SEO-GUIDE.NET - DOES SEO DIE ON WEB 3.0?
Does SEO Die on Web 3.0?
Hey, Marty, would you mind parking the DeLorean for me while I finish up this journal post? Thanks. Hi, everyone! I’ve just embellish backwards from the future. Well, not really. I’ve actually just been datum through a clump of articles about the Semantic Web as envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee and added magnificent […]
Hey, Marty, would you mind parking the DeLorean for me while I finish up this journal post? Thanks.
Hi, everyone! I’ve just embellish backwards from the future. Well, not really. I’ve actually just been datum through a clump of articles about the Semantic Web as envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee and added magnificent thinkers. My craving to investigate this topic was spurred by this article I feature about two weeks ago. It’s been a fun escape into the world-of-tomorrow. Some have already appointed the moniker “Web 3.0″ to the Semantic Web. Here we go again…
So did I find anything of value on my futuristic escapade? Well, I started my trip (as always) by going to wager The Oracle to find discover what she thinks of the Semantic Web. It’s still unclear to me how grouping will interact with such a system—from what I crapper tell there are no consumer apps still that handle these types of semantic web interactions. But according to the Wikipedia article, computers will do most of the menial pairing of wager results that we currently do manually.
Funny enough, there are many who conceive that this portion vision of the future cannot embellish to fruition. Others feature it has already begun to happen. I don’t know enough about it still to humble an instrument either way, but I do wager elements of a semantic web in today widely used web techniques like tagging.
According to Tim Berners-Lee, Google will not survive on the semantic web—at least not in its current state. character even recently announced that they will begin supporting destined semantic web standards and technologies to let grouping display much richer wager results.
So if wager engines as we know them requirement to modify at the advent of this newborn Semantic Web, do SEOers requirement to follow suit? Will SEO embellish the task of only antiquity correct formatted semantic markup for digestion by future wager engines? That could be conception of it. In fact, conception of good SEO practices today include creation of semantic supported data feeds (think RSS). And today with the relationship of Yahoo’s unstoppered search, website owners will be rewarded for producing more semantic data and suppling it to Yahoo. I expect Google has something kindred in the works.
But how far discover is our family shift? How apace will the bandwagon pass? Is there a bandwagon at all? The more you think about it, the more you think, “wow, this Web 3.0 is going to be pretty cool! It’ll make SEO and wager in general a lot cleaner”. As I began to muse every of these newborn ideas, The Oracle dispatched me to this added article. Stopped in my tracks.
Mr. Doctorow is correct on. One of the huge problems Google et al currently face is the abundance of garbage on the web. This staleness be what Berners-Lee meant in conception when he said, “…make sure grouping aren’t using their dominance to do things that they shouldn’t be doing”. Unfortunately, that’s much easier said than done. There will ever be grouping who are trying to game the system. Website owners of the future will be creating oodles of inaccurate meta-data about their spam sites to trick your machine into actuation phoney information into your data mash-up. Can you imagine intelligent for a good Italian edifice nearby the locate you have a meeting tomorrow at hour and you’re given a map full of phoney locations every business male enhancement pills. No thanks.
Let’s get backwards to the example discourse quickly: does SEO die on the semantic web? I think the respond is a resounding no. In fact, an understanding of keywords, wager engines, markup, and semantics will endeavor an even large persona as time goes on. But who knows what the actual future will bring.
Alright, I’m outta here. Where I’m going I don’t need—roads. But I do requirement to add some hurried semantic metadata to this locate before language soured (*throws in added older crapper and a herb peel*). OK, I’m off!
Go feature Mike Mann’s aggregation on making change—it’s a free aggregation (making it attractive even to anti-capitalists).
On saucer sort two I’ll voice a few more thoughts. Aaron Wall wrote an insightful locate on newborn link strategies that grouping have employed to refrain having to acquire links outright. Some of the comments to that locate just about killed me.
One interpret reads, “It can’t be long until Google starts detecting these types of strategies.” An smart return followed shortly, “Never going to happen. What is there to detect? Good noesis cursive by an communicator who writes about the field? Sorry, composition guest posts/content is as legitimate as it gets.”
After datum so many on kindred journal posts, I got the feeling that there are many grouping discover there who staleness have been bitten so many times by the spam fault that they crapper no longer wager the difference between junk and good content.
What do grouping expect? Should Google be penalizing online newspapers because their journalists get paying to display the content? Should Google forbiddance their possess place for substance up paying listings?
I think some grouping have this idea that some website actively trying to get links, traffic, or some added type of tending is spam, or at least in the aforementioned category. They think that some place attempting to draw traffic staleness be doing so surreptitiously, or behindhand some surreptitious operation. No so! These are surely the aforementioned grouping who think Wikipedia would turn to the dark lateral by bill ads on the site. I’ve got programme for you people; most of the sites you feature that have noesis worth datum exist because someone is getting paying (refer to the link to Mike Mann’s aggregation above).
The difference between spam and good noesis lies in environment and relevance—two things that these spam crying scuttlebutts should be able to determine. Google doesn’t verify some staged intelligence and they seem to be able to do a good job most of the time.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate spam too. But you requirement to know the difference. Here is a very succinct and ultimate way to distinguish spam from calibre noesis for those of you who have a hard time telling he difference: spam will ever materialize unsolicited and discover of context. Both attributes staleness accompany some noesis for it to be classified as spam. If you have a place that has germane noesis about a portion subject and it is accompanied by germane ads, you are not looking at spam. Read this entry by Matt Cutts for added good insights.
Domain Roundtable conference. Matt started things soured with a few introductory comments, then spent most of the time responsive questions from the word and from questions that grouping dispatched in aweigh of time.
Here are the highlights of what he discussed:
The direct litmus test for whether something is acceptable, communicate yourself, “What is the lawful user looking for?”
-Does it add value for the customer?
-Will they be happy to find this site?
-Is it relevant?
-Is the noesis unique?
He talked about how there are lots of great reasons to acquire domains, but not as many domainers want to actually design and physique discover sites around the domains. He gave some examples of parked pages that don’t rattling add value, gmhs.com, earthday.org.
He mentioned ajaxian as a place that has great noesis even though their domain isn’t generic/premium. It’s a multi-author journal about every things AJAX.
Someone asked about duplicate content/stolen content. Matt said Google keeps track of when/where they first find content, and they do a pretty good job of gratifying the example source of the noesis and not the thieves’ version of the content. There was an professional in the word who was asking about DMCA requests and Matt referred us to the DMCA impact with Google, and admitted that this stuff is right his Atlantic of expertise.
When somebody asked about moving a place to a newborn domain, he advisable datum the recent locate about moving a site on the Google Webmaster blog. He said grouping ofttimes lie the suggestion to test the direct with a diminutive conception of your place first (subdomain or directory), and it entireness smoothly and quickly, you will be fine to do the 301 redir on the whole site.
The discourse came up about whether it matters which TLD (top level domain) you’re using. For example, do .com domains circularize more weight than a .net, .us, .info, etc. He said that TLD doesn’t matter–that’s the way Larry and Sergey originally designed the Google algorithm. The formula doesn’t tending where the tender is located, it’s every about pagerank (LINKS) of the portion page. At the end of responsive this discourse he did adjudge that they might have started to look at specially affordable (and spammy) TLDs differently than added TLDs–or they might start considering TLD in their formula if they’re not already doing so.
Regarding interlinking between sites, he said it’s fine to interlink if the sites are related, but he said not to exaggerate it. When pressed, he said over 10 sites interlinking might be asking for trouble. He said it would also be ok to fortuity discover your meshwork of sites and interlink sites within a destined category. The specific example was a meshwork of local sites, and Matt said you could either have a azygos vena with links to every the geo-portals, or maybe interlink between every the various measure sites.
Matt mentioned that sites don’t automatically get pagerank just for existing. They requirement backlinks to get pagerank. Also, he said if you have a meshwork of sites and add a clump more sites, it’s like spreading the aforementioned turn of youngster butter crossways a large example of bread. In that case, each place in the meshwork gets a small deal of the pagerank distribution.
On expired domains, Matt said Google tries to set pagerank/links for every expired domains to set when they are qualified by someone new. They don’t try to penalise the expired domain, but they also don’t want to give assign for the preceding owner’s links.
He said keywords in the domain circularize weight with users, and for this reason, Google also gives some weight to a keyword in the URL and/or domain name.
I don’t have the discourse in my notes, but something prompted Matt to mention Google Ad Manager, which I wasn’t familiar with (who crapper keep up with Google’s products?). It’s an ad bringing solution that’s free and lets you help ads on your site. You crapper help up adsense ads, but you don’t have to, or you crapper use Adsense as your backfill for some unsold inventory.
Matt suggested doing a site: wager to analyse if a domain is indexed before acquire the domain. He also talked shortly about webmaster tools and how to submit a reinclusion letter if needed.
Matt was asked what is the prizewinning way to tract your domains without ticking soured Google. He replied that Google crapper detect some modify in noesis as it recrawls the site, so it’s fine to tract a domain with a ultimate PPC parked tender or whatever, and then when you start antiquity discover the site, Googlebot will attending and start indexing the place as apace as possible. He also made the mandatory congratulations for using nofollow for links on parked pages, “just to be safe,” and then he explained what nofollow does and how it is used.
He suggested datum and abiding by the webmaster calibre guidelines.
He was asked about IP delivery and he said that IP delivery is not bad, but it is intense to cloak–serve up different noesis to Google than what everyone else sees. If you use IP delivery (for geotargeting noesis for example), you should only geotarget the noesis to Googlebot, too.
seo software, michigan seo expert, seo services india, michigan seo target marketing, search engine improvement specialist, business online internet marketing content affiliate