The Promise & Reality Of Mixing The Social Graph With Search Engines

I’m having a bad day. Aside from my desktop crashing, we get another spate of “let’s blame SEO” to start my morning off. Robert Scoble uses that theme as a launching pad for a series of videos on how Facebook potentially could be a killer search engine — regardless of the fact he seems to have no clue that “social graph” or social networking mixing has been tried and abandoned with search. Having watched his videos, which have sparked much discussion, I’ll do some debunking, some educating for those who want more history of what’s been done in the area, plus I’ll swing around to that New York Times article today that ascribes super-ranking powers to SEO.

Robert’s excited about “social graph search,” which is the idea that if you know a network of people, you can use their connection to improve search results. It’s a “revolution” coming in search that will overtake all the major search engines, he says. Maybe, but it’s not like we haven’t heard this before. I’ll go through his arguments, but it really feels like this is more about getting attention to Robert’s videos, period.

Part 1 of Robert’s social graph video series starts off by telling us that there’s no way we’d have gotten to his videos from a search engine. That’s absurd. People write about what’s in video content all the time. Want to see the Lazy Sunday video? Oh, look — I found it number one on Google without Google needing to analyze the words inside the video.

That’s the real point that Robert’s trying to make, of course — that search engines typically don’t analyze all the words within a video in the way they read the words in a web page. Want to understand more about that? My Video Search Challenge Isn’t Speech Recognition, It’s Content Owner Management post from February explains this in more depth as well as why it really hasn’t been an issue. In particular to Robert’s argument, it’s because there are plenty of people who will reference what’s in the video content in more user friendly and search engine friendly HTML text.

The meat of his first part is to talk about three different types of search engines: crawlers (like Google), Techmeme and Mahalo to discuss how they are or are not “SEO resistant,” as if SEO is a bad thing — you know, that SEO equals spam.

SEO is not spam. It’s like saying email is spam. There’s email; there’s email marketing; there’s email spam. These are all different things. You want to better understand why SEO isn’t spam? Then read the posts below:

Want to be like Robert — and Jason Calacanis — and keep equating SEO with spam? Then screw you.

I’ve had enough of people trying to advance their own personal agendas (Jason hoping someone will care about Mahalo; Robert hoping someone will watch his videos) on the back of an industry that is full of plenty of people who do good work.

[NOTE: Originally, I went with the F-word above. I was really tired; it was a bad day, as said, when I wrote this. And I wanted to make an impact. But the points in this article are important, and I refer to it constantly, so I dropped that in October 2010 so as not to possibly offend some readers].

Last week, I was part of a meeting at Google along with a number of notable SEOs, being asked about ways Google could be better. This group wasn’t pushing for Google to make it easier for them to spam the listings. A chief concern they had was how Google (along with other major search engines) continues to have difficulties identifying original source documents. You know — you publish your blog post, then some other site with more authority than you picks it up, and then that site gets the top ranking. SEOs are leading the charge to help site owners get a fix for this overall. But all people like Jason and Robert want to do is characterize them as evil comment spammers for their own personal gain.

Back to the video. Robert goes through how search engines make use of “on the page” factors, though he doesn’t call it that, and greatly simplifies the process. But yes, search engines look at the frequency and location of words on a page to determine if a page is relevant to that.

Robert then explains that PageRank is also used, using incorrect shorthand for link analysis that’s part of “off the page” factors that search engines use to rank pages — looking at the quality and the context of links to a page. My What Is Google PageRank? A Guide For Searchers & Webmasters post from April goes into more depth about what exactly PageRank is and how it is not the same as link analysis. Give it a read, Robert.

Next, we get the news that paid links are hard for Google to tell apart from “real” links. Actually, Robert says Google can’t tell the difference between them. In reality, it can easily identify many types of paid links. But not all of them.

Apparently, the SEO community feels it’s its “birthright” to stick paid links into pages. Actually, Robert — there’s disagreement about that within the SEO community, and the bigger audience that feels it has a birthright to do what it wants with paid links are the content owners themselves. SEOs aren’t selling the links; they’re buying the real estate that others are selling.

Robert then shifts gears to Techmeme and how, in his view, news won’t get on the site until someone starts to blog about it. Um, yeah — that’s part of the “meme” part of Techmeme. New stuff can (and does) hit the site pretty quickly, too, since important blogs catch things fast and talk about it. FYI, Q&A With Gabe Rivera, Creator Of Techmeme from me in January talks about Techmeme and how it works in more depth.

Techmeme is described as an SEO resistant site. Sure, in the sense that you’re dealing with a smaller source list. From that reason, Google News is more resistant. Any vertical or specialized search engine that deals with a subset of sites is SEO resistant (or more correctly, spam resistant).

Mahalo comes up next and how by using a small number of human editors, it can be harder to spam. Sure. So’s the Yahoo Directory. You remember the Yahoo Directory, right? It used, um, a small number of human editors to categorize the web. Advances in crawler-based search engines meant you could get really good relevancy and be spam resistant, which caused the Yahoo Directory to effectively be abandoned by Yahoo. Mahalo’s approach to custom-tailor the most popular searches is interesting — but despite heaps and heaps of publicity the new service has had showered upon it, it still hasn’t gained any real traction among searchers. Mahalo Launches With Human-Crafted Search Results from me in May describes the service in more depth.

Finally, Robert turns to Facebook, talking about the “social graph” term that’s now being bandied about as this month’s new Kool-Aid to drink. I’m being harsh — there’s obvious value in being able to look at the connections between people and form a ranking mechanism that can be applied to things. SocialRank, PeopleRank — whatever you want to call it. The idea at the moment is that Facebook especially has it, so everyone else better look out.

That leads to Part 2, where how adding the social graph to existing search technologies will really change the search game. Wow. Wow! I mean, yeah, never heard that before.

Look, Robert, back in January 2004, Eurekster launched with the promise of mixing the social graph with other search criteria, to improve results. As I wrote back then:

Personalized search? The concept has been that by knowing some things about you, a search engine might refine your results to make them more relevant. A teenager searching for music might get different matches than a senior citizen. A man looking for flowers might see different listings than a woman.
Eurekster’s twist on this concept is to provide personalized results based not on who you are but who you know. Friends, colleagues and anyone in your Eurekster social network will influence the type of results you see….
The potential of using your friends or colleagues is enormous. Imagine Eurekster being used by all the employees of a medical research firm, where many might do similar medical-related queries. With Eurekster, all the employees can be linked together and benefit from the searches and selections made by their colleagues.
Libraries are another institution that might latch on to the Eurekster concept. Librarians are constantly asked by patrons for assistance. Eurekster would allow librarians to collaborate invisibly with each other and share what they’ve found to be the best for various queries.
There are downsides. Not all of my friends have the same interests as me. In addition, as my social network grows — because my friends invite their friends and so on — commonalities that are useful get diluted.

Eurekster is still out there, but the idea of a network of friends influencing search results seems to have died at some point over the years. Viva not the revolution Robert was promising us.

Well, maybe Eurekster had no luck with that particular model since the company was small. Well, Yahoo’s not small. And in June 2005, it rolled out Yahoo My Web 2.0, which promised to bring social networks into search. As I wrote then:

After seeing what was planned, I remarked to Yahoo senior vice president of search Jeff Weiner sitting next to me that they were building “an eBay for knowledge.” Jeff was already literally bouncing at times with excitement in showing the new system, and the remark made him smile even more broadly.
He smiled because that’s exactly the Yahoo goal. My Web is Yahoo’s community rating system for information. Just as you buy things on eBay depending on ratings to know if you’ll trust a seller, My Web is what Yahoo hopes will help you choose more wisely the information you receive, whether you actively check reviews, contribute or remain an ordinary searcher who completely ignores the tagging and social search components.
In short, Yahoo’s not banking on tagging — the categorization of material — as a way to help people find things better. It’s banking that the mere act of saving things at all, even without tags, will give them a clue about what are trusted pages across the web. By looking at patterns of saving, Yahoo will have trust networks to tap into….
We’ve had a generation of search engines that depended on on-the-page factors such as word location and frequency. We’ve had a current second generation that tapped into link analysis, looking at how people are linking and what they say in links.
Personal search is that third generational jump, and Yahoo’s flavor of personal search is a social network one that it hopes will improve relevancy in web wide results in the way that link analysis helped drive back spam and improve relevancy years ago.
“We’re creating personal anchor text for pages, but by having a trust network, we can actually pretty much eliminate spamming,” Walther said.

Guess what? Still no revolution. The masses didn’t descend upon Yahoo My Web to form networks and save search results. In fact, Yahoo pretty much pulled back from the product, even dropping inline integration with it from regular search results back in October 2006.

But before Robert gets into applying social networks to search, he prattles on about Mahalo again being so superior to Google. Oddly for a video, he doesn’t show us any of the search results pages he’s talking about, saying at one point he can’t show us them. Apparently the camera he uses can’t be swiveled to show a screen. C’mon, Robert — if we’re investing the time (over a half-hour) to watch your video, make use of the medium.

He talks about a search for HDTV on Google versus Mahalo and pokes at the Google results, despite Google showing Wikipedia, How Stuff Works, CNET as well as a page from Amazon, just as Mahalo does.

I mean seriously, you might want to ding Google for deciding Amazon deserves to have a top listing for HDTV over all the other types of information that could be shown (especially if you’re one of the millions who use Google from outside the United States). But if you ding it for that, what’s up with Mahalo’s supposedly great human method of also deciding Amazon deserves a top spot.

Mahalo lists more than a top seven list, of course — you get a chunk of review sites, manufacturers, retailers and so on. But here’s the deal on Mahalo – it’s not really a search engine. The page it provides is good human crafted content, a good destination page like you might find at some of the other destination pages that Google lists. Mahalo — as Jason Calacanis himself will tell you — is a great place to start searching if your searches involve very popular queries. But if you want to hit those “search tail” terms that people always encounter? It’s not going to help.

My desktop computer crashed today just when I got back from a trip, and since it’s likely to be down for a day or two, I decided to start using a new Vista laptop I purchased until I can buy a Mac replacement (heh — well, maybe not). But ZoneAlarm for Vista doesn’t block http referrer information as it does on Windows XP. That led me to do a tail search — block referrer plugin for firefox — something that’s only going to happen a few times per month, relatively speaking. Try it on Google, then on Mahalo. Plenty of good solutions right at the top on Google. On Mahalo, I have to wade through four “related” links that aren’t relevant (Ryan Block, Sunscreen, Netscape and Jet), then I get Google results.

Robert also tells us that Mahalo rocks because you know, the first thing you do in the search process for HDTVs is want to know the manufacturers. Bull.

First of all, no one can predict how someone else will go through a search process, so that’s bull strike one. But if I want to play magic mindreader like Robert, I’ll say the first thing people want are some guides to HDTVs. What is an HDTV? Is 720p enough to make a TV HD quality? Does it have to have HDMI?

Saying you first go to a manufacturer site in the process is like saying that if you want to buy a new car, just go visit some car dealerships. Me — I go to Consumer Reports, figure out the cars I might want from a third party trusted resource, understand the jargon I might encounter, and then I go to the dealership. And as someone who bought an HDTV last year, I also remember going to the horrible manufacturer web sites where they often provided only sparse info about their own products and certainly didn’t compare them to competing products.

We then learn from Robert that Google can’t change to be like Mahalo because it has algorithms that are “stuck in sand, stuck in cement” and shifting will “prove impossible.”

Insane. Seriously, like you want to scream stop talking. Robert’s a personally likable guy, but watching him make statements like this is like watching someone driving a car full speed toward a concrete wall while yelling “It’ll be OK — we’ll get through.”

Google has constantly changed its ranking algorithm over the years and will continue doing so. If Robert knew any SEOs, they’d tell him this firsthand. But more to the point, Google can’t change the ranking algorithm to be more like Mahalo because Mahalo isn’t using an algorithm to rank web pages — it’s using human editors. Maybe Google someday might get an algorithm to mimic much of what Mahalo does, but that still wouldn’t be the same as using actual humans.

So it is impossible for Google to change! Maybe the algorithm, but Google could easily hire editors of their own, pay them more than Jason does and do what Mahalo is doing if that model takes off — which, so far, hasn’t happened.

Robert then jumps into the idea that Google also can’t integrate social networking into its algorithms, pointing to Google’s largely failed Orkut social networking site as an example. He completely overlooks the fact that Google is playing the human/social aspect on a different level — personalized search, where results are refined based on what you as an individual seem to like. That’s a major shift for Google, and it’s also one that I’ve found personally compelling. For more on the service, see:

In particular, Google has been talking about how personalized search allows for creating personalized PageRank (and see here for a patent look), a way where rankings revolve around what you personally like. It’s not a hard leap to extend that into a “social network PageRank” model, where if you define a social network, the collective interests of that network could be used to model the rankings. Google’s not doing that now, but to suggest that the mechanism are somehow impossible from either a company attitude or technological model is simply being ignorant of Google.

Finally — halfway into part two of his video, 23 minutes of covering all that’s “wrong” with some existing players, Robert unveils how social might be blended into Facebook, giving you the impression this is simply a “please hire me” pitch to Facebook itself.

First step from Robert, use old-style on-the-page ranking. Yeah, there’s a waste of time.

Here’s a thought — why not just license an existing search engine period? I mean, how do you search the web when on the Facebook site itself? You don’t. The Facebook search box only searches within Facebook (and despite claims from Facebook itself that it is some type of fantastic people search engine, I’ve found the search less than compelling).

Facebook is partnered with Microsoft, so it’s somewhat amazing (if not telling) that there’s no ability to search using Microsoft’s Live Search. Hit MySpace, in contrast, and you’ll see how the Google partnership has Google web search over there.

Facebook doesn’t need to build on-the-page ranking from scratch, not to mention the nightmare situation of trying to crawl billions of pages.

Next, Robert gets into the social network and trust aspect. Sure — an exactly like what Eurekster and Yahoo already promised. There’s nothing new here. Well, there is. As Facebook has grown, we’ve also had frustration grow – including the famed Facebook Bankruptcy that Jason Calacanis declared last month.

People have friends on Facebook who aren’t friends at all. It’s just easier to accept them. Robert, at the time of this writing, has 4,875 “friends” in the system. Really — he knows all of these people? And wants all of them influencing his searches?

Ah — but see, Facebook knows how to “lock out” the SEOs, Robert tells us, so he’s not overwhelmed by noise. Sure — but on the flipside, Robert is one of the top FBOs out there, Facebook Optimizers, to the degree people have been complaining about how his activities dominate the news updates that Facebook sends out to those with him as a friend.

There will be more FBOs, no doubt about that. Any system that has lots of traffic will attract people who will study ways to tap into that traffic. That’s good and bad. It’s good in that since it’s going to happen, you want people to learn appropriate ways to do this. It’s bad in that there will no doubt be spamming that comes along with it.

For such hype about his video, I was pretty much left with a “is that it” response? Facebook will get pages, then look at a social network and hopefully get those people to proactively rank pages when they search. Despite the fact that the Yahoo My Web experience tells me people don’t want to build search results — they just want to search.

Social network data applied to search does have promise. But to assume that social networks can’t be spammed and lack noise is foolish. To assume that people want to participate in actively shaping results is also mistaken, in my view. To also assume that major players like Google or Yahoo can’t tap into things that make Mahalo, Techmeme or Facebook good is shortsighted. Yahoo Answers is akin to Mahalo. Google News is Techmeme across multiple subjects.

By the way, Robert, if you’re tired of the SEO “noise” you think screws up results, then do this. In a search for scoble, for well over a year now, you’ve crowded out variety in the results by not redirecting your address to your new home at That means you get both results 1 & 2 for your new place as well as results 3 & 4. You also have no content at, plus another version of your old place at

You have contacts with the Weblogs folks — getting a redirect should be easy for you. You can kill or block that WordPress site that you no longer use. I assume you maintain these other sites simply so that when people search for you by name, you crowd out anyone else from ranking well, perhaps people who might disagree with you on topics. That’s an aspect of SEO — it’s a tactic used as part of public relations in SEO. It introduces the same “noise” into the results that you cheered about not being present in Mahalo. So clean it up or cut it out with the SEO slams. You’re doing SEO yourself.

What about that New York Times article I mentioned? When Bad News Follows You is the article, another amazing “SEO sucks” story. The New York Times has opened its archives for crawling, which apparently is causing people to come forward at the not so astounding rate of one person per day complaining about articles casting them in a bad light. Blame SEO:

Technically complex, search engine optimization pushes Times content to or near the top of search results, regardless of its importance or accuracy.

Wow, seriously — did I just read that in the New York Times? SEO just shoves whatever crud it wants to the top of Google. Hey, think there are some SEOs out there that would like to rank for “new york times.” I guess they just need to SEO up some pages and they get there. Not.

Geez. The rest of the article does some hand-wringing on what to do to make the “right” articles appear at the top of the results (why not just sprinkle some SEO fairy dust on them?).

Insane. If an article is factually incorrect, then correct it. If the article is about someone with a negative connotation, then a later article comes out updating the story, link prominently from the top of the negative article to the latest version of a story. It’s called online journalism in the 2000s.

Postscript: I purposely haven’t read any of the other commentary on Robert’s post until I could brain dump my own thoughts. Since then, I read Rand Fishkin’s I Used to Respect Robert Scoble’s Opinion post, and he does a great job of poking back at the SEO attack as well as debunking Robert’s ideas on that Maholo-Google search shoot-out I mentioned.

Google and search from Dave Winer points out that spam is not the problem that both Jason and Robert like to paint it as. There’s spam, but there are lots and lots of great results, too.

Why Google Should be Scared of Facebook from Dare Obasanjo highlights that Facebook’s wall around its content is a threat to Google, but that’s a wall I think will get ripped down sooner rather than later, if only when Facebook decides it needs to show more ads on those pages and so needs more traffic.

Techmeme has much more commentary.

Related Topics: Channel: SEO | Search Engines: Mahalo | Search Engines: Social Search Engines | Search Marketing: General | SEO: General | SEO: Spamming


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn


Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  


Other ways to share:

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • personalchef

    Wow Danny
    Well Said, You are really good when someone writes posts like this, I remember when Jason started, You explained to Jason and others about SEO. I dont know why people think, SEO’s are some kind of Spammers. Come on People SEO is just like any other form of Marketing, We all need SEO.
    There are hundreds of people who dont know anything about Social Networking or Web 2.0 All they know is that Search Box in Google. I am mad too Danny when people dont understand the value of SEO
    Thank you

  • AdamJusko

    Wow. I think you got it right straight up front—Robert Scoble’s looking for attention, and he got it.

    Being the founder of a human-powered search engine, Bessed, I would take exception to some of what you say. We are not trying to build a hierarchical directory like Yahoo did, but actually are creating results for actual searches, and ranking them accordingly. Yahoo’s directory was/is mainly an alphabetized list of sites that fit into directory headings like “Golf Shoes” when what people actually search for is more likely to be “Dexter golf shoes” or “women’s golf shoes”, etc. The past history of how Yahoo or DMOZ did directories should not be used as shorthand for what’s being done today—it’s not the same, even if it’s convenient to act as if it is in order to dismiss it.

    Otherwise, though, I agree with your points about SEO. Even for those of us in the human-powered search game, we need the spider-based engines as a starting point to find which sites are best. If a publisher does a good job of making it clear what their site or page is about, it’s good for the search engine but also good for the searcher. That should be rewarded, as the main goal of a search engine should be to find the best sites, not to punish a Hawaiian hotel for saying “Hawaii” and “hotel” too many times on its home page.

    But human-powered engines CAN sift out the SEO who overoptimizes to the point of spamming, thus forcing searchers to sift through a lot of junk to find what they want. I used the example the other day of searching for specific products—Google and Yahoo often seem to spit out shopping comparison sites like Nextag and Shopzilla, even if those “trusted” sites have created ghost pages with no actual content, but with the right title tag. That’s akin to spamming and it does nothing for the searcher. It’s where the “trusted site” ranking algorithm falls down.

    I believe over time we’ll all understand we need each other—SEOs need search engines and search engines need SEOs to help them offer better results. Spider-based engines need human-based engines to help improve results, and human-based engines need spiders to give us a place to start from. And all of us agree that the spam is something we’d like to get rid of—SEOs included.

  • Milos Mileusnic

    Scoble is so boring with his glorification of Facebook and some other things. While I have been subscribed to his blog (one week was enough for me), I felt like I’m following the post of some teenager impressed with his new iPhone and new “friends” on Facebook. So I have unsubscribed and I can’t believe that he suppose to be some kind of expert & IT professional.

  • Bruno Šarić

    Sorry for bad day, but this is just great to read!

  • RustyS

    I wonder what color the sky is in Scoble’s world?

    If perception is reality, then judging by his posts he apparently lives in a land of Facebook rainbows and iPhone lollipops. I still subscribe to his feed, but it’s more as a reminder of how far out of touch with reality you can become if you buy into this stuff too much.

  • oldschoolseo

    uh… wow… did Danny just use the F-Word in an official SEL posting?

  • Matt Law

    Wow, that was a fun read. Great points on the Times story. Why not just correct it?

  • Kevin Burton

    What I find that most people fail to grasp is that the social graph can be overlaid on top of the web graph.

    Our customers for Spinn3r use both. We index both LiveJournal and the larger web for example.

    Right now most social networks aren’t sharing their data but I don’t expect this trend to last forever.

  • eric_ward

    This kind of insight, intelligence, and passion is exactly why you, SEL, and for that matter anything you touch, is golden. Never stop.


  • Jordan Mitchell

    Great post. I think the F-bomb should be used more often in blog posts.

    As you pointed out “people don’t want to build search results — they just want to search”. This is why I believe social search can’t be derived from explicit votes/gestures, and I don’t think it will be limited to people within your social network.

    There’s a new graph coming, called the “implicit graph”. No effort involved to contribute, and social groups (formed implicitly) filter the web graph for us.

  • Seth Finkelstein

    Great read!

    But I think you let your justified ripping of the inane Scoble post bleed into pedantry overkill regarding the New York Times article. When they wrote “search engine optimization pushes Times content to or near the top of search results, regardless of its importance or accuracy.”, they really meant something like “The New York Times’ domain-wide extremely high trust ranking pushes a very large number of Times pages to or near the top of search results, regardless of their importance or accuracy”. And if there’s a person a day complaining, that means there are many more who are affected but don’t try to get the Times to do something about it.

  • Dave

    great post danny.

    while i’m certainly no stranger to the F-bomb in my blogging, i can appreciate why Robert’s posts & videos shitting all over SEO might get you all hot & bothered (justifiably so). i think he’s oversimplifying some of the issues, and Search isn’t disappearing from the web horizon anytime soon.

    i do share Robert’s enthusiasm for Facebook, however i don’t believe i agree with either he or Jason on SEO. i still think it’s a huge driver for relevance, visibility, and — from an internet marketing standpoint — overall customer acquisition.

    that said, i do think there is a notable shift going on in how people discover new content & information, and that there’s no question that social networks in general (& facebook in particular) are gaining an increasing market share of user attention.

    what remains to be seen is whether Google (& Yahoo & Microsoft) can co-opt social networking & the Social Graph and implement it internally via their existing services in a relevant & functional way, or whether Facebook (& MySpace & others) present them with a challenge they have to consider a YouTube-style acquisition in order to stay at the forefront of user mindshare.

    personally i don’t know the answer to that one, but i will say that Facebook & Google are the 2 companies i spend most of my time watching & thinking about these days… and i bet i’m not alone ;)

    - dave mcclure

  • Scott Smigler

    Danny this is a great post for a few reasons – but what I like most about it is that3 you’re obviously passionate about search and you’re a stalwart for our industry. Thank you.

    As for your points I agree with most everything you’ve said. The only thing I really disagree with is one of the premises of your argument that because it didn’t work before it probably won’t work now. User’s evolve – situations evolve. How many great business plans formulated in the 90′s never took off that are taking off now? I would speculate many. People just weren’t ready then. Timing is everything. There is no such thing as creative brilliance, the most powerful ideas are those whose time has come.

    Again – I agree with your conclusions – but I do think the idea of social search, if it is implemented right, good be a force that we all (including Google and Yahoo!) have to face. Competition is good. Google is great at search but they have never REALLY been tested. Yahoo! has been tested often and they have survived, and I think Google will to, as long as they don’t forget where their real money comes from.

    Oh yea – and if anyone thinks they are going to put SEOs out of business, they are fooling themselves. As long as businesses demand exposure SEOs will find a way to give them what they want, and the same goes for independent SEOs. We’re a resourceful bunch:)


  • Danny Sullivan

    @seth: That New York Times piece deserved better attention, but I was pretty tired after Scoble. But if I had time, I would have ripped it to shreds even more. I came away with the distinct impression the ombudsman really didn’t understand SEO that well — what he “meant” to say to me is exactly what he wrote. He’s a journalist, and an ombudsman especially knows he’s going to be closely watched. In addition, when I did the search, I got to an archive page that listed both the original article and the follow-up — a good result. Did he see the same? Overall, the concerns people have about content showing up that might harm their reputation is real. But that’s not a new issue — and it’s an issue that I think the NYT can totally handle.

    @Scott & Dave: social has huge promise. I thought so when I originally wrote about it as part of my pieces on Eurekster and My Yahoo, and it’s still out there. I’m mainly saying that will be part of the puzzle going forward rather than the revolution alone, which Robert seemed to suggest.

  • Seth Finkelstein

    Danny, my standards for journalism have gotten remarkably low. These days, if nobody gets hurt, I ignore the rest. You are absolutely right, the guy did not understand the intricacies of a complicated topic. But, for me, there’s little point in complaining about it, at best I’d be ignored and dismissed, at worst it’d be taken as evidence of unreasonableness. You are arguably in a different position. And I understand “SEO”, like “hacker” (and for me, “censorware”) is a linguistic battleground. However, I still tend to believe that inveighing against their garbled explanation of the problem is distracting from the problem itself.

    The NYT can indeed totally handle the issue technically, but don’t underestimate the difficulties culturally. That’s what the article really is about. That’s what missed if it’s regarded as “That ignoramus said “SEO” instead of “high trust ranking”, and why can’t they just update the pages?” – the article is in fact about, culturally, why just updating the pages isn’t a no-brainer.

    Don’t assume these people are just plain stupid. Grant them a presumption of knowing their own domain of expertise, maintaining a “paper of record”.

    On the specifics, check out Jon Garfunkel’s post:

  • PaulReilly

    Great post.. I do like an explosive rant :)

    Personally I didn’t see Mahalo as any kind of search engine.

    On the surface it doesn’t seem scalable, but then.. neither did wikipedia back in the day…

    …and who would have thought that facebook would have grown into what it is today.

    One thing I can be sure of… is that things change!

    Every now and then a paradigm shift occurs.

    Paul Reilly

  • Danny Sullivan

    Seth, I totally agree, they have a culture issue as well. And they need to deal with that, if they’re going to be doing online journalism in the 2000s :)

  • Eric Lander

    Danny, this is an incredible post and one that I will certainly reference in the immediate future.

    With that said, I’d like to officially join your army if there’s a war on the horizon. I’ve had it out with Calacanis in the past on my blog — to which he (tried) to counter. The end result though was nothing more than his continual plug for Mahalo, exposing more holes in his clearly skewed logic.

    Great post, great information — and I’m happy you represent the industry as you do.

  • Kalena

    Don’t mind me. I just dropped by to see if the rumors were true you had used the F word. They are and I’m strangely proud.

  • Rocky Agrawal


    Great analysis on both topics.

    As a former online newspaper guy, I see some big issues here. In the news business, the archives are called “the morgue”. Now that the Times is bringing stories back to life by surfacing them for crawling, I think there’s a greater responsibility to ensure that corrections are prominent and viewable.

    In the current set up, it’s quite likely that you would see a (free) headline that says “Justin Smith accused of molesting a child”. But you’d have to pay $4.99 to see the correction that says, oops, “The Times incorrectly reported the name. John Smith is accused of molesting a child. The Times regrets the error.”

    I went back and looked at two egregious cases of Times errors – Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. Even on stories where the Times KNOWS it seriously screwed up, the corrections are either not applied or are buried.

    More detail on what I found:

  • AndrewGoodman

    Danny, I’m worried about my next SEL column. The profanity bar has been raised! :)

    But seriously, thanks for covering alll of the many relevant points here, especially the key bit about “FBO” :)

  • searchingDOT

    Danny – I agree with you. We don’t have to run out and find real jobs just yet :)

    What a post – and the language!
    I am just joking – its great to make this a conversation vs. just “Clash of the Titans”

    I added my 2 cents on my blog:

  • Neal Richter

    I just posted on this topic here:

    Prediction: Mahalo and ChaCha will suffer from the same fate as Expert Systems.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest


Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States


Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech

Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!



Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide