| This 190 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 190 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > || |
|Today's Webmaster & Their Relationship with Google|
Understanding Where We Are & Where We are Going
|The Shower Scene|
| 7:55 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm convinced that today's webmaster is under the Google mindshare spell. Most don't even realize it.
- Google's Guidelines do not define Ethical SEO
Many webmasters equate Google's guidelines with "ethical seo." Google's guidelines represent rules that are convenient for Google. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Internet ethics define how you interact with other webmasters and websites, whether you choose to link to a partner with a real link or not, sabotage, and other questions of right and wrong that sometimes are so subjective they can have a thousand right answers. Google's Guidelines are not part of the ethical equation. It's time webmasters corrected their lazy habit of referring to ethics and Google's Guidelines as if they were one and the same.
- Google has gone beyond user mindshare
In many ways Google has acquired webmaster mindshare. How else to explain a post by a member who details his aggressive site promotion efforts then asks if it's ethical? Google literally has webmasters brainwashed into thinking that their guidelines defines ethics. When a webmaster as a matter of course refers to violating Google's guidelines as pertaining to ethics, what else can you do but call it what it is: a brainwash.
- The Google Webmaster Spell
Today's webmasters have become so under the Google spell that all their energy is focused on Google. The mindshare takeover is so complete they even think the Google Directory is an entity in itself.
|I have my one site listed in google directory and the link information is wrong there. Could anyone tell me how we can contact the editors and change my link information for my website link in google directory.... |
- Google Defines Webmaster Dialogue and Thinking
Today's webmaster so intellectually lazy they actually believe that the best information is going to come from a heavily moderated Google Groups forum. Today's webmaster confuses helpful information with what is essentially Kool-Aid that is being posted on Matt Cutts blog.
Do you actually believe the dialogue on a Google Group or a Matt Cutts blog is moderated for anything other than to make webmasters conform to Google's corporate will? On WebmasterWorld, and other forums like DP, SEW, TW, and many others, we are free to discuss every aspect of search marketing. On Matt Cutts blog and the official Google forums you are not. Google controls the dialogue and the outcomes of the discussions. Google and Matt Cutts are not concerned with helping you rank better. They are concerned about the integrity of their algorithm, and making webmasters unpaid partners in protecting Google's algorithm through snitch networks and data mining enterprises like Webmaster Central.
- Thank you for smoking, have some more kool aid.
Todays webmaster is so compliant, complacent, and utterly sheep-like they are willingly surrendering highly personal data to Google without understanding how it ultimately benefits Google far more than it benefits them. The toolbar was pretty invasive, but webmaster central is a shameless data grab. Old ladies resist when someone snatches their purse. Todays webmaster lacks the will to resist and the intellect to understand what Google is doing to them. Do you understand the irony of a search for "Webmaster Central [google.com]" leading to several web pages that benefits Google instead of websites that benefit webmasters?
- Google is taking over and moderating the webmaster discussion
Google endeavours to control the discussion of Google by limiting it to their own network of blogs and discussion forums. How else to explain the absence of AdSense advisor, GoogleGuy, Adam Lasnik, and AdWords Advisor? ASA didn't even bother to announce the last AdSense weekend update. GoogleGuy is absent on Webmaster Forums except to defend Google at TW or promoting their snitch programs.
When was the last time GoogleGuy or the other representatives did something on the webmaster forums to help or answer questions? Where have they gone? I will tell you where they are. They are hijacking our dialogue and moderating it on the official Matt Cutts blog and their other Kool-Aid forums. I believe it's a conscious effort to control what you think and gain webmaster mindshare for the benefit of Google.
Google is the Internet
Am I the only one who feels it's extraordinary how Google is becoming the arbiter of web ethics, coding practices, and the webmaster dialogue? Do webmasters really want an Internet that is defined and dicated according to what is good for Google?
[edited by: The_Shower_Scene at 8:11 pm (utc) on May 8, 2007]
| 6:12 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Increase in market share does not necessarily mean approval of G. It could just as reasonably reflect an even greater discontment with other SE's. |
I would even suggest that beyond some point there is an inverse relationship between market share and goodwill. I think things will really start to get hairy when that point is reached in the US.
Another question is whether or not search engines own organic traffic. Some posters make it seem as if search engines create traffic and then kindly donate it to webmasters.
If you do a search, do you have the feeling the search engine owns your behaviour?
| 6:26 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That story is just funny.... They're complaining that Google has a cached copy in their index. But does the average person read the cached copy?
Furthermore, can't they just use the noindex-nofollow meta data to keep the bots out? How about the robots text file?
Sounds to me like someone set up the website incorrectly, and now they want easy money.
If I were G, I'd tell 'em to take a hike. G, somewhere, has a list of standard protocols that they follow if you set up your site properly.
And hey, if they want their news stories heard around the world, but want everyone to pay for it... then again... set the site up CORRECTLY the first time, so that the person clicking the link will get a "You are not a paid member of this service".
Good lord... if you put your content out there with absolutely NO limitations ANYWHERE, then yeah, the spiders are naturally going to eat it up, and spit it back to the user.
But I suppose you can expect that to happen when you pay your 10 grandson to make a website for ya.
| 6:30 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Good lord... if you put your content out there with absolutely NO limitations ANYWHERE, then yeah, the spiders are naturally going to eat it up, and spit it back to the user. |
It's like if someone leaves the doors to their home open and get robbed, the judge should release the robber because he claimed it was [naturally] not his fault the doors was open.
| 6:39 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|BTW, we have actually made more money from Google this year than they have made from us. |
Exactly. For every $100 I invest into Google AdWords I make over $2,000 - where else do I get that kind of ROI?
Seriously, I can't complain when Google is throwing me free money.
[edited by: tedster at 7:40 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
| 6:44 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Exactly. For every $100 I invest into Google AdWords I make over $2,000 - where else do I get that kind of ROI? |
Seriously, I can't complain when Google is throwing me free money.
Don't worry. Once Google Analytics, Google Webmaster Tools, Google Adwords, and Google Checkout have gathered enough information about you and your business (or your business niche), your ROI will be "adjusted" accordingly ;).
| 6:46 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Let's be realistic: How many pages on the Web are even worth indexing? How many of those pages have intrinsic value for a search engine's audience? Google could discard 90% of its index, and most users wouldn't notice or care. |
Sometimes I wonder why people here don't mention EVP's name along with Adam, Google guy and matt cutts! "Most users wouldn't notice or care" this will be broken soon, before that happens everybody encash all google stocks.
|Really? According to HitWise, Google Search's market share grew from 58.33% in March, 2006 to 64.13% in March, 2007. That suggests that any "discontentment of users" with Google is decreasing not growing. |
We take that Belgian chocolate example you were please just because, inspite of no stock they delivered single packs for the same price. Price is the key here, you are happy that the price has not changed. Similarly in google's case common searcher is still unable to find the difference, but that does not mean there is no difference.
| 6:54 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Another question is whether or not search engines own organic traffic. Some posters make it seem as if search engines create traffic and then kindly donate it to webmasters. |
Search engines give referrals to Webmasters. And yes, those referrals are a gift--at least in the case of Google Search, whose organic index has never had a PFI option (unlike some of its competitors' indexes, and unlike some WW members' directories).
| 6:57 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Don't worry. Once Google Analytics and Google Webmaster Tools have gathered enough information about you and your business (or your business niche), your ROI will be "adjusted" accordingly ;). |
Yeah right. I use my own traffic script, I don't use Website optimizer, and I don't use Google Webmaster Tools for adwords landing pages. Seriously, I don't need my landing pages indexed. So there's no reason to verify them using Webmaster Tools.
Out of 1,000 results for any SERP, Google can only make 10 website owners happy, so law of average says 99% of all webmasters will keep on whining.
|Google is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, webmasters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. |
[edited by: Halfdeck at 6:58 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
| 6:59 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Search engines give referrals to Webmasters. And yes, those referrals are a gift--at least in the case of Google Search. |
This "gift" applies only to 10-20% of all webmasters. If a page is on pages 20-1,000 - does a webmaster get any "gift" then [without paying for Adwords of course]? The remaining 80% of webmasters don't profit from free Google traffic.
| 7:21 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Don't worry. Once Google Analytics, Google Webmaster Tools, Google Adwords, and Google Checkout have gathered enough information about you and your business (or your business niche), your ROI will be "adjusted" accordingly ;). |
Really? When's that supposed to kick in? Cause it's been YEARS now, and I and my clients have all done better every year...
| 7:32 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Really? When's that supposed to kick in? Cause it's been YEARS now, and I and my clients have all done better every year... |
The funny part is that nobody except Google really knows. I would watch Google quaterly profits closely to predict when your ROI could be "turned up" or "loosen up".
In the long term, I think the website owner's who depends on Google tools and "programs" ROI will behave similar to Adsense profits - one month is OK, another two not. The overall tendency - nice and stable drop.
[edited by: menial at 7:33 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
| 7:33 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Search engines give referrals to Webmasters. And yes, those referrals are a gift |
Whoa there pappa...
By the same note our gift to them is to allow them to have a product in the first place. Yep they need SOMETHING to show their users. It is implied that this so called referral "gift" is actually a TRADE for indexing and limited use of content we allow them to have.
Remember that their search is based on what people are looking for. Webmasters and business owners create a value in which increased the breadth of search. As in Chevy creating a make of care which in turns creates searchers for information, parts, dealers, etc. for that vehicle. This in turn creates ever expanding advertising opportunity and revenue for Google. We are the creators of the markets in which Google greatly profits from - even markets where site owners do not elect to profit from such as free information. All for just some eyeballs from their search. So you CANNOT tell me that Google traffic is just a gift when we do so much for the internet marketplace and for them. They organize and profit and expand from what we create.
Now those who create the highest of value (at leas what Google is trying to do) will get the greatest traffic value in return. Not a gift, not a reward, but a trade. A trade for satisfying what searchers are looking for and creating a market so they can profit from advertising on such SERPS.
Think of it this way. Who came first the search engines or the websites. Again we create the market in which search engine leach and thrive from. We create the need to SEARCH. WE create people who want to go online. We create the internet. We gave and continue to give THEM the gift to exist. A little respect and gratitude is all some people are asking.
[edited by: arubicus at 7:48 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
| 7:37 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Search engines give referrals to Webmasters. And yes, those referrals are a gift |
Agreed. I would be happy if you also post that "Webmasters give convent to search engines and those content are a gift" If you wish you may also add that you agree search engines will have to die with out content, but webmasters will loss visitors but still survive.
| 7:46 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|By the same note our gift to them is to allow them to have a product in the first place. Yep they need SOMETHING to show their users. It is implied that this so called referral "gift" is actually a TRADE for indexing and limited use of content we allow them to have. |
Great point, it really surprises me, that senior member like EFV is not ready to accept this.
| 7:55 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Funny, we have had adsense/analytics on our sites since they were made. Google knows our websites inside out and we have not lost a dollar. They just keep coming in.
As far as people adding analytics to their site and losing rankings, well that is because google figures out how the traffic flows on the site, if it has a high bounce rate, how many visitors return. If those numbers suck then it wil spill over in the serps and you will be downgraded. If those numbers are good, expect a boost.
Free traffic is great, but if we lost it tomorrow it would not hurt. I agree with halfdeck, we have a few landing pages we would not need cached as well and still make a killing.
| 8:03 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Funny, we have had adsense/analytics on our sites since they were made. Google knows our websites inside out and we have not lost a dollar. They just keep coming in. |
I didn't mention Adsense (I don't think they can get much info about your ROI from that). Try to put Google Checkout, use Google Adwords, and Analytics for a longer time. Adsense earnings were GREAT in the first 1-2 years too...
| 8:25 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|By the same note our gift to them is to allow them to have a product in the first place. Yep they need SOMETHING to show their users. |
Yes, but they don't necessarily need your "something" or my "something." If the majority of Webmaster World members blocked Googlebot with robots.txt tomorrow, what would the overall effect be on Google's index? Probably not much.
Fact is, the tyical WW member needs Google a lot more than Google needs the typical WW member. So let's not get sucked into delusions of grandeur.
| 8:40 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You guys can talk about gift theory all you like. It's the sort of devolved conversation we've seen hundreds of times, and really has nothing to do with the original post.
The reality is that:
1.) The average webmaster can't afford to do without Google.
2.) Google can do without the average webmaster. Google can do without the top 10% of webmasters. With very few exceptions, Google can do without any particular site in their index.
So, the power in any such relationship is 100% with Google. It doesn't really matter what webmasters in aggregate do because it ain't happening. It also doesn't matter what webmasters in aggregate have already done - because it's done - and things are what they are today.
The power assymetry that currently is... That is something that affects "Todays Webmaster & Their Relationship with Google." How we got to this point is only academic.
| 9:05 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Yes, but they don't necessarily need your "something" or my "something." |
We weren't talking about the necessity for Google's survival we were talking about traffic being a gift.
Let me put it this way. Take your site and block google. Now watch your site go bye bye in the serps. Why because you are no longer making a trade. You are not providing Google with value as a trade for indexing.
|If the majority of Webmaster World members blocked Googlebot with robots.txt tomorrow, what would the overall effect be on Google's index? |
You or I alone nor do all WebmasterWorld members' sites make up the sum of the value of the internet. BUT as a WHOLE (all sites, businesses, etc.) we CREATE the internet and the market in which Google THRIVES. As a whole we can give any one search engine it's power.
If a site blocks Google from their site it in turn decreases the value of their index. The impact a blocking site is determined by the value they produce. Sure other sites will take it's place - but - if the VALUE of the blocking site is greater than the value of the sites that takes it's place then the difference of the two values is lost. (Realized or not). The greater the value the greater the impact.
To me you are belittling the value roles your site, my site, and WebmasterWorld member sites may have in Google and the internet as a whole. Even it is so slight in the grand scheme of the internet...it still would be value lost.
[edited by: arubicus at 9:12 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
| 9:11 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|How we got to this point is only academic. |
For that matter, the premise of this thread is academic. And the implicit threats of "Let's take back the Web for the gimme generation of Webmasters" are purely rhetorical.
Yes, Google is the dominant source of search referrals.
Yes, you've got to play by Google's guidelines if you want to minimize the risk of losing those search referrals.
Big deal, since Google's guidelines simply codify what Webmasters were doing before the commercialization of the Web encouraged the get-rich-quick crowd to let their greed overrule their intelligence.
| 9:15 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There you go being all rational (and indeed *right* IMHO) again EFV.
No one will like you for it! B^>
| 9:16 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well, I see a few tendencies already showing here:
a.) Most people do NOT seem to run a business of any kind, but do exactly what they say Google does wrong - redirect traffic (through affiliation, MFA etc.). If you were to sell a product or a service, let's say chocolate - you would not build your online business around search engines, but around marketing. Every smart businessman knows that marketing is the first and most important factor in starting a business - buy PPC, banners, links, offline ads, etc. I just do not understand why anyone would assume that free traffic MUST be provided to every website in the world?!?
b.) Most people complain about Google scraping their websites, and yet, they do NOT spend 5 sec. to put a disallow and move on with their life, proud of solving this painfull issue.
c.) You forget that EVERY person with Internet connection knows that Google provides nothing more than links to OTHER websites.
[edited by: tedster at 9:21 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
| 10:01 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Fact is, the tyical WW member needs Google a lot more than Google needs the typical WW member. So let's not get sucked into delusions of grandeur. |
No delusions of grandeur - just a few observations about paternalism.
The thing consistantly missing in your defense of Google is their influence and relatively unassailable position. In the quote above you allude to it, whereas usually you take the "everything's equal" position.
Simple fact is, the playground is not equal. Webmasters conform to, or game, the Google system simply because of Google's dominance. It is not posible to blame it on the webmaster, any more than it is possible to blame it on Google.
That is Tedster's point about the paradoxical relationship. Google insinuates itself into webmasters' lives and decisions. Those decisions/strategies in turn insinuate themselves into Google's algos and business practices in a strange, slow and constantly changing dance of Shiva.
That said, the past year or two have seen a shift in the relationship. It is colored by more suspicion on both sides, and Google has become incresingly paternalistic. Not only does it appear that Google assumes the inferiority of webmasters, they also have taken to changing HTML to suit their own needs and goals and attempting to set webmaster against webmaster in the furtherance of their own goals... almost as if they want to keep the inmates from running the asylum.
Problem is, it's our asylum, and a lot of us want to run it.
Google has ventured far beyond organizing the worlds information. They are now organizing the delivery of that information, but many of us remember the wild frontier that was once the Internet - and then Usenet (oh, Google's got that one under control now too!).
| 10:22 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"That suggests that any 'discontentment of users' with Google is decreasing not growing."
Not logical, but also obviously not true to anyone paying attention to this stuff.
People are merely "less unhappy" with Google. Google's search market share has increased because its competition stinks far far far worse.
Google is the "Moe" of search engines.
MSN seems to be the "Larry".
Yahoo has sadly fallen to the "Curly Joe" level.
| 10:24 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|For that matter, the premise of this thread is academic. |
However, the original poster was in part asking people to look at themselves and see if it matches up with reality.
I can see some value in that, and it can be applied.
The history, while interesting, is still history. There's hardly a debate as to whether webmasters were instumental in the rise of Google. No matter what Google turns into, that can not be taken back. It's easy game theory at work here. That's why nobody ever takes anyone up on the "block google from your server" thing.
And since nobody asked, I'll say a little more. :)
I can fit most webmasters that talk about Google into a few categories.
1.) Those who profit as a result of their relationship with Google
2.) Those who don't and would like to.
I fit into the first one. I make some adsense money. Not a giant amount, but positive economic profits, IME. I also have a positive ROI from advertising with Google. I also get plenty of search referrals, which also make money for me.
Just looking at that, you'd think I should be madly in love with Google. We should get a room or something!
As it turns out, we have a troubled relationship.
Google doesn't really tell me what's expected of me. Google will make some cryptic comments about it, but I'm walking on eggshells as a result.
Google watches me way too closely. If I mention that I have some problems with Google, all of Google's friends jump on me like I'm crazy. Google ignores me.
Google tells me how I should act. They can't just take me as I am and rank me among their other relationships.
Google asks people to spy on me.
So, yes, Google does a lot for me. We also have a rather troubled relationship. Some people say I should just leave. So, Google loves me? Mistreats me? Both, I would say.
[edited by: oneguy at 10:25 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
| 10:24 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The thing consistantly missing in your defense of Google is their influence and relatively unassailable position. |
What "defense of Google"? I'm not defending Google; I'm defending common sense and freedom of choice on both sides. As for paternalism vs. the Wild West, some of us remember the Web before it became the Wild West. If Google's influence can help to starve out the cattle rustlers, bank robbers, and bounty hunters, the Web will be a better place as a result. :-)
| 10:53 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't get the 'seo obsession' with google, never have and likely never will.
I look at Google in exactly the same way I look at my barber, supermarket, printer ink salesite, Amazon ...
Google is a feature of my life; an organisation that provides services that I can take or leave. I grumble at supermarket prices, and occasionally try a rival. They're no better, so I go back to the one that's served me well for years.
Google is no different. I don't always like what they do - but I'm not stupid; I realise that they don't have to run the company to suit me, nice though that would be. But on balance, they do a good job.
I read here, many times, that Google has destroyed people's sites, their lives, their dreams ... I think it's sad that people structure their sites, lives and dreams around someone else's business. Why would anybody do that?
It's like a sharebuyer putting all their money in one stock; a gambler putting it all on the favorite in the 2.30 race.
It's crazy; it's doomed. The world laughs at people who bet the farm all on one horse - favorite or not - I feel sorry for people who invest their souls in Google.
No wonder they feel so bitter. Google's business and plans inevitably will not always correspond with theirs; and Google owes them nothing. Same as Google owes me nothing.
| 11:00 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"the commercialization of the Web encouraged the get-rich-quick crowd"
and who encouraged this ? oh yes it was Google
"If Google's influence can help to starve out the cattle rustlers, bank robbers, and bounty hunters"
So its Google's job to "police the net"?
I don't thinks so, what Google does with its search engine is up to them but its not just a search engine, now its becoming a global entity that is swallowing the market in as many areas as it wishes by using financial muscle.
If there were no websites able to be indexed there would be no Google.
If Google did not exist there would still be websites.
There is no going back.
As we have off and on-line international businesses we need search engines - does it have to be Google? not really, in the same way it didn't have to be Infoseek or Alltheweb.
Its our tenth anniversary this month and I think that the "google" influence is getting stronger and stronger, and that is why there is this "marriage" between websites and Google - it could end in divorce - and the tears could be Google's.
| 11:25 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|"If Google's influence can help to starve out the cattle rustlers, bank robbers, and bounty hunters" |
So its Google's job to "police the net"?
He never said that; Good companies can have a good influence without policing anything. And isn't it the job of all honest citizens - not just the police - to stand against "cattle rustlers, bank robbers, and bounty hunters"?
Seems a shame to leave Google to do the dirty work, then criticize them for wanting to be the police.
You can't call for self regulation, freedom etc., etc., when too many "honest citizens" can't be bothered to stand up for high standards - and then attack one organisation that does.
Why do I get the feeling that whatever Google does is going to be wrong, even helping an old lady cross the road?
| 11:39 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Why do I get the feeling that whatever Google does is going to be wrong, even helping an old lady cross the road? |
Maybe because they will eventually find a way to charge her or her grandchildren for that.
| 11:51 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
WOW, this post has taken wings and also gotten a bit off track.
The OP made some interesting statements that few are addressing.
The topic of "Todays webmaster & Their Relationship with Google" made me think back.
Remember when Google was a little known entity to those outside of tech? They were a small group of friendly folks with a goal of indexing the web and it's information while chanting "Do No Evil"
Flash ahead to today and they have become this huge conglomerate with the goal to index the worlds data.
Indexing websites and collecting data may seem like the same goal but it's a bit scary when you imagine what kind of information is gathered.
I have the same relationship with them today as I had in 1998. The only difference is now I look over my shoulder, I watch where I go, I watch who I link to very closely and I wonder if something I did last year or 4 years ago is now going to be considered against the rules.
It's kind of a big brother syndrome for me now when in the past it was more like a friendship.
| This 190 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 190 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |