Free Thinker?
One of the major problems with online information comes in the form of Search Engine Optimization (SEO). It casts a long and troublesome shadow. Learn why.
Because SEO considerations impact almost every aspect of digital creation and consumption on the web, it impacts what is written, how it is written, and whether or not it is read.
It’s that last point that really drives home compliance for many webmasters. Afterall, the usual reason for online musing is conveying information. If no one is reading, well then what is the point?
Monopoly yields uniformity.
Upwards of 90% of search traffic flows through just one digital venue – Google. That’s 3.8 million queries every minute. With numbers like that, a lot of people care what the team in Mountain View, California thinks.
It is Google that largely determines website RULES. The “hooks”, the prose structure, the general layout, and other norms. Length and the focus of material presented is also heavily influenced by Google.
These are all things we don’t think about, but should. Sure, you can ignore all that, but your website will exist in complete obscurity, without seeing the light of day, or a computer monitor.
So what are we talking about here in terms of issues? There are two: Uniformity of Information & Query Results.
Uniformity
Information conveyance. Real learning. That is the crux of the problem [exclusive of concerns over privacy and monopolies, another more common complaint we won’t get into here].
Human beings are by nature competitive. They share a desire to win – it’s those competitive ancestors of yours you have to thank for being here today.
But in terms of communicating information, Google sets ALL the rules. As a result, ambitious webmasters and entrepreneurs will be highly incentivized to only meet one version of SEO.
And in following the Google mantra, we get not only a uniform approach to data conveyance, but quite an appalling bit of clutter and misdirection along the way.
In essence, those useless search results you keep getting? They are a problem of Google’s own making, through its desire to metricize and quantify everything related to the search function and reduce it to rules.
In turn, those rules become the blueprint for website creation.
All the data you could ask for, but very little information.
From a dollar and cents perspective, this readily impacts businesses and their consumers by collectively making information harder to gather. Lengthening everything from making informed decisions about products, to evaluating competitors, and establishing strategies for revenue growth.
Query Results – Roadtrip To Nowhere
Have you found yourself on a popular website that takes an illogically circuitous route to make their conclusive point?
What about websites that bury technical expertise – as well as the answer to the item you are searching for – after a complete history of some related, but basic concept?
And when you just need a quick fact but are faced with links and imagery, all in a setting that should lend itself to just words?
Same thing. SEO. Google SEO.
It’s all driven by SEO criteria, which is ultimately set by Google and no one else.
All of these questions and the apparent author missteps they suggest, actually have their answers in very basic and rationale SEO efforts by these websites.
A side note, while there are many rules governing SEO, what we care about here relates to the usefulness of the data Google actually spits out.
We are not focusing here on what a web designer would care more about, such as extensive and authoritative backlinks, PageSpeed Insights, AMP friendly environs, general tag usage, image optimization, content management systems, and back-end software and hardware to make things quicker.
Google definitely cares about that stuff to establish ‘authority’ on a particular search string. And for that reason, those things, among others, will absolutely impact positioning. In fact, some of those items impact it much more than content because they are treated as proxies for good content (backlinks for instance).
But here, we are strictly talking about things from the perspective of the end user. Where someone “ends up”, as a result of a google search string they create, and how useful it is…or isn’t.
So What Are The Google Rules?
Remember, we are talking about what information is presented from an end user’s standpoint here. Not the technical aspects of design, but the content that is the result of meeting technical search requirements. So with that caveat, there are really only three rules for what you type into Google and what you get back.
First – Keywords.
Just as job coaches instruct applicants to pepper their resumes with relevant keywords, so do websites to get hits. Except here, those keywords relate directly to search strings.
Keywords have become round pegs in square holes.
This is the round peg in a square hole issue. Too rudimentary for a ranking guide, it makes for awkward syntax and confusing sentences within the body of the webpage.
This is because keywords have nothing to do with organic writing. In fact, unless we are talking ad copy, repetition is usually not useful. In other words, finding novel means of repeating oneself does not lead to more enlightenment for the reader. Instead it leads to monotony. This is about meeting a Google threshold, nothing else.
The frequency of keywords is integral to (supposed) success in rankings. There is indeed a ‘critical mass’ here.
While keyword stuffing is penalized, the rote listing of a strategic keyword often could result in potential benefit. And human nature being what it is, countless webpages use this approach in hopes of hits.
The result is despite the accuracy of your search criteria, your search results may NOT truly answer your intended query, because the keyword used on the page presented doesn’t really prove relevant to what you are looking for. It is there to rank.
Second – Expert Advice
Without already strong and established traffic, it is not enough to cover an issue quickly and effectively on a website.
Instead, expertise is understood to mean complexity. That translates into a lot of words.
The easiest way to achieve the appearance of depth of information is to regurgitate A LOT OF IT.
The easiest way to do this is to regurgitate information. So if I was writing about the development of the bolt action rifle, instead of starting with succinct information such as WHY the need existed, I might begin with details on the different types of bolt action mechanisms and what existed before them.
Then I would probably turn to more background on who was responsible for this technology. Then what model rifles incorporated this new approach. And, finally, when did specific armies phase them in…and out.
Do you care about all that? Maybe. It might be a nice side trip, but just as likely not. Remember, we are not reading a book, but rather querying the Internet for a specific need.
You can try it yourself with that very search, or any other you like. For purposes of traffic generation, and after the almighty back link, these content concepts are Google’s most important guideposts, and so you will see the fingerprints of Google all over websites.
Remember, we are not reading a book, but rather querying the Internet for a specific need.
Distant Third – Meta Tags
These really aren’t going to light Google rankings on fire. But they are important simply because they become the abstract for search results.
It becomes a problem when meta tags create the webpage summary that a user expects, and then does not receive. Since this is completely under the control of a webpage author, it can easily be abused.
But given the prominence Google gives Meta Tags, instead of using some other synopsis, it can create a lot of wasted searching by the end user. That part is on Google.
Why Care?
Efficiency and Relevance.
As alluded to in our opener, business impact. This is all about time and money. Inefficient or cumbersome searches reduce our effectiveness at gathering key information. It creates user fatigue, incorrect assessments, and missed opportunities.
It creates user fatigue, incorrect assessments, and missed opportunities.
Extending search times is no trivial matter when we are operating in the information economy. The amount of time a user spends locating correct data is obviously extended when users must burrow through miscellaneous nothingness.
McKinsey put it this way, 19% of an average worker’s weekly time allotment is spent “searching and gathering information”. That’s quite a chunk of time.
McKinsey was most focused on leveraging internal communications and social media to improve efficiency, but the lessons are applicable to all of us.
We are reliant on search technology and the rules that drive how the information is organized to suit those rules. When roughly 20% of our working day is spent gathering data, how vital is it that such data is free to take the form most conducive to its communication?
Said another way, if I have to monkey with my layout and wording, and placement of background information in order for you to even SEE my information, that wastes everyone’s time.
Will you ever read their epiphanies? Probably not unless the author is also versed in Google-centric design.
Now think of those experts who are not capable of such games. Will you ever read their concerns or epiphanies? Probably not.
In fact, this article has purposefully not been optimized for search criteria. Not because I am against it if it makes sense, but because when it doesn’t make sense it becomes a distraction to the reader. The price paid is reduction in traffic. Something I can live with.
And Finally WHAT To Do…
Here is a quick two-step workaround for the efficiency drag that is Google ranking games. You can not avoid getting useless returns. But what you can do is filter those websites with the inside knowledge we’ve discussed here.
The first step is to actually read the abstracts that load for both content and ‘style’
READ THE ABSTRACTS. The first step is simply to read the abstracts that load with search results. “Yeah, of course”, is your answer. Yet most people are primed to click on the first return or so, largely based on it’s title. If they don’t like what they see, it’s on to the second, and the third…and so on. Instead, skim the resulting summaries of your search results for relevance.
Yes, this sounds basic. But equally, as mentioned above, most people don’t actually do that. The fact that the “top fold” of search results (those first few returned for a given search) receive the lion share of traffic, bears this out. People click in order or click away.
Remember, if someone takes their website content seriously, if they are the expert Google says they are, then they likely wrote those.
Do they make sense for your need? What is the style like? If they are vague, overly short, or sound irrelevant, no one has taken the time to create those meta tags.
Instead Google is auto filling the abstract with a cull from the webpage. If someone couldn’t be bothered writing a three sentence summary of their webpage, think it’s going to be useful? Move on.
The second step? Skip and Skim
SKIP AND SKIM. When you do click through to a search result, skip the first two paragraphs if a short page, or the first four to five if a long one. This is likely to be filler for ranking purposes. Ignore it.
After you clear the chaff, skim select sentences in the rest of the page. Usually you can hit the first and last sentences of the paragraph and get a sense of relevance.
Is there something worth digging into? If yes, great, go back and read the opener you skipped and move through the page methodically as you might have originally. More likely, you’ll find you’ve saved time as the balance of the article that you read either answered your question or proved irrelevant.
Repeat this process with the next website in your Google rankings, and the next. You will be amazed by how much time you save and the switch from irrelevant data to information that you can actually use in your analysis.
Best of all, you might just find that 20% of your day is suddenly a lot more enjoyable.