| 12:19 pm on Jun 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|londrum: the web is only going to keep growing. eventually it will become so big that it will be practically impossible for anyone to keep their index up-to-date. there will just be too much stuff. |
I understand your point, but my feeling is they don't have to index the whole web, they just have to provide on page (10 results) or perhaps 20 results of quality per keyword search. No one expects to trawl the whole internet when they search, they just want some relevancy to the keywords they typed in.
It does not matter how big the web grows, there will still only be 10 sites in the top 10 for a search!
| 12:40 pm on Jun 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|It does not matter how big the web grows |
This is what the folks at Bing seem to think. They are wrong. Google, indeed, thinks differently.
| 4:41 pm on Jun 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think most of us do the same thing G is doing. Try to better integrate ads into our site so we make more money.
An interesting perspective is on the useful of paid ads. My visitors often find the Adsense ads helpful & relevant. As do I when I search G. There are many times I use the paid results over organic because it actually was what I was looking for.
I believe that in general, the paid listings can enhance the search results. It is a win win for G. Add value and make money.
Of course there are going to be exceptions. But I would guess 70% of the time the ads add value. And that number is probably only going to improve.
| 5:03 pm on Jun 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|There are many times I use the paid results over organic because it actually was what I was looking for. |
You think it could have something to do with G relegating relevant organics to whatever page beyond 2 and 3 ?
Even searching for a brand name (mostly software when I search) it's not uncommon to find the brand's official site 3-4 pages down and I do dig down for I have no use accessing a site which tells me to visit the developer's website via a link.
| 5:20 pm on Jun 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Gosh, it's become almost impossible to catch up all things here and what's going on...This dance on "G-party" starts to look like a real mess here .
|It does not matter how big the web grows, there will still only be 10 sites in the top 10 for a search! |
As a regular user of search engine or as webmaster I'm totally agree with you but as G-master I'm not following you because I need your traffic to make more money on my ads, I lead this dance , not you.
|This is what the folks at Bing seem to think. They are wrong. Google, indeed, thinks differently. |
Well , maybe you're right about this but I saw something completely different in past few weeks.
On my websites I'm starting get more and more traffic from Bing ?
And Why ?
As regular user I do not search for spammy-dead-links-worthless results on first page of any search engines, which Big G becomes.And this is truth , no hiding-no lying to ourselfs.
Even myslef, I rather go to Bing now for looking some ( relevant ) results insted on Google. It maybe things start to change and call me now offended , call me revolted because I dont get more or as I used to get traffic from Gogole but seriously ... who is so blind to dont see this obviously mess situation on SERP?
Frankly folks, I will slowly stop to dance "G-dance" moves and regular users too , because we dont like it .
|It is a very defined placement. Only one of the mfg/retailer sites was allowed in the 6-7 spot, with the other 3 grouped somewhere on the second page. All other top 10 spots were wiki and an authority info site (good), ezine and other article sites (spam). |
Yup , I saw that and I call it "new-algo-spinning-game" , once you here on first page , once you are on second page and then you drop more and come back again first - go spinning !Yay, go crap results!
We are talking more as a webmasters here ( mostaly here ) but we must think as regular users too, without them no one will have a profit or traffic to drive .
| 11:06 pm on Jun 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I haven't read the whole thread, but in skimming I saw a lot of false logic that seems to be inspired solely by anger at lost profits.
To all of these posters: you are as biased as you claim Google is.
|They could care less what a group of Webmasters think as long as the sheep using their search engine are still clicking. |
That's basically true, they care whether or not the end user gets what they want. Webmaster's concerns are secondary to user's concerns.
|The average searcher does not know the difference between a paid ad and an organic ad, nor do they care. This works in Google's favor. |
Perhaps, but the average searcher does know the difference between finding what they're looking for and not finding it.
Google's primary concern has to be those users, and whatever profit considerations they have are not going to trump quality results because the two things are mutually dependant.
Their job is not to pay your bills, sorry.
| 2:26 am on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google has been working on slapping "low quality" sites in AdWords for some time (whatever they find to be low QS), and it may be that they think they improved AdWords results enough so they can "screw" organic results (a bit) with the layout that promotes ads more then anything else.
I know there is still a bunch of crappy ads out there, and I'm not sure how Google plans to handle all on such a large scale. I'm sure all slapped sites had to be manually reviewed. I don't think that the system can give QS 1/10 at this time.
They'll be pushing the borders as much as they can. Some said that (one day) one will have to pay if he wants to be on the first page of Google. While this may never come true, it may happen that one will have to pay if he wants to make some money (on Google).
| 1:03 pm on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Their job is not to pay your bills, sorry. |
But yet it is OUR job to pay THEIR bills through Adwords?
Where is the ROI? My Adwords ads don't even work anymore.
| 2:46 pm on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Frankly folks, I will slowly stop to dance "G-dance" moves and regular users too , because we dont like it .
I stopped that dance 3 years ago, smooth stress free sailing ever since.
I want to run a site and make money, not chase my tail and chew my fingernails off.
| 3:48 pm on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|not chase my tail and chew my fingernails off |
Methinks if you were totally G-free, you wouldn't be reading or posting here :)
| 4:37 pm on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm just reading the thread, and yes im 100% goog free in the sense that I do not run adwords any longer and if they send me organic traffic cool, but im done going out of my way to figure out what they want like or chasing page rank and quality score. Cause we all know its a never ending battle that goog always wins.
Its foolish to fund your own demise, and every dollar spent with adwords/google is just that.
| 8:22 am on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
First, this is not a complaint or rant, just a thought I've had for the last two years.
How thin can a favorite fruit or veggie be sliced until it is unrecognizable?
There is no doubt that Google has collected more data (indexing, user behavior, analytics, their products, webmasters using their add ons, etc. etc. etc.) than any previous search engine. And they hold on to what they obtained with more determination than pit bulls. (One reason why pages we killed years ago still show up and we have 404's in our logs!)
Google has immense datacenters and computing power, a brand new infrastructure called Caffeine, and ongoing research regarding user behavior. These aspects are the Google business model and it has worked for nearly 10 years. Re-introducing advertising (Altavista was there first, the web just wasn't ready for it) and creating a commercial side was phenomenal. The hiring of smart, highly motivated people works. The expansion of business and at the same time the workforce also works. The IPO rollout works. All things done right.
Except for one thing: Forgetting how you got there in the first place AND (and this is me talking) you can't index EVERYTHING. Second thing forgotten is the user is not a customer, they are a leech. So, the two things I see that Google is doing wrong these days is:
a) Indexing obvious crap then assigning a value via an algorithm because they can't figure out what is real anymore as they simply have too many variables, too many pages, too many sites---even for their Herculean efforts and expense and
b) Attempting social engineering, hoping the next generation brought up with Google permeating the culture(s) will continue to grow until they rule the world! Bwahahahaha! (Boris Karloff laugh attached) and
c) Stockholders demand returns like all mega companies (AT&T, MS, etc.) and Google must continually find/create the next way to generate income by promising more (Mayday most recent, the Chrome OS most likely, Android...)
Item a) above is my interest. This company lives on data and I suspect it will be increasingly bogus/erroneously parsed data, and all that they won't discard even when invalid will eventually be detrimental to ongoing business.
I repeat: not a rant or complaint. I just wonder: How thin can a favorite fruit or veggie be sliced until it is unrecognizable?
[edited by: tedster at 5:50 pm (utc) on Jun 6, 2010]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]
| 2:33 pm on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I could write one subroutine of an good algo that would go like this:
If the page has more than ONE Adsense Ad - de-rank organic position by X amount.
To take it further and make it more relevant - If a page contains one or more Adsense ads, AND there is no corresponding Adwords account, then de-rank organic position by XX amount.
This has got to be sustainable for Google AND webmasters. In a perfect world, it should be a Win-Win. Remember, there's no such thing as a "free lunch" and with all the "Get Rich Quick on Google" ebooks and programs out there, it's time these leeches die a fast death.
One of the biggest leaches I see on the web is a certain "ezine" article site(s). Unless they are pumping millions back into Google, how do they get away with SEVEN Adsense ads per page? It's ridiculous and a really, REALLY bad user experience when I happen to stumble upon their constellation of vapor thin content pages.
Obvious MFA's and script generated content is as bad or worse than Wall Street traders who rely on computers to strip the market clean like flies on road kill.
Google's in it to make money, and so are we. It's a balancing act that needs to be maintained fairly.
(which opens up the can of worms to "what constitutes fair?")
To answer your original question: Fresh fruit can be sliced to taste. Rotten fruit should be promptly discarded. Google just needs to be able to smell the differences.
| 8:26 pm on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
why can't we ask and advocate for "Google Classic SERPS" rather like Coke Classic?
we at WebmasterWorld have a type of crowd power, don't we? How can we use it?
the search page is uncluttered, but the result page, now I think that it has started to go too far.
| 9:17 pm on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>> How thin can it be sliced ?
In my opinion too thin. My preference would be that any SE only indexes the home page of all sites and, knowing that, it would be up to the site owner to best present the content of the site on that page for the best result in the SERPs. Then when I search for something I wouldn't see site ABC and XYZ and LKJ on page 1, and again 2 or 3 times on page 2 and again once on page 4 and page 5 etc, etc., anymore .
It would push up all other sites behind them, who may even be more to the point as to what I'm looking for.
When only one page of each site is listed in the results surely the searcher, when visiting, can browse the site and find the other pages himself.
| 1:11 am on Jun 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Chewy I'd give about anything at this point to be able to go back to 2009 Google.
This just isn't functional. They've dumbed down the results to the point it's reminding me of a now mostly defunct ISP user experience back in the 1990s.
I like the fact Google makes suggestions of what I may have been looking for above the search results and asks me "is this what you wanted"...I despise the fact that it is now often on the fly superimposing what it thinks I want without telling me.
I just cannot believe this was intentional. It looks nothing like the Caffeine results/sandbox. It looks like an error or an effort to rebuild something that was maybe lost. I just cannot believe what many of us are seeing for many very varied terms is the "end product" or close to it as it's actual a big step back from what was a great, accurate Google.
| 1:39 am on Jun 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Big changes at goog... time to make big changes on your sites and mine too.
Bing is a big part of this I think
| 10:37 am on Jun 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'd hang on to making any big changes, other than removing any black hat stuff you might be doing.
| 1:41 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks to MayDay, I have been looking at Adwords as an alternate platform for traffic. When I started, I looked at some keywords in my domain. Google showed the estimated average CPC as $0.05 to $0.10 for most of these low competition terms. I signed up to Adwords since I could afford that. Once the ad campaign was live, Google updated its "Estimated First Page Bid" for the different keywords to anywhere between $0.50 and $0.75. After I saw that I did not get the results I wanted, I gave in and updated my maximum CPC. Once done, Google upped the "Estimated First Page Bid" to over $1.00. I was baited into Adwords since most of my keywords apparently cost just 5 cents a click.
Now you may call this a dynamically changing algorithm that is doing its best to serve me numbers. But it is interesting how Google takes refuge under its technological superiority/handicap to suit its business interests. The same G calls its dynamically generated SERP INTELLIGENT enough to serve quality results (and yet throws in a lot of spam so probably people feel compelled to click on ads instead). But poor G cannot tweak its CPC bid estimate because technology has not grown enough.
| 1:57 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm thinking it would be a good idea for Google to release some decent info on this algo update.
This negative feedback is all over the net now, and is likely to increase if nothing changes.
I fail to see how this will be a benefit for them, short term or long term.
The lack of transparency has severely impacted webmaster trustrank. :)
| 2:19 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
@anand84, it's infuriating how inaccurate the bid system is and how transparent it is as well, not! There are terms that return 1-5 results that are claimed to be over $1 per click. If there are only 5 people bidding why isn't it at .05 for the first page?
This update is a disaster as it stands now. Ask around to your non-web professional friends if they've noticed a change in the last month for google. Everyone I've talked to talks about spam, being booted to the wrong sites etc. I just did a search for a well known antibiotic as I was prescribed it today and wanted to check into it before starting. The first result is wiki, the next 3 are all reputable sites before it falls off to a site last updated in 2006 with a majority of the links broken on the site and none of the images showing (all red xs) at #5, 2 redirects between 6-10.
One other thing I'm noticing since March. Let's say there are 20k distributors selling Brand XYZ Widget B. Normally there are 20-40 that are wrestling for the top spots that sell that product to the entire general public with whatever logo they want on it for their organization. Lately Google is placing company stores selling that item with that company logo on it in the top 3. IE, internal private stores are ranking ahead of what 99.9999% of the searchers are actually looking for. They aren't looking for Oil Company Brand XYZ Widget B when they search for Brand XYZ Widget B but google seems to think they are. In fact they're sending traffic to the abyss as Insurance Agent A looking to buy Brand XYZ Widget B isn't going to buy one with an oil company logo on it. This all seems to tie back into internal linking and brands.
It's a mess. The last 2-3 months seem to be one mis-step after another.
| 2:57 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Man, those engineers at Google are out of their mind. Those search results are horrible! Yahoo and Bing bring me better results. In Google I have to dig real deep to get decent results on page 3! I think I'm changing my default search engine!
| 4:22 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|it's infuriating how inaccurate the bid system is and how transparent it is as well, not! There are terms that return 1-5 results that are claimed to be over $1 per click. |
Exactly. Google is just using the excuse of "dynamic and hence may not be accurate" phrase to artificially inflate the bidding amount.
| 5:33 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Folks - please use our Adwords Forum [webmasterworld.com] for Adwords discussions. Thanks.
| 9:31 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
We have immensely benefited from the recent algo update!
We have over 200 decent commercial sites, all "very white hat", showcasing products. Our traffic comes now mainly from the very long tail, i.e. from SE queries for very specific items, for which one normally has to dig deep in any site. Google seems to have indexed quite deeply and know how to bring these product pages to the surface when required. I believe that they have expanded their index substantially, i.e. they do posses the data, and they have the know how to refine it and produce very relevant results.
This is the picture from our perspective and we have no reason to complain. On the contrary, seems our white hat efforts, including long product descriptions and reviews, are finally being rewarded.
Apparently we have benefited from what traffic others here have lost.
| 11:35 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
heisje: Well it's refreshing to hear some good news. I write a monthly newsletter for an engineering SE company and in doing my research last night, I found many more good results than is "normal". Perhaps this will be better in the long run - let's try to keep positive. I also notice the "very white hat" - for which you get an "atta boy"!
| 5:00 am on Jun 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|you have people unable to view the world of business except through their own little prism |
The worst things about Webmaster World, and its worst on threads like this. Not allowing specifics means that we cannot.
These discussions really need to look at things from a user's point of view, not a webmaster's. The question is: how good are the SERPS now compared to then from a users point of view?
| 8:00 am on Jun 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|These discussions really need to look at things from a user's point of view, not a webmaster's. |
Hello, you are on "WebMaterWorld" - remember? - maybe you need to visit "SearchEngineUserWorld" ?
| 8:15 am on Jun 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Hello, you are on "WebMaterWorld" - remember? - maybe you need to visit "SearchEngineUserWorld" ? |
I'm sorry, I thought we were seeking to understand the situation, rather than just bemoan our own situation.
Understanding requires adoption the correct Point of View. From Google's perspective, the User's POV is the correct one, not webmasters. Thus, you must seek to understand things from a user-orientated POV, not from a webmaster.
But if you want to complain without understanding, feel free to continue with sarcasm. I'm sure it will help.
| 9:45 am on Jun 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Calling attention to the right perspective, fitting to the "reason of existence" of this forum, should not be regarded as sarcasm. While user experience is irrevocably intertwined to a webmaster's overall considerations, consisting an essential and fundamental parameter, the perspective here is how all relevant parameters combined affect the webmaster and determine his actions and reactions.
Since, however, this argument only results in noise, while not adding anything to the specific discussion, let us now leave it to that.
| 1:42 pm on Jun 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Calling attention to the right perspective, fitting to the "reason of existence" of this forum, should not be regarded as sarcasm. |
graeme_p was inviting people to view the correct perspective- i.e. how is google catering to the user. I did not accuse him of sarcasm. You, however, suggested this was the wrong way to think about things, and indeed suggested his view did not belong on these boards. You did it in a sarcastic way.
|While user experience is irrevocably intertwined to a webmaster's overall considerations, consisting an essential and fundamental parameter, the perspective here is how all relevant parameters combined affect the webmaster and determine his actions and reactions. |
Er, right. But just to be clear, you think mentioning the user experience invalidates comments, which should be posted on "SearchEngineUserWorld"
|Since, however, this argument only results in noise, while not adding anything to the specific discussion, let us now leave it to that. |
No, no, no.
You do not do a drive by criticism, get called on it, then suggest the other person is introducing noise.
Besides, I think your view is CORE to this discussion. A vocal majority seems to think Mayday should be discussed in terms of webmaster traffic, devoid of the user experience. The arrogance of your position simply underlines to me the sense of entitlement on display in this thread.
| This 99 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 99 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |