|Schmidt Testimony Analysis|
| 6:46 pm on Sep 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Okay, I know there is general discussion. There are somethings glaring here and I'm wondering if I'm the only one hearing this.
This is the biggie. I'm at the part of the hearing where he's talking about how small business can compete with the "big box" or "brand" sites. He says it's the specialty aspects of those small business sites that allows them to compete.
Here is the kicker to me. He doesn't spend the time that we do looking at search results. He likely doesn't even realize how the algo has changed the game lately. He testimony was for a 2010 version of Google and not the current 2011 Google.
What I see and hear? I see that those big site are now the authority. If you are small and singular, you are fried. You are swamped by the brand and authority sites. Either I'm completely misreading Google results or Schmidt is completely out to lunch on what is currently in the Google SERPS.
This has been my main issue with Google. It's my sense that small singular sites are simply unable to compete with the raised bar. As popularity of subject rises, the giant sites get to gobble up those organic traffic numbers.
Am I way off here?
| 8:05 pm on Sep 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
To me, when he was talking about small businesses competing with big brands, he was referring to "Local" small businesses, not small businesses who focus on web only.
That was my impression anyhow.
| 8:50 pm on Sep 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Important distinction mhansen. I'm web only, so if Google moves into my niche, I'm likely screwed. And my niche has nothing to do with search.
| 9:36 pm on Sep 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
It was my understanding that he said if you have a niche website that you could in fact get organic traffic from Google. I would think that he's talking about Google 1.0 and not the 2011 Google 2.0 version. I wouldn't even say niche, I would say he was suggesting that if you covered subject "xyx" that the giant site covering "xy" you could rank well against. I suppose the defense is that I'm only talking about searches that are either profitable or somewhat popular. Less topics are virtually non scrutinized.
| 10:06 pm on Sep 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|he was referring to "Local" small businesses, not small businesses who focus on web only. |
if so then he's beating about the bush.
I know my local businesses and will only use a SE to find other non-local and/or web only businesses. If those can't be found than I don't need Google.
| 10:43 pm on Sep 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Let me clarify what I meant to put it into better context. I watched the whole thing from end to end as well.
The section I think we're discussing was when he was being questioned about injecting Googles own products (like local, places, maps, product search, etc) in front of others that are algorithmically decided.
After they discussed the actual "Product" placement, they also talked about maps being put in. At which point Schmidt mentioned universal search and that by using the Maps and Google Places features, the algorithm allowed smaller businesses the ability to rank better against national brands.
I am not a google bell-ringer in any way, but that was my own take on the discussion... like if someone was searching for "cars" or "refrigerators", Google injected a mix off local small businesses into the first page of serps (which we all know as Google Places) allowing them higher visibility.
Anyhow - I would have to watch the first hour again to see for sure, but that's what I took away from it.
| 1:28 am on Sep 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Couple other tidbits I found interesting.
Schmidt did admit openly that "they sometimes make mistakes" with the algorithm. It's wishful thinking to suggest that he's referring to Panda but one can always hope.
His emphasis on Google's care for small business was comical in a way. A tiger can't hide his stripes. Google is, with no fault of their own, a money making and money making corporation. So ask yourself is it the goodness of heart to offer free websites to businesses or is it just a way for getting more potential Adwords clients? I think to most the answer is obvious. In that way, I find it somewhat insulting to think it was out of the goodness of the heart. As we all operate, you have to see if their is some reward at the end of the day. Of course there are things called donations, and perhaps that's what Google is doing by getting more businesses online with free site builders etc. Unlikely, but possible. His comments about "small business" to me was so political motivated. I would suggest reading these forums and their own forums about Google Panda and then perhaps alter the "we care about small business" rhetoric. I say this based on webmaster comments about not being able to compete, seeing big brands, and generally a loss in organic traffic to the point of choking to death. Of course one of the 500 algo changes that they do each year could actually reverse some of the choking that the "small businesses" are feeling. I suppose they first would have to admit that the algo is adversely affecting the fairness that was once part of the Google algo. Either that or I'm totally misreading what Panda has done based on what people are posting. Perhaps the silent 90% are finding it fantastic. Not sure but I doubt it. Clueless perhaps?