Brin on SEO

[John Scott]

Brin doesn't mind letting on that if Google ends up dancing all over the optimizers, so much the better. "When we change and improve our technology, things get shuffled around," Brin says, "and sometimes it has a disproportionate effect on optimization sites."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_pr.html

[Mel]

Nice article that sheds a bit of light on the thought processes of the "evil genius" behind Googles search policies, and although it was written ten months ago, it even then was hinting that in the future Google might be subverting relevancy for profit, which could be one of the explanations of the Florida update.

Perhaps as Googles search share drops when Yahoo drops Google for Inktomi, and MSN starts its own search engine, they may rethink their stand on optimization, which Brin seems to regard as intrinsically evil. I might even go so far as to say that if Yahoos implementation of Inktomi proves successful, and is done before the IPO, Google might be well advised to reconsider the timing of their IPO.

IMO there is no doubt that there are many sites that unfairly rank highly because of optimization (I can think of a few of my own pages that may not be the best available on the web but still rank #1 ) but many more sites rank where they should because of optimization.

Relevancy is hard to judge by mathmatical analysis, especially when relevancy to the user (which IMO is the only relevancy that should be considered) may well depend on things that are simply not judged by any existing search engine algo.

For instance last week I was looking for an internet router, and my first searches were for terms like internet router comparasions, (which Google used to do a better job on) but as I gained more information, I was no longer looking for sites that compared routers but sites that sold routers and, since I had pretty well determined what I wanted to buy, was now looking for sites that sold what I wanted, had them in stock for shipment, and offered the best price, payment and shipping options. These searches did not display results in order of relevancy for me, since the parameters I was interested in (price, stock situation, shipping and price) simply are not ranked by search engines in the way that I was interested in.

SEO is not dead, despite having received a slap in the face from Google, since in order to deliver that slap Google had to severely degrade the quality of its SERPS.

That fact alone should suffice to prove that SEO is still more helpful than harmful to the search engines, and its time for Mr. Brin to take off his blinders and realize that its impossible to quantify everything as either black or white.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Mel

That fact alone should suffice to prove that SEO is still more helpful than harmful to the search engines, and its time for Mr. Brin to take off his blinders and realize that its impossible to quantify everything as either black or white.

Brin can see the results for himself if he bothered searching Google. But I doubt he will see it in time.

Google wasn't built on advertising. Google was built on word-of-mouth. It can also die by word of mouth. Webmasters own the web. If the web is a newspaper, webmasters own the paper it's printed on. If Google pisses on enough webmasters, they will die as quickly as they were born.

The way Brin sees it, the optimizers are co-opting Google's bond of trust with its users. He regards optimizers the way a mother grizzly might regard a hunter jabbing at her cub with a stick.

It's funny that for so long, SEO's have been sucking up to Google claiming that Google likes "WhiteHat SEO", and all the while Google has been spitting in the face of SEO's.

Do a search for "SEO" on Google, and Google has placed its own page in the #1 spot:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=seo

http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

Within this page, Google attempts to portray SEO's as scam artists:

Be wary of SEO firms

Be careful.

If you feel you were deceived by an SEO in some way, you may want to report it.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) handles complaints about deceptive or unfair business practices. To file a complaint, visit: http://www.ftc.gov/ and click on "File a Complaint Online", call 1-877-FTC-HELP, or write to:
Federal Trade Commission
CRC-240
Washington, D.C. 20580

Outrageous scare tactics! This coming from a search engine which claims to be "based on the uniquely democratic nature of the web", while it manipulates results and PR.

[I, Brian]

I don't think that "whitehats" have been sucking up to Google at all. It's simply been a case that Google advises against certain tactics, therefore whitehats tried to play without those tactics.

There was sense in that approach - why risk the sites of yourself and clients in tactics Google specifically forbids?

Yet as noted, Google has turned around and slapped all. That in itself is very dangerous - Google could go the way of Alta Vista.

[PhilC]

Google's days were numbered from the moment it was born, simply because it always happens to search engines. People find something new that they like and move on. I've been saying that for a long time.

I recently wondered if Google might just have reached the critical mass that made it unstoppabe, but it hasn't. Yahtomi will reduce its mass a lot, and now they've shot themselves in the relevancy foot with their users so that, over time, the users will move on - unless they repair the damage.

[Johan007]

Outrageous scare tactics! This coming from a search engine which claims to be "based on the uniquely democratic nature of the web", while it manipulates results and PR.

...maybe but my company gets loads of phone calls from SEO who are talking from their backside.