Forum Moderators: open
Last night I went to a conference in San Jose featuring SVP of Search AskJeeves, Mr. Paul Gardi (a very gracious gentleman), Dr. Gary Flake, Chief Science Officer, Overture Inc.; and Mr. Tim Cadogen, Senior VP Search, Yahoo! Inc. The topic was, The Future of Web Search.
Search Engine Accuracy
The biggest concern was accuracy. Some felt the need to tailor the search to a User's sex, a User's age, a User's geography, etc. Others spoke about their goal of reaching daily freshness. Impressive stuff but they all overlooked one thing: The web sites they are trying to catalog do not conform to their algorithms.
The problem is that search engines base their algos to fit their user's queries while on the other side of the fence, Web Designers are creating web sites that conform to their client's aesthetic concerns and to traditional offline marketing criteria. Products and services are described in abstract terms that have no relation to how their customer is trying to find their web site.
The Big Disconnect
If you were searching for a Widget Communication Device, would you search using the phrase, "Making things intelligent and the universe better?"
When looking for a Widget Computing Device, do you search with the terms: "Ultimate Power Performance?"
We have a GAP between what the Search Engine User is seeking and the content that exists on the average web site. The problem is that the Search Engines, by concentrating on the user query, and the user experience, are not bridging this gap.
It's All About Content... Right?
"If a web site is about Widgets," some Search Companies seem to reason, "then the web site will have content about Widgets, and we'll know about it and rank it accordingly."
But any SEO knows too well that very often "widget" web sites sparingly use the word "widget," except perhaps, in a beautifully rendered gif.
Is it really about content? If you're talking about user query based algorithms and how to rank well on them, YES. If you are talking about the reality of web content, then NO. If that wasn't true, You wouldn't be able to make a buck optimizing web sites.
The search engines have reached a staggering level of algorithmic competence but the web sites they are categorizing defy categorization... and the results suffer.
The Piano Tuner is Drunk
This situation is akin to a pianist reaching virtuoso status, but the piano is broken and out of tune. The pianist is the Search Engine, the Web Site is the Piano, the Music is what the Search Engine User is seeking. Sadly, the piano is out of tune and no matter how talented the pianist is, the music (the results), will suffer because the piano is out of tune.
The Future of Search?
SE's need to be able to take note of the sites cotent. I thought this was the reason that Google purchased Applied Semantics. Correct me if I'm wrong. I am still a newbie in terms of SEO.
Just more 2p :)
>>The Piano Tuner is Drunk, and the Search Engines Don't Need SEO.
Surely the opposite is true - search companies need SEOs to make the sites conform to what the algorithms expect. By promoting awareness of basic SEO the search companies can instigate changes in the content they are trying to index.
Spam is the search engines' enemy, but SEOs, well we're old friends...
That will move to the desktop, allowing the user to tweak their own personal algo against a few available indexes.
The competence of the algo will never override the need for privacy.
Content is the thing. It is the key.
The shocking thing about this is that those who devise the algorithms feel that they are perfectly able to index the web, and there's no need for seo. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of web content.
Flawed Algorithm
Most web sites don't naturally have a page structure highlighting important words in bold. The only words that are ever in bold are words such as, "Buy Now."
Yet the algo persists in the belief that bold words have an algorithmic relevance. They don't, not naturally.
There are many more examples.
No it isn't. Metadata is King.
The only problem is how to make people attach real, sensible metadata to their pages.
Solve that one and you've solved every search-related problem.
For example let's talk about Cell Phones. If a web site is about Cell Phones you would expect the web site to use the words, "cell phone" within their web site, especially on their home page.
But they don't.
Pay a visit to Nokia, arguably one of the most authoritative web destinations for cell phones, and you will see that they don't use the words "cell phone." In fact, they don't even use the word "cell" at all.
Great post martinibuster :)
"meta-data should be king"
In which case I would agree - but, too easy to spam so unlikely ever to be again (it once was remember).
MartiniBuster, I don't really agree with what I think you're concluding. It seems you're looking at webdesign rather one-dimensionally, and looking to the search engines to fix inherent poor design.
To me, it's the job of the website designer to create a website that performs 2 functions - (1) perform well in the SERPS for carefully chosen keywords and (2) sell the product.
I don't think you can really seperate the two. Those designers that think in purely "offline marketing techniques" are just bad web designers. They don't "get it".
I'm quite happy with the way that the search engine technology and algorithmns are developing. To me pages with good keyword content and graphics used in ways that are not an attempt to replace text (where plain text or link could do a better job SEO wise), are fundamentals of good web design. But that's not just from an SEO point of view, I think that's from a user point of view also. I don't want to read "Making the world a better place" when I search for "cell phone". There is no gap to bridge - I want to read about cell phones and I don't want to read hype.
The problem is that the Search Engines, by concentrating on the user query, and the user experience, are not bridging this gap.
Why are we looking to blame the search engines for fundamentally bad website design?
TJ
<EDIT: PS - Excellent post by the way MartiniBuster, this is just my viewpoint>
To me, it's the job of the website designer to create a website that performs 2 functions
You are one hundred percent correct. This is the evolution of the Web Designer. Those who don't get it will fall and be left behind.
But I have to comment on this:
Those designers that think in purely "offline marketing techniques" are just bad web designers. They don't "get it".
My answer to that is a question: Why should a web designer need to "get it" if "getting it" means making their web site conform to what a software engineer defines as relevance?
The vast majority of web designers design their sites in a manner that is inherently search engine unfriendly- The search engines have failed to come to grips with that, and as a consequence, the un-optimized "natural" web site is at a disadvantage.
If the search engines truly want relevance, and want to make a step into the future, then coming to grips with these web sites will be a giant leap forward in relevance.
My answer to that is a question: Why should a web designer need to "get it" if "getting it" means making their web site conform to what a software engineer defines as relevance?
Short answer:-
Because search engine indexing and SERPS results ordering will never be performed by a human.
Long answer:-
Even though the algo might designed by humans, when indexing 3 billion pages of data and information within a range of field which is theoretically infinite many many assumptions have to be made by the algorithm designer.
Humans have the ability to think laterally on many levels. In the real world, offline marketing techniques can use a level of subtlety and lateral expression. Take a television advert for example - there is no need to fill one with many keywords to direct relevance in the viewers mind - humans are intelligent enough for themselves to categorise, assign relevance and importance (the human equivilent of PR say). Such an advert can be far more subtle or lateral than a webpage because it is directly viewed by humans - there is no computer algorithm process "in between".
Computers are not (yet) intelligent enough to make those subtle lateral thought processes.
Design is a marriage of function and form. In the offline marketing world, both form and function can incorporate lateral and subtle technique. In the online world, a literal element is required for the benefit of the search engines.
I don't think that's the fault of the search engines. I don't believe they have the technology to do anything else. Human web designers on the other hand, have the ability to think intelligently and design accordingly for the online world and incorporate the necessary elements.
You're asking the search engines to "think" laterally. I'm saying that its more reasonable (given current technology) to expect web designers to throw in a little more literal thought instead.
TJ
Pay a visit to Nokia, arguably one of the most authoritative web destinations for cell phones, and you will see that they don't use the words "cell phone." In fact, they don't even use the word "cell" at all.
That's because Nokia have a massive brand image in the real world - they don't need the search engines to know that they do cell phones - humans already know that. What Nokia actually need indexed is not their main brand, but the "sub" brands of their products. So, if I do a search for "Nokia 5210" - their site comes up on top. That's great relevance.
For the same reason, coca-cola wouldn't need to put "fizzy cola flavoured soft-drink" style keywords on their website.
There is a difference, I think, between designing for an established existing brand and a new one.
TJ
