Quality Leads and Search Engines - Part Four
There are a number of services emerging
through the Internet which are capable
of generating link-leads much more
quickly and proficiently than many
search engines and directories are able
to accomplish. The kind of link-leads
provided by these alternative, newer
services often come with an explicit or
implicit personal testimonial about the
value or quality of such leads - something
which tends to be absent from the
link-leads provided by most search
engines and directories since, as
indicated previously, most of these latter
services are not concerned with making
sure that the links which they generate in
response to queries will possess quality
or value.
For example, one - but not the only -
reason why e-zines are enjoying
popularity is because subscribers to
these publications frequently are
provided with links to Web Sites which
have been found to be of considerable
value and interest to the editor or writer
who is recommending that the reader
take a look at such links. Conceivably,
one could spend a great deal of time with
search engines and directories and, still,
never find one's way to what is being
recommended through an e-zine, and if
one did arrive at the doorstep of this kind
of Web Page via a search engine or
directory, more often than not, this
discovery would be the result of a series
of fortuitous happenings which are
difficult to grasp and hold onto in an
methodical way for future use.
In addition, just as one can say with
respect to certain aspects of the
computer world, garbage in/garbage out,
so to, one often finds in the realm of
link-leads that quality begets quality. In
other words, once a person finds a Web
Site exhibiting properties having value,
scope, interest, and so on, then, this
individual generally will discover that the
links one finds at such a Site can be used
as a launching pad to further Web Pages
of quality.
Once again, an individual might have to
spend a lot of frustrating, fruitless time
with a search engine or directory to be
able to find one's way to these Sites. And,
more often than not, one might never
discover such Pages through engaging a
search engine or directory because, for
whatever reasons, these Pages, even if
they are in a search engine's data base,
are not readily visible to the public since
they do not fit into the algorithmic
"logic" through which search engines
make URLs visible to inquiries.
There are still further services present,
in one form or another, on the Internet
which approach the generation of
link-leads in ways that also frequently
prove to be more fruitful and efficient
than the methods entailed by most search
engines and directories. These services
might be a foreshadowing, to some
extent, of a future trend on the Web.
About.com or Suite 101, together with a
number of other similar services, are all
variations on several themes which, in
effect, constitute a challenge to the
monopoly that, up until now, has been
enjoyed by search engines and
directories. One of the common themes
linking these services - although each of
them may approach the situation in a
way that is unique to the service in
question - revolves around giving
importance to the quality of the leads
that are to be provided to a surfer.
Formal properties - such as meta tags,
alt tags, headers, and so on - assume far
less importance in these services than is
the case in relation to the vast majority
of search engines and directories.
Moreover, from the perspective of these
newer, link-lead generating services, the
value of a Web Page may have little to
do with how many other Sites link to that
Web Page.
These services do not send out spiders or
bots to explore Web Sites. They send
human beings.
These people primarily are concerned
with the quality of information contained
in a Web Site. Quality may involve
elements such as: accuracy, style, rigor,
detail, practical value, insight, timeliness,
scholarship, aesthetic dimensions,
relevance, dynamic properties, heuristic
value, capacity to provoke reflection or
discussion, and so on.
A given search engine may contain Sites
exhibiting some of the aforementioned
qualities, but there is no guarantee that
the algorithms governing the way these
search engines are organized will be able
to lead surfers to the Sites which possess
this sort of quality. After all, the
principles and logic that constrain
keyword searches in these engines tend
to be tied to formal and quantitative
features which may be connected to
quality in only an incidental or accidental
manner since there is no necessary,
inherent connection between the
presence of, say, a good meta tag format
and the presence of quality in a Web
Page containing such meta tags.
Services like Suite 101 and About.com make concerted efforts to
eliminate the garbage, misinformation,
and repetitions that tend to clog-up many
search engines and which, therefore,
undermine the effectiveness of the latter.
Furthermore, these services take the
time to discover, evaluate and direct the
attention of surfers to Web Sites which
are not likely to have high visibility or
positioning in many, if not most, search
engines and directories.
One of the features which tends to set
Yahoo apart from its competitors in the
search engine/directory game is the fact
that Yahoo supplements whatever
algorithms it uses to manage its data
base with human beings. These
employees actually visit a Web Page
candidate and attempt to determine,
among other things, whether the
self-description of directory applicants is
accurate, misleading, or even false.
Nevertheless, there still are several
things which I find problematic with the
Yahoo service. First of all, the criteria
used by Yahoo to organize its data base -
and, therefore, shape the sort of matches
that come back from keyword queries -
is pretty much a black box whose inner
workings largely remain a mystery to the
public.
Presumably, one of the reasons for
obscuring these criteria is to prevent,
say, Web-positioning consultants and
Websteaders from learning how to
construct a Web Site so that it will
appeal to Yahoo and, as a result, enjoy a
higher visibility in its "matched"
response to keyword searches of the
Yahoo data base. Surely, however, if the
primary concern of Yahoo actually were
quality, then what difference would it
make to reveal the criteria of quality on
which judgements concerning inclusions
in the Yahoo data base are rooted?
Matters might be simiplified considerably
if Yahoo were to clearly state something
along the following lines. If you want to
have a chance of high visibility in Yahoo
listings, then produce a Web Site that
has x, y, z characteristics of quality and
quit spending your money on
Web-positioning consultants and
software, or wasting your time reading
articles about how to score higher in
search engine visibility by tweaking
features having little, or nothing, to do
with issues of quality.
By doing their impersonation of the
Wizard of Oz and operating from behind
a curtain of mystery, Yahoo may,
alternatively, impress and/or intimidate a
lot of people but, in reality, this way of
going about things also tends to
undermine its own credibility in the
process. This is because one has no idea
of what the significance of the
"matches" are that are returned in
response to keyword queries of its data
base.
Why do some Web Sites have more
visibility in Yahoo than do others? Is the
difference a matter of quality, or is it due
to certain other, purely incidental and
irrelevant considerations?
Moreover, if these differences in ranking
are due to properties of quality, then why
not state what these are. This would
permit people to discontinue engaging in
web-positioning strategies that
emphasize form over substance.
At the present time, Yahoo is so
powerful, it may be indifferent to what
people think about the mysterious way in
which it goes about things. However,
what goes around, may, yet, come
around, and, in time, Yahoo may find
that its current opaque methods and
modus operandi will lead it into a
cul-de-sac of irrelevance with respect to
a medium which, in many fundamental
ways, emphasizes the sort of
transparency that permits people to
make informed decisions and not force
them to have to wander about like the
drunk in the aforementioned story.
If Yahoo or other search
engine/directory organizations really
wanted to, they easily could end the
game of hide and seek between, on the
one hand, search engine placement
consultants or creators of
placement/submission software, and, on
the other hand, various search engines
and directories. All they would have to
do is add an algorithm which, from time
to time, scrambled the order in which
Web Pages are listed with respect to any
given keyword or keyword combination.
This could be done even in those cases
where search engines give weighted
probabilities to the degree of any given
keyword match. One merely scrambles
the order of the listings within certain
ranges of probabilities so that, for
example, all of the listings that came up
as representing, say, a 90% match with
respect to the specified search
parameters would be scrambled, while
those listings that indicated, say, a 80%
match with the given search parameters
also would be scrambled but within their
own probability range, and, therefore,
different probability ranges would not be
mixed up.
The process of scrambling the listings
would have several important
ramifications. First, it would level the
playing field and prevent those who have
money from monopolizing search
engine/directory rankings just because
the former have the money to do so and
not necessarily because they have quality
information to offer.
Secondly, if one were to scramble the
rankings from time to time so that far
more Web Sites had the opportunity of
appearing in the top twenty for even a
relatively brief period of time than
presently is the case, one would be
pulling out the carpet from beneath all of
the trickery presently going on through
which people are trying to gain unfair
ranking advantages with the search
engines and directories. If people making
submissions understood that no manner
of trickery or technological cleverness
could guarantee them of appearing high
in the rankings, then, perhaps, all of the
current foolishness would stop and
search engines and directories would not
have to constantly be required to weed
out misleading from useful information,
and, moreover, perhaps the search
engines and directories could be a lot
more forthcoming in spelling out the
properties and qualities which they were
looking for in order to develop a good
data base.
Finally, periodically scrambling the order
in which the results from keyword
searches were presented might also have
a salutary impact on the understanding
of those who use the search engines and
directories. If these people knew that the
order of appearance of the listings for a
given keyword were often scrambled,
then maybe they would come to
appreciate the fact (which also is
presently the case) that what appears in
the first 15 or 20 listings are nothing
more than possible leads concerning the
sort of information for which these
individuals might be looking.
Such people might even be encouraged to
come back to a given search engine or
directory on other occasions in order to
see what set of listings came up at later
times for the same keyword search.
Search engines/directories likely would
benefit from the increased traffic, as
would advertisers, Web Page owners
and surfers.
Another facet of Yahoo that seems
rather problematic - and this is a
difficulty which Yahoo shares with many
other search engines and directories -
concerns the sheer size of its data base.
Bigger is not always better, even when
the whole is broken down into a variety
of sub-categories as Yahoo and other
search engines/directories do.
One of the ironies of the information age
is that the sheer quantity of information
creates a multiplicity of access problems
in which needed information often cannot
be found, or it can be located only with
considerable difficulty. In many ways, if
information cannot be rendered visible,
then, for all practical purposes, the
information does not exist.
This fact, of course, is the reason why
one of the growth industries of today,
and tomorrow, revolves around those
Information Technology (IT) activities
which are capable of unearthing hidden
treasures in the depths of mountains of
information that are increasing in size at
an exponential rate. In short, before one
can even begin to think about how to use
information, one has to be able to find it,
and people or methods able to
accomplish this are a valued commodity
in a complex world.
A search engine data base containing,
say, ten million URLs is not necessarily
more valuable than an URL collection
containing 4, 5 or 6 thousand Web
entries. This is especially so if a search
engine provides only a very limited, and,
possibly complicated, means of making
various Web Sites within the
millions-fold data base visible or
accessible to the surfing public .
Indeed, the techniques for teasing out
information from various search engines
often approaches something akin to a
black art. The vast majority of Web
surfers are not prepared to spend the
time, or make the effort, required to
become an apprentice to those artisans
of legerdemain who are capable of
practicing such "occult" works.
A much smaller collection of URLs (such
as Gamut, about.com or Suite 101) that
has been carefully selected and
well-organized can provide a surfer with
a set of manageable choices among
highly visible and accessible quality leads
and, as such, may have a greater power
and value than a much larger collection
of URLs. In fact, these smaller
collections may serve as the prototype
for the sort of "smart-URL collections"
which could become fundamental
resources for future Web surfers.
In a way, when properly fashioned, these
sort of small URL collections have the
capacity to serve as Information
Technology's counterpart to a rapid
deployment force in the military. When
problems in information processing
arise, or when one is faced with trying to
get a handle on managing,
understanding, or applying such
information, being able to travel lightly,
move quickly, and make surgical strikes
with the right tools may offer a far better
return in relation to one's efforts and
needs, than if one were caught up in the
logistics of undertaking a major research
campaign.
There are quite a few Web Pages being
created today which serve as poor
imitations of the foregoing idea of an
Information Technology rapid
deployment force. These are the
so-called "portals" that various
companies are trying to convince people
to use as start-up Pages from which to
launch one's forays into the depths of the
Internet.
In principle, the central idea of a
"portal" has potential. There is nothing
wrong with, and much to commend,
efforts to provide surfers with a porfolio
of tools and resources that might help
make discovery on the Web an
interesting, easy and enjoyable
experience.
What has gone wrong with this idea is
the manner of execution. The tools and
resources selected for these portals have
been, for the most part, unimaginative,
limited, shallow, tedious, and repetitive.
Most of these portal Pages seem to have
been slapped together with whatever
left-over and/or recyled URLs happen to
be on the shelf. Primarily, most of these
Pages appear to have been built as a
means of grabbing quick advertising
dollars, and in the process, they have
done a disservice to advertisers,
Websteaders, and surfers.
URL collections like Gamut, Suite 101,
About.com are far more user-friendly
than are most, if not all, search engines
and directories, since, for the most part,
one only has to point and click. There is
no fooling around with keywords which
may, or may not, work, nor is there any
need to waste time sorting through the
"matches" since other knowledgeable
people already have done that for you.
On the other hand, URL collections such
as the aforementioned ones provide you
with a far greater depth, sophistication
and richness of choice than do virtually
any of the portal candidates one cares to
consider. As such, they offer the best of
both worlds without any of the
limitations or problems entailed by most
search engines, directories or portals.
If the people who generate smaller URL
collections are creative, insightful,
knowledgeable, balanced, disciplined and
thorough, then such collections have the
potential to meet the needs and interests
of surfers, as well as provide an
intelligent array of options to be explored
by these surfers, rather than require
surfers to be forced-fed the kind of
artificially generated and organized URL
collections which currently are reflected
in most search engines, directories, and
portals. Consequently, these smaller
collections have the opportunity to be far
more dynamic, responsive, flexible and
interactive than any of the current
version of search engines, directories, or
portals have the capacity to be, and, for
those who are able to accomplish this,
they help to create a win-win-win-win
situation for surfers, Websteaders,
advertisers, and a given URL collection.
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Next |
Return to Internet Menu
|
