Is SEO Dead? | Hacker News Reader

Is SEO Dead?

startupwhisperer.com

SEO is not dead it's just been entered by players with more money to spend for each search than this author. It's pretty irritating that so many searches on google are compromised by pseudo pages that contain shit and a link to what you are looking for. These companies mine google for searches where it's easy to get into the top 10 and then utilize their content farms to spew garbage on the net. It will be interesting to see what google can do to combat this. search results have really taken a turn for the worse in 2010.

The hope I can give you: Google employs a pretty smart guy, Matt Cutts, who heads a team of other smart people dedicated to breaking the problem you're complaining about. It's in Google's best interest, because if search results return crap, we'd all find something else. Good help us, we'd end up using Cuil or that Wolfram thing or something.

Or duckduckgo

DuckDuckGo! I have to check that out. Keep hearing about it.

As long as sites as mahalo keep ranking, that pretty smart guy, Matt Cutts is doing a pretty bad job. As long as these sites exist, SEO isn't dead and probably never will die.

Search engine spam has always been a problem. I would say that it was worse before.

I'd say it's worse now. You might have had problems in 2005 if you were searching for "viagra" or "online poker", but in 2010, you'll get a ton of low-quality, content-farm articles for something as basic as "how to make an omelette".

I think you nailed it...today, many sites blur the line between "spam" and "content". Ridiculous viagra ads are obvious spam, and Wikipedia is obvious content - but what about eHow? I may very well find a good answer on that site, but the site is littered with ads, the quality is usually terrible because it is mass-produced with quantity in mind instead of quality, and lots of answers are basically duplicates because fresh content is good for seo. What about a site whose only content is "top X" lists, or one who ranks high but the actual content is hidden behind a paywall?

That blurry distinction between useful content and spammy content is tough for an algorithm (and a person) to sort out.

I suspect that what they do is that they game the algorithms so that they can insert their hit before the actual content, the way it's weighted currently makes it possible to get sites with links to content to rank higher than the actual content, which is wanted in some ways (like the HN discussion is an important complement to what it links to) but with the spam sites it's just littering down the interwebs.

Yeah, these sort-of-but-not-really-content sites have really increased the cognitive load of using the internet. Of course, internet content was always of variable quality, but up until the late 1990s, maybe early 2000s, most random pages on some subject were written by someone who actually had some sort of interest in it. Given a geocities page on some random subject, it might well be crazy, but it was usually in good faith: the person really was saying it in their own voice, because they wanted to, not because they were being paid some pennies per paragraph to write it.

The rise of a few specific sites with decent, non-spammy info is the only thing that's really saved its usefulness for me. Wikipedia alone accounts for a huge proportion of the times when a Google result is actually a good one. And for travel information, I go directly to a few sites (mainly Wikitravel) and don't even bother with Google.

The line was always blurry. There were always half-spammers that would go on about 'making something useful to users.'

The type that has survived is more swayed to the "useful" side of things.

I would say it is worse if your chances, as an average person, of encountering it are greater and if it is more annoying. I don't think this has gone up.

In 2010, search engine traffic continued to rise aggressively. More searches have been conducted each month, more people are using search engines each month. The growth may not be as stratospheric as Facebook's, but the rise of social media has not in any way affected the fortunes of web search.

Until I can use Facebook to find everything I need and it does a much better job than Google, I can't see how they're going to kill SEO... That, and SMM (Social Media Marketing) is essentially an offshoot of SEO and something web marketers pioneered when they realized they could get SEO value from it (back in 2004-2005 before "social media" was a buzzword).

Danny Sullivan has written excellently on this topic many times: http://searchengineland.com/an-open-letter-to-derek-powazek-... http://searchengineland.com/is-seo-dead-1997-prediction-meet...

No, it's not. Social networking and traditional search are orthogonal. Of course Google wants a piece of that action, because it's obvious that social networking traffic is big, and has more growth potential than traditional search at this point. But the value of ad inventory on Facebook is absolute horseshit, so it's not as if they'll be dwarfing Google profits any time soon. No amount of social features can replace search, and search will always be more intentioned then the kind of viral loop that Facebook has made a science of.

Search engine traffic is and always will be the best traffic source as it is most targeted. But the worst is a lot of spam that google is showing more and more often...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com