Below are posts from a discussion about the importance of search engines to web marketers. It was held on the Online Advertising Discussion List in November 1997. For background, please see:
Note: If any participants in the discussion below prefer not to be quoted on this page, please use the feedback form, and your comments will be removed.
I'm beginning to believe that search engines are a dead-end technology and fretting over where your site comes up is a big waste of time. I'm now advising clients that we create good META tags, submit the site and then forget it.
I base this newfound philosophy on a couple of things. First, I've noticed on the sites we manage that the percent of traffic from search engines drops as the investment in other types promotion increase. For example, The Year 2000 Information Center ( http://www.year2000.com/ ), a site we own and promote heavily through PR and co-promotional arrangements, had 6% of its traffic come from search engines last month. 94% came from sources such as online articles, co-promotion, and people using a bookmark. I see the exact opposite situation in the traffic reports of sites that we do little promotion for. The bulk of their traffic comes from search engines. And that makes perfect sense because without promotion search engines are the only way people can find these sites.
What sealed it for me, though, was the recent article in Business Week about search engine spamming. Louis Monier, AltaVista's technical director, is quoted as saying he estimates that half of the 20,000 pages added to Altavista everyday are spam schemes. (See the full story at: http://www.businessweek.com/1997/46/b3553162.htm ).
So lets look at what we have here:
1.) An inverse relationship between the level of site promotion and the percent of traffic from search engines.
2.) Tools that are so dynamic they change their content every few seconds. (In Altavista's case, a new page of info every 4.3 seconds.)
3.) Tools containing a significant percentage of the deceptive information. (In Altavista's case, 50%.)
4.) Tools requiring you to have a Ph.D. in boolean logic to even hope to use them effectively.
How can such an unstable system survive? Moreover, how can you ever hope to be on top of it for long?
So in closing, I submit that search engines are dying. In fact, I would say they are dead already and just don't know it yet - gone the way of the reciprocal link exchange and the "you have a cool page" award as an effective promotional tool. A victim of their own success.
So what do you guys think?
richard
-------------------------------------------------------- richard hoy moderator, online advertising discussion list director, marketing and client promotions the tenagra corporation http://www.tenagra.com/ p: 281.480.6300 | f: 281.480.7715 | e: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------
Here is a slight correction to my previous comments.
I wrote:
"In fact, I would say they are dead already and just don't know it yet - gone the way of the reciprocal link exchange..."
What I should have said is reciprocal link campaign - the process of identifing sites and writing the webmaster to ask for a link. I in no way want to imply that the ad network LinkExchange is dying. In fact, by all reports they are stronger than ever.
Sorry for any confusion I might have caused.
richard
-------------------------------------------------------- richard hoy moderator, online advertising discussion list director, marketing and client promotions the tenagra corporation http://www.tenagra.com/ p: 281.480.6300 | f: 281.480.7715 | e: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------
> I'm now advising clients that we create good META tags, submit the > site and then forget it.
I'd suggest doing a little more -- appropriate page titles, ensuring that things that are barriers to search engines are corrected, but basically, this is the correct attitude. Consider search engines, then move on. Check back maybe every few months -- don't be obsessive.
> How can such an unstable system survive? Moreover, how can you > ever hope to be on top of it for long?
People need to understand that they may not stay on top for a particular phrase, especially if its popular, for a long time. They certainly shouldn't build all a site's traffic around it. But they may still do very well for a variety of more obscure terms and topics. If they have meta tags and page titles relevant to the topic of their pages, this well help them capture this basically free traffic. But again, moderation, rather obsession, should be the rule.
> So in closing, I submit that search engines are dying. In fact, I > would say they are dead already and just don't know it yet - gone > the way of the reciprocal link exchange and the "you have a cool > page" award as an effective promotional tool.
They should have never been what people depending on for 100% of their traffic. But to invest a little time to pick up 10% or more of traffic? I'd hardly say they are dying. They certainly aren't in the perspective of those who use them to find things. But those people who used to cruise along on traffic from search engines -- and search engines only -- certainly need to realize those happy days are over. They have to be part of a comprehensive publicity program.
>I'm beginning to believe that search engines are a dead-end technology >and >fretting over where your site comes up is a big waste of time. I'm now >advising clients that we create good META tags, submit the site and >then forget it.
I agree with you, in part. The whole spamming thing is completely ruining the functionality of search engines. Results are becoming less accurate due to unscrupulous attempts to get to the top of listings (even if the particular search words have nothing to do with the content of a site). Sites that should legitimately be listed under a keyword are losing out to the spammers that set up phantom pages with redirects and screw up the whole process.
However, I don't think that this will mean the eventual demise of search engines. I think that this will ultimately force search engines to evolve into products that serve their users better. If spammers are ruining the ability of a search engine to serve its users by providing relevant content, then the search engine with the best anti-spamming technology will have a tremendous advantage in the marketplace.
Think about it - if things continue to progress in this fashion without any evolution on the part of the search engines, one day you'll type in the word "dog" and Mr. Search Engine will return 3,000 pages of sex sites, whereupon you'll ditch that search engine lickety-split. So perhaps the engine with the best anti-spamming technology will rise to the top of the heap. (And with what sex keywords are selling for these days, I'm sure there will be plenty of profit motive to produce a better product. Trust me.)
> I'm beginning to believe that search engines are a dead-end technology > and > fretting over where your site comes up is a big waste of time....So > lets look at what we have here:
Richard,
I think you may be hitting on a good point. I am starting to look for information through good subject related sites, instead of using search engines. The reason is obvious, search engines feed up too much outdated, meaningless information.
Now, when looking for links for the site we administer <http://www.obgyn.net> we must deal with search engines, to some extent. Our goal is to spend the time searching so that we can in turn save our visitors time by filtering the information and categorizing it for them. I imagine we are doing a good job of this, as articles written about us have mention this.
When I need information about other subjects, I find it tough to find good resources. The problem with some of the best big sites is that they are specific to a particular company, network or publication and typically don't let you know what else is out there relative to what they do. Some have there reasons, but I would be much more likely to go to NFL.com, if I knew they took it upon themselves to cull the internet for me and rank and categorize other valuable pro football sites. Instead, I know I must go elsewhere. Further, when I visit a site focused on our local area (Austin, TX), it seems that each major site is attached to a different network affiliate, this makes it tough when you want to find one place to locate all stations or other media. The same is true of many areas, it seems if you want to find non-biased gateways, you have to find someone's personal links page.
My feeling is, getting back to the original point, that major subject related sites are going to have to serve as the search engines for their audience and through branding will become known as the place to go for information about their area of expertise. Now, if there were search engines that could point people to these major sites in all areas, there might be some value.
I think the fact that search engines will bring up a link to a one page report right next to a huge site (not to mention, repeated listings for the same site), is a bit useless.
>So in closing, I submit that search engines are dying. In fact, I would say >they are dead already and just don't know it yet - gone the way of the >reciprocal link exchange and the "you have a cool page" award as an >effective promotional tool. A victim of their own success. > >So what do you guys think?
I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, I saw this coming a LONG time ago and developed an industry specific site that not only resolves this issue for the industry sector I am targeting, but has allowed me to become an award winning internet trade publication that actually makes money.
My site at http://www.techexchange.com is devoted to computer technology solutions for the apparel, textile and home furnishings industries. The companies who sell these software and hardware solutions are paying me to be listed in our searchable databases that contain ONLY information that is specifically geared towards their target audience. For those companies who have a website, the listing includes a link (for an additional fee).
We also host several of the websites who have listings in our databases. For the past 8 months, the results have shown that our database/directory/search engine is in the top 5% of referring sites. Last month we were the #1 referring site for two of the websites. This is certainly in support of both Richard's findings and theory.
In addition, we market techexchange.com through a variety of medium, including nearly 100 links FROM other sites that list our publication as a resource. On average, 68% of our hits are from sites that link to our site, as opposed to the search engines. The only search engines that bring us any appreciable traffic are Yahoo, infoseek and webcrawler. I too used to spend a lot of time and energy on our search engine listings. I have stopped completely. I focus all of my time and marketing money to getting links from other industry related sites as well as printed trade publication advertising to the apparel and textile industries.
As the internet grows, and the amount of info in the search engines grows with it, the problem is only going to get worse. There will be more and more marketers selling unknowing newbies a bunch of crap on how to get their name to the "top." The problem is, that it will be the top of a growing pile of junk.
Teri Ross
************************************* Teri Ross President Imagine That! Consulting Group, Inc. 2229 Sherwood Court, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Publishers of The Technology Exchange at http://www.techexchange.com Awarded as a NetGuide Gold Site--One of the Best on the Web Phone 612/593-9085 Fax 612/544-6330 http://www.techexchange.com/imagin_that.html
>I'm beginning to believe that search engines are a dead-end technology and >fretting over where your site comes up is a big waste of time. I'm now >advising clients that we create good META tags, submit the site and then >forget it.
[lossy compression”
>I base this newfound philosophy on a couple of things. First, I've noticed >on the sites we manage that the percent of traffic from search engines >How can such an unstable system survive? Moreover, how can you ever hope to >be on top of it for long? > >So in closing, I submit that search engines are dying. In fact, I would say >they are dead already and just don't know it yet - gone the way of the >reciprocal link exchange and the "you have a cool page" award as an >effective promotional tool. A victim of their own success. > >So what do you guys think?
I think you're basing your "philosophy" which I call "misconception" on the fact that search engines do not greatly impact a 'large' website's traffic. I would instead use your data, analyze it correctly, and conclude that
1. search engines are what start a website on the path toward mass appeal.
2. after search engine impact has been fully realized, other means of promotion will make or break a website.
I see a good future for my website. Up until now, a large percentage of my site's traffic has been from search engines and directories (Yahoo and InfoSeek). However to continue my site's growth, it is becoming obvious that "free" (read passive) promotion must take a back seat to the active promtion. Traffic is beginning to stagnate, and I need to begin advertising -- perhaps agressively.
However, your conclusions were entirely in error. A small website (one which gets <250,000 impressions per month) will often attribute a good amount of its traffic to search engines and Yahoo For these sites, search engines will NEVER DIE! Never is a long time, but I'm convinced it applies. If you consider medium to large sites like your year2000 or my http://www.motherboards.org/ you will of course see that magazine articles, word of mouth, dedicated users, newsgroups, and link sites dominate AltaVista/Excite/InfoSeek by a large margin. It's not that the search engines are inferior or dead, it's simply that large sites are freaking large! However, given the content of my site I would never want to imagine a day in which AltaVista, Excite, or Lycos up and died. My stats would be noticiably different on that day. But I doubt Microsoft, Netscape, or Playboy would notice the difference.
Dead? No. Could you infer that search engines are insignificant for sites with >1,000,000 impressions per month? Well, I'd say "probably." Richard, I'm not sure how many websites fit into this category, but I would guess that the number is in the thousands. Considering the millions of websites on the Internet, I must conclude that your conclusions are clearly wrong for more than 99% of the Internet community.
Calling AltaVista (and its competition) dead is like saying that the loss of Hong Kong to China ended the British empire or the East India India Company. The sun still never sets on the British empire (which possessed HK), nor has the East India Company (which founded HK) ceased to exist. I submit that the sun will never set on the search engines.
Billy Newsom
---
Billy Newsom, webmaster of The Motherboard HomeWorld
Eric Ward - URLwir ([email protected]) Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:18:24 -0500 (EST)
Roy,
As you have personally heard me preach in person since the first incidence of search engine manipulation in back in 1932, you are *exactly* correct. :)
I remember taking the podium at Web Advertising 96, and trying to explain why search engines, in their current (and still today) state of technology, are absolutely 100% useless to everyone except the people who are willing to spend 8 hours a day 365 days a year massaging, tweaking, tuning, adjusting, toning, tricking, poaching, and otherwise changing their HTML on a daily basis for every single search engine.
The road to madness that way lies...
However, the powers these beasts wield is mighty, as the currency of the Web is still hits, and the big 7 search engines get a massive amount of them. They are right now trying to maintain traffic and leverage it into new business, as they know they truth. They just don't say it out loud.
It can be seen in the way every single search engine has moved into new territory (free email service, news, shopping guides), and in many cases into other's territory (each search engine now has an index, too, very Yahoo-ish in nature.
There are several possible fixes, though each has its problems:
1). Stop with the core-dump results pile approach. Rather then telling me there were 4,387,102 matches to the words albino poodle fungus, tell me that I have to refine my search further before getting results, by submiting additonal words or topics or phrases. Make me do this until I have narrowed the results to a handful.
2). Take the indexing algorithm out of the hands of the search engine, and put it into the hands of the searcher. Let me decide how I want you ranking the pages based on 5 or 6 radio buttons or checkboxes. (This is what boolean is supposed to do, but aint nobody learnin' boolean so they can buy underware)
3). Moderated search engines. I don't mean a moderated or human reviwed directory, like Yahoo, but a search engine that does keyword searches, full text, and reviews all pages before accepting and indexing them. Impossible? I guess.
4). Fee-based inclusion search engine. You want in? You agree to pay an annual fee, and agree to a set of rules for your pages and Meta Tags. I bet this would eliminate the worst 95% of spammers.
I can't say that any of the above scenarios are workable, but #1 seems the most promising.
Eric Ward The WardGroup -- NetPOST & URLwire --------------------------------------------------------- -- Awareness For Significant Web Launches and Events ---- -- http://www.netpost.com & http://www.urlwire.com ---- . Site News Sharing With The Right People and Places . Content Specific URL Submission Planning and Campaigns . Speaker, C|Net, iWorld, and Thunderlizard Conferences
I agree that search engines are in need of an evolutionary change. Although their faults are another persons gain.
Industry specific sites will becoming more and more popular simply because they can save the users time.
The Expert Marketplace (www.expert-market.com) a FREE industry specific site for companies looking to hire consultants is the site I represent. This site is a great example how companies can group together to leverage the power of the Internet and gain larger marketing prominance. The site features a database of more than 200,000 consultants only.
I too used to spend a lot of time and energy on getting to the top of search engine listings. But, found they change too often to keep up.
Now the site advertises on most major search engines to ensure that it comes up to the top of most consultant searches.
I would love to hear of other industry specific sights if list members have them.
> I submit that search engines are dying. In fact, I would say > they are dead already and just don't know it yet
In a survey we conducted for Submit-It's PositionAgent, over 70% of respondents said they depend on search engine listings for 20% or more of their traffic. Without fretting about search engine rankings, sites, especially those that don't have a large promotion budget, can optimize the pages they submit, and get hundreds or thousands of click-through's from search engine listings every month virtually for free. It's still one of the best promotion deals available.
---------------------------------------------------------------- John Schick Consultant for http://www.positionagent.com [email protected]http://www.adresource.com Submit-It's PositionAgent-Monitor Website Search Engine Rankings AdResource 500 Web Advertising & Marketing Resources 312-201-0489 Co-Author-Getting Hits,Speaker/Author Web Ad'96-'98 ----------------------------------------------------------------
What was it that Mark Twain said about premature obituaries?
I don't think search engines are dead but it sure is time that their owners invested some time, effort and money in them. In particular:
1. Cleaning up the content - Alta Vista still lists a whole lot of junk from '95, presumably because they get the hardware for free 2. Customer service - I spent weeks trying to buy some ads from Infoseek a while back then gave up 3. Creating a meaningful user interface - at the moment they are all trying to compete with the newspapers for original content when what they should be doing is adding value to the job of finding whatms already out there
Perhaps it's also time to say goodbye to the free lunch. I would happily pay a subscription fee for the right to have sites listed on a decent index, provided I got good service in return, a guaranteed place in appropriate sections and sub-sections for my clients, and a 24-hour turnaround. And so long as the site owner spent some money on promoting the site via print and broadcast media.
But since I have to work hard to get any kind of return for my expensive banner campaigns, I think the chances of getting a good indexing service for a reasonable subscription are pretty remote.
Search engines are not dead itms just that their owners are badly in need of a slap around the face.
In response to your post, I must *humbly* disagree. Sure, for those of us who have been around for awhile, they're getting a little boring, outdated and annoying. And seasoned Internet marketers know the search engines are only a very small tool when it comes to promoting a site. However, try telling that to my clients and the rest of the users out there.
I'll put together an entire marketing package consisting of search engines, newsgroups, cross linking, online events, banner advertisements and conventional marketing strategies -- and you know what my clients say? "How come we're coming up fifth on InfoSeek instead of first? Can you please fix this?"
This happens again and again and again. It's definitely pulling teeth to get them to promote their sites in traditional media, and they believe strongly that search engine positioning is the end-all, no matter what we tell them.
I also think the traffic the search engines get proves they're not going anywhere. As I said, we've been here awhile. But many people are just getting on, just beginning to learn how the Internet works. Those newbies are heading straight for the search engines to try to make sense of it all.
Honestly, I still use them a lot to find sites -- usually first. It's just easier -- if you know how to search properly.
I talk to people every day that say, "I don't know, this is all new to us still". Or, when I quickly rattle off "http://" when giving a web site address, they're saying "slow down please, okay now, h - t - t - p ....Backslash? Forward slash? Where's that? Where's the question mark?"
No kidding. We have a long way to go. I wouldn't count the search engines out just yet. But how nice it would be to stop worrying about who's on top.....;-)
Christine Ryave Internet Marketing Director Internet Services Corporation
I would agree that searching is cumbersome, engines have lots of trash in them, and have volatile information, and that perhaps there is an inverse relationship with traffic derivatves between engines and promotion. However, if you can quantify teh value of your traffic from search engines and it has a positive ROI, regardless of how much traffic your site gets from search engines, search engines are still an important component of your complete marketing plan. Of course the ore you advertise and promote through other channels the more your search engine traffic seems insignficant. Consider your target market - are you reaching all prossible prosects from search engines alone? PR alone? Advertising alone? I assure you each one provides exposure to different market segment. Furthermore, search engines are unique in that users are in a "search mode". Often they don't know they are looking for you until they stumble across your listing. Few medias offer a real-time seek and find component. As far as spam and junk in engines and the difficulty formulating an accurate search string - give it time. We are so early into the technology. It can only get better. As far as information that changes constantly - well you'd better have someone out there that knows how to monitor and maintain your listing. Consider search engines as any business environment - things are constantly changing. If you can tell me that you don't often change your business strategies to target the number one "position" in the market, let me know what market you're in. The business world is volatile just like search engines - you must invest in maintaining your competitive position.
Well, I think you have come to the same conclusion that most Internet marketers have already come to, namely, that to be master of your own fate, you must be prepared to pay for promotion.
However, that said, a modest expenditure and a modest amount of work registering and re-registering with the search engines (doesn't necessarily imply spamming BTW) will produce results that are effective at generating traffic and will do so cost effectively. So I really don't see that s.e. are dead as far as the marketer is concerned.
In addition, the search engines continue to be powerful and flexible venues for banner ads, offering both broad reach and custom targeting matched by few other Internet sites.
>So lets look at what we have here: > >1.) An inverse relationship between the level of site promotion and the >percent of traffic from search engines.
How though, could it possibly be otherwise? IOW, suppose you spent a lot of money on banners only to find out that "free" registrations with s.e. produced most of your traffic? That would be extremely disheartening, to say the least! Indeed, if that were the case, I would concur that s.e. are dead. Thankfully, it is not.
>2.) Tools that are so dynamic they change their content every few seconds. >(In Altavista's case, a new page of info every 4.3 seconds.)
Hmm. Sounds like compelling content to me. Don't we want our s.e. to be fresh and up to date?
>3.) Tools containing a significant percentage of the deceptive information. >(In Altavista's case, 50%.)
No communications medium, not even the Internet, is free of noise. That comes with the territory. Users have learned to tolerate it, marketer will have to, too.
>4.) Tools requiring you to have a Ph.D. in boolean logic to even hope to >use them effectively.
No argument from me on this one. But, it is possible that the slightly confused searcher is more likely to notice a banner ad?
>How can such an unstable system survive? Moreover, how can you ever hope to >be on top of it for long?
This is known as a queue jumping strategy. Anyone who has ever had a P* account is familiar with this one where everyone tries to get their message to rise to the top of the topic list on P*'s bulletin boards over the howls of protest from P*'s bulletin board babysitters. I'm afraid that strategy was a goner long ago for any major keyword category on search engines. That does not mean your site won't be noticed by enough people, however.
>So in closing, I submit that search engines are dying. In fact, I would say >they are dead already and just don't know it yet -
Don't count them out yet. There are still tens of millions a day who use them.
Bob Schmidt www.provider.com Author of The Geek's Guide to Internet Business Success The Definitive Business Blueprint for Internet Designers, Developers, Programmers, Marketers, Consultants and Service Providers http://provider.com/geeksguide/ ISBN 0-442-02557-2
>I'm beginning to believe that search engines are a dead-end technology and >fretting over where your site comes up is a big waste of time. I'm now >advising clients that we create good META tags, submit the site and then >forget it.
Richard, I too used to believe this. Until we got to understand how search engines work, and recognize they are the second (or third) level of promotion and are very important. I don't know if I posted these stats that we did earlier this year. If so forgive me:
On April 17, 1997 we launched our Automated Press Releases service. We put the home page out at two different locations, with links back to the remaining pages in the site.
On one site we submitted it to search engines only, using a service where it was submitted to 200 search engines and were confirmed on 125.
On the second we did not submit it to any search engine. Rather we sent out a press release to approx 800 publication contacts, a message to prior visitors to another site of ours, and we mentioned it on some of the newslists that we are on. We also sent a fax broadcast to approx 1,000 people on one of our fax broadcast lists (don't know if they have Web access or not).
The first week results:
Page on search engines - 24 visitors with no orders or e-messages to us. The second site - 997 visitors with 247 e-messages or orders to us.
Depending on the keyword selected, we came up pretty high on the search engines.
We dropped the search engine site, and "un-submitted" it on search engines.
My comment at the time was "IMHO search engines are only good if you have a branded product or are well-known or you have some free/fun stuff. For business-to-business, search engines are like a gigantic Yellow Page directory. I don't know about you, but I never got any business from the Yellow Pages."
That was in May. Today we are getting most of our business from search engines. On the top 10 search engines we appear as #1 or #2 on five of them, and within the top 12 names on the others. In most cases we are listed more than one time.
A note about our business. As of the first of the year, all of our business (except for one consulting client) comes from the Net. Our business is marketing (including our "Rainmaking"), management consulting, Web design and development and software. We have three offices and three partners with a staff of 19. My function is marketing. One partner handles the software business and the other handles the Web design. Our clients are world-wide.
>What sealed it for me, though, was the recent article in Business Week >about search engine spamming. Louis Monier, AltaVista's technical director, >is quoted as saying he estimates that half of the 20,000 pages added to >Altavista everyday are spam schemes. (See the full story at: >http://www.businessweek.com/1997/46/b3553162.htm ). >
A major problem for search engines. Folks are writing multiple keywords in "white on white" which means your don't see the keywords, but the search engines do.
>So lets look at what we have here: > >1.) An inverse relationship between the level of site promotion and the >percent of traffic from search engines. > >2.) Tools that are so dynamic they change their content every few seconds. >(In Altavista's case, a new page of info every 4.3 seconds.) > >3.) Tools containing a significant percentage of the deceptive information. >(In Altavista's case, 50%.) > >4.) Tools requiring you to have a Ph.D. in boolean logic to even hope to >use them effectively. >
IMHO the trick is not to abandon search engines, rather to work with them, learn them, understand them and use them to get **more** traffic. They are like anything else -- a tool for promoting your business.
Let's say you were a html programmer, and the standards changed again. Would you drop html (if you could)? What about the various idiosyncrasies with browsers? Do you ignore them, or do you work around them? Same holds true for search engines.
If you subscribe to Danny Sullivan's search engine report, or at least go to his site often http://www.searchenginewatch.com you will get a better understanding of how they work.
BTW, we offer a service (Marketing Your Web - MYWEB), part of which includes recommendations to get you on search favorably.
>How can such an unstable system survive? Moreover, how can you ever hope to >be on top of it for long? >
It will change and improve as anything else will and does. Our job is to learn how to change and improve with it.
>So in closing, I submit that search engines are dying. In fact, I would say >they are dead already and just don't know it yet - gone the way of the >reciprocal link exchange and the "you have a cool page" award as an >effective promotional tool. A victim of their own success. >
Sounds like that famous statement "the rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." . Search engines are a vital part of the Net and will continue to be. I know my opinion of them changed once I learned how to use them effectively, and once I realized they are the second wave of promotion and just another tool for marketing success.
Carmen Hermosillo ([email protected]) Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:43:12 -0800
I agree completely with the idea that search engines are dying with the exception that I think you did not go far enough with it. I think that the whole idea of navigating static sites and pages is terminal. The search engines, and the men and women who spam them, are only a symptom. Furthermore, it seems to me that given the development of Internet2 and the further development of extranets, I sometimes think that Internet1 will become a place full of nicely rendered electronic copies of printed marketing brochures visited primarily by members of marcomm departments and ad agencies. Interstitial pages and increasing awareness of & resistance to data mining, etc., among consumers is speeding this process along nicely.
Thanks for your time.
Carmen Hermosillo WEB DEVELOPMENT Seagate Software [email protected]
I'm going to disagree with the premise of how Search Engines should be used by organizations to promote their site.
We try to tell clients to use the Search Engines to *find* sites for links, not just depend on them for the original link. Good methods for a search engine such as Alta Vista are:
Search engines aren't dead. But spamming of them to increase visits sure is. Any organization with a site should bear some responsibility of either developing or hiring some expertise to increase their presence on the Internet. Spamming the search engines doesn't qualify.
And if an organization isn't going to make a small effort to promote their site other than search engines, then it doesn't have any basis to complain if it doesn't get satisfactory results. It's akin to opening a store, and assuming that being in the White Pages is all the advertising you need.
And for all those folks who paid $50 to have their sites listed on 300 search engines and indexes got what they paid for.
> Perhaps it's also time to say goodbye to the free lunch. I would > happily pay a subscription fee for the right to have sites listed on a decent > index, provided I got good service in return, a guaranteed place in > appropriate sections and sub-sections for my clients, and a 24-hour > turnaround. And so long as the site owner spent some money on > promoting the site via print and broadcast media.
Ray made some good points in his post and I will not address them, but the above statement did not make much sense to me. If the only way sites get listed with a search service is to pay, I would not use it as a search tool. The reason, there is no way they got every single web site to pay (not even all the good ones), therefore it is not a comprehensive search tool, Period. Attempts at this have been going on for quite a while, through either Internet malls or Name Brand Sites. I think it was AT&T that offered companies the opportunity to be viewed by millions by positioning them in some directory service (very expensive and very selective), I don't know where it is now, but there is no mention of it on www.att.com. Further, mega sites and networks like AOL, Pathfinder etc., as much as they try to offer a wide variety of subjects, they force feed info. from select channels.
For all intensive purposes, and as much as I may complain about them, the basic premise of Search Engines; free listings, the fact that they may find you even if you don't apply and the fact that results are not based on how deep someone's pockets are, is what makes them fundamentally work. Issues of quality of searches is a different story. They are non-biased. I believe a pay for being listed service would be a bit biased. Look at CitySearch <http://www.citysearch.com/> the only way to get a link from their glorified Yellow Pages is to buy their template/database driven web pages on their server and guess what, the more pages you buy the higher your listing.
Now, so that I don't sound like a total pessimist, their is one very good site that is culling the internet, categorizing, and ranking sites in major categories and if they continue to update it will provide a valuable tool. It is Encyclopedia Britannica at <http://www.ebig.com/> They selected only 65,000 sites on all of the Internet that they considered noteworthy (no stars, but got listed) and ranked sites up to 3 stars (only 30 of 65,000). I found them when we were advised that we received a 3 star ranking, and now use them as a valuable resource.
--
Kevin Leathers -- Director, Sales & Marketing -- OBGYN.net
A Service of Elecomm Internet Applications Corporation
I've read this thread with interest, and have a few comments to add:
Although the "Big 7" search engines and directories seem to be firmly entrenched at this stage of the game, it's apparent to me that the first of them (or a new competitor) to develop anti-spam technology that is workable, along with timely processing, quality customer service, and a lowest-common-denominator friendly interface, should rule the genre...at least theoretically.
You have to wonder how committed the engines are to cleaning up spamdexing- paying "lip service" to it in press releases is one thing, taking concrete action is another. I'm sure it's a gargantuan task, but I personally do not feel it is as high a priority as they claim. This opinion is based on several experiences I've had with engines while reporting instances of blatant spamdexing in high-ranking listings in my keywords (as an aside, I have absolutely no compunctions about reporting it, since I spend a great deal of time optimizing my pages within the "rules", and am a firm believer in level playing fields).
In one incident, I exchanged several email messages with a tech, who claimed to have checked a page I questionsed and "saw nothing out of line". I wrote back with quoted code from the page in question, showing *7* seperate title tags, EACH with a minimum of *19* iterations of the keywords in question. You can do the math. Since we were talking title tags, we're obviously looking at the beginning of the page code, so I can't even rationalize that it was buried in the page and the tech was just busy.
After I took the time to report and illustrate this, the tech agreed that this was decidedly improper, and stated that the page would be removed. 5 weeks later, it's still there.
This is not the first incident of this sort, which makes me wonder about the engines' commitment to cleaning things up. Spamdexing is becoming the norm, one could posit...as the natural reaction to seeing others place above a well-thought-out page by "trained chimp typing contest" methods might be the old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach. I won't stoop to that, but don't think it hadn't at least entered my mind.
In the current climate, I must concur with an earlier comment that the best approach is to take some time choosing your METAs, submit your pages, and then move on to some more productive means of promoting your page. Resubmit every couple months to stay within the lead times some engines take to update your page (in other words, if you submit every two months, they'll update your *last* submission as you're making this one).
David Prager ([email protected]) Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:40:43 -0500 (EST)
A few posts ago, Richard Hoy wrote:
> I base this newfound philosophy on a couple of things. First, I've noticed > on the sites we manage that the percent of traffic from search engines > drops as the investment in other types promotion increase.
Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster. Yay, me. I don't think you've come to the correct conclusion following the analysis of your data. You said that the sites which you did not promote too heavily got that majority of their traffic from the search engines, while the sites you promoted got the majority of their traffic (94%) from the promotions themselves. Thus, you concluded, the search engine is no longer a viable means of finding information on the net. I don't think your data can be interpreted as a reflection on the value of the search engine. Rather, I submit that this is simply a reflection of the effectiveness of your particular methods of Internet promotion. As an example, lets talk about your Y2K site. Previous to your promotional campaign, the only way people could find out about your site was through the search engines, so it makes sense that most of the traffic on your site came via the search engines. However, once you started your promotional campaign, you spread your site across the net in magazine articles, banner ads, site sponsorships, and whatever. So naturally, a lesser percentage of your traffic came from search engines, and a greater percentage started coming from your promotions. So, previous to your promotions, when people searched for the Y2K problem, they got a lot of choices, only a few of which lead to your site. However, the more you promote, the more pages will link to your site, which means you will be getting less traffic directly from the search engines, and more traffic via other pages with Y2K-related content. However, how are most people likely to find out about these other Y2K-related sites? Probably through the search engines, so if the search engines lead the reader to a site that features one of your promotions, the search engine has still given you traffic, albeit in a more indirect fashion. The point is, if you have data showing that most of your traffic comes from promotions, that does not mean the search engine is no longer a necessary technology. Rather, that just shows the effectiveness of your promotional campaign in driving traffic. People will always need a way to find information related to a specific subject on the web, so the search engine will always be around and always be significant. However, your promotions should be used to ensure that your site can be accessed from other sites. The more sites you can be accessed from, the better the chances are that a web search can lead a reader to your site, either directly or indirectly.
Dave Prager General Manager Junior Advertising Major Orange Source Syracuse University http://source.syr.edu
================================
Paul J. Bruemmer ([email protected]) Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:25:10 -0800 (PST)
MHO - The message I read in the recent threads on search engines: Can't live with em, can't live without em :)
Eighteen (18) months ago I began working on search engine position improvement, legitimately -- no spamdexing, no phantom pixels, no white on white.
Here's the good, the bad, and the ugly in providing high-quality search engine traffic by means of good positioning.
First, in order to have an authentic search engine position improvement program, we needed a method for tracking the position of our specific client links. A client in good postion Wednesday November 12 at 8:12AM pst, has no guarantee of being in good position Thursday November 13 at 8:12AM pst. That's a fact! Links move around a lot.
Second, we needed to corral a very specific target audience using carefully selected keyword phrases. A client selling "computer hard drives" is not well served with the keyword "computers."
Third, we needed a system to write, submit, track, and maintain position. A system that helps the search engines do what they're designed to do. No tricks, and certainly no clients who want the keyword "Michael Jordan" for a "shopping mall."
It took eighteen (18) months to develop a search engine position improvement system that meets ethical guidelines and technical criteria; we just launched "ClientDirect" November 1,1997. http://www.clientdirect.com
We do not "promise #1" or "guarantee first page." We sell high-quality visitors on a "pay per click-through pricing model." We average a 50% to 70% success rate in search engine position improvement. For this reason, we write, track, and maintain multiple documents for each client. It is labor intensive and requires constant monitoring.
We are like the men and women working on your streets and roadways, fixing potholes everyday so you can drive safely on the highways.
We constantly write and submit ethical keyword phrase content links to the top twelve (12) search engines. We maintain our clients' content links for the duration of their contract, which is based on the number of visitors they have purchased.
We staff 13 professionals in six offices throughout the United States and take pride in providing legitimate search engine positioning improvement techniques. I published sixteen (16) Professional Features on my site, telling people "how we do it." There are no "tricks," and it is safe to say that it works very well.
The search engines like us, we use only their approved techniques. The client loves us, they only pay for results. And the end user appreciates finding what they're looking for, example: "european ski resorts."
As far as "are search engines dying"? I think Richard did an excellent job of waking us up!! ;-) We must be on constant alert for new and ethical means of promoting/marketing our clients.
Search engine traffic is very important, it is "PULL" marketing. People self-directing themselves, and that's what the Internet is all about. While broadcast marketing has always been "the standard" (TV commercials, Radio announcements, print ads), the Internet, in the beginning, offered freedom from BROADCAST messages, allowing people to go where they want, when they want. Of course the Net is changing, and we'll all change right along with it.
Corraling search engine traffic to client sites with the right keywords is very important. BUT, it's only one of many promotional strategies to use. It's not a "stand alone" marketing plan. Search engines are best used as part of an "integrated marketing plan," as one of many available tools.
Lastly, thank you Richard -- this group of participants on your o-a list have enhanced my perspective, enriched my profession and keep me on my toes!!
Thanks for moderating this very valuable disscusion list.
Best regards,
Paul J. Bruemmer
---------------------------------------------------- Paul J. Bruemmer 805-965-0543 ClientDirect Division [email protected]
Search engines are becoming increasingly irrelevant. As Eric noted, they have realised this themselves as can be seen by their rush into other services while they still have an audience.
On a recent campaign for a client I submitted the site (manually) to around 50 search engines and directories. Checking six weeks later, I found that about 30 had listed the site.
The crunch for me was on checking the logs to discover that only 5% of total traffic was coming from all the search engines combined. Furthermore, 95% of search engine traffic was coming from the top seven and three local directories.
ONE good strategic link was bringing in 5 times the total search engine traffic.
Moral of the story: Take a little care with your title and META tags and submit to the top seven. Take particular care with Yahoo. Then concentrate on the other elements of your online marketing campaign....strategic links, PR, banners, topic specific directories, etc.
Both Eric Ward and Ray Taylor mention fee paying listings. I really think that this is the way forward.
In fact, I don't understand why Yahoo, now that they have established themselves as the major gateway, do not charge for listings. If a client was guaranteed a placement where I wanted it, as I wanted it, with a 24 hour turnaround time, I would be prepared to pay.
regards,
Liam
Liam Morrison mailto:[email protected] bizz media http://www.bizz.ie Professional online campaigns for software and travel related sites tel 353-1-8395353 fax 353-1-8395351
================================
Donna Dolezal Zelzer ([email protected]) Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:40:15 -0800
At 9:18 PM +0000 11/11/1997, Ray Taylor made this statement of rare insight:
> > Perhaps it's also time to say goodbye to the free lunch. I would happily > pay a subscription fee for the right to have sites listed on a decent > index, provided I got good service in return, a guaranteed place in > appropriate sections and sub-sections for my clients, and a 24-hour > turnaround. And so long as the site owner spent some money on promoting > the site via print and broadcast media.
I tend to disagree. Not every good site with useful content can afford to pay for a listing, and if sites who can pay are the only ones listed, or get preferential treatment, this is unfair to people who come to the search engines. (Not to mention unfair to the smaller sites.)
To me, a search engine should not have any bias towards sites with more money to spend. If I'm looking for information on say, bears, I don't want to find only commercial sites about hunting resorts and the like. I want to find content-rich sites with actual information -- sites that may not have a budget to buy a listing in a search engine.
Now, this type of thing would be ok if the search engine clearly indicated that this was the case and warned the user that the only sites listed are those that have paid for a listing. (And if there were still search engines that did not charge for listings.)
As to the original question, are search engines dying? I think not. Their percentage contribution to your vistors may drop with time, but there are always going to be people newly online or with a new interest in whatever you have to offer who have no other way to find you except through the search engines.
Donna
--------------------- Donna Dolezal Zelzer [email protected]> The Online Birth Center (pregnancy, birth, midwifery, breastfeeding) http://www.efn.org/˜djz/birth/birthindex.html Subscribe to the OBC News -- a free weekly newsletter! Send a message to mailto:[email protected] and put _only_ the words subscribe obcnews
As part of my responsibilities here at Cyberian Outpost (we sell Mac and PC computer products online) I monitor our performance in the search engines. It is only part of our overall efforts to drive traffic to our site but worth the effort to monitor and hopefully maximize our performance in.
Recently, I have started to notice that pages from directories like Yahoo are showing up at the top of search results. In Alta Vista for instance, if you search on the word computers, pages from WebCrawler's channels come up at the top and there are about 10-12 pages from Yahoo listed in the top 20-30. I imagine these pages show up because they are probably text intensive pages that mention the searched for keyword quite frequently. If we used the word computers on our home page as many times we might be accused of keyword loading and get thrown out. For the search engines to be more representative of the URL submissions process it seems to me that directory/channel pages found by their robots and spiders should be excluded from the cataloging. Of course, another way to look at it is that you are getting double exposure for a listing in those directories/channels.
Overall, reliance on traffic from search engines is dropping for us. We of course rely heavily on ad banners, sponsorships and exclusive placements on heavily trafficed sites ( including some search engines ). We are currently involved with the Starship Troopers movie website and with some of the contest oriented sites that meet o
Marketers Rejoice! ClickZ has launched ClickZ Live, an educational series to bring you innovative online marketing strategies and techniques. Learn to construct and successfully execute multi-channel marketing campaigns, plus identify key metrics and translate them into actionable plans. Thursday, July 18: ClickZ Live will be in Vancouver, BC. Register before July 1 to save $100!
