Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
We need to keep this thread focused on the followings:
- Changes on your own site ranking on the serps (lost & gained positions or disappearance of the site).
- Changes you have noticed on the new serps (both google.com and your local google site) especially in regards to the nature of the top 10 or 20 ranking sites.
- Stability of the serps. I.e do you get the same serps when you run the same query within the same day or 2-3 successive days (both google.com and your local google site).
- Effective ethical measures to deal with the above mentioned changes.
Thanks.
I think what we should hope for, is for the G employees that are/were/are/were responsible for our sites getting trashed to find themselves in our EXACT predicament (loosing their jobs, loosing their businesses)
I've said it before and I'll say it again....if your "business" lives or dies based on the free traffic you get from google, then you don't really have a business.
Too harsh a critique of a hurt biz IMHO. I'm always amazed by how many at WebmasterWorld do not seem to think Google has MUCH MORE of an obligation to address deficiencies in their ranking processes. With dominance comes an increasing obligation to the online community.
I rarely see it noted that Google success comes from the existence of content created by the people here. The idea that it's a unilateral relationship, where content people work and then worship Google for sending us visitors, is questionable to say the least.
I've seen this on Yahoo for a long time, but have never noticed it at Google until today. Is there a chance that I might have missed something, or is it that Google is presenting query results differently than before?
And at present, Google only accounts for 12% of our overall monitary income.
I'd be really interested to hear the different ways you get site visitors. I know I need to start thinking out of the box on this.
Here are some of my non search engine sources.
1) Newsletter brings people back to read new articles.
2) The usual related incoming links
3) Guilds for the craft I write on aften ask if they can print one of my articels in their newsletter. Of course I ask them to include my URL. Perhaps I should mention on my site that they are welcome to use my article as long as they contact me first. (this is all paper and print so no dup problem)
4) I tried AdWords but didn't do very well with it. I need to go at it differently before I try again.
I need more ideas and I'm sure others do as well. I wonder about advertising in a magazine on my topic.
Lets throw out some ideas on how to be less dependent on one search engine.
I truely think you have a mental problem. You-all keep repeating this same gibberish as though it means something to someone other than yourselves.
Maybe you can just post a sticky on your computers so that you think you've said it.
Think of it:
1. Google may have databases of Tb size spread
around the world. Indexed (and archieved) pages.
2. You may have a very efficient DBMS to
synchronize / replicate these databases.
I think the central datacenter lies in the middle, and the other spread (more or less circular) around that center.
This may have happened before, and is perhaps (most probably) happening constantly. But this may be the first time it get this amount of attention.
Do you remember my previous post:
1.Set up a lot of small AD-sites that gets
new customers?
2.Make an extranet for your existing customers?
No problem with hijacking, copying etc. etc.
If it give you ROI, try to get an ADsite near every datacenter in the world.
The reason that other searchengines cannot compete with Google is not algorithms, but hardware.
In addition:
"Becoming an ISP would also make Google a global telecommunications provider. With the expected rise in VOIP applications, owning bandwidth is going to be tremendously important, much like ownership of telephone or cable lines is today".
Did anyone note this heading some months ago?
What are some of you fighting for with these words, that have only one effect, GoogleGuy sees this as a more and more unserious forum, even if it is about, free ranking, free ad and money.
Do you want a static web? The web is increasing exponetially, and the higher and higher you come on that curve, the more problems for the most effective searchengine in the world. I have had mine problems with Google, perhaps more than a lot of you. I am not working for Google, but be serious and use your energi on getting a better business.
WebFusion 6:11 pm on June 17, 2 wrote:
“Make your traffic multi-dimensional, and you'll be able to sleep at night.”
Exactly! That is the problem in a nutshell.
KBleivik
It is too early to know the future.
[edited by: kgun at 8:32 pm (utc) on June 17, 2005]
www.domain.com/page.asp?id=12%some%rubbish
If you have dynamic URL's go test em for numbers and alpha numeric and make em 404.
So much unintentional duplicate content on my site what with my test url (domain Alias) accidentally getting spidered (but no inbound link to the test URL I can see!).
>Lets throw out some ideas on how to be less dependent on one search engine.<
- Promote the other search engines and directories (than Google) which are already sending you traffic.
You shall not sell snow to the eskimos, that is financial information to the Americans. For that reason, I have bought Ad words by Mamma.com.
1. Ad Words.
They were very cooperative and of my four words, they accepted one. That gives credibility, and credibility is what this is about for everybody. Do you remember Big Blue and OS/II? The market wanted Windows. But there are a market for Linux. The same today, the market wants / uses Google.
2. Excluded America, since you shall not sell snow
to the eskimos. Reduces the click throug rate and expenses. I am patient.
3. Hard mapping of keywords, that is the same as exact search.
My business is in a startup phase. Too early to know the effect. Tried to participate in Google Ad Sense, but very difficult, and they prefer sites with heavy traffic.
I think Ezines, writing articles for Digital Ad Magazines, writing on Message Boards, reciprocal linking with companies in a business related to yours, submitting to regional searchengines etc. etc. is important.
Yes Google is important, and try to dezipher their alogo. There may be correlation between what Google likes in the future and a "good site."
Most important: "Build your digital brand."
Credibility comes as a snail and disappears at lightening speed.
KBleivik
Rome was not built in one day.
P.S. I bought SIMULA for OS/2. That means that I today does not have access to the most pedagogic (nearly selfdocumented) OOP language in the world. It is still used at the University of Oslo as an introduction to OOP.
The "free traffic" that publishers depend on is the traffic of millions of Americans who use utilties such as G to find web content.
That "free traffic" existed before G did. It will exist long after G becomes another Netscape, smashed under the feet of MS.
Human beings use search engines to find things, that's a fact of life, and just because (broken) G still has the most market share right now doesn't make it crazy to rely on SE traffic.
I have never paid for traffic in my life, and my business model works quite well, thank you very much! It even works now that I get almost no G traffic. Cuz there are other SEs in the sea...but it's all "free traffic." So much the better, in my opinion.
Oh, and I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Google must be crazy to depend on all those free websites they index. Google ought to go out and get a job, the freeloaders...
Final note: I don't even care about G anymore. I'm just posting this message to express solidarity with my brothers and sisters in the web publishing game. There IS life (and free traffic) after Google. Up the rebels!
Additional Final Note: I actually agree with the ideas expressed in your post, it just sounded a little harsh.
However, it [a class action suit] would generate a lot of negative publicity which would certainly get everyone's attention.
Unlikely. How many people outside AOL are aware of the AOL volunteers vs. AOL suit? How many people outside About.com are aware of Levinson et al. v. Primedia et al. (a lawsuit by nearly 100 former About.com "guides")? For that matter, how many members of the general public have heard of the most important writers' lawsuit in living memory (in which the Supreme Court ruled for the writers), Tasini v. The New York Times?
Just as important, attorneys don't take class-action suits on a contingency basis unless they think they can win or reach a satisfactory settlement. I doubt if they'd regard a desire to "generate a lot of negative publicity" as sufficient grounds for investing time and money in a lawsuit.
IMHO, trash talk isn't a viable strategy for "dealing with the consequences of Bourbon Update."
This is like saying "if your business relies upon electric power in your office to power the computers and manufacturing machinery then you don't deserve to have a business at all since storms could come and power grids may fail..."
The issue is, if there WAS NO GOOGLE AT ALL, we would all be better off... because then ALL the searchers would be forced to go somewhere else where webmasters AND searchers can get better treatment. Google doesn't OWN searchers, they will still be there with or without G. But since it DOES exist AND we're all STUCK with it, AND it is nearly a monopoly (or at least admittedly commands a major majority of the search traffic) it therefore affects everyone whether we want it to, and whether YOU OR THEY want to admit it, or not.
As Joeduck alluded, and to quote a famous phrase "with great power comes great responsibility". Google CONTROLS a majority of the world's search ability. World leaders do their best to make sure irresponsible madmen aren't running around with nukes dangerous enough to wipe out thousands of businesses in one fell swoop (sound familiar?). Nor do they view favorably people who write and distribute computer viruses which affect the operation of thousands of computers and businesses. So yes, perhaps we should compare G's irresponsible damaging of their own results, which are forced upon the public, akin to an incompetent or malevolent supervisor at a nuclear power plant who endangers others in the plant and crashes a regional power grid with the turn of a dial.
[edited by: MikeNoLastName at 10:15 pm (utc) on June 17, 2005]
Google Bot verses real people
Adam Smith is even now knotting his Invisible Hand into a gigantic Invisible Fist which will smash Google flatter than AltaVista.
Google has become totally capricious. Nobody likes a capricious search engine.
Publishers don't like it and searchers don't like it and it makes the Invisible Bludgeoning Fist of the Free Market get all tingley with blood lust.
This is starting to get silly, guys. If searchers don't like Google's results, they can use Yahoo instead. If they do like Google's results, then they have the right to use Google whether you think it sucks or not. The public isn't being FORCED to use Google, they're CHOOSING to use Google. You can't stop them from doing that. Let's have some perspective here.
If the search results are bad enough that the searcher doesn't see any business he wants to patronize in the Google SERPs, he'll get frustrated and have to find a business using some other method (Yahoo, an ad, the Yellow Pages, etc,) same as he would have if there was no Google (except that he'll have wasted time with Google first and probably be annoyed with them about it.) BUT if the search results are good enough that the searcher can find a business quickly and it just doesn't happen to be YOURS, then you can't just interfere with the searcher's desires to use Google and patronize your competition. Come on!
I have watched one search phrase climb from 8 million results in the Summer of 2003 to 18 million results in late 2004. Just a few days before Google announced that their index had increased to 8 billion pages the search phrase jumped to 40 million results. However what has happened after that is even more interesting. A month or so later it jumped to 60 million, then 80 million, and then carried on climbing to 140 million, where it has stayed for 3 months or so.
A few days ago it suddenly dropped back to 37 million, just as it was last Autumn.
This is the wierd bit. For a few days it reported 37 million if you did a normal search, but then reported 140 million if you did a search with &num=100&filter=0 on the end of the Google search URL.
Coincidence? I think not! I think somebody's trying to take advantage of all us webmasters being so disgruntled with Bourbon, Google, etc.
Also, to stay on subject, I might as well mention that while I'm now coming up on page one when you search on my site's name (still behind a spam page, grr!), my traffic has not improved, I'm getting about the same amount of traffic I have been since Bourbon (down 80+% from what I had before). Maybe getting a couple hits here and there from a couple new search terms but not much else.
You know what? I'm gonna take a few more outside-of-Google stabs at breathing life into this site, but if it doesn't start monetizing again, I'm outta there. I just can't afford the time, no matter how much effort and sweat I put into it previously. I don't know what I'll do to replace that income. Beg, maybe? I'm afraid I don't have a lot of stuff to sell (I've never been a collector of stuff). Who knows? :-(
Silly connections? You obviously have not heard of Kim Jung Googil.
Edited for seriously truncated bloviation
I have been lurking in this Bourbon thread for weeks now. Just a few thoughts to put out here and comment on how pathetic the situation with Goggle really is. Consider the lost income and productivity of the thousand of good sites affected by Googles actions.
Please understand that I truly sympathize with all those who were hurt by this and other updates, but simply put, the best thing you can do to help yourselves is to FORGET GOOGLE and get on with another plan. I got trashed by Florida, on many of my sites (travel related) Since then I have decided the best way to deal with Google is to simply ignore their whims about what a "good site is" and build my brands in other ways. That is not to say that I do not use Google to promote my sites, I do, the difference now is that I use them to promote scraper sites and other blackhat solutions to bleed their traffic. For this endeavor, they graciously reward me with first rate serp positions on my bleeder sites, while at the same time burying my (white hat) travel related sites on page 50. Go figure! Well if you can't beat them I figure it best to join them! IT WORKS
They (Google) are enabling their own downfall. The plain fact is Google does not have a clue of what a good site is or what many users really want. Witness the many fine reputable sites that have been trashed in the past 2 years due to their constant algo tweaking. What is left now of their once great search engine, is the trash that they have enabled with their adsense and adwords program. They are addicted to the revenue and if you think for one moment they give a damn about web publishers or great search results, I suggest you really take a cold hard look at the facts. Many great sites have been destroyed, or are buried near the bottom of the serps, and many have gone out business. It's about the BUCKS.
Any site (majors excluded) that can pull traffic away from Googles earning stream is "de-moted" PERIOD
The real secret to their algo. Try this one on. It's just a wild guess but with the crap they are serving up in my opinion I'll bet the algo goes something like this. I'll bet they are simply monitoring a pre-determined spreadsheet of daily Adword and Adsense earnings. Twist the nob a little each day and whatever increases the revenue is the soup de jour for the moment. That it folks! Search Engine 101
To all those who have not been trashed by Google, enjoy it now while it lasts. You can bet that when their revenue begins to decline, and it will as others build up their engines, you will be rewarded with lower serps while the scrappers with adsense and adwords got top billing.
From the track record over the past 2 years, It only a mater of time, the writing is already on the wall.
I now receive (collectively) more traffic from Goggle than I did before Florida, it really was simple to accomplish this, I just had to lower my ethical standards to meet theirs. And the clicks just keep on rolling in.
Make a plan and go with it.
Yahoo has come out with a site search just like G's
I hope I don't get spanked for putting the url here:
[search.yahoo.com...]
Convert one visitor at a time :)
If you walk down the street and ask the average, non-webdeveloper/programmer person to name three internet search engines I will bet you they can't name more than the one they use day in and day out. And I'll further bet you (based on our past stats) 3 out of 5 say G rather than Y or MSN (and only 1 of 5 says MSN and 1 of 5 says Y). I've never heard anyone say on TV "I Yahoo'd it on the internet".
>>You said: "If the search results are bad enough that the searcher doesn't see any business he wants to patronize in the Google SERPs, he'll get frustrated and have to find a business using some other method (Yahoo, an ad, the Yellow Pages, etc,) same as he would have if there was no Google"
As most people know, people are creatures of habit. I bet even YOU will try a different search term or maybe even search offline before you switch to a different search engine if you don't find what you want in the first few pages of results. Or, if you have as much confidence in G's results as it sounds you do, you'll probably just assume that what you want simply doesn't exist rather than dig down 40 pages in the results! If you think about it, that is a LOT of power for one company to wield when it comes to influencing purchasing habits.
>>You said: "BUT if the search results are good enough that the searcher can find a business quickly and it just doesn't happen to be YOURS, then you can't just interfere with the searcher's desires to use Google and patronize your competition."
Of course not, that's not my point at all. I'm arguing that for at least the last 3 weeks the results have been such that users COULD NOT find much of anything of use but scrapers and sites which were OTHER THAN EXACT matches. You have to admit when uniquely named companies don't even show up until page 10 for their OWN names, for weeks on end, there is something seriously wrong! That is where I draw the line of community responsibility. Telling a searcher who looks for my company name that "no reference exists for that search term" when indeed G USED to know it did exist is downright lying! Concealing it way down on page 10 is only one step removed from lying! Such playing around and testing as they've been doing for 3+ weeks now should occur OFFLINE not at the expense of the public and stress of webmasters. You don't see car manufaturers making their consumers safety test-drive cars, or most software publishers making corporate officers waste their time testing software by releasing it full of bugs (unless their name starts with Mic and ends in soft). Can you imagine the liability a tax software would face if all their users were penalized for sending in their income taxes calculated at 50% because of software that wasn't "fully developed" yet?
My whole point is a company like G who has earned the respect, trust and expectation from the worldwide public of accurate and reliable results should be just as OBLIGATED to produce consistent and reliable results as the headache medicine manufacturer has to provide uncontaminated medicine that won't kill you.
I could not get through the scraper sites to find him.
I had to go to the telephone book to find his number (and I got a paper cut, can I sue G for that?).
As we say in the government... 'It's good enough for Google work'
But no matter HOW bad the Google SERPs may get, they're still not being "forced" upon anyone. It isn't a monopoly if 3 out of 5 websurfers automatically think of Google first when you say "search engine." 3 out of 5 Americans probably think of Kleenex first when you say "tissues," but that doesn't make Kleenex a monopoly, it just makes it a company with very strong brand recognition. If Kleenex started putting out nothing but pink tissues with purple flowers on it tomorrow, the aesthetically offended could still buy Puffs. The glitchy results of this update weren't forced upon anyone who didn't want to keep using it.
And they didn't destroy Internet commerce. Stuff still got bought and sold just the same no matter which business Google returned as its first relevant hit.
And for Pete's sake, they were nothing at ALL like blowing up nuclear power plants and unleashing radioactive dinosaurs on the helpless population. What were you SMOKING last night? :-D
HOLY JAMOLI!
I tried a few oddities and it was ringing up stuff from 2002 which I forgot I wrote. Blogger stuff in lost archives, pages I forgot about, articles written in a perl news program, closed auctions... I was impressed.
One drawback: once you get to the results page in site search, you lose that option. You can only search the web from any site search results page.
Otherwise, talk about a deep crawl and highly relevant results!
When I hear the word toilet paper I think of google.
A birdy told me today that G will be doing another deep crawl very very soon.
Maybe this will be a finishing touch before the 21st.
Right! no nuclear explosions or anything like that..
More like a big stinker in church and everyone throws up.
I truely think you have a mental problem. You-all keep repeating this same gibberish as though it means something to someone other than yourselves.
Well...Mr Wizard, since this thread is labled "dealing with the consequences of Bourban Update", it seems relevant enough to me. However, I do agree that it largely falls on deaf ears, as I see many of the same people whining update after update about google "doing them in". Perhaps if they would take some of the perfectly sensible advice (i.e. diversify away from google) they could also be spending the weekend jet skiing as opposed to trying every little "tweak" to get back in google's "good graces".
Human beings use search engines to find things, that's a fact of life, and just because (broken) G still has the most market share right now doesn't make it crazy to rely on SE traffic.
Hate to break it to you, but over 40% of the 10k+ visitors per day to our main ecommerce site find us through links from other sites, press releases, articles, etc. etc. Our actual stats show less than 35% of our overall traffic is search engine generated (and yes,w e are ranked very well in all the engines).
While my comments may have sounded a bit harsh, they are none the less true. Spending days (or even weeks) monitoring every google datacenter, tweaking this and that, and generally praying that you maintain your high ranking is a fools errand. I wish no one here financial hardship, but also wish that many who seem to fail to learn from past experiences the fickle nature of search engine traffic would collectively "wake up" and realize that they will never attain stability until they are not dependdent on any one source of traffic that is entirely out of their control.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again....if your "business" lives or dies based on the free traffic you get from google, then you don't really have a business."'This is like saying "if your business relies upon electric power in your office to power the computers and manufacturing machinery then you don't deserve to have a business at all since storms could come and power grids may fail..."
It simply astounds me how much power you willing give to google. Our site was in the "sand box" for just over a year....and yet, we were still turning a tidy profit. The analogy that only google can "power" a successful online business...WHAT A LOAD.
Know your market. Know your audience. And put your site in front of them. AND YES, that can be done WITHOUT google. Google's a great bonus, no doubt about it. It has added a good deal to our sales this year. BUT...there's not a single search engine on the planet that can "make or break" my business. Build a brand, build a following, build a community....and you have a self-sustaining business that BENEFITS from, but no longer NEEDS the engines.
But...I can see why most people cannot see how this can be done...because it requires WORK.
Oh....and to the genius who considers the problems google is having dealing with all the spam as a "lowering of their ethics" - get real. While I agree their product's quality (i.e. search) has degraded significantly, I have to put the blame squarely where it lies - with the spamming scumbags clogging up the serps with crap. Congratulations on becoming part of the problem.
But us woodland creatures aren't lawyers nor do we have any clues.
Trawler did make an interesting post, as did flicker.
Now about the several hundred million dollar shift in income streams because of the long updates. I wonder what the economic dislocations will be as a result of that?
Just lumbering through folks looking for new things to look at, so ignore me and carry on.
