homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.7.84
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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.

 

DerekH




msg:758914
 10:17 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm trying to figure out why I should write for Internet sites (mine) when I could be doing other things.

It doesn't take long to figure anything out.
Google and the other search engines are a bonus.

Website like the UK BBC don't need Google - why not write one of those?

Websites like mine definitely need Google - most of my traffic comes from speculative searches, and Google seems my visitors' tool of choice.

Certainly, when one of my sites started to do badly in Google I had to work hard to rescue it, but it's sorted now. But I don't blame Google, I blame the way it favoured one sort of construct to another. So I changed.

So if you want to do other things, please don't bleat - go and do them! One life - use it...
DerekH

tantalus




msg:758915
 11:26 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Website like the UK BBC don't need Google - why not write one of those? "

DerekH that has got to be one of the most stupidest and factious comments I've read on ww.

WebFusion




msg:758916
 11:48 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can't imagine allowing a single source of traffic to put me out of business.

Frankly, I think you're right, you should probably move on to a more stable business.

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).

There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of ways to generate traffic OUTSIDE of google (or any search engine for that matter. There may be SOME "website owners" that are abandoing their limited (i.e. SEO-only) business strategy, but those with half am ounce of real business sense woudl never stake their profitability on SEO alone.

tantalus




msg:758917
 11:58 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Webfusion I'm not trying to be funny but how many times do we need to hear the above or similar from you?

Every post you make seems to say the same thing.

If it is the case that you don't need google traffic why are you posting or even reading any of the posts on this board?

It just does not seem to add up?

OptiRex




msg:758918
 12:16 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Webfusion makes these statements because he is correct.

There are so many people who have launched web sites believing that it is basically free advertising and business if they get to #1 without considering exactly what it does take to achieve that position and stay there.

Life and business ain't that easy because if it were we'd all be doing it!

As a generalisation (note) the reason why the average site is not ranked highly, or not at all, is because those above you are better at their job because they have taken the time and care to understand the SE's requirements.

BigDave




msg:758919
 12:21 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Website like the UK BBC don't need Google - why not write one of those? "

DerekH that has got to be one of the most stupidest and factious comments I've read on ww.

Why? It is absolutely correct.

I run one website that is nowhere near the size of BBC, and it doesn't need its google traffic. All search engines combined provide less than half the traffic. In January there were 97 links that each provided over 100 visitors. Another couple hundred that provided over 50 each.

Webfusion I'm not trying to be funny but how many times do we need to hear the above or similar from you?

Well, you aparently need to hear it again, because it hasn't sunk in.

I know of one website that is in an extremely competitive field that gets the majority of their sales from links in their newsletter or repeat sales.

They also give out branded sports bottles and gym bags to their customers to encourage word-of-mouth advertising.

Some months they rank well and pick up new customers that way, some months they don't feel a need to chase down new customers, and some months they buy ads.

Have *you* considered doing anything to diversify your traffic sources?

rbacal




msg:758920
 12:31 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

My point wasn't to generate any kind of sympathy, but to broach a subject that isn't just particular to the Internet. Business needs some level of stability to function within, and grow. Otherwise, if the rules can change on what appears to be a whim, the risk management problems become too high.

I find it ironic that on one hand, google adsense has revived a struggling sector while on the other hand google search algo's are so unpredictable that they can be dampening web development.

I use other methods of promotion, marketing, and I'm not going bankrupt no matter what google does. But neither am I going to invest my intellectual capital and time in developing high quality, high labor intensive material, when I might have to wait 6 months or a year to get flippin indexed, never mind ranked. I'll write a print book instead.

There's different sectors to the Internet world...those that build sights and consider themselves web entrepreneurs who's prime interest is making money, via affiliates, ad sales, etc, and who have dedicated themselves to that in such a way as that's there means of living (and perhaps their only one). They get off on the machinations of SEO. Great.

On the other side, there are people such as myself (and I might add a lot of companies who can use the Internet as part of their business plans PROVIDED there is at least some stability and predictability to it, AND they have some control over their own destiny.

It concerns me (and I don't think it's a good thing) that google twitches and businesses stop or go. The economic influence of google is huge, and all you have to do is read all the messages trying to figure out what google is doing, has done, and will be doing.

In a lot of businesses, you don't get slaved (unless you are foolish) to one company who can, on a whim, stop your customers from even knowing you exist.

I'm not google bashing here. What we do need is more competition, and the power distributed more, in some ways like it used to be.

Now, tell me. I can create content rich sites in a number of topic areas, which may be hard to monetize. And I don't even care completely about the money. What I do care about, and the point is, that if I want to create great helpful sites that are not money earning oriented, the only way I can do that is to put my own money in it, or be comfortable with the fact that my 100 hours or 200 hours of developing content could very well be wasted. It's like writing a book, when there are only three publishers on the planet, and they all act capriciously.

I don't develop sites for only business reasons. I develop sites so people can read, benefit, enjoy, whatever. But a site that's not built for revenue, and might not see any visitors naturally occuring due to a sandbox...why bother?

It's like we're going backwards, to the early internet days before any decent search technology, where it ends up that a lot of sites can only be found through word of mouth.

Marketing Guy




msg:758921
 12:45 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Website like the UK BBC don't need Google - why not write one of those? "

I think the suggestion was to write *for* one of those? Or alternatively write a pure content site with little focus on traffic, etc.

If it is the case that you don't need google traffic why are you posting or even reading any of the posts on this board?

It just does not seem to add up?

What doesn't add up? People relying on Google for traffic is a common mistake so it stands to reason a common response will be to expand and work with other sources of traffic.

WebFusion isn't detracting from the value of Google traffic or using it as a source of income - he's just saying that people shouldn't be relying on it.

Just look at the update thread. No in fact, look at every update thread there has ever been. Full of people crying over their lost sites.

And while I am sympathetic to most of them who have been wrongly done by, be it through mistakes made or bad advice, the basic premise of "don't put all your eggs in one basket" stands strong.

Why? Who knows? And I'm starting not to care.

Good! :) That's probably the best attitude to have and it will mean you will probably get some more sleep! ;)

Seriously - less attention to Google, more to your sites!

And google search results ... is simply terrible for me.

Apples and oranges. Depends on your industry - I've seen some shocking results on Y! and MSN - and let's not even touch the little players! ;)

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).

It's not so much of a gamble. I have reasonable SEO knowledge and fairly poor IT knowledge, yet my sites have weathered all Google updates consistently well from well before the monthly update stopped.

It can be a gamble! ;) That's where some people are getting caught out and that's where you need to diversify your sources of traffic.

trying to figure out why I should write for Internet sites (mine) when I could be doing other things.

Bottom line - do you enjoy doing it (other than all the Google update stuff!)? If so, keep at it.

Your 1 year old domain - when did you add content to it and when did it first get indexed? It could just be that it has been sandboxed, which means it will return to the SERPs naturally over time.

Finally...

Is there a damping effect on site development here?

Seeing the amount of real rubbish there is on the web, coupled with the amount of people out to manipulate / con people at any cost, it is a wonder that ANY search engine can produce ANY relevant results whatsoever! ;)

If anything, the explosion of Googling over the past few years has been great for the web, and the search industry (and not to forget the contributions of other players as well).

There is a dampening effect on spamming and made for Adsense sites and affiliate domination of the SERPs, or at least, that's the probably the aim. And if that makes things a little more difficult for the rest of us, then well...it's been pretty easy so far so personally I'm not complaining! ;)

Maybe random_site_01 was the guy that really can use his mobile phone safely while driving, but that's just tough cos now he has to play by the same rules as the rest!

Scott

frup




msg:758922
 12:48 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

There's no way to make more money with less risk than creating websites optimized to do well on Google. That's my experience.

nzmatt




msg:758923
 1:09 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

But neither am I going to invest my intellectual capital and time in developing high quality, high labor intensive material, when I might have to wait 6 months or a year to get flippin indexed, never mind ranked. I'll write a print book instead.

Ya can't argue with that!

Google is now showing gross systemic failure. It's not displaying any new sites/material what do you call that? When a company adversely affects the web this much we need to start looking at regulation. It's killing web evolution.

And I'm sick to death of those posters here that endlessly defend the current situation just because their site(s) are doing fine at present. I know, I know it's human nature. For ever site that is sandboxed or dup' content penalized your site just raises up one more in the SERPS - right? There really does seem to be a lot of sanctimonious egotistical folk when it comes to Google, Adsense, ranking & money. /rant.

minnapple




msg:758924
 1:45 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

To start off, I am not a programmer, I am not a marketer, I not a optimizer.
I am a businessman.

Each year, I look at the market and I decide what I should add to my offerings and what I should kill.

When I say kill, I lower my risk by decreasing my lowest performing offerings. I retain my best clients associated with these offerings, but decrease my investments in rest. [ i.e gently fire clients ].

I spend a considerable amount of time and expensive developing new offerings. Some pan out and others do not. But when I do hit on one, it more then pays of.

I am careful and thoughtful before I take a plunge.
My operating expense is low but the risks can be high, neverless I do and will always take calculated risks.

I treat my good clients like gold, the others I still treat with much respect as can as I let them go.

My clients are my biggest refers, I don't need to advertise at all.

I listen, when someone has a request, I do not look at as a single request but as a potential new market.

I refer people to others, as much as I can.
If I can't provide the service and I know of someone else that can, it is a win win.

I don't ask for referal fees, I would rather build relationships.

I often get people that have been refered to me just because I was "helpful" to someone else.

This market is huge, working with good business sense most people can make a honest and profitable living.

[edited by: minnapple at 1:51 am (utc) on Feb. 9, 2005]

Marketing Guy




msg:758925
 1:49 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm sick to death of those posters here that endlessly defend the current situation just because their site(s) are doing fine at present.

It's not a defence of the current situation and it's not just because my sites happen to be doing fine just now. It's because my sites have done consistently well over the past few years despite updates and algo shifts.

Google is now showing gross systemic failure. It's not displaying any new sites/material what do you call that?

If it wasn't for the people who insisted on flooding the SERPs with low quality drivel in order to make some quick affiliate cash we wouldn't be in this situation.

I'm no more or less a fan of Google than the next guy, but I do understand that they need to protect the integrity of the product they are providing. That's business.

There is a lot of new material being indexed and ranked well - I have new stuff turning up in the SERPs daily. The restriction is on new domains (AFAIK), and that IMO is a fairly drastic attempt to stem the ever-increasing flow of throw away sites that were flooding the SERPs.

When a company adversely affects the web this much we need to start looking at regulation. It's killing web evolution.

Why? How has the web been affected? You thinking average Joe surfer gives a rat's ass? The major negative impact Google has had on the web is all the free traffic it has sent to people and the money that has made them.

And who exactly would regulate? Copyright infringement, trademark infringement, fraud, flames, slander are all fairly commonplace - the search market is hardly a priority when you consider that SEs only have as big an economic impact on businesses as the businesses allow them to.

For ever site that is sandboxed or dup' content penalized your site just raises up one more in the SERPS - right?

No, not really. Why would that be the case if established sites are already up there? You think it would be better for a 2 day old site with ripped off content to out rank established sites?

I'm not saying the situation is ideal just now - just that a lot of the problems caused can be avoided.

Stuff happens - if you had a brick and mortar store that lost 90% of its custom because the bus company changed its route, you couldn't blame them. Well you could, but there isn't a lot you could do about it! ;) Eggs. Basket.

The majority of people on this forum aren't stupid - they know the impact Google has, can have and will have if things go badly. If you are running your sites as a business you need take into account the potential risk and plan for them appropriately or you simply won't have a viable business.

(this is more general now, not in any way relating to the orginal posters situation btw! :))

Scott

grail




msg:758926
 1:58 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Website like the UK BBC don't need Google - why not write one of those? "

The BBC is paid for by every household in the UK with a Television. Thats right every house has to buy a license if they want to watch TV. If you don't buy a license it is a criminal offence.

Now I don't see everyone in the UK wanting to pay me a licence fee so I can hire a small army of people to produce content and put it on the web, no matter how good it is.

You will find the BBC site starting to link to more and more 'competitors' as time goes by because there is a fear of how powerful the BBC is. The BBC is now under fire from all sides and is trying to appease.

So in brief, its not really practical for the average independant webmaster sitting at home in their undercrackers to produce something on the scale of the BBC's public funded offering.

Decius




msg:758927
 2:08 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the main issue is that Google quite definitely provides the majority of valuable traffic to internet businesses as compared to other "free" informational resources.

Being the focal point of information on the web, Google has a very important responsibility (for the success of their own company) to stick with the original reason they became popular: fairness in their SERPS based on information, and not how much money you stuff into spam or marketing techniques.

Google is NOT fair at the current time. Although I don't have difinitive evidence of other industries, one industry I attempted to get into at the beggining of 2004 moved in one very unified way throughout that year: sites older than mine were "protected" from competition and have ruled the top of the SERPS for almost an entire year now, with little to no changes in those listings in Google specifically.

The evidence of penalizing new sites is very real, and this is not an effective technique in cleaning out the SERPS of spam. It protects older sites and forces newer sites to spend unreasonable amounts of money in advertising to compensate.

The reason I personally have a very large distaste towards these actions by Google is that it was completely opposed to their original behaviours; this behaviour most definitely increases the demand for AdWords, and therefore can be attributed to their desire to generate more revenue in this way.

Hence, the blind faith that I and many others had placed on Google long ago for their fairness is most definitely gone.

They are a corporation, not an innovative web company anymore, and must be treated as such.

In this view, I do not dislike Google any more than I do Microsoft. However, I do not have any compassion towards Google as a company anymore, nor do I feel they have any "moral" value placed in their business dealings, which is far different than the non-public Google I used to know and love.

I live on the web and work on the web and so these actions by Google have severely hindered me, but not starved me. Lord knows I'd be less forgiving if that was the case.

Does Google owe us anything? No... but from the beginning it was personalized and played the part of the friend of the content-based webmaster. Now a lot of webmasters who are trying to get their new content to more readers are suffering, and I personally feel like a jaded girlfriend.

nzmatt




msg:758928
 2:14 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's not a defence of the current situation and it's not just because my sites happen to be doing fine just now. It's because my sites have done consistently well over the past few years despite updates and algo shifts.

Try launching a new site/domain for money/adwords terms - you will only find the sandbox, for 9 months or a year!

If it wasn't for the people who insisted on flooding the SERPs with low quality drivel in order to make some quick affiliate cash we wouldn't be in this situation.

True, but but refusing to put all new sites in the SERPS for a year or so is 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'!

Why? How has the web been affected? You thinking average Joe surfer gives a rat's ass? The major negative impact Google has had on the web is all the free traffic it has sent to people and the money that has made them.

This is just poor thinking. If publishers and writers such as the one that stated this thread are going to stop what they are doing, the internet and it's content is going to suffer. If entrepreneurs and inventor with great ideas and small budgets can't have a presence bec' of Google, the web will be stunted. If everyone eventually ends up working for the big BS companies (American) their creative ideas will often not reach the light.

Shareholders and investors are getting control again after their initial failure during the .com bust. Now they are back and smarter. Watch out little guy - the big greedy money makers are here.

And who exactly would regulate?

Any organization except Google - ie one without a conflict of interest and billions to make by squeezing the little guys and using their newly found power for the purpose of making money.

Why would that be the case if established sites are already up there?

Come on are you serious, or just being dogmatic? SERPS have always moved as new, and often fresh/better, competitors come along to play. The sandbox has stopped this 'natural selection'. Google manipulates SERPS for its own Adsense revenue - that is clear - and don't say it doesn't bec' that would be stupid.

this is more general now, not in any way relating to the orginal posters situation btw!

I thought I was commenting and agreeing with what the original thread was about?

WebFusion




msg:758929
 4:57 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Webfusion I'm not trying to be funny but how many times do we need to hear the above or similar from you?

Gee...I don't know. Let's go back over the last 4 years and see how many thousands of posts have been made by the "I lost my position in Google - I'm ruined!" crowd. I'm clearly in the minority, but postively in the right.

If more would take it to heart, then they'd probably be sleeping alot better tonight.

So to answer your question - every chance I get.

They also give out branded sports bottles and gym bags to their customers to encourage word-of-mouth advertising.

That's a great point as well that I haven't touched on - offline sources of traffic. We give a free t-shirt (which costs us $7 each) plastered with our logo and marketing slogan to customers that spend over a certain amount. It's not something we advertise, but our customers love it. in fact, sicne our products target the 18-25 year old range (primarily) I usually stick 2 shirts into every order that get shipped to a college address. Eveytime I do, I can usually count on 4-5 more orders over the course of the next week from the same address ;-)

The economic influence of google is huge, and all you have to do is read all the messages trying to figure out what google is doing, has done, and will be doing.

In a lot of businesses, you don't get slaved (unless you are foolish) to one company who can, on a whim, stop your customers from even knowing you exist.

My biggest point is...webamsters GIVE google that power, by having such a narrowly focused marketing strategy. Let's face it, there's been a free lunch for quite some time when it come to internet marketing. If you business model cannot survive unless it's marketing budget is less than a happy meal - then you don't really have a business, you're just dabbling. A good business plan budgets for necessary marketing expenses.

I don't develop sites for only business reasons. I develop sites so people can read, benefit, enjoy, whatever. But a site that's not built for revenue, and might not see any visitors naturally occuring due to a sandbox...why bother?

Again, your statements betray a lack of 3-dimensional thinking in relation to traffic acquisition. IF you can develop superior, content rich, niche-focused sites, then you can certainly gain traffic for them via alternate sources, such as similar websites, distributed articles, RSS feeds, blogging, press releases...etc. The list goes on and on.

What would you say if I told you that a simple press release that took all of 20 minutes to write, brought us over 50,000 visitors IN ONE DAY via Yahoo. Getting nominated as a "Cool site of the Day" brought over 100k visitors. The list goes on and on. If you can get it out of your head that the only way to get traffic is via Google, then you may just have a chance in this business.

WebFusion isn't detracting from the value of Google traffic or using it as a source of income - he's just saying that people shouldn't be relying on it.

Quite right. On the contrary, we receive HUGE boost i traffic from this latest update (or algo shift, or whatever it is), to the tune of an extra 5000-8000 visitors per day. With a conversion rate of 2.9%, and an average order size of $28, it has been a nice boost for our revenue.

Having said that, we just consider "icing on the cake" and will continue with our other marketing program(s) unabated, knowing that that traffic can and probably will flucutate wildly month to month.

There's no way to make more money with less risk than creating websites optimized to do well on Google. That's my experience.

You need more experience my friend ;-)

Google is now showing gross systemic failure. It's not displaying any new sites/material

Ummm...your're wrong. We've had new pages added just two days ago show up in the serps.

When a company adversely affects the web this much we need to start looking at regulation. It's killing web evolution.

Now that's just laughable....asking for government regualtion because an independent search company isn;t functioning as you think it should. face it, google built a better mousetrap, and until someone else can get the press saying their the next golden child, they'll keep it. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from coming up with a superior search product.

If I had built that latest and greatest shopping mall, all on my own dime, and filled that mall with the vendors that I thought deserved to be there, what would you say - I need to be regulated by the government for not letting in your favorite store?

And I'm sick to death of those posters here that endlessly defend the current situation just because their site(s) are doing fine at present.

On the contrary, until a few days ago, our site was DEEP in teh sandbox (less than 100 referrals per day from google for over 11 months). However, I for one realize that google doesn't owe our site a damn thing. Do I think it is superior to many of our competitors, of course (who doesn't), BUT what right do I have to say to antoher company - PLEASE ADVERTISE MY SITE FOR FREE, YOU OWE IT TO ME!

Don't get me wrong, I think google's overall results quality have been sliding for months (much of which we can thank our "black hat" friends for). I certainly don't think they are the end all, be all in engines out there (in fact I use Yahoo for most of my searching).

The evidence of penalizing new sites is very real, and this is not an effective technique in cleaning out the SERPS of spam. It protects older sites and forces newer sites to spend unreasonable amounts of money in advertising to compensate.

I disagree. While throwing sites into a "sandbox" for a whole year would seem excessive, it certainly also has the intended affect...slowing down the affiliate spammers using throw away domains like crazy (keep in mind this is coming from someone whose site was in the sandbox for the last 11 months).

Further, I find it amusing that you consider having to spend money to advertise a business "unreasonable". If more people would launch a business with realistic notions, i.e. my conversion rate is X, so each visitor is worth X, so I can spend X amount on marketing, then these 100 page long "woe is me" threads would be much shorter lived.

If entrepreneurs and inventor with great ideas and small budgets can't have a presence bec' of Google, the web will be stunted.

Again...narrow thinking. Millions of people reach websites everyday without ever touching google. If anyone honestly thinks that "without google my site will never be seen"...get out NOW. You won't last 12 months in this business. I say that in all honesty, without malice. IF you can take a step back and realize it's your LIMITED THINKING that is "stunting" your traffic, not the whims of google, you just might have a chance.

nzmatt




msg:758930
 5:37 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebFusion, the point you are missing is that I am comparing the present contemporary Google manipulation of SERPS to how it was before they did this (or to how other engines play the game).

It's not about avoiding Google and finding traffic elsewhere. That doesn't affect the traffic/business that you would have got if they weren't paying games.

You have a patronizing tone which suggests that you believe anyone with a different opinion to you is new to this game. I am (we are) not - have been in it professionally for 5 years. Get over yourself.

mikec




msg:758931
 5:40 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

marketing guy and webfusion i agree totally. the only people who tend to complain about google results are people who are pissed because they are in the sandboxed. Hell, i have several sites in the sandbox, but i'm not going to start shouting that google is ruining the internet. If i search those money terms i still find what I want. It's just not from my site. So I must turn to running my business like a real business and turning to other, sometimes more traditional advertising mediums. this is a business. Alot of you never seem to grasp that. People who run real businesses don't expect free promotion. They actually have to work for it. The days of the .com boom is over. If you're getting into this thinking you can just put up a website, tweak a few things and make millions you're in for a rude awakening.

ps. Most of you spend your lives trying to manipulate the serps. When the search engine's try to curb people from manipulating them suddenly they're the bad guys.

nzmatt




msg:758932
 5:59 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

average independant webmaster sitting at home in their undercrackers

Undercrackers - like it... :)

europeforvisitors




msg:758933
 6:12 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's not about avoiding Google and finding traffic elsewhere. That doesn't affect the traffic/business that you would have got if they weren't paying games.

In what way are they playing games? They're just trying to deliver the best search results they can--which must be a bit like trying to be a librarian while hordes of ill-behaved patrons are pushing the books to the back of the shelves and replacing them with catalogs, flyers, and advertising supplements that have been labeled with phony Dewey Decimal numbers.

walkman




msg:758934
 6:15 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Website like the UK BBC don't need Google - why not write one of those? "

sure, just give me a few days and it will be ready. Then I'll work on a About.com and the week after on a Yahoo clone. As soon as I get the $billions a year from the British Government

nzmatt




msg:758935
 6:16 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

You must be joking - where the Hell have you been EFV, Mars?

Decius




msg:758936
 6:29 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

How naive can you be to believe the sandbox is geared towards "improving results"?

It is keeping out NEW and RELEVENT content for being NEW and RELEVENT.

Google is still full of spam and search results of search results. I'm not saying it's better than any other search engine or worse... what I'm saying is this is as feasible an idea as keeping all sites based on widgets out because a portion of the sites that sell widgets "Tend" to spam.

So "new" sites are part of this category of "Spammers".

It's not "Effective" of a method, because it does not discriminate between a spammer and a high quality site. I atest to this based on experience and the experiences of others.

When there is profit to be made, you have to assume they do what they do for the sake of profit. Google wanted to keep their SERPS as clean as possible during the stage when they went public, which they have done. The problem is their "methods" were not efficient or smart, just safe. And they have yet to discover a better one.

nzmatt




msg:758937
 6:31 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

You must be joking - where the Hell have you been EFV, Mars?

Decius, I see you at least have been on this planet!

europeforvisitors




msg:758938
 6:48 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

How naive can you be to believe the sandbox is geared towards "improving results"?

It's a lot less naive than suggesting that Google's search team is "playing games."

Questioning the quality of search results is one thing; making unsupported allegations about Google's motives is just trash talk.

nzmatt




msg:758939
 6:54 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

just trash talk

BigDave




msg:758940
 8:42 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

nzmatt,

You might try applying this quote to yourself.

You have a patronizing tone which suggests that you believe anyone with a different opinion to you is new to this game.

Except in your case I would have chosen a different word than "patronizing".

Your posts are not exactly filled with wonderful recomendations or any useful information at all for that matter.

As for the sandbox, it may be real, but it is certainly not as all encompassing as many would make it out to be. I have a two month old site ranking for money keywords. But I suppose you don't want to hear that either. It might disturb you feeling of victimization.

And as a matter of fact, I do intend to rely totally on SE traffic for income from this site. The simple reason is that all the income from the site will go into investments, which is what I consider to be my real income. The groceries and mortgage do not depend on the vagaries of Google.

If you want to depend on Google to pay your mortgage, I suggest you check out this web page [google.com...]

Otherwise, I suggest you reread what WebFusion has written, and consider what you just might learn.

muesli




msg:758941
 9:38 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

tantalus:
"Website like the UK BBC don't need Google - why not write one of those? "

DerekH that has got to be one of the most stupidest and factious comments I've read on ww.

i don't agree. think services like bloglines or del.icio.us or flickr, don't think content. "simply" build a service everyone needs, it will spread and grow without needing google. that's how sergey and larry did it, too, by the way.

moderators: i guess it's safe to name these big sites, yet i'm not sure. forgive me and kindly edit if i'm mistaken.

waynne




msg:758942
 10:31 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

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

I am starting to agree rbacal, Im getting Googleswamped!

I have the problem of too much traffic coming from google suddenly on 2 of my sites - My host has requested I close my shared hosting account and move the site to a dedicated server because of the bandwidth its eating up - it an expensive overheap as the site is a hobby information only site that generates just a few 's a month (Dedicated hosting is for a minimum 1 year contract and it's not looking like the income the site generates will even begin to cover it!

The other site is a travel insurance site that is getting 3 times the traffic it previously got - the firm cannot keep up with the emails and telephone enquiries and because nothing is stable with Google the decision to take on more staff is not an easy choice to make.

Perhaps 'everflux' should become a permenant feature of every serps and the traffic be shared out more equally.

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.
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