You're A "Hack" When It Comes To Search.

You know what pisses me off when it comes to search? I hate it when people (usually executives who don't do the day-to-day work) go out there and publish something that I think is pretty much a bunch of craptastic-ness.

I was just reading this article on Media Post about one executive's view that "user-generated content is breaking the search engine algorithms."

Huh? What? This guy probably doesn't spend his day in the "trenches" of the search world. So he doesn't know first hand what he's talking about.

Well, I don't mean to be so blunt. And to be fair, when I read the title of the article, I was intrigued enough to read through the piece.

Basically, what this gentleman is saying is that sites, Wikipedia in particular, are showing up on the first page of search results (which they are) because so many other sites on the Internet are linking to them. (Which is true. Search marketers know "link popularity" is a part of the overall picture. Duh! SEO 101!)

But... This hack is saying that we should be "startled" by these results, and poses the following questions; which I have provided my responses:

Will search users begin interacting with and relying on sponsored listings for relevancy more frequently? Umm... Probably not. Why? Well, one popular source dominating the search results is NOT going to cause users to distrust algorithms. (You jack ass.) Users are becoming more and more savvy with the Internet. And they know that while Wikipedia is edited by "the public," the information in there is of value. And you know what? Google knows it too. So no, users will not be "tipping the scales" towards preferring paid search listings more than the organic listings. It will always be split with organic listings having a higher value. (This is why it is always important to do both paid search and organic search actively.)

Will search engines run the risk of user abandonment due to irrelevant search engine query results? How the "eff" is a Wikipedia result irrelevant? The answer is, "it IS relevant." Wikipedia... Made by the public for the public.

And seriously, there are PLENTY of paid search ads I have come across in my time that were EXTREMELY not relevant to my query. In fact, I am LESS trusting of paid search ads (personally) because I know how the system works. I know that it is paid for space. And with Wikipedia showing up in natural listings, I am certainly not turned off by the organic results.

Will the growth of general search engines be stunted, and will we subsequently see a shift to vertical search engines? Vertical search engines are wonderful things. I do like them. But I do not think general search engines will be stunted. Algorithms change, as do search results. Nothing stays static in search engines. Algorithms are always being "tooled with" and improved.

And his ending quote to the piece, "The algorithms have been figured out -- and the emperor suddenly has no clothes."... Please... No one has figured out the "secret sauce." Because there is no real "secret sauce" to figure out.

Seriously, search firms need to stop spinning the hoo-haw "BS." (And I SWEAR to God, if I hear one more agency trying to spin the "we reverse-engineer the search engine algorithms" bit, I will seriously kick their ass in.)

Everyone who has worked on search engine optimization knows what "ingredients" are key to the overall SEO "recipe." Sure, like I always say, we don't know the "exact measurement" of each thing that counts... But, Google (especially) has been very upfront with what you should spend your time focusing on... And surprisingly, if you follow their lead that "content is king," you would (eventually) see SEO success.

Great content (that crawlers can read) = more people linking to you = algorithms finding that your site has value to a search user's query.

Yes, it is that simple people. The emperor does have clothes... And he probably found out which brands to buy from researching it on Wikipedia.

And there you have it!