  |
|
|
View previous topic
::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:25 am
Post subject: Optimising for anyone other than Google...
|
 |
|
Hello everyone.
Considering Google's success, the fact that they now offer increasingly less weight to on-page factors and the other search engines are moving more towards Google's algorithm (in search of the best results and the success that means), is it really worth optimising for any SEs other than Google nowadays?
While not deliberately doing things that the SEs might consider spam, wouldn't it be better to concentrate simply on off-page factors for Google, rather than obsessively trying to optimise pages for a number of different engines?
What role will the other SEs play in the future? Is there really room for other "inferior" sets of search results?
Opinions on a postcard please. 
All the best,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
Sean Burns
Joined:
11 Oct 2003
Posts:
232
Location:
Sydney
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:51 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi Charlie
In the last two days, I've had 5140+ visitors from the search engines. The break up is as follows:
Google - 3330
Yahoo - 1089
MSN - 470
AOL - 156
AltaVista - 95
All others are less than 20.
So, based on the actual crawler, that's 4575 from Google - 89%. The majority of the traffic from MSN is via a LookSmart listing that I've had for years. So, there are probably only 200 visitors from Inktomi.
Based on my figures, there is only one search engine to worry about.
In the future, Yahoo will use Inktomi so that will become more important. MSN will use their own crawler based SE but it's hard to know how that will work.
So, based on the above figures, Google will provide 68% of my traffic. In this scenario, it becomes important to focus more on Inktomi (and whatever MSN comes up with). However, Inktomi have completely changed their algorithm this year - probably because Yahoo want the results to look like Google's.
Their algo is now much more link based and I would assume that they are making use of anchor text - maybe in a slightly different way.
Chances are that MSN will base their SE on Google as well.
So, I tend to think that we should just optimize for Google and let the others fall into place - which they are doing.
Cheers
Sean Burns |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:54 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello Sean.
Thanks for your reply...
| Sean Burns wrote: | | So, I tend to think that we should just optimize for Google and let the others fall into place - which they are doing. |
This is what I am doing - because I haven't the time to bother with the others - but it's nice to hear someone else give me a bit of reassurance.
I had wondered if I were missing out with Inktomi, but if they are moving Google's way, as you suggest, it seems unlikely - at least not for long. It all goes to show just how powerful Google really has become.
That said, do you think any of the engines might stick with a deliberately "unlike Google" algo, just to stand out? (I can't see how they'd benefit from inferior results, but anyway...)
If yes, might it be possible to create pages just to get some traffic in particularly competitive areas, or will there always be too many "conventional" (on-page-factor-oriented) sites around to keep even this old fashioned algo busy? (This is assuming a world where all SEOs are concentrating on Google's algo.)
Any other opinions regarding the original post, anyone?
Cheers,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fishyking
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:01 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the info, "fishyking".
Cheers,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:08 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
I've been thinking on this thread for a bit. Wanted to see where it would go and give myself a chance to ponder a bit more.
| Quote: | | Considering Google's success, the fact that they now offer increasingly less weight to on-page factors and the other search engines are moving more towards Google's algorithm (in search of the best results and the success that means), is it really worth optimising for any SEs other than Google nowadays? |
Yes. Taking my site with 66% of the traffic from Google, I am not willing to give up 1/10th of my traffic, let alone 34%.
| Quote: | | wouldn't it be better to concentrate simply on off-page factors for Google |
No. Google is experimenting with context matching (as opposed to word matching), do you want to go back and have to rewrite content if Google goes forward in this direction?
| Quote: | | obsessively trying to optimise pages for a number of different engines |
Obsessively doing anything, for Google or others, is not good anyway you look at it. Moderation should be used in any endeavor, online or off.
| Quote: | | Is there really room for other "inferior" sets of search results |
Who is to say what is inferior or not? Personally Google PR algo's are inferior when you consider you can buy massive link exchanges for a nominal sum, including 7, 8 and 9 PR links. I think the mix is more important than any "one way" to go. I find it best to be aware of what the primary SE's like when building my pages, not just Google.
| Quote: | | it becomes important to focus more on Inktomi (and whatever MSN comes up with |
This particular SE could lend a flavor all its own. Amazon is entering the SE market, what will they offer? SEO is everchanging, as I think we all agree, but to put your eggs all in one basket (or SE as the case may be) would be a sure way to limit your audience and the stability of your SE placements.
| Quote: | | do you think any of the engines might stick with a deliberately "unlike Google" algo, just to stand out |
I hope we see a top SE that will develop a mix that actually improves on where Google is right now. Personally, I think PR is much easier to manipulate than on page factors, although they are also easy to manipulate. I would like to see an SE (and maybe it will be Google if they carry into context matching) that will blend popularity with in context content. Then you will likely see results that will be superior to what is out there now.
Personally, I like the idea of Visitor optimization as opposed to SE Optimization. I think you get the best of both worlds that way. When you make things consistent and easy to find for your visitors, and it happens to help in the SEO aspect, the long-term prospects, as well as stability, for your site improve.
My 2 cents,
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:03 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Debs wrote: | | Taking my site with 66% of the traffic from Google, I am not willing to give up 1/10th of my traffic, let alone 34%. |
Do you write specific pages for Inktomi (say) and others for Google, or just generic pages trying to please all the engines?
This was quite common in the recent past, but I certainly consider it worth the effort now.
Considering there are only so many hours in the day, might it not be better to create more pages for Google? I am thinking about long term traffic... if the other SEs are really moving towards Google's algo as much as we are led to believe, surely this approach will gain in strength with time.
| Debs wrote: | | Quote: | | wouldn't it be better to concentrate simply on off-page factors for Google |
No. Google is experimenting with context matching (as opposed to word matching), do you want to go back and have to rewrite content if Google goes forward in this direction? |
I was planning on writing content that appeals to human readers and achieves MWR, rather than worrying about keyword densities unduly (for example).
Besides, I try and resist the temptation to retune old pages, generally. I prefer just adding more, knowing that different ones will do better with the SEs at different times. It's what approach to take with these new pages that interests me.
| Debs wrote: | | Quote: | | Is there really room for other "inferior" sets of search results |
Who is to say what is inferior or not? |
I was meaning as measured by popularity with searchers. This is the only measure that means anything to me.
| Debs wrote: | | Personally Google PR algo's are inferior when you consider you can buy massive link exchanges for a nominal sum, including 7, 8 and 9 PR links. |
I, for one, won't be buying.
| Debs wrote: | | I find it best to be aware of what the primary SE's like when building my pages, not just Google. |
I think it's more important to know what they all penalise, and then optimise for Google.
| Debs wrote: | | Personally, I think PR is much easier to manipulate than on page factors, although they are also easy to manipulate. |
I totally disagree. With the possible exception of keyword density, it is possible to get 100% for on-page factors, but off-page the options are limitless (as Sean pointed out in another post).
Manipulating off-page factors in a way that actually works, requires control of multiple domains (and probably IPs) various ownership profiles or an existing network of powerful friends who are prepared to dilute their own PR for your benefit.
I compare it with exams... It's possible to get 100% in a maths exam (finite answers), but not in a subject like history, where there is no complete right answer for an essay question.
| Debs wrote: | | I would like to see an SE (and maybe it will be Google if they carry into context matching) that will blend popularity with in context content. Then you will likely see results that will be superior to what is out there now. |
Yes, and if this is where Google is going, it is a good thing. Analysing the semantics of written content is the best way for searchers, but I dare say people will develop tools to reverse engineer successful sites (from a semantics point of view) and the next round of SEO manipulation will begin. The battle will never end.
| Debs wrote: | | Personally, I like the idea of Visitor optimization as opposed to SE Optimization. I think you get the best of both worlds that way. When you make things consistent and easy to find for your visitors, and it happens to help in the SEO aspect, the long-term prospects, as well as stability, for your site improve. |
This is the best for everybody. But isn't this best achieved now, by placing less emphasis on on-page factors - with the exception of title, headings and a few other scannable features?
All the best,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
