Less is More

One of the fascinating trends of the 21st century (more or less) is the fact that “less is more”. This saying has been around for a long time, but this decade has brought it to new heights. In our industry there are two stunning examples. One of the best examples is Google:

Google Home Page

A quick spot check shows that Google currently has a market cap of $163 Billion. As we all know, a lot of technology goes into allowing Google to provide such a simple interface, and also to put them in the market leading position they occupy. But, for the user, one of the major advantages of the service is simplicity. Another great example is Twitter:

Twitter

Where else can you find a company without a revenue model that is valued at one billion dollars? Here the nature of how less is offered is a bit different. The limitation is that you can only enter 140 characters. This limit seems to drive people to particpate, because they can dash off a quick note really easily. Of course, the real time nature of the platform is important as well, but the “limitation” to 140 characters is actually a feature. I would assert that if the box allowed you to enter 400 characters that usage would drop quickly.

People want simple. There is too much complexity in the modern world. Information and advertising is coming at us from everywhere, and there is no reason to believe it will slow down. This also causes us to want to lean on personal recommendations from others more. Talking to someone who already has the product and seeing how they liked it is another defense mechanism, but that is not the subject of this post.

In the case of Google and Twitter, the utter simplicity of the products is a big key to their success. Just let me do what I want, do it quickly, and don’t flood me lots of other stuff I don’t care about. Key to this is that the functions served are in high enough demand. For Google, people just want to be able to search the web. They don’t want Google to provide content, just lists of web sites. With Twitter, I don’t want to write a book, or even a blog post, I just want to have real time connectivity with my friends / associates where all I need to do is send off quick notes.

A third example worth mentioning is texting. Many teenagers simply don’t bother with email, or even using phones to make calls. Too many features. Texting is sufficient, even on those phones where I have only a numeric keypad. Besides, this way I can use the same small device to communicate at home, the office, or while on the road.

Of course, less is not always better. There are times when the additional features are desirable. So when is less more? If a large number of people would say this about an activity: “I simply want to do __________ without any hassle”, you have an opportunity for less to be big. Will this trend continue? Our world’s complexity is not going down (it is increasing). The conclusion?

You can expect to see a lot more, of less, in the future.

Obscuring the Algorithm

The Google algorithm is evolving. Gone are the days when you can read a single patent, or a document like the PageRank thesis writen by Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin to figure out how it all works.

That PageRank paper was at the time a revolutionary algorithm, and it launched the dominant search engine of our generation. However, it also launched a generation of spammers. The reason is that people could read the paper and understand how it worked, and then make SEO decisions based around manipulating the algorithm.

But no more. The major search engines will all continue to publish patents, in fact they publish lots of them. As a result, too many new possibilities have arisen, too many new potential rankings signals have been identified.

It becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. You can read through all the patents, but they are not all going to be implemented. For example, is Google going to use SearchWiki to provide them input for rankings purposes?. If so how? And how much weight will it get?

One possibility is to use it as a validation of what link data tells them. A publisher manages to spam their way to very high rankings in Google using some combination of methods for acquiring links. But the web site experience is not very good, and the products or services are perhaps even worse. So over time, the site accumulates lots of negative votes and few positive ones. Can you imagine a search engineer looking at that data and not lowering the rankings for that site?

A short aside on patents

Patents are their own competitive landscape and game. Major companies (such as the search companies) use them as negotiating tools. Many times businesses file patents based on an idea they never intend to implement. It is the intellectual property equivalent of a land grab. It may be a good idea, or even a great one, but that does not guarantee its implementation by the company who files the patent.

However, perhaps one of their large competitors will build something that makes use of concepts that are covered in the patent. That would be a big win, because they can then sue the competitor for patent infringement. Of course, this brings up the next layer of the patent game, which I will illustrate with an example.

Company A sues Company B for violating patent 1243. Company B then delves into its patent portfolio to figure out which patents they can argue that Company A is violating. If Company A and Company B both have large patent portfolios, chances are good that both of them are violating one or more of the other’s patents. As long as there is a balance in the level of violations, the companies work out a cross licensing agreement and move on. Why go through all this trouble? Because it creates a huge barrier to entry for new rivals.

The consequence of this is that all the search engine companies are publishing dozens of patents, loaded with interesting ideas for ranking signals for one of more aspects of their respective algorithms. Yet only some of them will be implemented.

Bottom Line for SEOs

Links are still a huge signal, and they will be for a long time to come. But, search engines are going to introduce more and more signals that will help them improve their algorithms over time. One of the most important aspects of this is the fact that these changes are not known to the public. It is much harder to spam something when you don’t know how it is designed. Getting the algorithm to be secret and unknown again is a strategic objective for Google. Finding a set of signals that offsets the inaccuracies introduced by the practice of buying links to influence search rankings is a must for them.

So while it may sound a bit trite, they are bound and determined to create a world where the winners are the ones that combine the best user experience with the best promotional plan. This is, after all, what is best for users.

Chris Silver Smith Interview: Comment Here

It seems like forever since I last posted an interview. Take this one as a heads up that I do intend to reinvigorate the interview series over the next month or two. They are too much fun to do, and very useful in digging up information on search.

Today I am publishing an interview with Chris Silver Smith of KeyRelevance. It is a great discussion on the ins and outs of local search. A former SuperPages.com employee, Chris has an insider’s knowledge of how this all works. Don’t miss it!

Latest Interview: Eytan Seidman – Comment Here

Search can take many forms. That is what is interesting about Oyster.com, as it offers comprehensive hotel reviews. These are reviews performed by professional hotel reviewers – not user generated content where the bias of the reviewer is unclear. Just as Consumer Reports puts the products it reviews through rigorous testing, Oyster puts the effort in to put the hotels it reviews through a well thought out battery of tests.

A couple of weeks back I did an interview with Eytan Seidman, who was a program manager for Microsoft search prior to co-founding Oyster. The interview provides insight into what it takes to build this unique type of search experience.

The Stone Temple Cup Challenge

Last year at SES San Jose we held the first annual foosball smackdown event. The best and the brightest of Yahoo! and Google have again decided to step up to the challenge. Last year Yahoo! won and Google is itching for revenge. At stake is the coveted Stone Temple Cup, and surely every foosball player wants to have their names engraved for the sake of posterity.

The event will take place at the Networking Reception in the Exhibit Hall between 5:30 and 6:30. I will post the exact location as soon as I have it. Come check out the intensity of play, and the fun!

Why PageRank Sculpting Died

I was a bit suprised with the recent change in the NoFollow policy at Google. For a couple of years it seemed so clear. Google was allowing you to provide them information on what pages on your site you considered most important. I wrote about this recently for Search Engine Watch in a post called Should you still use NoFollow?.

In retrospect I believe what it comes down to is this – Google wants you to use your information arthitecture to communicate to users what are the most important pages on your site, not an artificial mechanism like NoFollow. Here is an example to illustrate:

    • Site owner builds a nice web site
    • Site has About Us, Privacy, Contact Us, and other garden variety pages
    • Site owner NoFollows links to those pages because they are not important for search rankings purposes

This is just one example of how NoFollow was commonly used. The problem is that there is a difference between the most important pages on your site for search ranking purposes and the most important pages for users. The reason why that About Us page has a link on every page of so many sites is because IT IS one of the most important pages (for users).

I believe it was this dichotomy that killed PageRank Sculpting using NoFollow. If you have pages that are not important to end users, they would say treat it that way in your site architecture. Google does not need the publisher’s help in figuring out what are the pages designed to compete on the most competitive pages. They know that better than the publisher. Google wants you to tell them what the most important pages are for your users, and that About Us page is one of them.