homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.8.138
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 408 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 408 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 > >     
Google SEO longterm?
layer8




msg:57671
 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....

 

Dave_Hawley




msg:57701
 11:29 am on Nov 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is Google SEO a waste of time longterm?

Yep, for the most part it is. Build your site for people not SE. Add good basic HTML linked content pages each day. Exchange links with on-topic sites and don't even look at their PR.

It really is that simple.

Mark_A




msg:57702
 12:09 pm on Nov 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Beware not to allow yourself to be mislead ..

"internet marketing" is actually what most people in here are doing these days imho. Attention to how google works is one aspect of this and in that aspect its certainly very right to remove obstacles for spiders to be sure that search engines can see what is on your sites.

Many organisations, that care to positively communicate, use a combination of serps and ppc to try to get their messages across.

To obtain more than random serps costs money, just as the use of ppc costs money, just as developing relevant compelling site contents also has costs.

To suggest google seo is a waste of time you would have to first define what is "google seo"?

If it is to "concentrate on making pages that rank well in google for specific targets terms" then no its not a complete waste of time but, as the current state of the florida update shows, sensitivity to keeping very aware of the possible changes in the rules is vital if your contents are to be found at all.

If you inadvertantly break the rules for google your site may not be found, just as if you on purpose over emphasise a promotion method and google decides to penalise that your site may also not be found.

It is my opinion that working to avoid being penalised by google is just as much "google seo" as working to get top spot for a competitive keyword.

I know plenty of companies who are the real world authority on a particular subject having higher engineering spends on that subject more customers, greater market share, larger profitability, better product ranges etc etc yet because they do not care to have sites which are even remotely compatible with google or their contents remotely relevant compared to the information needs interested parties exhibit in their search patterns, they *never* appear in google serps, the only exception being for searches on their specific company name.

If its ok for them its ok for me :-).

One possible reason for making a site is to provide information to people who are seeking it, to provide solutions if you like. If many web site builders were not globally trying to do that google would have a harder time to make an index of any value. And in fact as mentioned above many many sites do not take this into account at all. google will not in my opinion ever be able to organise these others into any valuable ranking even with the assistance of the likes of dmoz because many of them are not even motivated to comply with dmoz rules :-)

If one of your aims is to provide relevant results to information seekers who use search engines then it is of interest to you to try to be ranked in google to get relevant traffic. The same applies to yahoo, msn, ink av etc etc

So if you found while researching the interest and market for your information and message that people are looking 1,000 times a week for " blue widget * " and only 10 times a week for " widget blue * " then it would make some sense to at least include the terms both ways round on the relevant pages. that would possibly be considered "google seo" and yes it is still very much worth doing.

So imho yes you want to be making good contents and sites for your target user base but also

- contents and sites which are as compatible with google's requirements as possible, i.e. not flash or "text as image" or movie and

- users requirements vis a vi easy to navigate / find the pages of real contents in the site and

- compatible with the words and phrases that searchers are using to look for the information that you are providing.

When competitors are able to trounce you in serps with highly visible and misleading tactics it often becomes tempting to respond in kind. Thats where the risks arise that you may risk a penalty.

so "Is Google SEO a waste of time longterm?"

No imho its not a waste of time at all, depending on your outlook it can be very important that your site(s) remain as compatible as possible with googles "terms of service".

As these on occasion change, your sites may also have to change.

It is interesting to me that the most well funded sites with these objectives often stay on top no matter what the algo changes are because they have effectively done "everything that is good" to a very large extent so if the balance is changed from month to another they remain on top, amongst the rest whose budgets are more limited is where the finer judgements have to be made.

In the "objective to provide relevant results to searchers" google and responsible and interested webmasters should be working together as much as possible.

Why one might ask has google made available as many tools as they have to understand how their google works unless they want us to work in some kind of standardised way to help them deliver relevant results to their users.

If we play ball it helps both of us, if we dont then they will not be able to deliver relevant results at all, because we would all be doing completely different things on our sites.

layer8




msg:57703
 3:41 pm on Nov 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Wow - great info guys, and I think Google realise this as well. For we are like an extension to Dmoz, or if you like we are a virtual-Dmoz split up accross the globe.

Main difference is that it takes about 2 months to get one listing on Dmoz, however we take about 2 months to build a good quality site that Googlebot and all the other spiders can pick up. And yes we all contribute to a better Google database.

It is obviously not a waste of time if Google SEO means building great content site for humans, that is linking up to a mininet of links in relation to the subject, and making a site search engine friendly with a level of detail on the do's and don'ts.

So my conclusion is being formed and SEO is just like anything else out there - humans can get it wrong, equipement can go wrong, software can go wrong, things can change etc. But if you do 'Google SEO' and any other type of 'SEO' work then you should be covered by (most) problems, if like me you get unlucky and it effects you for 1 month - you sit back wait, (build more pages until next update) and carry on with the programe.

Conclusion - IS Google SEO a waste of time longterm - No if you optimise for humans, understand the do's and don'ts, can be reactive, have good coding skills, and most of all have common sense.

Even Cisco Systems have network problems and believe it or not have had Global network issues in the last 5 years - if a problem happens at the time of a roling index update and you have been unlucky you will suffer for about 1 month but as long as you don't break the rules you should be ok longterm.

claus




msg:57704
 8:49 pm on Nov 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Okay, i'll share this... Two and a half month of recent data. Here are some figures for you from a site i have been running for five years or so. Don't let the figures trick you - this site does v-e-r-y well in Google, in fact it does well in most SE's.

The figures are from a cookie-based tracking program. They show the original entry point across all visits in this period - if your first visit in this period was from a SE, all your later visits will be contributed to this SE. So, where do the users really come from?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Period: Monday, September 01, 2003 to Wednesday, November 12, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------
All SE's grand total: 54% (Google share: 65%)
- Google: 35%
- Yahoo: 6%
- MSN: 4%
Type in address bar or use bookmarks: 33%
Links (*) grand total: 13%
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Approximately 1/3 of visitors originated from Google (various tld's). That's a lot, so of course Google is important to me, but it's very far from the 80% i've seen mentioned elsewhere. Oh, and links give traffic, i might add.

Almost 50% comes directly to the site. If Google dissapeared tomorrow (very unlikely) that site would still live happily. Of course i don't mind new people visiting, so i put in some effort to make the site good for the SE's as well. The SE's, in turn, don't mind having a site in their index that people like to use.

Taken to the extreme, these figures illustrate my point:

If you build a site serving some specific user needs, and you do that really well, then - at some point - you will become more-or-less independent of any specific SE. Nevertheless, it seems that when you reach that point you tend to do really well in the SE's also.

/claus


(*) Note: Some of the links are in fact from SE directories, i didn't notice that before. None above 0.1%.
Added, courtesy of wheel's post below:
Hidden Referrer: 0.5%
Blocked Referrer: 0.2%
Irresolvable: 0 (zero)
...it is a quite powerful tracking program i use

[edited by: claus at 9:24 pm (utc) on Nov. 20, 2003]

wheel




msg:57705
 9:00 pm on Nov 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

What's not clear is that the 35% going to your site directly may be from two groups of people:
1) Browsers that don't provide the referrer info
2) Repeat visitors that originally found you through Google.
Clearly you will know what's true for your site, but I have similiar results on some of my sites and I know that all the traffic is coming in from search engines one way or another.

layer8




msg:57706
 10:56 pm on Nov 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Also I have found that to every 3-4 visitors I get from Yahoo I get about 40-50 from Google so that is why its the most important SE for me.

Have not done the maths on the % Google has overal, if SE's account for 50% traffic then your obviously doing something very well - following all the good advice regarding SEO.

Good proper SEO = Internet Optimisation :-)j

SEO sounds better!

BigFish




msg:57707
 2:12 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am going to have correct that point from claus about any site ever being "...independent of an SE...".

If you believe, as I do, that there can never a finite amount of visitors that visit your site, then you'll see that SE's will always have a place. There will always be 'NEW' people searching out 'NEW' things. This is a "cycle" that I believe to be nearly limitless and infinite. I believe many others share this view as well because of the long term outlook on Google from a investing standpoint.

However, Google might not be the king two, three years down the line - which is why i am on the fence as to whether or not 'Google SEO' is a "waste of time" or not. Simply put; Don't put yourself in a position to "live or die" in regards to top rankings in Google.

AjiNIMC




msg:57708
 3:03 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

All SE's grand total: 54% (Google share: 65%)
- Google: 35%
- Yahoo: 6%
- MSN: 4%
Type in address bar or use bookmarks: 33%
Links (*) grand total: 13%

I think this stats shows that out of 100 visitors to your site, 54 are through a SE, 35 are through address bar. This explains the place of search engine and google too.

Aji

rfgdxm1




msg:57709
 3:14 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

From those numbers claus, looks like of SE traffic Google is actually about 75%, because at the moment Yahoo is the same as Google. Close to that 80% mentioned by others, which I presume they were excluding non-SE traffic (or, for their sites such was very low.)

sanity




msg:57710
 4:51 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've found, that a skilled Web Designer who is good at SEO and builds it into the design of the site instead of hiring a SEO company to do it after the site is built who does not specialize in site design, seems to be able to create sites that can withstand Google over the longer haul.

I'm with you on that one. They're often more usable too.

Powdork




msg:57711
 4:56 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

"Google SEO (as SEO for any other search engine) comes automagically if you do the right things.
If 'automagically' is a typo it is still applicable, maybe even moreso. However, I must disagree. I find that now I have to work (SEO) to make my backlink structure natural. I'll have to try and get more links with anchor that is not my site's title. I have reworked the internal links so that they say 'Home', instead of my site's title. I have removed alt text from my logo linking back to the home page because I am worried. So what if it doesn't validate anymore. So what if disabled viewers are now unable to know my logo is my logo. SEO used to be about making your site spiderable, and making sure the links pointing to your page accurately described what was on the page. Natural. Now it is anything but. SEO has suddenly become about not pissing off Google. And that has become a moving target.
Is Google SEO a waste of time in the long run? Yes, because if they keep it up like this you'll be optomising for the wrong engine.

fathom




msg:57712
 5:24 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

SEO has suddenly become about not pissing off Google. And that has become a moving target.

If you are good at what you do -- the world shines bright and more often than not - you're on top. This has nothing really to do with Google (other than Google being the messenger).

The game itself is never over as there is always one more thing you can do to get (or stay) visible.

Admittedly, it was SEO that ultimately saved a major investment -- not because they're now at the top of some list (search results) but because humans are creatures of habit and Google knows this and lives by it.

So do I! ;)

sanity




msg:57713
 5:51 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have reworked the internal links so that they say 'Home', instead of my site's title.

And from a usability perspective so they should. Having your site's title as the link text would always look a tad odd - especially if it's keyword-keyword.com or something. ;)

Powdork




msg:57714
 6:30 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yes, that makes sense. My point is that we have to work to make sure things are 'natural, 'organic', whatever the term is. It's kind of a sef defeating prophecy.

Powdork




msg:57715
 6:35 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you are good at what you do -- the world shines bright and more often than not - you're on top.
I am good at what i do. i have been on the top far longer than I have been AWOL. The rest of my pages are still on top. My main competition, which does no seo, but happens to have a similar title which people use as link text, is also gone. Almost all the relevant sites are gone. The pages with high pr and one outbound link with the search phrase in it are the ones showing up on the first page. And this has gotten much worse today than it was previously in the update.
plumsauce




msg:57716
 6:37 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)


If you are good at what you do ...

well yes i am :)

but i still have to waste my time writing
redirect code in pages because googlebot
is too simple to recognise that www and non www
are the same even though www is clearly an alias
to non www AS DISCLOSED IN THE DNS RECORDS

there are a lot of PHD's spinning their wheels
with esoterica when the basics are just plain
not ready for prime time

in other words,


it's about not pissing google off

rfgdxm1




msg:57717
 6:56 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>but i still have to waste my time writing
redirect code in pages because googlebot
is too simple to recognise that www and non www
are the same even though www is clearly an alias
to non www AS DISCLOSED IN THE DNS RECORDS

Huh? You expect Google to check the DNS records of every domain? And, you need to know what you are doing. You can solve this at the server level by redirecting every access to root to the www subdomain. The problem is that you don't know how to configure your server.

claus




msg:57718
 9:21 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

rfgdxm1, of course you're right about the Google "SE market share" being close to 80% when you incorporate Yahoo and other SE's powered by Google. I do believe that these 80% reflect the preferences among searchers; around 80% choose a Google-powered search when searching for something. It was wrong of me not to say this, sorry about that.

As for "share of visitors"; 80% of 50% is 40%, so around 60% of my traffic is not initially from Google, it seems.

What i was trying to state was that having a loyal user base means that SEO and SE traffic is the "cream on top" - not the whole pie.

Although i have 50% non-SE generated traffic (and that percentage may be very high, i suspect so), i'm not quite there yet, meaning; new users still seem to find my site through SE's as opposed to word of mouth, links, or other sources. And of course i want new users as well. So, i'm depending on SE traffic, but not necessarily any one specific SE although the current market leader has an 80% share.

I find it wise to optimize that site for good spidering and indexing (SEO). No doubt about it. I don't question the value of general SEO. The only thing i'm sceptical about is building your whole business on "one specific SE"-generated traffic long term - SE's are good, but users are (still) the ones who pay your bills.

If the market should change so that Google was not the preferred SE anymore, these changes would affect 40-50% of my traffic and not all of it. My best bet would be that any SE that would be good enough to take over (part of) Googles current position would also display my pages for the relevant keywords.

I hope this added some perspective to the numbers.

/claus


edited: typos

[edited by: claus at 10:03 am (utc) on Nov. 21, 2003]

Mark_A




msg:57719
 9:40 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Claus thank you for sharing your statistics, they match what I think is occuring for the most popular sites I use in that I may sometimes find them from a search engine, other times I get them from word of mouth but when I become a user I rarely use an SE to find them again if their domain is relatively easy to recall and type in.

My two or three most valuable and used sites (including this one) I initially found from knowledgeable forum (or groups) posts and from face to face word of mouth (rather than email I mean) from people in that sector.

And you are quite right they now do very well in the search engines but search engines was not where I would have thought to start looking for them.

One of them effectively has replaced all magazine buying I might have come to do in that niche.

Your stats add an interesting reality to the theories expressed in the thread so far.

trillianjedi




msg:57720
 10:29 am on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am going to have correct that point from claus about any site ever being "...independent of an SE...".

Actually, Claus is absolutely right. We have at least one site which would survive quite happily if it got ditched from the SE listings and would still get plenty of new daily traffic. That site is linked to by over 300 other on-topic sites, most of whom are also in the search engines. As Claus says, links bring traffic.

SE users will find us, through other sites. Not so direct maybe, but at least would survive getting nuked by Google.

WebmasterWorld is a good example of that - this place could quite happily survive being nuked by google. The traffic would just come from other sources which link here - probably originating from google anyway.

TJ

luckychucky




msg:57721
 12:49 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I sell a self-evident product for which simple pictures alone, worth a thousand words each, would best serve my customers, perfectly and lacking for nothing. A site with zillions of quick-loading thumbnail images, circa 1 dozen per page, would be ideal. Just 2 sentences about our guarantee, product pictures and prices. And that's it.
But if I did that I simply wouldn't exist. Instead I have to come up with all this boring, congestive blather full of spiderfood. It works, mind you- I've been bopping around the top 3 since launch, more often than not in number 1 position. For a brutally competitive category too.
I just get a larf from those who chant about concentrating on what's best for your customers and showing up in the SEs will take care of itself. If I truly provided what's best for my customers, Google and the other SEs would have me utterly lost in Cyberia. I simply would not exist, at all.

mfishy




msg:57722
 1:44 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

<<Having your site's title as the link text would always look a tad odd >>

Yahoo does this. Never seemed odd to me at all.

ciml




msg:57723
 1:47 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

> What i was trying to state was that having a loyal user base means that SEO and SE traffic is the "cream on top" - not the whole pie.

Indeed, but for some people, search engine visitors provide the loyal user base over time.

For an established site, this year's sales may mostly be to people who first visited from a search engine one, two or five years ago. Yes, some search engine visitors purchase during that visit, but often that's not the point. Why are some people willing to get a negative ROI on PPC, or offer over and affiliate commission higher than 100%?

Some bookmark, and revisit in the future. Some purchase, then revisit and purchase again. Some then tell their friends (it's great to see Web based email providers in the referrers, how many email referrers are there in total?). With enough of those visitors, there may be online and offline partnership potential.

That's not to say that newspaper advertising, billboards, television ads or (preferably) editorial (real 'PR') can't be of enormous use. They can, but it is possible to build a business from search engine visitors.

Both SEO and PPC can bring reach and ROI; neither need be a waste of time.

Jakpot




msg:57724
 3:01 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Designing a High Search Engine Rankings Page
By Brett Tabke, June 1997.

I followed Brett's advice and guidance in developing hundreds of web pages. I did not seek out links, just registered in search engines and directories. The pages are simple and strictly whitehat.

Most have survived the top 10 in the SERPs for competitive
keywords/phrases. Some in the top 10 have less than PR4.

I have no idea why so many folks pages are taking a SERP
hit nor really why my pages survived.

I suppose making good content using Brett's guidance is the key.

I sincerely hope all can overcome the disappointments

mfishy




msg:57725
 3:14 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Jakpot

You are either; a) gloating or b) suggesting that the numerous webmasters who were affected by the recent update do not have good content.

We have had many sites do better in the SERPS, but some were adversely affected. It is entirely unrelated to the value of the content on the pages, but rather the recent algo tweak. Conversely, many of our crummiest sites seem to have resurfaced.

The good "SEO's" will now do better than ever simply because those about to be left behind still refuse to admit that they may need to make changes.

To quote the Grateful Dead, "Comes a time when the blind man takes your hand, says don't you see?...."

plumsauce




msg:57726
 8:25 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

RFGDXM1

Huh? You expect Google to check the DNS records of every domain? And, you need to know what you are doing. You can solve this at the server level by redirecting every access to root to the www subdomain. The problem is that you don't know how to configure your server.

What? Of course I expect Google to be able to
read DNS records. What could be simpler? My point
is the pointy heads are running around inventing
new algos when the basics have not been taken
care of.

And, FYI, the server is redirecting on every page,
*IF NEEDED* to the exact page on the correct host,
not just the root. There is no problem with my
server configuration. There is a problem with
the implementation of the bot. It needs to
attend DNS 101.

And to be perfectly clear, you have made a
a presumption of fact about my skills for which
you have no factual basis.

edit: bolding added

[edited by: plumsauce at 8:44 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2003]

plumsauce




msg:57727
 8:36 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)



I am going to have correct that point from claus about any site ever being "...independent of an SE...".

Actually, Claus is absolutely right. We have at least one site which would survive quite happily if it got ditched from the SE listings and would still get plenty of new daily traffic. That site is linked to by over 300 other on-topic sites, most of whom are also in the search engines. As Claus says, links bring traffic.

actually, if we get right down to basics, the serps
are just another really big link farm, it just
has some different link submission or gathering
mechanisms, and ordering mechanisms.

because of its size/influence, everyone wants in
on the farm.

there is nothing "mystical or sacred" about the se's.

anyone got a link farm to IPO? :)

shasan




msg:57728
 8:58 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think jakpot was trying to say that people who were dependent on non-'whitehat' methods in addition to content got hit harder than those who weren't.

At least, that's what I read. It wouldn't be the first time that has been suggested. Not enough info at this point to say one way or the other.

steve40




msg:57729
 9:21 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just my 2cents worth

have just looked at logs for last week out of interest after reading these posts

Is SEO important in google of course it is but
1. (no referral) 24.44%
2. www.google.com/ 32.12%
3. search.msn.com/ 13.24%
4. search.yahoo.com/ 7.3%
5. others 1000+ total 24%
The stats give an indication of how one of my sites would be affected , no google = big drop but would business survive i would hope so and expect to.
as an aside 12 months ago i made big mistake when rewriting site and deleted navigation route for search engines and lost 90% pages in search engines and 40% traffic
so build site with se's and SEO in mind as part of the equation but hope that what you provide visitors find of use and come back
steve

claus




msg:57730
 10:36 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> webmail referrers

Didn't have many of these, but i've only recently made an "email this page" feature. Still, on average i had one for every second day - that was more than i expected.

>> pictures, hats, content, etc

Of course, if you don't have spiderable content, it is hard to do well in the search engines. So, either that's not a problem or you will find a way to solve that problem.

Really, the words long term in the title of this thread was what i responded to. It (still) seems to me, that if you want to run any kind of business long term you will have to offer your customers something that is either better, or cheaper, or both, relative to the competition.

Just like brick-and-mortar businesses optimize their visibility on print, radio, television, etc. you will need to optimize your visibility online relative to your marketing budget. There's nothing strange or wrong about that - it's just that these are matters for the marketing department.

You can't really run a firm long term with no products and marketing only. Only exception is if your firm is an ad/media agency and your product is marketing.

/claus

panic




msg:57731
 11:53 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

You can't really run a firm long term with no products and marketing only.

Amen to that!

-p

This 408 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 408 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved