Google Instant Search kills SEO? No, but the hype goes on By By Paul Wallis Sep 23, 2010 in Internet The reaction to the instant searches has been interesting if uninformed. There are already blogs telling people how to turn it off. The first outbreak of wisdom from the net was that Google’s Instant Search was the death of SEO. Not so. Instant search is an upgrade from the original queue of common search results, which is called “Suggest”. The only difference is that it’s a bit faster, in fact so fast on its own preferred searches that I’ve had to blink to see it’s already searched it a few times. This is where SEO comes in. Search engines, after all, are search engines. They have to work on some sort of priority basis, and SEO is inseparable from that process. So page rankings, etc, for business are still extremely important. The search queues are just good quick searches, no more, no less. The mythology about “instant search vs. SEO” seems to have started where all debates about SEO start- From people who don’t know much about SEO. SEO is a structure, and if you’ve ever written SEO materials, you’ll know how utterly bulletproof your copy has to be to get accepted on SEO. A classic case of SEO in operation is the basic name search. Type in a Christian name, and you’ll get an instant list of some celebrities and people you’ve never heard of before. That’s what SEO is designed to untangle. Take that further to class of item searches like “ink cartridges”. Millions of results, a few queues like “buy ink cartridges online”, etc, and you can see why SEO is so necessary. Your chances of finding anything need the basic search to be refined as much as possible. An Australian expert on business SEO has written (For example if you search “Jennifer”, you can expect “Aniston, Love Hewitt”, etc to pop up automatically, so the long tail keywords, the surnames, aren’t really necessary.) Google Instant is definitely more efficient than its predecessor, but it’s got some way to go in terms of providing more quality control in some searches, notably image searches. This new search option, like its predecessors tends to get a little confusing if you search Audrey Hepburn images and get a picture of a Tyrannosaurus. I’m sure they’re working on it, but I’d be careful about doing a remake of Breakfast At Tiffany’s until they get it right. You’d never get the insurance. The instant search approach has if anything refined SEO to some extent.Instant search is an upgrade from the original queue of common search results, which is called “Suggest”. The only difference is that it’s a bit faster, in fact so fast on its own preferred searches that I’ve had to blink to see it’s already searched it a few times.This is where SEO comes in. Search engines, after all, are search engines. They have to work on some sort of priority basis, and SEO is inseparable from that process. So page rankings, etc, for business are still extremely important. The search queues are just good quick searches, no more, no less.The mythology about “instant search vs. SEO” seems to have started where all debates about SEO start- From people who don’t know much about SEO. SEO is a structure, and if you’ve ever written SEO materials, you’ll know how utterly bulletproof your copy has to be to get accepted on SEO.A classic case of SEO in operation is the basic name search. Type in a Christian name, and you’ll get an instant list of some celebrities and people you’ve never heard of before. That’s what SEO is designed to untangle.Take that further to class of item searches like “ink cartridges”. Millions of results, a few queues like “buy ink cartridges online”, etc, and you can see why SEO is so necessary. Your chances of finding anything need the basic search to be refined as much as possible.An Australian expert on business SEO has written a piece about the “instant search vs. SEO” concept to help unravel the many loose threads this idea has created. This article also covers the ongoing debate about “short tail and long tail” keywords. The writer points out that Instant Search is driving the searches more to short tail keywords because of the Suggest function. The search obviates long tail keywords, which tend to be qualifiers.(For example if you search “Jennifer”, you can expect “Aniston, Love Hewitt”, etc to pop up automatically, so the long tail keywords, the surnames, aren’t really necessary.)Google Instant is definitely more efficient than its predecessor, but it’s got some way to go in terms of providing more quality control in some searches, notably image searches. This new search option, like its predecessors tends to get a little confusing if you search Audrey Hepburn images and get a picture of a Tyrannosaurus. I’m sure they’re working on it, but I’d be careful about doing a remake of Breakfast At Tiffany’s until they get it right. You’d never get the insurance. More about Google instant search, Seo, Seo keywords google instant searc... seo seo keywords