In a previous post I wrote about the importance of a good link strategy as part of an effective SEO program; I was pretty down on ‘link farming’, especially for bigger brands. In this post, I’d like to address the issue from the standpoint of search engines, namely Google.

I can still remember in the late 90’s (a century ago by Internet time) when there was lot of talk about the demise of the search engine, only a short time before I heard Larry Page make his not-so-famous Confederate General speech in Boston. The Trec conferences (trec.nist.gov) were revealing declining satisfaction among search engine users, and the industry was living off of borrowed money. Back then, search results pages looked terrible, a jumbled mess of partial sentences dictated by ever-changing so-called algorithms. AltaVista tried to sell cameras on its homepage and would tell you when their blimp was passing over your head with a text file link from the homepage. No wonder user approval was declining!

Today we have a slightly more mature search industry, and while the financial side has reaped benefits, the constant set of shifting business sands could spell trouble for Google and its investors. ‘Could’ being the operative word. Google has done an excellent job of sustaining and growing their market share in the face of competition and numerous upstarts. They rely on the quality of search results to attract and keep visitors. But what if Google’s free search results were those of AltaVista in 1997? Would we still visit Google, or would engines like the new Bing pose a serious threat?

Which brings me to my point about linking: pervasive link-farming methods have the effect of turning search engine results into less user-friendly listings. When search results become less useful, people will stop visiting and start looking elsewhere.

Recently, I have noticed how far the fine art and science of link building has progressed. I have always enjoyed link building, but my focus was on high quality links, not the volume game practiced by and for the search service business – the SEO firms. I would personally rather see a company achieve success via a few high quality, hard-coded, negotiated links from strategic places, than have them ‘modeled’ out by machine and mass networks, created by companies for the sole purpose of emulating web content.

In case this last practice is new to some, let me explain: some very interesting business models exist that charge companies for links. The charges vary but basically make SEO act, economically, like SEM, with a cost per click fee structure. This model creates cost where before there was none (or was minimal or fee-based). This link strategy proposes that if you build thousands of links, you will minimize the need for ‘on page’ work that uses valuable resources. This method has advantages for both the client and firm selling the service, but not for the search engine and its brand equity.

I am finding all too often that my searches result in pages that are nothing more than links; these are the sites created by the SEO firms. These sites are fairly useless to users but because they speak directly to search engines’ “link density beast,” Google and others eat them up. However, the bottom line is that if Google’s natural search results suffer from a growing click bounce rate, then so will its market cap and market share. The door will then open for one of the many competitors chomping at the bit.

For the next few years, we will likely see more of these pages and more of this type of link strategy as a business offering, but if search engines know what’s good for them, they will counter with stricter requirements and new non-link density metrics.