Groupthink in Search Engine Development Rankings and Results

If this weren’t an online blog that depended in no small measure on the traffic generated by readers looking for information via search engines, that title would have been more catchy, more appealing, and more fun.  In other words, more likely to grab the reader’s interest and more likely to be enjoyed by the reader.  Something like, “Are Search Engines Putting the Web To Sleep?” or “Could This Title BE Anymore Boring”.

But, alas, the world of search engines has become mired in the groupthink caused by Google’s rapid and unprecedented rise to the top of the mature Internet.  As the first company to come along and develop something so powerful that web users flocked to it based upon comparing it to other offerings, as opposed to becoming number 1 because the number of competitors was zero, Google’s methods are overly emulated.  Nowhere is that more apparent than in the search engine universe.

A recent posting on Microsoft’s Live Search blog led me to bang out a rather lengthy comment.  The post in question contends that search engines try to look for keywords where writers put them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Search engines USED to look for keywords where writers put them, in the text.  But, keyword stuffing led to new search engine ranking techniques, one of which is highly valuing the title tag.

Search Engines do not look where writers put their most important keywords and key phrases, writers put their most important keywords and key phrases where search engines look.

The search engine companies, predominately Google, advocated and defended this approach by insisting over and over that titles were the most relevant content.  Ironically, this actually makes it easier to spam web search results because you know exactly where to put the target words AND you know that professionally written materials may not sacrifice readability for the sake of search engine rankings.  Thus, your spammy keywords are now guaranteed to be used by the search engines AND the competition will be lower.

Titles Were Never About Keywords

Of course, any professional writer or professional publication actually writes their titles not with any keywords or key phrases in mind, but rather with the goal of “hooking” the reader.  In fact, nothing turns a reader off faster than a title like, “Analyzing Mutual Fund Expense Ratios” which is why an article on that topic in any respected publication other than a text book would carry a much different title.  A title like, “What’s Really Keeping Your Returns Low” would be much more likely.  Yet, the former is much better for search engine rankings.

Take a look at the Best Selling Business Books on the New York Times Bestseller list.  Count the number of keywords that would help that book get a better search engine ranking.  If you want to be really fair, count the number of keywords excluding those that make up part of phrase or sentence that is tacked on to the title, because on a webpage, those wouldn’t count as titles, they would be content.

I can’t find it anymore (please e-mail me or post a comment if you can find it), but there was once an article on Inuit’s small business web area regarding how they had to change their title tags in order to rank properly in the search engines.

You see, the title for the Quickbooks webpage once had “Quickbooks” as the first word in its title tag.  But, searches for “accounting software” considered that to be an inferior keyword.  So, some thin content, spammy, website with the title tag “accounting Software” or even more cleverly, “Best Accounting Software” would be counted, on that measure, as a better fit for the search.  So, Intuit had to change their title tag.  Today, it reads, “Small Business Accounting Software from Intuit Quickbooks”  Which actually makes for a lesser browsing experience for the user because with tabbed browsing only part of the title displays when multiple tabs are open.  So, if you want to click on the Quickbooks tab, you’ll have to figure that out when all you can see is “Small Busine…” on your tab.  Good luck, if you are comparing 4 or 5 small business products at once.

Titles Are Not For Keywords, If You’re a Human

In a post on the Live Search Webmaster Center Blog the author repeats the “it’s where important words are” fiction yet again.  My comment, reposted here for my readers, points out that in reality writers are forced to either write “bad” titles, or more commonly to write two titles, one of the reader and one for the search engines.  The title for readers is the one that the human beings read at the top of the page.  The title for search engines is the one that most humans routinely ignore which is the one in tiny font up on the top border of your browsing window, certainly NOT where writers put their most important words.

Whether titles are or are not a good method of judging and ranking search engine results is open to debate (though I say no), however, it is not at all in doubt that writers do not now, nor have they ever put their most important keywords in places like titles, headings, or chapter titles, EXCEPT when they are doing so at the command of search engine algorithms.

Search Engines do not look where writers put their most important keywords and key phrases, writers put their most important keywords and key phrases where search engines look.

My Comment Submitted on the Live Search Blog:

Holy groupthink, Batman!

“Search engines look for keywords and key phrases to be in spots where writers use them to emphasize key points.”

“For example, words used in page titles are considered definitive for assessing the contents of that page. ”

NOT!

That isn’t using keywords and key phrases in spots where WRITERS use them.  That’s using keywords and key phrases where Google says they are supposed be.  Which came from asking programmers and technical writers where they think keywords should be.

Maybe technical manuals have chapter titles and headings that are composed of keywords.  But, if you want someone to read something without having to put it in the box with the software, that won’t work.

Writers know that titles are supposed to be catchy and to intrigue your audience to read on after seeing the title.  Nothing is more boring than, “Improving Productivity By Categorizing Email,” and in the real world, this title is considered amateurish and will likely be re-written by the editor lest it turn off the reader from reading the article.

Top 5 Titles From the New York Times Business Best Seller List:
1) Outliers
2) House of Cards
3) The Ultimate Depression Survival Guide
4) Peaks and Valleys
5) 10-10-10

How many keywords do you count in those titles?

It’s not just books.  Read the headlines in any magazine, newspaper, or book sitting near your desk right now that is not a technical manual.  See lots of keywords?

You want proof that this whole title has the most important keywords concept is nothing but a giant pile of B.S.?  Look at how many websites and webpages have one title for the search engines, and a different title for the readers.  That is the result of writers having to write a DIFFERENT title for search engines, not the result of search engines looking for how writers use keywords.

One of the most oft recommended WordPress plug-ins is All-In-One-SEO.  It’s primary feature is helping the author create a SECOND title for search engines so that writers can write real, entertaining headlines and titles for their readers and plain, robotic, no stop keywords, headlines for the search engines.

Your search engine does not look for keywords and key phrases where writers use them, it looks for keywords and key phrases where you TOLD WRITERS TO PUT THEM.

By the way, just to beat a dead horse.  I’ll be posting this with the help of the All-In-One-SEO WLW plug-in and companion WordPress plug-in sot that I can doctor up that title for better search engine readability.