There will be a time when Social-ranking becomes crucial (sometimes more credible) along with web page ranking in search engine results. Traditional methods of ranking factors is about to get a makeover due to the huge explosion of social media. Search engines are turning smarter and intelligent to provide its customers more competitive, desired and apt results considering the social signals. Google, Bing and other search engines are altering their 'everchanging" algorithm to optimize better results by analyzing patterns in social media arena.
Some argue that SEO is dead, but frankly it is evolving gradually with rapid changes. Search engines are becoming clever and selfish and also they are becoming for profit companies but their prime focus should be on better user satisfaction since that alone will help them sustain in the market. User satisfaction in search engines is measured by the user patterns and behavior such as click through rates, low bounce rates, and a variety of other metrics, otherwise known as 'social signals'.
Social media can be an effective way of measuring user satisfaction. Google, Bing and other search engines have been looking at social media sites due to its massive usage. Of this, Facebook and Twitter tops followed by Digg, Stumble upon, My space, Delicious etc, equally important is the user interactions in blogs, forums, news articles and many more.
Google uses more than 200 different "signals" to decide to rank a web page and some of the factors are Pagerank, Anchortext, HTML, title tag etc. What is unclear is how social signals have been included. Search engines confirm page authority in the social sites like they have trusted websites. In the same way, as your page gets a PageRank, it can also get a social rank according to your 'visibility' and popularity in the social media. Whatever url/ link they carry have a reputation or credibility, the same is with social media. This would be a way for them to know how much authority that people — rather than pages representing people — have on social networks, and to let those people have a signal that influences rankings. Both Google and Bing might count an article/link as a signal which is re-tweeted or referenced much in twitter. Bing is also considering the number of followers, following list and tweets so that it will result in more authoritative people topping search results. Also Google and Bing track links shared in Facebook as 'Everyone' and links from Fan pages.
Google Web search becoming social covers how Google is showing 'shared by' figures next to news stories which show how many people on twitter are sharing the same news item. Google has started showing "shared by" figures next to news stories. Shared by (number) indicates the number of people on twitter sharing the same news item. This is a clear indication Google is becoming social.
The stories have been ranked according to the number of shares. Meanwhile Bing claims; in the near future search results will also list the number of 'Facebook Likes" next to them but they claim it is only for the sake of display alone. According to bing web pages won't be ranked by number of likes or consider as part of the overall ranking signals. I assume in future they might include number of likes in twitter / facebook as part of their algorithm. There is a probability of Twitter Rank and Retweets as the "new link building" as if your page is mentioned in tweets by authoritative people (as getting links in popular, trusted websites) you get reputation which will in turn help your ranking in search results.
So search is becoming more social and SEO has to keep track all these in order to survive in the market.
Google calls Microsoft a copycat (week in review)
Google has a harsh word to describe Microsoft: plagiarist.
After noticing curious search results at Bing, then running a sting operation to investigate further, Google has ,a concluded that Microsoft was copying Google search results into its own search engine. The story began with Google's team for correcting typographical errors in search terms, which monitors its own and rivals' performance closely.
Next came the sting, which featured a one-time code that manually ranked a page for a specific term. Google then had employees type in those terms from home using Internet Explorer with both Suggested Sites and the Bing Toolbar enabled, clicking the top results as they went. Two weeks later, Bing showed the Google results that had been hand-coded.
A Bing executive acknowledged monitoring what links users clicked but essentially described it as letting humans help gather data through crowdsourcing.
However, another executive was adamant that Microsoft was not using Google's search results.
We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop," Yusuf Mehdi, Microsoft's senior VP of its Online Services Division, wrote in a post on Bing's community blog. "We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such activity is just insulting."
- Google, Microsoft trade barbs over Bing 'copying'
- Microsoft: Google's Bing test was 'good subterfuge'
Google has been playing catch-up to Apple in the mobile world for several years, but it's starting to carve out its own niche by emphasizing its strength on the Web.
The Android Market Web Store was the most interesting thing to emerge from yesterday's event at Google headquarters, and it's one that Apple can't easily duplicate overnight. It's also in keeping with Google's philosophy of pushing Web development over native software development when possible, a strategy that isn't always practical on smartphones but is starting to make more sense as computing power grows in ,tablets.
Most importantly for Google, it gives Android users a cleaner, simpler, and more user-friendly option for buying apps than the much-maligned Android Market. It should also appeal to developers, who will have many more options at their fingertips for promoting their apps on the store and a better chance of being found within the sea of applications.
The advantages of the Android Market Web Store are simple: Android users can browse app selections just like any other Web site from any Web-connected device, rather than dealing with the small, cluttered, and awkward Android Market interface on their phones. A purchased app is linked with a Google Account rather than a device, so it can be automatically pushed to any Android devices registered to that account at the time of purchase.
And Google has also come up with something that hits Apple where it hurts: Web services. For all its skill in designing mobile hardware and software, Apple hasn't been able to come up with all that many services that tie everything together over the Web. (Find My iPhone is a notable exception, but that requires a $99 annual subscription to MobileMe. UPDATED 4:50 p.m. As pointed out in the comments, iPhone 4 users with iOS 4.2 installed can get this for free.)
Apple's iTunes is the hub for its mobile strategy, and even the most diehard Apple fan would admit that desktop application is getting a bit long in the tooth. iTunes has given Apple an centralized distribution and payment-processing system that's arguably as responsible for the growth of iOS as anything, but it's resource-intensive and linked to a single computer: you can manage and purchase apps on the iPhone or iPad, of course, but if you want to back them up, you have to physically connect the device to a computer.
Google has long sought to eliminate that link with its Android strategy, pitching its Web-based services as a selling point for those concerned about app backup and contact management. However, it didn't really have a credible alternative to the ease-of-use that accompanies app shopping on a bigger screen, not to mention the rather poor experience in the native Android Market. Now it does.
