Whitey - 7:15 pm on Apr 15, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: Whitey at 7:53 pm (utc) on Apr 15, 2013]
Some facts, quotes and weight of opinions:
1. Unscientific poll associated with OT quote:
Do you think brands get preferential treatment by Google?
Yes 73.96% (250 votes) [seroundtable.com...]
The internet is fast becoming a "cesspool" where false information thrives, Google CEO eric schmidt said yesterday. Speaking with an audience of magazine executives visiting the Google campus here as part of their annual industry conference, he said their brands were increasingly important signals that content can be trusted.
"brands are the solution, not the problem," Mr. schmidt said. "brands are how you sort out the cesspool."
Source Oct 2008 : [adage.com...]
Discussion : [webmasterworld.com...]
So Eric Schmidt conveys what the organisation wants.
Vince Algo Update - More Offline Brand Authority in SERPS?
@Tedster My only question is whether the influence is from offline or possible some other factor - such as unlinked brand mentions, or social media buzz. [webmasterworld.com...]
Matt Cutts addressed these concerns in a three and a half minute video, which I have embedded below. Matt Cutts said this change is not necessarily a Google “update,” but rather what he would call a “minor change.” In fact, Matt told us a Googler named Vince created this change and they call it the “Vince change” at Google. He said it is not really about pushing brands to the front of the Google results. It is more about factoring trust more into the algorithm for more generic queries. He said most searchers won’t notice and it does not impact the long tail queries, but for some queries, Google might be factoring in things like trust, quality, PageRank and other metrics that convey the importance and value of a page, into the ranking algorithm. I guess, big brands have earned more trust than smaller brands, which is noted by all the recent chatter in our industry.
Source: March 2009 [searchengineland.com...]
Matt Cutts : [youtube.com...] In response to [seobook.com...]
So we think it's external factors, but not sure what. Google explains the difference.
Google’s Head Of Search: Google Does Not Give Brands A Bias
Singhal explains that when someone types in T, mathematically “most people typing T will go to Target. That’s the probability model. If you add R to it (“Tr”), most people are looking for a translation system. It’s actually just pure mathematical modeling.” It is just math, he says, not a bias.
Source Dec 2010: [searchengineland.com...]
"Completion" here is referring to the Autocomplete feature of Google Instant, which Singhal says is completely mathematical.
@Robert_Charlton The report doesn't discuss the algorithmic factors which might cause brands to come up as frequently as they do.
Discussion : [webmasterworld.com...]
Is this bias or an explanation that would cause an average Joe to say "what's the difference. It's the result that counts. How it's formed is Google's responsibility against the perceived user intention. So what if the search team says we are only responding to probability". I think Aaron Wall, noted above subsequently refers to it as "Reality Warping" [en.wikipedia.org...]
Doesn't seem straight to me either.
Panda / Penguin
Hit's mostly small and medium size business' that have used aggressive techniques, mostly in linking and content [ too little or farmed too much], in part, to combat brands.
Brands provided a pass.
Google defines it's own definition of brands, since some high profile sites that relied too heavily on SEO techniques were demoted in the updates. Some would argue that brands given a pass fitted a commercial bias that allowed big spending marketers a higher trust threshold that exempted them from Panda/Penguin, based upon user metrics, mostly measured on the probability referred to by Amit Singhal
To date few sites have escaped Panda, and non Penguin
Once branded by Google, as + or - sites likely won't escape. Google doesn't want excess sites and information where it doesn't have a need.
Brands that offer little or no added value, such as affiliates can have a pass, even if they don't pass all the quality criteria in the measurements outlined by MC in the OT
MC states that in highly competitive verticals, you may as well forget about trying.
So I think he was referring to niche only in the OT quote, as the "sorry, we're full" sign has gone up. Inference. You'll have to buy tickets if you want to play.
Eric Schmidt on the winners and losers in search rankings
Google is being investigated as to whether it may be violating anti-trust law in how it ranks websites when consumers do searches. Gwen Ifill talks to Google's Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt as part of the Atlantic and Aspen Ideas Forum. [pbs.org...]
Transcript of Senate Hearing [guardian.co.uk...]
NB Brands only seem to be complaining about the prejudice of results by Google assets, not their preferred positions. [ I mean why would they ].
9. Guys, you'll have to help me for this referral, but in an SEC filing, I think, around late 2012, it states something along these lines :
Google does not consider Ads any differently from organic listings. They are all listed for the purposes of relevance to the user audience, from which the advertising model derives income to Google.
So if Google has enough relevant content to organise a bidding game that pays across various Google assets, why show organic listings that don't pay.
10. Loop back to the poll @ 1 above
Personally, I do think there is merit in promoting some brands, and a reality about big business that "money talks" , "BS walks". That's life, even though I detest the latter and have to negotiate through it by seeking the truth as best I can.
-Do I think we've been fed the truth. No [ well YES kinda of :) ]. Sometimes. Darn semantics, language and interpretation gets confusing to know what the truth is :)
-Do I think small/medium business has suffered. Yes [ but they can fight back, but not all will if they solely depended on Google organics]. Sad.
-Will Google provide a free socially democratic platform where everyone will be happy and all quality innovation will be rewarded. No - it never will and it never could.
Folks that believed they could eat candy for free for life and Google loves them, are probably angry and disappointed in their delusion of romance, leaving some spurned, rejected , bitter and badly burned - no joke intended, this is real and needs respect [ that's sad ], but as @travelin_cat says: Thanks for all the fish [webmasterworld.com...]
Look after yourselves, families , friends, communities and business'. The web can and will be a place of prosperity with or without Google.
[edited by: Whitey at 7:53 pm (utc) on Apr 15, 2013]