Google's Current Incarnation - how "cute little G" has changed

[Reno]

< moved from another location >

If this is the first time you were hit hard, then welcome to Google.

Believe me, I've had my ups & downs like everyone else when they've done an algo update. In each case I dealt with the changes and managed to keep on keeping on.

What bugs me about this latest G* incarnation is how blatantly they are pushing aside organics and quality sites in general, to direct their own visitor traffic to the paying ads. There is nothing that I or you or anyone can do to impact a change to their own webpage design, so from the start of MayDay I have joined with Brett and everyone else in saying that is a reason in-and-of-itself for the huge traffic drops we are seeing. Google has gone from being a sort of "partner" to being a sort of "competitor", and it's not a happy change because they're the bull elephant and we're the china in the room.

.....................................

[edited by: tedster at 11:14 pm (utc) on Jun 2, 2010]

[Simsi]

Gotta chip in and say that I've always been pro-Google, part of the camp that chirrup happily about how good their products are, that they don't owe us a living, we should learn to diversify etc etc. I still believe that. But the latest trends I'm reading about definitely have me concerned for my own wellbeing. Even if it's not a major issue now (and it's not for me) I can see some partially obscured writing on Google's wall that when fully revealed will say something like "well, we have to make a profit too you know".

We're watching a monopoly being grown basically but where it heads, and what effect it has on livlihoods down the line, is only speculative. But all the time I continue to use Google search and products, which in general I love, I'll get gradually more concerned.

[Mark_A]

Probably can't happen now, though.

Why ever not.

The issue I would think is, can a new baby propogate like G did, with just word of mouth promotion.

[Staffa]

AltaVista, I remember it well. It was my favourite when I started using the internet until it became too cluttered and I changed to using Surfwax. After some time Surfwax started to make changes which didn't improve my use of their engine so over to Google.
Lately more Bing or even Yahoo.

Using a whitelist to allow crawling I recently denied Google on a couple of sites (too much crawling, not enough indexed) and will replace it by Duck Duck Go to give that one a chance, I like their SERPs.

[tedster]

Why ever not.

The bar on relevance (including webspam detection) - has been raised very high, and competing successfully with Google will take some serious resources, both dollars and brains.

Even Microsoft has admitted that, with all their resources, they're not competitive on long tail relevance and they expect it to take years.

Even potential competitors with serious technical chops (e.g. Cuill, Ask) have tended to underestimate the job by several degrees of significance. It's a huge job, immense in fact. The fact is Google put themselves to school and does the job better than any other. And one school they attend is continual, data-driven study of user response.

So it's true, Google is no longer that cute little start-up it once was. They are a really big, publicly traded brand, and that means a legal requirement to pursue profit. I still think that Google as market leader is much better (and more "ethical") than what we would have if Microsoft had been the first big winner in the search competition.

And no, that "defense" doesn't mean I'm defending some of the recent changes. But realistically, I have some sense of the realities involved and the scale that they've taken on. It's not in any way an easy job, once we get outside of our individual, local views of what we each would prefer a search engine to be.

[jimbeetle]

To follow on Ted's thoughts about the dollars, the web is a very different place today than it was 10 or 12 years ago. I don't exactly how much it's grown (some exponent), but I imagine that the infrasture cost just to build a halfway comprehensive text index today would be many 10s (100s?) more than it was in the late 90s.

And back then it was text-only search that an upstart had to offer. Simply throwing video or maps in today would stretch anybody's pockets. One thing Google has done with all of its offerings is to make the barrier to entry all but insurmountable.

[trakkerguy]

Do they use the 'type of site' model I'm referring to for generating the results?

I say they most definately do. Here's why:

My main site is for a manufacturer and online seller of widgets. There are 3 other such sites (older and bigger). Up to 9 months ago, my site was always top 3 for the main keyword the defines that niche. Then my site down to 6-7 and began rotating places with the other 4 mfgs sites.

It is a very defined placement. Only one of the mfg/retailer sites was allowed in the 6-7 spot, with the other 3 grouped somewhere on the second page. All other top 10 spots were wiki and an authority info site (good), ezine and other article sites (spam). Occasionally, the winner of the #6-7 spot would rotate between the 4 mfg/retailers, and the other 3 would stay grouped together on the second page, but we never see more than one of the mfg/retailers on the first page.

It didn't seem right that these old, trusted, mfg sites were thrown on the second page below spammy article pages. But at least they allowed one non-spammy site onto the first page, and I was usually the lucky #6.

Then google shopping sites spread to that keyword at #2-3 and really hurt sales. Then it got a lot worse in April when the top mfg/retailer got pushed to #11. Now Buyers looking for our product end up clicking on ads, google shopping, or end up following an affiliate link on the spammy article sites.

Some people want information, most want to buy, quite a few want comparisons... Figure out the percentages, put the top sites from each 'style' on the first page and create a bunch of happy searchers who can find what they're looking for

Yes, they COULD put the top sites from each 'style' on the first page. They could also EXCLUDE some 'styles' from the first page for some searches, which they seem to do in the case I reference. They keep mfg/retailer sites off the first page.

Google can manipulate rankings like this to increase their revenue for some types of searches, but not "ruin the experience" for the vast majority of users.

* quotes refer to post #:4146007 by TheMadScientist

[londrum]

maybe the whole idea of search will change as the web grows and grows, and go old-school again.

the web is only going to keep growing. eventually it will become so big that it will be practically impossible for anyone to keep their index up-to-date. there will just be too much stuff.

that's when it might be a good idea to go back to a compiled index again, where people (users?) have decided themselves which sites are worth indexing and cherry pick the best, maybe through some kind of social-media-kinda thing.
if that's the way it goes, then it will all be about the quality of the editors -- human beings -- rather than the complexity of a computer algo. human beings are much more reliable when it comes to the judge of quality. computer algos just stack up bounce rates (did they like the page or not? who really knows), inbound links (which might be saying 'i like the site' or 'i hate the site') and other numbers which might mean nothing.

if you want to search for a music site, for example, then you'll go to a specialist search engine that focuses on music. that makes much more sense than going to a general place which serves the whole lot. its like looking for all your clothes at the supermarket instead of going to the designer clothes stores.

i keep thinking about TV guides. at the moment it's as if the internet has only one TV guide -- google. and if google doesn't like your program then it won't get listed and no one will see it.
it can't carry on like that indefinetly, because its silly.

[TheMadScientist]

Google has as long as I can remember had its monthly algo changes and hang the consequences.

Actually... I'm not sure if this is a difference in terminology, or if you thought the monthly indexes rollouts were algo changes, but what they did for quite a while was only update the index (what the results are generated from) once a month, then they got faster over time to where the index is updated in near real-time, so changes to the algo (updates) were usually noted here in the old update threads, but the monthly 'updates' were them publishing a new index.

I'm getting a bit angered by all this talk about "free" traffic.

I really haven't been posting about G trying to take more of the traffic (I know others have some) but I've been posting more about people complaining when their 'free' traffic dries up, because another site is out ranking them and I think there's something to keep in mind about traffic drops and rankings of other sites...

The following is a general post, not specifically directed at the poster quoted above, but more at the 'tone' or 'general idea' that seems to go along with it.

My Point Is: It's like people think since they used to rank or have done work on their sites they are entitled to the traffic or an explanation of why it went somewhere else and to me this seems a bit selfish, because it implies the other people building the sites that are now ranking in the place of the ones that were ranking didn't work for that traffic or don't deserve it or whatever... I know we all like to think our sites are the best for whatever purpose they serve (I know I try to do my best and like to think my sites compete with anyone's) but to complain about another site being number one (or above me) seems to disregard the work and efforts of another person trying to do the same thing and that seems a bit selfish to me.

Yeah, I'd like all the traffic and I'd like to be number one for every search term I go after, but if I'm not I don't blame Google or think they owe me an explanation... I think WOW who owns this site? You got me this time... Good for you, how did you that and what do I need to change to take my spot back?

I guess the difference is I think about the fact there are millions of pages available for most terms and the difference in ranking score between 1 and 15 is nearly microscopic on a percentile basis.

Google does not provide an explanation to all webmasters not currently in the top ten, which, following the same reasoning as those who have had their rankings drop use they should, because if they owe one person an explanation as to why they don't rank where they did, then it stands to reason they owe everyone an explanation for why they don't rank where they could...

Really, it just seems a bit selfish to me for people to complain about Google not sending traffic to your site any more when someone else takes your place, because chance are those people worked as hard on their site(s) and getting it to rank as you did and to discount their efforts to do the same thing you're trying to do seems a bit narrow to me...

[outland88]

you all clearly have too much time so have all taken to writing essays!

I wish some would take the hint. As Freud once said the more time you spend convincing people the less believable you become.

[TheMadScientist]

Sorry I'm not one of those senior members who believes a one line post is a great contribution to the community.
BTW: How many books did Freud write sharing his opinion? I wonder if he ever debated?
Nah, he didn't really have much to say or enjoy sharing his thoughts to help others see things a different way did he?
LOL...

[outland88]

Obviously!

[TheMadScientist]

If you don't like it stop reading... Quite a few people said the conversations here have dropped off over the years in the feedback forum, I wonder why? There's no need for you to read and you obviously have nothing to contribute or discuss, so why even bother to post when we've actually got a discussion going here?

[londrum]

yeah, it's a bit of a waste of time having a conversation with someone who doesnt speak. it's like going to a concert to hear someone who doesn't sing. going to dinner and getting an empty plate.

[trakkerguy]

Really, it just seems a bit selfish to me for people to complain about Google not sending traffic to your site any more when someone else takes your place, because chance are those people worked as hard on their site(s) and getting it to rank as you did and to discount their efforts to do the same thing you're trying to do seems a bit narrow to me.

I have no problem with my site getting beat out by other quality sites that have lots of work on them. I see what they are doing and learn from them. It does bother me a bit when they are 1 page of spam on an article site, 2 months old, with thousands of blog comments for backlinks. Or a newish domain with exact keyword match and 5 pages of copied and rewritten content.

I wonder if you will have the same attitude if G drops your old authority site to the third page for most of your main keyphrases and puts wiki and 9 such spammy pages in its place?

I really try not to complain, because I've been able to benefit by taking advantage of Google algorythym. But I do agree that in the last month there are more crappy results for some searches than before.

I do have some satellite sites that have bounced up to the top for various keyphrases, and have replaced pretty much all the traffic I lost on my main site. But they really don't "deserve" to be where they are.

[edited by: trakkerguy at 7:30 pm (utc) on Jun 3, 2010]

[jimbeetle]

My main site is for a manufacturer and online seller of widgets. There are 3 other such sites (older and bigger). Up to 9 months ago, my site was always top 3 for the main keyword the defines that niche. Then my site down to 6-7 and began rotating places with the other 4 mfgs sites.

It is a very defined placement. Only one of the mfg/retailer sites was allowed in the 6-7 spot, with the other 3 grouped somewhere on the second page. All other top 10 spots were wiki and an authority info site (good), ezine and other article sites (spam). Occasionally, the winner of the #6-7 spot would rotate between the 4 mfg/retailers, and the other 3 would stay grouped together on the second page, but we never see more than one of the mfg/retailers on the first page.

From your description it sounds as if that "term that defines that niche" is one for which Google hasn't been able to define user intent. That appears to be a good hint. You might want to look at other terms that you know do convert (thereby defining intent). Pop them into G and see if there is a different mix of types of sites returned. When you see mostly commercial, those might be your actual money terms.

As tedster stated above("And one school they attend is continual, data-driven study of user response"), today's Google utilizes user data across the board, especially products with which webmasters are concerned: search, Adwords and Adsense.

[TheMadScientist]

I wonder if you will have the same attitude if G drops your old authority site to the third page for most of your main keyphrases and puts wiki and 9 such spammy pages in its place?

I guess some of it is perspective, maybe...

I expect them to at some point in time, whether it's an error or people just like something else better. I'm also not saying all complaints are misguided, but you have to read my entire book in this thread to get where I say some sites are 'wrongly' dropped to improve the overall results. Also, in the past G has been fairly good about 'adjusting' new pieces in the algo after they're there to get the right sites back in the right places, so hopefully they will do the same again and your rankings will come back.

ADDED: Just so people can see a bit more of my perspective...
I fully expect someday most G traffic will dry up to my sites. Every time there's an update I wonder if this is the one the traffic goes away, and so far every time I've been relieved to see my rankings stay the same or improve, except this last one where traffic did drop but other metrics (including sales) improved.

I absolutely expect traffic from G to change with every update and although I hope it doesn't I fully expect it will dry up someday, which keeps me trying to think of 'plan b' and how to implement it and how to capitalize on what I have right now to lay a better foundation for tomorrow or whatever day the traffic goes away, because if I'm always thinking about it, expecting it and planning for it, then I think I have a better chance continuing to grow without the free traffic.

[eferg]

"It is my contention that it's not a fair shake when they use our content as their reason-for-being, then direct visitors to THEIR income source. Obviously some people here don't mind that, but I find it unsettling."

Well said. I think if Google turns up the knobs too high, they just may see a backlash. Could you imagine if web masters started placing notices on their pages urging visitors to switch to Bing?

[tedster]

I don't mean to sound smug here, because I am not happy with that basic situation around our intellectual property. The courts have upheld it, however, and that's what we've got: Google and other search engines by default have the use of your content unless you ask them to stop.

Any webmaster here does understand how robots.txt works. If you think the deal isn't working out for you, you can completely bow out of Google with just two short lines of code. I wish that some of the so-called mash-up sites out there made it as easy.

I personally found that, in the early days, the deal was a bit lopsided in MY favor, so I'm not surprised to see that the teeter is tottering.

[londrum]

Any webmaster here does understand how robots.txt works. If you think the deal isn't working out for you, you can completely bow out of Google with just two short lines of code.

everyone says that, but we all know it isn't true. when google supplies the vast majority of our traffic we can't just dump it. it makes no sense, business wise. they've got us over a barrel.

[TheMadScientist]

they've got us over a barrel.

Yep... and if people think I like it they're absolutely mistaken.

I don't like it a bit, but without a team of attorneys who can out argue theirs and the ones who have already tried, there's not much chance of winning, so personally I take an 'it-is-what-it-is' view of the situation and do the best I can with it... Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and try to keep the ugly reality of the situation in perspective, because I think it's folly to do things any other way.

[tedster]

everyone says that, but we all know it isn't true

Then what is true is that your site still finds business value in letting Google do what they do. And that's the business reality, isn't it? If Google pushes too hard and leverages things too much, then the business equation changes.

[TheMadScientist]

Here's one of the huge 'issues' to trying to win an argument against Google WRT display of results, display of ads on the results, use of the content, need to inform webmasters of changes, etc.

To actually win the argument, you have to win the argument against: Google, Bing (Microsoft), Yahoo! AND every other site that displays advertisements on pages displaying snipits of information from sites around the web, and not only is that a huge undertaking even with just the big 3 search engines, a win against Google and the others changes the face of the web and search as we know it...

It's a huge argument and it really cascades on the scale of an avalanche, because for an argument to win WRT search using the results to display ads or their own information it really IMO has to be a 'general use of snipits' argument where them displaying too much advertising real estate compared to links and snipit prominence is ruled against, and once an generalized argument like that is a win it applies to any site displaying advertising and snipits on the web.

I think people forget sometimes even though Google controls a bunch of the traffic they are not the only ones doing what they do and a win against them is a win against everyone doing the same thing, even on a lesser scale... It avalanches and effects so many sites and so much traffic the repercussions of a win are astronomical and totally changes the traffic on the entire web, because if they can't do something or have to do something, then it applies to everyone, including Bing, Yahoo!, Ask, AOL, Comcast, and everyone else doing the same type of thing with the display of ads and snipits on the same page.

Anyway, the point is it's not only a huge argument to try and win; if someone does then it's a complete change to the web and search as we know it, not only for Google, but all other search engines and sites the argument could be applied to, which is way more than only Google.

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 9:26 pm (utc) on Jun 3, 2010]

[cien]

Did Google just place a block of Adword ads on top of search results? A block of 3 ads? I see them on and off and they look exactly like Yahoo's sponsored listings at the top of the search results! We are really screwed! Google is imitating Bing and Yahoo now.

[edited by: cien at 10:15 pm (utc) on Jun 3, 2010]

[Staffa]

when google supplies the vast majority of our traffic we can't just dump it

That is if AS YET google supplies .... but what about tomorrow's Google whim ?

It is only fair to assume that all sites owned by the members here are quality sites on their chosen subject then what would happen if these sites were pulled out of Google by their owners and were only available to searchers on other SEs ?

If people can't find that quality by "googling" for it they will "fill in the blank" for that information on another SE.

[steve40]

Sorry Staffa and many others , I like many other webmasters worry about the direction Google is headed , It is possible over the next few years when a surfer searches for anything EVERYTHING above the fold will either be a paid for add or one of Google's other properties , It will not be webmasters who will change user habits but users who will feel unhappy with the results and migrate somewhere else for search, it could be one of the other current SE's or a brand new player, that is what happened with the old SE's Altavista, Lycos etc . It may well be webmasters may be involved in promoting the new world but unless users are unhappy we could bleat and moan all we like but it will ultimately be down to user experience and dissatisfaction.

Steve

[eferg]

"The issue I would think is, can a new baby propagate like G did, with just word of mouth promotion."

Well craigslist with their free listings came along and shook up eBay and has just about killed the classifieds income of newspapers. No start-up capital, just a good idea and word-of-mouth. So yes, a start-up could come along as an alternative to Google.

Anyone who would attempt to index the web would need to monetize their efforts, but I feel Google has over stepped and demonstrated that they can take the focus off the organic results and funnel clicks to their advantage. Organic results are now down-played and supplemental. It's time for someone to come along with a fresh idea on how to index the web. Collectively it's the site owners that make the web what it is, not Google.

[Shaddows]

Sorry, this thread is really annoying me.

On one side, you have people unable to view the world of business except through their own little prism, and on the other you have well reasoned arguments put forward in such a way as to provide clarity, context and pre-empt the more obvious objections. Rather than engage, TMS is criticised for having posts that are too long! Really?

I'm not sure of the intellectual veracity of the position "Google isn't sending me enough traffic, but I am unable to respond, because Google is responsible for too much of my traffic."

We run an ecom. We used to run several, but one failed, and others have now basically merged. In the beginning, they were all SE dependant. Some worked, some didn't. But with the money we did something strange. We EMPLOYED SALES PEOPLE. Really! And somehow, their cash-generation isn't dependant on Google. It's a fully-independant revenue source! We could survive if Google disappeared tomorrow. There would be job losses, but we'd survive.

We also have contingency sites un-promoted and designed on slightly different principles, just in case we need to relaunch.

We've got revenue streams through adverts. We've leveraged our brand to obtain web traffic from alternative sources.

Our Google traffic was whacked Mayday. It redistributed around 17th May (actually from 11-17th, but that doesn't fit the emerging narrative), and it's largely recovering since the Bank Holiday (Memorial Day for the US). Our sales were down a TINY amount. Diversification BEFORE the crisis, that's the key.

As TMS calculates (correctly, this time :D) being down a few places means you have changed a fraction of a percentile. How many of you SERP-1 inhabitants have REALLY considered the question, "is my site in the top 0.001%"; or, "are 99.999% of pages less relavent than mine"

Anyone who's business model is based on being better than 99.999% of sites all of the time, while a sense of entitlement leads to complaceny, is bound to run in to trouble at some point. I mean, I get the impression some people don't even know what their money terms are, or could fail to notice when their referral profile changes. How can you make a living from Google, when you don't even pay attention to what is getting the Google love?

[graeme_p]

a legal requirement to pursue profit

What legal requirement? They have a duty to the shareholders, but the largest shareholders are management, so it does not constrain them.

In any case, AFAIK, their duty to the shareholders mostly constrains making a private profit, or outright negligence, rather than the public good or ethical behaviour.

I still think that Google as market leader is much better (and more "ethical") than what we would have if Microsoft had been the first big winner in the search competition.

I agree, but that's hardly holding them to a high standard.

[AG4Life]

I think it's plain as day that there is a conflict of interest between Google the search engine, Google the advertising company and Google the content provider. Bad search results can lead to good advertising revenue. And Google can replace (and has replaced) other people's content with their own in the search results. All of this directly affects Google's bottom line. Can you really trust any mega corporation to "do no evil" when their bottom line is under threat? And even if you trust Google, should we simply rely on trust forever and pretend the problem doesn't exist?

As for Google being the top dog when it comes to search engines, that's really not Google's fault as much as it is other's fault for not competing. In an ideal world, we would have dozens of equally good search engines giving websites a variety of traffic. But this is the real world, and the fact is that we webmasters need Google much more than Google needs us. There's also a difference between Google trying to act responsibly, and succeeding at it, in relation to failed rollouts, dishing out penalties and the general mayhem caused whenever Mountain View releases something into the wild.

[heisje]

I believe Google's immense technical prowess, mainly their ability of indexing a vastly larger portion of the web compared to Yahoo and Bing, has raised the barrier to entry considerably. They have invested immense amounts of money and know-how in indexing and displaying relevant results, and they now reap the benefits.

Google operates on old-fashioned common sense: they do collect the information, and they know how to rank and present that information. Their spiders have gone crazy indexing and re-indexing, in a frenetic manner, not seen any time before.

In contrast, their competitors, and Bing in particular, seem surprisingly "lazy". Their index is substantially smaller than Google's, their spidering activity a small fraction of Google's. Actually, they do not posses the needed information, but only a fraction compared with Google, and operate on the premise that their index, being itself substantial, is also sufficient to compete, quality-wise, with Google. Well, substantial may be, but sufficient for today's requirements it is NOT. Google has raised the quality bar very high, and competitors believing in half-baked responses have already failed miserably.

As long as competitors are not prepared (or able) to make the investment Google has managed to make, in collecting huge amounts of data, refining and presenting it in a relevant manner, they are doomed.

Yandex, in contrast, is currently quietly copying Google's way to success. They are frenetically indexing the web at large, creating a very substantial index, supposedly to provide their local market with better quality results if these are needed, beyond the Cyrillic alphabet. Local market? Read my lips: Mr Putin is much more than a mere local lad!