If you’ve been to one before, I’ll likely see you there. If you haven’t, start working on getting an invite, now.

Now, Google have made an official comment on the new behaviour, and as usual, I think they are talking shit. Specifically, they say :

we found that presenting users with a search box as part of the result increases their likelihood of finding the exact page they are looking for

If you look at some of the terms where it happens, I fail to see any appreciable correlation between sites showing the box and the likelihood of users wanting deeper page data.

Examples :

Cambridge vs Oxford

Tesco vs ASDA

Adidas vs Nike

So users want to deep search the Cambridge University site, but not Oxfords? Or Adidas but not Nikes? It is of course entirely possible that there is some deep, complex algorithm in place that makes these determinations using a depth of rich data I cannot fathom. Or maybe they just slapped in on top of the existing stuff. Who knows?

As a further test, try actually using the function - put “pint of milk” into the Tescos box for instance. How helped do you feel now?

Since this behaviour is only ever really seen on somewhat ambiguous, and in my experience slightly obscure terms, I wonder if it’s a way of indirectly determining what terms Google perform badly for according to their own internal metrics (CTR from SERP, follow-on searches etc), since the positioning of the insertion is variable (ooer, missus!).

So, if you read this DG, I’ve got a message for you - tits, or GTFO (follow the link, srsly. kthnx)

In a couple of cases though, more serious differences occur :

#66 Which metric is NOT used by the major search engines to measure relevance or popularity in their ranking algorithms?

Correct Answer: Keyword density in text on the page

Orly? So, explain to me why keyword density STILL appears to be a HUUUUUGE factor in MSN? Are SEOmoz saying they don’t think MSN are a “major” search engine therefore? They cite a paper by Dr Garcia, circa 2005, that demonstrates that keyword density should not be a major factor in ranking algos… which is fine, but I’m sorry to break this to you guys *whisper* theory and reality don’t always match perfectly.

Less contentiously, though :

#12 What is the generally accepted difference between SEO and SEM?

Your Answer: SEO refers to organic/natural listings while SEM covers PPC, or paid search

Correct Answer: SEO focuses on organic/natural search rankings, SEM encompasses all aspects of search marketing

That’s more a matter of opinion, or possibly a US / UK thing. Certainly, in my mind SEO is definitely an organic thing, and SEM refers to paid search (I was around when Danny S started that campaign, and it stuck with me - possibly it didn’t with others)

There are also cases where they refer to their own (or others) blog postings etc as authoritative sources on how SEs treat certain tactics, what are acceptable methods of acheiveing certain goals etc. I don’t want to raise the spectre of Doug Heil here (curiously appropriate imagery there, I think. Do you think I’d need a silver weapon to hurt him?), but non-SE employees CANNOT be authoritative sources on what SEs really think, how they actually treat any given tactic etc. We can talk about our own experiences, and invite others to test them, and their own theories, but I REALLY dislike any tang of “Thou Shalt / Shalt Not” in SEO advice, anywhere, ever, for any reason.

Neither Google nor any of the other players have legal powers to dictate what we do with our pages. Until Google recruit a paramiltary wing, and promote Matt to General Cutts, I don’t do what they say just because they say it. This discussion always makes me think of the ComStar Guards. For those of you less geeky than me, ComStar are a communications organisation in the Fictional BattleTech universe, and the ComStar Guards are THEIR ‘Mech armed units, which protect the vital FTL comms links between systems. For those who care, also research the Word of Blake, and feel a shiver down your spine…

Similarly, no SEO has a perfect understanding of all possible aspects of SEO these days. Once, long ago, it was possible for a handful of wise men from across the world to have a pretty complete view on the requirements and quirks of all the then-important SE’s (anyone know what Altavistas’ ranking criteria are any more?), but these days it’s all a lot more complex, to the point where there isn’t any such thing as “the algo” as a single, discrete entity any more. There are layers of complexity and conditionality that cloud the issue, and several possbile approaches to solving many SEO problems.

The things I’ve picked out from the Quiz show up the difficulties in defining any “right” way to do SEO. There are many paths to ranking, and some of us prefer to walk different ones.

Look what’s going active - www.seoblog.com. Who wouldn’t love that for their root domain…? If the content is any good (and it should be), that should shoot up the rankings like a rat up a drainpipe. It’ll be interesting to watch.

For anyone who still reads my somewhat erratic stuff, I hope you have a good 2008, no matter how your 2007 was. I’m going to try and be a bit more consistent, and do some more of the article grade stuff next year too. There’s still plenty to say, I promise you that…

Happy New Year, folks!

SHUT-THE-FUCK-UP!!

It’s not just me who is sick of it. Even the Wikis aren’t safe.

I may be one of the few who wants him / her / it / them to shut up because they are going to give people too many ideas though. Shhhhhh