Influence of Brand and Usage on Google Serps

[Nutterum]

---

System: The following 4 messages were cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3003595.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 7:57 am on Apr 14, 2015 (utc -5)

---

Brand Bias is real. Not because Google made it real, but because the algorithm works in a way to make it real. The more content you have and the bigger you as a business appear to be, the more you will climb the SERP ladder. I think you all agree with this notion and there are more than enough examples to back it up. The only thing that is still not affected by brand bias is "fresh content" tailored for specific stacks of long tail seasonal keywords (think events, concerts, etc. for example). Search for a red widget however and you will see nothing but amazon, regardless of how fresh, unique or superior your product or content is.

Machine learning has the fundamental flaw of using mathematics and the inherited "entropy laws" associated with it, where the big become bigger and the small, smaller.

Just my 2c on the topic.

[martinibuster]

>>>I do believe that clicks are a factor, but I'm not convinced that on it's own, it's always more powerful than other signals...

Correct, as I stated: "So when they use CTR data, time on page, and other metrics..."

[EditorialGuy]

Forgetting the FTC, what they've done to the organics with aggressive ad placement, reducing from 10 to 9, to 8, to in some cases, 7 organic results, etc...seems at odds with that theory.

Google has more data about its searchers' behavior and satisfaction than we do. For all we know, its searchers may not care how many organic results are on the page. (The fall-off in traffic from search results below the top three suggests that most searchers aren't counting the number of organic results per page. )

In Web publishing--and that includes publishing search results--there's always going to be a certain amount of friction between content creation and content monetization. In Google's case, there are separate teams for things like Search Quality, UI, Webspam, and advertising sales, which means that talking about an all-encompassing "they" doesn't make a lot of sense.

[rish3]

Google has more data about its searchers' behavior and satisfaction than we do. For all we know, its searchers may not care how many organic results are on the page.

The context is whether Google, as a company, really cares about what is good for users. Whether or not end users care isn't the measure of what's good. For example, the crap arbitrage ads that show up everywhere now (loads of ads == low competition == low pricing == crap ads that point to crap content).

In Google's case, there are separate teams for things like Search Quality, UI, Webspam, and advertising sales, which means that talking about an all-encompassing "they" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Having worked in several large, Fortune 500 companies, I heartily disagree. When it comes to revenue, investor expectations, etc, there are decisions and direction that cut across teams. The idea that Google has some sort of "wall" between teams to maintain ethical purity is now, in hindsight, laughable.

The general idea that a huge, for-profit entity is going to maintain some sort of altruistic code is honestly just silly. They are going to make decisions that benefit themselves. That's not a conspiracy, it's how for-profit entities work. To some degree, presenting good results to users benefits Google, but as in the case with comparison shopping sites, they are not timid about suppressing "good things" for their own reasons. Similar for presenting worthless arbitrage ads. It's terrible for users, but great for the balance sheet.