homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.0.85
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 71 message thread spans 3 pages: 71 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Debate: Does Google Manipulate Organic SERPs to Improve Ad Income?
tedster




msg:3483066
 12:00 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Several members would like to discuss the idea that Google may or may not manipulate their organic search results to increase Adwords income. Here's your chance to air your opinions.

We'll start by splicing in a selection of comments that were taken from other threads.

[edited by: tedster at 1:08 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]

 

gehrlekrona




msg:3482209
 7:15 pm on Oct 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google has always said that AdSense and SERP's doesn't have anything to do with each other. They are seperate departments and one does not influence the other, but like outland88 said, they got to be making tons of money on their ads now when the results are so bad.
I am thinking that there IS a strategy to the madness and to me it seems that whatever they have in their Ad inventory IS effecting the SERP's.
If you can't find what you are looking for on the first pages you are more likely to click on one of their ads, because the ads sure seems to be accurate! You don't see ads from a baby clothes business if you are searching for a car, do you? But you DO see baby clothes, blogs, sites from a land far-far away mixed with cars in the SERP's.....
Maybe the new thing is to check their AD inventory and have a very low quality of SERP's to get some more money for GOOG so the stock goes up.
I still haven't figured out why some sites are still showing up and how they have been selected to be in the SERP's. Like someone said, some of them don't even have the keyword(s). Maybe DO have it, but then it is buried so deep on a page that you will have a week to find it, and then some of the sites have the keyword(s) all over the place. Nothing makes any sense anymore. Maybe it's intentional and they are creating a "SEO-cloud" that'll take years to clear. Maybe this cloud is all what they have gathered from SEO's and now GOOG is trying to implement all the filters all at once and that's why we sometimes say that it seems that there are no filters applied anymore. I'm thinking that they implemented new filters but forgot about the old ones or the new ones replaced the old filters and now they don't know what to do with it all.
Like I said, confusing as h*ll...

[edited by: tedster at 1:07 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3482215
 7:19 pm on Oct 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google has always said that AdSense and SERP's doesn't have anything to do with each other. They are seperate departments and one does not influence the other, but like outland88 said, they got to be making tons of money on their ads now when the results are so bad.

Yes, that must be why Google doesn't come up in top 10 results for "search engine." They're obviously trying to sell themselves more AdWords. :-)

[edited by: tedster at 1:03 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

gehrlekrona




msg:3482297
 9:03 pm on Oct 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

efv,
It's easy to come up with something to comment on, but tougher to come up with some analyze of result. If you see a lot of improvement I'd like you to share it with all of us that is not so fortunate and trying to UNDERSTAND what is going on.
As far as I and my little brain can understand, the "search engine" search and the lousy results are not connected in any way. That strange result is merely an observation.

[edited by: tedster at 1:01 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3482324
 9:36 pm on Oct 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Gehrlekrona, just because Google's current search results are inadequate in your opinion--or anybody else's--doesn't mean Google is intentionally corrupting its SERPs to sell more ads. That would be extremely shortsighted thinking, and Google hasn't shown any signs of having letting foolish short-term tactics drive its long-term business strategy--or of using Google.com as a disposable domain.

[edited by: tedster at 1:00 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

outland88




msg:3482325
 9:37 pm on Oct 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes, that must be why Google doesn't come up in top 10 results for "search engine." They're obviously trying to sell themselves more AdWords. :-)

Well the last time I looked every results page in Google had the Google logo at the top. Do you feel they should list themselves more?

Are we getting back to your old argument that Google sells electronic advertising to itself. In other words I just sold myself my own pants belt for ten dollars and turned a profit. I think I'll charge myself one hundred dollars next time because I need a night out.

[edited by: tedster at 12:59 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

mattg3




msg:3482516
 3:43 am on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

My opinion is Google smells money in some areas and goes after it.

How could you POSSIBLY suggest that a multibillion Dollar heavy multinational which makes a big chunk of their income through their search engine, would manipulate their search engine results?

No, search results are completely unmanipulated as they have
1.) all the data on what is searched,
2.) where and when it is searched
3.) and by whom
4.) and know what makes the most profit on their and all the adsense sites.

How anyone could think that the search results are commercially dependent with shares to protect is a complete mystery. They would definitely tell the world if they would do such a thing.

Nah it's much more benign than that, each SERP change simply tries to bring WP on even more topics at the number 1 spot. WP shows indeed so much good spirit that it deserves an even better place, higher and to the right.

Nah on a Google result page there is only commercialism to the right and high up right, the left side is an oasis of peace and tranquility from the lesser human instincts and needs to survive in a money driven competitive world. :)

[edited by: tedster at 12:57 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Hissingsid




msg:3482615
 8:26 am on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

gehrlekrona re your earlier comments about possible link to Adwords.

Last month I pointed out that the one term that was causing me major problems was also the same term that creates the vast bulk of searches in my niche.

This month, out of a total spend to date of approx $3000, $2000 has been on this 2 word term and the rest has been on the many other (over 100) terms I bid on. There is no reason that I can find to suppose that my competitors are seeing massiviely different results to these.

Is it just a coincidence that the biggest $ term is also the one that has been affected by the recent changes or is there a link in some way?

I'm not necessarily saying that this is deliberate as there are reasons other than Google being a set of money grabbing so and sos. However it is definitely a coincidence that is worth adding to the disscussion.

Best wishes

Sid

[edited by: tedster at 12:55 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3482731
 3:12 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hence the statements

a) Google does manipulate their results to increase profit

and

b) Google does not manipulate their results to increase profit

have equal status.

Actually, they don't, because the first statement presupposes a level of corporate stupidity and shortsightedness that we haven't seen from Google to date. Opposites aren't equally valid just because they're opposites, and claims such as "Google does manipulate their results to increase profit" are like "George Bush is a pederast" or "The Queen of England is an anti-Semite": In the absence of proof, they're nothing more than inflammatory (and defamatory) statements.

[edited by: tedster at 12:47 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3482808
 4:55 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

An inflammatory, defamatory statement doesn't have "equal status" with its opposite unless it's accompanied by proof. That's why slander and libel laws exist.

[edited by: tedster at 12:37 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Atomic




msg:3482894
 8:07 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

a) Google does manipulate their results to increase profit

and

b) Google does not manipulate their results to increase profit


You present a false dilemna:

[en.wikipedia.org...]

There are other possibilities. For instance, c) Google manipulates the SERPs for reasons other than the two you present. There are, of course, many other possibilities. I simply want to point out that you should at least be open to other possibilities.

[edited by: tedster at 1:09 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3482910
 8:28 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Plus, what's meant by "manipulate"? Search algorithms don't spring out of nowhere. They're engineered to produce a certain type of search results. Someone who sells widgets or operates a thin-affiliate site might complain that Google is "manipulating" search results to favor information sites like Wikipedia or the top review sites, when in fact the algorithm is doing exactly what it was designed to do in light of Google's stated mission.

SIDE NOTE: I get really, really angry when I search for "[destination] travel" in Google Product Search and find maps and guidebooks listed instead of my travel-information site. Google must by manipulating those Product Search results in the hope that information sites will buy more AdWords. :-)

[edited by: tedster at 12:33 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Atomic




msg:3482929
 8:48 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

I also want you to consider what the SERPs could like if they were manipluated to increase profits. Wouldn't the results gyrate seemingly without rhyme or reason? Someone could come in and bid on a keyword that had never been bid on before. The result might be that some sites containing many instances of that keyword would be shoved higher in the SERPs only for that reason. It would changre like this constantly. Sure, we see some daily changes in the SERPs but nothing that crazy. Your mileage may vary but my admittedly anecdotal experience doesn't include SERPs like this.

[edited by: tedster at 12:31 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

menial




msg:3482963
 9:52 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

... just because Google's current search results are inadequate in your opinion--or anybody else's--doesn't mean Google is intentionally corrupting its SERPs to sell more ads. That would be extremely shortsighted thinking...

The point is - Google is profiting BIG TIME from their "shortsighted thinking." Even one day of bad (possibly manipulated) results may equal millions of additional $$$ for them. And such "shortsighted thinking" comes into play more and more often these days. Google will not lose their visitor base if they provide bad results (which cause their visitors to click on Adwords ads more often) 5 random days a month, will they? The bad results are mathematically and socially calculated into their search engine results to maximize their profits.

The "ever-flux" story is a smart excuse of their poor results - to pool the wool over the webmasters and Google users' eyes. It's like they said: "Don't worry about bad results you may experience a few days a month; be assured we're working on it and always trying to improve our algorithms. In the meantime, why don't you click on Adwords ads? They are ALWAYS on target."

[edited by: tedster at 12:28 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Atomic




msg:3482975
 10:29 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

The point is - Google is profiting BIG TIME from their "shortsighted thinking."[/quote]
I'd love to see your evidence. Could you share?

[edited by: tedster at 12:22 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

menial




msg:3482982
 10:55 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'd love to see your evidence. Could you share?

It's simple. If I don't find what I'm looking for in the "natural" results, I'm much more likely to click on the Adwords ads that are always on target. Multiply it by millions daily searches and you'll get the result.

Of course, you may claim it's no evidence and it's only me who would be more likely to click on the ads if the "natural" results were bad, but that's not my problem :).

[edited by: tedster at 12:20 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Atomic




msg:3482983
 11:01 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

You didn't show how the SERPs have been changed so no, it's not evidence to support your claim.

[edited by: tedster at 12:18 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

whitenight




msg:3482985
 11:03 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Anybody remember when people "claimed" that companies could make light bulbs that lasted for years, instead of months, that would use less energy?

I heard those "conspiracy theorists" make that claim for at least 3 decades.

Hmm, funny thing...

In the past year or so, light bulbs that last for years and use less energy are suddenly on the market due to "unforseen reasons"
(note: with the exact same technology that has existed for 70 years)

Point of my example.

A. Everyone and every company acts out of self-interest. Making that point proves absolutely nothing and is akin to saying the sun rises in the east everyday.

B. Even though everyone and every company acts in its own self-interests does not mean they do things that are the best possible action, even if they "believe" it is.

History is littered with the stories of failed businesses, countries, personal lives, etc "doing what they believe is best" even if the result ultimately end in their failure.

C. "Common sense" is neither common, nor obvious. My common sense says Adwords is Goog's core product, not search.

If Goog's business philosophy is to make their company as profitable as possible (which is every companies core mission) then they would be a poor company if they did not test how much "manipulating" the search engine results (ie more relevant or less relevant) would improve the profitability.

This is absolutely no different than any website owner price testing their product v. conversion rates.
If I can charge 5x as much for a product and only lose 1/2 conversion rates, what should I do?!

In conclusion (whew), to summarily dismiss that Goog would never purposely give less relevant SERPs in favor of Adwords profit is simply naive and corporately stupid.

Can we ever prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they do this?
Probably not.

But the next time you're buying some lightbulbs, check out the new eco-friendly kind that lasts for years and think about why they exist now and didn't exist 10, 20, 30 years ago...

[edited by: tedster at 12:10 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

menial




msg:3482993
 11:22 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

If Goog's business philosophy is to make their company as profitable as possible (which is every companies core mission) then they would be a poor company if they did not test how much "manipulating" the search engine results (ie more relevant or less relevant) would improve the profitability.[/quote]

Very True. And Google is doing a great job from this point of view; if I was a company owner I would try do the same. I just don't understand people who still think Google is a non-profit organization run by two genius students...

[edited by: tedster at 12:08 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

Atomic




msg:3483007
 11:37 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

In conclusion (whew), to summarily dismiss that Goog would never purposely give less relevant SERPs in favor of Adwords profit is simply naive and corporately stupid.

Are you responding to anyone particular because I don't think anyone has done this.

As to your story...is this Fallacy Day on Webmasterworld? Getting lucky does not make one a visionary. Anyone can claim anything. If it later turns out that your claim is a fact does not make you right if you believed something for the wrong reasons.

Furthermore, you may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Google does what you claim but you should at least make an attempt. A claim without evidence is meritless.

[edited by: tedster at 12:15 am (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3483115
 1:54 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google is doing a great job from this point of view; if I was a company owner I would try do the same. I just don't understand people who still think Google is a non-profit organization run by two genius students...

Who ever suggested that Google is a "non-profit organization"? You'll have to do better than attack straw men if want your claims to be taken seriously.

Fact is, Google is a company whose founders and managers have a vision that goes way beyond the "let's see what we can get away with today and not worry about tomorrow" philosophy that's so common among wannabe Web entrepreneurs. If Google's management were as short-term in their thinking as you suggest they are, they would have gone the PFI route long ago (a la Yahoo), they wouldn't be giving away listings in Google Product Search for free, and they'd be serving SERPs with nothing buts ads above the fold.

There are far easier ways for Google to maximize income from search than to do stupid things like randomizing search results in the hope of selling more AdWords.

tedster




msg:3483133
 2:31 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google is a company whose founders and managers have a vision that goes way beyond the "let's see what we can get away with today and not worry about tomorrow"

In support of this idea, Google's upper management sometimes talks about their "300 year vision". (see timesonline.co.uk [technology.timesonline.co.uk])

europeforvisitors




msg:3483152
 3:34 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Tedster, that's a fascinating article. It certainly suggests that the "Googlytes" have bigger ambitions than figuring out ways to put the squeeze on AdWords customers.

Arctrust




msg:3483161
 4:14 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Does Google Manipulate Organic SERP's to Improve Ad Income?

Purposely – No, but…

There are in my opinion two sides of the Google house.

Google is divided into two parts:

One is the organic side which in my opinion, as G becomes the more prevalent SE, the more responsible they become to the public.

The second is the advertising side - AdSense.

If you knew that your site could be locked into the top SERP position, wouldn't you feel more free to alter your top SERP page without any repercussions? Have you ever seen a trapeze artist without a net?

Likewise, G will, and does, alter their organic search results knowing that they have a safety net - AdSense which picks up the slack.

I'm not necessarily certain that altering the organic results for the common good (cough) is manipulated with the thought of pushing advertisers to their AdSense program - but they certainly don't seem to have the same care and caution that they might if the AdSense side wasn’t there.

Over the many decades of banking and banking reform - the federal government has stepped in to regulate the banking industry which has the same equation of a house divided with two sides.

The two sides of the banking house have always been the DEPOSIT side and MONEY MANAGEMENT side.

The Fed has always ensured through regulation that both sides maintained an "arms length agreement" and did not interact with each other in order to collude - persuade the common man with a hidden agenda.

In fact, many banks have suffered through the added costs of maintaining SEPEARATE auditable organizations and many have been fined for violations such as encouraging customers to either side of the house without sufficient and extensive disclosure, and at times even waving additional fees to demonstrate that the decision was made more for the clients' benefit rather than their own.

Again, the reasons for banking reforms have always been to protect the public interest.

In the U.S. does any TV, cable or radio station have the ability to operate without any government oversight?

In my many, many years in the financial markets in my prior life, whenever a client received a recommendation to cross the boundaries - there was always a waiver of fees. Why? Simple - to ensure the client that it was to their benefit and not ours.

Google has a lot of technological muscle. It would not be a stretch of the imagination that every time they tinkered with the algo within a certain percentage of change - they automatically apply a discount to the keywords which are affected - lets call this an "ALGO DISCOUNT"

If something like this were to happen - does anyone here honestly believe that they would serve some of the "experimental" results that we have seen just this year alone without fear of loss of income? Remember the Florida update?

I suspect as they garner a larger and larger percentage of the market - the more they will be seen by the government to be similar to the many "Utilities" "Energy" and "Financial" organizations which have proven over the years are unable to police themselves and protect the public without oversight.

My guess is that within the next decade - their algo changes will be seen in part affecting the many businesses that rely on the exposure for their revenue and that equates to a more stable business environment and economy - for the common good.

Oh yeah…. Why the next decade? – I’m not yet convinced that the current generation in public office is intelligent enough to understand the bottom line effect on the economy.

The current generation is still trying to figure out how to collect inter-state sales tax on web based transactions – but my children and yours who grow up with this thing called the internet will know the difference…

My 2 cents.

ARC

annej




msg:3483164
 4:22 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Interesting article and I agree that

"Googlytes" have bigger ambitions than figuring out ways to put the squeeze on AdWords customers.

I am far more concerned about Google invasion of privacy than anything about AdSense. Although I appreciate what I earn through AdSense I'd like to see more competition in all the areas Google is involved in.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3483217
 9:13 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google is a corporation with a board that is responsible to its shareholders.

Hissingsid




msg:3483236
 10:17 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

There seems to be a suggestion that the manipulation, if it exists, has the objective of creating less relevant organic results and more relevant Adwords results.

It doesn't have to be like that and in fact there is no need for organic search relevance to be affected at all for manipulation for profit to take place.

All the manipulation needs to do is to shuffle the pages that constitute the top 10 organic results for the existing big $ terms. The organisations that own those sites will then almost automatically compete more aggressively for the top slots in Adwords.

In order for this to work effectively you need to take the simple decision on bidding for the top slots from those companies. What you need is a system which allows you to bid for a chance of the top slot, and leave the decision on whether you actually get it and how often you get it to a system whose sole objective is to maximise Adwords revenue for Google and that is exactly what they have done with the new Adwords system.

I think that there is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that they could do all of this. Whether they are doing it or not is somewhat secondary to the fact that they could do it.

Cheers

Sid

Miamacs




msg:3483274
 12:28 pm on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

whee... a lot of debate going on.
Don't wanna be left out.

...

Does Google Manipulate Organic SERPs?
Why, sure they do.
That's what they've been doing for a living for some time now.

Does Google alter Organic SERPs after their algo is done with sorting it?
Apart bans of- and penalties to- sites that most of us users wanna see excluded/banned, the answer is no.

Does the Google algo create Organic SERPs with - among others - the objective to Improve Ad Income?
Yes.

How dare they?
Well, actually they're doing it on demand. ( Ie. there are other culprits as well ). It's not like they woke up one morning and decided that they'd do it, rather just an interesting byproduct of two very important aspects of their core product, which I'm sure they didn't know about when they first thought of Google, let alone AdWords or AdSense. The combo of the last two is further escalating the issue. But it's the webmasters, SEOs and AdWords account holders who feed them with the info on what markets they - we, users, searchers, website owners - want to see 'manipulated'. Or sorted in the way that usually ( not always, but more often than not ) bend the results towards a trend that is BETTER for Google ( and their AdWords program ).

Highlights

1.: Ranking Informative vs. Commercial sites, aka. it's not Google, it's the other webmasters/users not lending you a hand.
2.: AdWords competition... where does it originate from?
3.: Trust(Rank), the phrase filters, fighting opportunism and SEOs who want to rank sites without substance.

Let's dive in *smirk*
Though these are so obvious everyone knows them.
But perhaps some points are necessary to be read in the right context to reach the right people, right?

1.: Ranking Informative vs. Commercial sites

The sorting method which Google (still) uses to determine what sites should be ranked higher up the SERPs is based on link popularity. This idea, that people will link to useful, i.e.. GOOD web resources - discounting all other flaws - would be later finetuned ( algo updates) to sort out 'unnatural' or 'low quality' links that do not represent public opinion on a website. Links that are to fake the preferences of the public, sources that are themselves not popular, or have never been read by other people than SEOs are down the toilet.

Link popularity thus will eventually prefer websites that can build up a healthy stock of 'natural' links.

Informative, non-commercial, social, entertainment related and news sites gather such links much more easily.

Commercial websites, sites with even a hint of trying to make a buck are more likely to be ignored, if by no one else, then fellow webmasters who historically hold the most powerful votes as for your Google ranking next to mainstream media and academic resources. Paranoid, over and at the same time undereducated SEOs are as wary as ever to give out links especially to their own competition which would be the most relevant, and eventually build these sites into a relevant network.

They don't do it.
And the gap between informative and commercial sites widens even more. Generic terms, that are searched without a proper signal of search intent will with no doubt return informative sites. Even queries that would be considered commercial 75% of the time... return informative sites.

Because Google sorts by link popularity.
And commercial sites don't *get* links anymore.
Especially not from where they'd need it the most... their relevant neighborhood.

What does that have to do with AdWords and AdSense?
You should have done the math by now.
But in case you still don't get it, an informative site with AdSense, and SERPs that offer very little commercial stuff for generic... I repeat generic searches, but have nifty little ads on the side reading the minds of the users will likely to generate some extra income for Google.

How dare they...
As I said I have a hard time believing that the two university geniuses had this plan ready when they confronted the *big money investors* with Geekle. Or if they DID forecast such social activity... or passivity rather... wow, I can only say they deserve to be filthy rich.

But let's continue.

2.: AdWords competition... where does it originate from?
See above. A business that wasn't created for the net but would want to profit from it, a business that *was* created for the net but as 95% of such enterprises trusted someone with the creation or the promotion of the site who doesn't know jack about how Google/SEO works... a site that's in a niche so small it could even build up a cool little link profile ( as a curiosity ) but it's not recognized by Google as a theme and thus finds itself pedaling in the deep water along with the giants... reasons may vary.

But in general, the bigger the competition in AdWords is... the more money is to be made with AdSense on an informative site on the topic... . We all know this.

And not all websites are as clean and tidy as Wikipedia.
You don't have to tread too far away. Just look at its scraped clones.
People would go to any length creating and SEOing a seemingly informative site targeting money sensitive areas. Even if it's not a trick, and doesn't have a hidden 'buy (this service) now' button, they can make some good profits, if from nothing else than by linking out to their OWN business once the site is ranking well. Let alone selling other kind of ads or introducing AdSense.

A lot of cr@p was filling up Google.
In areas where link popularity of even the market leaders could be easily challenged by a skillful SEO, it became imminent that the link profiles have to be closely examined in order to not serve users such opportunistic thin sites.

3.: Trust(Rank) and other filters
Well... since 2005 it's not about PR and the number of links. The SEOs have chased Google to adopt the idea originating partially from YAHOO! aka taking the *source* of links into account, and not only their relevance, but also their relative distance from the most trusted hubs on the net. Trust, is a parameter in Google. Half-algorithmic, half-editorial, it has designated a few hundred starting points per region ( country ), and has been in effect ever since, spreading through links.

Trust has an effect on the SERPs we all know of.
The Results 301 - 383 of 91,400,000 for my city hotel phenomenon due to very few sites clearing the thresholds required to appear on the SERPs.
The Sandbox effect which is when a site simply doesn't have enough trust to appear on the SERPs for 3 or 2 or single word queries, even though it's completely relevant and legit.

How da...
It's not Google, actually. It's the SEOs and Webmasters, furthermore the users who decide how high the bar should be raised for different sectors/queries. If there's a lot of trash on the SERPs below a certain threshold, it's raised again until the rest can be algorithmically excluded.
Note how Google does not edit the SERPs by hand. except for bans, penalties

Also, consider this:

The higher the competition is for organic search...
...the higher the competition will be for AdWords...
...the higher the competition will be in organic search for AdSense sites (more money)...
...the closer the SERPs will be monitored for trash (Trustrank, raised thresholds)...
...the tougher it'll be to get listed on organic search...
...the higher the competition will be for AdWords.

And the only point where this pattern is broken, is when people give up on AdWords, for its doesn't worth the bucks anymore... sending the entire system into a downward spiral until new advertisers fill it up. Mind you informative/social sites - apart of the most popular, make disproportionately less than commercial sites, considering their visitor base and SERP domination. The user intent is different.

...

Conclusion because I'm fed up with typing

There's a pattern here that's obviously benefiting Google in a financial way. But thinking back, I'm not sure if they actually had an option in either case. It's more likely that the original idea had the possibility of this business model in it, and not that they'd actually planned to see these things right from the start. From another point of perspective... they're but going with the flow. The pace the market... no... make it the users ( those who link at all ) and webmasters / SEOs make them advance in.

...

Ah well anyway.
When I say Google serves up SERPs that are driving people to click on ads...
...all they do is analyze the data we fed the bot with.
They'd never serve up trash instead of stuff they have on file.
At most, it's that for some niches, they have trash on file.
Thank the SEOs who market trAshSense with no content. Or build some links.
Was this planned right from the start?
If so, Google is an informative search engine.
And the first GOOD and unbiased commercial search engine will be the eco-light-bulb whitenight was talking about... *grin*
uh, ok. It's Sunday and I just had my coffee.
But the points are made.
Stop whining and start thinking of the web as if it was 98.
And exchange links with your competition. *yawn*

[edited by: Miamacs at 12:45 pm (utc) on Oct. 21, 2007]

europeforvisitors




msg:3483326
 3:09 pm on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Mimiacs, the core message from your post seems to be (or at least I'm interpreting it as) "Google does well by doing what good." Or, at the very least, "Google does well by doing what it's supposed to do."

Google's stated corporate mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible." That's what attracts users to Google Search, and the users, in turn, are what attract advertisers to AdWords. Google doesn't have to corrupt its search results to earn profits, and in fact, doing so would be counterproductive because it would risk driving away users and (ultimately) advertisers.

Also--and this is important--traditional AdWords advertisers (direct-response advertisers who measure success in widgets sold or rooms booked) control only a small percentage of the budgets spent on advertising. Most advertising money is spent by advertisers, agencies, and media buyers whose placement decisions are based largely on content and demographics. If Google wants a piece of that larger advertising market, it can't just serve up junk results.

As Miamacs suggests, the Web of 1998 is fading, and the days when Web entrepreneurs could control Google's SERPs by merely appearing to offer information are likely to be numbered. That's why Expedia owns TripAdvisor, and it's why Amazon recently bought DPreview (the leading digital-camera review and community site). The big guys are starting to recognize that Web users are looking for information, and that delivering that information is a great way to do well in search and reach more prospective buyers.

potentialgeek




msg:3483398
 5:51 pm on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google isn't under such immense pressure to perform in very difficult times that you could easily imagine SERP manipulation. Its stock has not been diving. Investors are not bailing. There's no run on the banks.

Is the benefit of ruining SERPs high enough compared to the risk of a whistle-blower exposing deliberately bogus SERPs?

If the allegation were to be made from within, it's easy to imagine a mass exodus to Yahoo and MSN coupled with a stock crash of up to 25%.

If the choice at this point is between incompetent engineers and corrupt leaders, I say its weak engineers.

Also, is there any sign of a mass exodus of engineers? Purist workers who've seen scheming from the inside and can't justify working for the "don't-be-evil" Wallstreet darling any more?

Do we need any more internet conspiracy theories?

p/g

P.S. Too bad you can't cross post in this forum. It'd be good to get AdWords folks to weigh in.

This 71 message thread spans 3 pages: 71 ( [1] 2 3 > >
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