Is SEO becoming irrelevant?

[realtythrift]

I'm not a SEO expert by any means, so I'm curious what others who know more about this think. I find that in my business domain, the entrants to the search engine placement challenge who pay Overture rank at the top of Google and Yahoo (I know there are others, but those are the main search engines I use).

At Yahoo they are noted as Sponsored links however, there's little to denote this paid placement at Google other than the yellow bounded box around the listing and I'm not so sure that most search engine users really care whethere they are sponsored links or not as long as they seem relevant to their search.

If it is the case, that pay for click placement pushes optimized sites down the search return page, is it becoming less relevant whether a site is optimized for a particular search engine or not?

[rlrouse]

I find that in my business domain, the entrants to the search engine placement challenge who pay Overture rank at the top of Google and Yahoo.

Pay-per-click advertisers enjoy no advantage whatsoever in the regular Google search results. I have several client sites that month in and month out top the SERPS while the Adwords advertisers appearing on the right are found several pages deep.

I think what you're seeing is that in the categories you're referring to, the top PPC advertisers also have the best optimized sites.

PPC and SEO both have their places in the world of site promotion. They compliment each other well, but they have zero bearing how how well the other affects rankings.

[rlrouse]

I just re-read your post and now I better understand what you're talking about. In the context of sites that display paid results directly above the regular listings, SEO alone would indeed place a site below the paid results.

That being said, SEO is still very important because without it, your only option would be to pay to be listed on the first page of the SERPS. PPC is a great way to get fast results, but to give up on the free listings (ignore SEO) would be a big mistake IMO because it is indeed possible to get listed on the first page with SEO alone. My clients do it every day.

[dmcgill]

That is the main reason I don't care for the ppc engines. They only take into account the amount of money you are willing to pay for a keyword and if you are highest bidder, your #1.
In our search engine, you can also buy the top position in your category but we only allow your site to be listed in that category if it fits. When you are working with a meta engine, it doesn't mean a hill of beans how well you optimize your site, if you have the bucks, you can show your stuff.
Good point to remember though is if your site is not optimized, ppc engines are the only place you can do well.
dcmgill

[Electronic Perceptions]

FWIW, as a searcher I like both. I prefer using Google because they tend to have the most up-to-date search results. I also like that I can browse both paid listings and optimized listings at the same time. In my mind, if someone is paying to be listed, then they're most likely relevant and they have updated information. I don't have to worry about hitting dead sites.

When I'm searching for something, I tend to look at both paid and optimized listings. I usually click through a few of each, depending on the headline.

Those engines that list paid results at the top instead of off to the side are different, I agree. I don't use them as a searcher often, but many people do and I suspect it's for the same types of reasons: up-to-date information.

As a business though, most of the traffic that comes into all of my sites is from well optimized pages. Even those sites that have paid listings at the top usually limit those to 3 or 4, so those sites that are optimized well for a keyword or phrase are still returned on the first page or two.

So in my mind, SEO still has a critical place in the overall strategy.

- Kathy

[cbp]

The only problem with SEO is that everyone is starting to find out about it ... :-(

Only 10 sites can be listed in the top 10 ...

CBP

[apisdesign]

When I search, I use Google 100% of the time (who, as a side note, just released their Google deskbar for Windows - very cool: http://toolbar.google.com/deskbar/), and I only ever look at the non-paying results. This is when I am looking for information.

If I am searching for a commodity (e.g. digital cameras, web hosting, aftermarket car parts) I will typically only ever look at the paying results.

The reason for this is the way in which the results are generated. They are generated based on link popularity, keyphrases, HTML organization, etc., which is extremely relevant for informational purposes, but not for sales.

Take a search for 'web hosting' as an example. If I want to find out 'what' web hosting is all about, I will look at the non-paying results. If I want to purchase web hosting, I will look at the paying results.

This is, of course, my own personal preference and I have no idea whether anyone out there searches in a similar manner. But perhaps this can help to give you a new perspective on your question about the relevancy of SEO.

Cheers.

[joelkatona]

When it comes to PPC you can’t ignore the fact that you can reach a large audience relatively quickly and easily of course there is a cost involved maintaining that. However if you study the results of your PPC campaign including the number of impression per keywords, click troughs, and conversion rate it can give you clues about which keywords you should concentrate on optimizing your web pages. Even if you are a fairly established site (one year+) and you have over two dozen keyword phrases that work well for you, it’s almost impossible to rank in a top 10 position for all of them. We have complimented our search engine marketing campaign with a very focused PPC campaign on the keywords we don’t already rank well.

[Diana]

Why would you consider paid results more relevant than top results for a purchase? Is it because you think having money to advertise means you'll get better service? A better product? A better price?

I would say, the truth would be you are not guaranteed to recieve better anything from a paid result vs a free result. I say this because in the field you mentioned 'web hosting' one of the biggest advertisers also has been reported to have some of the worst customer service. I won't say that all advertisers are like that, since I'm sure they're not, but simply "buyer beware".

The same of course could apply to free results, but paid certainly doesn't mean better...at least not imo.

Diana

[spiderbait]

I can't recall the exact reference, but I recently read (I believe it was on the Pew Internet Project site http://www.pewinternet.org/ } that the trend seems to be in favour of searchers trusting and using the organic results generated by search engines, as opposed to paid results.

I'm paraphrasing here and undoubtedly adding my own twist to this (or the thoughts of a great many other resources as filtered through my little pea-brain), but what follows is my understanding of what has been observed.

The theory that was proposed to explain this phenomenon of trust preference for organic vs. paid listings, whether rational or not, is that there is a relationship between organic and paid listings that is similar to the relationship between church and state. This is a relationship that has long been used to explain the difference between paid advertisements and publicity in the tradtional media such as newpapers and tv.

Where the state represents the corporate world with its inherent potential unexpressed financial motives that may lay beneath the surface of someone's actions; and where the church is implicitly trusted as the non-biased reporter of information.

In this context, it seems that the public psyche is geared towards bestowing a level of trust upon organically generated search results that the search engines may or may not deserve. But deserving or not, the search engines have inherited this perceived level of public trust and hopefully they will manage to meet their corporate objectives while still delivering what the public expects.

If they fall short, it may be that the organic listings will lose relevance. But in the meantime, by providing ethical and content-based SEO to our customers we are actually supporting the long-term viability of the public's trust and expectations.

You could choose to see this as an important mission if you like. I do! The internet and it's searchability for reliable information exist as a "5th estate" for the public's benefit. And I hope that it will remain so.

Cheers,