Has google pushed small business too far?

[seoskunk]

I just wondering about other small business owners who have spent the last year disavowing links and jumping through hoops for Google. Only to see no improvement in results in latest panda/penguin update. Will you spend another year doing the same or react in a different way?

[instand1]

despite googles roughly 85% of search engine market share, when in a blind comparison, people were split 50-50 over whose actual results they preferred between g and b.

As a consumer there is no incentive to change my habits if the non-marketleader is not more useful, does not offer greater benefits.

[mrengine]

This results in a greater diversity of high-quality small- and medium-sized sites ranking higher, which is nice.

Saffron, I don't see many quality small to medium sized websites ranking higher. Maybe Google meant ranking from #29 to #22, which really does not make much of a difference in terms of traffic.

Even though I'm not pleased with how Google has treated small businesses, I'm a realist. I don't think Google will come around and start ranking quality small and medium sites higher because it's more cost effective to rank the big brands without sacrificing the trust Google's users have in them. Even a low quality brand page will carry more trust with users then a very high quality small website. This does not make it right, but quite possibly how Google is looking at it. Anyway, the big brands are mostly in Adwords and suppressing small and medium websites in the organic search can only lead to more Adwords users and advertising revenue for Google.

[superclown2]

I have a lot of sites. Most of them make zilch but a small number of them are popular and get a lot of visits, considering the tight niches they are aimed at.
These sites almost invariably rise in the SERPs for more generalised keywords or phrases but this can take a long time, sometimes years. I have a number of them now occupying top three positions for useful niche keyphrases. Most of them have only four pages or less so they certainly qualify as small sites. They are, however, all several years old with long-established links pointing at them and they all answer a visitor's needs quickly and clearly.

Conversely I have some sites I have spent a lot of time and money on which languish on page 3 or lower. Most of these were much higher in the SERPs in the past but they didn't do much business. Obviously something about them was lacking which proves I'm not always as good a marketer as I thought I was. These unpopular sites soon sank to oblivion.

I believe a site can earn Google's trust without being run by a big brand (although it certainly helps!) so I reckon that they favour sites based very much on how visitors react to them. People trust well known names more than 'unknown' ones so, all things being equal, they look out for them and visit them more often and it is this, IMO, that pushes them higher up the SERPs at the expense of perhaps 'better' (which is a debatable description) sites.


If I am correct then Google is behaving fairly to all sites, whether they are owned by small businesses or mega corporations. It is the great mass of visitors who really decide which sites prosper and which ones fail.

[Hollywood]

LizaJane I agree "But I think eventually Google will ( and should!) be regulated. Too much power. Do no harm is a thing of the past. Way past in the case of Google."

But I think this will happen, just a matter of time and lawsuits. They ARE way too powerful, look at the % of people on average who use whichever search engine, Google is dominant and so they should be much more responsible in my opinion. I see too many examples of very legit businesses being blown down to page 3 with super amazing content.

If it were regulated a bit and any business was treated fairly then we would have a free market, Google SERPS do NOT provide a free market type of economic workings.

[samwest]

I have a lot of sites. Most of them make zilch

If you don't make money on the web, do you run hobby sites? I guess I can understand it if you're not concerned about the money trail...if you're not involved with it.

In my case, the web is (was) 100% of my income. I've been lucky and did very well for a decade+. This whole squeezing of small business is a non sustainable business model for Google. I'm already bone dry and you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm curious what Google thinks "do no harm" means? They've killed our incomes...I guess that would constitute a level of harm that they, with their billions, just can't understand.

[EditorialGuy]

I have never seen much serious talk around here ( maybe I missed it!) about Google eventually being moved to the category of a utility and regulated as such. Nay sayer's may say it will never happen, free market and all.

Before getting your hopes up, read this:

[searchengineland.com...]

[glakes]

"But I think eventually Google will ( and should!) be regulated. Too much power. Do no harm is a thing of the past. Way past in the case of Google."

I doubt Google will be targeted for regulation but rather the internet as a whole will try to be regulated but by whom? A lot of information crosses the internet that is sensitive and critical in nature. Paying taxes online, viewing medical records online, refilling prescription medications online, applying for jobs, etc. Some regulation is needed to protect this data and to set/enforce standards. In addition, the internet is a very important commerce medium that needs to be safeguarded. But the internet is global and who or what body will be charged with this regulatory task and can they be objective? Which leads me to my next point.

The minute the United States starts regulating Google it will create an advantage for another offshore search engine. Baidu may rise faster for example. Is this in the best interest of the United States Government, especially when the Government can walk right into Google and demand information on specific United States citizens? I don't think so. The Government needs Google to collect the information they can't due to Constitutional restrictions. It's far more likely that countries outside the United States will put restrictions on Google, through regulations, as they don't appear to have the same benefits that the United States Government has. This is probably why the United States Government does not get too involved with the many acquisitions Google makes since each new company Google buys provides another point of data.

Small businesses struggling with Google should just abandon trying to please them IMO. They should move more towards developing and growing their social presence online. Yes, it is not easy to get going but the return on investment is a lot better than how Google slams the door in their faces. Also, Adwords is prohibitively expensive for small businesses and advertising via social media provides good returns for small businesses at this stage.

[xelaetaks]

I think we could benefit from another search company coming in such as Apple. If Apple made a big push and put millions into advertising - also as the search engine that doesn't track their users like with DuckDuckGo I bet they they can be huge.

Even better if they don't tank small businesses for links they made years ago when everyone on the web was doing and being sketchy about what they tell webmasters to do.

It is bizarre that when people follow Google's rules they seem to get screwed. A lot of posts came out about people who lost rankings when going to https - sounds almos like a joke.

Then with the whole penguin bs - on some level I would be for it to really get spammers but to kill small businesses the way it does now I think is twisted. Rather - don't count crap links and they wont help people anyway and if that's literally all a site has then you have a reason to think they might be a spammer.

Right now Google seems to be playing Internet police. Also even as a consumer adwords doesn't interest me. I wish Google cut down on this penguin mess. If you can tank your own website, sure as hell someone can tank other peoples sites it is jsut common sense.


All this said webmaster tools does show some increases in rankings and impressions but I still get just a few Google clicks a day according to my shopify site on a specialized niche company. I think what may be helping is going theough hoops and actually deleting links but I'm not sure if disavowing has helped - it seems like it may have gave some boost though - but still a business can't run on a couple visits a day.

Also John Mueller from Google has said disavow tool isn't an admission of guilt and negative seo links could be disavowed, but people don't seem to trust Google now and that is part of the problem with them.

[slipkid]

If Google are going to really look at user experience, I wish they would target sites with pop ups, they are becoming more and more popular.

Pop-ups and a good user experience are mutually exclusive. Pop-ups in their many configurations are so pervasive that my user experience is awful.

It is particularly annoying using a Win 8.1 laptop. One slip of the finger and I have clicked on something I did not want to do.

As for trying to make my site as Google friendly as possible based on its current whim, I gave up on that some time ago as Google's corporate mission is obvious to me.

[toidi]

 But I think eventually Google will ( and should!) be regulated.

They wont be around long enough to be regulated. The clock is ticking and the signs are there.

[EditorialGuy]

Several things to keep in mind:

1) In the U.S., at least, Google's organic search results are protected by the First Amendment. (See my earlier link to a Search Engine Land article.) Courts have ruled that Google's rankings are "opinions," and the Constitution isn't going to change just because the people who don't hold the top five or 10 spots aren't happy with their rankings.

2) Some small businesses are doing well in Google. In my sector, small specialist sites often outrank large corporate-owned sites for many, many search queries. If you rank poorly in Google, it isn't necessarily because Google "hates small businesses." It could have something to do with user metrics, the quality of the sites that link to you, and the quality of your content. (If you're using mostly boilerplate content, as e-commerce and affiliate sites often do, then you shouldn't expect to rank well.)

3) SEO is not a "unique selling proposition."

4) Too many site owners shoot themselves in the foot and then blame search engines for the fact that they're bleeding. Thjey make bad (and dangerous) SEO decisions, or they join their fellow lemmings in disavowing links blindly because that's the current fad. It isn't the search engines' fault that many site owners and SEOs make poor choices (and, in some cases, compound those poor choices with more poor choices, such as disavowing every link in sight after they've dug graves for themselves with shady linkbuilding).

[superclown2]

In the U.S., at least, Google's organic search results are protected by the First Amendment.

This may come as a shock but the USA does not legislate for the whole world.

[EditorialGuy]

This may come as a shock but the USA does not legislate for the whole world.

Yes, that's I said "In The U.S., at least."

Also, I'd guess that quite a few Webmaster World members who aren't happy with Google's search results are based in the U.S. or aren't ready to write off the U.S.market.

I'd also point out that, while the First Amendment protects Google's organic search results in the U.S., it doesn't protect small businesses from regulation. Be careful what you wish for.

[samwest]

This may come as a shock but the USA does not legislate for the whole world.

I can send you one of these things called a TV set...I'm guessing you haven't watched the evening news for the past 60 years or so.

[netmeg]

Possibly this item no longer belongs in the SEO forum. I don't see much about SEO here.

[samwest]

Has google pushed small business too far?

This is the topic...nothing about SEO mentioned there. For SERPs, see: [webmasterworld.com...]

[rish3]

Courts have ruled that Google's rankings are "opinions,"

That was a county court (the lowest level court) in the county where Google's headquarters are located. Also, in a lawsuit filed by an entity that likely didn't hire the best legal team for this sort of thing.

The plaintiff's main strategy in the SERP position portion of the suit was that their site ranked well on Yahoo! and Bing, but not Google.

Also, a fair part of the lawsuit was not about SERP positions at all, but about Google Adwords pulling ads from the plaintiff's site due to a photo in a story about a nudist colony.

It's certainly noteworthy, but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it.

[superclown2]

I can send you one of these things called a TV set...I'm guessing you haven't watched the evening news for the past 60 years or so.

I first started in business when TVs were a rarity and the UK was just ceasing to be the arbiter of much of the world's decisions. Times have changed, as they always will.

Back in those days we learned about salesmanship and marketing. Sadly many small businesses have never learned these lessons which is why so many are now complaining about Google 'pushing them too far'.

No I don't agree that disavowing links and jumping through hoops to what is perceived to be 'Google's Tune' is the answer. IMO, Getting back to "old fashioned" techniques is the way forward, as it has always been; giving the client exactly what he/she wants to buy, making it easy to buy, presenting a professional face, providing information in a clear and easily readable manner, and a whole stack of other methods are what makes businesses successful. Many websites are businesses, and Google loves successful websites.

[randle]

Google doesn't want to make your site popular. They want to rank popular sites.

Theres no "popularity" contest going on here. Google wants to rank sites that get them closest to their plan for what the results should be for a particular query.

Why they place favor on certain sites, (motive) and then how they determine algorithmically these sites (method) are the questions you want to think about.

Popularity? Most helpful to the user? Jazzy name? Those are feel good concepts floated out to help keep up the level of participation and hard work in a system thats orchestrated by people that are really smart and have their own, very specific agenda. One that isn't connected in any way to how well you can monetize your web properties.

[EditorialGuy]

It's worth remembering that Google's organic results are about pleasing the user, not pleasing site owners who want to earn money by piggybacking on Google Search.

Sometimes a search result can be a win for everybody (user, Google, and site owner), but the site owner is at the bottom of Google's priority list.

Also, too many business owners fail to understand that Google Search is limited in what it can measure. (It isn't unusual to see complaints in this forum that "Google ranks Amazon higher than us even though we ship faster and have cheaper shipping" or whatever.)

[7_Driver]

I believe a site can earn Google's trust without being run by a big brand (although it certainly helps!) so I reckon that they favour sites based very much on how visitors react to them.

superclown2 - have you been able to see any difference in the user metrics between your successful and unsuccessful sites?

How is Google determining whether users like them - pages per visitor, bounce rate, time on site?

[xelaetaks]

"It's worth remembering that Google's organic results are about pleasing the user, not pleasing site owners who want to earn money by piggybacking on Google Search."

Users miss out when Google penalizes quality niche sites into oblivion. Google's Penguin mskes it that even the site is a top site in the niche it kills the sites rankings.

[superclown2]

superclown2 - have you been able to see any difference in the user metrics between your successful and unsuccessful sites?

I don't use WMT for most of my sites because ...... well, I don't use them. So user metrics are something I don't study. The fact is I haven't got the time, even if I had the inclination. Some sites succeed and some don't, some don't but eventually do, some do for a while and then fall. I leave them to it because we know what Google is like.

However, generally speaking, when a site produces more business than it's position in the SERPs suggests, it almost invariably rises - and stays up. The converse is equally true.

[samwest]

Back in those days we learned about salesmanship and marketing.

@SC - I'm likely as old school as you are, possibly older...
I agree with your point, it used to be all about salesmanship and marketing. I grew up reading Richard Thalheimer's early, long winded Sharper Image articles. He could fill an entire magazine page in 8pt font with his sales spiel.

In the early days of Google, they LOVED that long winded sales copy, then...somebody #*$!ed it up for everyone else. That somebody was the keyword loaded cheaters who figured out that they could manipulate the serps which started phase I of the decline and the beginning of the penalty engine.

Phase II of the decline started when Google decided to increase profits. They soon realized that self promotion by webmasters makes them no money, so anything that sounded self promoting was censored by pushing in to page 9 (-950 penalty).
This was done to push ads. All their black & white animals since then have been engineered not for user experience, but to push ads better.

Not surprisingly, Facebook is running into the same issue right now, read this: [bit.ly...]

Not like you need this history review, but Phase III started when Google became the God of self promotion themselves...just look at the mess they made of Youtube videos. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit through 30 seconds of ads to watch a 30 second video about a cat chasing it's tail. It is also speculated that they use other nefarious methods to reduce our traffic so it can be better monetized by their system.

So yes, you are very correct - Today, Google is a very poor place to start a new business and yes, some sites float and some sink. The best floatation device is a brief case stuffed with Benjamins.

[bwnbwn]

Hollywood I personally know a person that sued Google over his website getting slammed in the serps. He lost, his site was banned in G and his DMOZ listing was deleted.

[samwest]

bwnbwn - I'm surprised they didn't send a hit man too!

[Hollywood]

I AGREE!...

[Phase II of the decline started when Google decided to increase profits. They soon realized that self promotion by webmasters makes them no money, so anything that sounded self promoting was censored by pushing in to page 9 (-950 penalty).
This was done to push ads. All their black & white animals since then have been engineered not for user experience, but to push ads better.]

PS - Thank you for the info Bwnbwn! - I think each case is based on the facts and the evidence IMO.

[RedBar]

then...somebody #*$!ed it up for everyone else. That somebody was the keyword loaded cheaters who figured out that they could manipulate the serps

That would be me then in the early 90s before G was even thought about. There were many of us in different countries experimenting, especially on weekends, what would happen when descriptions/keywords/everything were shuffled about and what effect they had on our respective SERPs.

Google actually made it easier for us since they were so small you could see the effect on their results within minutes...the rest is recent history.

[samwest]

@Redbar - that was me too I guess, since at that time, the thinking was to load up your pages to tell Google what you offer. If you move to Phase II, they soon devised ways of preventing us from telling our story and decided we should all become "scots" who believe that the art of writing lay in thrift... not unlike the Rev. McLain who told Norman "Once again, and half as long". That's a writing method I have learned following Google's Webmaster Guidelines and a long way from Richard Thalheimer.

[slipkid]

That would be me then in the early 90s before G was even thought about. There were many of us in different countries experimenting, especially on weekends, what would happen when descriptions/keywords/everything were shuffled about and what effect they had on our respective SERPs.

Google actually made it easier for us since they were so small you could see the effect on their results within minutes...the rest is recent history.

Truly!

Those days are so long gone that my morning ritual has gone from shaving black nubs to gray.

I guess this coincides with the b/w animal updates of google!