News Source: http://blog.zetainteractive.com
Published: Nov 14, 2008 - 07:57 am
Story Found By: Alysson 1289 Days ago
Category: Link Building
22 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://blog.zetainteractive.com
Published: Nov 14, 2008 - 07:57 am
Story Found By: Alysson 1289 Days ago
Category: Link Building
22 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Yahoo Shutters Livestand iPad “Living Magazine”
- Marketing Day: May 25, 2012
- Marketing Biz: Tracking Google’s Dune Strategy
- How Performance Marketing Is Influencing The Next Generation Of Internet Startups
- New Google+ Android App Adds Vivid Imagery & Additional Functionality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Microsoft: Yes, We Do Send Takedown Requests To Bing, Too
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 25, 2012
- Search In Pics: SEO LEGO, Facebook Cooler & A Happy SEO
- Google Disapproved 134M Ads And Disabled More Than 800K AdWords Accounts In 2011
- Microsoft Integrates More Nokia “Infrastructure” (Traffic, Geocoding) Into Bing Maps
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
I could only attend one sad day at Pubcon then it was back to work :( The info is fantastic and it was worth the price of admission.
removed...I’ll talk about what I said later and in another forum.
@webuildpages - I appreciate the feedback, but this article is not about paid links. It’s about "experts" making dangerous assertions that aren’t based on tangible evidence or clear insight.The speaker in question was insinuating that inbound links (any kind...not just paid) were being phased out of Google’s algorithm. I think you would agree that making those types of assertions is dangerous, especially when non-SEO savy clients catch wind of it then turn around and tell you "I heard an expert at a conference say that inbound links don’t matter anymore"
Hugo - that’s not what I insuinated AT ALL, what I said was that they are going to be moving away from putting such a heavy emphasis on links and looking more to social media signals.Saying that I said they would be phased out entirely is erronous, as that is NOT what I said in the panel. I said, less emphasis placed on links - they will certainly be part of the algorithim.Just for clarification - Li did not say LINKS WERE GOING AWAY or PHASED OUT OF THE ALGORITHM, if you had a question on this you could have come and asked me or emailed before posting something like this when it’s not what I insinuated at all.
Being that I was there, I actually know what was said, and I bet if Li said - hey links don’t matter you woudl have heard an uproar - instead the disucssion was about the influence that links having on rankings, and how the value of links in the algo’s may change.Tabke’s got the video, that would settle this.
@storyspinner Thanks for chiming in. I can only assume that you did not actually read my post. I completely understand the gist of what you said in your session (shifting from links to social media signals) and went as far as to mention that in my post. I also purposely refrained from referencing your name because I’m not trying to throw you under the bus. You’re not the only person out there that’s made this type of claim in a public forum.Still, your assertion has:a) not happened yet (Google is still very link-driven)b) the general message will/has been misinterpreted by inexperienced and/or unsavy marketers. I know this because I’ve already have clients (marketing folks that aren’t SEO/social media savvy) say things like "I heard at a conference and/or on a blog posts that Google’s not counting links as much anymore and/or that link building doesn’t matter anymore.Therefore, making a statement like "Google is going to shift from links to social media signals" is dangerous. It’s not a personal attack on you, Li. It’s just an observation based on actual feedback I get from clients. Ironically enough, I’ve delivered this message to clients myself (that Google will eventually shift at least partially away from straight links and anchor text) but some folks out there completely misinterpret it to mean that link building doesn’t/won’t matter.@wilreynolds - Even the moderator made a point of mentioning that Li’s assertion was radical. Not sure if that qualifies as an uproar, but it was definitely something worth mentioning (I was there too...that’s why I wrote this).
@hugoguzman .... can I ask, what part of "where the search engines are going in the FUTURE" wasn’t clear???and yes, i did read the post - if you notice, I commented there too.
Hey Li. I’m not looking to turn this into an adversarial thing.All I’m saying is that while your assertion might possibly come to fruition some day (engines moving away from inbound links and towards social media elements or semantics, etc...) there’s no way to be 100% certain. Nor can anyone accurately predict when that shift will occur (it could be a year from now or a decade from now).Moreover, when you deliver it without a caviat (i.e. "don’t take this to mean that inbound links will completely be devalued or removed from Google’s algorithm" etc...) it can/will lead to misinterpretation. Not by you or others that are well-versed, but by less savy marketing directors that have a habit of employing very black and white thinking patterns.These are just my humble opinions on the matter, and as I mentioned, I purposely did not mention you by name because my intention was not single you out. It was more of a general commentary because this assertion has led to some very misinformed clients/prospects.I.E. In just the past week, I’ve had one client and one prospect tell me "I was told that links don’t count as much anymore" (got it from some article or a conference). And what’s most sad is that both are Fortune 500 companies!P.S. Your comment didn’t show up on the blog for some reason. I’m checking the moderation queue to see if it fell in there by mistake.
@bhartzer - thanks for chiming in.I think that a lot of valid points have been made here, and I hope that you all understand my point about the danger of these assertions (they get misinterpreted).Also, I want to point out that while everyone has brought up some valid theories (personalization, social media factors, etc...) Google’s algorithm is still based on citation ranking, which is a technique that has worked both in the academic community and on the internet for decades.It’s plausible to believe that links will always be a predominant factor, but that they will simply be generated in a "social" manner, which if I interpreted correctly, was the meaning of your presentation on the difference between old SEO and new "social media" SEO.
P.S. Just caught this little tidbit over on another sphinn postJust as recently as today someone claims I said "LINKS ARE GOING AWAY" (Shock, horror gasp) That wasn’t what I said at all - Lisa was in the session but didn’t blog I said this, neither did Tamar as that wasn’t what I said, I said "Less Emphasis on Links, more on Social Signals" .... now a errornous post is sitting on sphinn with 18 sphinns ... yeeshSo again I say, Li, did you bother to read my blog post? What I claimed is that your assertion will likely be misconstrued by SEO-unsavvy marketers in attendance (my claim is backed by real world inquiries from clients that have heard assertions like yours at conferences and/or blog posts). I also claimed that you have no tangible evidence for said assertion. Lastly, I made sure to not mention you by name and explicitly pointed out that I understood what you meant when you made your assertion (but that others might not).I don’t think that’s "erroneous" in any way, and I’m starting to think that you just don’t handle criticism well (even indirect criticism). It’s hard to believe that you don’t recognize the point that I’m trying to make and that you’re taking this as some sort of personal attack on your credibility.Oh well, I’m sure that this won’t be the last time that I face a backlash for simply voicing my opinion.
I handle critisism quite well, in fact embrace it when the person is actually repeating what I exactly said, and has an issue with that. You, however, had miscontrued and insinuated what I said into me claiming "links are going away". Which is NOT what I said at all - LOOK AT THE TITLE HERE and ON YOUR BLOG POST, that explains exactly what you are doing as well as putting the word experts in quotes.The way you have respresented what I stated, was wrong and only meant to drive traffic to your own blog, as well as bring up the sphinns here. I never said links were going away, or that link building is dead, so you have misrepresented what I said. THAT is what I do not handle well, as would any other presenter.You claim I have no tanglible evidence, dude, no one has tangible evidence about the future, but if you read the signals - look at what the search engines are buying (companies), and how powerful social media sites are becoming, this is where it’s going. If you don’t believe me I tell you to go pick Mike Grehan’s brains, he’s of the same mind, and I bet you he will have the proof - his white paper is coming out REALLY soon.
I’m confused by this argument here. I’m not sure where Li admitted that link building is going away. I do believe (and can we argue this?) that search engines will likely put more emphasis on "social signals" given that those indicators are likely more trustworthy than plain links.How, then, does that mean that someone suggested that Google is phasing link building out of the algorithm? I think it just means that Google might phase more social signals INTO the algorithm.
I didn’t hear Li say "links are going away" and I was sitting right thre on the panel. So why an article was based on a statement that was not made is a mystery to me.
@tamar - Thanks for chiming in and I appreciate that you’re questioning my logic/intent in a professional non-adversarial manner.I’ll try to explain. I was in the room when Li made her assertion. It was basically a 1-2 sentence assertion that, in the future, engines will shift away from links and towards social media signals (don’t remember the words she used verbatim). It came at the very end of her presentation.I have had several large clients and/or prospects (Fortune 500’s and/or 1000’s) reach out to my team saying that they’ve heard this assertion (at a conference or on a blog post) and that they’ve taken it to mean that links are being devalued and/or that link-building is no longer as important.As someone that works for an agency, few things are more frustrating than having to start from scratch on selling the value of link-building for present day SEO, especially when it’s the result of a misunderstood (yet well-intentioned post). This was not a personal attack on Li. It was a commentary on a challenge that is faced by folks that pitch/sell SEO. And my only suggestion to Li and others that make this assertion (including myself) is that a caviat be inserted (aka "links are still king").@ Li - The title of my post was crafted to lure in readers. You are correct. But if you read the actual post it’s plain to see that:a) I wasn’t attacking you and even went as far as to leave your name out and point out that I understood and agreed with your general premiseb) The title is legitimate because although you clearly refuse to see it this way, there are marketers out there that take your 1-2 sentence assertion the wrong way. As for evidence, I’ll be happy to read Grehan’s white paper when it comes out. I also like to pick the brains of folks like Neyne and I love reading Google patent applications. Here’s what I know:1) Today, links are still the primary ranking factor2) Social media is already having a major influence but it is often secondary in nature (bookmarked sites get backlinks, reviews on review sites get indexed by Google Local and drive search results, etc...)3) There is no guarantee that Google will ever move away from citation ranking. They could simply lower it’s impact by introducing semantics, social media queues, personalization, etc...but for all we know, inbound links could continue to be the primary ranking factor for the foreseeable future.All of these scenarios and predictions are fun to discuss, and as I’ve said countless times, I agree with your general assertion.Still, I’m going to stick to my guns and say that when you deliver it in 1-2 sentences at the very end of your presentation, some greenhorn marketer is going to take that back to their office and pronounce that links are dead/dying.@davidwallace - thanks for chiming in. The moderator for the session seemed to pick up on something, since he immediately referred to Li’s assertion as "radical." Again, I’m not saying that Li told people to stop link-building. Only that her assertion can be miscontrued as meaning that links don’t/won’t matter.
If you want to know where the future of search is going, Google "BrowseRank" Incorporating user behavior into the algorithm is in the immeadiate future, maybe not to the extent of the paper Microsoft published. What are ’social media’ or ’social signals’ exactly? Will Google say to themselves "This Government web site has no material on Digg or Delicious, but this other Web site has multiple digg articles with 1,000s of diggs and delicious saves for ’George Bush’ ... therefor they rank ahead. No one heavily submitts and shares Wikipedia articles, does that mean their strangle hold on the SERPs are over? It’s hard enough for marketers and brands to measure social media, let alone for Google to start incorporating it into their algorithm.
Hugo, I was in the room too. I liveblogged that session.
@tamar - yep, and for the record, I’m not anti-live blogging ; )I know that I’m not the only one that feels this way about these assertions because I’ve had several folks thank me for the post and because I’ve literally been there explaining to client/prospects that these types of assertions don’t mean that links are dead (or that they will be any time soon).And as I’ve mentioned, the moderator for the session felt inclined to label Li’s assertion as "radical." Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. I’m simply representing the sentiments of folks pitching SEO are forced to deal with marketers that misconstrue these well-meaning assertions.@homeless - solid insight regarding the technical implications. Until quantum computing comes to full fruition, it’s unlikely that Google will be able shift away from citation ranking. The computing power needed to develop a truly semantic search is mind-boggling. Even more mind-boggling than Google’s current data handling capacity.
just for the record, the statement I made, <b>WAS NOT</b> at the end of my presentation, it was in the middle, right before I presented what Barack Obama has done with social media. i’m finished with this conversation - <b>I did not state what this article title or sphinn insuinuated I stated</b>. Period, end of story.
I say we have a duel.
Gooodness grief...I wan’t there (as I was enjoying my English winter) but have you noticed that Sphinn seems a little tense today?Regardless of what was said, I think there has been a simple misunderstanding / miscommunication. Come on guys it’s Friday - whoop whoop! @homelessSEO, great post, but I wouldn’t rule out social media feeding into algorithmic factors more (based on your suggestions on BrowseRank, etc)I bid you all a good weekend!
@peterryan - hahahahaha@yetanotherben - thanks for trying to keep the piece. Definitely a misunderstanding...on the part of unsavvy marketers can easily misconstrue statements like the one that Li made. The disappointing part for me is that I went to great lengths to avoid personally attacking Li and to treat her with professional respect even while criticizing and offering a point of view. But you can see where that got me.@storyspinner - bye. I’ll miss the demeaning monickers and all the bold letters. Let me know if you ever feel like discussing the topic at hand without getting adversarial and self-righteous. And yes, my mistake, your statement was made at the midway point. But I think you’ll agree that it was a 1-2 sentence statement. Whether or not you’ll ever admit (publicly or to yourself in private) that those wide-sweeping statements can be misconstrued has yet to be determined. It wasn’t a personal attack on you. Just an insight garnered from personal experience with clients. If you’re going to make such fundamental and general assertion, it deserves a lot more supporting evidence, insight, case studies, etc...that just my humble point of view. But what do I know. I’m just some dude, right?
Whenever someone speaks in front of a large audience, there is always the propensity to say something that doesn’t come out right. And when someone hears something differently then how you meant it to come across, there’s no reason to get defensive about it, just clarify what you meant and let it lie. I think both parties understand what the statement was "supposed" to mean, so why all the fuss? I think Hugo makes a fair point when he says that people who are less SEO-savvy may take the statement to mean "links are dead". If Li would have just added in the caveat that "links aren’t dead yet", then all would be fine.