Is Google Trying To Kill SEO?


In the past few years, content authoring on the Web has changed significantly, partly due to the copywriting techniques applied in Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). Many people write content primarily or exclusively for search engines these days instead of readers, which is a really bad practice. Google has just declared massive algorithm updates to minimize spam, and employs an entire anti-spam team.

This is not surprising since many techniques are outdated. For example, keyword density can be heavily manipulated, and a website should not be considered more relevant to certain keywords just because there are several external links from “relevant” sites. These hyperlinks might point to a forum or blog with large traffic but potentially junk content. The same holds for social media sites. Quality website content might not always be easy to find, but actually it would be the search engine’s responsibility to find pages with quality assurance, and prefer them over less precious pages.

Many web standards are introduced several years prior to their implementation, and search engines usually follow trends, but they do not check some important quality indicators such as validity or accessibility. Moreover, Google takes domain age and further factors into account that make almost impossible for small businesses to start promoting themselves online. It’s hard to justify current policies as a benefit for all end-users, however, the situation might change in the near future.



Professional Web Design Made Affordable
Professional Web Design Made Affordable

The author

admin
About admin : Leslie F. Sikos, Ph.D. is a Web standardista specializing in website standardization, Responsive Web Design, Semantic Web technologies, Web accessibility, Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), and multimedia. He is a publishing expert with numerous academic papers and 13 textbooks, including Web Standards, an Amazon.com bestseller. Dr. Sikos is a member of several standardization bodies, and actively contributes to the development of open standards.

Reply