Forum Moderators: open
Yet, it appears to me that we are all going in the wrong direction. Search Engines seem to be focusing on technique, instead of concerning themselves with results. We, as developers, spend a great deal of time maximizing techniques and putting down that technique and what is the new technique, etc. This comes at a cost to our customers.
Should not the focus be, is the result deceptive or true?
I am having difficulty with the concept that META tags, which are hidden to the viewer, are OK, yet, a hidden div after the body tag is not. They are both invisible.
Isn't any form of modification, to increase one's ranking, a form of Spamming?
Is it wrong, to work a page or site to improve a search engines ability to rank that page properly? No.
Are we not helping search engines return better results? I think so.
An example, the search on Google for <keyword> yields the first non-paid return is an ISP, the third is a Newspaper. Nothing to do with <keyword> at all! In fact 5 of the top 20 were not <keyword> firms at all. Others were not from <location>, yet I admit they may do business in <location>. Since <keyword> are aware of optimization, this result is better than many returns.
Should a domain be banned by a SE, because they optimized their site to return a better ranking for keyphrases that actually pertain to their business and the query? Does technique matter or does the result matter?
If I am a <snip> and do a lot of business in <snip>, is it wrong to optimize my site so that people looking for that see my site in the query results? Or is it better that they see a newspaper?
Well, that is the case. Yes, I used a hidden div, with only pertinent keywords. And, only a few. So, now, my company, who provides an exceptional value for businesses in <snip>, is off Google. How does that help the businesses in <snip>?
Interesting to note is the fact that we were reported as a direct attack on a company I design for. My company and the company that owns the studio, who is not involved in site design at all and did not appear in searches where we were found, were collateral damage. Others who are?aggressively? optimizing their sites are still on the query return.
I propose that Google, and others, should not be concerned about what technique was used, but, is the result deceitful or misleading? That we should not go down the road that this method of invisible text (META TAGS for instance) is OK and hidden divs are not. We can always find a way around these things and as history suggests, new loopholes are born every time you try to plug one up. Look at the Tax laws. This is unfair to businesses that have to bear the costs of optimization, the possible risk of being banned and the loss of revenue. All so that their product or service can be found properly on a search engine and they rank better than non-relevant results due to Search engine deficiencies. That in fact, our techniques can be used to improve a search engine?s results.
Abuse reporting should be aimed at those that are deceitful in that they are using techniques, to mislead and drive traffic to their site, which has no bearing on the query.
If we want Search engines to work better, I feel, it is time for new thinking.
[edited by: NFFC at 11:51 pm (utc) on Jan. 12, 2003]
[edit reason] Please, no specifics [/edit]
Returning to the first, if it doesn't serve the user first, why is it in the design? It seems a tremendous amount of roundabout work to construct a site to do well for something other than your users (e.g. Google) such that you can get the traffic (and the users) that you want. And unnecessary.
Google ought to be interested in flaws in its algorithm (ways in which it rewards design techniques that are NOT relevant to the user or public) but I'm not sure that invisible text, doorway pages that a user wouldn't really be interested in reading, link farms, etc. are such flaws.
In many cases, given enough brainpower, a solution might be reached that does not compromise design and corporate image, and still accomplish what is necessary to be found on the search.
As an example, I was reviewing a site I did for a photographer. A common issue as stated in an earlier reply is dealing with locations. Normally, one would place a line or two describing the areas where he could shoot. As we know, that will probably not do a lot on improving his ranking (say on a search on Massachusetts Commercial photographer). I could make a new page, maybe off of services that deals with this. We could put where each shoot for the past 2 or so years happened. It would rank fairly well, especially if we also include if it was an advertising shoot, an industrial shoot etc. Besides being way more data than a person needs, the costs for his time to research and gather this information, it is a new page, we have to copyedit it, populate it, format it and publish/check it.
This is not free.
I was doing a couple of estimates today, and with our estimates, we include a site map. I was having difficulty trying to develop a site map, that makes sense to the client, the viewer, search engines and myself. I need to concentrate on how we can do this to sell more stuff. Throwing in pages to improve search engine improvements is not only spamming in the true sense, but, again, an additional cost to the client. And then to have to explain the extra 20 hours on copywriting, page creation, etc is not easy. Especially in today's climate.
Much of what I can do efficiently through techniques and a template. And what others claim, etc.
And again, I can appreciate someone having a hard time "messing with my algo" but, since it is not a perfect algo, we, by messing with it, could be improving it.
I also wish that I could know of a non-spam way to eliminate certain hits. We get a lot of hits on people looking for Wolf graphics, Wolf prints, etc. Why? Cause Wolf is the second name in our bbusiness. How can I stop those hits?
I could create a doorway that would surpass my other pages on this and tell them in the description, not a source of wolf graphics or what ever. Wouldn't that help searches too!
Not saying that is the thing to do, but it gets you thinking.
Interesting.
since it is not a perfect algo, we, by messing with it, could be improving it.
Absolutely, yoda0482! Unfortunately, I'm not sure Google would see it in this light. I used to be pretty adamant against cloaking and while I still can't recommend it as a method to my clients, people like Ralph Tegtmeier do have some interesting and persuasive arguments as to why cloaking is not bad in-itself although it can be abused.
On your doorway page idea, depending on how it's done, I don't believe you would suffer Google penalties- as long as the page itself has decent content and makes sense to your client's users and would-be market. If it's something they wouldn't be embarassed to have their potential clients see and even offers something of value to them, I don't believe this strictly qualifies as a "doorway" page in the pejorative sense anymore.
