The death of SEO as we know it

SEO is dying.

On page optimization and backlinks, backlinks, backlinks. If you dont' get those backlinks you are going nowhere. This is true today. But, what about tomorrow. Not literally tomorrow but you know what I mean.

Here is my theory. I know, I made a statement as if I knew what I was talking about, but sometimes I'll just be humming along doing something and I'll get hit with a thought. So, this theory is all based off of a thought I had.

Google is generous. They have a bunch of tools you can use for free. Webmaster tools, google analytics, the google toolbar... and others. I'd guess most websites traffic info is somehow accessible by Google. I know all of mine are. When I look at Google analytics I can see tons of information about my visitors. So can Google. Google knows what keywords bring people to my site, they know how long a person stays. They know what pages they visit and so on and so on. I got to thinking, if they know all of this information then why do they still depend on webmasters to tell them what sites are popular? Not so much popular but instead preferred. I think that is a fair question when you think about all the data they gather.

Here is what I mean. I search for the term "blue frogs". I get 2 sites in the search results. (I really haven't searched the term I'm just making this up as an example) The first site has some good information on the blue frogs. It is number one and has been around for about 5 years. Oh, and it has a respectable amount of backlinks. The second site has some REALLY good information on the blue frogs. It has also been around for about 5 years but it only has a few back links. I check out both websites and choose to spend more time on the second site than I do the first site. It has better information on blue frogs. And from my user behavior it appears that I'm diggin' the second site more than the first. Google knows this now. Google knows that when I searched for the term "blue frogs" the second site was preferred by me. So they can now say that I as a visitor to the site have VOTED for the second site. But why then does the first site have more backlinks? It must be better because it has all those backlinks, right. Not really. Maybe the site owner put in more time getting backlinks than they did putting up better information. Maybe they purchased backlinks. Maybe... etc. There can be quite a few reasons.

What I'm trying to get at is that Google will eventually discount backlinks and rely more on user behavior when the user visits a site. Sites will eventually be ranked based on users and not on backlinks. Backlinks are an inaccurate determiner of a websites quality. The daily visits of unique users are much more accurate. They will also know how many return visitors you have compared to the other sites. Another great determiner. There could literally be hundreds of determiners for ranking a website based on visitor behavior.

So... for the future. Don't depend on backlinks so much but instead put up some very quality content. Make sure your site is better than your competitors. You can do that if you stopped spending so much time trying to get backlinks. On second thought, do get SOME backlinks. They help bring non Search Engine traffic to your site. But, if you depend mostly on Search Engine traffic then I stand by what I just wrote.

I have no back ground in SEO. I really have never spent too much time on it to begin with. So, take this for what it is... just a thought.

 

yeah right, what's next? google is bankrupt?

 

I believe that what you are saying makes perfect sense and is a fact that content is king.

Right now you still have to please the robots from the search engines, probably in the future they will be much more intelligent that they will give more importance to factors that can't be measure now (like precise visitor behavior).

Just to add to your thoughts, on the last few weeks I went to a Google talk in my city and they were talking about where their business was going, and they told that the two main topics they were very focused about are video and mobile.

Just to make a long talk short, they mentioned that in video you can measure the likability of it by the time the users spend on it, a term called engagement. The more popular videos are the more engaging ones, maybe if we translate this to sites, they can start using this as their measure and not the amount of backlinks. You don't need to go very far, if you have uploaded a YouTube video and have at least about a hundred views, you can see that the videos now measure how much time a person spent on them and in which seconds they leave the video.

Interesting topic... so the old saying still true Content is King

 

And here comes the role of quality backlinks. And there is major fault in conclusion - users generally clicks results of first page, very rarely 2nd or 3rd and so on. So how will google rank those websites which are in such positions where people do not click ever?

And let me tell you Google considers the user experience to its ranking algorithm which is determined by 'bounce rate'.

 

juanbuit. - That is exactly what I'm getting at.

seo-buzz - Good question. They would put it towards the top of the rankings to judge visitor response. That happens already. You know that they put new sites towards the top of the rankings and then later the site will slip away into the abyss, never to be visited again. I used to build sites using something called Autobot (or something like that) that weren't meant to rank, they were meant to make it to the first page for the first few weeks, get a bunch of adsense clicks, and then I would dump it when the site was moved to page 48. The reason Google puts a new site on the first page or two initially, I believe, is to judge reaction. Did people link to it naturally or was it ignored, receiving no backlinks.

I think they will eventually move away from backlinks and rely more on individual behavior or visitor "engagement". It just makes sense. After all, who knows better what the visitor wants than the visitor themselves.

So, that having been said, make sure your navigation is easy so visitors don't get frustrated and leave prematurely. Make your site attractive. Ditch the music. Write interesting content. Keep your content lively, not dry and boring.

As for those sites that are not ranking at all, I don't have all the answers, I just believe what I'm saying will be a big part of a Search Engines ranking method in the future.

 

You make a very valid point one question.

What about does that don't have analytics on there website ?

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1835616

See post 6 and anything Canonical has to say as well. A few of us have been yapping about this for years. In the sense that DP understands SEO as a general rule, I hope to god it is dead.

Nigel

 

Steve thanks for this interesting info.I support your idea about quality content because quality content leaves a good impression on readers mind to come again to the site.

 

Yes, content is definitely important. Backlinks changes every now and then. You have to work for it constantly. It's never ending process.

 

Not exactly. The website which has informational content according the business and services which its providing then i don't think so that SEO will go to an end because we peoples always use the internet to find out the information to survive our life. So instead of creating a decorative website it is necessary to put informational content for which peoples are looking for.

 

Content may be king but if no one notices it and links to it a search engine cannot know its importance. Links from authority sites which are obtained organically like viral news articles will always have a bit impact. That is just my take. Who know what the future holds?

 

Google can collect the needed information through their toolbar or Google chrome and whatever else they have floating around out there.

Think of my suggestion from this point of view. If you were hired to find out what restaurant in your city served the best pizza, you wouldn't go to the local restaurant association for a recommendation. That would be silly. You would poll as many people as you could and then make an informed decision from there.

Google and the other SE's do it just that way. They get recommendations from the local restaurant association (backlinks from authoritative sites) as to what the people like. How does the Rest. Assoc. know what we want? Now, having said that I will admit that up until recently backlinks were the best method for getting recommendations since they didn't have the ability to track individuals as they visited websites. I think that will all change very soon.

Who knows. You might see it in the next update.

 

You have made a very keen observation in favor of content being king still. I believe in this too. SEO is very dynamic and ever-changing but the only thing that has been consistent so far is that high quality content (text, visuals, design) gets the numbers. Though the numbers do not amass with a snap of a finger but once it starts it just continues steadily.

 

I miss seo 3 Years ago,
somehow

when the competitors are still low, and good paying link.

Well, let's do our best for our family

 

I have question in my mind after reading you thoughts about google behavior, if google use such cafeteria (real time search/visits) to rank website, than if i had lunch a new website how can i be there in search engine ? how i ll start getting visitors ? how people will come to know my website ? than i can understand that's why back linking and all that stuff is still alive which can help you to be visible in search engine so people may know about your website.