homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.46.115
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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 117 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 117 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
prediction: Florida-like Update Before End of Year
Brett_Tabke




msg:4359048
 1:36 pm on Sep 6, 2011 (gmt 0)

Larry Page has been at the helm coming up on six months. According to various reports, LP has put alot of faith back in the algo nerds. I look for a Florida like update on the organic side before the end of the year.

 

tedster




msg:4359337
 4:44 am on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Here's another anti-conspiracy point. Since big brands have the deepest pockets, why would it be an income producer to give them good organic rankings?

Surely these are the very businesses that can MOST afford to buy ads. If they can generate more revenue from organic results, then they can back off their ad spend - right?

I work with web businesses of all sizes, from the one man shops to international brands. Google isn't handing out freebies to any of them. And their algo absolutely needs another major shake-up. I hope Brett's right.

AlyssaS




msg:4359343
 5:02 am on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

There are actually three scenarios:

1. G tilts sharply to the small sites to force the big brands to spend their $100+ million budgets on Adwords. The big risk with this is that an anti-trust suit is filed, as those big players can also afford fancy lawyers

2. G tilts to the big brands to force the small sites to buy Adwords. the risk is that the small guys have very small budgets and often no advertising budget at all, and by trying to get revenue only from the small guy G goes bust.

3. Simply rank the SERPs based on quality - sometimes the small guy will win and the big brands will be forced to buy Adwords (nice profit for G), sometimes the brands win and the small guy is forced out (no profit for G, but at least they can point to these types of SERPs to protect them from an anti-trust suit).

P.S. In my Smashwords-Kindle example, I think G was going for trust and quality - the Kindle store has a mess of rubbish, whereas Smashwords stringently approves works to check for originality as they then redistribute to the Apple bookstore and Barnes and Noble (who are also picky). However, if a listing then gets overwhelmed by links, G must assume that it must be OK (and given Amazon only send links to books that do well - i.e. have customer support this is rational.

So I think what is going on is they assess and weight on an initial trust factor, and then let backlinks do their job.

MrSavage




msg:4359352
 5:27 am on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

To counter what's been said, the model had been the same hasn't it? The organic traffic was being provided to the "little guys". It's been like that since the beginning of Google. It's only been since Panda that this shift in results created the Wikipedia and "big brands" results.

So Google knows and has known for quite a while what that algo provided in terms of profitability as it existed. The choking off of organic traffic in the competitive and profitable segments for the "little guys" is a new way. From what I'm reading, something went up and that was profit.

Panda is being sold as the content farm killer and will only affect about what, 13% of searches according to Cutts?

The reality is that currently it's a slow extermination. I'm sure a majority of people relying on organic traffic are spoiled and not in the mindset of buying ads to get traffic. Those people will exterminate from those areas and find other rat holes to scurry into. That's fine with Google right? They want quality results.

The reality is that the web is made up of a majority of small websites who run ads or affiliate links. So for Google, what's better? Thousands of webmasters paying for Adwords or a few brand name sites paying for Adwords? I would suspect that 10,000 accounts vs 1,000 accounts, the 10,000 accounts does more for Google in the long run.

Let's talk facts. I've read a few articles about Adwords increases lately or in the post Panda world. If this is the case then there is no consipiracy theory. I completely disagree that the correlation between Google profits/Adwords is not tied to Panda/algo changes. We don't need to say conspiracy theory. Let's look at before and after. There is a choke happening slowly so it will be a bit more gradual to see the full effect. In closing, there is a direct correlation between a algo which raises the quality bar so high that it chokes organic traffic and results in people turning to the Adwords option. Not debatable. So regardless of what makes sense, the proof is in the pudding. If those revenues increased during the Panda algo, guess what. It's no conspiracy theory at all. Period.

Reno




msg:4359360
 6:21 am on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Google is way to smart to have made the immediate change from search darling to search demon. It's my opinion that every single change they have made over the years since IPO, no matter how seemingly minor, has been carefully thought out and analyzed from an economic point of view. It's been incremental, a tiny tweak here, a bigger tweak there, but when you add it all up, it becomes major. There is a world of difference between Google pre-IPO and Google post Panda.

And this difference has had a single minded goal all along: Increase revenue to keep the stockholders & board of directors happy; and increase bonuses to keep the employees happy.

So the ads take up more room, and we see Google properties such as YouTube, news, maps, etc all becoming more prominent in the SERPs, with the result of pushing the organics lower on the page.

You want more exposure? Pay for it.

Because the changes happened slowly, it does not seem so manipulative or obvious, but think about Google then and Google now, and these accumulated changes won't seem so small. Candidly, it has all the hallmarks of a brilliant longterm business plan, a slight-of-hand that goes mostly unnoticed. It's not about being "good" or "evil" ~ it's about business, and business at their level is not a lovefest, it is war, and they intend to win.


.................................

MrFewkes




msg:4359405
 11:24 am on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

"You want more exposure? Pay for it."

I agree - I should pay - I have in the past paid thousands per month in PPC costs.

The fact though - is that the PPC model is not viable for millions of small sites.

It simply eats MORE than the profit. Not just squeezes the profit - it EATS MORE.

So - for anyone confused by this.

If I pay $100 in adwords, and get $50 in sales profit - is that viable?

Let me tell you something - I used to pay out $10,000 per month on PPC, and earned back $10,800. This 800 profit was eventually whittled away aswell, until I could pay no more.

So the argument "pay for it" - in the current model, for many many sites - is nothing more sensible than a drunken monkey might do.

The fact of the matter is - that google SHOULD give a little back - its not like they get NOTHING from us allowing them (or any other engine) to index us.

Its a two way street is search - people seem to forget that.

walkman




msg:4359406
 11:26 am on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Alyssa, I used the 'wedding rings' as an example, in fact macys wasn't #1. What Bing does, I don't care. Apparently they aren't even turning a profit so something is wrong. Google is on the record on brands, even Matt Cutts suggested to become a brand, in other words buy Adwords and Google display ads. It's not impossible, but very hard to become a brand for a decent sector or stay one unless you advertise on G properties becuase of their reach. Now don't be more catholic than the pope :).

It's good that people removed the "Google wouldn't do that," from the discussion. Maybe "Google wouldn't do that, because they'd get caught," so they are more careful. God knows what scam is on Adwords auctions and adsense with all these "quality scores," "smart pricing" and other revenue enhancements.

Until then if you want to have a chance or be immune from Panda-like flu, just buy adwords, "become a brand." Duke it on Google ads and they'll decide who gets almost all traffic, even scraps have been removed by Panda to non-payers or small time advertisers. Google's heart bleeds if you are getting "free" traffic, without kicking back some to Google. The traffic is theirs, dontcha know.

Google ethics 101, and that's just what they left in writing:
Android phones must adhere to a “compatibility” standard determined by Google. In an e-mail on Aug. 6, 2010, Dan Morrill, a manager in the Android group, noted in passing that it was obvious to the phone makers that “we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want.”

[nytimes.com...]
Replace it with Panda and there you have it, probably minus the e-mails since they're all in one room.

wheel




msg:4359435
 12:47 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

If I pay $100 in adwords, and get $50 in sales profit - is that viable?

It's perfectly viable. The problem isn't adwords, it's that you suck at adwords.

Seriously. Adwords is hard. Fail, and it's much more likely an indication that you didn't do the job right than it is that adwords doesn't work. Adwords has opportunities for one to lower costs dramatically, it's not anywhere near as simple as $100 in costs, $50 in sales.

I used to run PPC ads where initial cost was $25 per click to be anywhere near the front page - and looked like it was $50 per click to be near the top. Conversions were worth about $25 - so how does that work? Yet I was able to run a profitable campaign.

freejung




msg:4359439
 12:56 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Conspiracy theories don't die becuase it's obvious to reasonable people that manipulation is happening
No. Conspiracy theories don't die because they are not falsifiable. Epistemology 101.
walkman




msg:4359457
 1:55 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Conspiracy theories don't die becuase it's obvious to reasonable people that manipulation is happening
No. Conspiracy theories don't die because they are not falsifiable. Epistemology 101.

Without getting in a philosophical discussion, we can look at certain things and draw our own conclusions about Google. Is it 100% sure? Nope, but then even the death penalty is given to people with "beyond reasonable doubt." Some will deny it till the day the die even if internal G emails show up, others may overreact even without a shred of suspicion. Then there's the issue of "did they do it to increase their profits or ...." That Google's earnings are increased if they favor major advertisers (which almost all e-commerce brands are) it's clear as day since Google is the largest advertising company by a wide margin. Now some may say that G would have promoted brands like they did these past 3-4 years anyway, and that Google has ethics or whatever. Uh, huh is my answer.

netmeg




msg:4359477
 2:25 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

And here we go again.

Really tired of all the conspiracy crap that keeps popping up on WebmasterWorld, with the "obviously" this is happening and "clearly" that is going on. Better heads than yours are playing closer attention and coming to far more reasonable conclusions. Yea I said it. But there's never any point discussing anything with a conspiracy theorist of any ilk, because they can't even conceive of any other explanation that doesn't resolve to "the other guy".

walkman




msg:4359493
 3:03 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Ok, let settle the bias in updates with this:
Let's assume that Google is not an advertising and data mining agency but just sells "search" to portals like Yahoo, CNN, BlahBla.tld etc for a set fee and that's it. If you think that SERPS or the direction that G is going (Vince, Panda, G+ etc) would be similar enough to what are today then Google is not biased. If you think that their commercial interests, as predicted in their original PageRank paper, affected the way the Google search went or is going, then we can only discuss how much manipulation is going on. Simple really. We can believe what we want.

It's still on topic since the thread is about a possible update of major proportions. How they go about it, matters of course.

MrFewkes




msg:4359505
 3:15 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Ok Wheel - I suck at adwords.

But so then do all the competitors who keep coming - trying it - then giving up.

Because I suck, and my competitors also suck, it has often made me wonder what the millions of others are doing to make money with adwords.

My account is still open - so if you point me in the right direction I will do some serious study and experiments in order to try and get the costs down. I have run 50 odd campaigns in the past though there and have had to give them up.

But.... after all - it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that it must be working for millions of others.

Freedom




msg:4359526
 3:50 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

My humble prediction,

I expect part or some of a new algo will go after keyword domains, because they already said they would. And whatever they do, there will be collateral damage, because there always is. I could also see some targeting of anchor text links, and paid links.

Keyword domains, with hyphens and without, have enjoyed an advantage post Panda and I expect that to be taken away. And Brett mentioned Florida, not Panda. If you remember Florida, it was all about beating down reciprocal linking and anchor text manipulation. Since reciprocal linking is dead, they'll roll up the link game with more sophisticated targeting this time.

That's my opinion.

freejung




msg:4359527
 3:58 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Without getting in a philosophical discussion, we can look at certain things and draw our own conclusions about Google.

No. With getting into a philosophical discussion: a rational empiricist does not base conclusions on what is "obvious" to "reasonable people" (indeed, that's a classic mistake and usually turns out to be incorrect), nor on looking at "certain things." A rational empiricist bases conclusions on repeatable empirical evidence.

If you have repeatable empirical evidence that Google is "manipulating" (whatever that means, it would be nice to have a definition) search results to increase adwords revenue, that would be interesting. If all you have is suspicion, innuendo, and non-falsifiable conspiracy theories, that is of no use to a rational empiricist and we can safely disregard it.

If you have no interest in rational empiricism, there isn't a lot I can do to help you - you will just believe whatever the heck you feel like believing regardless of the facts.

That's not to say that all conspiracy theories are false. However, because they are not falsifiable, they present a particular epistemological difficulty and you would need to have extremely compelling positive evidence (such as the non-existent emails you postulate) to make a case for one.

The other problem with the theory is that it's not actionable. OK, so what if it's true, what do you propose to do about it? Does it actually affect your business strategy? If you think businesses that pay for adwords have an advantage over businesses that don't, then try paying for adwords. If that helps your business, you should do it regardless of whether the theory is true, and if it doesn't help your business you shouldn't do it regardless of whether the theory is true, so why does it matter?

The only real function this theory serves is to make webmasters feel better about their failures - and for me it doesn't even help with that, I feel bad about my failures regardless of Google's ethical status.

jimbeetle




msg:4359582
 5:26 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

It's only been since Panda that this shift in results created the Wikipedia and "big brands" results.

No. Wikipedia has been the go to result for many informational queries for a number of years. The brand -- or more definitive "entity" -- update was back in '08.

shazam




msg:4359591
 6:01 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Here's another anti-conspiracy point. Since big brands have the deepest pockets, why would it be an income producer to give them good organic rankings?
Surely these are the very businesses that can MOST afford to buy ads. If they can generate more revenue from organic results, then they can back off their ad spend - right?

I work with web businesses of all sizes, from the one man shops to international brands. Google isn't handing out freebies to any of them. And their algo absolutely needs another major shake-up. I hope Brett's right.


I see what you continue to do there. Nice technique. If someone holds an opposing viewpoint, inject a name to give people a subtle pointer to achieve a small shift in perspective. The military loves this technique. We don't call them people, or families, we call them 'targets', makes it much easier to sell mass killing. So if people CAN see the obvious, then let's label them 'conspiracy theorist' and call their reports 'conspiracies' this will make it much easier to persuade the ones that don't pay attention to such techniques and to discredit the view.

Check these companies serps, they are still paying for adwords regardless of any rankings. They HAVE TO if they want maximum traffic. If you've spent any time at all in this industry you know that there is a world of difference in both quality and quantity between the top adwords spot and the second or third, or years ago, the top organic spot and the second or third. These companies ARE paying goo for adwords, because once again, they have to. No other choice if they want the quantity and quality of traffic that comes from the top link on the page.

The damage done to organic results from simply the top three adwords spots (subtly disguised as legit results) is immense. The common person still does not realize that these are paid results and thinks that these are the top three sites that goo has chosen to be the best match for their query. If you work with many clients you will hear this again and again. You say, "your site is ranked #3, and they so "No, its ranked #6." Google isn't about to come clean and make if obvious that these are PAID ADS and have nothing to do with legitimate results.

walkman




msg:4359604
 6:33 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

freejung, you sure are using a lot of supposedly big words to say nothing. I have no intention on repeating what I said above, or getting into a definitions game, people can draw their own conclusions without nitpicking. This is an internet forum, I'm not defending a PHD dissertation (Did I spell the word correctly?). I didn't say that aliens hacked in G database and changed a few things, just o mess with our heads. I said that human beings employed by Google, and holding a lot of Google stock have made it so the algo financially benefits Google...and their own pockets.

A lot of things are actionable, although it takes time. But even if it isn't actionable, people should be aware of it. To me, there is no doubt that Google results are manipulated /rigged or whatever word you want to use, and deliberately favor the group most likely to be a Google advertiser. Over the years the noose has tightened, as far as I can tell. Others may believe differently. I also believe that an algo would be reversed ASAP if it hurt Google's bottom line.

@shazam
the other point is that big brands spend a certain percentage automatically on ads. Making them money is good business since it makes them spend more at the same place. Kinda feels bad spending $100K a month on Google if you are penalized or not ranking well, no? Those demoted will try to compete hoping to get back on Google's good graces.

freejung




msg:4359611
 6:49 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

freejung, you sure are using a lot of supposedly big words to say nothing

OK, I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand.

You can't prove what you're saying, and there's no reason to think you're right, except that you think you're right. But we can't prove you're wrong, and there's nothing we can do about it anyway, so there's no point even talking about it.

Reno




msg:4359613
 6:54 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Making them money is good business since it makes them spend more at the same place.

One of the reasons these sort of discussions so often veer into the tired "conspiracy theory" accusations has to do with the fact that some people continue to hold onto the old "Do No Evil Google". It is my POV that DNEG went away a real long time ago. Once they had the IPO, they HAD to play by different rules, and those rules have nothing to do with any of us, or what they used to believe. It is BIG Business, and as time goes by, they are moving up into the very top echelon. At THAT level, the rules are totally different than what most of us at our level understand to be the case. At THAT level, you are lunching with the CEO's of the top companies, and at those lunches, it is quietly mentioned that Company A is not happy to be spending million$ and not showing up on page 1. At that level, as I said in a previous post, it's about winning at any cost, whether it be corporate espionage or veiled threats. Jobs are on the line, money is on the line, and losing is not an option.

We must forget DNEG and respond accordingly ~ the way it is is the way it will be ~ they are NOT going back.

...................

tedster




msg:4359618
 7:01 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Check these companies serps, they are still paying for adwords regardless of any rankings.

I have worked with many brands who look to lower their PPC spend by improving organic rankings. Not drop it altogether - no - just lower it. Some keyword bids will never get dropped because the effect of the ad is synergistic with organic traffic. Other keyword bids are cannibalistic and their budget will get dropped when organic traffic goes up. SEO takes money, too - so the balance sheet needs constant attention.

I have been in this business full time for 14 years, and I'm offering information gleaned from that work. But I'm not even hoping to "win an argument" here, because I know I can't. I just get frustrated with the one-sided presentation of these theories that continues to come up.

With so many readers for our discussions here, most of whom do not post, I think it's important to offer other points of view -- especially when they come from my direct experience. IMO, the Adwords conspiracy mindset is extremely antagonistic to making rational business decisions.

<added>
By the way, I like this discussion. First, it's because I'm not the only voice who says "no" to the Adwords angle. I think open and civil exchange of opposing points of view is one of the big positives in any forum discussion.

wheel




msg:4359641
 7:44 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think open and civil exchange of opposing points of view is one of the big positives in any forum discussion.

I know you're talking about me, and I don't think that's just a conspiracy theory :).

MrSavage




msg:4359642
 7:50 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

I will say this a different way. There isn't a conspiracy theory at work. Facts and correlations can be found. Unfortunately, nobody has put forth the facts or stats as it were.

This can all be boiled into a really simple sauce.

-if you don't get organic traffic to your website, you must find other methods to get traffic. You might be the exclusive 2% club, but for everyone else it comes down to paying for ads, whether that's Adwords or an upcoming ads program from Bing.

-it's simple to analyze the impact an algo like Panda can have on Google profits. Raising the quality bar to a point when Wikipedia type establishments take more and more organic traffic, there would be a natural choking off of site traffic. Refer now to point #1.

-I'm not and nobody should say that the algo has been changed to choke off organic traffic or raise the bar to the point that only brand and giant sites can garner organic traffic for the more profitable or popular searches. I believe that sure, Cutts are noble and algo changes are made to improve search quality.

I would suggest to anyone reading to ask themselves about a web where organic traffic dries up. The alternative is pretty clear. It's obvious. It's not a conspiracy, it's reality.

People might want to suggest that all the Google strings are being pulled in one direction, but perhaps they have stumbled upon the reality of Panda. It's quite possible that they have now seen that raising the bar can essentially choke off organic traffic on many sites that weren't actually the intended Panda targets.

In closing, why can't anyone here, with all their surplus intelligence post the earnings or growth or increase opening account of Adwords over the period of the Panda shakeup. Wouldn't that be the intelligent thing to do here? The intent of Panda was one thing, but the result of Panda turned out (from what I've read) to create juicy profits. Not the intent of Panda, but if you consider Panda as the attack on organic traffic for "little guys", but certainly the growing impact of Panda is people closing shop or shopping for ad solutions.

Freedom




msg:4359644
 7:58 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

The conspiracy subject is not related to this thread and OP. They should be deleted.

freejung




msg:4359645
 8:05 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

OK, I've had lunch and calmed down a bit -- Walkman, I'm sorry for being so pedantic, but I'm trying to make a point that I really feel is important.

You can't just go around believing things because they are "common sense" or they "stand to reason" or they are "obvious to reasonable people." All sorts of destructive ideas get propagated that way. You need to base your conclusions on evidence - and in this case the evidence isn't there.

There are plenty of other areas where Google has abused their position of power. This is not about the "don't be evil" thing. You're right, they abused their control of the Android platform, there's plenty of evidence for that. There have been serious, substantive accusations that they've abused their monopolistic power in other areas as well. They're not saints, they sometimes do things that are morally wrong. This isn't about that.

This is about a specific technical issue: is adwords a direct ranking factor in the organic search algo? The idea that it is comes up a lot, but I've never seen credible evidence that it is actually the case. There are plenty of arguments as to why it might be in Google's best interest to do that, although I disagree with that too. I think they're smarter than that - the con they're running is a very long con, not a get-rich-quick scheme. But there hasn't been any direct evidence, any statistical analysis, even any seriously credible anecdotal evidence, that they actually do this.

Once you start believing things without evidence just because they seem "obvious" or "reasonable," you become susceptible to all kinds of dangerously false ideas. That's why I find this sort of reasoning frustrating. It leads to fuzzy thinking (which is not the same as fuzzy logic). I don't think it's right to go around encouraging that.

walkman




msg:4359647
 8:09 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

@Reno
Google's motto now is "Don't get caught *" and if you don't pay too much of a fine. Like Philip Morris, Goldman Sachs and every other cutthroat corporation they have built fines, lying, cheating, stealing and lawyer fees in the business model. The hope was that Larry would restore the idealistic image of Google that probably had once. Oh boy, turns out he was at the helm of quite a few not-so-nice things. Trying to benefit the world of course.

So "Google wouldn't do this" is out of the question.

The reason you see propaganda videos and Google PR people take to the the web to explain themselves with blatant lies shows that the truth is coming out, slowly but surely. Google has not had a good year this year, unless you count the money they made.

shazam




msg:4359654
 8:21 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

I personally don't think the fuzzy black and white bear has much to do with it. It's still entirely possible to get top rankings with panda. It's all the "features" that have pushed people into the unemployment line or towards adwords. A top organic result simply doesn't bring the quality or quantity of traffic that it used to and it's only going to get worse. They will expand this into all the profitable niches.

The only Panda related part of the equation is the move to make it harder to CHOOSE your keywords. Before you could devote your whole site to 'little green widgets with polka dots' and have a good chance of ranking for these keywords. Now your titles will get rewritten and depending on the verbiage and how it bounces off the lsi algo's, you may very well loose any chance of ranking for this term. You could hire a PHD in little green widgets with polka dots to provide the most useful and relevant information and if his writing style and choice of words/phrases is "wrong" then your site gets canned.

I see it as a two pronged attack:

1. Push the organic results down.
2. Make it harder for sites to choose keywords. ( to a much lesser extent at this point)

I personally think it's extremely helpful for making business decisions to have one's eyes wide open about such matters. Ignoring the obvious and throwing away money, time, and other resources is silly in my opinion. There are still many niches out there that goo hasn't started destroying and there are other traffic sources.

tedster




msg:4359662
 8:58 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Getting back to the opening post - the idea that a major shake-up in the algorithm is headed our way - I think it's clear that something is needed. There are too many cases where really weak pages that don't address the query terms still outrank good quality, well back-linked pages.

Only Google can see for sure what's going wrong, and the fact that they are looking for webmaster input about high ranking scrapers seems to say they have at least that area in their sights.

I've been thinking that the spam control area of the algorithm have become quite convoluted and their side effects are running amok to a degree. It's like the kind of spaghetti code that evolves over years of revision until at some point, you've got to redevelop from scratch.

In the early days, Page and Brin thought PageRank couldn't be spammed (imagine that) until Matt Cutts learned through working on the child-safe filter that it was being spammed already. So then, once the adult filter was created he started working on spam control. At this time, it seems to me that spam controls have become part of the problem - it's all tangled up.

And so I could see a major update, almost like a new codebase being written. And at that point, we're not in Kansas anymore.

buckworks




msg:4359673
 9:09 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

-if you don't get organic traffic to your website, you must find other methods to get traffic.


That has always been true.

Traffic from organic search should be considered a bonus, not an entitlement. Organic search traffic is great when you have it, but if your business isn't viable without it, then it's questionable whether what you're doing can really be called a business.

Bewenched




msg:4359679
 9:21 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Well something needs to change because the current algo is producing garbage results for me on my own personal searches. Bing is growing every day.

AlyssaS




msg:4359688
 10:18 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

if you don't get organic traffic to your website, you must find other methods to get traffic.


Yup.

Here are some strategies to cope if your site suddenly gets dinged in the run up to Christmas:

1. If you are importing and shipping real products, consider setting up a Merchant account on Amazon and listing your products on there as well. It's $39.99 per month plus referral fees, and I think it's worth it even if you just do it over the Christmas period. For starters you get sales from people browsing within Amazon's platform. And if your site disappears from the SERPs, you can just promote your Amazon page and make sales that way. G isn't going to deindex an Amazon listing.

2. Facebook. Set up your facebook fanpage and use it to either redirect traffic to your own site with links on the wall and custom tabs, or sell directly on the fanpage (use shopping cart software from payvment, it's free at the moment as they are in beta and looking for feedback).

3. Advertising - I'm rubbish at this (both Adwords and facebook ads) so will leave it to someone else to explain the benefits.

Anyone else got any other ideas?

koan




msg:4359697
 10:34 pm on Sep 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

Traffic from organic search should be considered a bonus, not an entitlement.


There was a time when people used directories, links resources pages and bookmarks to discover new sites or revisit old ones, but search engines became so good that most people use them instead nowadays. It's pretty hard to get by without some decent search traffic, unless you're a household name like facebook or amazon.

This 117 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 117 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
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