Miamacs - 12:28 pm on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

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

...

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

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

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

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

Highlights

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

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

1.: Ranking Informative vs. Commercial sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But let's continue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, consider this:

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

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

...

Conclusion because I'm fed up with typing

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

...

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

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