homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.231.221
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 119 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 119 ( 1 2 3 [4]     
Google antics moving me away from Internet business
Stopping web development
rbacal




msg:758913
 8:32 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a number of ways to make money as an author, business and management consultant, seminar leader, etc, and also web revenue comes in there. I have to tell you that google is really starting to push me away from developing new sites (all my sites are real content based), writing for the web, or even bothering much.

If things don't get more stable, I'm moving on to other things.

Example: Domain I've owned for 1 year plus. Decided to develop it, but it had been in google search results previously. Developed the thing. Put adsense search on it. Guess what? Not getting spidered, and this is breaking the adsense search. No in google. Why? Who knows? And I'm starting not to care.

MSN is talking up a lot of slack and compensating for traffic loss when google twitches (which seems to be at least 2-4 times a year, sometimes for the good, sometimes not, but when I take 30-50% traffic drops across a number of sites on different servers, and different content, seemingly randomly, what IS the point?

And google search results (speaking as a searcher here, for high quality factual information, articles, research, is simply terrible for me.

Am I the only one that is looking at google, and it's influence, and realizing that website owners are now moving away from business strategies, and more into gambling (which is what depending on google is starting to be).

Is there a damping effect on site development here?

PS. I've dealt with the chaos of the Internet for almost a decade, and I've been in it for the long haul through the booms and busts. I'm trying to figure out why I should write for Internet sites (mine) when I could be doing other things.

 

europeforvisitors




msg:759003
 10:52 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

The goal is not to give the user the highest quality site. It is to give the user a site that at least meets the user's needs.

There's one other goal: To give the user a site that at least meets the user's needs within the context of the search engine's corporate mission.

Google's corporate mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." I don't see anything in there about helping Web businesses profit from Google's search results. :-) (If we make money from Google referrals, great, but it's a happy side effect for us--not Google's mission or moral obligation.)

The only thing I ask is that Google settles on an alogor whotsit and stay relativly stable. Its not much is it?

Unfortunately, that isn't practical, because a static target is a lot harder for spammers to hit than a moving target. And as spam techniques evolve, Google's algorithm must evolve to keep up.

As long as there is no barrier to entry in the search field, government regulation WILL NEVER be a factor in how a search engine ranks sites.

A federal court has already ruled that Google's ranking mechanisms are "opinions" and are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. The government might be able to regulate Google as a business, but it can't control its search results.

[edited by: europeforvisitors at 11:02 pm (utc) on Feb. 10, 2005]

BigDave




msg:759004
 11:00 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where's the compassion, man?

Oh, there is lots of compassion. But there are also facts of life and facts of business.

Suggesting that there should be regulations to cause a more steady ride in the SERPs is like suggesting that we need to legislate how many games each ball team can win. You know, just to be fair to all the sports bar owners.

And my compassion starts going out the window when people refues to learn from their experience. Which is the problem with all those that are blowing off WebFusion's suggestions. It is the equivalent of someone building on a flood plain, having their house destroyed by a flood, and taking the insurance money and building again in the exact same spot.

glitterball




msg:759005
 11:02 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

BigDave,

I was simply trying to state that Google enjoys a dominant i.e. near-monopoly position.

I was not trying to make a case for government intervention.

Also, just because those corporation are from the US, does not mean that they are bound only by US laws.
There are now 2 versions of Windows in Europe because the EU found against MS in a recent ruling (where the US did not).

Also, do a search in Google for a certain famous french handbag maker, and notice that there are no adwords for that term. Then lookup why. The world is bigger than the US.

glitterball




msg:759006
 11:08 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry BigDave,

Just saw your last post.

I wasn't suggesting that there should be regulated SERPS. I was just posing the question - Is it good to have one dominant search engine?
Unfortunately a huge number of users think that the Internet is Google.

I wasn't dismissing WebFusion's suggestions, I note that he agreed with many of the points I made.

Finally, the statement - "where's the compassion, man?" was a joke.

bears5122




msg:759007
 11:09 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where's the compassion, man?

I have compassion for those who lose their business or are hurt financially. However, this is business. Just because you are on the Internet, doesn't void you from these situations. There is an old saying I like to us: If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

walkman




msg:759008
 11:14 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Unfortunately, that isn't practical, because a static target is a lot harder for spammers to hit than a moving target. And as spam techniques evolve, Google's algorithm must evolve to keep up. "

europeforvisitors,
I think when people mean "stable" they mean (at least I do) relatively stable. You have a great site and put a lot of work on yours. What if you didn't rank in the top 300 for "europeforvisitors.com"? Is that right? I also spend about 4-5 hours a day JUST on the content.
Does Google owe me anything? NO
Does Google owe any of us anything? NO
Do we deserve to be #1 or #3 or top 20 all the time? NO

All that said, Google has an unwritten obligation of making sure that these things don't happen, or minimize the impact. If you have a great restaurant, the NYT reviewer doesn't owe you anything but he is expected to be objective and try to remedy the situation if he screws up.

Google has dropped the ball a lot lately. They let the 302 redirect bug linger for close to six months and now this. Something is clearly wrong and we're not talking about "The sky is falling: I was #2 and now I'm #4" situations. Also, not everyone who is missing for the SERPS is a spammer or a crook, and the fact that they depend too much on free traffic doesn't make this right.

[edited by: walkman at 11:20 pm (utc) on Feb. 10, 2005]

glitterball




msg:759009
 11:17 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Okay, before this discussion starts getting heated I will just express what I, personally, would like to see:

Very simply a market where there are 4 or 5 providers of good quality search with roughly even market share.

If that's too utopian, how about 3 big players (I think we all know who) who have roughly even market share?

Does no one else think that it is dangerous for one company to have so much power?

BigDave




msg:759010
 11:19 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't have to look up those things, I am very aware of them.

But all those countries only have as much say over a US company as that company thinks the market in that country is worth.

The laws of the countries that a company operates in can have an effect. But the only laws that have a real effect are the laws of the country where the company is based.

If the Vuitton ruling made it more appealing to drop operations in France than the market was worth, the would shut the doors in a second.

walkman




msg:759011
 11:32 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

"If that's too utopian, how about 3 big players (I think we all know who) who have roughly even market share? Does no one else think that it is dangerous for one company to have so much power?"

then go right ahead and start your own. Beats some old senators legislating it. Also, the fact that you're too big, doesn't make you on itself a monopoly. MSFT got caught because they used their power and influence to stop others from entering or succeeding in the business.

nzmatt




msg:759012
 11:33 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Look at google itself....

Do you think they gained their huge following via free search engine traffic? Of course not. They simply set out to build the most superior product in their sector, utilizing an alternate means (i.e. word of mouth) to develop mindshare.

Why can't you do the same?

Because Google as changed the internet through its complete dominace and selective SERPS.

BigDave




msg:759013
 11:33 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Very simply a market where there are 4 or 5 providers of good quality search with roughly even market share.

I don't think anyone is against that. We all think it would be great.

The problem is that every other SE company dropped the ball just as google was starting out.

Even now, MSN and Yahoo still suck when it comes to research on the non-commercial internet.

I think the world will be far better if there were 4 equally popular search engines. There ain't.

Don't blame Google for this situation. Convince the other engines to fix the situation and convince people to use them.

And even if there were 4 SEs with 25% share each, there aren't going to be 40 different sites that are on the front page of one of the engines. It will probably average closer to 15.

nzmatt




msg:759014
 11:41 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't blame Google for this situation. Convince the other engines to fix the situation and convince people to use them.

In a way, this is exactly what many of us in this post (that you disagree with) are trying to do...

walkman




msg:759015
 11:43 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Because Google as changed the internet through its complete dominace and selective SERPS."

Nope. Credit, where credit's due. No one knew Google or the two geeks (not meant as an insult) who started it a few years back.

BigDave




msg:759016
 11:48 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

n a way, this is exactly what many of us in this post (that you disagree with) are trying to do...

How are you doing this? Complaining on the "Google News" forum on Webmaster World? Accusing Google of things? Arguing against people that suggest that diversifying your sources of traffic is what a sensible business would be doing?

How exactly are these actions convincing MSN, Yahoo and ASK to get their act together?

incrediBILL




msg:759017
 11:51 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)


I'm not making ONE iota of a major change for those sites, because I simply can't risk the chance that I will make changes that google won't like, and will end up tanked.

Interesting theory.

But if you can't alter your web site, what fun is that?

From my experience, there are about 6 things per page google seems to really focus on and as long as I leave those alone, it's ok. My main site has content changes non-stop all day long as every day the top 80 pages have new stuff in them as the older content slips to additional pages and yes, my rankings waffle here and there, but almost 100 keywords hold steady in the top 10 at all times.

glitterball




msg:759018
 11:53 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

One final point.

I don't blame Google for this situation, on the contrary, the only thing that they are guilty of is doing a very good job at building the best search engine and making it very successful.

One final analogy;
If a newspaper had 90% market share in a country, I would say that it was a very dangerous situation, that's all. It wouldn't matter if that newspaper ever abused it's position to stifle competition or not.

nzmatt




msg:759019
 12:00 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

How are you doing this? Complaining on the "Google News" forum on Webmaster World? Accusing Google of things? Arguing against people that suggest that diversifying your sources of traffic is what a sensible business would be doing?

I’ve done none of those things. I’m merely relaying the facts as I see them. I like Google and see it as the best engine and a great company. This doesn’t mean they can’t develop and get better. It doesn’t mean they should change things that aren’t working. It doesn’t mean that they are playing a great PR campaign at present.

But I'm not going to go on and on because you argue with what you choose to believe other posters are writing, in plain English, rather than what they have actually written.

Diversification is great - who would ever argue against that? It doesn't solve the problem of no Google traffic for a SANDBOXED site, now does it?

You are comparing apples to oranges; I am comparing Sandboxed to non-sandboxed. Is that so hard to understand?

BigDave




msg:759020
 12:09 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

nzmatt,

Please explain to me how else I can interpret the message that I was replying to, including the section of my message you are quoting.

To help you out, here it is:
Don't blame Google for this situation. Convince the other engines to fix the situation and convince people to use them.

In a way, this is exactly what many of us in this post (that you disagree with) are trying to do...

Then I asked how you were convincing those other engines. That is in the piece of my message *you* quoted.

I replied to exactly what you wrote "in plain english". You have also done exactly what I have suggested you are doing, instead of contacting those other search engines. (see the begging of the quote above)

WebFusion




msg:759021
 12:14 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

By the same token, you are saying 'tough luck' to every business that was hit by the Tsunami in Asia for basing their businesses near the beach.

One word: Insurance. (and comparing losing free advertising provided by another company to a natural disaster is a stretch at best).

If you put a shop on a busy city street, you have put it there because of the traffic passing by it - which is out of your control too.

Apples and oranges. Bricks and mortar businesses are free to choose their location, their location doesn't choose them based on hundreds of different fluctuating factors.

I was just posing the question - Is it good to have one dominant search engine?
Unfortunately a huge number of users think that the Internet is Google.

To that quesiton I answer a resounding NO. However, if you were to search back over the last couple of years, there was a collective sigh of relief when Yahoo began using their own results (not to mention MSN). However...despite the fact that many benfitted from that small diversification in search traffic, amny others simply ignored the potential traffic from those two engines, convinced in their belief that (as you said) the internet is google. If some of my competitors knew exactly how many obscure searches from both Yahoo/MSN generate dozens of sales for us everyday, I'm sure they would start doing more of the kind of in-depth market research.

Does no one else think that it is dangerous for one company to have so much power?

First, I think the next major shift in players will be when MSN search gets bundled with longhorn (the next version of windows). O doubt we'll see much movement till then. Having said that, the "power" google has is only there as long as you give it to them. Start considering google a secondary marketing channel (i.e. icing on the cake), and you'll open up the REAL traffic floodgates.

Let me give you an example. A merchant-based forum I belong to has a direct competitor (who is very open about his business) as a frequent poster. We both compete in the same market, and in fact sell amny of the same products. His site is currently in the top 5 (mostly #1 or #2) for all of our "money" main search phrases on ALL 3 engines. However, he regularly discusses his traffic levels/conversion rates, and (based on his stats) our site does roughly 3000-4000 more visitors PER DAY than his. Keeping in mind that he outranks us (usually by a wide margin) on all engines, and it legitimizes the fact that good serps alone do not drive a TRULY successful business.

nzmatt




msg:759022
 12:14 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

What, BigDave?

RichTC




msg:759023
 12:20 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google should still carry a beta tag. Its not that old itself and can certainly improve! My own site suffers whilst sites using dirty tricks get rewarded!

I guess whats narking me currently is that i see sites with holding pages keyword stuffed flash up prior to the main page or just plain gateway pages again keyword stuffed that feature very well on google. If only i could post URLs here! Whats worse is that these webmasters rub my nose in it because they conclusively prove that cheating pays - whos getting the traffic?

I have recently sent 6 examples to google guys Feb email link, they obviously havent read my email as the sites still rank well. One has position 1 in google for a number of results!

Certain SEO coys will build these gateway pages for you just so that you rank in google. Im at a point now where i can understand why webmasters are getting involved in dirty tricks. If you do everything by the book like i do spending years building quality you should be looked after - not suffer whilst dirty trick playing webmasters clean up.

If this current Algo change doesnt address this issue then i dont see Google showing any signs of improvement

tantalus




msg:759024
 1:02 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think some of you are missing the point. Google doesen't want to be a search engine any more, it wants to be the market place itself.

For example there are some reports that a lot of affiliate sites took a big hit on this update. Polluting the serps? Yeah maybe, but when you look at it in conjunction with the recent changes on adwords you can see why Brett's post [webmasterworld.com] nails it on the head.

When you read that, its scary the power that google already has, if you want to be more scared I'd suggest reading Paul Ford's article “August 2009: How Google beat Amazon and Ebay to the Semantic Web” published on ftrain.

When I step back a bit, I begin to realise that Google has never ever, given anything away for free. Whether thats it's googley promo pen or your seemingly free traffic.

I think some of the posters on this thread have legitmate concerns about the power of Google, and want to talk about this, after all its Google News and not the better business bureau.

My 2cents: I don't like googles two facedness, pretending to be the little guy's best friend.

When I hear the old mantra “Build good websites that your user....etc”, I've started hear “Please reinforce our brand name because we are returning too many ugly websites and we don't know how to program that algorithmically”

Cynical? Yes, but this is Googleguy when they launched adsense:

“It's a great source of extra $$ for hobby webmasters who don't want to chase down advertisers, and the ads will be really relevant because it's drawing from such a large pool of advertisers. “

How cynical is that?

nzmatt




msg:759025
 1:39 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Nice post tantalus.

I think this deserves a repeat:

I think some of the posters on this thread have legitmate concerns about the power of Google, and want to talk about this, after all its Google News and not the better business bureau.

bakedjake




msg:759026
 1:50 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

My physics teacher always said "there is so such thing as a free lunch".

nzmatt




msg:759027
 1:58 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

My physics teacher always said: "next time you don’t do your homework you’ll be cained”

tantalus




msg:759028
 2:07 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

The only free Lunch anyone has got, that I see, seems to be Google. Okay thats not exactly true but I think you know where I'm coming from. A lot of webmaster goodwill in the early days and all of the work of every website owner on this little planet of ours has positioned Google where it is today.

bakedjake




msg:759029
 2:09 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

My physics teacher was actually from New Zealand, matt. How cool!

europeforvisitors




msg:759030
 2:26 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors,
I think when people mean "stable" they mean (at least I do) relatively stable. You have a great site and put a lot of work on yours. What if you didn't rank in the top 300 for "europeforvisitors.com"?

Back in 2002, when my current site was fairly new, AskJeeves was my biggest referrer. A number of my URLs were hardwired into AJ's answering scheme, and I got heaps of traffic as a result. Then something changed at AskJeeves, and WHOOOOSH...nearly of my AJ traffic disappeared down the toilet for good. So believe me, I've felt the pain of unpleasant surprises from search engines. But what the hey--I didn't blame AskJeeves for changing whatever got changed; they didn't owe me anything, and in time my referrals from Google and other search engines increased. Sometimes you've just got to roll with the punches and focus on the long term.

nzmatt




msg:759031
 3:10 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

My physics teacher was actually from New Zealand, matt. How cool!

Can't be the same one aye Bakedjake... ;)

This 119 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 119 ( 1 2 3 [4]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved