When you hear the word Facebook, you probably think of: networking, friendships, funny pictures (that probably shouldn’t be seen by the general public)… pretty much a fun little bubble where your online life can exist and risky things can be kept secret.
Now, depending on your level of involvement with the Internet industry, you may hear search engine and immediately think of… well… searching for things/information/products/etc. For the seasoned Internet adventurer, you may think and be familiar with terms such as algorithms, search queries, keywords, SERPs, quality score and so much more.
Enter Facebook Search
Facebook is now challenging and blurring the lines between search and social by offering Open Graph abilities that tie external websites to internal Facebook processes and thus entering the search market. Originally, when building and marketing a brand’s website, you had few things more important than search engine optimization and:
- Targeting (the right) keywords
- Targeted metadata (title tags, descriptions that will entice people click through to your site)
- Link building (especially important)
- On-site optimization
- Conversion rates
This all goes along with other marketing/SEO aspects.
Now, site designers and brand owners need to view ‘SEO’ in a completely different way and shift and adapt (these are two of the most important words in any good Internet marketers lexicon). With Facebook’s Open Graph offering the option to implement a “Like” or “Recommend” button on your website, we not only need to have useful, compelling and informative content, but we need to be able to do make sure that our content is ‘Likeable’ and that our customers and visitors will want to share it. Thus showing up in the Open Graph search.
Facebook is almost acting like its own conglomerate “Internet” package – it offers the ability to share user content and now (since they technically stepped into the search market) they are offering an internal “SEO” of sorts. How long will it be until the “Like” feature replaces a traditional link?
Link vs. Like
Word-of-mouth marketing has been a tried and true strategy for many brands, and to this day, it’s still one of the driving factors of brand recommendation. The “Like” or “Recommend” feature is almost an online version of word-of-mouth marketing. People see content or products that they find useful- and they “like” it. When it shows up in their friend’s activity feed, they’ll check it out and possibly “like” it as well.
This is how it happens. Let’s use CNN for an example:
- CNN puts out content while integrating the “Like” or “Recommend” feature on their physical web presence.
- Users login to the external website, thanks to Open Graph, (CNN for instance) and “Like” an article.
- CNN now aggregates this into your friend’s activity feed, on the CNN homepage, if they opt in to CNN to receive this information.
- Facebook then pulls this information in, via Open Graph, and it displays in the news feed and on your profile page.
- The code that the websites are integrating to enable this cross-capability can also be optimized in an “SEO” like way- just like with regular code.
As you’ll see on the Open Graph protocol site, in order for your object to be represented within a graph, you have to pick which type it belongs to, which can range from:
- Organizations
- Groups
- People
- Places
- Products and Organizations
…and more.
These objects are what will be helping sites surface within Facebook’s Open Graph search results while linking to the external source. While it’s not known exactly how the details are actually going to work out, you’ll notice that it’s already been rolling out and appearing in search.
I took the liberty of searching up a page that I already knew was bringing to light some SEO proof.
If you search up “Annapolis Marriott” in the search bar, you’ll come up with these results:
You’ll notice that the second result has “Source: tripadvisor.com”- which will link you out to the external page. Those results are eventually going to be ranked by the amount of “likes” once the whole system is into place.
TripAdvisor (and their millions of reviewers) are evidently ahead of the game.
Is this the end of the SEO game for Google?
How will this impact traditional SEO practices?
So what does this mean for Google and other search engines? I’m not going to be all doom and gloom, like I was previously, saying that this will be the END of traditional SEO as we know it. I will, however, take a step back and say that while this isn’t a direct threat (right now) it’s going to be working almost parallel to traditional SEO practices.
Not only will we need to be link building, maintaining on-site SEO and implementing findability strategies for websites, but we’re also going to have to put a strategy in to place to push our content out and make it social and shareable. Wouldn’t it be a shame if your site was ranking on the first page of Google for a search term, but the majority of people are searching within Facebook and you lose a possible conversion because you weren’t taking Open Graph seriously? Trust me, it would be….
Don’t make this mistake. Even if it’s not a direct threat now, it’ a NEW market to optimize within. As Internet marketers, we need to be constantly shifting and adapting to new techniques and practices.
What are your thoughts? Are you taking Facebook’s Open Graph seriously?
BTW – be sure to follow BlueGlass on Twitter feed here. Or subscribe to our RSS feed here.
46 Comments












I read the same sort of article the other day, and at the first lecture I agreed with it. Then I asked myself this question: how is Facebook going to fight against SPAM, if they decide to apply a ranking system of the web based on those “like”? If you think about it , in a spammy world, a “like” will be much easier to get than a “link”. I think this is where the limit is at the moment for Facebook, the exposure to spam will be huge. It will be very hard to realize which “like” are spammy and which ones are not.
Mixing the bing algorithm with the open graph data could be a Google killer though. A combination of the 2 could clearly make a point of differentiation compared to Google. But still, SPAM remain a problem with the “Like” button.
I agree with what you’re saying about spam, but you have to remember that there’s always ways to trick the system, and spam isn’t something that can be completely contained. Even though an algorithm can be extremely smart, it cannot catch everything – that’s why we still need a human element in the mix.
With that said, its true that anybody can go through and like a bunch of stuff- even though it’s easier than link building or trying to trick Digg, i’m sure that some kind of system will slowly fall into place. The social aspect is going to be the hardest to control- you can’t ever TRULY predict what the human dynamic will bring in regards to ‘liking” certain things.
Each individual is different, and while the algorithm can try to do something with Facebook Like to pick up a pattern in habits from the actual Facebook user, human nature is unpredictable. This is actually why I’m a little worried about Facebook having SEO like capabilities in open graph because it’s going to be very hard to control
Actually, it’s quite easy.
Likes should ultimately be weighed by the relevancy of the user profile and the users genuine interest.
For example, if I am a fan of 5 different Lost pages, have friends who all like Lost, constantly talk about Lost and visit other Lost websites … and I LIKE a Lost page, then that LIKE should have much more value than a person who is no way connected to Lost.
Same with the Annapolis Hotel example. If I visited Annapolis, shared data on Annapolis, took pictures of Annapolis, and updated my Facebook profile while in Annapolis (or in the specific Hotel) and LIKE the Hotel page, that LIKE has to be more valuable than someone who has never visit Annapolis, or the hotel.
Ultimately the value of my vote is based upon my history, interests, friends and life. That’s pretty difficult to spam.
I see what you mean- having a system evolve that categorized scores from interests, friends, life etc from high to low would be useful to counteracting spammy spam spam.
Just for sake of discussion, how can Facebook “know” that someone visited Annapolis, or the hotel?
Unfortunately, FB really can’t know. They can guess, but any signals they’d use to make that guess would still be subject to manipulation and the only way to fight that manipulation would likely mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Even if FB somehow makes it work, how does ‘like’ information, consistently create SERPs/a search experience that is so much better than Google’s (or Kayak, TA, Bing, etc) that it convinces people to abandon a search engine they know and trust when MSoft, AOL, and YAHOO couldn’t?
Facebook wouldn’t know for sure, but it can aggregate an overall profile of the user based on information grabbed from the user’s interactions. Facebook can’t identity, %100, what is true, false or random (interest wise) but it will most likely have a system into place that can put emphasis on profiles that are more likely to be valued, and they will be weighed accordingly.
Just like you have websites that are of special interest, or niches, having links built for interests that are completely outside of the norm. Because of relevancy, usefulness, quality of content, etc, this will probably have a different quality score than a website that is completely niche driven and obviously so.
I don’t think Facebook search will sway people to abandon their traditional search methods- it’s all a matter of convenience.
For instance, I’m in my mid 20′s and I know some kids in their teens that have no CLUE what email is. They think communicating happens strictly through Facebook messaging, BBM, text message, etc. That particular demographic will most likely, by default, start searching on Facebook and using that system to find content and websites that they are looking for.
So as far as “abandoning”, I don’t think that will completely happen- I just think usage will heavily depend on the actual user, their generation, and their lifestyle. This is why I suspect that it’s going to run parallel to traditional SEO, as opposed to completely throw it off.
Selena – that’s a fair point, what i am struggling with is the fact that, while FB search might run parallel to traditional engines like Google, there is no real signs yet that FB, or any other social platform, will be a significant player in search.
Yes, audiences’ tastes differ as generations turn over – but that perspective doesn’t mean FB Search will inherit Google’s throne, only that it’s one of hundreds of different sites vying for the attention/affections of younger generations.
I also think the convenience argument is very flawed; Google, Yahoo, AOL, and MSoft have historically shown that web users have not embraced the bundling of search and communications. FB could buck the trend, but I have yet to see any evidence that would lead anyone to expect them to do so.
That’s the thing- it’s almost as if being referred to as a “social network” devalues its ability to become a player in the search field. In my opinion, being a social platform would put it in an even better position to have power in the search market.
We spend so much time targeting keywords and predicting consumers behavior to increase the chances of conversion- a social platform (that isn’t really just a “social” platform anymore) could have such an upper-hand if utilized correctly. And of course, a checks and balance system needs to be put into place to prevent spammy spam- that’s expected.
I don’t think Facebook will inherit Google’s throne- but you must admit, the thought and strategy going into Facebook right now is pretty much blowing any other “social” network out of the water. It’s all encompassing.
I also don’t agree with what you’re saying about the convenience argument being flawed. AOL went down because it was manipulative and fraudulent (trust me, been there) and you had to fight to get your account turned off, and Google technically is offering a “search and communications” bundle- offering one interface with chat, mail, video, search etc.
Also, if social didn’t have a chance at rocking Google’s boat, why would Google be considering something like “Google Me”…? Google knows, and has seen, that Facebook may have a strong strategy. If you want to stay on top, you have to innovate, and that means looking at your “competitors” and seeing strengths and weaknesses in their overall strategy.
With that said, I can see what you’re saying on the opposite end- Google has a strong process in place already, and it will take a lot to completely take over or shake its system.
Well written article Selena, I’m following the whole ‘like seo’ senario quite closely.
As people already mentioned, spam is always an issue for people selling information based on relevancy (google, bing, yahoo, and now facebook). However, I think that the ‘like button’ will be a much more robust system and less prone to spam than other relevancy ranking algorithms.
As @Loren Baker mentions, a system will improve over time. Facebook is in the pole position because they have access to a bunch of demographic data, and relational connections. So not only will they be able to use data that is already available to google, bing, and yahoo, but they will also be able to incorporate it with the data that they uniquely possess and create much more relevant results than ever before.
The current common spamming devices like article spinning, mass automated syndication, and other mindless spammer tools will be defeated by an increased uptake in social voting (especially with facebook). That’s not to say that other more well thought spamming strategies wont emerge… because spammers are damn clever.
I did a post on the facebook like button a few months ago, and I said similar things to what you’re saying now. If you get a chance, please check it out and drop a comment. Thanks!
I read your post- I like a lot of the points that you made.
One point I especially liked was what you said about Stumbeupon- and how it never reached Facebook’s level because it wasn’t social enough or as tight knit as FB was.
You also have a very valid point about spam- I feel that while spam will always (unfortunately) be around, the “like” system will be more annoying to do that with. For instance, if you’re just clicking like on EVERYTHING to help our a brand or what have you, your profile is going to reflect that in your “likes and interests” category on Facebook.
Nobody is going to want to have a bunch of random stuff (an a lot of it, at that) sitting in there- and the ones that have 500 likes clearly are just spammers. I have under 50, and I delete stuff all the time
The cross-over will be interesting to watch to be sure. Speaking of optimizing, do you have any numbers on which works better – the “Like” or “Recommend” button on pages (though I suspect context / category of page might have an effect there).
I don’t have any numbers, but that would be an interesting case study. I would imagine that on tutorial, services or information based/news content, “recommend” would work better, and on products (such as the Levi’s page or IMDB) “like” would work better.
Perhaps I’ll try to work on a case study for this!
There’s irony in that I couldn’t find the like button for this article.
Hey David –
I see it at the top of the page. Can you hit Shift + Reload/Refresh – it might be a caching issue….
Must have been a caching issue.
It definitely would have been ironic though David
I personally haven’t taken Facebook optimization too seriously as the majority of my clients with at the agency I used to work at were mainly B2B. However, given that many brands are consumer brands, utilizing sound strategies for Facebook optimization may make a lot of sense. Especially for some of the bigger brands that are looking to take control of their reputation and their image. Something as simple as adding a Facebook “Like” button could add a lot of value to a company blog or product page. Large consumer companies like Newegg.com could really benefit from something like this. Instead of utilizing a closed review process with a simple “X out of X people found this review helpful, did you? Yes or No”, they could instead utilize a “Like” button for individual reviews within product detail pages.
While I do believe many searches begin on Facebook, I believe the majority of these searches are for individuals and not brands. Facebook allows brands too much control. Brands are able to delete comments posted to their walls and there has yet to be a “Dislike” button released. So from that perspective, Facebook lacks the trust and authority people put in Google. Google doesn’t filter out the bad reviews.
Either way, there is definitely value in adding a few lines of code to an existing website. Especially if your brand is one that consumers search for.
I see what you’re saying about Facebook allowing too much control for brands- with allowing them to delete comments and not have a dislike button- but I don’t see how this is any different than any other official website out there for a brand.
Websites have COMPLETE control over content that is on their site, as well as reviews. I honestly don’t believe that regular brand websites (not on Facebook) don’t control what is on their site. I completely understand your point of view on Facebook- but I have to disagree because every company has control of whatever platform they are on. Twitter is a little different, because brands cannot control the @ replies to them by deleting them- but then again, that’s not a full on social network.
With that said, I also don’t agree with the idea that Google doesn’t filter out bad reviews. While Google itself doesn’t, there’s plenty of companies that get bad reviews pushed down off the first page. It all comes down to the company- they can display (or not display) whatever they want to, wherever they are.
Hi Selena, it’s interesting to read the comments, especially the more doubtful ones. I can only sit and shake my head.
Since 2003 when Google acquired Applied Semantics, the doubters have been saying that they will never integrate that company’s work into their algorithm. Then in 2006, giants fell overnight and midgets became the authority sites all because of their content. Granted, no one can prove that it was because of what Google had learned about content relevance from Applied. They cannot disprove it either. But wait, we built several small (9-25 page static websites) for some of our clients, that in the space of 6-12 months, were ranking in the top 100 for keywords with 8-10 million competitors. No external links, no article marketing, no social media marketing, just LSI optimized content and a themed navigation and site architecture blueprint.
What does this have to do with the “Like” button? Everything.
Google has already made the move in the direction of providing the most relevant content for its customers, i.e. the searchers. They do not show any signs of reversing their stance either, judging from the many, many ex-top sites that must now start their marketing efforts all over. There are probably other darker reasons that this has happened, for example, favored-son listings, etc. We are still human and as such, we can still be motivated to make favorable decisions one way or another, regardless of whether they are logical or not. Don’t believe me? Just take a look at DMOZ. Try figuring out their listing strategy.
Facebook is also attempting to do the same, by providing in this case, popular content for it’s end users, the members. Popularity being assessed by third-parties through the Like button. In direct sales, establishing trust is second only to referrals and they work hand-in-hand. The Like button is perfect for this task. If someone “Likes” a piece of content, chances are, we’ll like it too, a true recommendation. Just think how many movies you’ve seen based upon a friend’s recommendation.
Should Google be worried? I don’t think so, they have status quo on their side, they started out as a search engine. If Facebook is trying to be one, they have to overcome that. Unlike another of your posters, I don’t agree that Google is the big dog because of trust and authority. They were just the first to seriously look at the mistakes that Ask.com had made and learn from them. Heck, with all Facebook’s resources, they just might be able to give them a run. Shucks, the world is able to handle two big dogs, isn’t it?
Let’s sit back and watch while we get our content “Like” ready. Just in case.
“Facebook is also attempting to do the same, by providing in this case, popular content for it’s end users, the members. Popularity being assessed by third-parties through the Like button. In direct sales, establishing trust is second only to referrals and they work hand-in-hand. The Like button is perfect for this task. If someone “Likes” a piece of content, chances are, we’ll like it too, a true recommendation. Just think how many movies you’ve seen based upon a friend’s recommendation.”
I completely agree with what you say here- this goes along with my idea of how word-of-mouth marketing is almost one of the MOST important things that can happen for a brand. People talk- good and bad- and people are influenced by their friend’s and peer’s behaviors.
Facebook may not have that hard of a time overcoming the fact that they didn’t start out as a search engine like Google did- they’re using bing after all, so it’s not like they’re starting from scratch. I do agree that they aren’t the top dog for trust and authority- search engines can be manipulated easily and Google has also acted shady before.
Sorry to blatantly self promote but I did a similar post here: http://www.searchquest.co.uk/blog/what-facebook-are-doing-wrong/. Seems to me that the Facebook and Bing combo are perfectly placed to take on Google. For the main reason that EVERYONE has a Facebook account (ok, not everyone, but a hell of a lot more than people have a Facebook account than own websites (and know how to actually add a link to it)) So it would seem the Facebook “like” system is a more accurate demonstration of genuine popularity.
Spam? Well, it’s quite easy to see what Facebook “likes” are coming from genuine active accounts than those setup for spam purposes.
RIght, I agree. Facebook has set itself up in the perfect position to (if it wanted to) directly take on Google, if it gets the system right.
“Likes” are so much easier for the general public to understand, and do, and it’s also considered fun. Anything social at this point in time is highly relevant to our generation. You’ll even see people’s parents (and grandparents) hopping on Facebook that wouldn’t otherwise be searching through Google or looking things up. Not to mention, the young generation on Facebook that doesn’t understand there’s a whole ‘nother world outside of it.
Facebook will be getting a great majority of the users due to its simplicity.
i just read the discussions here..would it be for good?
yes.
With the use of Google and the other search engines there is no reason to use Facebook for search, you will use Facebook for “people’s names,” but not for “cheap mobile phones.” Google is safe! =]
That’s what they are moving towards- people will be able to search something in Facebook, a key term, and it will bring up results to external websites. Also, people search for brand pages and not just people’s names anymore- soon they’ll be moving to searching key terms.
I think Google is still seen separately then Facebook. I’ll go to Facebook to look for people but most likely Google for directions to a location or something. I think they offer two different things and will most likely be able to work together not against.
They do offer separate things… right now. But what I’m getting at is that Facebook could be setting itself up in a position to encroach on what Google is offering, while offering things of their own. Facebook is already working on geo-location … who knows whether they’ll decide to enter into offering maps, and other services as well.
I think the spam problem is solved because of one big difference between a Like and a link: the Like is tied to a profile which you value. Facebook can easily measure how much investment you have made in your profile and take into account this in the value of your Likes. Also, they can disable your account or devalue your input if it shows a pattern of being spammy.
I agree- you can clearly point out a profile that is entirely dedicated to swaying the “like” system by its lack of content, friends and life. A person’s profile is almost likened to their own life- it’s very personal and most people wouldn’t use their already existing and built up profile to spam.
This is an interesting an informative article. When I was reading it I realized I had seen that trip advisor example before. Then I realized most of this article already appeared a few weeks ago on AllFacebook http://www.allfacebook.com/2010/06/facebook-tests-show-seo-may-be-possible-with-open-graph/
You’ll see that I referenced that above, linking it in the first paragraph. Like I said in the post, there aren’t many data examples available (since Trip Advisor has been the only one that’s actually appeared so far, showing possible ‘seo’ like efforts).
that last point, that trip advisor is the only one that has showed up, is very interesting. why would that be?
Too be honest, I’m not sure. I tried to do a few other queries but nothing worked the way Trip Advisor did. Who knows, maybe they have an in-house SEO person who could see quite clearly what could be done with the open graph. That’s my guess.
Hi Selena ! Your article (& the subsequent discussion) made a very thought provoking reading. It would require almost a paradigm shift (from link to like, i.e.) in the minds of Google afficionados. But i have a feeling you are right especially the newer generations who practically live through social networking sites.
Thanks
I actually think the comments are becoming more educational than my post- reading what people think who are both in the industry, or learning the industry, it’s valuable to everyone involved in the discussion. Thanks for reading!
Great article! I’ve always said that “As Internet marketers, we need to be constantly shifting and adapting to new techniques and practices.” – Or else, you would be gone.
Anyway, SEO is so not ending. Google, surely, would adapt itself to rank websites ALSO using those “likes” and “retweets” and etc. There is room for SEO in the future of Internet marketing.
Frank- Yes, while social will encroach on Google, I see it (at least for the time being) as running almost parallel to each other. Thanks for the comment
I think you are right about the Facebook and more specifically the social media taking a piece of the search engine market. Google has the name recognition right now and is the creature of all of our habits, but I remember optimizing pages for Altavista before Google existed. Who uses Altavista now? It is a known fact that people will trust a well constructed and well worded site or advertisement. But this level of trust is nothing compared to what you get from independent customer forums and review sites. I think Facebook and the social media will play a big part in marketing. Especially now that most people use the social media. I think of it like the Internet. When it first came out it was slow, it was clunky, it had those animated gif’s and every site it seemed had that same power blue sidebar. Nobody trusted the Internet to shop online yet. Then more people used the Internet and the platform evolved. Now people trust and use it for everything. The social Internet is the same way. As it evolves it will start to eat into traditional marketing.
Roger- Yes! New techniques take time to evolve, and even though people may not be taking the “social” aspect of the internet seriously now, it’s going to be something people are going to want to understand and utilize in the future.
After all, there’s more to social than just talking to friends and being on Twitter. A really great and deep rooted marketing strategy can be formed and supported with social media. Thanks for the comment!
[...] Facebook Like’s Impact on SEO [...]
As a frustrated SEO enthusiast, I have spent years (literally) trying to build links to my site–aiming to do it the “right way” with considerations to the movement towards social media and the impact that it will (or is) playing on SEO efforts. I guess that is what led me to this article.
I really find it daunting that search engines keep changing their approach with considerations of new fads in the Internet world and am concerned with trying to “keep up with the times” when, as a business owner, I am spending more time trying to get my self to page one of search engines than on my core business
. I find my competitors doing weird SEO techniques to keep them to the top with the thought that,…. now,… through Facebook and such, there will be yet a new way designed to beat the system. Yet, I will have to take the time out to optimize my efforts in this manner also. I have heard comments such as “if you build it they will” come, meaning give the customers a good website and optimization will automatically happen. Sorry to say this is not true. The ones rising to the top are the ones that can afford to play games and beat the “algorithms”.
I can see both sides of this. “If you build it, they will come” is true to a point. If you have quality content, a strong referral system, and good findability, you’ll find that people will “find you.” But you’re right on this will not win alone, of course SEO plays an integral part in truly driving traffic to your site. It’s the most important step, in my opinion.
I know it’s frustrating since social is starting to influence (or at least change) our actions with SEO; it’s kind of like playing red light/green light in that sense. But the industry moves so fast that if you don’t try to keep up with the changes and directions that it’s moving, you might be left behind even if you have the best marketing. There are a lot of techniques out there, and it’s always a constant battle to be on the first page (or even number one) but don’t let that deter you from trying to play the game
It’s worth it!
I totally agree. Great content alone won’t do jack-squidly-do for your progress. It has to be promoted. Now there are a zillion ways to promote, for instance:
1. viral marketing – e.g. creating weird videos on youtube
2. seo – e.g. link building (or spamming in many cases)
3. social networking – e.g. using linkedIn to build you presence as a thought leader
4. ‘like’ button – this is going to get interesting I think
This thread is getting a bunch of interest Selena – that’s awesome.
I’m pleasantly surprised at how many people have been interested in this topic- and I think it’s awesome that it’s provoking people to really get into what Facebook is planning and what kind of strategy they have. Content is king, but without that content being shared, it’s invisible. You’re completely right about the need for promotion!
thanks