Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google SEO longterm?

         

layer8

8:57 am on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




I had a site, SEO was done, was in top rankings for about 2 months then overnight for no reason site was positioned way down the rankings. All practices were ethical and it seemed no point or logic to this what happend to me.

If you speak to all the best Internet Marketing Pros they tell you SEO is a waste of time longterm, everyone in the industry has lost their position at somepoint from what I gather - or am I wrong?

I want to hear from anyone who has had long term success with SEO say for 6 months or longer....

agent10

8:08 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I can understand sites changing around in an update but then why if relevance is such a factor in the 1st 10 results you get index page, site map page and back end page from same site.

This gives a consumer even less choice, with two other sites having been wiped out. It is definately the big players who in the most part have stayed to the detriment of the smaller operators, It is just like the High Street, the choice to the consumer is going, since smaller operators cannot compete with the spiraling Adword costs either. This is not as has been said earlier therefore a poor business model it is just that if a large player has infinite funds they WILL be top for Adwords, Overture etc whoever and have the advantage of now being top 10 of Googles new look with the new algo switched on.

It is a sharp movement of monies and I think many smaller organisations esp those with perhaps 1-5 staff will start to disappear in next few months if things stay as they are.

There are just so many examples across the board that Google will become inundated.

deanril

8:09 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



A couple effects Google did not anticipate.

#1 Ex top dogs will go to Oveture (you can not mess with a person and expect them to pay you) Thus Oveture will now become even bigger.(with Inkomi inches away this is bad bad bad for google).

#2 If people can not find what they are looking for on Google they will leave google. (decreased sales of Adwords).

Another way of putting it, look in a magazine about Widgets, now of course they sell widgets in their too. A lot of people buy the magazine just to find where to buy good widgets cheap.

Now you take all the ad's out of that magazine except a few high priced retailers. The Magazine just committed suicide. Its been said before, hopefully the last time it needs to be said, but if these serps continue Google just committed suicide.

agent10

8:14 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I completely agree with Miss Understood. We too have niche sites for specific products all gone in favour of larger operators in the main part offering an enormous seletion including our niche product.

The small specialist sites who only have 1 product to talk about in its content have been penalised through specialization.

What I also notice is that sites where our product is primary and theirs it is secondry have zipped into top listings, since many specialist sites are gone.

Kackle

8:19 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)



I'm willing to concede that Google had good intentions. I don't think they are organized enough to have evil intentions. This is my new opinion after reading the Fortune top story that was posted today at www.fortune.com (it will be in their Dec 8 issue). It's based on a lot of interviews at the Googleplex over the last four months.

Okay -- good intentions, but horrible execution. Now that it is clear that Google needs to fix the problem, we'll find out in very short order just how organized Google can become when they need to get organized really fast. If they can't fix this, or -- short of that -- decide that it should be withdrawn until such time that they can come up with something that works better, then I think the writing is on the wall for Google.

Unfortunately, a lot of us might go down with them.

troi21

8:19 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Firstly, I do not believe that penalties have not been applied. Why else would my site and others go from number one or top ten to nowhere overnight. It doesn't make sense.

Also, how do you define content? How many pages or words is considered good, quality content? I might think my three pages are good enough but what does Google think?

caveman

8:22 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



c1bernaught,

I don't know. The site I run that was trashed in this update was a combo of affiliate and ad revenues in nature (in case no one guessed ;-) ), but it is clean, useful and in the past very well trafficked, including repeat users...always a good sign. I refused to implement those stupid "keyword keyword keyword" links all over the place, even when the spammier competitors were hurting me.

That said, when I wanted to travel to Florida earlier this year (the state) and I picked a destination and typed in "destination hotels" I thought I was going to gag. Nothing but spam. Useful spam I'll admit but *only* spam. (Useful spam meaning that all the site provided good info, but there was nothing else to choose from.)

I don't think this is an easy problem. One senior poster said recently, to paraphrase, "I don't care if you thin out the affiliate sites, as long as you don't lose mine...". There ya go. G lost his, and everyone else's to, and all the little mom and pops, etc. Now I see .gov's, .org's, news sites, and to Miop's and others' points, most of the listings are almost certainly not what the user was seaching for in this case.

Hard problem. But again, that's why they hire all those mind-bendingly smart folks at the plex, isn't it?

highman

8:25 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



>If they can't fix this, or -- short of that -- decide that it should be withdrawn until such time that they can come up with something that works better, then I think the writing is on the wall for Google.

Couldnt agree more, odly enough we had the busiest day from Google for a while but that makes no odds if in general the results are merde, users will go elsewhere

Dolemite

8:26 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



The industry leaders in this space are A, B, and C. A & B are fine, but C dropped to the second page. In addition, new page D is less topical or relevant because ..."

GoogleGuy,

"Industry leaders" aren't necessarily the most relevent to a particular search. In my particular field, there are two types of sites ranking well:

1. Those so-called industry leaders who are older than water and have some good content but seem to be surviving on sheer longevity and momentum.

2. Seemingly randomly-choosen sites that have some relevence to the term but are what 2 weeks ago I would have called "poorly-optimized."

Now, without either going back in time and starting my site in 1994 or deoptimizing my site and waiting for the next update, I don't see how I can compete with these sites. A large portion of my optimization actually makes my site more user-friendly. Things like relevent URLs, use of alt tags, etc.

Am I supposed to take that back a notch or two just to regain what very little is left of my SERPs?

I believe I should be able to reasonably compete with industry leaders and industry followers without having to compromise user-centric design and logical navigation. It seems to me that's what Google has been trying to promote, even if indirectly, for the past few years.

So now in the fourth quarter of a recession year, Google decides to turn their SERPs into a big steaming pile of contradictions and hypocrisy. BTW, I've never spent a cent on AdWords and never intend to.

Google underestimates their responsibility and their power. They need to understand that "commercial terms" aren't evil and optimization can serve both the user and the webmaster.

Q4 2003 isn't going to wait, and PPC won't pick up the slack. Before I had some trepidation about MSN's entry into the SE market...now I'll welcome it.

Jon_King

8:27 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Thanks Brett, Marcia, NFFC and GoogleGuy for putting this thing into perspective.

deanril

8:27 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



There must be a reason Yahoo is holding onto a week old index.

I feel they have the same oppinion we do, "What are these Serps?" "And who do they benefit?"

john316

8:29 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Probably save yourself a lot email raeding time if you just asked the engineers to add this to the queries by default:

-showmethegoodresults

maybej

8:30 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)



Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
What's this whole Florida thing anyway?

vbjaeger

8:36 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Don't start with something ultracompetitive--look for a fringe or niche or related area where you can present something new, esp. if it's new or useful information that users can't find elsewhere. 4) Once you have a good handle on your niche, expand your horizons. Now that every knows to come to you for reviews/info/analysis about fuzzy used widgets, you can set your sights on just used widgets in general.

Not all sites are purely informational, and that doesn't make them less relevent to a search term. If a user is searching for "widget management software", why is a site that offers information about widget management software any more relevent than a site that DOES offer widget management software?.

Many of the users coming to google to find widget management software are actually trying to find widget management software, not to be directed to a place that lets them do more searching for it.

Terrier

8:39 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Reading this thread is very much like listening to shell shock victims, I know I am one. My commercial site got bombed, My non-commercial deep content site fine and fact doing better every day, ten times the traffic of the commercial even when it was top ten, but that site don’t put the groceries on the Table.

The only sites left in my commercial area are rather heavy turgid information sites which are top and you would need a degree from Stanford to understand them. Some shopping portals nothing to with the subject. Couple of nonsense sites and one created in word.

Do you see similar? Well I have decided that looks to me like an opportunity,

If content is the name of the game then fine I will give them shed loads. Even though no buyers will read it. But at least it can be a route to the meat and potatoes.

I am put in mind of the “Vicar of Bray”

Hey if the programs changed I need to get with the program - be like that Vicar

But I am not 100% sure of the program quite yet but I intend to understand it.

So what have I done so far? Why joined the others on the right hand side fighting over the ads. It feels very odd. I am in business so time to adjust those margins.

agent10

8:43 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Google as everbody says doesn't owe us anything but when an organisation reaches the size it is and accounts for XX% of the searches some responsibility must be shown. A similarity to this is the employing of staff, you can still run your business as you like but at times some thoughts must be to the staff regarding the consequences of your actions.

Google knows that it has the "current" monopoly for searches, peoples livelihoods are dependant on this. Surely a responsible route would be to filter changes in gradually. We can all appreciate that spam must be dealt with, similar to credit card fraud they are always 1 step ahead of most, and as seems to be the case here the knob was turned a number of notches too much, leaving the goody two shoes sites nowhere.

Google must appreciate that sites haven't just moved down a few pages, but have been wiped off the board.

Would it not be a responsible action to respond publically to us regarding this update. I am also a user of Google and use it for no end of searches but today I did need to use other engines to find what I needed.

This can't be progression

This 408 message thread spans 28 pages: 408