Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne
Be careful what you wish for! Link analysis was the single biggest innovation the search industry has seen in the 15 yrs. I've been doing this. PPC was big in that it solved the monetization issue, not the search quality issues. Links were citation/votes when Google released the algo that changed the net. People linked to stuff or research that mattered to their users (endorsements), not, because they were manipulating a SE algo. Googles problem up until recently was the link analysis seemed to be the whole algo to many SEOs. Now, that analysis IMO, is not so much evident in the blended results. I agree with Mike Grehan and believe in a few years that a lot of SEO will be very ineffective. I don't agree with him on the SEO Textbook being obsolete... just the chapters on reciprocal linking, linking schemes and other linking techniques more suited to the promotion 101 book. SE's will IMO, always be weighting Titles, copy and other appropriate on page "elements" because that is the core of relevancy, the rest is a crapshoot and will always be a moving target because of unwanted manipulation by the tykes who'd rather build a crappy brochure site and link the crap out of it rather than building something that actually deserves to be in the top position because of the content. |
I can't agree entirely.
Once upon a time it was webrings. Sites linking with the right sites for the right reasons. You can throw directories in the mix as well. Links to drive targeted traffic from targeted sites. Along came Google and their heavily weighted link analysis, which by the way they claimed could not be spammed, and the sh** hit the fan. Let's also not forget that at that time the ability to place links at all was very limited and those with that ability had just been handed a real reason to place them above and beyond an "endorsement" on a silver platter. What "mattered" had just been drastically changed.
The problem as I see it is not in the links but in their analysis and weighting. Fine... analize and weight what you want. That's entirely up to them. That's their business model. The very basis for their existance. Expecting the web to weight links for them (ie nofollow on paid links) without being very precise in exactly everything they want weighted and in every instance is destined to fail. Needing the web to to "manipulate" the data for them so that their business model works the way they want it to is a recipe for disaster IMO.
All this approach serves to do is drive those intent on SE manipulation underground making them even better at what their trying to accomplish and harder to find. Isn't this what their really after? The folks they "catch" or "comply" are either being extremely transparent, not really intent on maniplation in the first place, or simply don't know. I suspect the latter is by far the larger group.
As I see it, a SE does very basically 3 things...
- Collect data.
- Analize that data.
- Produce a set of results based upon that analysis.
If your business model is not is not meeting your expectations in regards to #3 above, you change #2 until it does. You don't try and get millions of people to manipulate the data you are collecting in the first place to try and meet the expectations of the end result of your business model.
Let's face it, all links are intended to "manipulate". Whether that be the end user or the middleman. They are indended to "manipulate someone or something" into going to or discovering what you want them to. How much "weight" is placed on links beyond that is up to the individual "someone" or "something".
If you're interested, I blogged about this back in December...
Google on Paid Links - Destined to Fail
FTR... I do not buy nor sell
Search Engine Value. People who link to and from the the right sites for the right reasons will always be fine whether of not a SE exists or whether or not a link carries any additional "weight" beyond the ability to be followed so long as the "web" exists.
Dave