The Searchable Web - Ecosystem and Mechanism
Posted by Michael Martinez on February 7, 2008 in Advanced SEO
The Searchable Web is a three-point ecosystem. There are Web Publishers, Web Indexers, and Web Searchers bound together in an inextricable symbiotic relationship with each other.
You cannot have content without indexing, you cannot have searching without indexing, you cannot index without content, and there is no point in creating content or indexing it if no one is interested in the content.
These symbiotic groups don’t feed on each other. Instead, they are all cannibalistic: they only feed on their own kind. Searchers help other searchers find content. Indexers absorb and integrate other indexes. Publishers republish content, absorb other publishers, or copy other publishers’ ideas. That is, we grow as searchers, indexers, and publishers by interacting with other people doing similar things.
Within each group there are specialists: Web Publishers include content creators, content promoters, and content killers. Indexers include content reviewers, index managers, and index killers. Searchers include content finders, content consumers, and content dismissers.
Each group ultimately has two powers: a positive, nurturing power to create, make visible, or share content and a negative, destructive power to destroy, hide, or denigrate content.
Of course, Matt Cutts falls into all three groups but he is only in a single state when he writes on his blog, he is only in a single state when he helps manage or improve Google’s index, and he is only in a single state when he searches the Web for neat stuff. We are all like Matt Cutts. In this Searchable Web Ecosystem model, we are all Matt Cutts.
If I create a Web site, I am a publisher. If I create a site search tool — even using nothing more than an embeddable search box provided by Ask, Google, Live, or Yahoo! — I am an indexer. If I use those search engines — or my search tool — to look for my content or someone else’s content, I am a searcher. I AM the Searchable Web Ecosystem. So are you. We all are.
Ecosystems follow natural laws. They seek to be self-sustaining. An ecosystem that cannot perpetuate itself devolves into chaos and ceases to exist. Ecosystems evolve to conform to the restraints of their environments. That is why what is now India once was the bottom of an ocean and what is now the Sahara Desert once was a lush and fertile savannah. Poland has a small desert region that was created by deforestation in the Middle Ages, and there are creatures that have — in only a few hundred years — learn to thrive in that desert region.
The Searchable Web follows similar natural laws. As the environment of the Web changes, publishers, indexers, and searchers all evolve. The Web environment is defined by the technology that creates it: software and hardware that allow us to share thoughts and ideas across thousands of miles without ever seeing each other is constantly being updated and replaced. Each day, in subtle, small evolutionary steps, our Web environment gradually changes.
A year from now we’ll be creating content we never conceived of before. We’ll be indexing content in ways we never thought to. We’ll be looking for content we never knew existed or could exist.
As Ecosystems change — especially as their environments change — some members of the Ecosystems fall behind the rest and “die off”. We’ve had mass extinctions even on the Web. Remebmer the dot-com meltdown of 2000-2001? A lot of Web sites that once existed are now gone. A lot of search engines that once existed are now gone. Even many Web searchers have long since left the Web, some because they lost acces, some because they passed away, and some because they got tired of it.
And as Ecosystems grow they develop new members, sub-species of species, isolated communities that break away from the rest and form new micro-Ecosystems, etc. We have evolved as content publishers, indexers, and searchers. Today people help each other search in ways we never imagined ten years ago through user-generated content sites, social bookmarking sites, and other user-oriented tools.
When you look at the Searchable Web as a living Ecosystem it becomes less predictable, more chaotic, more unfocused through the narrow lense of search engine optimization. The Searchable Web is larger than any conjecture about why your search results just tanked or zoomed. The Searchable Web is only as understandable and as managable as the theory behind your principles.
For example, you can describe the Searchable Web as being a mechanism comprised of four components:
- The content you publish
- The content other people publish
- The search engines that index content
- The searches people perform to find content
While that may sound familiar, it’s a slightly different way of looking at the only universal explanation for why your search traffic changes. When you view the Searchable Web as a mechanism with four primary components, you can look at how the mechanism operates by identifying the channels and connection points between the four components.
Your content may have more connections to searches than to indexes (you’ve optimized for queries but cannot get indexed).
Your content may have more connections to other people’s content than to indexes (you’ve built linking relationships but you cannot get indexed).
Your content may have more connections to indexes than to other people’s content (you’re indexed but no one links to you).
You can start to look at the mechanism in this way to determine if there are broken connections (or channels), inefficient connections or channels, or superslick, high-performance connections. The Searchable Web is a huge mechanism and some parts of it can break down quietly amid all the noise of activity. Your content may be in one of those parts that breaks down.
Breakdowns inside the mechanism don’t usually last long but their durations can seem interminable to people whose content has become lost in the broken gears and cables.
Whether you think of the Searchable Web as an Ecosystem or a mechanism, there is a ceaseless movement toward establishing natural balance. The more you understand your role in the larger system, the less vulnerable you feel to unexpected changes in the environment around you. Those changes affect everyone around you, and they even affect people thousands of miles away.
We are constantly working to heal or repair the damage that the Ecosystem mechanism has suffered through loss and change. We are constantly working to adapt to the new environment, to the changing Ecosystem mechanism, and to the changes we experience in our content, in our indexing, and in our searching.
Some people might call this outlook the basis of Holistic Search Engine Optimization, in which your goal should be to find the right place in which to integrate new content and the right ways to inspire new searches. Relevance can be created through new initiatives, but most SEOs spend relatively little time creating relevance.
We create relevant content but Relevance consists of three components: content, indexing, and queries. That is, if you create content about Snarple Bargers and get it indexed, you have no relevance until people start searching for Snarple Bargers. Once the content, indexing, and queries come together Relevance has been established. From that point onward, the Ecosystem mechanism strives to improve relevance until the relevance is no longer useful.
5 Comments on The Searchable Web - Ecosystem and Mechanism
By creativeselfloathing on February 7, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I must admit, Michael, you rarely fail to amuse me. While I don’t always agree, I generally enjoy reading the barely-restrained anger that exists just beneath many of your posts. Today’s is different, though. You seem to have, if only temporarily, attained a state of Google Zen (I use the term Google as a generic here, of course, and don’t mean to imply that you were referencing only Google). It is, I think, very important that we, as web content creators, occasionally examine our own place within the greater search Universe. It’s especially difficult to do this for those of us that concentrate much more on traditional search marketing over social media (which tends to force self-examination, at least if you’re doing it right).
By mugile on February 8, 2008 at 2:57 am
I just wanted to say that I truly love all of your posts. I read them all in diligence.
I have two naive questions for you:
I know that you are very direct and never afraid to disclose what you think about people (even if they don’t like it) and just wondered what do you really think about Matt Cutts? I have a feeling that people in the SEO business over evaluate the important of the things he say, quote him as a proof to their claims etc’. Even you, occasionally quote him as a proof to your claims. Do take everything he says as true? Did you ever test (I bet you did) his guidelines and suggestions?
On a different but correlated topic:
I know that you are calling the SEO community to formulate some SEO standards. If everything Matt Cutts say is true and should be followed by the SEOs, then wouldn’t the Google’s webmasters guidelines (+Matt Cutts blog or interviews) be the standards that you are looking for? I ask this question but have a strong guess what your answer will be.
By Michael Martinez on February 8, 2008 at 6:55 am
mugile: “I know that you are very direct and never afraid to disclose what you think about people (even if they don’t like it) and just wondered what do you really think about Matt Cutts?…”
Michael Martinez: I feel that Matt Cutts has a lot of integrity and is trustworthy in his intentions and efforts. I disagree with his point of view on several issues but unlike some people in the SEO community I feel he advocates Google’s initiatives because he is truly passionate about what Google does.
In the 1990s I took a “glamor” job with a software vendor that was — at the time — the leader in its industry. Because I had written technical papers and was very active in online discussions I became a natural spokesperson for the company, much like Matt is. I even did some conference and road show presentations for them.
But that company made some unfortunate business decisions with which I could not agree. For nearly two years I helped to promote a product line I did not believe in. By the end of the process I was bitter, felt ashamed, and like I had betraye a very loyal customer base.
I know how hard it is to be a public face for a company that makes unpopular choices. Matt takes a lot of heat and in my opinion he handles that pressure better than I do. I respect him immensely for his professionalism and grace under fire.
As for testing what Matt says, I’m not sure I follow you. I have conducted many tests to see what the Google algorithm might tolerate. I’ve never tried to catch Matt in a lie. He is under such intense scrutiny that if he ever does intentionally lie I think he’ll be caught out.
He does support Google’s official position on why people buy links, and I feel that Google is either extremely naive or very misleading on the topic. But I don’t hold Matt responsible for that point of view.
mugile: “I know that you are calling the SEO community to formulate some SEO standards. If everything Matt Cutts say is true and should be followed by the SEOs, then wouldn’t the Google’s webmasters guidelines (+Matt Cutts blog or interviews) be the standards that you are looking for?…”
Michael: I’ve been thinking about this for some time (obviously) and I may try to write something before the SMX West conference that explains my views a little more clearly.
Most people associate “standards” with SEO certification. Certification is part of what standards will bring but there is more to a professional standard than taking a test.
People in the SEO community are not very good at discerning the smoke-and-mirrors arguments from more well-thought out arguments. A passionate advocate can make any product seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread.
If we’re going to adopt standards then we need to address the need for sharing information. There needs to be a minimum requirement for what makes a presentation credible and comment-worthy.
There are some pretty well-known, highly respected, very popular SEO bloggers who are regarded as “authorities” and “experts” in the field. They largely write crap on their blogs and I wouldn’t pay them a dime for SEO advice. But I don’t call them out by name or pick on their posts because we have no published standards that show these industry leaders are just average guys who happen to have large subscriber bases.
Standards don’t have to be perfect. They just have to draw a line that the community respects and if they need to be improved they come with a system that helps people improve them.
Some of the stuff I share is considered to be pretty radical. But I can almost guarantee you that 70% of what you see on SEO Theory for the first time will become standard SEO pundit commentary within a year or two. I’m not the only person who raises these issues, so eventually all the “A List SEO Bloggers” will join the small band of voices advocating different ideas that today seem “contrarian”.
I read Rae’s link survey with all the “experts”, like many of you did. I agreed with much of what they were saying because, after all, I’ve been writing similar things here on SEO Theory for over a year. And I disagreed with their blind faith promotion of the unproven NoFollow tactic.
That’s what a lack of standards does to this industry: it leads people to give conflicting advice like “internal links are important” and “use NoFollow to sculpt PageRank”.
A spring cannot send forth both bitter water and sweet. It’s time this industry stopped muddying the waters and started cleaning up its act.
It’s time people in the SEO industry put together a list of requirements for making credible statements.
By mugile on February 8, 2008 at 10:39 am
Michael,
Thank you for your thorough answer.
I think I understand your point about SEO standards better now. You are speaking about the standards the SEOs should adopt in order to be called SEO and sell their services to clients.
I truly familiar with several SEO people and services that don’t worth the money spent for them and definitely agree with your point.
I think that you can compare the SEO business to Real estate. While anyone can sell a house there are certain criteria that one should follow in order to be a real estate agent (at least in Israel – where I come from). Those standards were created (long time ago) by the real estate agents themselves. Can you see the similarities? You always say that SEO training and diplomas that ones get doesn’t worth the paper it is written on. Do you think that after formulating SEO standards, such training should be available to those who would like to become SEOs?
Thank you again
By Michael Martinez on February 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm
SEO training today is better than it was (in general) a few years ago. I can only believe it will continue to improve. Industry standards will at least help level the playing field because people will be able to ask trainers if they meet the minimum requrements.
Standards-based certification only establishes a minimum level of knowledge has been proven. You know with certification that someone can perform some basic functions and perhaps understand and explain some concepts.
The depth and detail behind the certification obviously varies from industry to industry.
But we need to move away from the “Download this eBook I wrote” and SEO for Dipsticks quality reference works and compile some really thorough training books.
SEMPO was created with this hope in mind but some people in the industry are disappointed with SEMPO and some people (including me) feel the SEMPO structure is not really adequate.
You need a certain amount of openness in the exchange of knowledge in order for a true science to develop. If the only people who have access to knowledge are card-carrying members of the Good Ole Boys Organization, you’ll never build a credible authority.
On the other hand, someone has to pay for the work that needs to be done. A membership-based society which holds its own annual conferences and publishes one or more professional publications can justify creating perks for paying members while providing the public forum for exchange of information.
Comment
Log in or Register to post a comment.