Personalized Search Versus Personal Choice

Written by Kevin Kantola

Personalized search is a hot topic especially since Yahoo! and Microsoft have announced they are aggressively developing this service. Most likely, people will be leery of personalized search if they think that this is just be another way for companies to market to them. Search engine research has shown that there are typically two types of searchers: information seekers and buyers.

Information Seekers

If personalized search is to work forrepparttar information seekers, then instead of lots of targeted marketing,repparttar 127892 personalized search experience had better offer targeted information thatrepparttar 127893 person can use. A better information search experience without having to bypass a slew of commercial sites would appeal torepparttar 127894 information seeker.


What if you already haverepparttar 127895 information you need or don't want any information, but just want to make an online purchase? For buyers, information-only sites are something to be by-passed inrepparttar 127896 SERP's. If personalized search can deliverrepparttar 127897 products and servicesrepparttar 127898 buyer wants, and not just whatrepparttar 127899 marketers want to push before them, then buyers may find some value in personalized search.

Personal Choice

Personalized search must involve personal choice if it is to succeed. The Big Brother and privacy issues need to be held to a minimum. Personalized search needs to be an option that can easily be turned on and off as desired. Personalized search should not be equated with limited choices. The person needs to feel that they are in control and notrepparttar 127900 search engines. They also need to see real personal value in using this service.

What if a person is sometimes an information seeker and other times a buyer, or inrepparttar 127901 matter of seconds they switch hats? How will personalized search accommodate this person? Willrepparttar 127902 person have to toggle back and forth between a couple of different user profiles or click on and off a checkbox to switch between these two different forms of search? These are questionsrepparttar 127903 SE's will have to address in personalization.

Google Bombing or Legitimate SEO?

Written by Mike Banks Valentine

Today I visitedrepparttar WebProWorld forums and stumbled across a topic "New Google Bombing Technique" and was startled to see thatrepparttar 127891 topic had been viewed over 22,000 times! It is by farrepparttar 127892 most active ofrepparttar 127893 forums inrepparttar 127894 "Search Engine Insider Reports" section.

This article is simply my response to that discussion thread and I hope it helps cool offrepparttar 127895 heat being generated there. Google Bombing Discussion

The general gist ofrepparttar 127896 conversation suggests that appending a question mark ? or a pound sign # followed by a keyword phrase, torepparttar 127897 end of an embedded link in a web site could lead to ranking a site atrepparttar 127898 top for that search phrase. An example is given of top rank for a particular phrase, then immediately forum members post their own URL's inrepparttar 127899 discussion replies, usingrepparttar 127900 technique to link back to their own sites with their own targeted search terms in an attempt to gain advantage withrepparttar 127901 technique, many times with odd or obscure terms. This "new" so-called "#Google-Bombing" technique is simply a routine SEO strategy that has been used for years by pros. When we optimize a site for a client, we include keywords wherever possible withinrepparttar 127902 visible page text. The top priority is ALWAYS page text and title tags. From there on, ALL uses of additional techniques are only incremental in value and don't dramatically affect ranking for targeted keyword phrases.

I demonstraterepparttar 127903 ease of ranking for obscure terms on a page where I discussrepparttar 127904 foolishness of SEO guarantees by includingrepparttar 127905 phrase, "screeching camels" one time onrepparttar 127906 page in visible text. Screeching Camels There are no keyword or description metatags on that page, yet it ranks number one at Google when you search for "Screeching Camels". That is not Google bombing. A one-time use of a keyword phrase on a page got this number one ranking for that phrase simply because it is an absurdly rare phrase. Use of irrelevant and misleading keyword phrase stuffing in keyword metatags, in comment tags <.!-- keyword stuffing --> (leading period used in examples to allow display without embedding links in HTML email) and in ridiculous "invisible text" (using textrepparttar 127907 same color asrepparttar 127908 background) got abusive and sorepparttar 127909 search engines began to penalize those who did those things. They will always attempt to banrepparttar 127910 obsessive cheaters and keyword stuffing liars.

The ? and # technique has always been used legitimately for ?tracking-referrers, calling ?search-terms and #jump-links to take you to a named anchor within a page. Now obsessive webmasters are attempting to userepparttar 127911 technique to increase their own search engine rankings. Sometimes when I link OUT to a site, I append ?WebSite101 torepparttar 127912 tail end ofrepparttar 127913 URL simply to let them know whererepparttar 127914 visitor came from (referrer) when they view their logs or use a traffic analysis or tracking service.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use