On my LinkedIn profile, which is a little barren and has a goofy picture, one of the skills listed is procedural SEO ((search engine optimisation (or optimization) for those not familiar)). Now, there’s a massive amount of people who know SEO, spanning across all levels of knowledge.
As you may expect, procedural SEO has to do with process (a buzzword that I try in all circumstances to avoid in normal conversation). It’s optimisation of a process which inputs into the creation of positive search ranking factors.
A business is creating brochures for offline use. Introducing the process of adding this content to their website is procedural SEO. Taking something which was never intended for online use to create new search coverage, greater depth of content, opportunity to clarify a website’s main topic or offering.
Putting in place the process of using offline content on a website is not only SEO, it’s asset optimisation, getting greater return from the initial investment for creating the brochures. Sounding all a bit financial?
Process optimisation is not limited to Search. Switch to any industry and merit emerges. Procedural design, medicine, wine tasting . As touched on in a previous post on collaboration being more important than data, if we connected these different skill-sets, outlooks, what could be achieved? Industries are at different levels of evolution. What processes could mining engineers (centuries old) bring to the table when collaborating with space travel? Or vice versa. Someone who has researched process optimisation, what great insights they could supply to this blog post? Staggering when you think about it. How far this internet lark (the concept) can go!
Myself, I don’t want to be underwhelmed. I don’t want to receive sub-standard when it matters. When I ask a sommelier which is the best wine on the menu? Firstly, I’d hope the first response would be “what do you like?”. After this please share your knowledge to empower my decision.
As close as possible to 100% comprehensive wine knowledge suits me. Which raises a question, with so many self-proclaimed experts around, what level of comprehension in a subject should one have to be considered an expert? Standardising expertise – interesting topic.
I know as much as I’ve learnt, I’ve seen, I can theorise and fathom. Beyond that – I don’t know. Perhaps that’s where you can help?
Google’s quest to answer user’s search queries immediately — or moreover control as much of user’s time online (hello AOL!) for data capture and ad serving — draws the possibility of Google’s search results pages turn into Wikipedia-esque landing pages, providing every detail possible.
Why go anywhere else?
We’re already seeing the fledglings of this with the Knowledge Graph:
Google’s issue with search is irrelevance ((not boredom or lack of visuals – I (right now) use Google for its functionality)). In the life-cycle of a search query sequence, how many search results do you interact with? Normally one, possibly two, sometimes three if you’re a ‘open in new tab’ kind of person, before starting a new trail by rephrasing your query.
70% of what Google is showing to user’s in the search results is irrelevant. This isn’t about understanding the user’s query, advancing this is 100% beneficial for everyone, it’s about Google making a choice – follow best practice landing page optimisation or maintain integrity with its original goals.
Google is BIG. They have a lot of mouths to feed. The amount of people with resolve will be diluted by people who follow conventional business models and practises. Inevitably along this chain many will bow to taking the easy option, sacrificing integrity for quick return, releasing pressure off their own backs. It’s human nature and an easy out when you have no buy-in to the ideals that were created by the two founders, back wherever they started their initial conversations of creating the search engine. That moment is important – think about it.
Adjusting the concept, empowering it with greater expertise is evolution, something which needs to happen. But balance is crucial. Roll it out, test it, don’t be afraid to transparently and say we were wrong, here’s why, so we’re changing back, what do you think?
When the actual search results start going below the fold and 99% of content loops back to Google’s own properties (example – [arsenal team]), the threat to Wikipedia can be perceived.
Google is even not linking to or crediting where the data is coming from re: Arsenal’s fixtures.
To ensure close to 100% relevance, Google will need to provide comprehensive information. This is Wikipedia.
Google improving their product benefits everyone, this is more about integrity and transparency. Attribute value fairly, openly and honestly to all have helped form your product. Build credibility with users and websites through collaboration, rather than veiled mystery and abusing their assets in the search results pages.