Forum Moderators: open
I know most of us are aware that Google has recently performed their update (Last wednesday and thursday, right?) - Anyways, I was curious to know what take the forum users have on this.
Will the addition of Flash content, an abundance of querystrings, and powerpoint media all play a role in our abilities as SEO's?
I know that powerpoint and querystrings have been debated, and there's a large buzz about the whole flash thing too... So if it's not true, can we find proof to dispell the rumors?
Anyways, just a thought for discussion!
Being able to index Flash links will allow us to sell the more pricey flash navigation systems and still get rankings. I still suggest not doing most of what I see in Flash because of the download times and distraction from your message but for those clients that insist, I enjoy having the resources to get them rankings still.
Google needs to keep the public awareness of it's services alive and one way to do this is providing new services. Maybe these services are not "required", especially to the programmer types on this board, but as they are new it gives them press time.
My $.02
In the description under the title of your message you made reference to how Google's changes will have an effect or impact with other search engines. So it seems that it's not specifically Google's enhancements, but the overall picture you're looking at.
I have to agree that what Google is doing is great and provides broadened opportunity for site design for those who want sophistication and "bizazz". But my concern would be that unless other search engines keep up with that kind of technology and capability, the results those sites will get will be restricted to Google and end up narrowing the competitiveness of the field.
Different demographic groups use different search engines, and within certain limit, the market can be a bit specific. For example, since the time that Yahoo started using Google results, I devoted major focus to them and more away from AltaVista, which had been my favorite, and where I infalibly had good results. I could do no wrong with AV, even though it was sometimes purely by accident.
However, a couple of months ago I started checking out AOL and MSN very carefully, which broadened my views quite a bit. A site I've been working with, with a good comparative view of all three, does not do as well with Google for traffic and sales as with the other two, particularly MSN.
In looking through an awful lot recently, I can't seem to remember seeing even one flash or hi-tech site in any of the categories I've been watching. Yes, I've seen dynamic with long URLs, but those have been amid the LookSmart results of MSN. That's fine for the companies that can spend $3,000 USD a month for that, but not fine for the average business that can't do so.
So while Google is now beginning to be able handle sites and files that the others can't, I see it as them getting a well-deserved tremendous competitive edge which might not always be to the site-owner's advantage. It depends on which search engine their target market uses most. This is fine for those who will focus only on Google, but for those whose demographic makeup warrants emphasis elsewhere, or who need broader exposure, they'd probably have to still stay away from anything that can't be indexed by the others, or have to resort to cloaking. It may be that sites indexable by Google only will have to make special provision for the others. I wonder about the possiblity of there being increased market for cloaking resulting from the disparity in technology. Let Google have the real site, which they can handle, and cloak for the others.
Good points. I agree if you have total control over the design issues then a plain HTML based site will rank better across the board. But in dealing with clients that say their site has to "pop" (translated into a technology that is hard to get indexed) and they don't seem to get it this may be a way to still get the site out there. (I actually took a client's great looking brochure and placed it in his desk drawer and asked if it "POP"ed for him now. All the glamour in the world does you no good if it's hid :) )
Trying to put myself into Google's position. If you were going to expand your market share then being able to say "We index A,B,C and our competition doesn't" can be a very big bonus. Especially if they are trying to sell search engine technology to a corporate big wig that doesn't know what the real world deals with (replaceing Inktomi?).
One of the reasons for the love/hate relationship with SEO work is the speed at which things move in this industry. Trying to out guess the next big change.
Totally agreed. They're far away ahead of all the others. There's a real brain-bank there, and they've been doing their homework. I find it amazing how far ahead of the competition a company can get when they focus on excellence rather than commercialism. No big portal, no freebies to make their site sticky, no flashing banners and popups, and honesty in what they're presenting - their "ads" are clearly visible, not deceptively mixed in with regular results.
The brochure in the desk drawer is a good analogy, dwedeking. How many times have we read posts about the conflicts between the marketing dept., the IT/back-end people, the design people and the poor SEO who has to deal with all of them in big companies.
The way I see it, Google is the one that's "found a need and filling it" like the old saying goes. Instead of outrageous fees for market research, they for one thing went right to the source of where the information actually is - the webmasters - and determined where to move ahead. So they spend their resources on brainpower and development rather than Madison Avenue.
Look at the fame and fortune of those who fell and closed their doors in the last year or so. They took a different route, and didn't give webmasters what they needed. Or the searchers, or they'd still be around. Google is doing just that, or they couldn't have grown to become the household word they are now. Obviously searchers have liked what they found also. Now others will have to make actual improvements to be able to compete, or they'll also fall by the wayside.
It makes a lot of sense what you pointed out about corporate clients. MSN may have a captive audience with the people who use their search through default, and with presenting all paid listings like they do. They'll miss part of the market that's "higher-tech," but maybe some companies aren't targeting default type users. And MSN might make it on the revenue, but they certainly have nothing to market with search technology. Google's competition is getting to be a lot more like plain and simple paying for advertising, and less and less like a search engine. Google started as a search engine and they're apparently intending to remain one.
