|Google SEO longterm?|
| 8:57 am on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I had a site, SEO was done, was in top rankings for about 2 months then overnight for no reason site was positioned way down the rankings. All practices were ethical and it seemed no point or logic to this what happend to me.
If you speak to all the best Internet Marketing Pros they tell you SEO is a waste of time longterm, everyone in the industry has lost their position at somepoint from what I gather - or am I wrong?
I want to hear from anyone who has had long term success with SEO say for 6 months or longer....
| 2:54 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Marcia, I think we both need sleep ;)
If not for the recent change, the answer to this topic would probably have been 1 post (and 1 3-letter word) long.
However, a lot of members here are rightfully concerned that the impact of these changes, the effects they are having on the relevancy of the referrals we are getting from Google vs. other search engines, and what this might hold for the long-term future of both SEO for Google, and well as long-term prospects for Google itself.
| 3:00 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yea, I heard some of the same stuff on CNBC last night.
|Small Website Guy|
| 3:04 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google, like all other big corporations, exists to make money for themselves.
Google does this by providing a free service, and making money from selling advertising. This business model is not unique. Broadcast television and radio have made money through the exact same business model for many decades.
To the extent that Google hasn't "overreached" in an attempt to rake in more money at the expense of the user experience, this is probably ending now that Google is IPOing soon. Wall Street investors want to see steadily increasing profits. With Google in a pre-IPO stage now, the new Florida update may be a way to increase revenues in order to maximize the value of the IPO.
This is not a "conspiracy." A conspiracy is a secret agreement to do an unlawful act. Google is doing nothing unlawful in maximizing its profits, and Google is no more secretive about its actions than any other commercial enterprise. Just as Coca Cola doesn't tell you its formula for making it's flagship beverage, Google doesn't tell you how the search results are computed.
| 3:12 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Wow, oodlum, seasalt, great finds.
A couple links of relevant interest -
Business Wire Press Release -
"Should investors buy the stock--or run for their lives?"
Fortune Article, now on-line -
(reading it myself now)
| 3:15 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Wall Street investors want to see steadily increasing profits.<<
They also want to see a CEO, COO, CFO, that can keep the company moving forward, keep their customers, i.e. the advertisers, happy and have a good public perception.
>>Google is doing nothing unlawful<<
Well at least as far as we know.
| 3:20 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Long-term SEO may not even be necessary with a
>company posessing a corporate culture like that.
Sorry, gotta chuckle. From my, admittedly, limited understanding, G's corporate culture isn't any different today than it was when folks were fawning and
in awe of G's success a mere two weeks ago, or two months ago, or two years ago.
Yeah, obviously there have been some significant algo/filter/whatever changes this month, and from what I read here, google is doomed unless it admits its error and turns back the knob.
Oh wait though, is the above sentence referring to the Florida update, or maybe it was Esmerelda, or just a sec, maybe it was Dominic, or maybe it was Cassandra, or maybe it was that other update, or the one before that one, awww, I remember now, it was danged near every update I've read about over the last year> I dinna pay any attention before then cause it wasn't untl last Turkey day time that Googlepheus snookered me into believing that blasted red pill was a good idea.
| 3:25 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sorry to interupt the current Google quality debate.
Is Google SEO long term?
Was it Keynes who said 'in the long term we are all dead'. Well, chances are, in the long term Google is doomed. It may last another 5 years but I doubt that they can hold onto the stranglehold they seem to have over searcher numbers. More likely their market share will diminish gradually over the next few years, If they do survive as THE major player than it will be because they have developed their product into a significantly different beast than it is now. In which case, all of our 'tips and tricks' for ranking well in Google will no longer work anyway.
I wish I had spent less time over the last 18 months making changes to anchor text, keyword density, etc and a little more on actual content. I think I would rank better now (not that I've dropped places in this particular update) and have a better base for the future
|Small Website Guy|
| 3:28 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for posting the Fortune article, it's VERY informative.
Google will have to start publishing financial statements at the end of Q1 2004. Obviously Google wants them to look good.
The article talks about Google's shift from supplying a great service for free to trying to find ways to make money.
| 3:30 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Who knows? But think about what would happen if Google were to give a slight boost to information pages at the expense of e-commerce and affiliate pages. The results would include:
1) A virtual end to spam for competitive keywords and keyphrases, because all e-commerce results (not just spam results) would appear lower in the SERPs where few readers go looking.
2) An immediate boost in AdWords/Adsense revenues, because e-commerce businesses would no longer be able to rely on free advertising in the SERPs.
3) Larry Page and Sergey Brin congratulating themselves on preserving the original vision of the Web. (What could be more satisfying than to be noble and make more money at the same time?)
If the above scenario were to occur, SEO would become a much different (and smaller) industry than it is now.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that this scenario should happen; I simply think it could very easily happen, because there would be very little downside for Google in following the example of traditional media by differentiating between editorial (information) and advertising (the selling of products or services through its pages).
| 3:30 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you think this update is the same as the others, I believe you are wrong.
from Fortune article...
>>For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon—America's top engineering schools—even to get invited to interview<<
The CBS CEO that just retired has his 2nd book out, and he stated on CNN that companies should hire a more diverse work force so that they get opinions from people in several different walks of life to include non-ivy league schools, and even some people that didn’t go to college at all.
|Small Website Guy|
| 3:37 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|The CBS CEO that just retired has his 2nd book out, and he stated on CNN that companies should hire a more diverse work force so that they get opinions from people in several different walks of life to include non-ivy league schools, and even some people that didn’t go to college at all. |
The overwhelming majority companies DO hire a more diverse work force. A company like Google that only hires Ivy League people is extremely rare.
But comparing Google's success to the success of the average company seriously weaken's the CBS guy's argument.
| 3:42 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>The overwhelming majority companies DO hire a more diverse work force<<
I’m not convinced of that unless you mean small businesses. I was talking about Fortune 1000 companies. I know who I worked with at Motorola and where they went to school.
>>But comparing Google's success to the success of the average company seriously weaken's the CBS guy's argument.<<
Personally I think it strengths it. Did you read the Fortune article? Have you ever had to deal with people that have ‘new money’ vs ‘old money’?
| 3:52 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think SEO is long term because if a site is relevent to the topic, and optimised for the topic (content and SEO).
As for the sub topic...
|This is what makes Brett's theory work so well. If you develop content, work on links, work on usability and even a little 'strategic' copy, etc. you won't get slammed by a single new filter. And your users will like it too. |
Some sites that have followed Brett's guidelines have been killed as well. Mine was.
| 4:00 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|europe, it's one thing to be patient, it's another entirely to deny that a problem exists. |
Companies, like governments, nearly always deny that a problem exists. Then they fix the problem (assuming that they want to fix it and can figure out how).
|If the only opinions expressed were of the "rose colored glasses" variety ("no, really, all the SERPs are better than ever!"), then Google might think all was fine and dandy, and hold off on making any changes for a while. |
I don't believe any of the "rose-colored glasses" members said that other opinions shouldn't be expressed. And I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think only rose-colored opinions would be posted on this forum. :-)
|I am sure that many of the people here (as well as actual frustrated USERS of Google), would prefer this be fixed sooner rather than later, particularly given the time of year! |
I wouldn't argue with that.
|Small Website Guy|
| 4:02 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I’m not convinced of that unless you mean small businesses. I was talking about Fortune 1000 companies. I know who I worked with at Motorola and where they went to school. |
I haven't had any luck getting jobs at thos companies, despite having an Ivy League degree, so it beats me.
At my current company, I think I'm the lone Ivy Leaguer.
|Personally I think it strengths it. Did you read the Fortune article? Have you ever had to deal with people that have ‘new money’ vs ‘old money’? |
Google turned nothing into something worth $20 billion in just a few years. That's incredible successs that's hard to argue with.
And I have yet to experience any company that's big like Google where thinks work perfectly and make sense. My sister got a job at a big well known company, and she sat in her office with nothing to do for over a week because that's how long the bureacracy took to give her a computer.
Her salary for the week exceeded the cost of a computer. Does that make any sense?
Huge companies make money through economies of scale, DESPITE the fact that they are run incredibly poorly.
[edited by: Small_Website_Guy at 4:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
| 4:05 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>think about what would happen if Google were to give a slight boost to information pages at the expense of e-commerce and affiliate pages.
An end to niche e-commerce websites, and a mass migration of users to search engines who provide the results they are looking for.
People do not surf the net idly, they are too busy to waste time. People overwhelmingly surf in order to shop for things they can't find at the mall or local superstore. Read Forrester, IDC, or Media Metrix if you think otherwise. Check the Amazon.com profit trends and productline expansion patterns.
If a surfer is looking for "quaint handmade wooden widgets" and s/he gets 100 results on the history of local wooden widgets, wooden widget preservation efforts, the great wooden widget debate, widget fanciers forum entries, etc etc but cannot find where to actually BUY a wooden widget for dear old Aunt Fanny's birthday, they are *click* gone with the wind.
Google can pursue noble goals all it wants. Bottom line is MONEY, and without relevant results there are no surfers, no one looks at their ads, merchants like me don't pay for ads that no one looks at, and it's sayonnara Google.
I notice a LOT more traffic and sales coming in from MSN and the Inktomi and Ask universes lately. Good thing I market and optimize for my visitors, not the fickle (read: narcisstically neurotic) Google Gods on Mount Olympus.
| 4:10 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Fortune article was a Very Interesting read - gives the good and the bad.
Two questions came to mind:
First, the last time the algo got messed-up, it was right after they got some bad press (in that case, on "Googlebombing").
I read in this article about Google's weak spot is it's inability to "lock in" customers, that - "Though its search engine is a wonderful tool for using the Net, what happens when a better search engine comes along? Or just a good-enough search engine in the hands of a powerful rival? Is there anything to keep users wedded to Google? "Google has a lot of momentum, but its current position is probably not defensible," says an investor."
Are we seeing history repeat itself? Is Google doing another knee-jerk to blunt bad press?
Is this the "Next Big Thing" they wanted to out-do MSN and Yahoo with, but in the rush to get it out before the article, things went horribly wrong?
The other thing in the article that caught my eye - does Google really use a large force of "slave labor" contractors, with no benefits, options, and even ostracized from the company's social events?
Do you really have to be an Ivy-league graduate to become a regular employee with actual beni's?
And is GG one of the "choosen few"? Or one of the "unwashed masses"?
| 4:34 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Gotta take everything you read with a grain of salt, aspdesigner. My perception from reading the article was that they talked to a lot more people outside of Google than inside. "Hmm, people hopped in and out of my presentation--Google must be about to collapse in disarray!" Anyway, I'm certainly not an Ivy Leaguer. :)