Author Archive - Alex Tsepeti
SEO and Couples Therapy
|
Written By Alex Tsepetis | March 13, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Search Engine Optimization is not rocket science, it’s not clever design, and it’s not just a guessing game. Born of the attempt reconcile a love/hate relationship between web operators and search engines, SEO is in fact an endless, inconclusive, couples’ therapy session.
Today the Wall Street Journal ran an article on “How Search Engine Rules Cause Sites to Go Missing.” It details the frustrated dependence of Topix.net, a news site, on the volatility of search engines. As Rich Skrenta, CEO of Topix.net told the WSJ,
“Even if traffic to Topix, which gets about 10 million visitors a month, dropped just 10%, that would essentially be a 10% loss in ad revenue. Because of this little mechanical issue, it could be a catastrophe.”
Topix’s story represents the crux of the love/hate relationship that most of web operators have with search: We love the traffic and resulting revenue generated by search engine referrals, we hate the black box behind search ranking algorithms. We depend on search engine traffic as the lifeblood of our revenue stream, yet the controlling mechanisms for that traffic are closely held trade secrets at the core of an engine’s competitive advantage. Every day we return to our therapy session, seeking answers to the inevitable question: How can we improve our sites, and still manage the impact of our search engine rankings?
And this is the part where I tell the search engines that everything is their fault. Seriously though, why do the engines continue to naively counsel site operators not to depend too heavily on search traffic? Search engines are directly responsible for providing advertisers a proven way to reach new customers on the web, while providing site operators with a viable business model. Yet, trade secret paranoia leads search engines to maintain this cat-and-mouse game over search ranking algorithms. Google claims that they “offer online tools for companies to get the best, most consistent, treatment from its search engine,” but what they mean is, “a consistent site gets consistent treatment.” Changes to a website’s domain name or layout often cause serious disruptions to search engine traffic - regardless of how changes might improve the site’s relevancy. As the WSJ attests,
“After closely held HomeStars.ca changed its name from HomeDirection.ca to better connect with users, search-engine ranking for the site for consumer reviews of home renovators and suppliers plummeted…For about six months, HomeStars lost roughly 60% of the visits it through search engines, about 80% of which came through Google.”
Dear search engines, admitting you have a problem is the first step. Finding middle ground is the second. Engines need to work closer with advertisers without giving them the keys to the kingdom. The problem is that spending more time with advertisers takes time and people, neither of which the engines have enough of. Perhaps the engines could leverage SEO providers as a professional service arm so that, in effect, SEO agencies could become the ‘marriage counselors’ of the love/hate relationship between engines and advertisers. Engines keep their black box, Advertisers keep their traffic, and SEO professionals could finally use their expertise to make search more efficient…and stop paying for the therapy session.