SEO Thoughts on Google

[Dave Hawley]

At present, SEO firms would mostly be optimizing pages for Google. Stands to reason with Google being so popular. However what are the thoughts of those in the business if the 3 major SE (Google, Yahoo and MSN) were to take an even cut of all searches. That is, 33.33..% each. To me, this could present a BIG problem for SEO firms as they would no longer be able to optimize mainly for Google.

Any thoughts?

[strategicrankings]

what are the thoughts of those in the business if the 3 major SE (Google, Yahoo and MSN) were to take an even cut of all searches. That is, 33.33..% each.

My clients would be happier sooner since it is a lot easier to rank on MSN & Yahoo! (at least actually) with just on page optimization even in highly competitive areas.

[dannysullivan]

To me, this could present a BIG problem for SEO firms
And perhaps a bigger problem for search engines.

We've been here before. This is the circle coming around completely. Back in 95-00 we had multiple crawlers all with some importance. People wanted to be in Infoseek or Excite or AltaVista or Lycos or Inktomi, for example. And since each search engine was sensitive to different factors, some people would create different pages for each term they wanted to be found for and for each particular search engine.

Why a problem? So you fire up your favorite doorway page generating tool, give it 25 terms you want to rank for, and it does a page per term per engine:

25x5=125 pages

Now we've got 125 pages which invariably, though a set is created for each particular search engine, still get set out for all of them to index. Result? More crud in the index.

The Google obsession many marketers have had over the past two or three years has had one benefit -- we've not had too much of this game being played during the period. It's been all Google, Google, Google and Links, Links, Links. But I fear the days of doorways per page per engine are heading back (and despite the fact that for many, it was never that effective a tactic anyway).

[Sebastien Billard]

A properly designed page should rank approximatively the same in all major SEs. Though some minor differences of ranking may occur.

[Chris Boggs]

A properly designed page should rank approximatively the same in all major SEs. Though some minor differences of ranking may occur.

must be nice over there... ;)

[St0n3y]

I, personally, would welcome such a development. I don't think it is good for the SEO/M industry or businesses overall to have only one single dominant search engine. Take the Florida disaster, for instance. How many businesses got screwed because one engine made a bad move?

If Marketshare is evenly split, if one engine goes screwy accross the board business may still come via the other engines. I think search engines have (for the msot part) gotten wise to doorway pages and that tactic will not be as effective as it once was, therefore eliminating a lot of the crud Danny speaks of. SEOs will have to learn how to optimize sites to rank well on 2 of the three engines in order to be "successful", which should be a problem for any SEO worth their salt anyway. (IMO)

[David Wallace]

There are some SEO firms, mine included, that perform optimization and search engine marketing strategy that make an impact not only for the sake of Google but Yahoo, MSN, Ask/Teoma, Looksmart/Wisenut, etc.

I don't think most firms just optimize for Google... I know we don't. So whether Google has 90% share or 33% won't make a difference to us because we provide a complete strategy that looks at the "big picture" instead of a portion of it. I think many others do the same.

[I, Brian]

A lot of SEO work is pretty basic across the engines - certainly in mid-competitive search-terms, if you hammer away at a particular keyphrase, then you can reasonably enjoy comparable rankings across many SE's - over the longer term, at least.

Personally, I enjoy the results from Google, but if MSN put up an engine with radically different listings, then I'll enjoy testing choice on there.

[Dave Hawley]

I too looong for the day when SE traffic is more evenly spread. I have never liked the fact that we are more reliant on one SE so much more than any other. This is not a case of us putting all our eggs in one basket, but more the fact that Google has slipped their basket under our eggs.

I guess if each of the biggies has 'simliar' algos there is no big change, but if there does become a vast difference in algos the job of the SEO must become harder.

But I fear the days of doorways per page per engine are heading back (and despite the fact that for many, it was never that effective a tactic anyway). I see where you are coming from, but in this day and age SE's are a lot smarter than 9-10 years ago and this would seem to make life harder?

[jbgilbert]

The more the merrier... More "major" SE's, more work, more charges to clients.

If all of the 4 majors were totally independant and had equal traffic, it would only make sense for SEM firms to make these necessary adjustments in pricing -- the work wiould force it.

Plus, the linking "nightmare" might subside just a bit.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I think there is a big difference between optimizing for Google and benchmarking for Google. In Denmark, where I live, Google has very dominant position (partly because 3 out of 5 major portals also use them) so we do monitor how well we do in the Google index very closely but we certainly do not only optimize for Google. That would, in my mind, be very short termed. Things can (and do) change very fast and I'd like to stay to steps ahead of it - not 2 steps behind.

Personally, I would very much like to see 3 or 4 engines have an equal share of the search market. I do not like the kind of power it gives Google to be so dominant in some regions. I am not even sure it's good for Google in the long run.

Optimizing for multiple engines can be done in many ways. For most of your keyword enventory you should be able to rank decent across engines but for some keywords, and some vertical markets, you may need to target each engine more aggressivly. If you don't want to go into doorways and cloaking this can be done by focusing different parts of your site to different engines

[Andy AtkinsKruger]

Bother - I've just read my way all through this post and was just about to say.....and then found that Mikkel beat me to it!

Danny's point about 'crud' earlier is valid. But I also think that 'professional' SEOs should be advising their clients to spread the risk - ie to work to perform for the four or five major engines - not just Google.

But I don't believe gateway pages are the route. Our approach is to watch how different areas of the main site perform in the different engines - then we exploit the strengths. So if pages are doing well with Ask - we work harder to do well with Ask, and we generally work with clients to develop wider richer content on the site that presents more opportunities to focus parts of the site on different engines.

And like Mikkel, I sleep better at nights knowing that our industry is not dependent on the decisions of a few people in Mountain View! :)

[Mel]

IMO while there are minor differences in the Ranking algos of the major search engines, optimization which takes into account good on page optimization plus off page optimization should rank well in the three major search engines.

It may be that to rank for very competitive terms in Google you will have to add anchor text links, but these will also help you in the others and not hurt your rankings elsewhere.

[Carlos Chacón]

One thing is right: Google was the first real SE...And still!
Remember Yahoo! just a year ago...it shared Google results.

Now we talk about 3 engines...but thing again!
One is the father, two are a new boys with a new machines... trying to get independence.

I believe that SEO must be focus on the "father" and it will help a lot to get listed in the boy’s new machines...at least for now.
:cool:

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

One thing is right: Google was the first real SE...And still!

I couldn't disagree more!

Google is a great search engine but in no way even close to being the first - and possibly not even the best. It very much depends on what you need, where you are located and what, what language you search in and a lot more.

Anyone remember Excite, AltaVista, Inktomi etc? :)

[Carlos Chacón]

I couldn't disagree more!
.........................
Anyone remember Excite, AltaVista, Inktomi etc? :)

Your comment is right...the old SEM people -as us- used those at the past.
I am not saying that Google is the first one...or that could be.
In fact, I am not a Google fan! :rolleyes:

So, what I am trying to saying is that 99% of the people who do SEO are because they want to get listed in this particular SE.

:confused:

[Andy AtkinsKruger]

So, what I am trying to saying is that 99% of the people who do SEO are because they want to get listed in this particular SE.

Carlos you're probably right about people targeting Google - but I think the point being made by people in this thread is that this is unwise.

Why? Because it doesn't recognise that this 'industry' changes very rapidly in an instant.

Google launched and look what happened to Altavista?

Professionals and agencies have to protect their employers and clients by keeping an eye on what might happen in the future.

Yahoo and MSN's algorithms (preview or inktomi) may be largely similar in operation to Google - but they are not the same. And it would be easy to focus on positions in Google and not realise that suddenly more activity was going on through MSN and Yahoo combined. Not true today - but after Christmas? Who knows? ;)

[Dave Hawley]

The main difference with Google and past SE's is that Google is the first truely deep crawl the web for free. This, IMO, is a stroke of genius on Google's behalf. By doing this they have slipped their basket under all our eggs. This, combined with the fact that Google is the most popular SE ever, makes it 'must have' for most Webmasters.

I think MSN (when launched) will be a good competitor to Google and I really hope that between MSN and Google, Yahoo finally takes a longer term look and stops trying to make all its $$ today.

If all/most my site traffic comes about evenly from MSN, Google and Yahoo I'm a happy chappy. However, having said this, I still happy with Google being my main traffic bringer, but would be happier if I wasn't so reliant on them.

[dannysullivan]

The main difference with Google and past SE's is that Google is the first truely deep crawl the web for free.
Nope. Plenty predate Google on this. Infoseek, Excite, Lycos -- all had "deep crawls" in their time back in 1995 completely for free.

AltaVista probably deserves credit for upping the stakes from the 2 million range to 20 million at the end of 1995. It continues to duke it out with Inktomi for the crown of deep crawling for some time, with Northern Light occasionally popping up.

When Google showed up 98/99, paid inclusion still hadn't appeared, and Google's index was tiny. No one thought, "wow, Google does a deep crawl, we love it." People, webmasters included, loved Google because the ranking algorithm it used was better than its competitors.

[tomslick]

I think that having multiple, large SEs would be a good thing for search. Content and relevancy would become even more important since certain techniques or tricks for increasing rankings would not work across each of the different SEs.

In the end, increased competition would force the SEs to constantly improve the relevancy of their listings to keep consumers satisfied.

[Dave Hawley]

Nope. Plenty predate Google on this. Infoseek, Excite, Lycos -- all had "deep crawls" in their time back in 1995 completely for free. Not quite true. Back in 1995 spiders were not developed enough to grab all the 'stuff' that was out there. Google, even now, is going places that it couldn't before. However, it is true that there was not anywhere near as much 'stuff' out there as there is today.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

However, it is true that there was not anywhere near as much 'stuff' out there as there is today.

Yes, and I would even question that Google today index a larger percentage of the web than the early engines did. We don't really know how much is out there but the past studies I've read about it looks like they are still only covering a very small percentage of the entire web.

Chris Sherman recently quoted a Google engineer for saying that to crawl the entire web (including what Chris often refer to as "the hidden web") would probably take them another 50 years of development! Anybody that have been working with large scale web crawling, I think, will believe him. However, we don't have to get to a 100% to be pretty good, in my mind :)

[Dave Hawley]

I would even question that Google today index a larger percentage of the web than the early engines did That is an interesting question. I would say yes, but have no proof. Is there any unbias info out there on this?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Is there any unbias info out there on this?

I actually don't know but I doubt it. It was just a wild guess - and an open question. Maybe Chris Sherman knows it ...

My point was just that Google was far from the first crawler engine that created a WOW effect in the industry :)

[dannysullivan]

Back in 1995 spiders were not developed enough to grab all the 'stuff' that was out there.
And as Mikkel pointed out, they still aren't. Google Scholar, that program they announced recently? That the spider getting into some content it wouldn't ordinarily access -- but that also mean there's lots of non-scholarly info locked in databases and password-protection systems not getting out. Yahoo's CAP program works similarly -- pulls content by working with non-profits or vendors who pay, but there's stuff missed.

Google's a great search engine, but it's a disservice to the shoulders of those it stands on for anyone to suggest that we didn't find things before it arrived or that only Google has opened up the web more to locating information. AltaVista was a huge, huge deal when it arrived. Go check out how the competitors had to react: Search Memories (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3422781). That's why it was the Google of its day; or really, why Google is the AltaVista of its day.

Google's great advance was to combine the comprehensiveness that AltaVista spurred on with the relevancy that Yahoo's then human-compiled database offered.

Google, even now, is going places that it couldn't before. However, it is true that there was not anywhere near as much 'stuff' out there as there is today.
Sure, and so do Yahoo, Ask Jeeves and even the new MSN crawler. All they are really doing is being braver about handling dynamic URLs and getting smarter on avoiding traps.

That is an interesting question. I would say yes, but have no proof. Is there any unbias info out there on this?
We haven't had a good estimate on the size of the web for ages. My Search Engine Sizes (http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156481) page covers past estimates. The major search engines have long exceeded estimates of the "surface" web. Last estimate of the complete surface and invisible web was 500 billion pages. Google claims 8 billion pages indexed -- meaning there's a ton left out. But then again, it's never been about having everything -- it's been about having a good sample and great relevancy.

So, what I am trying to saying is that 99% of the people who do SEO are because they want to get listed in this particular SE.
I'm totally with Andy here. I know in my writings for SEW, and producing content for the SES show, I've always strongly resisted trying to focus people just on Google. That's because the dominant position it has held was obviously going to change. It also has changed, but many search marketers are still waking up to this.

Veterans will remember back in say 95-00 how a Yahoo listing, a directory listing at Yahoo, was crucial. You could live or die by 25 words. Backdoors, tips on finding editors, it was all about that -- and in fact, in 99, most of the results on the web were human powered. The focus on SEO -- getting good crawler listings -- seemed diminished.

Yahoo doesn't depend on its directory any longer and hasn't for some time, as the primary results it presents. Anyone who focused solely on that was in trouble. The same was true for a number of firms that dealt solely in poor quality doorway pages, when Google started its rise. Its use of links was very effective initially in combatting that.

The marketplace has already changed. Google is still dominant, but Yahoo has its own results, and MSN will split from Yahoo soon. Anyone who has focused only on Google is being short-sighted. Though having said this, most ordinary site owners people will find that the "google work" they might do still with help with others.

The real, real change people aren't largely understanding is the shift away web results to specialty results. This is the invisible tabs (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3115131) concept I've talked about.

I did a Search Detours panel (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=888) on this at SES San Jose, and the audience seemed largely confused. We talked about how search engines were shifting slowly away from being so dependant on web results. People didn't get it -- so what were the tips to follow, someone asked.

My response was that they needed to understand that down the line, in some cases, a search will bring back shopping results by default, or news results, or local results, or image results and so on. Web search results will be "backup," the stuff that kicks in only if other things aren't found.

So to come all the way back up to the start of this thread, it's not a problem to me that people might focus just on Google. It's a problem that they assume Google = Google Web Search and they may neglect the many specialized search engines Google and others offer. Those are the ones on the rise, in my view.

[Chris_D]

Google is the most popular SE ever

Dave - haven't you already been told 3 or 4 million times not to exagerate?

:)

I even remember when Dogpile - as one of the early metasearch engines - was touted to be the next rival to AV!

In fact in 1999-2000, Yahoo alone accounted for between 55-60% of all search engine referrals. The second place saw a tug of war between the other search engines namely Altavista, Excite and Go.com. Yahoo's reach was so great that at most times, the second-most popular engine would not account for over 10% of total search traffic.

http://www.promotiondata.com/article.php?sid=320

May-June 2000 .....Yahoo! selects Google as its default search results provider to complement Yahoo!'s web directory and navigational guide......

http://www.google.com/corporate/timeline.html

[neuron]

It's difficult to see how much traffic you get from each search engine if you do not have similar rankings in each engine. I have seen a few sites that were designed just to rank in Google, on the idea that if they can rank well in Google then they are confident they will rank well in the other search engines (I don't care about the other #&*#^& search engines, just get me ranked in GOOGLE!!!).

In these cases, in a site designed to rank in Google, the site op might further disregard the amount of traffic from the lesser search engines because they are bringing significantly less traffic than Google, the search engine the site was designed to rank for, and significantly less traffic than it could bring if the site had attained similar rankings with the lesser search engines. For instance if Google got 65% of all web search, yahoo got 20% and MSN got 15% (just a rough idea), and you designed your site for google, then you might end up with 90% of your traffic coming from Google and only 6% coming from Yahoo and 4% coming from MSN. In which case you say, "what? optimize for MSN or Yahoo? are you nuts? 90% of my traffic comes from Google!!!"

My point here is that the tide has already turned. You may already be losing a lot more traffic than you have anticipated. If you do not have equivelent rankings on all major search engines (watch for contenders) then you cannot appropriately judge how much traffic one engine may give you more than another.

The amount of money and effort you spend on optimization for different seach engines should be in proportion to the amount of traffic you would get from those search engines if you had equivelent rankings.

Also, while I wouldn't bet against google, there are a lot of lessons to be learned in SEO right now if you will simply watch your SERPs in MSN beta dance around, and see who moves up and who moves down in areas you are familiar with.

[sebastian]

...shucks, ...and all this time i have been optimizing for InfoSeek not knowing google was the only *real* SE.

folks, reading all the responses, you can tell who does SEO as business and thus answers questions as a subtle promo for their companies. then you've got your rogue monkeys like myself who try to read and experiement with everything trying to apply logic while filtering through hype. ...but, the best comment in the post is the person who pointed the finger at quality design and development.

it still stands to reason that you will be better than your competition if:

- you follow the DOM in design and layout pages built to xhtml standard utilizing CSS and all the right headers.

- utilize quality copywriting and keyword rich content

- update content consistenly

- build a decent 'inbound' ...and outbound link bank

- pump out some press releases with your url in the first paragraph and link to them on your own site

- destroy any pages called "links.htm" or anything similar

and keep on posting to directories.

thus, it seems quality page development, a little marketing attention and some common sense is the best strategy.

leaves more time for learning and less time bickering over whether or not that meta inclusion will help you on XYZ seach engine or not. ...everything changes at search engines except for the 'weight' of quality development.

christian "sebastian"

[idahoguy]

Just a little pointless blather on this...

In 95 it was pretty hard to get a grasp on who, where, and why people were using various search engines, not to mention that the reporting from places such as webproworld, SEW, and others...was not in place yet. The forums nowdays are great, and weren't even half of what they are today... back then.

Now as mentioned in the previous page, the circle is coming back, more and more engines popping up, more learning to be done, and more money/time to be spent.

On one hand, I can't stand the fact that Google has such a large "monopoly" on the search world... BUT, on my other hand, I love the fact that over the last 3 years, Google has averaged 86% of our referrals each year, making SEO simple and clear..... PLEASE GOOGLE and they please you.

Just like it simple, Google's dominance has made it simple for SEO firms like ours. I do not see them losing any ground in the next few years to MSN and Yahoo, nor any newcommers. Against my forecasts (google loosing referral percentage this year), Google has had a steady 2% rise in referrals to our site over the last few years.

Watching it snow in Idahoooooo!

[St0n3y]

I think this thread is treading close to a thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1307) I started a while back. If we do end up with several dominant search engines, all pulling about equally, and we find it nearly impossible to get keywords ranked in the top 5 on all of them in most situations, how does an SEO go about showing a measure of success with the campaign?

Lets assume that no spamming, doorway pages, multiple domains, etc. are not being utilized, just one domain, with good optimization practices. I think there does have to be some sort of measure that balances marketshare, search performance, conversion rates, positions, etc. to produce a "score", if you will, and that score must give some sort of measure of the campaigns overall success considering the above factors.

As long as Google is the ONE engine, this measure isn't so necessary, but more engines, pulling more marketshare, each with vastly different algorithms, some kind of score system would be beneficial to the industry overall.

[Kal]

At present, SEO firms would mostly be optimizing pages for Google. Stands to reason with Google being so popular. Any SEO worth their salt would be optimizing pages in a way that makes them more compatible with a range of popular search engines and directories, not limiting themselves to a single engine. Those companies are already prepared for major shifts in the market share because that is the norm in this industry.

[AussieWebmaster]

Any SEO worth their salt would be optimizing pages in a way that makes them more compatible with a range of popular search engines and directories, not limiting themselves to a single engine. Those companies are already prepared for major shifts in the market share because that is the norm in this industry.

It can be achieved - strong placement for numerous engines, but it is done by combining efforts. Inbound links -anchor text - for Google (from relevant sites as well as your own), keyword density for Yahoo and MSN - directories for all, strong basics covered for all, and fresh content, large page numbers, the list is extensive but attainable.

[Dave Hawley]

IMO, any SEO worth their salt would be optimizing mainly (not only) for Google. Being on page 1 in Google will, in most cases, deliver about 40% more traffic than Yahoo or MSN. If by, doing so, you also get page 1 in Yahoo or MSN etc great! However, if by making page 1 in Yahoo or MSN etc means page 2 in Google...very bad.

[Mel]

It can be achieved - strong placement for numerous engines, but it is done by combining efforts. Inbound links -anchor text - for Google (from relevant sites as well as your own), keyword density for Yahoo and MSN - directories for all, strong basics covered for all, and fresh content, large page numbers, the list is extensive but attainable.

Not really all that hard IMO Aussie. A fifty page site without much fresh content can rank well for competitive terms on the three major engines in my experience.

[Chris Boggs]

Just to get the record straight, we can and should optimize for all SE's. I believe that if you follow strict methodology to focus on the searcher while keeping Google in your peripheral vision, the other rankings will also occur.

[Chris Boggs]

The real, real change people aren't largely understanding is the shift away web results to specialty results. This is the invisible tabs (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3115131) concept I've talked about.

I did a Search Detours panel (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=888) on this at SES San Jose, and the audience seemed largely confused. We talked about how search engines were shifting slowly away from being so dependant on web results. People didn't get it -- so what were the tips to follow, someone asked.

My response was that they needed to understand that down the line, in some cases, a search will bring back shopping results by default, or news results, or local results, or image results and so on. Web search results will be "backup," the stuff that kicks in only if other things aren't found.

So to come all the way back up to the start of this thread, it's not a problem to me that people might focus just on Google. It's a problem that they assume Google = Google Web Search and they may neglect the many specialized search engines Google and others offer. Those are the ones on the rise, in my view.

Will Google and the other big boys just buy these out and use them within "invisible tabs?"

I read the “invisible tabs” article and it is very relevant to this discussion. Funny how a whole year later Ask Jeeves still provides a better (IMO) result w/images rather than simply suggesting the “Try Google Images” for a search of “picture of dna” at each. You would think that this would automatically be the next step in order for Google to essential “keep up.”

Already Google provides a variety of “invisible tabs” built into the use of a command and colon within the box - from something as elementary as using the “define:” for a tough word or to check the spelling, to as specialized as using the “inanchor:keyword” search. Question is, since all the SE’s don’t seem to be using many visible tabs on their search home pages, are they going to skip the visible ones altogether?

Will this affect us? I don’t think so, because inclusion will still be attainable within all search engines as long as the content, popularity, and linking is there (certainly not necessarily in that order). Spots will of course exist with a “for sale” sign attached, but that is for a PPC discussion.

[Receptional]

I think that serious SEO firms - and the industry in general - would have died WITHOUT a new player coming in. To me, going back from one major player to three is a breath of fresh air and I am sure those of us that are so long in the tooth that we remember Inktomi being on Yahoo and Black Monday on Alta Vista will all agree.

Certainly, Google is a relatively recent phenomenon (as is pay per click by the way) and there were some serious technologies out there were deep crawling way before Larry and Sergei got a temporary monopoly.

But that is just it, isn't it? Temporary. Live by Google, Die by Google. Serious clients (and long term SEOs) can't risk that approach and would be foolish to do so. This has made for some careful maturing of SEO firms in the Google period. You can get to the top using black hat, or get to the top using white hat, but as time marches on, you can't do it white hat without brand, longevity and big bucks and (hopefully) actually BEING the best site (or one of the best) for the search phrase in question.

So we get back (let's hope) to content is king - or is at least a prince among thieves and judging a site's reputation based on link structures is what Google bought to the mix. But hey - who owns the Direct Hit technology these days? that is another way to measure reputation, as is technologies like Hitwise which could be brought into the algos. There is plenty left to do and competition is good for us as SEOs because it means the pace of change gives us a place within the scheme of things.

[Chris Boggs]

Wadabout optimizing for Accoona, the "SE with AI." This is certainly the use of invisible tabs...

probably going to move this post or delete it and suggest a new thread, but take a look at what I'm talking about if you haven't seen:

"Accoona plans to improve Web search with artificial intelligence and data on more than 10 million businesses. Its search engine will let people refine search queries with particular emphasis on certain words. Alternatively, people can look specifically for company information such as its address, phone number or revenue." article here (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5480269.html)

[idahoguy]

I just checked one of our top listings with all the major players. The KW phrase I checked for is EXTREMELY popular, and just last month we finally acheived the number one position on Yahoo, MSN, and yes, now Accoona.

I look in Google, not even in the top 100!!!

There are no tricks or black SEO ops getting our page to rank #1 in the other sites, just good content and good links. That is why I get annoyed with Google. Yes, our page has good info on the given subject, but not to many links pointing to it.

Thus, another Google failure to rank the page well because of the lack of links.... gotta luv their warped SERPs.

[St0n3y]

Just to get the record straight, we can and should optimize for all SE's. I believe that if you follow strict methodology to focus on the searcher while keeping Google in your peripheral vision, the other rankings will also occur.

I don't know if its feesible to optimize for "all" search engines. Not to say you cannot perform well for many just by good optimization tactics. We made a decision to target and report only on the top 5 engines, or whatever covers 90% of the search marketshare.

[Chris Boggs]

I don't know if its feesible to optimize for "all" search engines. Not to say you cannot perform well for many just by good optimization tactics. We made a decision to target and report only on the top 5 engines, or whatever covers 90% of the search marketshare.

agreed. I should have been more clear. But take a site like rugs-direct.com (a client's competitor) and you will find it in almost ALL SE's near the top...

[dannysullivan]

Will Google and the other big boys just buy these out and use them within "invisible tabs?"
There's going to be a combination. In some cases, a good vertical search engine will get purchased. Yahoo bought the FareChase travel search engine; AOL bought the Singingfish multimedia search engine. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

In other cases, they'll develop internally. Yahoo put a huge effort into Yahoo Local. Google rolled its own shopping search engine with Froogle.

The middle ground will be partnering. Ask Jeeves picks up its local search from Citysearch.

The key to me is to watch as each particular vertical search starts to gain prominence on the majors. Google does direct display of some Froogle results now above web search results. That's going to detour some over to Froogle. Yahoo does the same with local. The smart marketers will see this, understand these key verticals and figure out how to be well positioned in them. Then down the line, when the switch finally flips and in response to a search an engine is certain to be about shopping, they'll feed you shopping results by default -- and the marketer who looked ahead will be set.

This doesn't mean ignoring web search. That's always going to be important. But it does mean to ensure you put time diversifying and looking at other things.