| This 150 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 150 ( 1 2  4 5 ) > > || |
|Is Panda actually the commercialization of the internet?|
It's not easy to get a thread started here but I will try.
This is an analysis on what you think Panda really is. Afterall, we've all read what Google thinks Panda is or should be. And if you take that at face value, they are indicating something a bit scary. This isn't a bash thread. This is an evaluation thread or an outlook thread. You optimistic? You giving up? You think a new era has begun and your means of free traffic is over?
I'm trying to condense this is a compact post as possible. Some disagree but for me, on the surface and from what I've seen so far, the reaching implication of Panda are beyond what some people are willing to accept. But let me try.
In the world, all things are commercialized. Few exceptions but let's say that whatever there is out there, it eventually get squashed, incorporated and then the dollar is the only motivation.
Let's take Panda. Based on the criteria of websites and based on what I see and have been reading about search results in Google, it's about the big sites. If Google put CNET, offical sites, Wikipedia, Amazon, and a few others on the first page or two of results, then the goal of spam free and top notch quality results would be attained.
For my field, I see this pattern of sites. Certainly sites that can crush me like a bug. Beyond comparison. It's like the guy washing dishes asking the daughter of the president out for a date. It's that far fetched.
Some people here go on and on about how we are complaining about drops in free traffic. Perhaps Google now shares your view. Perhaps they feel that the commercialization of the internet (or their search) is just better for everyone. It's like they have said listen, enough with the free loaders. We don't need you guys anymore. If you aren't popular, aren't deep, aren't updating daily, then you aren't catching a sniff of what you used to get in traffic from us. Sure, there will be people saying they are still getting traffic. Great, but understand one thing. If your niche field gets popular and gets covered on bigger sites, the Panda way appears to be that you are going to get swamped and dropped into the ditch where you rightfully belong your freeloader.
So really, what I'm asking is, does Google Panda spell the end of free traffic. We can enjoy crumbs in a few niche markets, but when certain areas you cover become popular, you are going to sink like a rock. Is Google Panda really just Google saying enough with the guys making money online getting free traffic from our engine and who are beating us at the game and who are providing useless blogs and websites. That's what I'm feeling. Moving forward I'm feeling that it's a change in Google philosophy. Under their new criteria I ask how the hell you are going to compete with big sites. I hope my outlook changes on this and that the index gets filled with more variety than what I'm seeing now.
Right now, for what I care about and write about, I see big sites, pro staff, pro writers, thousands of followers, huge budgets, and on and on. And on that level, mission accomplished according to Panda. Therefore, why should I sit here and expect things to turn around?
I'm upset at the stories about people completely screwed by this algo change. It's very upsetting to me. At this stage of the game, Google needed to understand just how deeply people's lives were relying on their search engine. They have disregarded a lot of individuals and have not done a lot currently to offer hope or guidance. Sure a few crumbs, but where are all the turn around stories then?
I've said this. If we learn what Panda wants, then our sites get back in. Then what? Google has the same scum (I'm scum because free traffic something I rely on) getting into the top rankings. Isn't that what they didn't want? Or is Panda so smart that they will keep ahead for the first time in history of the spammers, the freeloaders and the people who's job it is to get that traffic that they ultimately provide.
Back to my point about commercialization. It's about nothing being free in this world. If you're getting something free it won't last. The internet was supposed to be the last frontier of freedom from that world. You can't compete in the marketplace ultimately with Walmart unless you have a bigger budget or you have some small niche that they don't give a crap about. Sounds a lot like Google's Panda direction. It's what I see, not in what they are so much saying. The proof is in the pudding. But if Walmart started selling what you're selling guess what? You're essentially dead in the water. On Google an idiot like me actually might outrank Walmart. That was then but what about now? I can outrank Amazon? How? Their value is in content, followers, size, reputation etc. That's what Panda wants right? Amazon and not some site that is not even a drop in the Amazon ocean of content.
I'm out. Not forever, but I'm in a serious state of transition and confusion. My next move? I have no idea. Am I alone on that feeling? The way Panda is going, are you trashing your online strategy, waiting it out or what?
|That's what corporations do. That is capitalism in all its splendid glory. To do otherwise would be irresponsible to their "family." |
Families share in visions and responsibilities, not exclude them from participating.
|With all due respect, deserve has got nothing to do with this. |
Exactly. Does anyone else not think that a lot of the ranting on the board sounds like big kid wailing because a bigger kid stole their lolly? Frankly...well, it's juvenile. The fact is google's got their job to do and we have ours and the two aren't always aligned and that's just the way life is.
And, as for the conspiracy theories..c'mon...! For years people have been peddling that twadle here. It hasn't got them anywhere. Besides, it always ignores the one truth, that the SERPS are a zero-sum game. As such, (as someone else pointed out already) it would be commercial suicide for google to artificially install big business as all the winners (putting the little folks out of business) unless that's what people (seachers) wanted (unfortunately for google). Because, the word is... and, bear in mind it's just a rumour.... it's big business that has the big advertising budgets! Doh!
I respect people may not get every point made here. There's a lot to read. However...
Really this is about trust and loyalty. I see this as the people and websites that made Google the brand it is today getting shut out. It's actually all the interesting websites that Google found before that gave them 80% marketshare. If the results (websites) were lousy then why did everyone flock to Google? Those websites that ranked well then didn't suddendly become crappy. I always say if those sites were terrible that Google was finding Google wouldn't have gained the share they have. That's fact. Bad product? Bad future. There weren't mainstream news articles talking about the disease in Google search. Geeks were, but the real world wasn't. I realize the geeks opinions are what matters. Either that or that Chrome data went to somebody's head. The proof is always in the pudding. You built a brand on something and now you say that something actually sucked all along and here's the new something. Hope you like it!
Some of you really miss the point here. Google became #1 because of the websites they found for you. Guess what? Some of those websites no longer are found in their index. So it's one of two things. Either as somebody said, oh it's the technology Google didn't have so a lot of undeserving sites were ranking near the top. Now it's so much better because Google has been able to correct this. Really? Or it may be the fact that Google has turned their back on thousands of webmasters that created site that people loved and people found in their search engine? I know the answer to this. You can cry about what you think is a better website and why that guy ranked better than you. It's called a difference of intelligence. Some have more than others and reap rewards from that.
With that said, I stand by the starvation theory. Be real. They have to have somebody in their results and having flawless, perfectly spelt English, fresh daily etc are all those big sites that are at the top currently. It's ridiculous to say that the big companies are the ones who Google would naturally starve so they are forced to pay to play. It's the scum right who have crappy websites plugging up the search at Google right?
I'm not suggesting conspiracy theories. Think about it. It's fact. If you don't compete on the level of a giant website, and if you need the criteria of a giant website to rank and get traffic, there is only one solution for fix that. If you depend like most on traffic and the criteria to rank has changed so drastically to the point where small webmasters can't compete, then you have one choice today. It's not a theory it's fact. It's Adwords. That's how you get traffic when you're not smart enough to understand Google, rankings or simple SEO. Not trickery but just intelligent webmastery. I could be stupid and not use page titles and wonder why I don't rank. That's okay, for those people in the past there was Adwords.
Don't believe me? If the criteria and rankings remain as is over the next 2 to 3 months, let's look at the Adwords sign ups and growth during that time. Give me a break. If you created your business as a web only business and customers vanish, the only way to bring them back right now is with Adwords. Yes, always exceptions to the rule and I'm speaking generally. Yes there are niches out there still but when the day comes that your little niche become interesting to Amazon, CNET etc, good like finding visitors...unless of course you have your Adwords account. I'm not knocking it, I'm just saying it's fantastic news for Google.
[edited by: MrSavage at 8:58 pm (utc) on Jul 6, 2011]
|Besides, it always ignores the one truth, that the SERPS are a zero-sum game |
its not anymore, if you look at the serps.... not when one site can now fill up five spots on the first page.
a few years ago you would have 10 different sites on the first page. that is no longer the case. some search terms are only given 8 or 9 links on the front page. the rest are filled up with google's own products (youtube, place pages, news...) and if a few of those that remain are given over to just one site, which is frequently the case -- that means theres only 5 sites on the front page.
there used to be 10 winners for each search term. now there's 6, 7,8 or 9, plus google
Ok, I guess we're all screwed then. Oh well.
|its not anymore, if you look at the serps.... not when one site can now fill up five spots on the first page. |
This is a problem?
I'm drooling with anticipation over the idea personally.
Netmeg with respect, no were aren't all screwed. Things can change, the Google ranking could start to repopulate with the collateral damage sites finding rankings again. But as you're saying most of those who are now dead in the water basically deserved it because Google wasn't "intelligent" enough just yet to find those fakes. Now they can, so that's perfect? Oops to those who are quality but have no traffic now. Right, who are we to think that we have any entitlement to traffic. Right it's not the websites that Google found that made them a huge brand. Naw it wasn't on our back that they built the brand. Without good results dare I ask how they would gain market?
Like the commercialized word, you can get customers by paying for advertising. On the internet that means Adwords or other pay to play means. In addition as long as Bing continues with increased usage, bottom feeders will get traffic. Ironically, if Bing is getting more market share yet they have these "bottom feeders" that don't belong, why are people using their search more and more? That defies the logic of commerce doesn't it? Like it less but use more? Never heard of that one.
ps. I hope I don't sound rude. It's just discussion I hope. Nothing personal.
|Oops to those who are quality but have no traffic now. |
I suspect the collateral damage in this last update is far lower than is being made out.
First though, we'd have to start with the idea that a lot of people's websites aren't that great of quality. But it's a lot easier to suggest Google screwed up than it is to see that perhaps one's own site wasn't up to snuff.
Nevertheless, most of the public examples I've seen that got hammered? Really looked like good examples of sites that should have been hammered. Darn few, if any real authority sites got hammered in this update. And just because you've been ranking doesn't mean you had an authority site. And don't mistake brand with authority.
For those getting hammered by Panda who are still looking for a technical solution out of the abyss, perhaps some navel gazing is in order.
Please understand that we are ALL small business people here, and we aren't here to brow beat you. We are offering advice because you are like us - just a bunch of small fish in a big pond. That is why we are sharing our thoughts, and I bet that everyone who has commented has done so with the best of intentions. No one on this forum wants to see you go out of business. That is the truth. And no one here is trying to tell you something just to feel superior about themselves.
You have mentioned that people have "missed the point" of your thread. I will confess to that; After reading through it, I don't really see a "point" to the thread. I am sorry, but can you explain in one sentence what the point is?
I kind of get the feeling your point is that google "owes us something" since they became rich by indexing our content.
If that is the case, then I have to say I respectfully disagree with you. It's their index. They should be able to do whatever they want with it.
We devoted our time and energy to trying to rank well in google, when probably it would have been better for us to spend that time and resources in a way to acquire customers that is more sustainable. But that's our problem, not google's.
@Planet13 I have nothing but the highest regard for everyone here.
The point of the thread is whether you feel Panda is about pay to play or it's intent was more noble than that.
I don't say Google owes us something.
Where I hugely disagree with you though is that we spent a lot of energy trying to rank in Google. Ah, but it's more like trying to rank well on the internet. The internet is a black abyss for websites unless there is a search engine that finds you. When 80% of visitors come from one source, I'd pretty much describe that engine as the internet.
People agree to disagree at the intent of Panda. Based on actual results, I'm drawing my conclusions about it.
Even though many of our members are small business people, some are in-house SEO workers for much larger enterprises, some are SEO contractors for many small clients ot even larger clients, and so on. We actually have quite a degree of diversity and that's one reason it pays to listen to each voice with a well-tuned ear.
I can tell you from personal experience and contacts, SEO for bigger businesses can be just as frustrating. One of the first obstacles to get past is a kind of assumed entitlement: "Google should WANT to list our page pages here, why won't they?" It's no fun for big business to compete for non-branded generic keywords, and Google does NOT make it easier.
|whether you feel Panda is about pay to play or it's intent was more noble than that |
Definitely NOT about pay to play. Google often generates unforeseen consequences, but the wall between organic rankings and the checkbook is as strong as it ever was.
|I'm drooling with anticipation over the idea personally. |
Heh, me too; someone in Chicago recently congratulated me on having the top ELEVEN spots for a particular two word search - not even in my own area. Too bad I didn't see it myself.
|But as you're saying most of those who are now dead in the water basically deserved it because Google wasn't "intelligent" enough just yet to find those fakes. Now they can, so that's perfect? |
I am saying, as I have said since the day I got here, that it behooves you to concentrate on what you can control, and not on what you can't. Make yourself the authority in your niche, or pick a niche that you can be an authority in. Don't rely ONLY on your own judgment but ask your friends, your family, your users what you could be doing to provide a better user experience, to make sure when someone thinks of whatever you're selling or publishing, they think of you first - before they even hit the search engines. Find ways to make happy customers come back; they're your BEST and MOST LIKELY TO CONVERT - they are also your brand evangelists; if they recommend you to their friends, that's gold too.
The people who succeed are the ones who look inward when adversity strikes, and ask what can I do, instead of the people who look outward and say look what X did to me.
|Right, who are we to think that we have any entitlement to traffic. |
Right. You're not entitled to that traffic. Nobody is.
|I kind of get the feeling your point is that google "owes us something" since they became rich by indexing our content. |
If that is the case, then I have to say I respectfully disagree with you. It's their index. They should be able to do whatever they want with it.
Planet, no one can really say that. BUT there's an understanding that if you do certain things you should be do OK traffic wise. Of course it depends on what your competitors do etc but that's the general rule. Without it, Google wouldn't exist and Google isn't flipping the finger to people to say screw you, it's our index. At least not directly.
It's perfectly OK to question them when so much e-commerce and information passes through them.
Second, this is one of the few threads that's going the way it's was supposed to: he's asking, in the title no less, if Google is favoring those that pay Google for ads, one way or another. Directly I doubt it, indirectly I know they do.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Google can easily penalize even 40% of the web and most people here would say, we'll look what's wrong with sitea, b...x. And users would move on and visit other sites.
Doesn't mean that the site "deserved" (meaning it is that bad compared to competitors) that penalty or that much of a penalty.
It doesn't mean that users complained about them any more than the non-penalized.
And it doesn't mean that the sites doing well are any better. Just Google thinks so, today. Just as yesterday the todays-penalized sites were doing very well becuase Google thought of them highly. Who knows what tomorrow will bring us!
Even with the nightmare of eHow, ezinearticle...etc almost always on top Google held their market-share. Ironically they lost (a percentage point or two) after Panda. Most said, we can't find Walkman's site on top so they moved to Bing :). Seriously, maybe, just maybe Google could have handled it differently and cared more about collateral damage and responded to changes faster. It sure doesn't sound like it's a success that justified this carnage. We can't post links here but head to Google Support forums and you'll plenty of excellent sites hammered, almost sitewide. And plenty of bad ones, too, of course.
Saying the index is Google's and they can do what they want with it, is like saying the country is the president's and he can do what he wants.
The index belongs to US, it's ours. We have worked on the index on the assumption that if we abide by certain terms and conditions we will be paid accordingly, we even borrow money to invest in this agreement.
A lot of you sound like you have given up, and accepted that this is how it is. It is still early days. There are rumors and claims of sites getting out of Panda. I have sites with old, stale content, that benefited from Panda, and sites with lots of up to date, fresh content that got hit. We just need to work on the common denominators.
Sure it's not always safe to put all your eggs on one basket, but when it is the easiest basket that has the most eggs, it's the best strategy anyway. Whether you like it or not, Google is the make or break of 99% of web sites.
|The point of the thread is whether you feel Panda is about pay to play or it's intent was more noble than that. |
I can't speak for anyone else besides myself, but no, I don't think it was. I think its intent was more noble.
We are a TINY store that does little business and very little adwords spending (maybe $30 a month when I'm feeling lucky or am drunk), and we've only seen INCREASES in traffic since Panda.
Again, I think if google wanted to put the squeeze on organic SERPs, they would try and target the people with deep pockets instead of the smaller fish.
|Who knows what tomorrow will bring us! |
And I think that the point that others have made is that if you can't accept the risk inherent in competing solely on the basis of SEO, then maybe it is a good time to start thinking about other revenue streams.
I know I am...
|Again, I think if google wanted to put the squeeze on organic SERPs, they would try and target the people with deep pockets instead of the smaller fish. |
Expect you don't target individual stores /sites and you don't squeeze every last penny.
If I want to favor blondes in something, and blondes are, as a group, also taller, I can favor tall women while seeming impartial to the blonde/brunette thing. Many non-blondes will benefit of course, and many blondes will be disadvantaged but overall I reach my goal.
Netmeg I appreciate the advice. I know your know your stuff that's for sure.
I think really what I'm saying is that yes, I've done and tried to concentrate on those values you mentioned. Those are requirements to last. The problem is that to keep traffic you need to get traffic in the first place. I suppose yes there are some niches out there that can and will work. But my site in particular did all those great things and was accurate and helpful. The feedback in emails told me so. This is the real problem right? It's like okay, I was fine but now what? I'm of the mind that I did nothing wrong and the shift that Google made with Panda is at fault.
I'm still of the belief and faith in Google that this was a wiping of the slate, and that the "resurrections" will take place. I've done what I can on my site to tidy up. Now it's just sit and wait, add updates as usual. Failing that? I'm only here with fingers crossed that Bing goes strong and stronger.
I think if Panda remains as is and we don't hear of these recovery stories, then Google is getting a bit sticky. I won't rehash but certainly there are bigger entities that ensure the safety of others. To say that it's their search they can do as they like? You need to think a bit more about that statement. If that were true, and they were truly "corporate" in their ways, they could really create a monster. We trust Google. That spike in Adwords is a virual lock if this is going to be the "new" way. I think people forget how much our lives is run by the internet, meaning Google. If they had me in charge wow could I have fun with the rankings and find all sorts of schemes to work in my favor.
I'm just saying Google should release some more public statements about this. It really is ignorant to say it's their engine, their company and they can do as they please. Ask Microsoft about that. Imagine the uproar about M$ back in the 90's or 80's. That was nothing. Imagine having the ear of the world and the ability to do what Panda has done. That's pretty darn powerful. It's not like some local economy or like a few million operating systems like M$ had and people were crying foul. I'm crying foul here with Panda and so are a few others. One tweak, a massive one at that, and people who were innocent are picking themselves up off the floor still and left wondering do they still have a home. We're talking a real powerful few people pushing the buttons. I'm saying wow, that's kind of scary if you really think about it.
Everything reinvents itself or dies. SEO is no different.
The volume of long tail has increased exponentially online. No longer does a business necessarily need to push for the top keywords in a niche. They can do quite fine in free search alone if they gain and maintain good positioning for a secondary keyword and expand other channels based on revenue.
Also, people are becoming more and more accustomed to purchasing online. So where there has been losses versus large brands, there have been increases in conversion rates.
In the end, search has changed infinitely, and we should expect that to continue. Search is all about where your customers are when they are searching for your product or service, rather than a business being in a particular place at a particular time.
For your sake, I hope that works out for you, MrSavage.
|left wondering do they still have a home |
I know I don't, because I demolished it in February (before Panda hit UK) to build my dream home. I'm now looking at the empty shell! But, inspite of that, I refuse to accept the whilst I am a "loser" there are winners (annoyingly) which is mainly my similar-sized competitors (double annoyingly) and not amazon or ebay (in the main) despite the fact I operate in one of the largest B2C retail niches online.
From my POV, these long-winded posts bemoaning Panda and Google come across as really naive. Like the poster still hasn't figured out it's a big bad world out there and a dog eat dog one at that.
As I said already, they (google) have their job to do, you have yours. They aren't always aligned. But, whatever happens, "live by the sword; die by sword". In other words, don't pat yourself on the back when things are going well and then cry foul bitterly when things stop going all your way!
i am seeing parallel themes - one is the death of seo as we know it, the other is the dominance of mega sites - the two themes intertwine certainly, but i think they are different.
as for the death of seo, panda certainly seems to have caught lots of content mill sites and penalized them - but the gorilla sites like ehow, with their massive backlinks and pr, survived. meanwhile, lots of smaller sites were wrongly penalized.
the domination of the mega sites is a paradox - google's whole purpose is to manage information and make it available to users - as was pointed out earlier, what value does google add if they send you to amazon to buy your widget or wiki to learn about einstein - won't users just start going directly to those sites? the paradox is that what originaly put google on the map was off-page factors, links and pagerank - so now, those criteria have so tilted the playing field that mega sites are able to weather lots of storms that the rest of us can't - cainIV pointed out longtails, it is still a vestige, but even there, longtail pages on most of our smaller sites don't have the PR horsepower to really compete.
i think it is time to revamp the whole off-page / on-page balance - i know some will say this will return us to altavista serps, but, there are so many more quality signals available now that didn't exist 12 years ago - toolbar data for one.
|Families share in visions and responsibilities, not exclude them from participating. |
Google's "family" that I alluded to is their board of directors, their shareholders, and to a lesser extent, their employees. They are the people that google executives must answer to - not to us.
If one were to assume that as a webmaster / SEO person they were part of the google "family," they would be mistaken.
|...but the gorilla sites like ehow, with their massive backlinks and pr, survived. |
Then the conclusion can only be that SEO STILL WORKS PERFECTLY.
We just need to change our definition of SEO so that it includes: Massive Backlinks and PR.
How did ehow get those things in the first place?
but the bigger companies have some big backlink/PR advantages - i was looking through one larger competitor's backlinks, found one from a venture firm that had made in investment, it was the only outbound off of a PR6 page.... i am a little short on those.
|cainIV pointed out longtails, it is still a vestige, but even there, longtail pages on most of our smaller sites don't have the PR horsepower to really compete. |
Unless the panda (penalty, promotion, demotion, lottery winning or whatever Google calls it,) Google will seek to strangle and strangle your site out. It's happening with my site, despite doing many changes and all the known Pandalized sites I'm tracking. One way => down! Despite all the crap they say in forums and conferences to do this and do that. My site certainly isn't worse than it was pre-panda and my competitors didn't improve, relatively speaking.
|My site certainly isn't worse than it was pre-panda and my competitors didn't improve, relatively speaking. |
But they didn't get hit?
Are they big business (Amazon/ e-bay/ Walmart) and the likes or...?
|...found one from a venture firm that had made in investment, it was the only outbound off of a PR6 page.... i am a little short on those. |
Well, there you have it. Get some solo PR6 or better links from other sites.
That is what I am focusing on right now, for what it's worth.
|Unless the panda (penalty, promotion, demotion, lottery winning or whatever Google calls it,) Google will seek to strangle and strangle your site out. |
Why would they do that?
That would leave ONLY the big boys in the organic SERPs.
And since those big companies are spending a fortune on adwords now, why wouldn't those companies, when they are pushed to the top by Panda, say, "Hey, we're number 1 in the organics. Now we can slash our adwords budget."
How would that benefit google?
I'm not suggesting I'm smart because I'm not. But people really think that Google can tweak the search to whichever way they desire and nobody will care? So if they decided to commercialize their search and return only those sites that have the thousands of followers, pro writers, etc, that would not be a conflict of interest? It's that starvation theory. It's pretty simple. Governments around the world have governing bodies that ensure companies stay in line. Do you think Microsoft could add whatever they wanted to their OS or manipulate things so that you had to use their software addons? When companies monopolize certain industries guess what? They cannot practice the starvation theory. Thank goodness for governments looking out for the common persons best interest. If you had a video site right now, you wouldn't find it a bit frustrating to see Youtube on every page of results? Sure, that's what the people want I suppose. Then again, if you wanted to compete, you give up, pack it in. I'm sure there is balance in the results and not skewed. With that said a lot of people suddenly are facing buying Adwords or closing their online business. That was the result of an algo tweak so that wouldn't be considered suspicious?
Oddly enough there are cynical people out there who think that Panda is just smarter Google. They can't grasp the fact that completely ok sites were demolished. No they say that can't happen because Google was only going after those certain site. Those new Panda credentials have to be followed and if you didn't, that's why you're out. Really? Are we sniffing flowers on this? My complaint is ultimately that Google rolled out a global penalty system that systematically wiped out various sites. If it was perfect, then fine, if you didn't follow the Panda way that would explain what happened. But to drop a nuke without warning and then not address the wounded and fallen soldiers is a bit cold. But yes there are the fanboys saying it's those sites that sucked who got torched so quite whining about it because the update was for the greater good.
The Panda story isn't written. How people can say, well it's our fault for relying on the internet (Google) for our online business. So foolish? If we don't sell online where do we sell with our online business? Pay to play is commercialization isn't it?
When I say commercialization, I'm saying the big sites may dominate top rankings because they match all those wondererful things that Panda says are important. So in order to really get noticed, welcome to online advertising! Commercialization = death of organic traffic = emphasis and growth of online advertising (Adwords, etc). I won't repeat the fact that sure, there are still niches out there. But guess what? Enjoy them while you can. If you're making money, people always notice and you will always get the big guy moving in on you. That's business for you. Just don't plan you life around people finding your site unless you're paying for advertising.
I think people really underestimate the stakes on this, if this is truly Google 2.0. Half the people shrug and say, yep, that's enterprise that nothing is ever free. The other half will say hang on, isn't this a bit self serving? I suppose the fact that Adwords isn't the only form of online advertising and Twitter and Facebook are gaining, makes Adwords less of a monopoly.
To summarize, is Panda really just the death of organic traffic and the entry into pay to play meaning aka advertising. I'm overstating and of course this isn't everyone. Unless things change in the results, it would certainly seem that way for a lot of us. Remember the internet is a likely 10% big sites vs 90% small sites. But I think for the average person or webmaster it is the reality. If search results come down to a popularity contest or a contest to who has the better writers, the inside scoops (that are only given to the big sites), then the results are obvious and the results are in Google right now.
@netmeg, thanks but remember not to get confused by an online persona. It's my kids sake that I'm more worried about in all this. In addition I generally speak and defend when I see injustice in the world or my personal world. Some people shrug their shoulders, I do not. I think I have a good overall sense of right and wrong and have sought out ways of making good out of bad. In this case, it's keyboard warrior.
@Planet13, I would counter your point about why would they do that, in the sense that big sites are likely 5% (down from my previous 10% :-)) and the rest at 95%. The collective pockets are much much deeper in the long run than a few big sites. Additionally, it would be hypocritical of Google to say this is what Panda wants, yet show a bunch of crap on page 1.
| This 150 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 150 ( 1 2  4 5 ) > > |