Social Factors - the End of Most Intelligent Content On The Web

[coachm]

I see that Google is now using social signals in their SERPS, and I'm quite stunned, in part as a business and also as a search consumer.

This is the single most evil thing I've seen in terms of its impact, if in fact social signals (in essence a measure of POPULARITY, not quality) play anything but a minor role in SERPS.

As social factors increase in importance, the point of creating original, thought leading, anything OTHER than simple mass content is removed.

The reality is that social media is a popular medium focuses on people (not a bad thing in itself), rather than content. The vast majority of the best and brightest in terms of subject matter experts in many niches, simply are NOT spending time pushing their ideas on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIN. They, in fact, we if I be a bit presumptuous, have better things to do with our time. Nothing wrong with social but if popularity (number of tweeted links/likes) is a deciding factor in ranking, those creating the best content in terms of "thought value" simply won't show up.

Apart from the fact that I've spend 15 years creating original content (I mean original, not some sad recast of what everyone else is saying), in print -- articles and books, and online (free, mind you), and that may now be worthless to me, it means that in my role of "content curation" (ok, finding and linking to the best content) is done.

There is now very little incentive to publish new ideas and thoughts to move fields forward, not only because it's hard to monetize, but because no one will see it because it won't have "buzz".

I work a lot with government, and have long wanted to open up a website on the topic, and have grabbed a few domains I might want to use. Now, there's no point.

If you look at social media, for example, what you will find is loads of stuff including the key word government from upset citizens, the political right, and so on....essentially contentless or worthless if one's interest is helping people understand government.

Project canned.

Finding the best content in niches from true authorities (scientists, academics, book authors that don't get buzz) has become harder and harder, and now the curation role is cooked.

And the kicker is, not only is content not king, replaced by "popularity", but the spamming of the SERPS and the pollution of an already polluted social media environment can begin aforce.

It's a trivial technical exercise to tweet every second on something, to vary the tweets, in order to boost SERPS. I have tools to do that, and they are openly available. I don't use them except to post occasional automated tweets for things I think are valuable and always spaced far apart.

Why shouldn't I just go completely black hat and do that?

If that's what it takes to be found, I won't do it, and not only that but there would not be any point in using the Internet anymore, EXCEPT to socialize.

I'm seriously stunned here. I hope I've got this wrong, but not only has Google crushed businesses like mine that trade in ideas and content, it has the potential to significantly damage the society at large by LIMITING (unintentionally) the spread of the very information that runs the economic engines of this planet.

I'm thinking that of course, social indicators will be only a part of determining SERP's, so the effect hopefully isn't as absolute as it could be.

Finally, perhaps this social factoring explains why my sales have gone to zero, my adsense income has disappeared, and what I worked to build is now almost useless to me, to those in my niches, and to the larger world.

Someone, tell me I've got this all wrong.

[Leosghost]

Now they have two other ranking signals: social presence and quality (the beginnings at least). Just what was wished for.

There were other ways to include a social element, comments and fora on site for example ..going to twitter and facebook is not an acceptable answer, especially not for quality judgments..for those to have merit they must be informed on the subjects.."tweets" and "likes" are not informed..and are far too easily manipulated and bought.

[tangor]

Ye Gollies, kiddies... there's a social to the Intellectual (coachum's plaint) which appears even here where we don't have +1, like, or more than polite raspberries uttered.

Short (there's no long to it) the web is social... has been from day one: an ability for Tom, Dick OR Harry to share and be "friended by" those of like mind. (Links, etc.) But there is an OBVIOUS side effect that those who worked hard to create really unique and compelling content have been ripped, scraped, copied are/have been, put off to produce further FREE CONTENT. This conversation has been belaboring the original point:

More Krap will appear because the Creators have seen the Light. They will move on to other venues because script kiddies and automations have rendered their existing work adsense fodder. And there is that Other Reality (if all are honest in recognition) that once something is "out there" every lazybone ripper will put it on their t-shirt (website) and the originator can't ever get it back.

Interesting thread for the first 150 posts, became tedious (and slap my own forehead for hanging in there this long), yet some immensely illumination regarding how AND WHY we do what we do has been revealed.

Brilliant thoughts, fellow webmasters, and that "brilliant" is sincerely offered as comment. But this pony is getting a bit lathered and I'm putting mine back in the barn for a scrub down and a bucket of oats.

[coachm]

I hope the irony of this isn't lost on you. I mean, you "refer to data" in the sense that you claim it exists and unequivocally supports your position even in the face of contradictory, if anecdotal, evidence, but you rarely actually present it.

1) I have presented some of it, but I wouldn't be allowed to post the links here.

2) If you are interested in looking at data that presents the reality of social media, you will. If you aren't interested you won't, and I'm not giving soundbytes to feed people who aren't interested or who don't have an open mind. There's a GOLDMINE of Twitter information about who is doing what, and mostly they are doing whatever with nobody else.

[coachm]

...ummm, wrong: Marshall Mcluhan, "The Medium is The Massage" (1967, Bantam Books).

Have you read Mcluhan? Or are you operating on a soundbyte. Read carefully the statement I wrote that you replied to.

BTW, Mcluhan was quite the jokester in service of manipulating media.

Since hardly anyone fully understands him, and I would guess some of his work actually is metaphoric, the best bet, if poeple want to understand some of this is, again, The Shallows, By Nicholas Carr.

It's clear and readable.

[coachm]

Tedster: I just lost my entire response hit the wrong key

Social factors in search engine rankings are taken in aggregate, and aggregate social data most definitely does have value. The presumed elite of many cultures have often learned a very hard lesson when they turned away from the common discourse that happens right under their nose.

We make judgments about everything almost all the time. Do you go to doctors you think are "stupid"? Do you want your brain surgeon to be "elite" or is run of the mill ok? Or, is stupid and clumsy ok for someone messing inside your skull?

I'm not saying the elite should have MORE power. I'm saying we need to foster their ideas, not OVER others, but equal to others even if those ideas aren't Liked, or retweeted or followed.

TV is a great example. We're so used to the rating driven commercialism we don't notice. Do you prefer Seinfeld, a brilliantly written, directed... show over the sometimes worst comedy shows?

There was a Canadian show called "Intelligence" (irony there) that was absolutely brilliant. Ratings were low in the first year, but CBC finally renewed it for a second, then cancelled it. The show required too much from viewers to become popular.

There are some shows that are great and people love them (West Wing comes to mind). There are other shows that are great but, due to ratings (and time spots, etc) aren 't popular and get cancelled, thus we lose some intelligent shows.

Then there are shows that are terrible and get cancelled and then shows that are terrible but are popular taking up time slots that could be used for more "edifying" results.

So, I get it. It's about money on television, and now there's enough channels so there's something on that I can FIND.

But it doesn't change the fact that popularity isn't always an indicator of quality, usefulness, intelligence, etc. The spate of reality shows is an example, tho I'm sure there's some good ones.

You are better at some things than I am and vice versa. No doubt you can or do generate content that is at the top of the heap, well thought out, knowledgable in your "areas".

I want to be able to find that stuff. Do I want to read your informed stuff, or the uninformed stuff of the a thousand hacks who end up being able to self-promote by posting social media junk?

Is having good judgment elitist?

[coachm]

Tedster, I don't understand what you mean by aggregated. Usually that means that the data is all lumped together so that individual data points are not available (as in how data is used to protect privacy).

That doesn't apply here (if I'm wrong about the social signals announcement, please let me know).

The way I read the Bing and Google announcements (well we can't call them information, really) they will use "social signals" to determine where my sites and everyones' will show up in the SERPS. (as but one set of factors among others).

If you can suggest how "social signals" means something other than "popular", I'd like to hear. You probably know way more about the signals thing than I do.

[Swanson]

coachm, cutting to the chase through this very long thread - I think what you are saying is that you believe that all the intelligent content written by people who are well schooled will not be tweeted or liked as all that stuff will be done by the masses who watch X Factor and Pop idol etc.

But surely the concept of peers has seen like minded people follow others like them way before facebook and twitter.

In your example a brain surgeon would be followed by peers and academics and even students around the world who understand and respect this person and wants to know more. Their audience is much smaller than "mass market" but their audience is there, just as it always has been there.

Highly intelligent and riveting people have always had followers around the world - the internet has enabled these people to reach out to an even wider audience.

By combining the real world and new forms of social communication such as blogs, forums, facebook and twitter then people who have something truly interesting to say will be able find like-minded people who respect their ideas more than ever before. They will be "liked" and tweeted and bookmarked and shared between these people that follow them - in fact their audience will be even more "sticky" than many sites as it is specialist and the people following don't have as many destination sites to go to.

Yes, these "likes" in percentage terms will be a fraction of the "noise" volume of people who watch Jerry Springer - but that doesn't matter, it reflects society.

Truly interesting and intelligent people get a bigger voice than ever before.

[Leosghost]

The problem with that, is that search engines that use likes and tweets to influence the rankings of sites will bury the intelligent content under page after page after page of sites that have been pushed to the top for every conceivable thing by the likes of the masses who watch x factor and pop idol..

If those writing the intelligent content have to spend all their time tweeting and arranging to be liked , just to get to page 10 of serps ..when, pray tell, are they going to have any time to create the content ?

By combining the real world and new forms of social communication such as blogs, forums, facebook and twitter then people who have something truly interesting to say will be able find like-minded people who respect their ideas more than ever before.

TV and radio programming being dependent on "ratings" ( "likes" and "tweets" by another name ) has prove that to be untrue..What the masses can't understand ..no longer gets produced , or broadcast, or is only on in the wee small hour sof the night..and in newspapers the red tops and the gutter press, the sun, the mirror , the star etc are pushing out the quality papers such as the the Times etc..

Yes, in percentage terms it will be a fraction of the "noise" volume of people who watch Jerry Springer - but that doesn't matter, it reflects society.

It matters very much, bright kids of dumb parents, will have less means to access anything other than x factor and reality TV, and page3 of the sun.

Truly interesting and intelligent people get a bigger voice than ever before.

You apparently don't understand s/n ..whenn the noise gets too strong, the signal is drowned out and can no longer be heard...one can't have a bigger voice if one is competing with the shouting and howling of the mob..

[Swanson]

I suggest "popular" will mean popular in relation to sites like you.

So as we are talking search engines it would surely be query based and include relative popularity of the sites in the resultset.

Just in the way that links measure popularity - they don't measure the relative popularity of my site to BBC, they measure the relative popularity of sites in my sector targeting keywords that I am doing.

So you don't need to worry that by incorporating social signals that Google is going to compare your site to massive "low-brow" websites - they are going to compare your site against sites in your industry and your keywords.

[Play_Bach]

So you don't need to worry that by incorporating social signals that Google is going to compare your site to massive "low-brow" websites - they are going to compare your site against sites in your industry and your keywords.

Exactly. Well said. Thank you Swanson.

[Swanson]

Leosghost, I do understand social networks and you don't compete with "the mob" or the whole of the users of these social networks.

You compete with your competitors just as you always have - you have to be better than them just like you always have. You don't have to be louder than everyone.

You just need to be better than sites than you are competing with - thats all, not the whole of the online social networking world.

And so nothing has changed - just the platforms to do it.

[lexipixel]

Have you read Mcluhan?

Only "The Medium Is the Massage" cover to cover, (it was high-school required reading back in the 70's), but it's not so much a "read" -- more a poetic pictorial reflection with Mcluhanisms.

I think Professor Mcluhan would probably agree that reading any more of his work is a waste of time once you grasp the essence of his observations.

Having never met him, I believe he would have great disdain for anyone who came up and asked for an autograph and said "I've read everything you've ever written!" -- he'd think you a sheep, and would probably more respect someone who uttered one original thought.

[Leosghost]

So you really think that if lady Gaga mentions blue widgets or for a more concrete example "Judas" and you have been writing about blue widgets or "Judas"..that here millions of blind likes..will not be in competition with you for that term ..if you think that you are in grave error.

Because that is how search works now..the "result set" as you call it is "KW based"..not "niche based"

[Swanson]

I would say that if you are trying to compete with any site on a one word keyword then you need to get back to SEO basics never mind social media.

Competing on anything like that right now is a stupid thing to waste time on as you are competing with sites that have millions of links and the query is so generic it is useless and means so many things.

The clever bit of SEO is to compete on keywords where there is LESS competition not MORE.

Yes, it is keyword based - so all the SEO 101 advice applies.

Good keywords that are long tail to start, optimise site and content etc. - get links, promote content via social media.

The more specific the keyword the better job the search engine has of giving better results. You are competing with the sites on your target keyword set and therefore choosing the correct keywords is a fundamental issue.

If you choose the wrong keywords then social media doesn't even come into it.

I think of social signals as an overlay on top of the existing link based popularity system so it would not make sense for Google to rank Lady Gaga along with your site if she mentions your product name as you mention in that example.

All these things that make google a textual and contextual search engine are still in play - that is why sites Google have invested in semantics and link based semantics and all these other technologies over the years.

Your example is simply not valid - Lady Gaga would not appear in the result set for that query as it is not relevant in the first instance.

[edited by: Swanson at 7:53 pm (utc) on Jun 11, 2011]

[Swanson]

If you are competing with Lady Gaga for any keyword then you might as well shut down the website and go and do something else.

[Leosghost]

I think you are in the UK..? ..You may find this example more relevant if so ..

Years ago the BBC was not ad funded ..so whilst ITV produced primarily what could be called "low brow" programming to capture the housewife market..the BBC did not have to do so, so it produced dramas and documentaries and high grade political programming, and a very small amount of soap opera type programming , so as not to be too readily able to be accused of being "elistist"..

Then the masses got their voice heard in the BBC ..and culture for the BBC became Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross..because that is what the "audience wanted"..the BBC did not need to chase the ratings , but they did so nevertheless..and to pay the sums demanded by these mass appeal so called "talents" ( if shouting and swearing can be called a "comedic talent"..which in my book they most definitely are not ) other quality programming was cut ..

Search is a zero sum game ..if Brand is on page one for a term ..someone else is not, if Ross is on there with him , another must make way, if Gaga is also on there , and Spears and Beckham, and Perry are also, everyone else will be pushed to page two ..and so it goes..

Serps are results based on the keywords you put in ..if the "darlings of the masses" are using the same keywords as you are ..whether you have more links from sites that talk of Judas ( the character ) ..you will be way down the serps,maybe page 10 if you are lucky, because the blind likes and the idiot tweets about Judas the song..will be the noise which pushes you there..

That is how Google and Bing return results, based on word searches..not on niche.and they have not said that they are intending changing that, not at all.

[Swanson]

I don't agree.

As I said before Google uses relevance, semantics, content and links first.

All those already filter out all "the masses" from the odd mention forcing their sites up to the top.

At present you have to do some really good optimisation to get on to page one.

The only way that Lady Gaga appears on page one for something that is not relevant to her is if Google ditches the whole foundation it is based on and puts facebook likes first. And the only noises from Google and Bing is that social signals will be just that - signals - used to refine the way the rank results. Not the primary way to just popularity.

That is simply a bad assumption and never going to happen as it has no logic at all - Google and Bing look at very basic stuff and none of it mentions the concepts you are proposing.

If they did it would do exactly as you are mentioning and be useless - so why try to discuss something that has not even been proposed by any search engine and is not in effect today?

[edited by: Swanson at 8:02 pm (utc) on Jun 11, 2011]

[Leosghost]

Ah ..so you would leave to the intellectuals, only obscure the terms no one else wants..

And what if Lady gaga releases a single with your obscure term..at present she might be on page one ..and so might you, simultaneously ..but with "likes and tweets" in the mix ..not a hope..so where would be the point in writing anything ..as you can never predict what the masses darlings will write next ..even Beckham can say Descartes ..in spite of the fact that he probably thinks he used to play for Blackburn ( think I'm joking , his tattoos don't says what he thought they did )..and his fans would think he was talking about a Brazilian centre forward that played in a league that they didn't know..

Wouldn't stop them "liking" and "tweeting" Becks sez Decartes blah blah.." ..and you site would be gone..so far down it might as well never have been..

Cantona used many philosophers names, so "Becks" has heard them ..just doesn't know who they play for.

[tedster]

Even if a single keyword such as [judas] does begin to get swamped by a pop reference, anyone looking for a non-gaga reference can still find it. They will not click on the gaga pages. Intelligent searchers rarely use single word queries anyway, and they do understand boolean operators.

Search results today are far more than keyword-based. Google's 2006 phrase-based indexing patents already exposed some of the deeper workings. Add to that, query-intention work is pervasive today at all the major search engines.

Today's ranking algorithms are not like additive checklist scoring. That was the early WebPostionGold mindest. Today we have sophisticated decision trees that use dynamically changing taxonomies for both query types and document types. Did everyone notice the recently surfaced Google phrase "document classifier?"

The art of information retrieval is evolving, and the sky is not falling. Not even if lots of Tweets say it is ;)

[Leosghost]

They proposed this a while ago now

..They are doing exactly what we are discussing ..follow rlange's link..and do some more research, they have been working on intergrating this in precisely the way I describe for a couple of years ( keyword based )..now that they think they can , Google is rushing it out because Bing have access to facebook..

Early results ( Ted mentioned some ) show just how easy it is to manipulate..coachm is aware of others, as am I ..

[Leosghost]

Ted, not all intelligent people know how to search like we do ..they don't know "operators" and they would give up long before they reached page 10 of serps..

[Swanson]

No - long tail terms are the conversion goldmine that everyone should be chasing. Long tail is not obscure - if you think that then I don't know what to say really.

So why would Becks mentioning "Descartes" make him rank for that keyword when social signals are incorporated?

As I said Google has to ditch the whole "other" side of the ranking business it developed for the past 12 years.

All the sites I see for that query are relevant to that word and have a lot of content and links relevant.

David Beckham wouldn't even get into the resultset to be re-ranked by social signals as his site is not relevant enough to start with - he doesn't even get into the game!

[Swanson]

As tedster says Google is more more than a text based set of results.

For that example query Google almost "knows" what sort of sites need to come back for it - the complex algos at work are much more than XYZ sites mentioned word so then rank sites based on facebook likes.

Crikey, I could come up with a search engine like that in a few minutes. But it wouldn't be a good one.

[Swanson]

All results can be manipulated - but I just can't see david beckham trying to manipulate Google to come top for "Descartes".

Call me crazy but I don't think he would bother.

[tedster]

I just can't see david beckham trying to manipulate Google to come top for "Descartes".

Even if he did, social signals have short half-lives in the ranking mix.

[edited by: tedster at 8:30 pm (utc) on Jun 11, 2011]

[Play_Bach]

> That is simply a bad assumption and never going to happen as it has no logic at all

Again Swanson, thank you. This whole notion that Facebook Likes and Twitter Follows somehow upends the way sites are ranked is absurd.

[Leosghost]

He wouldn't ;-) not deliberately..but it can happen accidentally easily..and if search is not keyword based, how come I can rank for just one keyword or two out of nearly half a billion "results" and both of them "money "words..if I do the right things..

Even if a single keyword such as [judas] does begin to get swamped by a pop reference, anyone looking for a non-gaga reference can still find it.

The fact that a "single keyword" can get "swamped"..show that they, the search engines , do in fact use single keywords..and also "long tail"..I try for both..as neither is IME too hard to get..I don"t think you should rule out accidental or manipulated "swamping" by any means..

It will be interesting to see say 5 years from now ..I would very much like to be wrong..but as with ( as mentioned to me today via sticky , by another member ) the last time I found myself with one other member in foo discussing something against all comers...( it was the rise we " freedom and I" predicted about 5 years ago in gold prices to todays heights ) ..it would have been good to be wrong ..because for gold to rise as we predicted..and others all said we were wrong and no way etc et etc ..( we knew there had to be a crash and a world recession..) ..what can go wrong ..will go wrong..anyone who was around during that thread bought gold at the time ?..

I think we spoke of this before Soros and all the other specialist financiers..

We did warn you..

I'd love to be wrong about what the integration of social signals from twitter and facebook will do to search and culture..we shall see..5 years from now..

[Swanson]

Well, anything can happen.

But I am not going to worry about what happens in 5 years - on the web that is a lifetime to me, we could be talking about all sorts of new things that would influence search results.

I prefer to look at now, and things that may be factor short term.

There is no point at looking too much further than short term as a webmaster in relation to getting traffic from search engines - just look at what Panda has done. Ironically, looking at strategies away from search engines is the best long term plan over the next 5 years.

[HuskyPup]

Hay, come on guys, keep posting, I've been enjoying this thread:-)

I would love to contribute but I really don't know enough plus I've a foot in both camps. I don't like social as yet but have no problem with people doing/using it. I can see the possible advantages however I also fear for the disadvantages and influences that possibly may happen.

Should we have a pros and cons list?

[lexipixel]

But I am not going to worry about what happens in 5 years
-Swanson

As I demonstrated to another member via sticky, an article I wrote about 20 years ago (and posted as BBS content and then converted to HTML approx 10 years ago), still ranks #1 for several 2-3 word very relevant searches.

Which is better? (A) Write one well written, original article, properly mark it up and monetize it for years, or; (B) throw together articles daily using today's buzz words, pump up the Tweets and Likes and get a big spike of traffic for a couple days, then watch it wither on the vine?

Answer: Ask the tortoise and the hare.