Forum Moderators: open
I have to laugh at people's mentality. There can only be one #1 position for a keyword but everyone whose site is about that keyword thinks their site deserves that #1 position. Unfortunately, only one site can have that position (and of coarse a similar argument applies to to all the top positions). To get that position, you have to pay. You pay with money or you pay with SEO efforts or you pay with the cost of spam penalties. One way or another you pay. It's just not going to be yours for free because you think your site deserves it.
I was thinking about the Internet and Search Engines in general, but we can focus on Google because it's the big one for now.
Really, what mayor wrote pinpoints a problem with the way SE's present results.
On any SERP where you see more than 10 results (all)it seems to be a toss up as to what site is placed where. Meaning- there really shouldn't be any RANKING of websites. Can many folks point to SERP's where the #10 spot is that much better than the number 20 or even 200?
Although I am still learning from this great forum here, I was able to learn enough to (in all probability) get a client to the Top 5 SERP's across the board for his Industry.
All the sites in his industry are pretty amatuer and were getting ranked on page title alone in some cases...
This is the situation for _many_ websites:
1) All the competition had the same backlinks because they all sell the same service.
2) They all sell the same service.
3) They are all legitimate companies.
4) They are all the same PageRank because they have the same backlinks. :)
5) Their content is more similar than not because..well, again- they sell the same service.
:)
Most people (99.9%) think for some reason a website is "better" because it's high up in the listings. In some SERP's the top sites are there because of dumb luck that someone titled a page with the phrase and it's in the description, and there's an H1 with the phrase as well.
I guess my point is as follows:
With literally millions of websites it's very inefficent to display them in a numerical order as it's done whether the rank is displayed (like Y!) or not.
Really- it's just plain silly. ;)
If I want to buy "shiny happy blue widgets" and there are 5,000 competent legit companies that can sell me "shiny happy blue widgets" will the #1 ranked site be the best place to buy it from?
...one hundred times better than the #100 ranked site? 1,000 times better than the #1000 site?
There just has to be a better (more fair) way of displaying results from websites.
Too bad broadband and 1280x1024 resolution on monitors wasn't the norm. I'd then suggest a display of screenshots of the relevant page like Alexa does for the Top 3 sites- only for dozens of sites could be displayed.
BUT...that's not the way it is and it won't be. :(
Anyone have suggestions as to how current SE's could improve? While I love this forum, the very fact that it is as popular as it is suggests things could be much better.
Sure, it's great that those with knowledge can get higher up the ladder, but the very fact we think of 'positions' and getting UP the rankings is a skewed perspective of the Internet...at best.
I wonder how many years it will take us to figure out how to best present the results of a global self publishing medium?
Sorry to be long winded...but I really had it on my mind because with this pending Google update I get to see the results of my first ever client SEO work.
OK- you may click past this really long message now. ;)
Try this search.
link:www.epinions.com/sprt
(No, I have no affiliation with epinions, I hope it generic enough to not be pulled.)
It has 4 backlinks listed, one is open directory, and one is google directory.
Actually the only searches where Google doesn't do such a great job is where the SERPs have been manipulated (by us), and that's really not a big problem for the search engine is it? Like you said, one site is as good as another, so why bother trying to make it fair for the site owners? As long as the surfer gets what he wants, who cares?
I don't think I stated that one site is as good as another. But...maybe.
Studies and real world common sense show that the visual look/feel of a website is a strong factor as far as whether someone feels it's a worthy site to click around.
The results of a page title and a short description gives very little to the user to decide if the site is what they want. Yep- usually out of the Top 5 results one of those sites will meet the needs for the user.
So, what's my beef so to speak?
The top results are presumed by many people to somehow be 'better' because why else would they be at the top?
Anyone who manages to get to the top will stay there because the top few sites will continue to get links to their sites. Why? Because they are at the top. :)
Meaning, is one at the top because they offer the best content for that search OR are they at the top because they will clearly get far more links to their site than #25 or whatever.
AW
Why not start with the basics by taking action on spam reports that show a rock solid case of sites who use incredibly obvious spam techniques?
Maybe that'd help make the SERPs more relevant.
And, oh yeah, I almost forgot, isn't Google against spam in the first place? I used to think they were until their total disregard for taking action against spam made me think otherwise.
In my opinion, this spam issue is going to be a major problem for Google's long term viability, especially if they consider going public.
I haven't seen much complaining about spam on Google on various fora arond the Net by the masses. Mostly just here by disgruntled webmasters who are getting beat by the competition. One thing you may not be considering is Joe Public may have a different idea than you about spam. For example, if I search for "blue widget sales", and the top listings are blue widget sellers, that seems like a relevant SERP. Now, if there were a bunch of sites listed about purple penguins and such, then I'd be dissatisfied.
But that's marketing.. that's how it works in business. The prime real estate in the Yellow Pages belongs to those who pay for it. The prime real estate in a retail store belongs to those who pay for it.
Sure. One of the many differences is that when someone picks up a phone book the listings are alphabetical and there is no presumption that AAAwidets is better than any other out of the listings.
OV listings and AdWords are often ignored by people who go straight to natural listings under the presumption they must be 'better' somehow.
The difference here is that on the Internet, a business owner can potentially promote his site without paying for anything. He can develop content, and he can ask for backlinks. He can get these easier if he pays for them, but he can go creative and get them without monetary payment.
Yes. That is a good thing. However, most people will have some basic business understanding whether from school or real world experience.
There is no class on "Google Optimization" yet it controls some 80% of internet searches according to Brett's pie chart.
This is GOOD for myself and others here. Bad for the ignorant. They may have the cure for cancer on a website, but unless it's in Top 5 on google ain't nobody gonna visit that page. ;)
So for businesses, Google works pretty much like any other form of marketing, those who put in the money and the time get the results.
So, the person who pays for Overture/AdWords and gets 2% clickthough out of 15,000+ searches per month wins out over the #1 natural site that just happned to use that search phrase on all their links?
For searches, the searchers doesn't care if he finds your business or someone else's, so long as he finds what he's looking for. Personally, I've never had reason to complain with Google's results.
Sure...but YOU care don't you? Everyone here cares- that's why we are all here! :)
Our clients _REALLY_ care.
AW
It's very easy to get into the top five without spending money and without using techniques that will get you banned.
For _some_ phrases where the industry involved hasn't invested much into their web design and you find a lot of FrontPage (or whatever) 'homemade' sites- that is true.
For commercially competitive areas...no...not easy.
Get me to Page 1 of Google under web design company. It's "easy" according to you, eh? LOL.
It's quite frustrating to have clients where it's painfully clear how easy it would be to get to the top using very basic SEO techniques.
I'd like to see a web design company or SEO company get to PAGE 1 of Google under the primary high traffic keywords without using techniques that go against G's TOS.
AW
<<But that's marketing.. that's how it works in business. The prime real estate in the Yellow Pages belongs to those who pay for it. The prime real estate in a retail store belongs to those who pay for it.>>
<Sure. One of the many differences is that when someone picks up a phone book the listings are alphabetical and there is no presumption that AAAwidets is better than any other out of the listings.>
Except that the business that pays $50/month gets their name listed, and the business that pays $700/month gets a 1/4 page full-color ad.
<OV listings and AdWords are often ignored by people who go straight to natural listings under the presumption they must be 'better' somehow.>
When I say that people are "paying" for the prime real estate, I don't necessarily mean that they are paying the search engine directly. If I had thousands of dollars budgeted to marketing my website, I could get links put up everywhere, I could hire writers to fill my site with content, and this would get me to the top of SERPs, not the Adwords.
<There is no class on "Google Optimization" yet it controls some 80% of internet searches according to Brett's pie chart.>
There are a lot of things in business, and life, that can't be learned in class and only real-world experience gives you the knowledge and ability to accomplish certain tasks. This is not unique to "Google Optimization."
<So, the person who pays for Overture/AdWords and gets 2% clickthough out of 15,000+ searches per month wins out over the #1 natural site that just happned to use that search phrase on all their links?>
No, the person that pays to have their site built by dozens of different people all contributing content and ideas gets to be #1 in the searches. That, of course, is an example.. but illustrates a way of "paying" for increasing your rank or your results without giving the money directly to the search engines.
<<For searches, the searchers doesn't care if he finds your business or someone else's, so long as he finds what he's looking for. Personally, I've never had reason to complain with Google's results.>>
<Sure...but YOU care don't you? Everyone here cares- that's why we are all here! :)
Our clients _REALLY_ care.>
Of course they do.. but I don't think that's Google's motivation, so I don't think they're likely to change it based on that.
<For _some_ phrases where the industry involved hasn't invested much into their web design and you find a lot of FrontPage (or whatever) 'homemade' sites- that is true.
For commercially competitive areas...no...not easy.
Get me to Page 1 of Google under web design company. It's "easy" according to you, eh? LOL.>
I'm saying "easy" as opposed to "mind-boggling." Easy is; step 1, step 2, step 3, step4, ..., step n, and you're at or near the top. That is, you have a plan, you know what to do, etc. And there are a set of procedures you put into place, sometimes over long periods of time, maybe even a year.
"Easy" does not imply that it doesn't take time, and it does not imply that it doesn't take work.. but it does mean the physical and mental act of doing it is not challenging.
"web design company" returns 4,270,000 results. One of my sites just hit #6 after the most recent update for a two-word phrase that returns 2,500,000 results. I didn't do anything shady to get it there, and I didn't spend any money. Promoting this phrase took about two months, which boiled down to maybe four hours of total work. I knew how to promote it, I knew what steps to take, I even knew what keys on the keyboard to push. In other words, it was easy :-).
Whenever I stucco a new block wall, it always smears together and doesn't look right.. how do those guys do that? I had to hire someone to stucco my new block fence. That's hard, because I haven't been able to figure it out yet.
So to put it into perspective, website promotion is easy and stuccoing a block fence is hard :-).
Google works very well for finding information sites, and ranked very well. The problem comes with webmasters SEO'ing or spamming on behalf of primarily commercial, selling, or shopping sites. PR works very well in for the web as originally envisaged - connecting information resources together - PR added a citation ranking method very smilar to that in say the "Science Citation Index".
I agree.
[snip]
rules" and a peer review process built-in it would never work in a free-for-all free commercial market.
And in the commercial area- this is where it gets murky and why people are paying for PR9 links.
I have no doubt that google's aim is to reduce the ROI of SEO and spamming for commercial sites to the extent that the ROI for PPC/Adwords/Sponsored Links looks a viable option, and even better.
Wow. Didn't think a conspiracy theory would pop up. :)
I don't think that's true, but ya never know. PPC will never be able to surpass top natural listings as too many people ignore paid listings to get to 'legitimate' natural listings.
Google's algo NEVER WILL be able to "fairly" or appropriately be able to rank commercial sites in competitive query groups. Its a few PHD's against 1,000s of webmasters and cashed-up companies.
They could do something so that traffic is more evenly distibuted among commercial websites though.
Granted, if you happen to be one of the companies that paid for SEO and currently have a top ranking site, you don't want that changed.
In reality, PPC based Adwords is a much better way for both Google and advertisers/commercial webmasters to expose their products on the Web.
NOT as long as Google diplays commercial sites within natural listings...in my strong opinion.
If i was Google, I would even go further and hasten the process of advertisers moving from trying to get top poistions in the main index to paying for advertising in Adwords, by rotating all results for obvious selling type queries. As the first poster mentioned there is not much difference between them anyway.
Well, _that_ would shake things up more than a bit, huh? There is a difference in appearance and the way each site "feels".
This would reduce the ROI for spamming and SEO and hasten the inevitable that people selling on the web, have to pay for exposure - same as in any media.
Interesting point of view.
I really do think threads like this are based on old assumptions about search engines that no longer hold true. That selling from positions in search engines represents a sustainable business. It did a few years back as the SE industry was developing. It is increasingly obvious that it is not working any more, especially in the future.
Well, if you see my post "meta tag" I do put "is Google and other SE's the best we can get?"
You seem to have interesting ideas, so what would you suggest Google or other companies do when providing commercial results?
AW
In principle, the site with the best and most relevant =information is at the top.
No, the site who can afford the relavent keywords, <adwords> is at the top. All of this is an exercise in frustration, nothing more. Goggle could care less about relevance or meaningful content. They are a business. Money speaks. Buy adwords and you will be ok. Don't sweat the small stuff. They don't care.
Hey Alphawolf, good thread.
Does that get my domain an extra PR or two? ;)
The original question you asked seemed to be more along the lines of how to present search results in different ways.
Yes, actually after you cut out all the other stuff.
Since you guys and gals run a RANK system and partner sites present those rsults in a RANK system, people attribute a certain amount of credibility to top ranking results.
That results in discouraging people from going past Page 1 results except for really odd searches.
In commercial areas the industry will be the same and information probably won't vary too much, just the way in which it is presented will.
It's important to ask that question, because differences in presentation can really help users find information faster.
Right. When searching for a product or service though people know they will find sites relevant, and will want to check out a FEW wesbites to decide who they want to give their money to or contact.
Sure- this is why marketing must be done from all angles, but I do think Google could "spread the wealth" when it comes to juicy commercial phrases.
I wouldn't say that ranked results are necessarily the way we'll look at information in 100 years, but it does work pretty well for most people.
What ever happened to VRML so that we'd have virtual malls and so forth? :)
We need virtual reality implemented well and be able to visually search in several dimensions at once. Like a really good version of those java searches that display sites linked together floating around and you can click and change the focus site.
You'll have this done by like next week, right? hehe.
I'd be curious to hear suggestions for better ways to do it, though.
In commercial searches- a more flat results page with far more results per page.
Does anyone read the description or care how big the page is or what the URL is when looking for a product? They just click until they find a site that pleases them and makes them confident enough to hand over a credit card or pick up the phone and call.
AW, you mentioned showing thumbnails of search results. We actually tried that a while ago but stopped after running the experiment and measuring user response.
How long ago? Was broadband as spread as it is now? I dunno- for me it seems that having screenshots like Alexa under _commercial_ searches would be a great aid to people.
If one is looking purely for information then who cares what the site looks like if the information is solid.
Another suggestion would be to allow new sites or recently modifed sites to come up under a different set of listings.
Hmm. That would be abused quite a bit huh?
Hmm. Now- an AdWord with a screenshot is an idea. If people find the page ugly or busy they won't click it. Guess that's not in Google's interest though.
GoogleViewer is another way to look at results, but I don't think it's the final answer either-
GoogleViewer doesn't seem to pull my external files. I entered a phrase I am #1 and my CSS was not applied and my menu did not appear. So, that's just bad. :)
-although many people like it. So I guess my "short" answer to your question is that a ranked list works pretty well, but we're always looking for improved ways to present search results.
Commercial results need screenshots and should be ranked with CTR factoring into the ranking.
Results displayed vertically and horizontally...5 across and 5-10 down with user options to change those preferences. Sorta like a bunch of AdWord boxes only with screenshots and META TAG descriptions. AdWords- top row across.
AW
You've made the same point several times in several different ways:
>They could do something so that traffic is more evenly >distibuted among commercial websites though
>I do think Google could "spread the wealth" when it
>comes to juicy commercial phrases.
My question is why?
If any of us want a guaranteed high listing, we can pay for adwords. Otherwise, shouldn't we let Google do its job?
It's a private company, not a welfare operation.
My standpoint is entirely pragmatic. I've never optimised my pages in my life - i may get around to it eventually but I haven't so far. All I did was concentrate on writing the most useful, well-organised, most user-friendly, most navigable pages I could.
Suddenly last year, I went from being an 'unknown' site to the top three site on hundreds of keyword phrases.
I never concentrated on SEO, I simply tried to write a good set of pages... and I let Google do its job.
And, yes, :-) my sector is pretty competitive.
>>>I do think Google could "spread the wealth" when it comes to juicy commercial phrases.<<My question is why?
Google is becoming a monopoly. It swings huge amounts of money due to it's policies and algos.
If any of us want a guaranteed high listing, we can pay for adwords.
What's the highest CTR you've ever gotten from a good high volume AdWord/Overture listing?
Otherwise, shouldn't we let Google do its job?
If nobody ever makes suggestions then nothing would ever change.
It's a private company, not a welfare operation.
And I offered some suggestions on things they could charge for.
My standpoint is entirely pragmatic. I've never optimised my pages in my life - i may get around to it eventually but I haven't so far. All I did was concentrate on writing the most useful, well-organised, most user-friendly, most navigable pages I could.Suddenly last year, I went from being an 'unknown' site to the top three site on hundreds of keyword phrases.
I never concentrated on SEO, I simply tried to write a good set of pages... and I let Google do its job.
Right, so you are very content with the results. If you were in a category where all the top spots weren't attained by content, but rather by link volume, hence PR- you may not be so shiny happy. :)
And, yes, :-) my sector is pretty competitive.
Well, if you state so then it must be. ;) Can ya sticky me your URL?
Actually, since we all "know" Google pretty well, we know how to proceed with optimizing for it and our sites.
AW
try getting into top results when your compettitors have 20.000+ backlinks...
it's impossible for a startup
<try getting into top results when your compettitors have 20.000+ backlinks...>
But you have to look at this from Google's perspective. They don't necessarily care if you make it into the top results. As long as there are relevent sites listed at the top for a given search that a user can go to, they've doen their job.
But you have to look at this from Google's perspective. They don't necessarily care if you make it into the top results. As long as there are relevent sites listed at the top for a given search that a user can go to, they've doen their job.
if I was offering the same product or service, yes, youre right.
but i am not, i'm offering a new and improved product/service that people WANT to know of... but they will never find it in a normal SERP (if you exclude paid listings).
Stickiness isn't the end-all of sorting solutions, but it could be an interesting addition to the factoring of top result listings.
However, if Google ever adopted this into their algo, I sincerely hope that it would remain a never-to-be-discovered secret...
Can you imagine the lengths some webmasters would go to in order to get their users to visit as many pages as possible before leaving their site?
If google hits the page perfectly and gets the user what they want, then they might only be there for a few seconds.
This happened to me this moring while I was working on an e-mail. I was looking for the altitude at the summit of a mountain that I grew up near. I did a search on it, the first site didn't have it so I spent some time looking around. The second site had it in bold type near the top of the page, I saw it immediately and closed the window. I was on the page for about 2 seconds, and did not go anywhere else on that site.
<if I was offering the same product or service, yes, youre right.
but i am not, i'm offering a new and improved product/service that people WANT to know of... but they will never find it in a normal SERP (if you exclude paid listings).>
But if it's a unique product, why wouldn't it be found in the SERPs? If your product was so unique, and someone were searching for it, wouldn't your site be the *only* one in the SERPs, or with very few others, because your product is so unique?
Perhaps it would be unique in the SERPs, but nobody would know what to call it. So you need to get found under more mainstream keywords. I have exactly this problem.
Nobody searches for "quasi widget" unfortunately.
<Perhaps it would be unique in the SERPs, but nobody would know what to call it. So you need to get found under more mainstream keywords. I have exactly this problem.>
This is true offline as well.. not unique to search engines. If I had a product that was so unique that there was no category for it in the yellow pages, I'd have to find some type of alternative to the conventional ad placement.
He is so hung up on the uniqueness of his product that he does not like it to even be compared the sorts of items that people would use to replace it.
His product is a combination of a widget and a dodad so he calls it a dodget. The problem is that it is of some interest to the people that are searching just for a widget. No interest at all for those looking for a plain old dodad.
The people that would be most interested in his product would be the users of a different item the blodget. But he holds the blodget in such distain as an inferior product that he refues to mention it on his site.
And to make matters worse, the word he came up with for his product, dodget, is a common word in spanish.
Not much help here, but a classic story about what not to do when you are in that situation.
Just because you have a better mousetrap, doesn't mean that you deserve a better position in the SERPs for mousetrap. You still have to earn it. But if it is truely a better mousetrap, it should be a lot easier to get the links you need to compete, you just have to use old fashioned public relations. Press releases, free samples to wesite owners, write some articles,send them to others so that they can write the articles.
Just don't ever think you deserve a better position because your product is better. If it really is, you will get there . . . eventually.
