be good for the Webmaster (as long as it works, anyway) but it won't be good for Google, which is trying to deliver search results that are untainted by artificial manipulation.
Remember Frames?
As a web surfer I liked framed pages but they are all but history now ... thanks to Google.
Have you noticed pages using FLASH and lots of Javascript are fewer and farer between?
Web pages look a lot less atractive with plain text hyperlinks intead of artistic images links ... but no ... Google doesnt like that either.
Getting my drift?
but it won't be good for Google, which is trying to deliver search results that are untainted by artificial manipulation.
I agree with everything you say, but I think you may be missing my point.
Search Engines can only serve up the results that conform to it's definition of relevance, which you so very well described.
However, my point is that the vast majority of web designers do not place descriptive titles in their title tags, they do not fuss with anchor tags, and very often rarely put enough if any indexable content on the main page- That is the norm, that is what the search engines are up against, and that is what they are failing to include.
Your description of a well designed web site is only a repetition of what the Search Engines says a web site should look like if you want it to be found by their users- It is what the Search Engines (and to a certain extent the w3c) says it should look like.
Unfortunately, this is not the true face of web design today. Pick up any book on web design and you will find that the content mainly revolves around making pretty web sites that are easy to navigate, and don't forget the hundreds of web design books that focus on groovy flash animations. You will find nothing about anchor tags, etc. in those books.
Nothing.
It's like when you watch television and feel bad because everybody in tv-land is thin, young, and has perfect hair and perky breasts. But that is not a reflection of the real world, just as your description of how a web site should be constructed (for the Search Engines) is not a reflection of the common practice.
Not a reflection of the true face of design today. Visit Communication Arts Site of the Week [designinteract.com] and try to find a Search Engine friendly web site. I doubt you will. But this is the true face of web design today.
So, if Google is looking for the young and skinny with perky breasts, what happens to the vast majority of web sites that are a little flabby in the behind, and not so perky?
The inevitable conclusion is that, if most web sites do not conform to your description, then it follows that most web sites are on the other side of the fence from the Search Engines, they are not being exposed to the searching public, and that's our loss and the Search Engine's challenge for the future of search.
I do not know about others in this topics, but I never said Google or DMOZ was obligated to include a listing for us at all, let alone timely, and do not see where you get that out of my posts. When it comes DMOZ, it was their lack or professionalism in dealing with us, not following their own published procedures in dealing with our submission and correspondence on it. And, that I hear that alot about them. That is different.
I don't think the forum posters in general reflect the attitudes you say you see either. The average poster knows that Google isn't here for us, and don't "expect" a top 10 ranking. We all know it's Google's game and we're just players.
I assumed that from things like this:
"but that was after hours of wasted time dealing with them. and i do not think our experience was unique in their complete disregard of those out there that are working hard to earn a living, and for which a listing in DMOZ to help."
You went through a long process and applied "pressure" to get your listing. Then you talked about their attitude towards their "listing constituency", as though we are their customers or something.
I'm sure I assumed more than what's there, I'm reading about 8 separate threads right now of people calling Google "unprofessional", "irresponsible", "fubar", etc. So if I am misrepresenting anything it's because I'm responding to the entire attitude.
My point is actually just that DMOZ and Google's interests have nothing to do with us "working hard to earn a living". People just have gotten dependent and built businesses on their Google results, and now they're mad that Google's slightly unpredictable.
They would eventually be able to parse many different document types, infer meanings of phrases instead of just words, and generally have to think more like people.
That's why I disagree with the main idea of this thread, I do not think webmasters and Google are on the same side. Google would need a lot less work on spam filters if we didn't exist, and maybe they could be developing much smarter searching that understood language.
Instead we all change our sites and phrases to fit what works on Google, and Google works on ways to keep us from overdoing it.
"chris_D, what you propose is basically moving away from free listings, and into the realm of paid listings, which puts the whole conversation into a different ballpark, to me."
No. I didn't.
Please re read my post. I suggested an accreditation and approval programme for algorithmic listings. For webmasters and seo's who wanted to play by the rules.
I didn't propose 'Google should have Paid listings'.
Google already offers Paid listings - they are called 'Google Adwords'. The Adwords process has strict rules (flagged/ tested/ detected by computer; over ridden/ approved by humans) regarding presentation - and forces compliance - eg overuse of exclamation marks, overcapitalisation, irrelavence of landing pages, and legal compliance (eg you can't advertise betting sites using adwords eg in Germany) - comply or else your ad DOESN'T RUN on Google.
Application of an accreditation programme might just work for algorithmic listings - in exactly the same way.
I'm surprised why would you expect such a programme to be free?
I actually said:
"There needs to be a way that Webmasters and SEO's can work with Google - to make your perfect world happen abcdef. Some kind of 'approval' process by Google is my best suggestion. Google does it right now with adwords - it could instigate a similar approval programme with algorithmic pages - for a fee? Maybe an accreditation programme?."
By all means - offer a different point of view - feel free to disagree with any of my posts. All I ask is that you please at least read my posts before you start commenting on them.
Chris_D
