But WHICH user? So we think of all the users that might have an interest in our topic or focus and then which of those users are we most concerned with? Are we actually more concerned with only 10% of those users because they fall within a subcategory we feel more interested in? Are those the users we REALLY want to optimize our site for? We can narrow our focus to the "user", but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
Don't kid yourself Jasper. While there is obviously a huge algorithmic basis to the big search engines, they're surely backed up by people.
Yahoo is a bit more well known for it's "hand jobs" where certain sites would be manually placed up at the top.
While it doesn't seem that google manually pushes sites up, they certainly push stuff down.
Mintana, that's sort of the whole point. So many SEO factors change so quickly.
The one thing that won't ever change is that Google wants to index good, useful stuff. So there's a long-term strategic SEO strategy for you.
Of course still do all the other tactical optimization stuff. But it sure does get easier when you're not putting lipstick on a pig.
The thing about SEO 2010 rule is that it takes for granted that Google will still be the leading search engine. By 2010, semantic search may be available and completely change the way websites are ranked. It will be difficult to imagine in advance, so it is important to do the very best to offer unique content. This may be done by presenting existing stuff, with a different marketing image. After all Pepsi and Coke are practically the same product, but their marketing allows them to access a different crowd.
Can you be more specific please??? about --- The “build for users†thing has been beaten to death--- what specifically do you mean?
I am so refreshed by your authentic nature and incentivizing all of us to be even more authentic and radically transparent so our content is solid in 2010. Timeless and Priceless.
"My 2010 rule is different: Build something in 2008 that’s going to be around in the year 2010.
That’s long enough for us to make it one of the top sites of its kind."
that's a golden piece of advice - and so simple too. it takes a couple of years to build up enough backlinks and reputation to be a top site anyway, and i like to think that if you keep plugging away at an idea it'll eventually pay off.
Being different is always a challenge and I think it is even more important and difficult when it comes to the net.
I am sure there is scope for quality and that it is not entirely a "people" dominated field. Content is the king and it will always remain that way. Price may be forgotten but quality ? Never.
© 2012 http://www.jangro.com/
RSS
Please let me be clear. I wasn't selling out, or decrying the industry in which I have made a nice living, and which has been good to me. I love what I do.
The point I was making is this: "Affiliates" are getting defined by our most visible behavior -- the marketers who seem to be able to, or at least try to, get top rankings with low quality stuff to insert themselves into every monetary transaction on the Internet without providing incremental value. Essentially, moving the user one click further away from what they're ultimately looking for. And if that's an "affiliate", that is not me.
This shouldn't only be a criticism of the smaller one-man-show affiliates. I've seen some REALLY crappy results from big company sites, like the big price comparison engines who have somehow earned a bye on the "add value" check in very specific cases. In my opinion, they are some of the biggest search engine polluters out there, showing up in paid and natural search results where they don't have any products for terms they're ranking for.
When this stuff somehow manages to make it's way up in some search engine results, it is yet another "bad experience". These things make the search engines look bad. Nobody likes to be played. And while you may be excited about the great traffic that you're getting for nothing, it's like lead poisoning. It builds up in the system until the system either dies or does something drastic to get rid of the problem. While this technique seems easy, it's very short-sighted, and is contributing to a larger crisis.
It's a free world, and you can put up any website that you want. That's cool. There's a big difference between something that someone's doing for the fun or interest of it, or working toward future goals and someone who is putting up something quick with the intention that it'll rank well for some search term and make some easy money. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it.
Mark Wielgus at 45n5 coined the term "the 2010 seo rule" based on something that Jason Calacanis said in the Affiliate Summit keynote address. Basically, Jason said, "if you cannot make a web page that's 20% better than the top 10 pages that are already out there on a topic, then don't bother."
How can you possibly measure "percent better" and why stop at 10? Surely there's room on the Net for more than 10 angles on the same subject. And of course, you never know if your idea will be better until you try it.
Just the same, the point is a good one, and is simply this: Try to be better.
It's a tough pill to swallow to look at what you do and admit that it doesn't add to the user experience, especially if it's making money. Sure you can justify it and tell yourself that you're providing a service (if I had a nickel), catching a wayward searcher and directing them on the path to the product they want, but you're probably just kidding yourself. The search engines will catch up and the traffic won't last.
Be Different
This is no holier-than-thou post. I've done a lot of the things that fall squarely into the pollution category. I've created a lot of crap over the years as I got to where I am today. I shudder to think that some of it is still out there on some forgotten server. Getting kicked out of search results is a tiring game, and in the end there's nothing left to show of it or be proud of.
We made a decision a few years ago to take a different approach than what we and many other affiliates were doing. We try to build useful and fun stuff. Build for the long-term.
The "build for users" thing has been beaten to death, and frankly it's annoying advice when it comes from the search engines. Of course it's obvious, but we all know what the search engines like, and it's not always the same as what users like.
And since search engines are a fact of life, and we DO want their traffic, we've got our own take on this. Everything we do now is done with one basic sanity check in mind:
If a Google (or Yahoo or Mahalo) employee, a real person, were to visit any page on our sites for the purpose of evaluating it, are we confident that they'd feel good offering up to their users? The answer to this question must be "yes" or we don't do it.
If the answer is "no", we hide the page with "no index" meta data to keep it out of the search engines until we can fix it.
That pretty much covers everything -- the search engine and the user.
My 2010 rule is different: Build something in 2008 that's going to be around in the year 2010.
That's long enough for us to make it one of the top sites of its kind.