Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I'm convinced that today's webmaster is under the Google mindshare spell. Most don't even realize it.
[webmasterworld.com...]
I have my one site listed in google directory and the link information is wrong there. Could anyone tell me how we can contact the editors and change my link information for my website link in google directory....
Do you actually believe the dialogue on a Google Group or a Matt Cutts blog is moderated for anything other than to make webmasters conform to Google's corporate will? On WebmasterWorld, and other forums like DP, SEW, TW, and many others, we are free to discuss every aspect of search marketing. On Matt Cutts blog and the official Google forums you are not. Google controls the dialogue and the outcomes of the discussions. Google and Matt Cutts are not concerned with helping you rank better. They are concerned about the integrity of their algorithm, and making webmasters unpaid partners in protecting Google's algorithm through snitch networks and data mining enterprises like Webmaster Central.
When was the last time GoogleGuy or the other representatives did something on the webmaster forums to help or answer questions? Where have they gone? I will tell you where they are. They are hijacking our dialogue and moderating it on the official Matt Cutts blog and their other Kool-Aid forums. I believe it's a conscious effort to control what you think and gain webmaster mindshare for the benefit of Google.
Google is the Internet
Am I the only one who feels it's extraordinary how Google is becoming the arbiter of web ethics, coding practices, and the webmaster dialogue? Do webmasters really want an Internet that is defined and dicated according to what is good for Google?
[edited by: tedster at 4:45 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]
But calling anyone who dares to think that almighty Goog and/or webmasters need to redefine the "game" as a whiner, scammer, unethical, etc takes away from the purpose of the discussion...
[edited by: whitenight at 11:24 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]
I think the G cheerleaders are more afraid of Google, they need Google to survive.
I agree.
The OP said it well.
"I'm convinced that today's webmaster is under the Google mindshare spell. Most don't even realize it."
And any reference to Matrix makes me happy. :)
"Google is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, webmasters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Do I spend much time on other map sites? No I prefer Google Maps.
Do I use any other image search? No I prefer G's image search.
Do I use any other news gathering portal? No, I prefer Google News.
Alternatively...
Do I spend much time on Orkut? No, I prefer Facebook.
Do I use gmail much? No, I still prefer Y! mail.
Do I use Google Analytics? No, I prefer another stats program.
Have I ever use Froogle (or whatever it's called now)? Don't make me laugh.
Google may have made some genius marketing moves over the last couple of years, but the position that it has achieved is largely based on the superior quality of its services. Whenever it has been outclassed, it has failed.
Google is not a threat when any of its services can be potentially outclassed by rival, superior services. What happened to Google Answers when it had to compete with Yahoo! Answers? What happened to Google Video when it had to go up against YouTube?
In this case, G bought Youtube, but it doesn't have the means to go around buying up Facebook, Yahoo! Answers etc.
I wonder if this isn't all a storm in a teacup. In four years time people won't be asking "Google who?" but Google might be playing the sidelined Mac OS to some newcomer's MS Windows.
Altavista was awesome in 1996. Who remembers it now?
I don't accept the thesis that webmasters do themselves more harm than good by their current over-reliance on Google. If a better search engine came along tomorrow, buzz would spread like wildfire and the mindshare-spell of Google Search would start fading fast.
"google" has become a verb, not just the company name of Google. People don't search, they 'google'. They don't "yahoo" or "MSN" something, they google it.
Now I only use Google's search when I don't have the URL in front of me.
But the whole "Google is the Internet" thing was brought home to me when I working at a large company and I saw how they taught their employees, some of whom have very little internet experience, to use it.
They are not taught to type www.example.com into the browser address bar; they're taught to bring up Google and type www.example.com into the search box. Bugger their luck if the particular example.com they're looking for is under a -950 penalty and doesn't come up - Google says the site doesn't exist. It wouldn't occur to them to type the URL (which is there in front of them) into the address bar - they don't know what it's for.
To them, and to many non-internet savvy users, Google is how you access the internet. Address bar, browser? What's that? they ask, "I use Google" they say. ;)
Is it any wonder some of us get a little paranoid if our sites aren't doing as well as we'd like? :)
...
Is this what you guys call ethics?
...
I consider my SEO successful when a site gets not only clickthroughs for its targeted phrases, but actual visits, and people are browsing its pages with the "I found it!" smile on their faces. The "Hmm, almost, but I was thinking of..." is still OK, but the rest is SPAM by my definitions. Amateur or corporate, I don't care, if it's not liked, it shouldn't be on the top of the Google SERPs.
If the content is something I KNOW to be great and I KNOW people like it, something I can relate to and LIKE, it justifies the SEO I do. Which is btw nothing out of the ordinary, for...
I'm white hat.
Which means, even if I lie, it's a white lie.
I guess that's what's called marketing. True philosophy wouldn't be fit for most people running around trying to feel better about this world.
[edited by: Miamacs at 1:15 pm (utc) on May 11, 2007]
I don't view Google Search with "suspicion bordering on distrust," but I can see how people who earn their livings with SEO, thin affiliate sites, PFI directories, etc. might feel that way..."If you think the OP's thesis is correct, what do you plan to do about it?"
You inference that the only people that view Google with distrust inlcude the small group you mention reflects the bias that keeps this dialogue stuck.
Early on there was very little talk about Google's permanent cookie, data aquisition, one way privacy policies, etc. Really only a couple of places on the net where one could find out much about it.
There is a lot more [sfgate.com] negative stuff today. And not just the ignorant scavengers of the web.
WBF
I think the G cheerleaders are more afraid of Google...
I'm not a "Google cheerleader" (in the same way that I'm not a "hustlers" pom-pom girl), but I do feel that Google is more trustworthy--and more valuable to the Web--than those who are frustrated because they're finding it increasingly hard to manipulate Google's search results. And I'm certainly not afraid of Google. Why should I be? Google wants to index and lead users to information; I want to provide users with information. The "relationship," if you want to call it that, is symbiotic.
The people who have reason to be afraid are those who don't provide users with intrinsically valuable content and need to rely on tricks for any kind of search rankings. Now, some of these people may have excellent businesses selling widgets, real estate, hotel rooms, Web consulting, etc. But Google Search (the topic of this forum) exists to organize and guide users to information, and if a site doesn't complement the stated mission of Google Search, the Webmaster is going to find it increasingly hard to rank in Google's organic search results.
Fortunately, such Webmasters have a choice:
- Make their Web sites useful as information resources (as many highly-ranked commerce sites do, by the way); or...
- Use other marketing techniques, such as advertising, public relations, word of mouth, generating repeat sales from existing customers, etc.
Either approach makes more sense than complaining endlessly because Google Search isn't interested in subsidizing Web businesses that don't complement (and, in some cases, conflict with) its mission and business model.
If a better search engine came along tomorrow, buzz would spread like wildfire and the mindshare-spell of Google Search would start fading fast.
Very good post.
At this time nothing can touch Google, what is a compliment as well as a critizism on the current situation with a monopoly that also stands for doing more and more wrong.
The "relationship," if you want to call it that, is symbiotic.
I seem to remember using that word a couple of times in this thread myself - as well as in previous threads of a similar nature..
The people who have reason to be afraid are those who don't provide users with intrinsically valuable content and need to rely on tricks for any kind of search rankings.
No, the people that have reason to be concerned are those that value neutral bodies that create standards in a collaborative manner, those that value privacy, those that have data to protect... in short, everyone.
A couple of months ago a Director from a Board I sit on put the company's cash flow budget into a spreadsheet on Google Apps. Thought it would be a good way to increase communication and collaboration.
It was removed within 48 hours, since there was little sense in putting such sensitive information on a server not under our control, and in the hands of a company that already has one of the largest data sets of anyone, anywhere.
You seem all to focused on whay you consider "greedy little minds" to see the bigger picture EFV.
WBF
I could tell you the entire story on ignorance, but that would just be repeating of what some of the posters already stated.
Is it in my head? YES.
Do I like it? NO
Hmm, Holliday season is over, lets take a break and do the numbers.
Realize that someone is not 100% ethical but continue trying to survive becomes a constant thought regardless.
‘I want to know’ is A part of a daily routing. And NOT telling why I can not know now is unethical.
Which makes think, how much money will G loose if they invest into technology that will actually be able to differentiate between content that was first seen on Page A and not display their Ads slightly to side of it. And what would happen if they turn off ALL MFA Accounts all at once.
The Corporation that has a market cap that equates to roughly $6391304347826 per letter in English Alphabet could do a much better job on keeping it real.
Is it in my head? YES.
Do I like it? NO
than those who are frustrated because they're finding it increasingly hard to manipulate Google's search results...
The people who have reason to be afraid are those who don't provide users with intrinsically valuable content and need to rely on tricks for any kind of search rankings
It's like talking to a wall.
Would you please actually read [sfgate.com] the nice article and tell us why all those Company executives, Congressman, and Human Rights groups are worried about Google. Is it because they want to "trick the search rankings"?!
Any business owner who doesn't understand the inherent danger of Google's dominance either isn't a real business or won't be in one for long.
(Yes, a business. Not a profitable hobby)
BTW, you can spot the cheerleaders easily: they just keep cheering, even if the team has long lost the match. They ignore if their team is struggling or doing stupid moves, they just keep cheering. The song they sing is "do no evil", followed by "they want to organize the information of the world", and finally the #1 hit single: "I'm not a cheerleader". :-)
If you think the OP's thesis is correct, what do you plan to do about it?
As one Googlephobe said in the article that whitenight cited:
"Grow a spine, people! Get a stick and try to knock G's crown off."
I'm still waiting for an answer to question:
Hard to answer for others.
Our sites use clean markup and largely comply with W3C recommendations. Links are acquired with an eye to traffic. We don't use proprietary SE attributes or tags.
On the other hand, we have been forced to pay attention to things like proper redirects, dup content, and other issues (much like you EFV).
We have chosen, with some trepidation, NOT to identify paid advertising and directory listings according to Google's recent recommendations. Ads are identified as sponsors in the text. That should be enough. One of our sites has a directory of dues paying members. Does that make it a PFI directory? Doesn't matter, since we reject Google's attempt to impose proprietary standards.
In short, we ignore Google in as much as we are able, and we keep up to date on Google in as much as we have to.
You, EFV, have personal experience with the impact of lost rankings in Google, and you know damn well that it had nothing to do with the quality of your site, the content, or the service it offers to users. You made significant changes to your site's infrastructure with the primary goal of regaining lost Google referrals. Does that make you a hustler? A gamer? A purveyor of empty content aimed at generating free income?
You are as into the game as anyone else, which of course was the point of the OP.
WBF
[edited by: tedster at 4:47 pm (utc) on May 11, 2007]
But I feel what Google is trying to achieve is much more important and worrisome for the future generations and my children than my current good or bad rankings. When I started my work online several years ago, I had a free choice on how to start my online business, which tools I could use, which search engine to prefer. What I am afraid is that my children in 10 years will not have a FREE choice. Because they will be DOOMED to live by Google rules, in the Google World. In order to survive they will have no other serious options but to become yet another Google toll-way payer.
You made significant changes to your site's infrastructure with the primary goal of regaining lost Google referrals. Does that make you a hustler? A gamer? A purveyor of empty content aimed at generating free income?
Sorry, not guilty. :-) The only change I made was to add an .htaccess file with proper redirects from www.mysite.com to mysite.com/, etc. In other words, I cleaned up some technical errors at my end.
[edited by: tedster at 5:27 pm (utc) on May 11, 2007]
We've had hundreds of complaints about Google's influence and power, but what comes next? If you think there's a problem (and never mind that some of don't), what are the possible solutions?
One obvious step would be to protest by excluding googlebot in robots.txt. By itself, that's a very small step. BUT, if some participants in this thread are correct and Webmaster World members have influence beyond their numbers, those collective small steps might make the Google Search index less useful and contribute to less reliance on Google by users and Webmasters.
Mind you, I'm not proposing such a boycott, because that would violate the Webmaster World TOS and (in my opinion) isn't necessary in any case. But for those of you who do genuinely fear Google's influence, excluding googlebot would be a step toward taking back the Web from the Big G.
Hear hear! How annoying to be called a spammer or worse just because we question something. I'm not a spammer, I'm not smart or innovative enough to be that far ahead of the curve. While I may very well have ultra white sites, it's a conscious decision on my part - I know how to get rankings that way. Doesn't invalidate other methods to achieve the same objective - getting rankings. Everyone here wants that, it's just that some pretend their methods are somehow better than others.
The 'I cleaned up some technical problems' is telling. Canonical issues have absolutely nothing to do with users; it's a technique/algo loophole no different than what hardcore web spammers use. I make this technical tweak, I rank better. That's why people make canonical changes - it's a technical tweak intended for no other reason that to rank. Smells like dark to me.
Let me preempt the standard response that 'Google told me so, so my ultra-tech fixes designed exclusively for rankings are OK, where you're ultra tech fixes designed exclusively for rankings are nasty'. Which I believe is that the OP is getting at.
Is growing big wrong? One could argue that G has grown big because they have done things right.
If webmasters are under a spell, is that Google's fault? Is it Google's responsibility to break that spell? I think not, on both counts.
The first time I met Adam Lasnik, I told him that Google paid for my new car and was paying my mortgage and my kids colleges funds. His response? He said very seriously, "You need to diversify".
Spell broken.
spell broken
That's the point of this thread, I think. Not "ethics" or wrongdoing of some kind - neither ours or Google's! Rather, waking up to a mature understanding of the real-world situation.
It is childish to be unquestioningly dependent. It is adolescent to be in constant opposition. It really is time for more maturity, breaking the "spell" of childish and adolescent postures. Such growth will serve a webmaster quite well.
The 'I cleaned up some technical problems' is telling. Canonical issues have absolutely nothing to do with users; it's a technique/algo loophole no different than what hardcore web spammers use.
OK, I said I'd done my last post on this thread's topic for a while, but since you've chosen to introduce a new topic (me), I'll respond:
As I understand it, it's simply good practice to redirect www to non-www (or vice versa), index.html to mysite.com/, and so on. That's what the techies have said many times on this forum and the Apache forum, and they know about Apache servers and .htaccess than I do.
What's more, I recall GoogleGuy suggesting that one keep one's technical house in order, since (among other things) that makes it easier for search crawlers to do their thing.
None of the so-called "Google cheerleaders" in this thread has ever suggested that Webmasters shouldn't fix technical errors or provide easily digestible "spider food" as recommended by the Google Webmaster Guidelines.
Now, can we get back on topic? I'm sure that many of the Webmasters who are worried about Google's influence on the Web would love to hear a solution. I suggested one possible step a few messages back; who'll take up the gauntlet and be first to actually do something?
But because of Google's strength as a search engine, many pepople have blurred the lines between sound technical execution and "Google's rules". That blurring is a sign of why this thread exists -- a kind of wake up call to understand the field in which you've decided to play.
Do you honestly not get it? Or are you just sticking to this exaggeration point to be satirical or something?
There is plenty of cause to be concerned about Google being powerful, but do you really and truly not get that most of Google's power comes from the utter ineptness of its competition? Google doesn't have issues like Microsoft where they make other software not work on the operating system. Google simply does a far better job than its competition (which a chimpanzee with a string and tin can could do).
If you want to blame somebody, blame Yahoo. Blame Microsoft. (Blame Ask for turning the best search engine four years into a useless joke that Microsoft and yahoo now won't consider acquiring.)
Google has power primarily because it was given to them on a plate by consumers and competitors.
Crying about big, mean ol' Google won't make Yahoo build a decent search engine.
Seems to me that the only thing that anyone can point out that Google has done wrong is that they have grown big.
There are a few cases [news.google.com] hanging out there right now. (I hope the irony is appreciated there.)
Just because of deep pockets? Unlikely.
Nice give and take on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" today about Google's efforts to digitize books. Became pretty pointed when the profit motive finally came into the discussion (prior to that it was about the benefits to scholars and the general public).
From the Guardian News Service today: "Internet giant Google has drawn up plans to compile psychological profiles of millions of web users by covertly monitoring the way they play online games...The company thinks it can glean information about an individual's preferences and personality type by tracking their online behaviour, which could then be sold to advertisers."
Now I find that one downright scary!
Anyone that asserts that Google is "just a search engine" is really not seeing the bigger picture.
WBF
<edit>fixed some spelling errors</edit>
The more we can step away from the extremes of "Google is your worst enemy" AS WELL AS "Google is goodness incarnate who will bring peace to the planet" the better off we will be. As Tedster said, "understand the field in which you've decided to play". Understainding the field means not having preconceived ideas (about Google or anyone else) that we filter reality through.
edit - corrected Tedster's quote
[edited by: WallyBob at 10:54 pm (utc) on May 11, 2007]
So truly, how much time was spent thinking about how to rank, not be on a imaginary s*it list, or even AKA trying to prove to your self that you are better than that, where THAT is one serp above?
Rent Constantine; Skip to Seventh Track; listen to the Conversation.
Edited: Capitalized word 'conversation'
Seems to me that the only thing that anyone can point out that Google has done wrong is that they have grown big.
I think this is the core.
With Goog's very size they have changed the web, and will continue to do so (for better or worse). Users and webmaster in particular have every reason to have a say in what is happening, and influence things should we be able.
We are far more important than one single brobdingnagian commercial entity and folks need to re-remember this. And if we as webmasters don’t remember this then the web is in trouble, and not just because of Goog.
