Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Of course your prediction would be more useful if you actually could prove that there was an increase in adwords revenuue directly tied to algo changes.
"it quacks" ..n'est ce pas ;)..donc?
Interesting comments.
I can not speak too much for PPC as we have someone who only does that, but I still see the cost and revenue from that ppc work daily and because I took such a large hit in natural rankings since jagger1 and 2, the ppc side has most definatley increased because the natural rank is no longer ther.
I feel a bit like a rat, but then, he was really pushing the envelope.
I just reported two sites (but forgot to include my nic). I also feel bad, quite frankly these sites make sense for the query, however, they are using spamming techniques.
One site was using hidden text, while the other was just chock full of keyphrases at the bottom of the page. Niether of these sites even needed to use these techniques, but they're not playing fair. They are ranking for other terms because of this technique.
As others have noted, some sites go up, others go down. Just shuffling the rankings don't necessarily mean an increase in adwords. It could just as equally mean a decrease.
That's the big question. I could imagine that AdWords revenue goes up...
1) ...if end consumers are not satisfied with results found on page #1 (like, "heck, I'll just click the links at the right side - at least this looks relevant to my search")
2) ...if quality sites that relied on their "free traffic" supplied by organic SERPs suddenly realize that they better advertise using AdWords to get traffic
But this is a very short-sighted and dangerous path for Google. Both end consumers ("can't find what I want"), publishers ("I can't afford ads") and advertisers ("It's getting too expensive") might turn to Y! or MSN.
Then again, the pressure to provide growth in revenue and (more important) profit must be HUGE at the Plex.
[edited by: mzanzig at 2:18 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
The site is a bit ridiculous in their techniques - very 1999 SEO, surprised Goog hasn't found it on their own...white/hidden links and keyword stuffing...
As previously said ..read the quarterly earnings ( G gets its money from adwords )reports..see how they correlate to algo changes /updates ..since the IPO ..
By you reasoning then....if sites that go down in rankings suddenly decided to spend more on adwords, wouldn't sites that rise spend less?
Or do you assume that those gaining rankings will continue to spend, so eventually all sites are paying for their traffic?
This is far from over folks. We've also had a large, old (circa 1998 - my first site actually) content-only site (adsense added less than 9 months ago just for kicks) that had been sitting with hundreds of top 5 positions take a nose dive in favor of ebay/amazon/dealtime/epinions and other major players, but I don't think that will last (unless google is shifting to favoring major commercial players over informational sites). I've been on "vacation" since this started, and it looks like I'll get another week before anyone can draw any concrete conclusions.
As previously said ..read the quarterly earnings ( G gets its money from adwords )reports..see how they correlate to algo changes /updates ..since the IPO .."it quacks" ..n'est ce pas ;)..donc?
Some very primitive logic there.. I imagine that as Google has indexed more pages their revenue has gone up. I also believe that as they have added more employees their revenue has gone up... As far as that concerned, I could draw a correlation between Google's purchase and consumption of staples and their revenues.
Sure their adwords revenues are going up... their business is growing at a fantastic rate. To demonstrate a connection like the one suggested you would actually have to show that the people who got dropped spent less on adwords than those who got to stay, and that those who got dropped then increased adwords revenues in order to contribute to Google's growth. Short of that it is just wild-haired speculation with no foundation.
Right now you are labeling anything with wings a duck.
Or do you assume that those gaining rankings will continue to spend, so eventually all sites are paying for their traffic?
Taken as a whole...meaning if one regards many, many different areas of the serps ..that has indeed been the trend over the last two years..
If you want to be consistantly at the top of areas in which there is adwords money spent ..you must be prepared to join in the spend ..or accept periodic wild fluctuations in your hit rate and thus your earnings ..
So as good Pavlovian Dogs ( or maybe a better simili would be addicts if ones income depends entirely on the internet serps like many adsense publishers ..once hooked )..One is trained to buy the oppertunity to access the traffic pages ..or one is forced to spend the money on valium ..
They aren't the only "traffic for sale" outfit out there ..but they may have done the best job in convincing some that if you even say that it is so that they will somehow penalise you ...
whence I presume cometh the plethora of "bless google guy and all who sail in him" type posts and promises to email spam reports to help "him" better to eat you with grandma
The basic reason that "G" does not like SEO is that to encourage it directly contradicts it's business / economic model ..or they could go PPI ( in effect adwords always has been PPI ..just with a smaller payment required to sit at the table ..once at the table how you play your hand is , as in poker , upto you and your talents etc in coding , display , conversion etc ( basic oldstyle ad business skills married to coding ..BTW take a look at the backgrounds of the admins and most mods here and you'll see the mix ;)...
BTW ..I'm not complaining about their business model ..after all it is pretty standard for most of you ..the inclusion of the system of high page rank for educational institutions etc is and always has been good for PR ..( public relations ) ..and has made many beleive that "do no evil" was always the object ..
The object was always ..make 2 guys lots o' money ..and now it is make the companies shareholders lots o' money..
Just like newspapers are there to sell ad space ..not to provide news or info ..
manipulating search engines is / was always most efficiently done with money ..the other techniques we all use / know / do are merely distractions and wall paper..intellectualy stimulating ..and especially if our pocket books are limited maybe the only way to attempt some sort of damage control ..sometimes ..
The really big SEO houses are not here posting about this ..they are busy telling their clients "increase your budget"...
The small SEO people have always told their customers that it wasn't just money ( if they said it was that easy the customer might just read how to do it and do their own adwords management ) ..so for them life is much harder to explain to clients just before Xmas ..
Anyone here who spends over 100,000.oo$ per month with adwords just slide off of page one in the organics ..?
Don't all shout at once ; ) QED
[edited by: Leosghost at 3:33 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
