nrg_alpha Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I came across this forum post on sitepoint that immediately caught my attention. I'm not going to bother glossing over all the details, but it includes this video. If true, this will certainly change everything [with regards to SEO]. Points of interest from the video (via sitepoint post): "Of particular interest to me from the video were these points: Google's 128 algo variables will now be 200 That means links will have even less meaning than they do now Google will be looking for "engagement objects" and measuring your ability to keep a web visitor "engaged" As a result, video will be essential The only way to measure any SEO effectiveness will be watching analytics like a hawk There will be a slew of "Google Dances" over the next 6 months alone" Could be very interesting to see what changes Google brings to SEO, and how others will react to keep up rankings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Everything they guy said in the video sounds like they are heading in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Everything they guy said in the video sounds like they are heading in the right direction. For the most part, I agree. There are some aspects however that have me scratching my head a little... If video and other such content is going to start weighing in a lot more, what happens to sites that don't rely on such media? What if some sites have hosting packages that don't offer much bandwidth? In other words, would it be necessary to migrate to one that does offer enough bandwidth to comfortably chug out video without the worry of exceeding bandwidth limits? While videos are indeed becoming more mainstream these days, does a site that offers completely good, engaging information (without video) all of a sudden fall to those who do offer video from a rankings standpoint? One would think that content (good quality content that is) is still going to be a huge factor,whether video, flash or what have you is involved or not. As he mentioned in the video..current top ranking sites could just fall off the rankings overnight. While I appreciate the idea of more customized, localized searches, I would certainly hope Google still allows for universal searches as an option. If I want to look up something for art reference, I would not want Google to simply show me images of something within my home town. The idea of one person's search results being different from someone else's even with the same query is rather odd (unless the search system is smart enough to know that you are looking for something in a local store (which I think he does make mention of something like that.. something about shopping).. but it seems like the search results will be much more dynamic / tailor made.. which could work for you for sure.. but might not in some other cases.. Overall, if proven true, it's going to get interesting for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 In other words, would it be necessary to migrate to one that does offer enough bandwidth to comfortably chug out video without the worry of exceeding bandwidth limits? No worries. According to DreamHost there exists a such thing as unlimited bandwidth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 In other words, would it be necessary to migrate to one that does offer enough bandwidth to comfortably chug out video without the worry of exceeding bandwidth limits? No worries. According to DreamHost there exists a such thing as unlimited bandwidth. lol I recall reading about it on your blog. Well, there we have it, folks..just mozy on over to DreamHost with their unlimited storage capacity, and shove as many videos down the throats of internet passer-byers as you can, all in the name of 'engaging content' and a boost in rankings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardyandkari Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I smell another class action lawsuit on the way if google does that. "In order to keep my clientele I would have to spend WHAT?!?!?" Doesn't sound like a good idea to force people to adopt video to keep their rankings...at least from a legal standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I smell another class action lawsuit on the way if google does that. "In order to keep my clientele I would have to spend WHAT?!?!?" Doesn't sound like a good idea to force people to adopt video to keep their rankings...at least from a legal standpoint. Any court would reject that lawsuit. Google can do whatever they want with their algorithm. It's not public service or whatever. You don't have the right to be displayed on Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 The point is that search is to be improved for the user. This I think is great. There are too many BS ways people move themselves up in search ranks. Focus on your site and the appropriate content and coding and you should be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardyandkari Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I smell another class action lawsuit on the way if google does that. "In order to keep my clientele I would have to spend WHAT?!?!?" Doesn't sound like a good idea to force people to adopt video to keep their rankings...at least from a legal standpoint. Any court would reject that lawsuit. Google can do whatever they want with their algorithm. It's not public service or whatever. You don't have the right to be displayed on Google. the point isn't whether any court MIGHT reject the lawsuit, it is that a lawsuit will be filed. and if you think about it for a minute, google has kind of become a public service. how many people use google everyday to find what they want. you can order anything online, and most people find stuff online with google. back in the day it was aol, then yahoo, now google. any large company will get sued, and this is one of the largest and most public. some proof: ServersCheck BVBA v. Google: Filed 2006. Claims: Google's search engine offers password cracking tools.... SOURCE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21344/Googles-List-of-ClassAction-Lawsuits yes it was dismissed, but that doesn't mean that the plaintiff won't appeal. if you look on page 4 there is a section regarding "Lowering a Site's Ranking and Inappropriate Search Results" there have been multiple claims filed already. granted, the charges have been dismissed or withdrawn, but that wasn't the issue at hand. if Google does drop people's rankings because of the changes, someone will get upset. that someone will hire a lawyer, who might think, hmmm...i can get a butt load of money here if i start up a class action...that lawyer might dig up something on Google that a judge will look at (if 300,000 businesses get dropped and a good portion respond to the suit a judge will probably at least look at the case), all of this costs google money. in the end the bigwigs at google might just decide that it is cheaper to just pay the people and make them go away...you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I have to entirely disagree with you. The cases would never get very far because they would be ridiculous. Google could rig the search results for all it matters to the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Google is and never will be a public service unless it's owned by a government. Just because a lot of people use it doesn't make it public service. They're not obliged to show anyone on their SERPs. Well, they must show the people who pay for positions, but those are unaffected by changes to their searching algorithm anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardyandkari Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 the point is the lawsuits will be filed. i never even suggested which side might win. a lawsuit is a lawsuit, it will still cost google money. and if there are 100 lawsuits being brought against google, that is a lot of money. imagine how much it would cost if there were 1000 lawsuits against google. they may just throw a token amount of money at them to make them go away. google is paying out $125 million to people whose books were scanned into google books. (SOURCE) i would say that is a token amount. how much do you think that each author will get? how many books were scanned? each will maybe get $100-300 on average. personally i have seen settlements with amounts paid out under $1. definately a token amount. Btw, the company that i work for is a class action administrator. i see lawsuits every day where the defendant denies all allegations. the point of a class action settlement is to make all of the plaintiffs go away while not admitting guilt. google could do that, say "if you dont file your claim by this date you will be barred from suing us in the future." then they would be in the free and clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nadeemshafi9 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 global international national local intent based search YAY good thing i dint waste myh time messing up my sites with silly url mods etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
448191 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 And how does Google intend to measure how I keep my visitor "engaged"? If video has a positive effect on rankings that would mean a crappy site with crappy video's would benefit from this change, while a quality site without video would suffer. I personally dislike all the freaking webcasts. I don't have to listen to some guy telling me in 15 minutes what I could have read about in 5. They're never professional presenters either so they're more often than not very annoying to listen to. "Eha.. Now I'm gonna do this... And... If you look here... Euh..."... Screw that. You got one minute to show it, after that I'm gone. If this is true I'm expecting more and more unnecessary, "just because we can"/"because video is cool" (and now also because of our PageRank) webcasts. The whole Web is going to hell. Screw Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
448191 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 global international national local intent based search YAY good thing i dint waste myh time messing up my sites with silly url mods etc Now try it in English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 And how does Google intend to measure how I keep my visitor "engaged"? If video has a positive effect on rankings that would mean a crappy site with crappy video's would benefit from this change, while a quality site without video would suffer. I personally dislike all the freaking webcasts. I don't have to listen to some guy telling me in 15 minutes what I could have read about in 5. They're never professional presenters either so they're more often than not very annoying to listen to. "Eha.. Now I'm gonna do this... And... If you look here... Euh..."... Screw that. You got one minute to show it, after that I'm gone. If this is true I'm expecting more and more unnecessary, "just because we can"/"because video is cool" (and now also because of our PageRank) webcasts. The whole Web is going to hell. Screw Google. You bring some very intesting points. Funny you should mention wasted video time. I was recently listening in a podcast at sitepoint (so this is admittedly an audio thing, but runs in parellel to what you mentioned). It was entitled 'What to do about IE 6'.. so I start streaming it, and it starts off by talking about some site (I think journalspace or something to that effect) that didn't back up their databases correctly or something and as a result, something went wrong and the entire community was wiped out..So this conversation of data backup keeps going and going, and it's at least a good 6 minutes into the thing, and the discussion of IE 6 still hasn't kicked in.. so I just lost patience and moved on... so yes, definitely some inherent issues with prominence to media that doesn't cut to the chase. And indeed, what does qualify a video as engaging? Will Googlebots start translating spoken words within vidoes to text and search that against rich keywords? Overall, I can't say I'm a fan of this whole 'video/flash engaging content' thing. It really does make me wonder just how Google will actually execute all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nadeemshafi9 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 global international national local intent based search YAY good thing i dint waste myh time messing up my sites with silly url mods etc Now try it in English. dem googles be influenceing coz dey iz large cuzzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
448191 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 global international national local intent based search YAY good thing i dint waste myh time messing up my sites with silly url mods etc Now try it in English. dem googles be influenceing coz dey iz large cuzzy Ah, ok, I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.