The "ultimate truth" about the state of the web today is that there are far more questions than answers, more speculation than insight, and more postering than real understanding. Which isn't to say that no one knows anything. But I am saying that I think those who claim to be "in the know" on almost every aspect of the internet today, tend to know less than they claim.
Why? Because this little thing we call the internet is a living, breathing "organism" on its own. And if history has taught us anything, we should have figured out by now that what the internet looks like tomorrow will be far more than the sum of its designed parts.
Now that I survived the "election time period", I've again immersed myself into trying to continue to understand various aspects of living and conducting business in the internet age. A few of my thoughts are recorded over at netknowledge.blogspot.com. (By the way, I find it to be truly ironic that what I have on Vox is far better indexed by Google than anything I have on the blog I just mentioned. Blogspot is owned by Google, for those who didn't know.) My most recent journey has taken me from search engine optimization and internet marketing, generally, to some more specific topics like cause-marketing via the internet and on Web 2.0. For the time being, I causually slip in Web 2.0 because I'm going to pretend that I am convinved it's a worthy topic on its own. More candidly, I would say "the jury is still out" on that one.
But I get to say what I want and even contradict myself tomorrow. I like to think that it's the beauty of the way I think - an opinion today doesn't matter tomorrow. And the fact that I'm one of the only ones reading my blog on a daily basis at the moment, means that it's not likely anyone is going to call me on any BS that I post. Thought sometimes the conversations I almost seem to have with myself by blogging here can be quite entertaining on a personal level.
Sidetracked. Going back to my original statement, I would say that there are many illustrations. But for those who would like to find an illustration that is easy to follow (due to sheer volume and attention given to the topic), you need not look further than the discussions of Web 2.0. Is it real? Is there substance to it? Do 5 people gathered around a table at a Starbucks even know what the other is talking about when they mention web 2.0? Probably not. It's like saying "God" or "spirituality" and then expecting that everyone is thinking of the same entity or concept.
Is Web 2.0 simply a re-packaged set of marketing terms? (Every once in a while, the soft drink makers will come up with a new design for bottles and cans. Did the formula for the cola change?).
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But looking at the most current (and past) discussions of Web 2.0 is a good illustration of what I like to think of as the "ulimate truth of the web today". The fact is, people haven't even agreed on what they are talking about, let alone agree on where technology is headed.
But that's the beauty of it. Once again I hear myself saying, life would be boring if we all agreed with each other. I have my own ideas about the internet, current and future. But the last thing I want is for everyone to agree with me. And I have my own secret little projects that I think will label me an innovator, but who's to say that what I think is right or real?
The ultimate truth about almost anything is that people are different; people have their own ideas; people will sometimes get along and sometimes they won't; some people are right, some people are wrong, and most spend time in each group. In regards to technology and the internet, the truth is that concepts come and go, so do companies, so does technology itself. One startup succeeds and another fails. This has happened many times in the past, it probably happened somewhere today, and the future will be the same.
But we keep striving to discuss, innovate, build, and grow. Passion for life and humanity will fuel even greater things. So whether we're discussing technology, the internet, web 2.0, or anything else, it's the conversation itself that contains the greatest reward. One of the ultimate truths of life is that life is in the journey and the conversation along the way.
Material originally posted on 11/16/2006 at uberveritas.vox.com.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Contemplation about the Direction for this Blog on SEO
I've been thinking a fair amount lately about what part of search engine optimization and internet marketing that I wanted to focus on for this blog. There is far too much to cover, and where other information is solid, I don't feel a need to repeat it.
At the same time, a personal project on mine has been some thoughts on how internet search will continue to change. Yes, I know that some people think that it is what it is, and most of us should just think about how to use what's available. But if you consider how much the internet has changed in the last ten years, one should be able to conclude how much the internet will change by tomorrow and more the day after.
At the same time, a personal project on mine has been some thoughts on how internet search will continue to change. Yes, I know that some people think that it is what it is, and most of us should just think about how to use what's available. But if you consider how much the internet has changed in the last ten years, one should be able to conclude how much the internet will change by tomorrow and more the day after.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Comments After Reading an Interview with Google's Adam Lasnik
In a recent "Interview With Google's Adam Lasnik" by an author for webpronews.com, some advise was passed along from the Google employee regarding things that webmaters could do when they weren't happy with their ranking in Google. I know I've posted this before (in other blogs if not this one), once again advice has been given to pay attention to what a search engine company has said about ranking in searches on their site.
Adam Lasnik tells Lee Odden that webmasters can use the FAQ that Google has provided on creating Google-friendly sites. But Adam is also not pointing out that beyond the FAQ he mentioned, there is far more that Google provides the serious webmaster. No, I haven't seen Google publish secret formulas or full details on the algorithms they use. But if you're reading this and you don't already know what I'm talking about, considering this your homework assigment. Go to Google.com, click on "Business Solutions" at the bottom of the page, and then start digging around. I won't post specific URLs because you need to poke around yourself. And when you're done there, go to the other major search engines and look for similar information.
It pains me how often I see advertisements and articles for search engine optimization, and I don't even see the inclusion of the things that the search engine companies have already told us. It's is rather ironic that people want to get fancy before mastering the basic. It's actually sad, but ironic seems like a softer way to say it.
There's something else that Adam mentioned in his interview that really struck me. He pointed out that the constant desire by some to get the "inside information" on how Google ranks pages is "self-defeating". I've been thinking this for some time, so it was nice to hear someone from Google say it. And I think it resonates with me because the point is true with some other topics that I have been dealing with lately.
I want to elaborate for a moment on Adam Lasnik's comment about tactics to say that I think search engine optimization is about strategy and tactics. Some of you may want to spend a moment looking up the difference between strategy and tactics because they really are not the same thing.
Effective search engine optimization needs to start with strategy. The strategy should be clear, uncomplicated, and focused on the basics first. The tactics that one develops (the specifics about how certain strategies will be implemented) follows from clearly developed strategies. Optimal strategies for an optimized site will be long-term in focus. After all, a quick ranking today could be no ranking tomorrow. Well-developed, long term strategy will employ search engine optimization tactics that don't need to focus on getting an "inside scoop" because they will be aimed towards working with the system instead of trying to game the system.
Adam Lasnik tells Lee Odden that webmasters can use the FAQ that Google has provided on creating Google-friendly sites. But Adam is also not pointing out that beyond the FAQ he mentioned, there is far more that Google provides the serious webmaster. No, I haven't seen Google publish secret formulas or full details on the algorithms they use. But if you're reading this and you don't already know what I'm talking about, considering this your homework assigment. Go to Google.com, click on "Business Solutions" at the bottom of the page, and then start digging around. I won't post specific URLs because you need to poke around yourself. And when you're done there, go to the other major search engines and look for similar information.
It pains me how often I see advertisements and articles for search engine optimization, and I don't even see the inclusion of the things that the search engine companies have already told us. It's is rather ironic that people want to get fancy before mastering the basic. It's actually sad, but ironic seems like a softer way to say it.
There's something else that Adam mentioned in his interview that really struck me. He pointed out that the constant desire by some to get the "inside information" on how Google ranks pages is "self-defeating". I've been thinking this for some time, so it was nice to hear someone from Google say it. And I think it resonates with me because the point is true with some other topics that I have been dealing with lately.
I want to elaborate for a moment on Adam Lasnik's comment about tactics to say that I think search engine optimization is about strategy and tactics. Some of you may want to spend a moment looking up the difference between strategy and tactics because they really are not the same thing.
Effective search engine optimization needs to start with strategy. The strategy should be clear, uncomplicated, and focused on the basics first. The tactics that one develops (the specifics about how certain strategies will be implemented) follows from clearly developed strategies. Optimal strategies for an optimized site will be long-term in focus. After all, a quick ranking today could be no ranking tomorrow. Well-developed, long term strategy will employ search engine optimization tactics that don't need to focus on getting an "inside scoop" because they will be aimed towards working with the system instead of trying to game the system.
Business Owners asks if Longer Keyphrases in internet searches will make for ineffective copy
The owner of a company that specializes in search engine copywriting recently just asked:
Will Longer Keyphrases Hinder the Effectiveness of Your Copy?
It's an interesting article. And the following point that was made is most certainly true already, namely that it is "[becoming] increasingly difficult to find exactly what you're looking for". And if the rest of the web-going population approaches search engines the way I do, we get at least a few keywordds into the search field before we start. There is far too much "out there" to effectively find what we're looking for with one or two words. And as much as many search engines have used sosphisticated schemes and algorthims to make the search results as relevant as possible, there is still a great deal of "gaming" that makes it into these various systems. And even without the efforts to "spam" searches engines, the sheer volume of information available means that many people are going to feel bombarded long before they feel satisfied.
Which is unfortunate, isn't it? Wealth of information can leave us with finding less? In reality, it is the way of things. Most of us can't process more the a fraction of what we're confronted with every day. It's like all the complaints that one hears that the more channels they get on their television set, the less there is to watch.
The point of the particular article that I referenced is that longer search phrases has become the reality that one faces in writing search friendly copy and that one needs to effectively deal with this. But I think the bigger conversation here is the reality of what we're facing today with the sheer volume of information that is available. All contenders in the search arena will necessarily need to continue to find ways of presenting the most relevant results possible.
Will Longer Keyphrases Hinder the Effectiveness of Your Copy?
It's an interesting article. And the following point that was made is most certainly true already, namely that it is "[becoming] increasingly difficult to find exactly what you're looking for". And if the rest of the web-going population approaches search engines the way I do, we get at least a few keywordds into the search field before we start. There is far too much "out there" to effectively find what we're looking for with one or two words. And as much as many search engines have used sosphisticated schemes and algorthims to make the search results as relevant as possible, there is still a great deal of "gaming" that makes it into these various systems. And even without the efforts to "spam" searches engines, the sheer volume of information available means that many people are going to feel bombarded long before they feel satisfied.
Which is unfortunate, isn't it? Wealth of information can leave us with finding less? In reality, it is the way of things. Most of us can't process more the a fraction of what we're confronted with every day. It's like all the complaints that one hears that the more channels they get on their television set, the less there is to watch.
The point of the particular article that I referenced is that longer search phrases has become the reality that one faces in writing search friendly copy and that one needs to effectively deal with this. But I think the bigger conversation here is the reality of what we're facing today with the sheer volume of information that is available. All contenders in the search arena will necessarily need to continue to find ways of presenting the most relevant results possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)