Matt Coddington

I saw this and just had to share. This is a hilarious example of using “out of the box” keywords to reach your target audience. How many World of Warcraft players do you think are virgins?

If you were given the task of creating an SEO “cheat sheet”, would you do it? Is SEO simple enough to condense into a resume-sized document or are there so many intricacies to the practice that it wouldn’t even be possible to condense a book on the subject to less than 300 pages?

Lets take SEO out of the equation and instead replace it with any profession. Is it possible to create a physician cheat sheet? Or on the opposite end of the spectrum, how about a McDonald’s employee cheat sheet? I assume a practicing M.D. would have a tough time narrowing his job down to a few key points. And I can tell you from first hand experience that you can’t even put all of a McDonald’s employees day-to-day responsibilities on a single piece of paper.

So how would you respond if you were asked to create a SEO cheat sheet? Would you refuse or would you do it and just try to cover as much as you could? Or would you laugh and ignore the question?

In the search engine world, players are doing everything they can to get just a fraction of a percent of the Google pie. The direction most of all of these search engines seem to be going is that of “social” search. There are a number of takes on social searching, but it all boils down to one simple idea: tailoring search results to match your preferences and habits.

It is no longer a question of whether or not we have the technology to achieve this. We do. The question is now, in my opinion, how social should search be?

Lets get basic here. What is the function of search? To find an answer relevant to your query. Google does this by showing website results (and some other types of results mixed in there - think video, etc) ranked based on relevancy and authority. Hopefully the top ranking websites will have the answer you’re looking for. Social search tries to make your results even more accurate by applying your previous search data, preferences, and even your social networking information into the results.

Sounds fun, yes? But is it really necessary?

Now I admit, there have been occasions where I’ve been disappointed with Google’s results. Some things are just hard to find. But will social searching make hard-to-find information easier to find? I don’t think so, and here’s why.

If social search bases results on information it already has on you then the only thing it can help you find is something that you’ve already searched for before and/or are very familiar with. Search engines can’t guess what you’re looking for with a brand new search outside of your realm of past searches.

If you’re arguing with a co-worker about what makes gasoline so explosive and you decide to load up the ol’ search bar to find the chemical equation, do you think the fact that the search engine knows you’re into Cold Play will help you out? Of course not.

But that’s not the point! So yea social search can’t help you with brand new searches (if it can, then I’m amazed and will correct myself upon seeing proof), but it will make those repetitive searches easier.

Maybe so. But again I ask, is that necessary?

If the only thing social search can help you find better results for are things you already search for on a regular basis and are extremely familiar with, how useful is it? Shouldn’t you of all people (or algorithms) know how to get results when you search on the same topic regularly?

Just to make things more complicated, many of the social search functions available now require the user to actively interact with the search engine to get the desired results. I don’t know about you, but my search experience begins with the Google toolbar in Firefox and usually ends 6 seconds later. Why waste time interacting with search when 99% of my searches return such quick results already?

I just don’t see the value. No software will ever know exactly what a user is looking for. Period.

Maybe we should stop trying to make search easier for dumb people. Most of the answers you’re looking for are right there in front of you. And as for the 1 in 1,000,000 queries that give you trouble - is it worth investing the time into social search to make those easier, or is it more time efficient to struggle with the algorithmic results every once in a while?

I’ll take the algorithm.

I was visiting my old blog, Net Business Blog, (now belonging to Adie Cooke - great guy) when I noticed an interesting little Kontera adlink for Live search.

So here we have a Kontera advertisement for Live search (which I’ve seen a TON of those on sites running Kontera) that is targeting the keyword “Google”. Hm. That’s interesting.

Why the hell would Live be targeting “Google” for their search ads? Unless I’m missing something and this Live search ad is some sort of automated system that simply targets random keywords and pops up a “learn more” search box - in which case this would be a hilarious coincidence.

However, I don’t think it works that way. It looks to me like Live is specifically targeting the keyword “Google” for their Kontera ad campaigns. Okay, so why?

The only reason I can come up with is brand recognition - Live wants to be mentioned (on sites running Kontera) whenever Google is mentioned. And in this case not only is Live mentioned, but the way the ad is setup there is no doubt that it is a search engine.

But that doesn’t seem like much of a reason to me considering there are so many better (more generic) terms Live could be targeting to push search traffic. Terms that people may actually naturally do a search for.

But what do I know?