« JupiterResearch Acquired by Forrester for $23 Million | Main | Google VP Marissa Mayer Appears on Fox Business Network »
July 31, 2008
Is SEO the Real Google Killer?
This morning the Guardian UK published a scathing analysis of Google, SEO and the launch of Cuil. In his article, Chris Williams claimed that the greatest threat to Google is spam. No argument there.
But Williams takes the argument one step further and states:
Plenty of digital ink has been needlessly spilt this week over the launch of the suicidally-monikered new search engine Cuil.com. But the only threat to Google is itself and, in a roundabout way, the legion of spammers and "search engine optimisation" (SEO) consultants that buttress its dominance.
It's clear that Williams is crying over "spilt ink." He's right in saying that Web sites have adapted their design and structure to accommodate Google.
But Williams would like to think that all companies - including competing search engines - are in the business of "reverse engineering" Google.
The people at the vanguard of reverse-engineering Google are not its jealous search rivals. They're the spammers and SEO consultants. They have driven an ever-closer relationship between the quirks and whims of Google's algorithms and policies, and the structure and content of the web. It's a feedback loop that was unavoidable once Google's early rivals proved unable to respond to its better search results and presentation.
He feels that techniques such as "adding needless internal links, creating PageRank-friendly URLs and distorting normal grammar" are all widely deployed with varying degrees of dastardliness.
While grammar may be distorted, the fault doesn't lie with SEOs but with writers lacking sufficient command of the English language.
Somehow Williams connects Google's share of searches with SEO efforts, rather than user preference. If that's the case, then SEO must be producing superior SERPs.
Williams writes, "Thanks to the mutualistic process driven by spammers and SEO consultants, that dominance is only going to increase, and it's the only 'Google Killer' on the horizon."
Williams envisions a future "when the favours spammers and SEO consultants have been doing for Larry and Sergey will become dangerous, anti-trust style." He believes regulatory intervention now seems the only bar to a complete Google autocracy over the Web economy.
Posted by Kevin Heisler on July 31, 2008 11:34 AM
Comments
Matt July 31, 2008 1:10 PM
Like any other occupation, there are those who give SEO a bad name. I don't think it's a bad thing to want your site to rank higher in Google. I do think it's a problem that Google became synonym to "search engine" - and everyone targets only Google. I hope some real competition is on the way.
As for the language - I agree: it's not just SEO techniques. It's simply the fact that site owners don't understand the importance of quality writing and editing. Content is king, after all!
Revital Salomon July 31, 2008 1:26 PM
Regulation would be horrible in my opinion. We already have enough people telling us what to do.
In my personal opinion, SPAM is much less prevalent than it used to be. I remember back in the 90's people would repeat a word dozens, if not hundreds, of times across a page and would dominate the search engines of the time. The results were garbage, much more so than they are now.
Sure black hat SEO and spammers will be a constant battle for Google, but they are doing what they can to combat this. Saying they will be the end for Google makes me laugh. Competition will be the end for Google, not the SEOers or spammers.
He gives us SEOers way too much credit.
Dave July 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Williams clearly does not understand search engine optimization and the dynamics of how it is evolving. We should accept as a given that there will always be opportunistic individuals who will take advantage of any entity, online or off, that has attained critical mass. Market forces will always exist. However as Google evolves, it is challenging search engine optimization experts to do more than appear trustworthy, but to actually be trustworthy, and to create credible, highly usable, useful, and relevant content. The reason Google has kept its number 1 spot is because it has been able to scale and offer quality despite market forces that attract "spammers." It is not only Google's algorithm that deserves credit, but Google's dedication to improving its index passively, rather than actively. Further, based on tests that we have run, it seems clear to us that how people behave at your website post click determines where your rankings will be in the long-run. SEO may be about expressing contextual relevance to search engines, but it is also about delivering the goods to maintain those rankings over the long-term. As it stands, many commercial websites focus on creating value-add content to help buyers and browsers make decisions, and it is primarily SEO firms who lead that charge. Without SEO specialists there would be a lot less useful websites.
BostonScott July 31, 2008 10:02 PM
SEO are not the baddies
For most people and business websites if you don't do SEO at it's very basic then you have no chance of anyone finding your website. So "doing" SEO is and should be a natural part of website design. Where it is taken to the extreme by companies offering this service then it can and does cause search engines to bring up websites that are possibly not worthy of 1-5th place in a search return.
I get so frustrated seeing websites for people running a small business who have absolutely no hope in getting positioned well in Google - and their business suffers. All because they use a open source product not well designed for search engines - or they do not understand even the basics. Worse still I come across many professionally designed websites that look great yet have no idea of the importance of the Title and to title tags.
As for Cuil.com - I like the look of it, however as a Google killer, it has not got a chance. I searched for terms relevant to my websites and yes my site was there - so was another (repeated listings over several pages) that now displays a welcome page saying the domain has not been renewed - it has been obviously bought over by a developer or spammer who is about to exploit the fact that it is well positioned in certain search engines including Cuil.com - so Cuil is not cool to me!
Google does have flaws - it is also probably the best search engine and has the money and developers behind it to remain that way for some time to come.
Richard August 1, 2008 4:06 AM
Despite the Spam and frustration, all the studies I saw demonstrated that the searchers are satisfied with the results Google gives them, and much of the "Search Engine Fatigue" (I love how they worded this concept), is in fact due to lot of people, dont knowing how to search ('shoes' is still a very popular query...).
Maybe trying to include the Searchers behaviour in the ranking algorhitms, is the next big thing in this evolution. That is what Cuil said they will do, but that's another story.
Duarte Canario August 1, 2008 4:53 AM
can anybody tell me how cuil works.
Is there is any ethics to work for cuil?
As far ass google concerned , every SEO knows that if you use right HTML , metatag, unique and fresh updating content, not only google but the yahoo and MSN also prefers.
How google painted SEO's , dont think so.
priyank August 1, 2008 6:50 AM
Hey...Good to read this... Well we cant really say for now because SEO is still a baby. Let's keep researching and in some years time we can really say SEO is a google killer.
JesusFreak August 1, 2008 8:12 AM
Even though I still use AdSense, I gave up using AdWords ages ago because I get first / second / third page listings on Google very fast and on a permanent basis - no need to pay Google anything at all.
I guess that's one of the reasons that Google keeps its algorithms secret !!
PJB August 1, 2008 8:42 AM
I just dont think he gets what seo's do I can rank better using SEO in Yahoo and MSN thatn Google.
And *ahem* GMG is activly seeking a seo specialist to help it so *cough* *cough* I suspect his names going to be "put down for later" as a old trade union Buddy of mine said.
or at least be the subject of a word in the FOC's ear
Peppone August 1, 2008 11:40 AM
SEO companies are waste of money. They think that they know how to list you on the first page, on the other hand adding that they won't give you the warranty that you will appear there after you stream bunch of money. No credit for SEO companies. Learn by yourself, optimize your website without asking anybody.
Spammers might be a threat for Google. Daily, i am getting so many blog notifications that are nothing but spams, full of unrelated word combinations that only concern about Adsense. And most of those blogs are created on google blogspot which are naturally indexed by Google. But i am pretty sure, they (Google) will find a way to stop indexing those blogs.
And the new born Cuil.com. The only advantage is the person who created the search algorithm for cuil is also used to work for google and the person who created the current search algorithm for google that has been used since 2004. And what i believe, cuil is overrated! But i also believe that oneday somebody better become a real competitor for Google in order to end their dominance! But it seems to take a really long time , unfortunately...
MGA August 1, 2008 1:07 PM
Google's results are going to increasingly be dominated by those who know how to play the game, and not those who have the best source. That's already happened in some verticals. Real competition would force sites to go back to building great sites for users instead of for Google. That'd be good for everyone.
Eric Klose August 20, 2008 2:28 PM
Looking at it from a layman's perspective, I have to agree. Sure I'm as guilty as others in trying to get higher rankings for my company. But when I stop for a second, and perhaps do a search for something for me personally, I see how much Google has become inundated with flogs, questionable product/company reviews, etc. Maybe he's painting "SEO consultants" with too broad of a brush, but he's spot on.