homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.200.172
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
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 87 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 87 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Finally #2 in Google but can't be seen above the fold?
internetheaven




msg:4025048
 9:48 pm on Nov 14, 2009 (gmt 0)

I finally get my #2 ranking ... best I could hope for in such a tough industry with the No.1 position having started in 1999 (I was 2008) and having more than triple the number of backlinks I have.

But imagine my surprise when doing my ranking checks I see that I'm still under the fold when searching for that phrase!?

There are 3 paid results, the first paid result has 4 "sitelinks". (That's a new one on me for a start!). Then, the number 1 spot has it's place PLUS 3 indents!

I have a toolbar on my Firefox browser (who doesn't?) so my result ... at #2, I'd just like to repeat that ... does not appear on the page.

Are there any metrics in place to tell me just how much traffic this is going to cost me vs having a #2 spot a year ago? I'd like to add insult to injury ... :(

 

londrum




msg:4025935
 6:12 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

i wonder at the usefulness of the map though. if you do the "london plumbers" example then it brings up just 7 businesses spread across a map that spans 10 miles by 15 (i haven't worked it out exactly, but that's what it looks like judging by the scale). that is a huge area.

there are probably countless plumbers working in that area, and presumably the only ones that get a shot at the map are the ones that have registered with google's business directory.

the whole point of the serps is that it brings the best sites to the top. sites in the serps don't get an artifical boost. if they are on page one then that means they must be good. and presumably good plumbers too.
but can you say the same thing for the ones by the map?

i can find just one of the map-listed plumbers in the first three pages of the serps. which tells you that they must have earnt their spot for other reasons.
two of them can't possibly be part of the regular serps, because they have no website -- the links just lead to one of google's business directory pages.

as i speak now, another two of them are not even plumbers -- one is a pub and the other is an historic ironmonger's hall. maybe this is due to the relative lack of entries in their business directory, compared to all the websites in the serps.

TheMadScientist




msg:4026004
 7:09 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

...the links just lead to one of google's business directory pages.

They go where?
To one of what site's business directory pages?

Does anyone think the businesses without sites should be removed so visitors go to another (competing) website, rather than staying on a Google owned directory? Why?

Is that what you would do if it was your site and you had a business directory you could use to keep visitors from clicking to another site with?

Seriously, why would they give away a free click to another website when they can give a free click and keep the visitor on one of their properties?

IMO: The Google SERPs are (and are becoming) much more about giving people who visit the Google website answers and choices than they are about sending traffic away, so why should (would) Google send a visitor somewhere else as long as they can keep them happy by not doing it?

I know I've been ranting a bit in this thread, and this is definitely not directed at londrum I'm just taking a quote and running with it, but...

Let's see: Google can keep a visitor on their site by showing a business listing in a directory they have control of (own), or they can send the visitor to another website (they don't own) for free... The click and the listing are free either way, so why would they send the visitor away if they don't need to? It doesn't make a bit of sense for them to not keep as many of the free clicks as they can.

Yes, I understand there are a bunch of people who have put time and effort into building a website and they want the traffic Google can send, but at the same it's a business, and just because it's on a large scale and highly profitable does not mean they have an obligation to anyone except their shareholders, which depends on capitalizing on their visitors.

The sooner webmasters understand the point I'm trying to make and prepare for what happens if they don't rank in Google the better off they'll be, because like it or not Google is a business and they have to try to capitalize on their visitors to the best of their ability, even if it hurts the business of some of the people they get all those free snipits of text they didn't ask for from.

EDITED: Clarification

tedster




msg:4026024
 7:33 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

Your insight seems spot on to me, MadScientist. Google always said their purpose was to organize the world's information - but they never said their purpose was to make webmasters wealthy along the way. It can happen, but it's not something the Google board of directors is focused on, that's for certain.

Our own income must be our responsibility and we need to forget the idea of Google as the provider of milk and honey. And to the degree they do come through for us, be very wary of making business moves that depend on that free traffic in a mission critical way.

londrum




msg:4026028
 7:37 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

i know what you're saying, and of course it makes sense that google would like to keep them on their site. but...

people visit google because they want to find a decent plumber. we can assume that the sites at the top of the serps are all decent plumbers [maybe plumber is not the best example for this discussion, but no matter], because they have been through google's algo and they've got the links, the site history, and what-have-you.

but the plumbers next to the map are there for different reasons. some of them have obviously not been through google's algo, because they don't even have a website. they must have earnt their place next to the map for other reasons... one of which is because they entered their business into google's business directory.
but can you say that those 7 sites deserve to be ranked ahead of the first page of the serps? -- which is what, in effect, they are. because users don't see the serps the same way that webmasters do. they will assume that those plumbers have earnt their place on page one the same way that all the others have.

seeing as the links next to the map are not straight money-makers for google, which would be understandable, it just seems to me to be a dilution of the quality of the first page of the serps.

if the first seven places in the serps all appeared next to the map, then that's a whole different thing. that is useful. but i can't understand the reasoning behind sticking 7 lesser quality sites above the best 7 when they don't even make you money when you click them -- what are google gaining?

TheMadScientist




msg:4026070
 8:58 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

what are google gaining?

IMO at least 3 things:

1.) They keep the visitor.

2.) Do you see those sponsored links under the map they show just like other sites do? The ones they would have to share the revenue from if they sent people to another site... (They don't have to share from those.)

3.) They could (IMO) fairly easily develop another way to generate revenue from those business listing pages, beyond the ads they are already showing.

Think about it this way:
Visitor searches Google.
Visitor sees Google Ads.

Visitor clicks on a website for a plumber.
Visitor doesn't see Google ads.
(Google has 0 earning potential from this click.)

Visitor clicks back to Google.
Visitor sees Google ads.

Visitor clicks on a 'business directory link'.
Visitor sees Google ads.

Visitor clicks back to Google.
Visitor sees Google ads.

Visitor clicks on a website.
Visitor sees Google ads.
(Google has to share the revenue from an ad click, which lowers their revenue and ultimately takes the visitor to the same place they would have ended up by clicking the same ad on a Google Web Property. I mean do people seriously think they provide a better result than Google does if the visitor clicks a Google ad from their site rather than from Google? It seems like the visitor ended up at the same place to me, so why should Google send them to your site rather than getting them to click the same stinking ad on theirs? It makes no sense.)

Which click and click back has the highest earning potential for Google?

People like to surf the web... It's way better to keep them clicking back and forth on your ads and results than it is to send them to another site and have them do the same thing, isn't it?

BTW: Have you clicked on the grey 'More Results Near' link yet? See all those ads under the map on the same page as all those listings from plumbers? What's Google gaining? Earning potential.

@ tedster: Thanks and I hope people who read this step back and take stock of the situation, because when you sit and look at things from a purely business perspective, removing the middle man IMO is usually the most profitable solution and the longer Google keeps the visitor the more chances they have of getting the visitor to 'spend their clicks' without the middle man (webmaster) ever getting involved... Good for them, bad for the people making money off free Google clicks by serving Google or affiliate ads.

I guess in mind if you look at 'clicks per surf' or 'clicks per person' and you figure the average person clicks N times when they search or surf the web and you either a.) gain / retain earning potential or b.) lose earning potential and it's based on which site they click from option a.) seems like the better choice...

So, the best option for Google, to me, seems to be to keep the clicks they can and get their own 'ad clicks' while allowing webmasters to show their ads so Google can gain earning potential from other search engine... As soon as Google loses a visitor to another website they lose the some of the earning potential the ads they provide had when the visitor first arrived, but by keeping the visitor on their site they get another chance at their ad being clicked.

tedster




msg:4026088
 9:29 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

From my time in retail, I know that retaining existing customers is essential - and it's also much cheaper than acquiring new customers.

Too much dependence on Google traffic is like too much dependence on acquisition marketing. Focus more on retention marketing and cut out that traffic middle man, to whatever degree you can. Then, all of sudden, Google traffic is a happy bonus rather than a source of anxiety.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4026120
 10:22 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

So we are now beginning to come round to the previously broached idea that Google is no longer a search engine but an ad server?

Step forward the new search engine. Where are you? We're waiting. ;)

tedster




msg:4026123
 10:28 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

And while you are waiting, figure out a business model you can suggest. Before Google, search engines ran like charities. No one will be able to compete without solid monetization.

TheMadScientist




msg:4026306
 5:37 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

So we are now beginning to come round to the previously broached idea that Google is no longer a search engine but an ad server?

You mean the fact most people aren't silly enough to pay for an advertisement to show on the results page for an unrelated topic where they aren't likely to convert a sale diminishes the value of Google as a Search Engine?

Do you seriously think those ads take away from Google's value as an information provider (search engine) to Joe Public?

And, are they not showing organic results at all or something I've missed, because I remember finding all kinds of PHP, HTML 5, JS and other information without any maps and often without any ads just yesterday...

I even found information on MySQL today without a single ad on the page. Not one. It's like Google just served me up options to find the information I was looking for, and if they put ads on the page, because the people at Sun felt the need to pay for my click when I want to know more about a slightly complicated SELECT WHERE GROUP BY ORDER BY UNION statement I wouldn't mind a bit, because I'd still end up at the same place. In fact, I wouldn't have had to skip over the first result to get to the official site if SUN had an ad on the page...

The results (including the ads) aren't bad for Google or their visitors, they're bad for webmasters...
Mainly those who's business model is to profit by taking revenue away from Google.

That's what you've been trying to say right?

... Where are you? We're waiting. ;)

Good job BeeDeeDubleU.
Way to be ahead of the game!

TheMadScientist




msg:4026312
 5:59 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Just so people know I'm actually doing what I say...

My most recent site really serves a 410 Gone for any GoogleBot (or major SE bot) request, because it ads to the 'mystique' and removes any chance of SE dependence. Word of mouth and offline marketing are the tools I plan to capitalize on, and it's actually really nice to not even have to think about what the text in my links say or how many times I repeat the text in a link or the link on a page, or how many links I have, or how much AJAX I use...

Who knows, maybe someday I'll change my mind, but for now, I'll stand my ground and see how things pan out.

tedster




msg:4026353
 7:21 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

awesome - you've truly earned your nickname!

MLHmptn




msg:4026357
 7:39 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)


awesome - you've truly earned your nickname!

Exactly what I was thinking! LOL. Realistically though I would agree with TheMadScientist on every note, except I'm not 410'ing anything but his other views are spot on! Garbage up the SERP's with clutter and not only are you going to piss off webmasters your going to piss off the general public and with Bing lurking is it really a smart move G? It's crazy to think that Google used to ask us for input and now they are driving what they want down our throats. Either way though, as long as my sites rank on page one I'm happy period even if they are below and/or mixed in with the junk.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4026406
 9:22 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

And while you are waiting, figure out a business model you can suggest. Before Google, search engines ran like charities. No one will be able to compete without solid monetization.

I have spoken about this in the past and been shot down in flames and no doubt this will happen again but I believe that search on this scale should be run by a non profit organisation. Although we cannot work the issues at this level I believe that this is possible.

awesome - you've truly earned your nickname!

Not awesome - a bit too sarcastic and abrasive for my liking. Can't we just be friends? ;)

Garbage up the SERP's with clutter and not only are you going to piss off webmasters your going to piss off the general public and with Bing lurking is it really a smart move G?

One can only hope that this does happen. I am getting increasingly nervous about the power Google has internationally and the seeming inability of politicians to understand the implications of this.

Sorry for getting so serious. :(

dertyfern




msg:4026412
 9:44 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

The results (including the ads) aren't bad for Google or their visitors, they're bad for webmasters...
Mainly those who's business model is to profit by taking revenue away from Google.

Unfortunately for many, Google's revenue diversification goals means that they're popping out programs that crowd out existing webmasters.

That's life though: survival of the fittest right?

That is until most major governments break apart the company for monopolistic behavior/unfair competitive practices.

Shaddows




msg:4026456
 11:44 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

monopolistic behavior/unfair competitive practices
only applies to
1) M&A
2) Using said position to unfairly influence another market (pushing browers due to dominant OS, for example)

AFAIK, you can't get broken up for being too successful.

Look, Google is still providing a utility for Joe Public, for informational searches. Affiliates and adsensers will continue to be fine. Ecom is where the disruption is- actual proper money terms. All Google is doing is asking you to bid for the lead.

They're selling leads, and doing it in a way that quality of offering is weighted in along with raw purchasing power. Its been comiong for a while, but was ramped up when Bing explicity targeted the money term searches. I really can't see what the fuss is about, unless you are the character from MadScientist's originally parody above!

TheMadScientist




msg:4026458
 11:51 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

awesome - you've truly earned your nickname!

LMAO! I'm typing this one solely with my middle finger. :)

except I'm not 410'ing anything but his other views are spot on

Thanks, and 410ing is not recommended in most situations, but the site I'm referring to is 'for the kids' and is in a market where 'the site you can't find in Google, Yahoo! or Bing' ads to the whole theme. (It's also written in AJAX and the only thing that loads on the home page is the logo and 'javascript required' if you're not running it, so SEs aren't going to find anything anyway...)

Not awesome - a bit too sarcastic and abrasive for my liking. Can't we just be friends? ;)

Sure, we can be friends, as long as quit with the patronizing, 2 line quips, such as the following:

Don't you realise that the folks at Google have built a massive corporation by displaying other people's content without asking for their permission?

##### ### #####

Yes, precisely, nice to see you are paying attention. ;)

##### ### #####

So we are now beginning to come round to the previously broached idea that Google is no longer a search engine but an ad server?

Step forward the new search engine. Where are you? We're waiting. ;)

##### ### #####

Returning to my normal 'generically directed' sarcasm and abrasiveness...

##### ### #####

Unfortunately for many, Google's revenue diversification goals means that they're popping out programs that crowd out existing webmasters.

That's life though: survival of the fittest right?

Yeah, and it's mostly unfortunate for the everyday person (webmaster) who thinks they're going to (start or continue) making a living off a website they build (for the most part), because most build (or have) average to slightly above average websites and cannot compete on the level necessary to maintain (or gain) the rankings (traffic) to make a living and if they can now, they might not be able to tomorrow unless they run their site like a business and don't count on free Google (or search in general) traffic for their income, but rather, as tedster suggested, count it as a bonus.

* I firmly believe free (or nearly free) traffic is still readily available, from search engines but, personally, I think there is more available without them, but it takes a much more compelling, intriguing and fitting website to generate word-of-mouth and offline traffic for free than it does to get the traffic from a search engine. The difference is, offline and word of mouth traffic eliminates the middle-man (search engines) and the need for rankings... If you can make it happen this way, the better the site gets from a human perspective (not lines of code and links) the better it does.

** I actually saw a member's site recently that had a page not ranking very well, and honestly, it was a nice site and provided some useful information, but IMO it wasn't unique enough to rank without a large number of inbound links and more unique content, because there are quite a few more established sites in the same market and they provide very similar information, so overcoming them and getting into the top ten is going to be difficult, and by the time they accomplish it number 11 might be on the top of page 3. :)

I do apologize for making my point so bluntly if I'm getting on too many people's nerves, but I've been a member here for going on five years (it's not reflected in my post count or join date for some reason) and the entire time I've read about people 'not ranking where they should', or their 'great page not ranking any more' and how bad the results are now or how Google 'owes them' and (what's really prompted me to try and open some eyes to a brutal reality, even if I step on a few toes) is reading about how someone (the OP in this thread) worked their a** off (probably) to get to number two and probably kept thinking...

'If I can just get a few more spots the traffic'll kick-in and I can get paid for all the work I've done', only to have their site be listed on the bottom half of page one when they finally got there, because Google found a way to make more money and happens to be a business.

I guess if I'm mad the preceding might be part of the reason why, because if we preached 'here's what you need to do to rank, but also make sure you remember Google's a business so you're going to need to build a site that generates sustainable convertible traffic without Google if you plan to make a living...' a bit more the OP might not have worked quite as hard on rankings and worked a bit more on building his site as a business and been better off in the long run. (Yeah, I know this is a Google forum, but that's not the point right now. lol)

IMO It's probably going to get tougher to generate free search traffic, even if you rank, and if you cannot build a site that's, unique, useful, visually appealing, targeted to a market, and well liked by the market, so it generates traffic on it's own without Google traffic then making a living off of a site is probably going to get tougher...

IMO x 2 It's probably going to get to the point where starting (or maintaining) a money making website dependent on Google (or search engines in general) is going to be much more like starting (or maintaining) a brick and mortar business than people like to admit, meaning it's probably going to require a much greater investment (monetarily) in a site than people are used or expect in the not too distant future. Things aren't there yet, so there's still some time to prepare, but it's the direction I think things are headed.

I guess I'm saying the 'Google Gold Rush' is on the decline and the people who are used to (or plan on) panning are probably going to get panned out before too many years go by, unless they build a mine...

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 11:57 am (utc) on Nov. 17, 2009]

callivert




msg:4026461
 11:57 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Using said position to unfairly influence another market (pushing browers due to dominant OS, for example)

.
...or pushing content sites and services due to dominant SE?

Shaddows




msg:4026479
 12:34 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Depends on how you look at it, but I would suggest a SE is a service attached to a ad-serving site in order to attract eyeballs.

Arguably, SE is not a "market", as it is not inherently monetised.

dertyfern




msg:4026492
 12:56 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Arguably, SE is not a "market", as it is not inherently monetised.

Huh? Not a market? Tell that to the boy and girls on Wall Street.

Do you really believe that 75% market share in online search isn't monopolistic and that rolling out ad programs, OS's, toolbars, analytics programs, et al isn't anti-competitive?

Shaddows




msg:4026527
 1:44 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

I did say "arguably"

For most of your list, its not anti-competitive, because they are not using one core business to leverage others. So, using the SE has no imput on OS purchasing decissions, not toolbar installation decisions, nor analytics.

An argument could be made that using SERP space to push complemetary products IS monopolistic abuse, but again, I would suggest that its the other way round.

Google is now an advertising company with a large affiliate network. It uses its own website to promote its own products, and features a comprehensive search engine to attract visitors to its site.

Look at is the other way- how would Google manage its SE, if it couldn't host revenue streams on its prime real estate?

londrum




msg:4026548
 2:00 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

It uses its own website to promote its own products,

this is the part that a lot of people have a problem with. because they don't regard them as google's own product. they view them as OUR product rehashed, mashed-up.

people are attracted to the search engine in the first place because they want to find other people's products. (not all the people, obviously, but most of them.) and google serves up their "own content" instead, which is nothing more than reheated stew they've taken from us.

Leosghost




msg:4026549
 2:00 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google is now an advertising company with a large affiliate network. It uses its own website to promote its own products, and features a comprehensive search engine to attract visitors to its site.

Nail that to the wall ..it will help to understand why they do what they do ..( although the "now" is IMO superfluos )..

When their PR people post here or comment elsewhere ..it is primarily to help them and their image ..( and PR should never be taken as being the whole, or even partial truth )..not you ..

Know them ( and act accordingly ) by what they do ..not what they and their friends say they do ..

dertyfern




msg:4026553
 2:05 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

For most of your list, its not anti-competitive, because they are not using one core business to leverage others. So, using the SE has no imput on OS purchasing decissions, not toolbar installation decisions, nor analytics.

Those of us who don't have a G toolbar are familiar with the "Add the Google toolbar" link at the home page. That's just one example of G's leveraging the one core biz to boost others.

While I've never run a multi-billion dollar business I would most certainly leverage every search/customer I could to increase my revenues and margin--no doubt. Hell, I do it now on a super small scale. But frankly it's darn scary how big G's getting.

decaff




msg:4028653
 9:04 am on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Isn't Google constantly rotating different SERPs page layouts ...? I know I see variations on a regular basis...as they test new user interfaces for usability/conversions...etc...it's really all about Google maximizing their channels for page views/revenue...

The "old" days of the "simple" SERPs are definitely behind us..

internetheaven




msg:4030139
 4:21 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm quite disgusted at how this thread evolved. How did a starting point of "Organics no longer relevant to Google?" turn in to "Google has a right to make money"? Thanks to themadscientist for devolving, what was turning out to be a perfectly reasonable discussion, in to an argument - his credentials as a webmaster clearly showing when he said:

My most recent site really serves a 410 Gone for any GoogleBot (or major SE bot) request, because it ads to the 'mystique' and removes any chance of SE dependence.

Only Rupert Murdoch has the already existing trillions to be unconcerned with obtained SE traffic. Anyone else is simply ... whatever word I put will just be blocked so I won't bother ...

I struggle to find top-3 organics that better meet my needs than the sponsored links.

Doesn't that prove the point that Google is not spending enough time on Organics and too much time on Paid listings?

My initial reaction to this was that the whole Google phenomenon came about because they had the best results and they were ALL orignally organic. Whilst we can in no way criticise them for PPC ads in general, providing video, news, image or even map results ... because, let's face it, they ARE relevant in most searches ... all those should never be at the expense of organic search and it seems as though Google have moved towards that.

Bing and Yahoo put their extras at the left and right with very few at the top. This way, the user has all the options including organic search. Google are pushing all their money-making stuff in front of the user and if being the best Organic search made them what they are today, maybe the removal of Organic listings from their search results is a bad idea.

As the OP, it wasn't a whinge thread I was starting, it was a "maybe it's time to focus on Yahoo and Bing search rankings" as the organic relevance that made Google the giant they are today has gone.

internetheaven




msg:4030142
 4:26 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

The "old" days of the "simple" SERPs are definitely behind us..

No they are not. Bing and Yahoo still return simple serps. They have built their commercial model around the organic serps. Google have ploughed right through theirs.

Whilst still many months from permanently usable, Bing and Yahoo are heading in the direction that will net them all of Google's users. When yahoo and bing can return all the extras that Google does AND visible, relevant organic listings word will spread fast -- just like it did when Google originally launched (which I was there for).

surfgatinho




msg:4030171
 4:59 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that Google are moving more towards assimilating and controlling all the information they can get their hands on themselves and cutting out the middle man - i.e. half the webmasters on here.

Fair up to a point, but as it was the work of these same webmasters that built the web maybe not.

Google local is basically a crude, ugly version of what a lot of small sites have been doing for years. What is frustrating is people give content to the likes of Google via Picasa and in a round about way Wikipedia.

We're all doomed! Unless I come up with another idea in the next few years I'm looking for a new career!

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4030220
 6:02 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

One thing you can be sure of is that G does not care about webmasters or any other business. It has already been proven. They have killed thousands of people's livelihoods with their "buy the business and offer it for free" policy.

They will consider that they owe us nothing and continue to buy up innovative small businesses for what to them amounts to petty cash. For this they get lots of public goodwill that will be hard to displace. You have to hand it to them it's a clever policy!

dertyfern




msg:4030325
 7:52 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeBubbleU, you're post could have been better timed--yet another G acquisition:

[webmasterworld.com ]

Hissingsid




msg:4030720
 9:08 am on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Someone early on in this thread suggested that Google has now become a kind of adserving commercial directory rather than a search engine. That is an interesting observation.

I wonder if this dooms Google to ultimate failure or if it proves that users do want a trusted directory but they like to be fooled into thinking that they are being provided with unbiased search results. Every other mainstream directory I can think of (virtually) only survives by selling links that are spidered by Googlebot. Google has some how found a formula that works. First grab market share by being a much better search engine than AltaVista and then turn yourself into a directory but charge much much more for being in it than other directories.

I suspect that Google has the luxury of a very fast feedback loop which allows them to test how far they can push this without risking going too far, at least not for very long.

It would be interesting to see how popular a screen scraper plugin for Firefox would be that chucked out all of the Adwords garbage and only presented organic results.

Cheers

Sid

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4030794
 12:05 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Interesting suggestion but Google would probably just buy them out. ;)

This 87 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 87 ( 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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved