Forum Moderators: open
I have put in an ENOURMOUS amount of effort to build up my business over the last 2 years and have done everything in my power not to offend the google gods in anyway by following all the basic do's and don'ts that they suggest on their website.
I operate ONE website with enourmous amounts of content, have a good internal linking structure and a decent on-topic reciprocal linking program.
I have for the last year remained on either page one or two for many important keyword searches(occasionally slipping down to page 3 or 4), which is quite acceptable.
BUT BEING BLOWN FROM MANY NUMBER ONE POSITIONS TO NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IS SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE AND UNFAIR.
My business supports over 20 familes around the world and now I really dont know what to tell them now - cos I just dont know anymore!
I am sure that I am just one example of millions in the same position.
How in the world can Google be so cruel?
You may say dont ONLY RELY on google for ALL your traffic and my answer to that is I DONT! I held top ten positions in Altavista, Inktomi and other engines but still 90% of traffic came from Google!
You may also say try PAID ADVERTISING!
Well I am afraid that just aint an option. How does a little guy like myself compete with the giants that are quite obviously throwing money down the drain.
Paying $4 per click when you need 100 clicks for a sale and you only average $20 profit per sale` is LUDICROUS!
Doesnt Google get it!
They need us as much as we need them!
They want quality sites - we build them - but how can they expect us to run businesses where we can be destroyed OVERNIGHT!
As I said before going from page 1 to page 2 or even page 3 is quite acceptable but going from number one positions to page 10 and beyond is extreme and UNJUST! especially where no spam tactics have been employed!
Wishing you all the best of luck with the next UPDATE!
I suppose, the light at the end of the tunnel is that the listings could change as radically this time as they did last time!
The solution is diversify. Search Engines are only one way of bringing in traffic.
It also pays to diversify within your site.
To use an example, I have a "site within a site" that has nearly 500 pages of articles, links, and photo-gallery pages about a destination that we'll call "Springfield." Now, as we all know, there are any number of Springfields, so in the past I've counted myself lucky that my home page came up in the middle of page 1 in a Google search on "Springfield."
In the last Google update, I had a nasty surprise: my home page dropped to the mid-30s in a Google search on the name "Springfield." I was upset at first, but an interesting thing happened: My traffic went up, not down, presumably because many of my nearly 500 inside pages were doing better in Google's SERPs than they were before. In other words, I may not be #1 for "Springfield," but I'm #1, #2, or #3 for keyphrases like "Springfield travel," "Springfield airport bus," "Springfield hostel," and a host of other Springfield-related topics. By having hundreds of inside pages, I get plenty of Google referrals even though my home page has dropped for the single keyword "Springfield."
As to the quality of this new algo, I am seeing some relevance but a lot of it isn't relevant. In my competitive keyword gallery that is. I am not just saying that because my sight dropped in the SERPS. I just don't see the relevance when a 100 page site happens to mention my keyword one time and goes to the #1 position.
I've said it in an earlier post and I will say it again, GoogleSoft is in danger of micro managing itself to death.
Their last algo seems to favor large sites. ie, more content. (Didn't Google Guy give innuendos to concentrate on content?) I am seeing lower pr pages ahead of mine. PR is not what it used to be.
And I never liked DMOZ. The logic of volunteer editors is irrational. It is too easy for your competitor to become an editor in your category and reject your site. It was easier for me to get accepted by LookSmart and Yahoo then DMOZ. As if DMOZ is any better, the Fifth Avenue/Park Place of search directories. I don't think so.
I read about people getting PR drops, banned, etc. for "no reason" and meanwhile, one of my competitor's has 600 keyword stuffed doorway pages cloaked and redirecting to his main site that sells a totally bogus product he could go to jail for. When I see him and then read about how guys on here are worried about one link from a possible link farm that may or may not punish you, I have to shake my head.
In the past, when I wasn't using Google, I looked on Yahoo. I liked variety and wanted to see what other se's came up with. Since Yahoo and Google are now illicit lovers, I go to another se. Places like Ixquick which gives faster, more relevant results than I am seeing coming out of Google now. Sorry, but it is true. Argue all you want but a 100 page site that is #1 one because he mentions blue widgets once doesnt mean he's relevant.
>>But I really do think that the Web business is extremely fast and cruel to many.<<
Well said ChiyoThat would include the failed SEs of yore.
Absolutely agreed john316. Its not only SEO's among the thousands that have had their fortunes of livelihoods kicked in by the dot com crash, and the always risky business of working in a new nascent business area. Run into any barman in a down market bar in LA/SF he is more likely to have been a previous owner of a dot com!
However if you are referring to AV as "the failed SEO of yore" I would have to disagree. Their demise was due in a major degree to bad miscalculation on the benefits of portalization rather than falling into disrepute with a group of webmasters.
Some ideas...
1. Let your site visitors know of alternative search engines. Use their search boxes on your site.
2. Support other search engines financially by paying for listings.
3. Start your own search engine.
Let's have some positive suggestions rather than complaints!
The fact is Google is dominating the market because they clearly had a better strategy (and a bold and unique one) in previous years. Their service and product is (at least perceived to be) better. It's the reality and it has to be worked within.
That said, when Y! adds new partners to their default search, Google would have LESS influence on Y! SERPS than before the change, as i doubt the old Web Pages yahoo-google will be reinstated. So the current situation may well be temporary.
I personally think we need some serious competition to step in and knock google wayyyyyyy back down! They are to big and to powerful and personally they need to go back to their place. I dont think they should be powering as many engines as they do at all! Its nerve racking and extremly not fair. The internet is a huge place, we dont need one key player to be controlling most of it.. and trust me google is getting bigger and they have plans to start sucking up everyones money..dont think for one second they dont.
We REALLY need to knock google back to its place and get some more key players coming in here... MSN personally is doing more and more for me everyday... I will NEVER pay someone for results... I dropped google ads after a day and now they emailed me free credits.. I still wont do it.. sorry! I despise the likes of LS because of the pure greed that drove them and backstabbed everyone.. Do you not think google will do the same? Business is business as they say... so we need to get more keyplayers in the internet world quickly!
Personally.. I dont have alot of free time at this point but if anyone is working on anything...let me know
I spent 15 minutes reading some of the discussions over there and it occured to me that some of those people were the ones that would not be put out of business by algo changes. The may be hurt, but they wouldn't be killed.
If you are on page 10, see if there are any sites on page 1 that you can get on. You might be able to improve your traffic by giving content to another website with a link bak to your's. Write an article, submit a recipe, participate in discussions.
Do something different than your competitors. If you run a travel site about "Springfield", submit a recipe that the town is famous for, like "Springfield rhubarb pie" to some of the recipe sites that allow you to include a link to your site. Write an article to submit to food sites or food related travel sites about the "Springfield Rhubarb Pie Festival" with your URL in your contact information as a place to go to get more information on Springfield. And some of these intelligent links might surprise you in the amount of traffic that they generate.
Instead of complaining that some local business ranks higher than you for "Springfield" try and work out some exclusive reciprocal links with those local businesses. Billy Joe's Rhubarb Pie Restaurant may Like the idea of having your put an article on our site about his place as a popular tourist destination. Sponsor a picnic in town so that at least for a few months of the year, you are on the official town page and on the chamber of commerce page.
Can you arrange Rhubarb Pie bus tours for Senior Citizens groups that go through the fields, factories and restaurants? Then you will end up getting links from those sites for a few months too.
The worst case is that you might find yourself improving your PR and your search results. Best case, you will be surprised by how much traffic a single link can generate.
I am now up to 3 links that each generate more traffic than google. Do I care about Google results? Yes. Do I depend on them? No.
It's just a theory.
They are a "business" and have the right to make money.
Most of us are on this board right now for one reason. It's about the money. The money is everything.
Don't ever think Google's priority is not money. Search quality this and algo that, but money is money.
Who benefitted the most after that last algo? The web-sites now on top? What makes them better? It's argumentative. Is the "search quality" any better? Everyone/users (not just those on top) thought it was great before, why change it?
IF it is reported later that AdWord revenues are up, then there is only one clear beneficiary after the last algo change.
Nothing like this (algo change) happens without a reason. And profits are the most logical reason.
IMHO
So lets all get to the facts .... we are not the search engines friends, but rather a necessary evil in the game plan. Without websites, there would be no search engines. Without a way for websites to make money, there would be few websites. Without a way for search engines to make money, there would be no search engines. Websites try to make money from the search engine searchers. Search engines also try to make money from the searchers, and also from the websites, and don't want the websites dipping into the searchers' pockets' they covet. So it's all a vicious symbiotic relationship, and it's not a win-win one. Until and unless the relationship evolves into a truly win-win one, the relationship will be a strained one.
</soapbox oracle>
If they intentionally screw up their results in a specific area, they will lose traffic in that area, which will lead to fewer pages with ads which will generate less income.
By the way, I am not here for the money. And I believe that most of the technical staff at google are in it for their ego, not for the money. Having the best possible search engine is a HUGE ego issue for them, it is what defines them.
After (if) you live through your 2nd or 3rd "Black Monday" you tend to get things sorted out --or, to be more correct, they're sorted out for you.
I wouldn't consider my SE-dependent business stable beyond 60 days.
Who benefitted the most after that last algo? The web-sites now on top? What makes them better? It's argumentative. Is the "search quality" any better? Everyone/users (not just those on top) thought it was great before, why change it?
Why change it? That's easy: Search results have become cluttered with affiliate pages created by entrepreneurs and SEOs who think nothing of buying hundreds of domains and exploiting every weakness they can find in Google's algorithm.
Until a month ago, a search on "(a certain European city) travel" had three versions of the same site on page 1 of the Google SERP. This month, only one of those three identical sites is on page 1. The other two have either moved way down in the listings or out of the index altogether. For the user, that represents a clear-cut improvement in search quality. It may not be good for the owner of those mirror sites, but so what? Google's mission is to serve people who conduct searches, not people who try to exploit its algorithm.
Possibly. But Ego doesn't pay the bills. And they got 400 people to support.
True. But their true hackers don't care. they can work anywhere.
Can Google screw up? Certainly.
Was this last algo change a way to raise income? Possible, but I seriously doubt it.
Will there be a much bigger risk if Google goes public? Most definitaly.
The search engine hackers will not be able to control the company as well.
The problem is projecting our goals on everyone else. And let's face it, your average SEO will have more luck relating to a used car salesman and harvard MBAs than a CS/Math/Physics/stats PhD hackers. Ego is far more important to them than the money.
I am convinced that if they sell out they will start losing their core developers quickly, and you WILL hear about it. I have worked at one place where the entire engineering deparment submitted resignations because the sales and marketing people did something that all the engineers considered unethical. It would have made us rich, but it was wrong.
Google is in the advertising business.
From Google Chairman and Chief Executive Eric Schmidt:
"It's important the advertising model doesn't scare the user."
Full Article [internetnews.com]
Google is simply an advertising model that uses "search" to attract eyeballs (without scaring anyone).
If you think serp/algo decisions are made without regard to the core product (advertising), you may have a pair of rose colored glasses on.
Those on top have good, quality sites, lots of content, - I can't say there is anything wrong with them. Can't say there was anything wrong with mine either. No SEO, just search engine friendly pages. No bells and whistles or eye candy. They weren't "sexy," more like the girl next door.
But speaking for my category/topic area, I don't see an improvement in the search quality. If anything, it is less.
Maybe they can continue to tweak their algo to make it better.
And my "money theory" may be way off, but it's just a theory. When all the other SE's are struggling to make money, we can't assume that Google is rolling in dough (private company so who knows). I am just throwing out food for thought that has some logic. Money is always a motivating factor.
And I can respect Sasquatch's opinion. One of the more intelligent users on here.
If you think serp/algo decisions are made without regard to the core product (advertising), you may have a pair of rose colored glasses on.
I think they go well with my hair and skin tone;)
What I am saying is that having good, honest search results *IS* a decision made to *HELP* keep advertising revenues high.
Google IS profitable. The reason they are profitable IS because of their reputation for good results. If they lose that reputation, they lose the eyes, and they lose the revenue.
I personally think Google could instantly start making much more on advertising by showing pop-ups/pop-unders everywhere... but that revenue will be short lived. Google has shown so far they are not going down that path ...
recent changes increasing the revenues?. I seriously doubt it .. I have not seen any changes in 1000s of adgroups over the last month!
No, not a mirror, duplicate, etc. Sell a different product. Not viagra, diet pills, etc... Find a smaller niche market that will get you free, STEADY (or should I say steadier) traffic. It may not be 10,000 visitors a day, but hey, it will pay the bills while your main site fluctuates.
For the guy who started this thead... seems like you were doing well for yourself feeding 20 families with your online business... why didn't you use some of those funds to start something else, or make something OFFLINE brick and mortar?
1. Let your site visitors know of alternative search engines. Use their search boxes on your site.
2. Support other search engines financially by paying for listings.
3. Start your own search engine."
Well said chiyo. I don't think we have to be passive observers on the Internet.
Building on the above:
1. Personally recommend a search engine or directory on your site with a prominant link.
2. Personally recommend a SE or directory in your newsletter.
3. Put up an information page explaining your concerns, worries and fears and asking other webmasters to do the same.
4. *Use* another SE as your default for your own use. Other webmasters will see that SE in their logs.
I suspect that if enough webmasters do it for long enough it will have an effect.
Let's have some positive suggestions rather than complaints!
Target keyphrases in Google that produce 1 or 2 uniques per day.
First, it's relatively easy to get top ranked positions.
Second, not a big mother loss when things changes (I was #1, now I'm on page 10, no biggy since it only produced 2 a day).
Third, these also tend to be ten times more targeted than something that produces 10,000 a day with 99% completely irrelevant traffic.
Fourth, a single web page can capture around ten different top ranked keyphrase positions by itself, reflecting 20 uniques per page x 100 page site = 2,000 highly targeted visitors.
My top grossing keyphrase is about 80 per day (ranked position 26) page 3, and I won't loss any sleep over it nor attempt to blame Google when it goes bust... the simple fact is, it likely won't since I never ever targeted this keyphrase, because of... too much competition.
However, at the same time a theme grew around this keyphrase by targeting many variations of the same phrase (adding an extra word to it and targeting individual pages in and around, over and under, and about... and slowly the adjacent pages creeped up. (If I'm getting 80 at ranked position 26, gotta wonder what page 1 results over-turns.
Again, this phrase "does not matter" since about 6,000 x 1 - 2, and 22,000+ a few a month produces a lot more than just 80.
There is nothing wrong with Google dominating the search engine markets, (people chose them, not the other way around) This is where your markets are, on-line - a simple truth.
IMHO a business that relies solely on web site traffic isn't the problem either, the greatest problem is that many target too few keyphrase, and these tend to be so competitive (with high traffic) that when somethings changes they blame Google for their misfortune.
How much blaming would need if losing 1 - 2 uniques a day if you're still generating 10,000 a day.
This isn't any difference in off-line marketing either (with the exception that it can cost alot more. Placing a very small ad in a general mass market distribution network. You get millions of eyes and can even produce a good conversion - but market conditions change, rapidly and sometimes dramatically (Sept 11 was a travel and destination tourism killer) - if this is your only marketing strategy - you lose.
Fathom
I see some suggestions of putting a search box on your sites. Well that can look tacky on an ecommerce site so why not put a link to another search engine instead? People see it and if enough do it, things will happen.
Any other ideas? Sorry.. I like google, google is my friend as of today..but I certainly see them being my enemy down the road unless we keep them from taking over 100% instead of 70%.
just in case the GoogleWrath (or omission from the index)
This reminds me of something I've been wanting to ask. Why is it that so many webmasters will place all of their sites with one hosting company?
Yeah, you might get some sort of quantity discount, but what if they go down during the crawl? if you are going to diversify to protect yourself, you need to truely diversify. Different host, different IP, different backbone, different domain, different content and different product category.
I didn't choose for Yahoo to use Google web results. I didn't choose AOL to use Google results.
When I wanted Yahoo results, I went there. When I wanted text-word matching, I went to Google.
People are talking about diversifying. I was diversified in my research. Still am. But I am not using Yahoogle. Sure, I could click on Yahoo directory, but I won't anymore. They ripped off a lot of people when they went to primary Google results. Smacks of a LookSmart betrayal. Read the Yahoo posts and see how many are not going to renew their listing.
Those who think Google won't bury them one day are playing a dangerous game. More relevant results? I don't see it. If this algo is to be any better, it still needs work. People here worried about one bad link from a link farm and I know a firm that uses 600 keyword stuffed cloaked/redirects and nothing happens. Where is the superior algo and justice in that? He's got dozens of MIRROR domains. They haven't caught up to him yet despite my periodic spam reports.
[edited by: radiosky at 8:16 pm (utc) on Oct. 26, 2002]
[webmasterworld.com...]
I didn't choose for Yahoo to use Google web results. I didn't choose AOL to use Google results.
Although I do see your point, Yahoo and AOL can't survive based only on a few.
The general trend... users are leaving these others engines/directories for Google.
Turn the table around. If you had a loyal client base and they started moving and becoming loyal to a direct competitor, at what lengths would you go to save your business? To ensure your survival.
Just let it happen?
