Is Google up to something?

I can already hear some sighs and “Oh no, not again!” Well, I have not unearthed any of Google’s dirty secrets (I am hoping they don’t have any), and I am not here to make a startling revelation. I am writing this post to share with you (I hope you like it) the critical self analysis of Google’s Search Engine Optimization Starter Guide.

The guide was released day before yesterday and I am sure most of you have read it by now. I’m assuming you have read it because every move made by Google attracts a lot of press and media; and travels far and wide. The guide is a good read and is informative and concise. Not a lot of things that SEO pros would not know about but then there are many people out there who are still learning the basics. It has the potential to become ‘SEO’s holy grail’ for beginners. However I found some exclusions and conflicting views while reading through the guide.

The guide is christened ‘search engine optimization starter guide’ but all they say is “…following the best practices outlined below will make it easier for search engines to both crawl and index your content.” I believe that it is very different to saying something like this, “…following the best practices outlined below will make it easier for search engines to both crawl and index your content and may/would increase your rankings.” Google certainly did not want to comment on rankings; and whether the advices contained in the guide, if implemented, would enhance rankings.

(Intentional?) Exclusions:

The guide has successfully managed to avoid discussing or providing advice on back links or inbound links. It does discuss internal and outbound links under “Write better anchor text” and “Be aware of rel=”no follow” for links”. However, the only implied mention of inbound links can be found in the follow section:

The guide does not discuss about the semantic HTML structure of the web pages. It does mention about h1-h6 under “Use heading tags appropriately” but has ignored other critical elements.

There is no mention of blended search, geo targeting, compliance to coding standards, and the discussion on Page Rank is conspicuously absent. It also does not talk about the pitfalls of Flash or AJAX based websites and how it could be improved upon. While these aspects may not be directly related to basic SEO (I hoping they will add onto it), but they do render the guide to be incomplete (little knowledge is dangerous). You cannot aspire to launch a rocket into space with access to just half the operation manuals!

Conflicting view:

The guide embarks upon “friendlier” URLs under “Improve the structure of your URLs”. The example quoted by Google is displayed below.

You don’t need to be an expert to tell that this is a dynamic URL; I can’t think of any human being who would write such URLs. The guide states that such URLs can be “confusing and unfriendly” and “Google is good at crawling all types of URL structures, even if they’re quite complex, but spending the time to make your URLs as simple as possible for both users and search engines can help.” Is Google hinting about URL re-writing and if they are why on earth did they publish this (Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs) post; an understanding that eludes me. A change in policy perhaps!

Should you be worried?

Well I am not and nor would be the SEO pros who know their stuff. Many of you (especially people in their initial learning phase) would have read the guide page by page and think that they are ready to start. I hate to break this to you (I have no intention of disheartening anyone) but I think you are not ready yet.

I have no prejudice against Google; they built the most effective search engine ever and offer great products and services. I use many of Google’s service on a daily basis and it has made a great difference to my life.

All I wanted to say is “Don’t base everything on this guide. It is no doubt a great source of information but there are so many things to learn and many different places to learn from.” Take it with a pinch of salt, will you?