| 4:17 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would have to disagree with one thing. Google is no longer the only game in town. Prior to Austin - my main site had a PR8. I was generating about 4000-5000 hits a day. That site went to PR3. I brought up a new site. It went to PR6.
But - I also submitted sites through the old Inktomi. And into Yahoo. Of course Yahoo dropped the Google results. I also advertise in both AdWords and Overture.
At this point - Yahoo is 48% of my traffic - for free. Google is only 15%. And I have approximately the same traffic now - as before anything changed.
I came to the conclusion - the reason Google is big - is they have fed sites like Yahoo. And AOL. And Netscape. And CNN. And Earthlink. But they lost their largest client - Yahoo. AOL will follow. Alta Vista has already switched over to Yahoo results. More will follow.
Google could honestly flicker out of existance - and after 30 days - nobody would notice. And while I would agree they *were* the only game in town - the winds of change are blowing.
Just my opinion.
| 5:56 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<At this point - Yahoo is 48% of my traffic - for free. Google is only 15%. And I have approximately the same traffic now - as before anything changed.>
Well done AZcowboy but I am afraid that I have a different story. Web Design is not my main business but I look after a few very small sites for small businesses. None of them pay anything for any sort of inclusion or sponsored results. Some have survived this episode but my main site (my own) has suffered greatly.
Google accounted for 72% of my traffic and this has completely disappeared. I hold high positions for many of my search terms in Yahoo, AV and ATW but they have not brought me any increase in traffic. I can report similar findings on the other affected sites.
This would suggest that Google is still the top banana at least over here in the UK. One thing that puzzles me is that if Google and Yahoo provide you with 63% of your traffic where on earth do you get the other 37% :0)
I think that this is a subject worthy of further discussion but it is off topic here so I'll try to create a new thread on this.
| 4:45 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not to labour the point but after the Europe/US tiff earlier in this thread I thought this one was worth highlighting: [webmasterworld.com...]
This refers to a survey of the most web savvy nations.
|The United States dropped to sixth place from a shared third place despite having the world's best social and cultural environment for the Internet, because the percentage of broadband connections was falling behind other nations. |
Now before anyone starts this is just a bit of fun ... :)
| 7:05 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well, if broadband's market share is the definition of "Web-savvy," South Korea trumps both the U.S. and Europe. According to BUSINESS WEEK, 73% of South Korean Internet users have 20-Mbps DSL access.
By the way, I didn't mistype that number--the speed really is twenty Megabits per second. In Japan, even faster broadband is available; BUSINESS WEEK reports that 26-Mbps access costs about US $30 per month. You can read the article at:
And now, can we get back to talking about Google? :-)
| 9:09 am on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
europeforvisitors you wrote "can we get back to talking about Google? :-)"
No not yet please :-) how about the subject "mischief making" for publicity and the forum provider Brett_Tabke himself :-) in relation to Google.
The question Brett posed was not:
Is google under siege?
his question "Google Under Siege - Fair or Unfair?"
assumes it is taken they are, and askes if fair?
I dont think Google is under a siege or even a mildly critical gaze outside webmastering and SEO circles.
The financial and business media seems neither excited nor mildly critical of Google.
So Brett's question is almost akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?" a question that assumes something is true ..
Perhaps we ought first to question the question itself!
| This 245 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 245 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  ) |