Whitey - 12:11 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)
All actions have a commercial consequence at Google. There's no way the the search teams can predict precisely their outcomes. So I 100% agree with Tedsters assertion in the context that search doesn't measure to $$ KPI's.
They would have quality KPI's though.
But Google deals in big numbers and they have told the markets that they are taking steps to secure long term growth. Search quality is a consequential concern. Revenue is a major concern and their market already sits in the SERP's - so disrupt it , perfect their direct platform and drive a tiny proportion of siteowners onto Adwords and you have a big lift in income.
These results only hit the tail of the quarter when Panda hit
Q1 Financial Highlights
Revenues – Google reported revenues of $8.58 billion in the first quarter of 2011, representing a 27% increase over first quarter 2010 revenues of $6.77 billion. Google reports its revenues, consistent with GAAP, on a gross basis without deducting TAC.
Google Sites Revenues – Google-owned sites generated revenues of $5.88 billion, or 69% of total revenues, in the first quarter of 2011. This represents a 32% increase over first quarter 2010 revenues of $4.44 billion.
Google Network Revenues – Google’s partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $2.43 billion, or 28% of total revenues, in the first quarter of 2011. This represents a 19% increase from first quarter 2010 network revenues of $2.04 billion.
All actions of Google are geared towards it's growth and sustainability in the market.
So at the lowest end of the Google food chain where folks all justifiably worry about their efforts and existance , and when and how they might get their Pandalized sites back, all i can say is, Google will decide when it suits them.
They will be wanting to see how the Panda search quality effects their overall results. Did advertisers switch etc.
One thing is for sure , bad implementation of search quality strategies will not occur at Google. I'm talking large scale. And nobody implimenting large scale elements would be exempt and able to make free wheeling decisions without consequences if it went wrong - even if it meant a roll back. This is part of a a large scale interwoven strategy.
Even if we take different views, and a valid emphasis of each and everybody's interests, to create combat strategies folks really have to understand what Google wants and respond accordingly to remain more sustainable.
However, i really uphold the view that Google could do to be a lot more honest and open on Panda etc. given it's dominance and effect on the landscape. The reps and interviewers seem frightened to be straight ... why wouldn't they be. Google pays the bills ultimately -you don't want to upset it.
This is a business. I don't always like it , but that's the way it is.
My view only [ and honestly what would i know - i ] - this is why Matt can't report on when sites will return. It's not his department , he will get told even though he may contribute, and the search quality team will have a line to upper management before any button get's pushed. Small changes -no - but a huge algorthimic change like Panda - absolutely. The bean counters will be watching.