Does Google Instant change the SEO game?

[Mo_Taqi]

Hey Guys,

Here's the great post written by Johathan Ledger about "Google Instant" - http://jonathanleger.com/does-google-ins...-seo-game/

===================

Google unveiled a nifty new way to search their index yesterday. It's called "Google Instant" and it automatically populates the page with the search results as you type. So, for instance, when I type "life" the search results for "lifetime" are instantly shown. When I then type a space and an "i" ("life i") those results are replaced with the results for "life insurance" and so on. There's no need to hit the "enter" key.

I read an article in PC World that made the postulation that "SEO could rely on letter rankings rather than word rankings in the near future." I've even read wild theories that Google Instant "will kill SEO" because no two users see the same suggestions as they type.

So does Google Instant change the SEO game? I say no, at least not in its current form.

Do you need to optimize for letters instead of words now?

Let's first debunk the "letter ranking" myth. SEO will not start to rely on letter rankings, at least not in the current form of Google Instant, because Instant populates the search results for the most popular keywords in the suggested terms drop-down — not for the fragment of keywords the user has typed.

That is, when you type "life i", since "life insurance" is the most popular suggested phrase that matches "life i" it shows the results for the full phrase "life insurance." Google does not populate the search results with what's best optimized for the fragment "life i."

So you don't have to run out and optimize your site for "life i" in an effort to have your site show up first when a user typing "life i" is looking for "life insurance." Google is still showing the results best optimized for "life insurance", not "life i."

Does this mark the death of SEO?

I always roll my eyes when I read another article claiming that some change marks the end of search engine optimization. This situation is no different.

The claim some are making is this: Google personalizes the suggestions that appear in the drop-down box as you type keywords into the search engine, so no two users will see the same results. That is, if I type "Mexican rest" Google Instant automatically shows me the results for "Mexican restaurants Dallas" since I live in the Dallas metro. But somebody in Seattle would see a different set of results. So the crowd who thinks the SEO sky is falling is saying that the phrase "Mexican restaurant" won't have as much value anymore because Google Instant prevents people from ever seeing the results that are best optimized for that phrase without the location on the end.

A nice thought, but wrong. Google was geo-targeting results for local phrases long before Google Instant was released. Even before Google Instant automatically populated the results for Mexican restaurants in Dallas, I would see almost those same results if I just searched for "Mexican restaurants" alone. So not much has changed there. Webmasters have had to adapt to Google's geo-locating their results for a few years now.

The second part of the "death" claim is that the feedback given by Google as you type will change what people search for. They reason that because Google is instantly showing search results as you type, people will stop typing before they ever get to the long tail keywords you've optimized for.

Wrong again. For instance, let's say I want to sell my used car, so I start typing "used car values" to see what it's worth. When I get to "used car" Google shows web sites selling used cars. Why would I stop typing there? It's not showing what I want. On the other hand, if I continue and type "used car v" — I get results for "used car values." So the web sites optimized for "used car values" are still going to get my visit! I'm not going to stop on results that aren't what I'm after just because Google automatically pops them onto the screen.

While it's true that some searches might be affected by that (e.g. the #2 result for "chicken soup" is for a chicken soup recipe, so if I was going to type "chicken soup recipe" I might stop at "chicken soup"), that hardly signals the "death" of SEO. It just means that webmasters will need to do their research to find out if they need to optimize for a different (or additional) set of keywords.

What Google Instant Might Mean For SEO

One thing that the release of Google Instant might mean for those of us optimizing our sites is that the suggested keywords are going to get more traffic than they did before. Since Google auto-populates the results based on the most popular keyword suggestions, people are going to be shown those results instantly and may decide to go with one of the phrases in the drop down instead of continuing to type out the query they had in mind before. This has been happening since Google first introduced the suggestions in the drop-down, but Instant may magnify that somewhat.

So it would be wise to research the keywords your site is currently ranking for to see if they pop up in the keyword suggestions list as you type. If not, you may want to do some additional optimizing for some of the keywords that do appear in the list.

What Do I Think Of Google Instant?

In case you care, I think Google Instant is pretty cool. It certainly does save some typing time, and it's fast enough that it doesn't slow me down even though I type 130+ words a minute. Once it reaches mobile devices it'll be great since typing is much slower on most mobiles.

But as far as SEO goes, not much is going to change based on this version of Instant. Google's Keyword tools will start to reflect the new search volumes keywords are getting due to the change over to Instant, and webmasters will optimize for those keywords as they always have.

If Google decides to modify the way Instant works things may be different — but who could predict all of the changes that have occurred over the last few years that webmasters have had to adapt to? There's no sense in trying to second guess the industry. All webmasters can do is what they've always done — adapt as it happens.

For now, however, the SEO sky is certainly not falling.

Please post your thoughts and questions in a comment below.

[Jack]

Yep, and here's my comment on his post.

Quote:I don't think the ranking factors will change. What will always change is how the research is done. We will have to be smarter.

How are the keywords tools going to be affected? Will not hitting enter constitue as a "search" for search volume purposes?

I am also very glad I got Keyword Snatcher. It is the perfect tool for the current situation with Google Instant. I suppose Keyword Snatcher is still not available? But I did notice that another marketer has just build a copycat tool that looks almost identical to Keyword Snatcher.

I wonder if the drastic change in search volume reported by Google in it's keyword tool is somehow related to this.

I also wonder how Google will still acquire the most common search terms that it suggests during people's searches if people use this feature more and more and do not finish actually typing their search term.

[Jack]

Here is a snippet from Matt Cutts blog about this very subject.

Quote:Q: Will Google Instant change search engine optimization?
A: I think over time it might. The search results will remain the same for a query, but it’s possible that people will learn to search differently over time. For example, I was recently researching a congressperson. With Google Instant, it was more visible to me that this congressperson had proposed an energy plan, so I refined my search to learn more, and quickly found myself reading a post on the congressperson’s blog that had been on page 2 of the search results.

Ben Gomes mentioned this during the Q&A, but with Google Instant I find myself digging into a query more. Take a query like [roth ira v]. That brings up Autocomplete suggestions like [roth ira vs traditional ira], [roth ira vanguard], and [roth ira vs 401k]. Suddenly I’m able to explore those queries more just by pressing the up/down arrow key. I can get a preview of what the results will be, add or subtract words to modify my query, and hit enter at any time. The ability to explore the query space and find out new things will inevitably lead to changes for SEO. When I was in grad school, I had a professor who mentioned that peoples’ information need often change over the course of a search session. Google Instant makes that process even easier: people can dig into a topic and find out new areas to explore with very little work.

Finally, Steve Rubel’s headline on Google Instant Makes SEO Irrelevant is too big of a claim to be correct, but the point he makes is that Google Instant includes personalization, and personalization changes SEO. Well, that’s common sense in some regard (see this interview from 2007 where I make that point). But that doesn’t mean that SEO will die. I’ve said it before, but SEO is in many ways about change. The best SEOs recognize, adapt, and even flourish when changes happen.

I think that last line, "The best SEOs recognize, adapt, and even flourish when changes happen." is significant. And that is the point that we must all take from Google Instant. SEO will always exist, we will just have to learn to adapt and we will stay ahead of everyone else!

[warrior1]

Sort of like they are training the individual surfer as what to better search for? Or is it?

[ly.bit]

Google is actually training the user what to search for from what they gather to be seen as more relevant.

As google cannot give out the there complete algorithim, i doubt there going to give out how to be choosen for instant related searches.

When bruce clay talked about google returning results based on your IP way before google had even talked about this - straight away matt cutts said NO, only for this to turn out to be true.

Google is just using what they already have to cut out the competition, what they already have is a huge following of users that use there search engine worldwide that believe in the results that it returns when they use there search engines - so why not help them further by giving them biased instant keywords to search for.

Theres much more bigger things threatening the big companies, with sites as young as Facebook, twitter getting a big piece of the internet pie.

I presume that google is going to return instant related keywords that will helpfully direct to e-commerce sites rather then that of informative sites.

Will see.

[SEOArbiter]

I agree. Google Instant won't impact SEO or as many have put it "kill SEO". It's just an evolution in the way in which people conduct their online searches. Nothing more.

[equalizer]

I have a sinister mind, and the way I see this is that when google finishes optimizing google instant, it will mostly serve out Adwords keywords first and organic keywords second. In another word, any article or website that has not keywords that are already used in Adwords Ads will be pushed back, so surfers will have results that has appealing adwords they will be tempted to click on.

[Jack]

Interesting observation

I kind of feel like it's utmost to Google to supply users with the most relevant content regardless of adwords. They are most after that goal because they want everyone to know that Google is the place to go to find exactly what you are looking for and that they can find it faster than anyone else. That is what will keep them king.

[llyndonium]

Surely that will make them an advertising driven results service? I'm sure they would love that but that goes against everything that Google stands for.

[equalizer]

I've seen too many movies where the antagonist presents himself to the world as a rich, generous philanthropist and humanitarian, only to be exposed as a mastermind villain. I'm not saying google is that, but they're heading in that direction. If they're not ad-driven and want to present only relevant info, then why would they dish out sponsored links first?

Don't get me wrong, I love google and use exclusively, but I agree fully with John Acton who said: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Another Englishman, William Pitt, also said something similar: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"