rlange - 3:12 pm on Oct 24, 2011 (gmt 0)

drall wrote: Google would be nothing, completely NOTHING without our content they use for "free".

And how many websites would be (or are) nothing without Google? It works both ways. Of course, as others have pointed out, Google can do more to harm a single website than a single website can do to harm Google. I understand that frustration, but you won't find too many business relationships between large companies and small companies where this isn't true.

Google's a big fish and you're a small fish. You're likely to benefit greatly by a relationship with Google, whereas they aren't likely to benefit very much from a relationship with you. Obviously, you shouldn't go into that relationship expecting it to last forever.

whatson wrote: Then like any other bricks and mortar store you advertise and get your target market to know about you. In this case your target market are the people searching for your best related keywords, and you optimize for said search terms.

Yikes. Keyword optimization is in no way analogous to traditional advertising. It's more like styling the front of your brick-and-mortar store to attract passers-by. And if one of those "people" happen to be a local business directory that keeps an eye out for and promotes interesting places at no additional cost to you, then... there you go.

Personally, I think "free" isn't the best term; "indirect" fits the situation better, in my opinion.

MrFewkes wrote: [...] our combined strength should be put to use IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER ENGINE to split the traffic.

This is horribly short-sighted. What guarantee does anyone have that this other search engine won't eventually screw them over, too?

econman wrote: We are participating in a symbiotic economic relationship with Google -- one in which we can't exist without them, and they can't exist without us (collectively).

Those who, out of frustration, suggest or dream about shutting Google out are essentially advocating virtual murder-suicide. That's the wrong emotional response to, well... anything. And, honestly, it would just end up being a virtual suicide. If you're already doing poorly in Google's SERPs, I doubt they're going to miss you.

webastronaut wrote: I never could understand the nofollow tag the way Goog said (that was all just for their own needs not for our visitors that appreciate what we do on our own websites).

I'm not sure Google was ever very vague about that; I, being a realtive newbie, was always aware that nofollow was primarily meant to help Google keep their SERPs a bit less spammy. However, I'd say it's also reasonable to expect that Google would see it as a site implicitly disconnecting itself from potentially spammy websites; a positive in Google's eyes (and any other search engine that decides to go that route).

nippi wrote: It makes sense to me, that google would just increase its notifications. You've lost rankings becuase of these issues.

How would Google notify these websites? Not everyone uses Google Webmaster Tools.

whatson wrote: Unfortunately Bing operates at a substantial loss, they really need more users to build their income so they can improve their technology.

Depose one semi-benevolent dictator so another semi-benevolent dictator can take it's place? That's not a solution...

--
Ryan