| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) || |
|Is there any point in adding new content?|
Considering the Xmas SERPs debacle...
| 1:02 pm on Dec 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have had two people working for two months so far on new, original and relevant content for my sites. Until now they are about 600 pages into a +/-25,000 pages addition and I was very happy with their progress until 20th December.
Now I'm wondering whether the effort is even going to be worth anything whatsoever with this crazy Xmas debacle occurring.
Will they be spidered, won't they?
Will they be see in the SERPs or won't they?
Will they have a penalty against them since they're too new and not considered authoritative even though I know they will be the ONLY such pages on the entire Net?
These pages are/were being created out of my love for my trade and I am personally paying for them and expected over many years to recoup this cost by the small amount of AdSense revenue they would possibly generate.
These pages were not being built to make a fortune, they were being built for informational and educational purposes, HOWEVER if there is no chance of them ever of deriving any kind of income (from AdSense at the moment) then I may as well stop them right now.
Google is now acting in a similar fashion to a government when it tweaks interest rates to curb consumer spending and it is having entirely the same reaction.
Do I bother to invest or not?
Personally I have no financial motive to do so therefore, like governments, Google ought to take much more seriously and responsibly the effect an algo tweak may have on investment decisions.
| 4:06 am on Dec 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google is fluctuating moderately in my niche, but it doesn't seem to be any different than what has been happening for the past... well I dunno how long.
I have to admit, following these threads has never helped me. Except maybe to increase my anxiety.
And to keep the thread on track, yes, I would continue to add new content.
You can't base business decisions or any decision on what Google is doing. I've learned that many times - the hard way.
| 12:10 pm on Dec 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I second the adding of new content,
but at a slower pace, enough to keep the bot coming.
|I'm not too certain what I'm apologizing for |
You comment on there being no issue if it is not listed on WW's front page is what calls for an apology, sensitivity to fellow webmaster's pain is needed, and even more as a moderator, and extra more for a respected senior member like OptiRex.
Now Opti, Ann, doughayman, castar, et al..
Put up the bottle and take a long break, looks like you really need one, even Google takes breaks!
| 3:44 pm on Dec 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Optirex, I can sympathize with your frustration (my site once fell drastically in Google's SERPs for a couple of months), but--as others have suggested--it makes sense to continue adding content if your site has intrinsic value for users.
Why? Because Google has goals similar to yours (maintaining good rankings for useful informational content), and you should benefit in the long run if you're delivering quality fodder to your readers and to Google.
| 11:05 pm on Dec 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The best thing you can do is accept that Google is screwed up. The amounts of data they have, the work they do to sort it out and the results the need to present are out of control. I have a feeling they realize this and are working on something new.
It's funny how everyone thinks Google's systems and practices can scale and keep pace on the internet.
Yes, I used to get severe heartburn issues when the changes occurred. I would bemoan the fact my sites went down and I would scour every post here looking for answers. Guess what? There are none.
No one from Google is ever going to treat webmasters like partners and help explain their practices. The best you can hope for are cryptic replies and conjecture. Why should they explain anything? The more they obfuscate the better for them.
Anyway, the best thing to do is diversify and not rely on Google that much. Eventually they'll be replaced by someone else and we'll treat Google search results as we do Yahoo.
| 12:01 am on Dec 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The xmas debacle was actually from labor day to Christmas. It involved purging thin affiliates and placing manufacturers in their place. It also included the "quality score" system in adwords that sharply raised PPC costs for many. The effect both events had was they increased Google's revenue during the main buying season. The stockholders are happy so who cares about the fallout?
A positive effect was they cleaned up the serps that are flooded with thin affiliates. A negative effect was many legit retailers who are "thick" affiliates were harmed during the season when they do a lot of business.
The downside, as with any new algo, is it mostly worked but needs a lot of tweaking. Google does this periodically as they try to improve their performance. They do it with good intent but their youth and lack of experience shows every time.
As always, focus on your target audience and ignore Google. You will do well and be very visible on the Internet. Run Adsense or whatever works for you.
| 2:30 am on Dec 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|They do it with good intent but their youth and lack of experience shows every time. |
I would say the youth of web search altogether is at play here. It's not like there's some grand hisotrical benchmark that we can point to for excellence in web search -- the entire field of web search is in its pioneer years.
| 4:59 am on Dec 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Forgetting the results any of us see on our own sites, it seems part of this whole debacle is a majorly reduced quality of search results overall. I now see lots of 'feed aggregators' and other content republishers getting higher rankings than the original content they're ripping! I am finding that unless my searches are either totally specific (say, 'sometinytown widgets') or extremely general (say, 'widgets'), I'm getting trash and tons of supplemental links. It's been like this for about a month now, and I'm thinking of jumping to another search engine, much like I ditched Altavista for Google back in 2000.
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) |