If this guy is right, it's a game changer

[donhx]

The head of Bing says, "Traditional search is dying."

He said, ""Traditional search is failing. The standard notion of search...looking at the texts in the page, the backlinks, all that stuff doesn't work anymore."

The new model that coming, he says? Ranking by the number of "Likes" a site receives, like Facebook.

If this happens, it's a game changer for the way traditional IM marketing has been done. We'll need to be even more inventive to reach customers.

Bing head says 'traditional search' is dying | The Digital Home - CNET News

[MonopolyMan]

Having both worked for Bing HRM and having the misfortune of using that search engine once or twice the cynic in me says they're doing this in lieu of a good quality algorithm.

Why do the hard work when Facebook can do it for them?

[Michael Mayo]

Oh Great!
Now Bing has their own version of Matt Cutts!...lol

Thanks for the link.

Have a Great Day!
Michael

[Eduard]

So the new black hat seo model will be "Buy Likes" instead of "Buy Links"?

[Fernando Veloso]

Perhaps they are trying to drive focus to what THEY want, instead of what is really happening?

[rekerlolz]

Ahhh very interesting. Time to make billions of Facebook accounts.

[Tony Dean]

See fiverr for people who will get you 'likes' by the thousands - that will take care of it!

[magnates]

very sceptical about this stuff .It seems everybody is going about the old without mastering the old . First master the old and deal the so called game changer

[OnlineMasterMind]

I doubt it...

Sure, on the surface it makes sense when you consider keywords like "best restaurant in phoenix"

But the reality is that search is made up of a practically infinite number of keywords... like say "how to get rid of toe fungus" that people are simply not going to "like".

[fitz10]

Don't think we could totally switch over to this model. Who's going to "like" information on hemorrhoids (673,000 searches a month) or "cheat on wife" (33,100 searches) or any of the other billions of keyword terms that people search for everyday but would never share? Practically the only things I see being shared regularly by people are stupid viral videos and occasionally news stories. I just don't see this being a viable model at all.

[momo3]

Amen the guys above me.

It will be in some markets, but not in others. In desperate buyer markets, it wont be as prominant and G wont base as much of their algo on it.

Joe Likes Milfhunter.com

[desmond11]

SEO keeps changing anyway. I suppose it'll be a wait and see.

Until sites start underperforming we'll carry on I suppose.

[zannix]

This might be true... however... I'm not going to put likes on websites... I never do. I never do that on facebook. If you like something, what's the point of telling people "Hey - I like this! Hey everyone - I like this!".

I don't know, I might be the only one who thinks this way, but either way - this surely isn't going to be the ONLY or perhaps even the BIGGEST factor to determine SE ranking in my opinion

[kstark]

LOL at how they're copying Google. What will their "+1" be called?

I really dislike the implication that something's better just because more people like it. I don't think a lot of people like vegetables but they're good for you. Even without tinkering, results can be skewed--for example, Wal-mart will always have more likes than a Bob-Mart because Bob is a newbie.Even if Bob offers superior widgets.

And it's like a phone survey: the only people taking part in a phone survey are the people who answer the phone. People still have an opinion if they don't answer the phone for the survey, and people like websites even if they don't bother voting for them.

I don't think search engines will devolve into popularity contests.....well, not completely.

[MrJupiter]

Originally Posted by OnlineMasterMind

I doubt it...

Sure, on the surface it makes sense when you consider keywords like "best restaurant in phoenix"

But the reality is that search is made up of a practically infinite number of keywords... like say "how to get rid of toe fungus" that people are simply not going to "like".

I agree with you on this. There are some ... alright millions of niches where his predictions aren't practical. Snap back to reality.

[fitz10]

To be fair, recently I've noticed on Google that things people in my "social circle" have shared are bumped up to the bottom on the 1st page of the SERPs so I think it can play some role in ranking for certain keywords. For example if I type in "Red Sox" on the bottom of the first page there are three links that were recently shared by my Twitter friends.

So yes, certain social media elements can and should be considered for certain keyword phrases; however, I don't think you can use this as a major factor.

[Rob Howard]

Game changer?

Please.

This would be WAY easier to hijack than even backlinking. At least backlinking you do actually have to do something.

Buying or getting likes by the thousands would be super easy. Buy up proxies by the hundreds/thousands and then program a bot to hit "like" on all your sites over and over again. Congratulations, you now have higher rankings.

Plus you have all the problems with mentioned above - certain topics people wouldn't want to like.

Rob

[NateRivers]

Originally Posted by momo3

Amen the guys above me.

It will be in some markets, but not in others. In desperate buyer markets, it wont be as prominant and G wont base as much of their algo on it.

Joe Likes Milfhunter.com

Hahaha.... the most viewed sites that no one admits to viewing would disappear from the rankings.

[donhx]

Originally Posted by ccmusicman

Game changer?

Please.

This would be WAY easier to hijack than even backlinking. At least backlinking you do actually have to do something.

Buying or getting likes by the thousands would be super easy. Buy up proxies by the hundreds/thousands and then program a bot to hit "like" on all your sites over and over again. Congratulations, you now have higher rankings.

Plus you have all the problems with mentioned above - certain topics people wouldn't want to like.

Rob

Necessity is ALWAYS the mother of invention. IMers are clever... we always find a way.

[BIG Mike]

It's not a game changer, but the writing is on the wall. It won't only be results based on social proof, but results based on what your own friends like.

Think about it - for me, I don't have time to waste cruising the web looking non business related stuff, so I rely on friends to email me with what's hot, funny, whatever. Same with search - I'm far more likely to click on a like to something my family and friends like as opposed to strangers.

It's nothing new...that's how anything goes viral in the first place.

[Damani Tabor]

Doubtful if you ask me.
Keyword combinations are entirely too divers to facilitate such a model.
However, for specific items, this is practical, such as the ratings that appear alongside certiain listings in search results.

if it were possible to filter results to show only LIKE - ENABLED results, people might catch on as they have a preference for human-vetted content.

[johnson12]

Having a Like feature would be too easily exploitable.

[Linda_C]

Originally Posted by donhx

The head of Bing says, "Traditional search is dying."

He said, ""Traditional search is failing. The standard notion of search...looking at the texts in the page, the backlinks, all that stuff doesn't work anymore."

Well, if I headed up Bing and had under 30% of the marketshare in search, and my closest competitor was pushing towards 60% -- I'd say that, too.

Traditional search is changing, to be sure, but it's changing for SEOs and business owners way more than it's changing for consumers or searchers.

If you ask 10 people to search the same word or phrase and screencap the results, you'll see 10 different set of results. Personalized. And it's not just if you're logged into google. So for a business owner or SEO, it's getting harder to rank. There are posts here all the time from people confused because they "saw" their site on page 1, but no one else does. That's real common now.

Sure, with personalized search we see sites based on what we've searched, sites we've been to, what our friends "like," etc -- but where is all that showing up??? IN search results. Traditional search isn't dying by a long shot. We're just getting more personal results -- universal results are long gone. Not dying. Dead.

But search itself -- not going anywhere. And out of every 100 people that search for something, maybe 28 are doing it at Bing. So you know... grain of salt stuff.

[yourreviewer]

What would be really interesting is if any search engine can personalize the search engine results based on demographic/lifestyle/attitudinal segments. For example, if I am researching for laptops, I would like to know the laptops people of my age, income level, occupation and attitude purchase.

Maybe I am asking too much

[JRCarson]

Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso

Perhaps they are trying to drive focus to what THEY want, instead of what is really happening?

That really seems like it's what they're doing. I scoff every time I see those Bing commercials that portray Google like it's some completely broken search engine. They are trying to skew reality so hard, instead of getting better.

[theking2]

seems way to easy to manipulate if this were to happen

[pruitts]

Originally Posted by theking2

seems way to easy to manipulate if this were to happen

yes, indeed I am agree..

[Ephrils]

I think he's talking about a kind of Search where people "vote" on the sites with the most relevance. Google sort of has that already if you're logged in.

[sbucciarel]

Bing ... who's Bing? lol
Until most people use Bing, I don't even think about Bing. It brings so little traffic to my sites, it's not worth considering.

[Alex Barboza]

Imagine you are a man suffering from Erectile dysfunction and are looking for ways to overcome it, would you "like" the article so that all your Facebook friends notice that you may be suffering this problem? I don't think any man would do that! So there are niches where this social thing cannot be considered as part of the metrics since the niche itself is no social at all .

Remeber Bing has some deal with Facebook (I think Microsoft owns some chunk of the company) so they will want to spread information favoring their own systems, basically because they know that Bing has no chances to overcome Google but Facebook could.

English is not my first language. I hope I made my thoughts clear

[Jason Perez O'Connor]

I still don't see any other metric being better than links. Perhaps they just need to make the performance of a link more complex.

Don't think it's going to change anytime soon, but I do think Google is screwing a lot of good sites over recently.

[Mike Hill]

The only reason Bing is mentioning this is because they know they cannot compete with Google. Heck they already got caught using Googles search data because they are too lazy to make their own algorithm.

Now they are trying to start something completely in left field because what you like and what I like are completely different so this whole "vote" thing will never work.

[Fraggler]

Letting the youth of the day decide what is factually correct and relevant really sums up the dumbing down of society.

It is like when a legal subject is presented on this forum: every man and his dog has an opinion on what's correct but none of the answers are consistent, lack emotionally bias, or are referenced by reliable and knowledgeable authorities on the matter.

The Google algorthim is flawed but in my opinion it is still the best way for correct information to be presented. It will be improved.

[Istvan Horvath]

Originally Posted by Linda_C

If you ask 10 people to search the same word or phrase and screencap the results, you'll see 10 different set of results. Personalized. And it's not just if you're logged into google.

Yes. And here is a good video about it:
Beware of online filter bubbles. [VIDEO]

[JSProjects]

Originally Posted by ccmusicman

Game changer?

Please.

This would be WAY easier to hijack than even backlinking. At least backlinking you do actually have to do something.

Buying or getting likes by the thousands would be super easy. Buy up proxies by the hundreds/thousands and then program a bot to hit "like" on all your sites over and over again. Congratulations, you now have higher rankings.

Plus you have all the problems with mentioned above - certain topics people wouldn't want to like.

Rob

Could you imagine? People think Scrapebox is bad...

[Trivum]

Originally Posted by zannix

If you like something, what's the point of telling people "Hey - I like this! Hey everyone - I like this!".

And yet you've "thanked" 28 people. ... Pretty much the same thing, though it can be slightly different, of course. The "Like" can mean various things. It can mean "thanks," and it can mean "I recommend this," and it can also mean "Hey - I like this! Hey everyone - I like this!"

People like to express themselves. It's another way to do that. And LOTS of people obviously do it.

[Carl Brown]

Have you noticed Google? While doing some searches, if you hit the Back Button, you'll see at the bottom of the link you just clicked on, "Block all *** results"

If you hover over that message, it'll tell you "Not Helpful? You Can Block *** Results When You Are Signed In"

They are going with a voting system.

[Lucid]

Originally Posted by donhx

The new model that coming, he says? Ranking by the number of "Likes" a site receives, like Facebook.

This is the PPC model and can be easily implemented. Would not be surprised if Google already has a component to take this into account for ranking sites, or at least thinking about it. It just makes sense to provide better results and a matter of time, maybe within a year or two.

This is not likes where you'd click a button. It's liking simply by clicking a link because you feel it offers what you searched for. The sites getting more clicks move up the rankings. Just like the PPC model. Your organic listings will have a quality score.

Now that doesn't mean traditional search is dying, failing or doesn't work anymore as he is quoted as saying. It's just taking it to another level. Saying it's dying is ridiculous. I just don't think any search engine will go to a pure "like" model. It will still be about the keywords and the "likes" of others backlinking to you. It will be the same, only better.

When this happens, it will be a game changer. It's the people who constantly post in forums that say "I'm on top but not getting any clicks" and not getting it who will suffer most. Those who are already optimizing to attract the clicks are going to benefit.

[Jeremy Banks]

Originally Posted by Eduard

So the new black hat seo model will be "Buy Likes" instead of "Buy Links"?

Exactly, I would take a short vacation in India, make a few friends there and could EASILY buy 1000 likes for dirt cheap. I can already pay a complete stranger to get me 200 likes on facebook for $5

This won't happen, and if it does it won't be successful.

I am pretty sure google already uses facebook likes as one of their MANY signals for ranking

[Trivum]

Originally Posted by Lucid

Would not be surprised if Google already has a component to take this into account for ranking sites, or at least thinking about it.

They do. It's call Plus 1 - Google +1 Button

Will probably be a massive failure.

[mattlaclear]

So instead of selling backlinks we'll switch over to selling likes. I wish they would hurry up and make the change so I can 2quit spending a small fortune every month for seo hosting for my blog network.

[milton11011]

wow ok. what about twitter followers? digg likes? is it all gonna eventually be the social media stuff?

[Linda_C]

Originally Posted by Istvan Horvath

Yes. And here is a good video about it:
Beware of online filter bubbles. [VIDEO]

Thanks!! I'd seen that and didn't save the url. I want to put it on my site, so thank you for posting it.

[yukon]

For the new feature to work, the user must be logged in to Bing and Facebook at the same time.

Bwahahaha...

Following in the footsteps of a Google FAIL!

That's some funny $hit, login to Bing!

Nobody cares about Bing or hotmail.

This sounds like some crap someone at AOL (lol) came up with, from back in 1996.

[yukon]

One word, Fiverr!

[dagaul101]

Search engines are always looking for ways to thwart the spammers, and as Google recently mentioned they will be looking at reviews from real people to determine a site's position in the future (with the aim that the spammers or those hoping to get an unfair advantage would have to fork out a lot of money to reviewers to get their site ranked high, which hopefully would put them off)

[lingoway]

search engines have started to count social signals for ranking. So it can be true.

[Lucid]

I've seen this +1 mentioned a few times the last few weeks and until now, had no idea what they were talking about. I've never seen it but seems you have to be logged in. However, what I'm talking about is not an actual like or +1 button. It is the quality of a link as voted by searchers clicking on the link. If someone clicks on the second link and not the first, it would get a bit of a boost for the next searcher.

Even if there will be a "selling likes" economy, I'm sure the search engine have ways to compensate for this. Many ways to do this, most if not all is simply an extension of what they do now. So buying likes is not going to work.

[allegrity]

This can't be true...as others have mentioned it would be WAY to easy to manipulate and take advantage of...fiverr comes to mind...

[MaxReferrals]

That guy needs to have his head examined.