Is there anything we know or even think we know about Google?

[dickbaker]

In many threads in this forum, such as the "traffic shaping" or the latest Google update thread, there are some interesting observations and theories as to what Google's changes are about. So far, though, I haven't heard anything that sounds even remotely concrete.

Links were once important. Are they still? There's many sites ranking in the top five that have no links to the ranking page at all, or just a handful, whereas other sites with oodles of links are ranking much further down.

Seniority used to have value, but that seems to have been discarded as well. It still seems to carry some weight, but nowhere near what it did. Many established sites have been bumped by newcomers, and not always because the new sites are better or have more traffic. Many times there's absolutely no discernible reason why the new site is ranking at all.

In the past traffic seemed to be an element in the Google algorithm, as popular sites got a boost because of their traffic. Now those sites are frequently losing traffic to less heavily trafficked sites.

If there's a pattern to keyword density, h1 tags, and other on-page factors, I don't see it. The top-ranking sites are all over the map for on-page factors. Some seem keyword-stuffed and others barely mention the keyword or phrase.

In the latest Google update thread, someone posited that the search results were better, or at least not full of irrelevant sites, when the user was signed in. I tried doing searches with and without being signed in, and it made little or no difference. The "what in the hell is this doing here" sites were still ranking well.

There's been talk about the social networking sites boosting rankings, but the social sites don't seem to play a role in my niche.

Depending upon the day, my traffic is off 10-20% from the same time last year, so I haven't been hit as hard as some folks. Still, I've lost many, many of my coveted #1-#3 spots, and I don't even know how many #4-#6 are now on page 2, nor do I have a clue as to how to get those pages back on page 1.

Is there anything that's really known now?

[goodroi]

We know at least one thing - Google is constantly evolving.

I have made many updates to my websites since last year and my traffic has ... actually who cares about traffic, my profit has greatly increased from last year.

How did I figure out what changes to make?
I looked at the common denominators amongst the top ranking pages.
I listened to Google engineers, presentations, blog posts etc for clues as to their next move.
I setup up multiple websites for the sole purpose of testing my theories.

What are some of the things that I have noticed this year:
-Twitter & social media influencing rankings
-Don't complain about universal serps and learn to benefit from news, local, shopping etc.
-Too many webmasters still rely on second hand information that is out of date.

[tedster]

Links were once important. Are they still?

Yes, just not quite AS important. There also have been several sweeps this past year to devalue questionable backlinks. The sites whose direct backlinks were devalued then had less PR to pass on through their own outbound links. This effect rolled on andon, for hop after hop throughout the web.

Also link related, Google continues to evolve how Page Rank is calculated. In the beginning they used a "random surfer" model. That model is now much more sophisticated. Instead of a random surfer, it's more like a "reasonable" surfer. Links that are much more likely to draw a click also pass more PageRank weight to their target page than links that are unlikely to get clicks.

[Reno]

Depending upon the day, my traffic is off 10-20% from the same time last year

Most internet users have X number of hours that they can be online on any given day (I don't mean doing the assigned tasks from a job ~ I mean "discretionary surfing"). I find it relevant that as Facebook usage has gone significantly up, Google traffic for many of us has gone down. 500 million people now use Facebook, a growth rate that surpassed that of Google. Yes, less Google traffic could be all the things we've discussed here, but there is also a distinct possibility that we are getting less traffic because people are devoting less time to surfing for the sheer enjoyment of it. It's no different than a bricks & mortar location ~ some of the customers come directly to that location, whereas others are simply walking by and in an instant decide to check it out. If there's less walk-by traffic, there are probably less customers. What Google giveth, Facebook taketh away.

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

[HuskyPup]

What Google giveth, Facebook taketh away.

I've been saying this for quite some time now and the reason is very simple:

1. Google, in fact most search engines, are used by people when they are specifically searching for something they cannot find the answer to on Facebook these days or are in a specific research role.

2. Facebook and its competitors are, obviously, social sites, and most people (500+ million is a lot of users) using the WWW these days are doing it for social purposes, not for purchasing, however they do discuss these things, I've seen my daughter doing precisely this therefore it is quite understandable how, or why, Google is giving successful company Facebook sites a boost in the SERPs.

We now have a well-established two tier WWW, whether or not the social WWW is going to be easily monetised is another question altogether and how to play that role in the social WWW is something many of us are scratching our heads about since I would rather have the truth out there than some of the garbage I see written about my industry's products.

Over this Xmas and New Year I am constructing a new 70 page site on a keyword domain name specifically for one type of product. Even though I've had this name for 12 years and it being the industry keyword I think I may struggle with it against the established sites however we'll see.

Certainly if it does fly will it be because of my proven construction methods or the keyword domain?

[tedster]

It feels like we've strayed pretty far from the opening question - is anything really known about how Google ranks websites today. So let's bring it back in.

The topic can be pretty wide - it is after all the main focus of this entire forum. At any rate, there is a lot of "fuzziness" around ranking today. In fact, it was over two years ago when I was studying some ranking graphs that I first noticed a phenomenon we began to call a yo-yo. Others called it a "sine wave" - and that really clicked for me.

No, it wasn't a true sine curve, but it had more the look of a statistical function - something like a complex zeta function. And then I remembered all those PhDs in statistics that Google hired, and all the public talk about AI and self-correction in the algorithm.

I began to see at least an outline then, and had a clue as to why it's challenging to pin ranking factors down today. Add then there's the quote from last year - about "a different algorithm for different kinds of sites."

If anyone remembers the kind of reverse engineering that we could do ten years ago and they're still hoping we can KNOW something with that kind of certainty today, I'd say that hope is in vain.

We are seeing only a hazy outline today, and few firm edges are at all in focus. Whatever edges there are can move daily or more frequently.

[HuskyPup]

Is there anything that's really known now?

Quality unique content on a keyword domain name and definitely on a .com, I have the proof about this as posted here:

[webmasterworld.com...]

[Reno]

... is anything really known about how Google ranks websites today... it is after all the main focus of this entire forum... the kind of reverse engineering that we could do ten years ago and they're still hoping we can KNOW something with that kind of certainty today, I'd say that hope is in vain... Whatever edges there are can move daily or more frequently.

I totally agree with every letter in your posting Tedster. I think a lot of people do, and to me it helps explain the quieting down of voices that we used to so frequently hear about Google at forums around the web. They're a super smart company that set out to confound the SEOers who could guarantee first page results and they succeeded in doing that. Those of us who all along built websites around useable content are probably doing ok, though perhaps not as OK as we would have predicted when we thought we could figure them out. I like what HuskyPup said about the 2-tier web, but like most, I have not yet glimpsed the pathway forward in utilizing that new tier to my advantage. Trying to understand Google was and can still be hugely valuable, but IMHO it would be equally valuable to put our experiences to use in discussing that mushrooming second tier. Otherwise, it will pass many of us by and we'll go to our graves blaming Google for our falls from grace.

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

[dickbaker]

Thanks for all of the replies. I wasn't expecting anyone to say, "this is what Google is today and this is how you get ranked well." Rather, I was asking rhetorically if after all of these months of Google-gazing if anyone has really figured anything out.

There are sites that have moved ahead of me in rank for which I can see very obvious reasons: they draw more traffic, they're more focused, they have more content, and they sell more. If I were to use any measure that I think would be useful in evaluating sites, I'd say these sites deserve the rankings they have.

It's the odd sites that have moved up that confuse me. I can look at them from every angle, inside and out, and find no reason why they're in the #4 or #5 spot. It's not because I'm signed out or have deleted cookies. They're still there when I sign in and search for a bit.

I like what HuskyPup said about the 2-tier web, but like most, I have not yet glimpsed the pathway forward in utilizing that new tier to my advantage. Trying to understand Google was and can still be hugely valuable, but IMHO it would be equally valuable to put our experiences to use in discussing that mushrooming second tier.

I'm trying to see that path as well, but can't see the pattern. I was never any good at pattern recognition. If I don't see it, though, I'm afraid my site will wither.

[AlyssaS]

I find it relevant that as Facebook usage has gone significantly up, Google traffic for many of us has gone down. 500 million people now use Facebook, a growth rate that surpassed that of Google. Yes, less Google traffic could be all the things we've discussed here, but there is also a distinct possibility that we are getting less traffic because people are devoting less time to surfing for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Not sure I entirely agree.

Back in the day (circa 2000/2001), when you wanted to chat or argue about something (politics, reality TV shows, etc), you joined a forum. I used to be an active member of The Motley Fool. In the course of argument, when you needed to back up your argument, you Googled, found a relevant link and posted on the forum to back up your case. In other words, Google was the source of information and the forums were where it got discussed.

The discussions have moved to Facebook - some terrific arguments take place there. But Google is still the source of information. Links posted on Facebook tend to be found on Google, rather than vice versa. (And think about it, how would people find a URL without Google or some marketing campaign?) Joe public doesn't just find websites, someone has to feed them to them, and the feeding mechanism is primarily the search engines (though some clever marketers have created viral campaigns that get their stuff noticed).

[Reno]

Google is still the source of information. Links posted on Facebook tend to be found on Google

In your example many of the links that Google finds will be information based (along the lines of Wikipedia), whereas I'm referring to what many of our e-comm sites are experiencing, which is too often these days less traffic == less sales. It's a complicated picture, as we are also in the midst of a historically severe economic downturn, so that in and of itself explains a lot. Still, I stand by my observation, even if it's only partially true, that given a limited amount of time that people can stay online for entertainment purposes, sites such as Facebook and Twitter are the obvious beneficiaries, and others will suffer accordingly.

That scenario along with the possibility that Google is virtually "unknowable" at this point means it's a new ballgame. Traditional SEO is only going to do so much, thereafter you reach the point of diminishing returns. I would reference the postings made here in numerous threads about traffic shaping, where the visitor stats do not change no matter what a webmaster does.

So I conclude from all that that we'd better be exploring new models if we want to survive. Google is certainly a part of that model, but its role is increasingly uncertain and, candidly, undependable. And there's the rub...

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

[AlyssaS]

In your example many of the links that Google finds will be information based (along the lines of Wikipedia), whereas I'm referring to what many of our e-comm sites are experiencing

It's not just information sites though. I recently started getting a lot of traffic from a Facebook page, and when I tracked it back, what had happened was that someone on a wall had asked for where to buy a product and someone else had posted a link to my site as having the products listed and which they themselves had used to buy them. But I presume the person who posted the link had found it through a search engine (I was and am ranked highly for that site). How else would they have found me? I hadn't done any social media promotion for that website at that point.

So the search engines were the "source". If you arn't in the search engines, you stand a very low chance of people finding and then sharing your link on social media. The rankings in the search engines have to come first, unless you are going to build a massive social media campaign to get yourself noticed.

[dickbaker]

which is too often these days less traffic == less sales

There's an odd thing for me, though. My page views are 80% of what I had last year, my visitor count is down a bit, but sales are on par with this time last year. This wasn't the case last month. Google seems to be sending me buyers, but not as many visitors.

In my niche most searches return ecommerce sites. If Google considers my site to be ecommerce or at least partly ecommerce, then it's good enough for them to send me converting visitors. It's the informational part of the site that isn't focused enough, or isn't unique enough.

I'm just guessing at that, but it sounds as good as anything else, right?

[TheMadScientist]

My page views are 80% of what I had last year, my visitor count is down a bit, but sales are on par with this time last year.

What about landing pages; are visitors landing on the same pages as they were or is Google sending people to 'the right page' more often now so, for example, visitors only need to view 1 page rather than 2 more often?

It's the informational part of the site that isn't focused enough, or isn't unique enough.

IMO you're really the only one who can answer this one... If people aren't landing in the informational section, then my guess is you're correct, but you really have to look a entry pages in the logs to know which section of the site is getting the traffic.

There are a bunch of variables in your logs we don't have access to that should answer your question... The change could easily be the entry page, so without knowing the details of your stats it's really tough to say much about it.

Example: Last year people entered the information section and read 2 pages of information then went to the sales page and purchased (3 page views per visitor). This year Google sent people to the second page of information which had what the person needed to decide to make a purchase and rather than visiting page 1 they went to the sales page (2 page views per visit).

^^^ Less page views per visit, same sales, because of better matching of visitors, pages and objectives by Google, IMO.

More page views is not necessarily better, depending on the site of course, and IMO Google is doing something right for visitors if you are having the same sales on less page views and visits... Sounds like they have your site and visitors fairly well matched to me.