Interdisciplinary fields working together for the future of SEO

A question that is on my mind is: "What is the future of SEO?" Perhaps, the question is somewhat shortsighted in the way it is stated. Will the noun, SEO, be around in the next decade? Yet, it is the word we have to work with now.

I have an educational background in research. My educational background does not include much marketing, but philosophy, psychology and other disciplines. I am finding that I draw on my backgrounds for unique, creative ideas that work in the field of SEO. SEO is not for the business/marketing majors alone.

My premise is: The future of SEO must involve a cooperative effort by those in various fields of study. Hence, an SEO consortium should be developed which includes researchers in all the fields of study.

Before you get bored with this post, let me get the ball rolling by identifying a couple of examples. I am looking for your input!

Anthropology: A study of man's culture. As it relates to SEO, we need Anthropologists to inform us as to how various cultures behave. That is, "Where do they go for their information?" "Where do they frequent?" The last point will have an impact on Web 3.0.

Psychology: A study of man's thinking/behavior. As it relates to SEO, we need Psychologists to inform us as to how various people think and what motivates their behavior? How effective are PPCs? I believe they have lost most of their effectiveness because they are placed at the top (in purple rectangles) and on the sides of search engine/webpages. We have learned that these are ads, so we (at least I) ignore them for the most part. For now, it seems to me top position on the SERPs is the most effective placement. What about the future? Will Google/Yahoo and MSN learn that and give paid ads more, if not dominant page coverage?

Paid ads and Organic listings are determined by two different algorithms.

Paid ads are all about someone willing to purchase traffic regardless of how much good information they have about the subject. They simply want visitors who might spend. These ads are promoted on the basis of willingness to pay plus ad appeal.

Organic listings are promoted on something entirely different. They are promoted on the basis of what the search engines feel is most relevant (onpage) combined with what they feel is most important (offpage). The search engines try to eliminate the "paid" part of the equation here (except for a few paid inclusion programs).

So these two groups of listings are different - one is entirely commercial or branding.... the other is informational or commercial which has somehow garnered enough off-page to be promoted.

I think that you are right about the future... today content, title tag and ad writing are mostly done by clever folks who are trying to do everything (content, SEO, usability, SERP appeal, marketing, promotion, etc)... but as time passes specialists will begin to take over - especially in the big companies. As this happens it will become much harder for the small guy to survive as he will not only compete with other solo workers or small companies in his niche... but with giant companies who have an army of specialists all cooperating on the attack. Look at how the military has evolved and the role of the specialist has matured. Very different from just a few decades ago.

If you think that competition on the web is tough now... wait a few years and see what it is like. It is going to be insane!

You either will need to be one mighty smart individual / small company OR you will need to have such a highly established site that hangs onto a tiny niche the Golaith has not decided to take from you -- yet. Then you will need to worry about the Wikipedia's, the Walmarts, major hotels and airlines. Don't count on search engine traffic in your ten year plan unless you really have a powerful site, are really foxy and have built up a lot of resources to hold off the attacks.

EGOL:True, True, True. But do you have education in a particular field of study, or are familiar enough with a particular field that will contribute to anticipating future trends? For example, Economists: study of money. The future involves spending alot more than everyone else.

Seriously though, I'm looking for input that comes directly from various fields of study as it may relate to the future of SEO. Companies like Converseon actually work (intentionally or unintentionally) in the field of sociology. This gave them their particular niche and they are trend setters.

The following fields of study have contributions to make for SEO. I believe they are largely untapped. How do you think each will contribute to anticipating future trends? Economics, Engineering, Philosophy, Ethics, History, Mathematics, Education, Sociology etcetera

Another possible contribution from:

Educational Psychology: the study of how people learn and process information. Studies on eye tracking have been made on producing menus and flyers. How about computer screens? When people search for information on a computer, where is the concentration of their eye movements? Is it better to have first position on page one in the SERPs or is it better to be in the purple box on top (not suggesting that we should not give up on the organic positioning)? Only educational psychologists can provide us the hard data on these facts. Perhaps search engines are studying these things and putting paid ads in the more concentrated eye-reading spots, or are they.

Theology: the study of God. Pray three times a day toward the silicon valley

If we believe that SEO is a combination of art/science, then we need to seriously analyze all sides of our endeavor. I have just found the following article that highlights some of what this thread is about. Thought I would pass it along:

MIT & University of Southhampton
Quote from the above link: "Web science, the researchers say, has social and engineering dimensions."

I believe there are more than "social/engineering" dimensions as I hope this thread reveals.

I have multiple degrees and 35 years of work experience in statistics, a field of specialty, education and government. That background gives me a good knowledge of what grabs people's interest in my fields of expertise, what to do with analytics programs such as clicktracks, crazyegg, google analytics, and understanding the philosophy and goals of the .edu and .gov webmaster.

So, I am heavy in those areas but need lots of hired assistance in other areas such as webdesign, graphics, programming and other jobs. I often find that people in those fields are totally unaware of the needs of a search engine competetive website - even if they have been building for the web for a long time. Then throw usabilty on top of that and the number of chasyms increase.

I think that what is needed are "core areas of understanding" when it comes to the web so that people in various fields can come together and accomplish things in a seamless way. If you go interdisciplinary you still need a common set of understandings that allow connection and communication to happen.

That is exactly why a serious think-tank consortium of professionals in unconventional fields of study need to come together for SEO work. Is there one?

PLEASE do not think that I am suggesting that the current SES seminars are lacking. I benefit from them greatly. I just think that we need to develop a broader, intentional research consortium. It seems that MIT sees the need.

You are right... The closest thing that I know of are forums. But even there the emphasis tends to be on one dimension such as SEO, blackhat, programming, analytics, etc. They are silos.

I attend SES meetings also and find them to be extremely useful. However they are also topical rather than holistic.

I started in the statistical and analytical arena then moved on to electronic engineering. From there I found I loved applying a technical wants with statistical needs to the high tech marketplace.

Once there, I found that money drives everything... so went into the financial end of business and the markets they serve. Long story... this conclusion: Do not get so tied up with the technology or technological truisms when selling to a ready market.

Bottomline: When money is spent, it is usually a human that is doing it. I focus on the customer...not the stuped search engines. All else is secondary and of little consequence if you cannot convince your customer to buy.

Design your products, website, content, advertisements, etc. to satisfy the individual that will decide whether to award you a dollar or not. This includes your visitors, Adsense users, or anyone else that may be willing to part with their money.

Search engines will not pay your bills... only customers will. With this in mind, satisfying your customer is top priority with search engine SERP success being secondary. It does no good to be tops in the SERPs if your customers are not willing to buy. You first have to develop a product and story that sells, then find the customers to sell it to.

I understand all of that SEO_AM. I nearly agree with all of your comments. I am simply wanting to find professional, technical, academic writings which will give real research as it relates to SEO.

Most disciplines of study have think-tanks and academic Journals. SEO is certainly a discipline that needs it. Academic think-tanks and Journals provide solid, verifiable, noted research that we can use. Reputations on forums give some evidence that a person knows his/her stuff. However, I am sure you can attest to other posters gaining reputations on things far less than thoughtful, forward-thinking posts.

Most marketing industries that I am familiar with (auto industry esp.) all have their technical journals. They are all about ready markets.

I like this forum. I like the blogs. I simply want more, real, definitive research. If we are forward thinkers, this is one of the most basic areas that needs development. I say (we) not suggesting that I am qualified to develop a think-tank. I am raising awareness.

With all of that said, I am not out to become a top poster. I'd make a fool of myself. I simply want validated, academic information that I can use. I want to become more credible, relevant and effective.

I in some ways agree that a very structured method of looking at SEO is required. The difficulty is that we are not dealing with a subject where any truth or conclusions can be long lasting; the search engine is created and manipulated daily by their owners. Thereby, the "science" of SEO is not a science at all. It is really a skill set that one develops through research, experimentation and drawing conclusions that may change with the next algo change.

The so called "science" of SEO has its foundation built upon an ever changing set of rules established by the owners of the search engines. This in itself will rule out "SEO" being a science. If it were a science, there would be the ability to have a thesis proven and duplicated. Yes... we have done this in the past, but only to have human intervention change all the rules once again. This is not Divine... it is Google itervention.

I think we disagree philosophically, but agree somewhat methodologically.

We both agree:
--Search engines are in constant flux
--Good, solid research today may not be relevant tomorrow.

Yet, our basic presuppositions are far apart. I hope to bring you closer to my position:
--Human nature does not change: humans are currenly involved on both sides of the search engine dynamic. Humans will always be involved. That is where true science applies.

--The study of ethics, as they apply to SEO holds certain, identifiable truths. The application of ethical practices certainly changes, but the basic tenents do not.

These, in my opinion, are absolutely critical areas of research and will give SEOs (or whatever they are called in the future) a solid foundation for their work.