I’m very happy to see a new social SEM/SEO news site pop up, and with with some familiar and friendly faces behind it to boot. Hi, SERPD, the pleasure is all mine!
Since Sphinn did away with their voting system at the beginning of the month in favor of editorially chosen featured articles, a lot of criticism has been aired for and against their decision and motivations.
Admittedly, I did enjoy the voting system of Sphinn while it was still feasible for staff to maintain. Discussion, feedback, and votes stemming from the widest selection possible of community members certainly has a different flavor from an editor selected voting system.
That being said, I think it’s great to have one type of voting system each, across two social news sites.
The way I see it, this isn’t a which is better debate; two perspectives often add more value that one. I know I’ll continue to check out what’s hot and submit to Sphinn as I have in the past as I will with SERPD—and I’m sure I’ll appreciate both flavors for different reasons. In fact, I know I will.
I’m really hoping SERPD and Sphinn community members take the high road and not start choosing sides. This thing of ours (the search professional community, not the other thing) has had enough of that already. *cough* SEOMoz *cough* SEOBook.
In order to continue to earn mainstream respect, let’s demonstrate the independent thinking and maturity we’re obviously capable of.
Before the SEO world gets its collective panties in a knot about Google Instant‘s potential for putting us all out of work, it would be a good idea to remember why people use search engines in the first place: we want information suited to our specific needs.
… “By predicting your search and showing results before you finish typing, Google Instant can save 2-5 seconds per search.”
Are those couple of seconds really saving time if results are too broad? I don’t see on-the-fly results as an enhancement; rather, as just another distraction en route to optimal search results. The real beauty of search is in specificity.
If searchers want to save 1 second in the query stage of search, they can easily omit a word or two from their search terms; but this is obviously counterproductive since a lack of search refinement costs time in the long-run.
Google continues with another supposed benefit:
Instant Results: Start typing and results appear right before your eyes. Until now, you had to type a full search term, hit return, and hope for the right results. Now results appear instantly as you type, helping you see where you’re headed, every step of the way.
Suggestions can occasionally be helpful; however, if someone is searching on Google for ‘cheap car insurance in Detroit’, they aren’t going to stop at cheap car or cheap car insurance just because Google is streaming results on a keystroke-by-keystroke basis for shorter queries. Search is all about the longtail.
In my opinion, Google Instant encourages sheep mentality: How will Google know what people are searching for if out of laziness, we click on their suggestions?
Ok, I’ll state the obvious
The more results that Google can throw in front of searchers, the more opportunity they have to display sponsored results. Enough said.
Why I’m not worried
Push marketing is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and in my opinion, Google Instant is unwanted noise—a distraction that I’ll be glad to have the option of ignoring or opting out of as an able search engine user.
And I don’t think I’m alone.
- Advertising (1)
- Bing (2)
- Business (4)
- Content Strategy (1)
- Copywriting (1)
- Domains (1)
- Google (14)
- Humour (2)
- Internet Marketing (2)
- Landing Page Optimization (1)
- Link Building (1)
- Misinformation (1)
- news (16)
- Online reputation management (1)
- Semantics (2)
- SEO Tips (2)
- SEO Tools (7)
- Social Media (7)
- Social News (1)
- Technology (2)
- Video (4)
- Web analytics (1)
- Web Usability (1)