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.

[tedster]

Here's a hash tag use that I think is awesome - it turns Twitter into an oversized chatroom. Every Monday at 9pm eastern time there's a live discussion that uses the hashtag #socialchat

We're talking real dialog, professional marketers sharing insights, a lot of value. I know that information shared there makes its rounds in many ways.

<added>
Next week the chat will be chaired by Klout's Marketing Manager, Megan Berry who will focus the discussion on Social Media Metrics.

[tangor]

I've waded through 241 messages searching for "intelligent conversation" "on the web" "regarding Google"... and on the side "social media" "twits" "fb" and the like.

I hear a lot of "poor me", "unwashed masses" "lowest common-denominator"...

One does not have to play, but if one does, play as much as you like, or play really hard.

I do agree that scrapers taking from the producers is making it difficult for producers to keep on. It is more discouraging that G (in particular) and other SEs aren't recognizing creators over scrapers... but IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY THROUGH HUMAN HISTORY. Still, that said, there are ways to keep on... and that's what needs be done, rather than moan about the OBVIOUS.

[coachm]

Here's a hash tag use that I think is awesome - it turns Twitter into an oversized chatroom. Every Monday at 9pm eastern time there's a live discussion that uses the hashtag #socialchat

We're talking real dialog, professional marketers sharing insights, a lot of value. I know that information shared there makes its rounds in many ways.

Thanks. This isn't what I was asking (if I recall, so correct me if I'm wrong) I was asking for NON-social media related tags where the norm is conversation OUTSIDE of chats.

Remember, I'm not commenting here on whether social media is worthwhile, but whether it actually IS about relationships and conversation.

Now we have data, albeit very small sample size, but I'll continue to sample.

Here's what we have:

On #socialchat I sampled 64 tweets.

30% were RT
17% were Thank yous
40% were links posted (no conversations) or announcements
9% were auto-tweets with the text identical from one to the other, but with the @ changed
3% COULD have been conversation since they looked like replies.

So, in this small sample, in a "place" you'd expect chat, you don't find chat. There was virtually zero dialogue or responsiveness, or, in fact responses with ANY content.

It's a broadcast medium as it is used.

I challenge anyone to do the same thing I've done. It's not hard, although exceedingly boring.

By the way, you mentioned "relational" in an earlier post, and I meant to add that the term that is starting to be used to describe social media relationships is "thin relationships".

[Play_Bach]

> I challenge anyone to do the same thing I've done.

And I challenge you to provide one example of a site that is ranking better now on Google because of Facebook Likes or Twitter Follows as you have asserted is being done.

[tedster]

On #socialchat I sampled 64 tweets.

The sample for this hash tag should be time-sensitive - 9pm to 10pm Eastern on Monday

[mrmobility]

You've got this all wrong

[Leosghost]

Away from "social media", sentences require the possibility to know whom you are addressing with "you've" ..but as coachm points out, most people using social media are talking to themselves, or "broadcasting" ..and as such, are not concerned with being coherent.

mrmobility..You think every poster in this thread except yourself has this all wrong ? ..Because that is what you have just said.."you've" can also be the plural usage..

[lexipixel]

You've got this all wrong.
-mrmobility

Perhaps he's scrambled the order of the words in his post and meant:

"You've all got this wrong."

Ahhh... the subtleties of social media, (lest anyone forget WebmasterWorld is another form of same).

(as the last gasps of a 200+ post thread occur)...

[coachm]

he sample for this hash tag should be time-sensitive - 9pm to 10pm Eastern on Monday

No. Absolutely not. That sample is the aberration, the outlier as would be the case for ALL chats. I'm not interested in whether it's POSSIBLE to interact. I'm interested in whether MOST people (not some) interact on Twitter as a matter of course.

If you go back and read the relevant messages, this tangent occured when I mentioned, in response to your post about "relationships" and a few other folks, that you guys are flat our wrong and that twitter, the way it is used by the overwhelming minority is a broadcast medium.

We aren`t talking JUST about chats, which occur in a one hour span in a week of 168 hours.

I`m giving you the advantage by `letting` you choose a "channel" that is supposed to promote interaction and dialogue, given it's about "social" and it's a chat.

1 hour out of 168 each week is not representative of how real people use Twitter.

On another note, it's funny, but social media, particularly Twitter is the only medium I now where the content is so much about the actual medium.

Like, if the only things we talked about when using the phone was about using the phone, I'd expect someone would try to get us locked up.

...there's a profound meaning to this, if I could only figure it out. It's pretty funny,.

[coachm]

Away from "social media", sentences require the possibility to know whom you are addressing with "you've" ..but as coachm points out, most people using social media are talking to themselves, or "broadcasting" ..and as such, are not concerned with being coherent.

Nobody will believe you about talking to oneself, even though the data is absolutely, fundamentally clear. There is simply no way to argue the data, which has been published in a number of places.

I'm going to continue to gather data and sample and publish the results on the open web, about "twitter conversation" or lack thereof.

I like WebmasterWorld a lot. But as a social medium it suffers from the same problems as other ones, and that is that crap pushes out good, because more people want to post "contentless" stuff rather than "engage" or debate, or discuss in ways that require a little effort.

We see this on most controversial topics, and it used to be the rule in the adsense forum, etc, where people voice their opinions as fact, and rarely even bother to refer to data.

Anyway, I've made some additional decisions about the issue of readership on my websites. I'll write new free articles to the extent my readership goes up, and I'm asking readers to comment, tweet, retweet or whatever.

If they aren't willing, I figure they don't see much value in what I write, so I'll stop, and look for other ways to make it work.

Paywall is a possibility, micropublishing of small ebooks, instead of writing free articles and charging a small fee, etc.

In the event that I can get readership, then at least I'd like the lesser number of readers to care enough to kick in a few bucks, even it's just a token. I want readers who care. Enough.

[coachm]

uMM. Or, it could be "You all got this all one, each and every one of you on each and every issue being discussed here by all who are involved"?

Your watchdog
Department of Redundancy Redunceduncy

[rlange]

coachm wrote:
Nobody will believe you about talking to oneself, even though the data is absolutely, fundamentally clear. [...] people voice their opinions as fact, and rarely even bother to refer to data.

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.

--
Ryan

[tedster]

The title of this thread is "Social Factors - the End of Most Intelligent Content On The Web".

Doesn't this premise assume some kind of elitist position - or put more bluntly, that the "rabble" never have much of value to offer?

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.

Even more, corporations have created great injustices and hardships by not even having a vehicle to hear the common voice calling out from under their clumsy feet.

Today for the first time there is such a vehicle - a mirror that can stop businesses and cultural figures in their tracks and show them a very unflattering reflection. Savvy businesses are already embracing the kind of transformation that this facilitates. And search engines are also wise to learn how such factors can be applied.

But now I'm tempted to start quoting Bob Dylan, so I'll sign off.

[Swanson]

Doesn't this premise assume some kind of elitist position - or put more bluntly, that the "rabble" never have much of value to offer?

Thats the issue really isn't it.

As more and more people use the web and then use it to socialise and interact the more the internet population reflects the actual population.

The implication is that social = thick, unimportant, not intelligent, not educated, not valid.

The only two things that come from this is that either that is the case and therefore most people are idiots or that is not the case and it is an elitist position as tedster mentions and the "perception" is that most people are idiots.

Or maybe, just maybe sometimes people just like to communicate with other people in many different ways - sometimes in 10 words, sometimes in 100, sometimes with just a mood, sometimes just a picture. These people can be anyone. Even intelligent people like to just chat about nothing in particular sometimes. Sometimes people ask for help, recommendations. Sometimes people listen, sometimes they don't. Sometimes people get serious for a while and then sometimes they just want to mess about.

But the powerful thing as tedster says is the aggregate of all this "social" - put millions and millions of signals together into an aggregate and get a pattern, a story even. If you can harness that in some way then you have a big enough sample size across ages, culture etc. to do something special with it,.

[Leosghost]

[theregister.co.uk...]

[SevenCubed]

...corporations have created great injustices and hardships by not even having a vehicle to hear the common voice calling out from under their clumsy feet.

Today for the first time there is such a vehicle - a mirror that can stop businesses and cultural figures in their tracks and show them a very unflattering reflection. Savvy businesses are already embracing the kind of transformation that this facilitates...

If those entities had a deep rooted ethical business philosophy from the beginning they wouldn't have to run around trying to put out their own self-created fires. Savvy businesses are already enjoying their purpose for being. For the un-savvy ones, there is social media.

I'm enjoying this thread, very passionate debate. Overall, I tend to agree with the OP except for a few minor differences. But too many arguments seem to really be hung-up on a single word -- "intelligent" -- take the edge off of it by swapping it with "meaningful", "useful" or "thought provoking" and then the theme of the OP shines brightly.

Also, I'm seeing the word "elitist" pop up a lot yet I don't get that impression from the OP or even other individuals that it has been directed at. I just interpret it as someone with more awareness trying to nudge some of us out of our delusional complacent senses such as this dangerous way of thinking:

I mean you have to accept the way it is, you have no other option but to work within the system

In very few instances have I ever worked within "the system". I'm a free-thinker. I've walked out of jobs when they tried to get me to work "within the system". I've been chased out of jobs when they tried to force me into compliance with "the system". Today I look back at it all and I'm very glad I didn't cave into the system, no regrets. I'm certainly not about to change that stance for something as flaky as FB marketing or Twitter eaves-dropping.

Overall social media in and of itself is not the problem. It fulfills a purpose. I would call FB social, Twitter -- definitely not. The real problem is marketers trying to own those platforms along with FB selling those same marketers the deeds to your soul. No worries, I see that the greatest majority of people who use it are ignoring the marketers and companies chasing them. There's hope!

I'm not going to be dissuaded from writing and publishing new original thought-provoking content regardless of where the search engines are heading presently. Sooner or later they will have to come back around to the core purpose of search, it's inevitable. For the last 5+ years I have been uncovering and weaving together an immensely beautiful story (oops someone will call me an elitist now) and I am looking forward to making it public. It is not going to be "monetized" and will not have any commercialism attached to it. It will be freely accessible to the world, except for Google, they will be blacklisted. Their user-agents and all IP ranges will be served pages with a politically incorrect statement -- no holds barred. Ahhhh Google will be handed a loooooooooong penalty. Heck I'm even going to be nice about it and explain to them why they cannot get access to it, let me count the ways...

[lexipixel]

Twitter is the only medium I now where the content is so much about the actual medium.
-coachm

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

@Leosghost, re: Register single ID scheme article: Funny that Facebook and Microsoft, two "worst offenders" (ethically) are mentioned. Funny? Not.

[Leosghost]

Doesn't this premise assume some kind of elitist position - or put more bluntly, that the "rabble" never have much of value to offer?

Thats the issue really isn't it.

As more and more people use the web and then use it to socialise and interact the more the internet population reflects the actual population.

The implication is that social = thick, unimportant, not intelligent, not educated, not valid.

You might want to think for a moment of what could be called the "Barabbas effect" ..let the mob, the idiocracy decide what is good, worthy, what should be and what should not , what should be accessible, what books should be in the libraries, what should be in the news, what should be on the TV, if there should be libraries, what should be in serps, where it should be ..

You'll get a Barabbas decision..

And if you allow social sites like facebook and twitter to determine ranking and position and visbility..( and yes Bing have announced that they will do this with facebook, and Google have said the same with twitter , but we cannot determine what goes up or down , yet, due to this ) even if it is only in a small way ..to begin..

You are then allowing the noses of the camels of the mob into the tent..and the mobs camels and the mob will surely follow, because that is what mobs do..and they will take over the tent..and cast you out, because the majority is right ..

And they will fill it with stories from Fox News, from the Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail, Lady Gaga, the Beckhams, Royal Weddings, pop stars caught in toilets, stories of child pron, with pictures "blurry" of course, child starlets,stolen babies, car crashes, with pictures of course, lolcats, reality TV, reality TV stars, pron, realty TV stars in pron, more pron, TV preachers, pron, etc etc ......not forgetting the pron..

And objectors will be called elitist, and shunned , and shouted down, and their houses may be burned, by the same idiocracy that vandalises the houses of paediatricians, because it sounds like something else with more than 3 syllables, and someone will point out that elitists are intellectuals, and intellectuals wear eyeglasses, and so anyone with eyeglasses, unless they are rayban or gucci ..or good fakes of those with at least the logos on view, will be shunned, and shouted down, and attacked, and the name of pol pot will mean nothing to the mob, for it sounds not like a name, not like Gaga or Becks..and only a little like Posh..

And some will encourage the mob, for their voices should be heard, it is not their fault, they have the right not to know the words, it is the fault of the elitists, the intellectuals, the people should decide , they should have influence on what is seen and heard ( read will no longer be a problem )..and some of those who encourage them will begin to speak in their name..and use their influence, wield the might of the number in the mob..anyone hear the chanting beginning far away , but coming closer with the future, heard it before in the past ? ..Sieg H...

The mob will always choose Barabbas.. and their voices can always be harmonised to match the straight arm salutes that they slip so easily into..

You want the mob to have an influence on what is deemed acceptable and of quality..the best you will get is a slide into mediocrity..the worst is a digital version of Fahrenheit 451..with the society that goes with it..

Think I'm exaggerating? ..learn from history..

Barabbas was an illustration from 2000 years ago..there were doubtless similar cases of what letting the uneducated semi-literate majority decide what was good and bad, what should be saved, and what should be discarded, or sacrificed, before that was written ..there have been many since, the majority is very easily influenced, and so should not have weighted influence into what is good or bad..

Search engines and social media via the web,are now a larger influence on people than any single thing in history..I think it was Eric Schmidt who said ..

The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.

..and search engines are the largest force within the internet, and social media are rapidly catching up ..

The two must stay separate...

Already in the hope of fast money and influence, Microsoft has linked with facebook, the one will inevitably influence what is visible in the other and in doing so will influence what people think ..MS will begin to favour what the majority "likes"..

Google has said it will / is allowing a "social media" influence ..

The crowd will always call for Barabbas..

[lexipixel]

anyone hear the chanting ?

I assume you won't be attending the Two Minutes Hate...

[Play_Bach]

And if you allow social sites like facebook and twitter to determine ranking and position and visbility..

More "what if" hooey. I'd like to see some evidence that any site's ranking has gone either up or down in the SERPS by this supposed Facebook and Twitter influence.

[Leosghost]

And how would you tell ?

Your question is of the ilk of,

"When did you stop beating your wife ?"

It will take considerable time, to tell which sites rankings move, according to this , but it will not be "if" ( if the search engines and the social media companies did not think it will influence serps, they would not bother to waste the energy, to include it into their algos) ..and when we can see, it will have its own momentum, and will probably be too late to stop..not "what if"..but "what has already been"..and "may come again" ..if we are not very very carefull, and if good men and women stand idle.

Perhaps I should have made the picture more simple, easier to understand, for those used to "social media", only used 140 chars inc spaces ?

[Play_Bach]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion about how the future will turn out. Ok with you if I don't agree?

[Leosghost]

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.

The UK is considering starting down the path in which such things are a possible future..to paraphrase what someone said in another forum "incompetence and ingnorance, skipping lightly into the future , hand in hand with evil"..from tiny acorns twisted mighty malevolent oaks may grow..

[tedster]

I know of several case studies - a year ago and more - where a brand new site was indexed and ranking through nothing but Tweets.

At that time, at least, the power of social factors tended to be short lived. Sustained rankings take more, and if that includes sustained social activity, it's a good thing. More than that, sustained social activity tends to generate natural backlink increases - and those tend to have a much longer life-span.

[Leosghost]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion about how the future will turn out. Ok with you if I don't agree?

I would say "how the future may turn out..if we are not careful to heed the past, and do not watch our step" ..

Ok with you if I don't agree?

The more everyone questions, and disagrees rather than blindly "likes" and inanely "tweets"..the less likely that future is ..but think on it anyway , as you go, and if you can see any of it beginning to appear, try to prevent it..OK :)

[lexipixel]

if we are not careful to heed the past

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-George Santayana

"...and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak."
-Martin Niemöller

But, as coachm's opening line for this thread reads: "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", I think many here may be confusing the ideological issue with that of maintaining a top spot in the SERPs for online sales or Adsense revenue reasons...

[Leosghost]

it's a good thing.

That depends Ted, lets take for instance the sites ( there are many of them ) , teen girls sites the "anna" sites .."anna" is for anorexic..they promote anorexia, as being a good thing, they are mainly run by anorexic teen girls, its like the goth sites or the emo sites, a whole culture that everyday webmasters don't know of ..

The "annas" also have facebook and twitter groups , hundreds of thousands of members in total, world wide..they encourage suicide by anorexia ..they say it is good to not eat, that looking like an Auschwitz victim is beautiful, and that dying looking like that is their right and no one should try to stop them, they have their own support networks, and they encourage others..

If they tweet and like their sites enough ..they will rise..and they will be sustained by more campaigns, because these girls are very determined..they could become page one sites for weight loss or teenage weight loss ..with a social push ..very easily..

In 2008, 13 teenagers killed themselves in a year in the same Welsh village because they thought it was a good thing to do , they used social networks extensively..if they or others "liked" the many suicide encouragement sites that are out there..even more will be drawn in ..as the sites rise for " teenage depression" or "feeling fed up at home" or ..and they were determined..they too would keep up the social media signals..

Manipulation of social media signals to boost site visibility is already being used by politicians and their advisors ..to determine who sees what arguments and who doesn't see what they don't want seen..

And for now , those of us that know how this is done are small in number ..

What do you do when 11 year old girls learn of the power of social media signals..and how to use them ..when the chan use social media signals rather than loic to work with..

This is already being used for politics by pros ..and short terms is mostly good enough for them ..but how to do this will escape beyond the pro SMM specialists and SEOs ..

4chan take this to,play with on facebook , they'd open the accounts just to play for a while ..likewise with twitter.

So will governments..those that haven't already begun.

This will gather its own momentum and the SEs will not be able to prevent the manipulation ..even if they want to..

[edited by: Leosghost at 3:16 am (utc) on Jun 11, 2011]

[lexipixel]

where a brand new site was indexed and ranking through nothing but Tweets.

Many of Aye-Oh-HeLL's new disPatch of hyperbolic-local content sites ranking against 10-15 year old sites sometimes in 3-6 months of coming online. How? They have their hoard of 800+ paid editors "Like" each others sites and Tweet everything incessantly.

[rlange]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet (it's just over a week old), but...

The Tweet Effect: How Twitter Affects Rankings [seomoz.org]

--
Ryan

[tedster]

There's one almost inevitable comment I've got to make. For years people have complained about too much Google dependence on backlinks. "Google needs to find another ranking signal" many webmasters complained, and loudly, and for years.

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