Search engine optimisation or search engine obfuscation!
Written by Gary Lockton
Brilliant though Google and other search engines are at bringing some level of sense and order to the billions of web pages out there, they all still rely almost completely on our ability to look for something in the right way. Keywords are really that – KEY!
Luckily as the amount of content online grows so does the average level of skill of people using search engines. Two years ago the average number of keywords entered into Google’s search field was not much more than 1.5, today it is more like 3.0. We are being more specific when we search which is a good thing – finding a million or more results is hardly a badge of honour now is it?
In spite of this there remains the ‘Did you mean?‘ problem or the ‘Did we mean?‘ problem as I would describe it.
As an agency advising our clients on SEO or search engine optimisation one of the toughest tasks is convincing businesses to think like customers and ensure the way they write about themselves online does likewise. By all means ‘build it’ but they won’t be coming unless the way you talk matches the way they search!
Take Last Exit and PaperVision for example. We are a Papervision3D agency and would like to be found as such when potential clients search for this kind of service online. Because PaperVision is a new technology however the challenge is to make sure we talk about it in the right ways. The correct description for this Flash plug-in is PaperVision3D but a quick check within Google’s Adwords Keyword Tool reveals a whole host of ways people are looking for it – papervision 3d, paper vision 3d or even pay per vision 3d are all commonly used.
This wouldn’t be a problem but as I say above search engines rely on keywords in a very exact way. Try it yourself – a query of ‘paper vision 3d agency‘ will deliver very different results to one of ‘papervision3d agency‘ regardless of the fact both may be intended to find an agency supplying PaperVision3D.
Granted this all sounds very anal indeed but the truth is that Google and the other search engines are very anal indeed! Words, and the exact way they are used, are all they have to go on when routing that important query of yours to a handful of those 3 billion web pages!
The solution is writing for the web, making frequent reference to important keywords, and writing like the customers you want to attract would ask for you.
The solution is really not rocket-science, or should that be rocket science!
Comments(5)
Nice article cheers!
“Great topic & it has covered several points regarding
search engine optimization. But I got a question, do you think onpage factors or offpage factors play a bigger role for SEO? Please advise”
Hi Connie,
I would say the bias and importantly the momentum is towards on-page as opposed to off-page factors.
What is more a look at some of the postings by Google’s Matt Cutts (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/) makes pretty clear that his company’s mission is to concentrate on aligning search results directly with end-user value, hence their continued work to decipher subject matter from within video, audio, Flash etc. as well as from the written word.
More than a simple ‘hygiene’ focus on off-page factors leaves SEO open to abuse by technical ‘pirates’ as was seen a few years ago with page meta-data for example!
Great post, but are you also seeing a generational gap in Search i.e. young people tend to be much more savvy in finding web information?
In my experience that’s the case. What the solution? Different level approaches or just aiming towards the new generation of consumers coming through?
I think the safest approach is still probably to aim for and think about the less savvy user by default?
Without doubt users in general are becomming more sophisticated – they are thinking more and searching better. Unless you are running a youth-only-brand however I would still advise any client to ‘accomodate the less sophisticated’ whenever possible.
As with good site information architecture, it is surely better that someone gets to what they want via one of a number of routes as opposed to not arriving at all?
I would enjoy debating this further if people feel otherwise though!
Gary Lockton