Jonathan Leger – SEO And Internet Marketing Blog Internet Marketing Blog

An open question about Search.

Well, it seems as if Facebook wants to own the web. But this blog post is not about Facebook or their plans. In reading the news item regarding their plans, however, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder, made a comment that web pages linking to each other was a good model, but that more is needed.

I have often contemplated the idea of using links to rank web pages in the search results. No doubt it was a great idea, and still has a large degree of merit. But like any other great idea, once it's discovered that there's money to be made, us savvy business folks get busy making sure we swing the votes in our direction. That is, we get more links to outrank the competition.

That, of course, means that what you're seeing on page one of the search results is often (even usually) the result of businesspersons' efforts, not Google's ideal of pages that were "voted" there by other webmasters.

Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe who's on top should be the result of who puts the most effort into making sure they're on top. After all, as I've stated in a previous post, just having a great product is not -- and should not be -- enough to make you successful. You have to get the word out. Right now, with Search, that means getting more links.

Of course, the idea of a democratic web is appealing. If a majority of folks believe Site A is the best, then Site A ranking number one is probably a good thing for most people. If Site B is liked by another large share of folks, then it being number two makes sense, and so on. But that's not what any of the major search engines' results look like right now for most queries.

Honestly, though, with all the time, thought and energy I've put into trying to discover a ranking "property" that cannot be so easily manipulated, I haven't been able to. Today, the ranking "property" that wins the game (especially in Google) is links. But links can be manipulated. Maybe "manipulated" is the wrong word. Maybe, as I stated earlier, it's right and good that those of us who put more effort into our rankings should be number one. So perhaps I should say that links can be "engineered"?

The problem, of course, is that it's just as easy (or hard) to rank a mediocre site as it is to rank a great one -- especially in small niche markets that don't get a lot of attention from human reviewers. It's those spammy results that I believe fuel the SEO Puritans belief that any "artificially" acquired link is "black hat", or morally wrong. I, of course, completely disagree with that assertion, but I can at least see that side's point of view.

Since I've failed completely to come up with any great idea on my own, I thought I would put the question to you -- my readers. Do you have a better idea about how search should work? Some understanding about what's wrong with the way it's being done now? Or is everything right in the world of Search, and should it stay that way?

After all, before Google came along, links were not a part of the search equation at all. After Google discovered that links were a great way to rank sites, now all search engines use links as a major part of their ranking equation.

So, dear reader, what do you think is the next "big thing" in Search?

Please post your thoughts in a comment below.