Comments on: Endgame for Organic Search? http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/ Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Technique Through Experiments, Measurement and Audit Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:12:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: Squidoo Dummy http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-16132 Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:08:50 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-16132 your aritcles is really good about internet marketing history, which is an open eyes for me. To add on, Web 2.0 technology is coming up and networking is the curcial part for interent marketer. your aritcles is really good about internet marketing history, which is an open eyes for me.

To add on, Web 2.0 technology is coming up and networking is the curcial part for interent marketer.

]]> by: Google is destroying the web! | Merjis Search Marketing Blog http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-13076 Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:15:08 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-13076 [...] Another way to read that datum, is that businesses are finding blog spam to be a useful way to drive traffic. A high organic ranking can drive traffic for months, whereas one email campaign generates a limited duration boost to new visitors. If they were the same cost, which would you use? [...] […] Another way to read that datum, is that businesses are finding blog spam to be a useful way to drive traffic. A high organic ranking can drive traffic for months, whereas one email campaign generates a limited duration boost to new visitors. If they were the same cost, which would you use? […]

]]> by: Merjis blog » Blog Archive » Rev A: SEO, Game Theory and Intrinsically Corruptible Systems http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-4546 Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:02:23 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-4546 [...] Some days ago, Matt Cutts made a pretty bland posting offering the idea that Google is interested in collecting user reports of paid links. But, thud (that’s the other shoe dropping), Google’s attention to paid links is part of the end game. Page Rank was a great system. It worked much better than the in-page ranking systems and meta-tag ranking systems that came first, and it knocks human edited directories into a cocked hat, in terms of the speed with which content could be ranked and the implicit structure of information reworked in response to changing concepts. [...] […] Some days ago, Matt Cutts made a pretty bland posting offering the idea that Google is interested in collecting user reports of paid links. But, thud (that’s the other shoe dropping), Google’s attention to paid links is part of the end game. Page Rank was a great system. It worked much better than the in-page ranking systems and meta-tag ranking systems that came first, and it knocks human edited directories into a cocked hat, in terms of the speed with which content could be ranked and the implicit structure of information reworked in response to changing concepts. […]

]]> by: Jeremy Chatfield http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-3891 Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:54:53 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-3891 Hi John, Yes - it is web professionals that are noticing the problem. Articles like this are becoming quite common - <a href="http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=73389" rel="nofollow">WebProWorld Web Designer Complaint</a>. I remember finding Google, after a personal recommendation from another geek. I remember telling dozens of people what a good job it did, compared with the current best. I personally probably introduced Google to hundreds of users that would otherwise have been pestering me to help them use Lycos, AltaVista, HotBot and so on. Professional/industry users have a strong effect on large populations of other users. If we're unhappy, it will take only a small advantage for a competitive search engine to deliver better results (not more snazzily graphical, not better stuffed with paid adverts, but better organised and ranked results) to let us professionals point to a better solution. It is frequently suggested that entrenched companies take years to decades to decay. I think that's true of offline, atom-shuffling businesses. I think online business decay is much faster. If I found a better search engine today, I'd immediately stop using Google and I'd be telling dozens (or by way of this blog, hundreds) of people that I had better answers elsewhere. I suspect that I could personally account for a defection of a thousand users or more, in a few weeks. Multiply that by thousands of web professionals and a decent blog article, tagged by Digg and magnified by a Squidoo lens? A million users a week defecting? More? I'll grant that you are right about the pace of innovation. Google presented a huge jump in performance, with a novel way to structure the web. However, it's broken. Adding more filters won't fix it, only fend off the rate of decay. The innovation jump required to do better is big, but the impetus is building. Example? I normally only consider white hat methods of SEO. The current state of search is such that I've even found myself considering black hat methods, because search engine results are just so random and stuffed with mostly SEOed incorrectly ranked junk. To compete with it, I find myself wondering about constructing software that will generate pages that are attractive to search engines. And that's the key problem - if I can and want to write a program that changes rank, so can other people - and that means that the system is intrinsically trivially corruptible. The other half of the problem of course, is the capability maturity model of the organisations that ask SEO's to gain rank. I might try to put that concept over in another article. I'm blathering on a bit, here... Cheers, JeremyC. Hi John,

Yes - it is web professionals that are noticing the problem. Articles like this are becoming quite common -
WebProWorld Web Designer Complaint.

I remember finding Google, after a personal recommendation from another geek. I remember telling dozens of people what a good job it did, compared with the current best. I personally probably introduced Google to hundreds of users that would otherwise have been pestering me to help them use Lycos, AltaVista, HotBot and so on.

Professional/industry users have a strong effect on large populations of other users. If we’re unhappy, it will take only a small advantage for a competitive search engine to deliver better results (not more snazzily graphical, not better stuffed with paid adverts, but better organised and ranked results) to let us professionals point to a better solution.

It is frequently suggested that entrenched companies take years to decades to decay. I think that’s true of offline, atom-shuffling businesses. I think online business decay is much faster. If I found a better search engine today, I’d immediately stop using Google and I’d be telling dozens (or by way of this blog, hundreds) of people that I had better answers elsewhere. I suspect that I could personally account for a defection of a thousand users or more, in a few weeks. Multiply that by thousands of web professionals and a decent blog article, tagged by Digg and magnified by a Squidoo lens? A million users a week defecting? More?

I’ll grant that you are right about the pace of innovation. Google presented a huge jump in performance, with a novel way to structure the web. However, it’s broken. Adding more filters won’t fix it, only fend off the rate of decay. The innovation jump required to do better is big, but the impetus is building. Example?

I normally only consider white hat methods of SEO. The current state of search is such that I’ve even found myself considering black hat methods, because search engine results are just so random and stuffed with mostly SEOed incorrectly ranked junk. To compete with it, I find myself wondering about constructing software that will generate pages that are attractive to search engines. And that’s the key problem - if I can and want to write a program that changes rank, so can other people - and that means that the system is intrinsically trivially corruptible.

The other half of the problem of course, is the capability maturity model of the organisations that ask SEO’s to gain rank. I might try to put that concept over in another article. I’m blathering on a bit, here…

Cheers, JeremyC.

]]> by: John K http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-3582 Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:04:21 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2007/03/13/endgame-for-organic-search/#comment-3582 Good points. I think you could be right, but the timeframe to change the model is a lot longer than it was back in 1998 - 2000. For example, MSN can't produce a search engine that works as well as Google circa 2004. Even though I've predicted that <a href="http://gotads.blogspot.com/2006/12/google-checkout-what-new-york-times.html" rel="nofollow">Google will try to build a trust system</a>, Google has legacy issues, and can't change very quickly to newer models. So I think any "trustrank" based system is a long way off. Besides SEOs, SEMs and industry experts, I don't see a lot of dissatisfied search users... Good points.

I think you could be right, but the timeframe to change the model is a lot longer than it was back in 1998 - 2000.

For example, MSN can’t produce a search engine that works as well as Google circa 2004.

Even though I’ve predicted that Google will try to build a trust system, Google has legacy issues, and can’t change very quickly to newer models. So I think any “trustrank” based system is a long way off.

Besides SEOs, SEMs and industry experts, I don’t see a lot of dissatisfied search users…

]]>