What a Search Engine Should Do
Following the Money Keywords
The need for diversity in anchor text is elementary and I'm surprised the search engines haven't jumped on it before. I mean, if you have a boatload of inbound links that say "money keyword" you don't need a bloodhound to sniff out someone trying to rank for that.
The perfect search engine should be impervious to human attempts to game it (no kidding, right?). But further, the perfect search engine of the future will not have a symbiotic relationship with webmasters having to conform their web pages to a search engines standards.
Sharing the toys
The big flaw in search engines today is that they are heavily reliant on webmasters writing content in a way that machines can understand the meaning. Anyone who has coded a page so that it showed contextually relevant AdSense ads can attest to the wild misinterpretations that can occur.
So unless a webmaster is writing content, crafting navigational links, and designing web pages with machines in mind, the ostensibly useful content may likely go unnoticed because search engines have great difficulty identifying relevant pages.
Anchor text analysis was supposed to free the search engines from being manipulated by the webmasters but that experiment only led to the creation of a new industry focused on the creation of more inbound links. The result is that not only are the search engines are still reliant on webmasters to help them identify relevant pages, but because of the new link creation industry they inadvertently help create, they are now relying on webmasters to help them solve their problem with link manipulation.
The recent nofollow attribute is a perfect example of the search engines seeking a convenient partnership with webmasters. Previously, this convenient pact was called Search Engine Friendly Design. Unfortunately, that leaves a great many websites designed by people who design strictly for people (and not for search engines) out in the cold. It was a dirty deal for any search engine wishing to return accurate results.
The direction I believe search engines are moving to is to lessen their dependence on the webmaster so that it doesn't matter if a website is flash and that it wouldn't matter if it's consciously written with keywords in mind (no copy writer should have to think about the keywords used, they should write for the user).
Hit the road Jack!
That's the direction I believe Google is headed and has aspired to, to be released from dependence on the webmaster and be able to return accurate pages that do not necessarily have the keywords in their pages (because many webmasters write for users and not search engines).
What does that mean for you? More analysis.
The need for diversity in anchor text is elementary and I'm surprised the search engines haven't jumped on it before. I mean, if you have a boatload of inbound links that say "money keyword" you don't need a bloodhound to sniff out someone trying to rank for that.
The perfect search engine should be impervious to human attempts to game it (no kidding, right?). But further, the perfect search engine of the future will not have a symbiotic relationship with webmasters having to conform their web pages to a search engines standards.
Sharing the toys
The big flaw in search engines today is that they are heavily reliant on webmasters writing content in a way that machines can understand the meaning. Anyone who has coded a page so that it showed contextually relevant AdSense ads can attest to the wild misinterpretations that can occur.
So unless a webmaster is writing content, crafting navigational links, and designing web pages with machines in mind, the ostensibly useful content may likely go unnoticed because search engines have great difficulty identifying relevant pages.
Anchor text analysis was supposed to free the search engines from being manipulated by the webmasters but that experiment only led to the creation of a new industry focused on the creation of more inbound links. The result is that not only are the search engines are still reliant on webmasters to help them identify relevant pages, but because of the new link creation industry they inadvertently help create, they are now relying on webmasters to help them solve their problem with link manipulation.
The recent nofollow attribute is a perfect example of the search engines seeking a convenient partnership with webmasters. Previously, this convenient pact was called Search Engine Friendly Design. Unfortunately, that leaves a great many websites designed by people who design strictly for people (and not for search engines) out in the cold. It was a dirty deal for any search engine wishing to return accurate results.
The direction I believe search engines are moving to is to lessen their dependence on the webmaster so that it doesn't matter if a website is flash and that it wouldn't matter if it's consciously written with keywords in mind (no copy writer should have to think about the keywords used, they should write for the user).
Hit the road Jack!
That's the direction I believe Google is headed and has aspired to, to be released from dependence on the webmaster and be able to return accurate pages that do not necessarily have the keywords in their pages (because many webmasters write for users and not search engines).
What does that mean for you? More analysis.
Search Engine Commentary by martinibuster || What a Search Engine Should Do
<< Home