DISQUS

Great post! I think (or at least hope) that the momentum is shifting in the direction of writing for readers, once again. The search engines aren't so smart that we can completely forget about keywords in our copy, but they're pretty close.

I proved this, relevant to my own copy, in a guest post at Science for SEO. Go to http://www.scienceforseo.com/guest-posts/seo-co.... (No, this isn't a cheap attempt to drive more traffic. CJ attracts plenty of traffic to her blog simply by being great. And it doesn't hurt that Rand recommends it, either! The post is very relevant to this one.)

Nice post mate. It's worth noting, though, that Google doesn't serve local results for ALL searches. As you've noted, it definitely serves them when a location is part of the query (as in your example). But it only SOMETIMES serves them if the query doesn't include a location. From what I've read (and heard from @theGypsy), the longer the query, the more likely it is to return local business results. But my own testing shows some inconsistent results. For example, when I search for "seo copywriting", I get local results. But when I search for "seo copywriter", I don't. Interestingly, this flies in the face of logic as, typically, people searching for "seo copywriter" are more likely to be looking for an actual copywriter, and would, therefore, be more likely to want local results.

No idea mate. But I'd be very interested to know!

Nice list Angus. Might Delicious this. Very handy when writing copy! Thanks.

I KNOW there are many! I just can't think of any off the top of my head. Proves I'm not a killer copywriter, anyway! If I come up with any, I'll return and comment. LOL "channeling Jane Austen..."

Cheers, Glenn (Twitter: @divinewrite)

Good stuff! Count me in.

Doesn't sound evil at all, to me. Does that make me evil too?!

"...there are ignorant customers you want to stay ignorant, and vague customers you want to stay vague." I like it! Well put Angus. I'm afraid I have nothing constructive to add here. You've covered it all beautifully! Well done.

Great comment, Sarah! Very interesting. I'd love to see some of those results (both those you already have, and those you're planning to uncover). Any chance you could share? - Glenn (Twitter: @divinewrite)

Hi Angus. Wow looks like a great post! I have to admit, though, I skipped to the end. I'll definitely be reading it, though. It's bookmarked for later reference. This sort of material needs a little time. And perhaps a coffee. (It is grammar, after all!)

Cheers
Glenn Murray (Twitter: @divinewrite)

Jayson's right: 'Promote' is just another word for 'Bookmark'. And (as per Jaan's comment) people won't bookmark in searchwiki based on content, they'll do it based on brand name, title and desription. So IMHO, it'll make no difference whether you use blackhat or whitehat tactics, or whether you have quality content.

But I don't think any of it's likely to become an issue, because I don't think it'll ever really take off.

The big problem is that there's no real value in being able to Promote/bookmark a listing. The value of proper bookmarking is:
1) you've found a good page (searchwiki fail - all searchwiki tells you is the title & description; you don't know if it's good 'til you get there);
2) you quickly save that page (searchwiki fail - you have to press back first and find the listing); and
3) you can quickly retrieve it (searchwiki fail - you have to open searchwiki, remember the search query, perform the search, and click the promoted listing)

So who's going to use it? Who'd would WANT to bookmark a page before they see it? And who'd want to use searchwiki to bookmark when there are so many better ways of doing that?

I reckon Google will realise that most people won't use it for the above reasons, and those who do will simply be getting less value out of Google search. So it won't last long.

What's more, as a bookmarking system, it's pretty lame because it only allows you to bookmark those pages that you find thru search. In my experience, most people (power user webmasters & SEOs aside) use one method for bookmarking. They're not going to want to use one method for pages they find thru search and another for pages they find through some other method!

And finally, there's the question of who's likely to actually perform the same search repeatedly. People who are after different results each time, of course! And what use will they have for it?

I'm not discounting my other comment above, I just don't think it's gonna get to that.

I hadn't realised this:

"the user’s selected listings are saved based on URL, meaning that if another search query is run where the same URL comes up, then the listing/URL is automatically at the top."

IMHO, that just doesn't make sense from a user perspective. I can understand why a user might want to see a particular listing at no.1 for a specific search, but I can't see why they'd want that same listing AUTOMATICALLY at no.1 for an entirely different search???!

Is that really the case?

I know that this situation is only likely to arise for very similar searches (as it's page-based, not domain based), but still, doesn't it seem strange to everyone else?

Also, I think there's real danger in allowing users to lock off the entire first page of SERPs. It sounds like it's empowering the user, but in reality, it's simply limiting their choice. Who's to say the listings they promote today are going to be the most relevant or helpful in two weeks' time? I know the user could simply use the de-promote option, but they may not think to do that. Not all users are that proficient. What's more, without seeing a more relevant listing pop up in front of them, they may not stop to think that there might actually be one.

In answer to your question, I think that searchwiki makes SEO more important, because it's now more critical than ever to be on the first page for a first-time search (before users start promoting other listings and locking you out). But I believe it'll eventually make Google less relevant. So it's probably a moot point.

Heya Angus. Just a quick note on the keyword density issue. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's crap. It's just not what everyone thinks it is. It's still a useful metric, but only to help you ensure your target keyword phrases are used more often than any other phrases. But it's crazy to focus on it too much. If your copy is actually helpful, it'll naturally have a whole lot of words that Google recognises as related. These count in your favour too.

Note, if you want an insight into how meaningless specific keyword density percentages are, check out: http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Mar05/garcia.....

Cheers.

Hey Brian. Great post. Thanks! Interesting that only 15 of these services are showing noticeable growth. What's your take on that? (Or does that ratio actually compare favorably against non-social media sites?)

Also what's your Twitter id?

Glenn (@divinewrite).

Cheers.

I think it all depends on what the brand is. If it's a big brand, it'll definitely improve click-thrus, so it may well be worth doing it.