In regard to SEO I believe any large corporation, small internet business, or even a blog must weigh out the benefits and costs of SEO. As I mentioned in the article just before this one, we are at a stage of evolution in Search Engine philosophy and development that the most concise and purposeful websites are overrun by the thousand-page keyword/link/blog/article menageries that have been created as “spider bait”.

Beyond the now ludicrous rewording of endless not-so-original articles and “link-slopping” (did I mean swapping? . . oooops!), we have algorithms checking our neighborhoods and popularity, etc. Let’s not forget “naturalness” (mmmm). So what does “spider nature” bring to the web? – incestuous libraries of vastly superior breeding!! Sort of a ‘Royals’ thing. So how do you get to be a ‘Royal’ if you weren’t born to royals? It’s difficult, time-consuming, expensive, many times immaterial to your real purpose. But let’s say that you really, really, really, want to get to the top of the search engine realm. You do the work, you put in the time (and/or money) to build an incestuous library of spider bait.

What is the result? Check it right in your SERPs – Ooooooh!! You go from #105 to #62. Okay! Okay! maybe #30. Is it worth it? Well, that’s where your real purpose comes in. Did it generate an improved click-through-rate? How much did revenues increase?

What does this mean? What it means to me is I learn to ignore the search listings that show signs of being a “spider library” and if I know I’m looking in a niche area or for a small page I cut to page 4 or 40 of the SERP. It also means I will use a directory more often to find sites in a certain field. I may even click on advertising links to cut down search time (planned?). I believe the current algorithms miss the point on accuracy of keywords in favor of sites with libraries of blab. They also miss another big point, conciseness of the site in general.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not against links, content, keywords, etc. We just need better spiders for quality vs quantity. We need better human reviews of those spiders’ rankings too. What is the point of a human reviewing the Top 10 when the
Top 10 remains full of incestuous library blab, and the keywords are found 2-6 words apart in the listings. Maybe it’s like America, use Big Oil or nothing.

Come on human reviewers wake up! Do search engines become the fossil fuel of the net?

Gimme’ Five,
Arthur Browning


Comments are closed.

Featured Templates