Building sites as if Google doesn't exist

[diberry]

My question is for anybody, but particularly old-timers who remember the web before Google was so dominant.

I started teaching myself internet marketing in the 90s (with no luck). When I finally got serious and found other webbies willing to share some of their knowledge, it was 2005. They didn't remember life before Google, I did. So when they taught me all about SEO, I always resisted practices that had nothing to do with visitors and were all about ranking. Keyword stuffing, for example. I didn't care how it ranked - no one wanted to read it, and I felt visitors were my longterm traffic, not Google.

But then there were the practices that were just about NOT irritating the algo and getting a penalty. I don't mean shady stuff. I'm talking about quandaries like this: you're setting up several sites on semi-related topics, designed for one audience (think SimpleMom). Do you make it subdirectories on one domain, or several domains? And do you dare link them together? Google might not approve! So maybe you link them with graphics (see the LifeHacker network), or maybe just plain links (SimpleMom again), or Javascript or nofollow.

I suggested to my mentors that concerns like these were just silly - it really didn't make a difference to users, and if Google was stupid enough to penalize me for doing something visitors reacted well to, then forget Google. They always cautioned me that I couldn't afford to forget Google.

And they were right - in the sense that I didn't know any other way of marketing my sites and didn't have enough money to experiment until I figured it out. I couldn't afford to lose Google, because SEO was the only form of marketing I understood at all. And of course it's not that easy to learn other forms of online marketing: no one's giving away the big secrets (nor should they), and "online marketing" has become mainly synonymous with SEO.

But I'm thinking I really need to try to forget most of what I know about SEO and focus entirely on building sites visitors like AND finding other (low cost) ways to promote them. Is this a viable strategy, or is it really worth agonizing over every Google algo change and what it might portend about creating new content (I'm assuming you've seen some of the minutiae people are agonizing over with Panda)?

And if it is a viable strategy, what would be your advice to people who learned about "online marketing" after it had pretty much become search engine optimization? How do we get off the Kool-Aid, and what do we drink instead?

[netmeg]

The very first thing I do before I do anything else is scope out the niche. I need to be abso-freakin-lutely sure that I can put something unique together, and that I can do it better than what's already out there. If I can't, or I figure that it's going to take too much time and/or too much money to dominate and become an authority, then I abandon it for another idea - no matter how fond I am of it. If my initial business model isn't sound, then everything else goes to hell. And the older I get, the less time I have to fool around with things that will never work.

When I do find something that I'm sure I can do better, pretty much the only Google consideration I do is to make sure my site is put together reasonably well technically, and can be adequately spidered. I link where I want when I want, and I only use nofollow on affiliate links. If thin content pages make sense for the users (and sometimes they do) then screw Google, I do thin content pages. I link between my own sites when it makes sense for the user, but not for the sake of the link.

Then I start building my community; via Google, via Twitter, via Facebook, letting my friends know (some of whom pass it around) and so on. I don't generally buy ads for myself. I have some contacts in the local media, and I also let them know when I have something new brewing. I don't expect instant success, but usually over time, slow and steady wins the race - specially if I'm doing something unique and doing it well.

That's about all I got. It's worked for me so far, and for my clients.

[tedster]

I don't focus on any one search engine, Google or whoever, but I certainly do keep the basic challenges of today's immature search technology in mind. I would not build any site as if search technology didn't exist.

All web search today is immature and profoundly challenged compared to what you can throw into a website - so some degree of care and feeding is mandatory to support any site's findability. But mostly, after ensuring the soundest business model and market research I can get, I focus on things like market friendly taxonomy, usability and so on. Then secondarily, those factors spill over into a healthier search engine presence.

[wheel]

I don't approach this as 'build it like Google exists'. I may build it to look like I built it that way, but the last thing I'm doing is ignoring that level of potential traffic.

However, while I don't build to ignore Google, I am taking specific action to broaden my business beyond Google.

For example, writing a book is a good way to sell product, to be perceived as the expert. Now, I could write a book on my niche (boring!). But I want to reach beyond that - so I'm making initial inquiries to a bunch of experts and bloggers in my niche and related to see if they want to write chapters in this book, on their specialty. That'll give us an all-encompassing book. I'll handle the book orders and shipping as part of my busines.

And then, as I've noted, I have an ad network with these publishers who are in my niche. if they take chapters in the book, they'll earn a split of the revenue. So they'll advertise the book on their website, selling the books..which is then selling my part of the book as well.

And since I have and ad network with them, I'll probably suggest running some free ads on their site to sell the book.

So, I get portrayed as the expert in my niche, and the top bloggers will promote it on their sites for me, for free. I'll make some money on the book (maybe, I may take a very slim cut only to make it more attractive) but get my company in front of lots of people in the buying mood.

Oh, and I guess every one of the bloggers is likely to link to me as an author, and give away sample copies, run contests, do book reviews etc. - all at no charge to me.

It's what tom sawyer would've done.

[diberry]

Thanks to all of you. These have been really valuable responses to my question, and I appreciate your taking the time to share.

@Netmeg, that's what I do (look for niches where I can do better/unique than what's out there). Except, unlike you, I have been worrying about thin content and linking sites when it makes sense for users. I just removed the "nofollows" from the links between two of my sites.

I definitely need to work on my networking skills, though.

@tedster, that's a good perspective. Because what SHOULD work for search engines is what's worked for libraries and publications for years: quality content, arranged in some logical, usable way. I'm also thinking it's worthwhile for me to pick the more searched version of keyphrases (i.e., "blue widgets" v. "widgets in blue"), but not for the point of SEO - just using search engine research as a way to communicate with people in the words they're already using.

@Wheel, that's a brilliant idea for promotion. I once had a pretty good idea for an ebook, but there was so much work involved that I just let it slide. Probably to spend time angsting over things like whether to use nofollow or not! :)

[netmeg]

I also link out a *lot*. But I am choosy about who I link to; they have to be authoritative, and something that the user will appreciate. Some of them link back to me, but that's not why I do it. But it's how I managed to cop some pretty good .gov links over time (including one on the state of Michigan's website)

For me, linking out seems to be just as useful as getting inbounds.

[diberry]

Interesting, Netmeg. I've noticed something similar, and wonder if selectively linking out can contribute to Google seeing your site as an authority (as opposed to "leaking pagerank).

I've noticed some little groups in one of my niches who only link to each other, but ask everyone else to link to them frequently. It's really cliquish the way they go at it... and recently, I've noticed one of the sites falling hard in the SERPs on some terms.

Of course, this site is doing well for itself in other ways - it does giveaways you can only qualify for by liking it on FaceBook or writing a post that links to the site's post, etc. All of which I've been assuming was designed to game Google... but it may actually hurt the site with Google, and yet build it with other traffic sources, which could ultimately be a good thing.

On the other hand, if that's how you get links, then you just have to keep essentially bribing people (largely other bloggers who have their own agendas) to prop up the site for you. True organic inbounds aren't just valuable for SEO - they were valuable BEFORE seo and that's why Google incorporated them into the algo. At least, that's what I think.

[CMidd]

i have a niche. total monthly search traffic 20k. I publish one new page, i get 10k traffic hits in a few days "before the page is even in the Google Index". I publish 2-3 pages a week.

I command more traffic then Google is sending, and have reduce it.

How:

I focus on my readers, not search engines.
I capture my visitors "email, social, media"
I have channels of distribution to reach my visitors "related sites, forum, articles"

I don't rely or wait for Google to send traffic, I reach out to my visitor before they need to search.

Branding Your site / business
Engaging Your readers
Capturing you visitors

is 10000% more important then trying to manipulate Search Rankings "Anything you do unnaturally is manipulation".

it's also a long term strategy that you control.

Forget the Search Engines are there, focus on user only, in the long run you will be thanking yourself, while other webmaster are complaining about Rabbit, Tiger, Sheep, and Zebra Updates.


"Build Great Content, Not Landing Pages" << I just created that quote!

[Zivush]

Focusing on users rather than manipulating search engines is pure SEO. These days:-)

I learned the hard way how short mined I was - Biased point of view and unwilling/unable to look at the long range implications of looking for daily incomes.
What a wrongful strategy!
But At least I have well enough traffic to start corrective actions.