Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
I can say that based on the searches I have done as a consumer, I like this index more than the old one. When I put in a city I get SERPs that have information about the city, not ten thousand affiliate sites waiting to send you to the exact same site. I just got done doing quite a bit of x-mas shopping and guess what, I found what I was looking for without having to go to page two of the SERPs.
I realize this place is full of the SEOs who’s #1 (if not only) concern is their own sites ranking highly and in most people opinion on here their site is always the most relevant site for whatever keyword you are looking up. But, what reasons other than “my site was optimized for Google and ranked #1 for a year but now it’s not ranked THIS IS GOING TO RUIN MY BUSINESS!” are there for the condemnations of this new index?
Since customers would not be interested in purchasing just one of these instruments but several, the search is meaningless.
They clearly researched which terms were considered "highly competitive" e.g. terms/phrases that users were likely to purchase adwords for. If your keywords fall into this category then you too are expected to participate in the bidding war if you want traffic ;)
If the SERP's your site is located on do not have 3 to 4+ ads then Id say your terms for that particular search are NOT considered competitive and thus your site was not sent to the back of the line (so-to-speak.)
For highly competitive terms that have 6-7 ads on the SERP's it appears 70% + of the previous top 100 sites are no longer in the top 100!
The way I see it if Google wants to play this game (hit 70% of sites with competitive terms in the pocket) then we need to hit back STOP USING ADWORDS!
How about not looking for a handout and instead earning what you get?
I bet you think I really do get up at 6am for my hand outs from the omnipresent and benevolent Google. LOL.
So what is Google doing if it is not giving every web page it lists a hand out? The point is that everyone is in the same line, even you, but Google has stopped some sites even waiting in line. Google is in a very powerful and privileged position. I just wonder if it is abusing that power and privileged.
The good news is that we are already starting to hear that people with nice white hats are finding ways around the new algo, so how long do you really think it will be before the dark side has got the whole thing cracked?
I once made my company $30,000 profit on one sale by finding an overseas vendor for a hard-to-find item on Google.
Me like google. Google good. Google BETTER for finding hard to find things than finding very common things.
You CAN build and run a site and get it listed in google's index without spamming or using SEO proper. I've done it several times. If your livelihood depends on your site being in the top 10 results for "Carmen Electra" or "Cheap Insurance" or World's greatest web site" - you have made a bad career move, and there is nothing Google can do to change that fact.
Since November 20, 80 plus "mycountry real estate" related Web sites were removed from Google's Top 100.
Those 80 sites were a good representation of "white hat" and "black hat" sites and everything in between.
I had 3 "white hat" sites among the 80. 2 of the 3 were Top 20.
What exactly is right with Google?
ALL of my competitors were removed from the Top 20. So I don't have to worry about my competitors receiving more traffic.
All of us aren't receiving any traffic via "mycountry real estate."
I'm in a better situation since I targeted quite a few other search terms with non-index pages. So my overall traffic is only down 10 to 15%.
It's been more than a week since all this started. I've spent the last few days analyzing Google's situation.
It makes sense now.
The most important search results are the ones found on the first pages.
It's easier to filter "white hat" sites from "black hat" sites within a small sample of sites. It's easier to work with a sample of 100 than a sample of 10,000 sites.
What exactly is wrong with Google?
Perhaps not knowing how long this task will take.
I hope to see interesting SERP's within a few more days. I'm glad to know Yahoo is replacing Google soon and Altavista isn't looking bad.
In the meantime, I don't mind Google making some extra bucks by selling AdWords. However, I'm not buying any.
Instead I have made my sites "whiter".
Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Therefore, the name conspiracy isn't appropriate to describe Google's actions. And theories isn't appropriate either.
Web people shouldn't be afraid of naming Google's action of this month: Business Strategy.
It's a business strategy because there are events properly identified that could shake Google's business foundations:
1. Yahoo replaces Google.
2. Google's IPO
It'll be OK to name Google's actions "conspiracy theories" if the above events were fictional.
Don't be afraid of calling what Google deployed this month by its proper name: Business Strategy.
It is hard to earn a living if you get no passing trade. To trade you have to parade your wares. You also have to parade them where people are - there is no point in parading your wares down a country lane in the middle of the night. If the person that controls the trading space won't let you in, then it doesn't matter how hard you are prepared to work for a living.
Your "trading space" is the Web. Your monthly rent is the fee that you pay to your hosting service.
Google isn't a "trading space," a downtown retail street, or a shopping mall. It's more like the newspaper or TV station where you hope to promote your goods or services. Now, with traditional media, you might be able to get the occasional bit of free PR coverage, or you might not. But in general, if you want to use those media to reach an audience, you're expected to buy ads. Why should Google be any different? Why should anyone think that it's Google's reponsibility to subsidize e-commerce businesses with free search listings? IMHO, Web-based businesses should consider themselves blessed: They pay far less rent than brick-and-mortar businesses do, they can be open 24 hours a day without having paid clerks around to operate the cash register or watch for shoplifters, and--just as important--they can advertise their wares free of charge in search engines like Google...at least for now.
Google - Are you pulling a 1999 AV on us?
That'd be my shiny new ad. Being the only relevant link in the midst of directory serps might be a good thing. Narrowly target your one MIA money phrase & let the subpages do all of the free work. Yes, I've said "Uncle" to Google.
Why does the number one site in my area (which is a notorious spammer) use the keyword term 50 times while 87 companies have been penalized for using it? And why does this site go un-penalized under dozens of other search terms while these companies still go penalized. Is this companies genius so great that it would lead an ordinary man on a jury to believe they alone figured out the algo well before it was introduced. If some sites were given preference was information made available to all to correct for this? Were the Google Guidelines vague? Were there two sets of Google Guidelines?
Google can limit spam but did their new algo extend preference to some while at the same time severely penalize others. Free has nothing to do with it. I believe this is Googles’ Achilles’ heel legally. I believe it can be shown as I believed the Looksmart case could be shown.
europeforvisitors - the 'web' is useless with out a way to locate what is there.
Sure. So are the Postal Service and the UPS, if a business is using them as its "trading space." That's why mail-order companies buy ads in magazines and send out catalogs.
Google is as much a shop window as much as it is a library.
Google's corporate mission statement suggests otherwise.
Google doesn't have to provide free coverage for people wanting to get exposure in that space - it just has to index the web. If there are some portions of the web that it does not want to index for free, then Google should state that.
Google does index the Web, including the commercial sites. I'm sure we'll all hear quickly if its indexing policy changes. :-)
Google can limit spam but did their new algo extend preference to some while at the same time severely penalize others. Free has nothing to do with it. I believe this is Googles’ Achilles’ heel legally.
Even if you were a lawyer making that argument (which is highly doubtful), I'd question it because it's based on the illogical assumption that Google knowingly is giving preference to some spammers while penalizing others.
Fact is, no algorithm, perimeter wall, security system, burglar alarm, etc. is 100% reliable. Some bad guys are always going to slip through...and if enough of them keep slipping through the same hole, that hole is likely to be patched eventually.
What an astonishing attitude. Google is doing no one a favor by serving up quality results. Certainly some webmasters and seos have this upside down view of the world, but the fact of the matter is that the root of Google's wealth is delivering quality results to people. Webmasters who create quality content are not being done a favor; Google needs to deliver quality to make its money. And the reverse is also true. Webmasters with quality content needs search engines that value quality content. The public rewards both sides of this equation. This is why PFI engines are a complete disaster. They don't value quality, and they don't deliver it.
The best and most successful webmasters will look at Google as a partner. They need each other and benefit from each others work.
What Google needs to realise is that Google needs SEO's more than the other way round.
It might be argued that optimization is the greatest obstacle to having good results in any of the Search Engines, and that SEO's are the very ones who make the task more difficult. One can hardly point to spammy results as a flaw in Google, which has been done in thousands of posts here recently, when it is SEO techniques that put the spam there in the first place. Those who live by the algo die by the algo.
ADDED: What the hec, as long as I'm on my soapbox...
What the internet, and Google, needs, is sites with unique content that are worth visiting, not 1 good site and 1000 directories/affiliates/portals/etc trying to ride into riches on others original work, by way of dodgy SEO techniques.
Fair enough. Check out [google.com...] which says, among other things, that there are portions of the web that Google doesn't want to index AT ANY PRICE, as well as flatly denying your allegation that individual sites are given preferences.
In view of the fact that the Google ranking algorithms are partly secret and partly complex enough that they might as well be secret so far as most people are concerned, theories involving hand-tweaked preferential treatment, elves, black helicopters, april fool chickens, or bug-eyed monsters really don't serve any rational purpose.
I know that all of these sites want to sell to me. But as I consumer this repetition is not helpful. To me this is G's major weakness. If I want to find statistics, quotes, song lyrics, etc then G is right on. But searching for a *variety* of info on a *product* with G is worthless.
RE: What G has changed this update.
I have 4 sites that I work on. The MOST optimized site went UP in the SERPS for the home page. The 2 LEAST optimized sites have now disapeared in the SERPS (home page only) where they used to be top 10.
All of the sub-pages have moved UP in the SERPS. Strange indeed.
Is there a policy of deliberately producing bad results, or is there a problem with bad data and/or bad filters, etc?
I'm sorry but as an honest guy and as a programmer, I just don't understand why people think poor results are deliberate. In the long term, this could not possibly pay off. I would say there is only one company so low and devious that they would try that and it's not Google.
Google's results may be bad (for some searches) but I'm still confident that their intentions are good. However, they really should announce new algos in advance so that webmasters can test them out (on www2 or whatever) and report problems. And they should deal with cross-linked, spammy duplicate domains by banning them when they are reported. There are some dreadful examples out there.
Besides, I think Joe User's getting underestimated here. Lots of average folks already know enough to at least add "buy" or "store" to their search if they want to buy something. If Google's assuming that someone who types in a single vaguish keyword is probably confused and needs to look at some directories, they may well be right. *shrug*
I quote from their Webmaster Guidelines:
"Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site, which is the best way to ensure you'll be included in Google's results...."
"Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it...."
"Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate...."
Folowing these guidelines will now ensure that your site is wacked way down or out the results for many "commercial" search terms.
I think this is the first time that Google has penalised sites that follow the guidelines and avoid spamming techniques.
Google doesn't have to publish guidelines, but if they do, they should be honest.
This is a fact. It's not about webmasters losing rankings or anything.
It's about surfers being presented with a load of junk which has nothing to do with what they are looking for.
Surfers are being denied sites which offer clean, on-topic content. These are honestly constructed websites and Google's quality is suffering.
It's all part of Google's admirable mission to stop us finding all the really evil things in this world. The worst affected search terms are all to do with porn ... flower delivery,
Don't be hasty! If you suffered from hayfever as badly as I do, I might be grateful that a wellwisher is unable to find a flower deliverer on Google... ;)
Regarding porn - I have enough in my inbox thank you :)
My tests showed a 30-40% rate of sites offering the product for sale when using 'buy', worse than without which is currently approx 60%.
Try typing in "yohimbe" on google and only 3 results come up! (i'm in the uk but using google.com)
try it on yahoo and 240,000 results come up!
Whats happening! This has to be a *mistake*
google basically has many issues - which are inherent in its search engine "system" - it cannot be *expected* to deliver results which are "perfect". They *will* get progressively worse - not better as the system cannot determine what sites are quality content.
New search engine *systems* need to be developed that offer a better standard of search by detecting quality and relevance- i.e. use of semantic ontologys.
Plus, although they cannot be expected to, if users used simple boolean logic (AND, OR, MINUS...) and the correct syntax (i.e. quotes...) to search then poor results would be far less likely.