Community Rank

Has Google leveled the playing field between webmasters and SEO's?

[HayMeadows]

Now that no one can achieve permanent top rankings in days, and cross linking from your own SEO controlled sites has minimal affect, I'd say the playing field IS a lot more level.

Granted, using an SEO is still a no-brainer. Our services pay for themselves many times over in the time it takes a new webmaster to learn the ropes.

But, its still a more level playing field. Your thoughts?

[eZeB]

Nobody getting permanent ranking these days? hmmm... Can't agree with that -- I have a dozen sites where the rank doesn't budge -- maybe 1 up or 1 down very occasionally over the last 6 months. All sites are over 6 months and fairly competitive (2M - 10 Million results).

My theory, and it is just a theory, is the fluctuations up and down are a result of some weakness in one of the main ranking factors -- and once you really get it right the fluctuation stops. I could be mistaken and it could be lots of other things...

[HayMeadows]

Now that no one can achieve permanent top rankings in days.

For domains under one year old.

[suidas]

Bump, and back to the main idea. Has the playing field become more level—is SEO less valuable today? I vote yes. I often find sites that "ought" to do poorly—they aren't doing all the right SEO things—doing quite well, and from a content-perspective justly so.

Others?

[larryhatch]

Offhand, I'd say the G playing field is more level than say 5 years ago. -Larry

[ScottD]

I have competitors who maintain the top spots on all their key words (and mine). This is frustrating and in some cases they bend the rules (duplicate sites for example). But at the end of the day its because they have many many more sites with these kinds of products in that they are so strong, so really it makes sense. So yes, the playing field is more level, because whatever SEO I do they will stay on top, unless I build our actual business to their size - which is not easy. Of course if they weren't any good at SEO it might be a different story.

[prairie]

Google likes to give large and/or old sites an advantage over young sites.

If site age and size is a measure of quality, the odds are stacked against the new, be they spamming or not.

Don't Larry and Sergei remember what it was like to be young and misunderstood? ;)

[HayMeadows]

Anything wrong with this summary?

SEO, Old Site, much more valuable
SEO, New Site, much less valuable

One thing is for sure, the value of a good website and a good SEO has definitely gone up.

[randle]

But, its still a more level playing field.

That’s a good question. It's certainly much more challenging now. Two years ago when you could watch your back links change with complete accuracy and monitor a good representation of your PR with the tool bar, and watch yourself rise in the rankings with each monthly dance things were a heck of a lot easier. Talk about clarity. So in the sense that it’s a challenging environment that doesn't dole out rewards quite so easily I guess the field is more level.

However, everyone who built good quality sites prior to say 18 months ago is disproportionately way ahead of any one just starting a site now. The time needed to get to the top has been stretched considerably.

[prairie]

An older site isn't inherently better than a newer one, but Google doesn't seem to be risking the quality of their shallow range SERPs just so they can show something new.

This is old news of course. At some point (about March last year) it seems the quality seive became extremely fine, "eval.google.com" fine some might say.

The playing field hasn't been leveled until they can more fairly and rapidly discriminate between the crude age of a site and its actual quality.

[suidas]

The age thing is rather amazing. I have a truly wonderful site on well-known mythical creature—gorgeous, deep, content-rich. There are other great sites, but the top entry is a B- college paper written back in the mid 90s. The author didn't even know it was still up and it's number one.

It's a particularly good example in that its not a "money" topic. I can understand that Google doesn't want to reward Viagra sites too quickly, but a no-money informational topic?

[hunderdown]

suidas, if that college paper you mentioned is on a .edu site, that may be a factor too. I've seen similar oddities in my area.

[webdude]

Yep... me too. I have seen .edu and .gov sites get a boost in rank just because of the domain. Try to knock out one of those sites is really an uphill battle. I have a hobby site that has ranked #2 consistently for several years. The #1 site is a .gov. I have never been able to knock that one out. Is fun trying though :-)

[Elixir]

Getting good rankings has become a lot harder and a lot more work has to go into it. You can get ranked with less links but the time and effort making sure they are the right links has tripled you also have to pay for good quality directories. Now can someobdy please tell this to the potential SEO clients out there who think this service should be available for tuppence.

[siteseo]

"The playing field hasn't been leveled until they can more fairly and rapidly discriminate between the crude age of a site and its actual quality."

Finding a full-proof way of doing this is the silver bullet for G right now. No doubts in my mind that they have the best organic results overall, but finding a way to let new, high-quality sites enter the top ranks without allowing quality to slip will be very difficult.

.edu sites are known to get a rankings boost - which is why each institution is only allowed one! I wouldn't worry too much about trying to "oust" a .edu in the #1 spot. If your title tag and page snippit are more in line with what the searcher is looking for, you'll get no worse than 2% fewer clicks than the .edu site, and maybe even MORE clicks.