Google credibility after the Panda Update

[darkyl]

Does anyone else think that Google is harming its own credibility with such large, sudden changes in its results?

Google is not just a search engine: in the internet market it is an authority which basically reviews websites and tells you which ones are the best.

If we compared Google's behaviour with similar authorities in other sectors, the judgement would be harsh.

A couple of examples:
- How could a financial ratings authority (like Moody's or S&P) justify the fact that companies they rated "the best" for years are now rated "junk" if those companies haven't changed at all?

- Would you trust, as a user, a reviews website that tells you that a product is the best in its market and the day after it's not even in the top 500?

- As an advertiser would you trust an intermediary that makes you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads space on several "top" websites and the day after tells you those website are worth nothing?

The harshness of the demotion of many of the sites that have been hit is also nonsensical to me. For most queries there aren't hundreds of on topic, specific pages to show.
That's why Google shows less and less related results the more you go on with results pages.
So you search for "Green Widgets" and on page 5 of the serps you see pages titled "Widgets for pakistani astronauts" (ok, i'm exaggerating here).

Even if you dislike content farms a lot, you can't tell me that their on topic articles are less interesting for the user than those totally unrelated or minimally related pages. I would understand a minus 5/10/20 drop for websites hit by Panda, but minus 300? 500?

I believe in Google's goodwill on its quest for quality and I appreciate its independence in the choiches they make but no ones likes total unpredictability.
Google should be very careful on this matter: losing consistency in the eyes of users, publishers, advertisers and, why not, investors, is a dangerous path and many might prefer to put their efforts/energy/money/resources elsewhere.

[Reno]

Anyone who relies on a thid party to provide traffic (or anything for that matter) has a risk they need to assess and spread to minimise impact.

This is very good advice which is regularly offered by many (including myself) at this venue. But for the record, there is only a minor difference between this and telling someone in 1975 to create a business model that did not depend on AT&T for telephone service. I'm not suggesting it's exactly the same thing ~ it's not as AT&T was a classic monopoly ~ but with Google having about 70% of the search activity, it's darn close, so my hat is off to anyone who can suddenly lose that 70% and not be worried.

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

[Dan01]

Darkyl, you make great points. I think that a site-wide penalty could hurt the results. Perhaps the top SERPS were getting so trashed Google felt like they needed to do something drastic.

[netmeg]

but with Google having about 70% of the search activity, it's darn close, so my hat is off to anyone who can suddenly lose that 70% and not be worried.

Perhaps the key is to develop other channels so that search isn't 70% of your traffic, revenue or business plan.

[walkman]

Perhaps the key is to develop other channels so that search isn't 70% of your traffic, revenue or business plan.

Duh, but now you fire the people because Google put your site on page 3 after 5 years of page one? What if Google returns your site and you need to fill 10 times more orders all of the sudden?

It's not as easy. This is why Google and every search engine with major market share has a responsibility to be careful with updates.

[edited by: walkman at 1:59 am (utc) on Apr 17, 2011]

[GuyFromKlingon]

Which credibility? Google has always been about spamm the WWW with their ads everywhere.

Their ad pollution: ok. Selling links? Not ok. Right, uhuh. What we need is Googlebot Disallow: / that is what we need.

[vphoner]

The problem today is that google went public. Its shareholders put pressure on them to earn more and more everyday and is spurring their recent actions. Since google is such a big part of the internet now, they should have a fiduciary responsibility to keep the internet a level playing field for large and small sites. This latest panda update unfortunately will stifle innovation and creativity on the internet. I see mostly larger sites now in the top positions (on their ads too). These recent changes are making the internet so unstable, that people may not start-up a site for fear that one day they could disappear from the index without warning. Its harmful to the economy. Almost all sites start small and build up. Without that, our economy dies.

[dickbaker]

Since google is such a big part of the internet now, they should have a fiduciary responsibility to keep the internet a level playing field for large and small sites.

Google has a responsibility to its shareholders to turn as large a profit as possible. It doesn't owe me or anyone else anything.

If in the process of trying to maximize profits, Google screws up and ticks off users to the point where they go to Bing, then Google will have to adjust or lose.

It boils down to an issue of free speech, too. You have a right to promote your site, but you don't have a right to make Google or anyone else listen to what you say.

[netmeg]

Pre Panda or Post Panda, there's still only ten results to the first SERPS page (if that). Everyone doesn't get to be there, and once there, everyone doesn't get to stay there. There are no season tickets.

[koan]

There are no season tickets.

Except for Google web properties.

[Reno]

Google has a responsibility to its shareholders to turn as large a profit as possible.

But its responsibility does not stop there. As a registered publicly traded USA corporation it is subject to state & federal laws. The auto industry could turn a bigger profit if they didn't have those pesky safety laws; drug companies could make huge profits if it wasn't for those darn FDA testing trials; industrial agriculture could double its income if they could just pay migrant workers $4 an hour. When it can be proven in a court of law that a corporation is doing harm, that corporation can be held accountable.

All algo updates have winners & losers, but Panda was exceptionally virulent. I'm not a lawyer or regulator so cannot say with any certainty if Google is technically "doing harm", but given the path of destruction strewn by Panda, they may be closer to that edge than ever before. And as I said in an earlier post, if they can't figure something out on their own to soften the blow to siteowners (read: citizens who vote and own small businesses), then the government will be pushed to step in ~ and it won't matter whether you or I like it. As you correctly said in your earlier post, if that happens, it won't be pretty.

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

[Vamm]

Would you trust, as a user, a reviews website that tells you that a product is the best in its market and the day after it's not even in the top 500

Google is not a review website. Google provides answers to the query. If a query for "noise level of Mark 5 Widgetator", there are probably 100 sites that have an answer listed. Which of those is on top, I do not practically care. Also, I do not care if it is the same site or if I get a new site with each query, as long as the answer is provided. This is not like the Google says "this site has the best information", because there are at least 100 copies anyway, identical for my practical purposes.

[tedster]

I hear that argument, Vamm. It is a real part of the picture. Now we can mix in another factor.

Google has claimed in court that search results are editorial opinion - and the courts have agreed. So in a way, Google actually HAS been saying "this site currently provides the best information for that search query, in our opinion." Except that the state of information retrieval is not at all mature.

Going further, when any business happens to affect other businesses, that relationship is not set in stone. Those natural inter-relationships are not locked in unless there is a contract involved. With something like information retrieval, lock-in is even less possible.

There is not much established law that easily applies to search engine ranking. So, the cultural challenge is either to generate new law, or to decide if legal regulation is warranted at all. The world needs search and too many constraints could hurt its evolution and innovation.

It's a tough one.

[dickbaker]

It's pretty hard to any arm of government to go after a company for claims it makes in advertising or elsewhere. I would think it would also be extremely difficult for the government to go after Google because some folks don't think the search results are right. What's next? Going after GM because they don't make any cars painted purple?

I can remember back in the 1970's an ad for a cold relief medication. It was a really creative ad, but the ad's claim was that " a summer cold is a different animal". The FDA went after them, and demanded proof that a summer cold was different from colds at other times of year. Couldn't be proved, ad had to be pulled.

It's not often you see intervention like that, and I certainly wouldn't expect to see it here because of the results Google is serving.

[Jessica]

see for yourself:

[finance.yahoo.com...]

[chrisv1963]

Google has a responsibility to its shareholders to turn as large a profit as possible. It doesn't owe me or anyone else anything.

And the shareholders aren't happy ... What if shareholders hear that Google has been working an entire year on a crap algo?

-8.26% value vaporated in one single day. What will happen tomorrow? A second Panda-like Google Share drop?

[walkman]

Google has claimed in court that search results are editorial opinion - and the courts have agreed. So in a way, Google actually HAS been saying "this site currently provides the best information for that search query, in our opinion." Except that the state of information retrieval is not at all mature.

The devil's advocate would want to know how that opinion was formed, especially since they have a 65%-95%(95% in EU) market share. It may very easily be used to crush any competition under the guise of free speech. I am sure MSFT felt that "Netscape browser sucks and is inferior to IE" but they didn't take their word for it.

For example:
why did Google decide to demote local search /product review this time? What changed from last time?

I don't want the Fed Gov to run Google :) trust me but these sudden changes with absolutely no logic are very disruptive so maybe Google needs to be weakened for others to have a chance.

Dickbaker,
it's different from that. Is Google with 65%-95% of market share using its position and possible SERPS to drive out of business its competitors? It's a very legitimate question. Just ask Superpages, insiderpages, shopping.com, ciao.com and soon travel search engines.

[darkyl]

If a query for "noise level of Mark 5 Widgetator", there are probably 100 sites that have an answer listed. Which of those is on top, I do not practically care.

So I bet you use stumbleupon for your searches. (j/k)

Which of those is on top, I do not practically care.

Even if the answer is the wrong one?
What if you searched for a mortgage, health insurance, investments? What if you look for "unbiased" news and Google feeds you the North Korean state news website?

Google is the top search engine because it gives the best answers, not just answers.

If Google is trusted for giving the best results but starts to lack in consistency at the point where the best result of today is the worst of tomorrow (and the website hasn't changed anything) would you trust it the same?

I'm not saying this is the downfall of Google, I'm saying that confusing users, publishers and advertisers is a dangerous path for a business.

[crobb305]

-8.26% value vaporated in one single day.

Wow, Friday was harsh for share prices.

Moreover, look at the trend in share prices since this mess began in February [finance.yahoo.com...] (right around the 23rd). The timing correlates reasonably well with the Panda, and of the media coverage about Google's spanking of JCPenney/Overstock, etc. I think a lot of shareholders realize that Google can just penalize any company (big or small) and that Google appears to be on that mission.

Also, I'm sure the interview with engineers, published Thursday on MSN Finance and the statement about weekly meetings didn't help confidence [msn.finance.com.my...] :

For five and a half years he has run weekly meetings at which changes to Google's search algorithm are decided. Revenue implications of changes have never been brought up at those meetings, according to Huffman.

[tedster]

Let's keep Google stock discussions in the Google Business and Finance forum - here's a link to the current thread: Panda affects Google Stock Price? [webmasterworld.com]

[crobb305]

Ted, sorry. I saw a strong relationship between credibility, confidence and stock prices. I didn't see that other thread, because it's not a forum I check often. I just get the feeling that the recent coverage about Bing's growth (possible surpassing of Google in 2012) and so many recent algorithmic changes/press coverage are harming Google (credibility, confidence, etc... however you want to look at it).

[tedster]

Stock prices are about confidence in many business factors, and market analysts have not indicated any concern at all with the quality of search results themselves.

This forum is about credibility of the actual SERPs, and this thread should focus there - otherwise we'll get far afield into ad revenues, operating expenses, market cap, speculators and all the factors that are known to affect stock prices.

Is anyone seeing an indication in their own website analytics that fewer people are coming from Google searches, even though the rankings are stable? I am not seeing any effect like that. I can't rule out that it might happen - IF the general public does not feel good about the 12% of search results that are affected by Panda.

[darkyl]

Is anyone seeing an indication in their own website analytics that fewer people are coming from Google searches, even though the rankings are stable

I don't think Google will lose search users due to the Panda update.
But if Google keeps generating confusion for many different kind of players, like publishers, advertisers and investors, it might lead to a widespread sense of discontent.
Google might start receiving bad press from many different sources and that might reflect heavily on search users in the long run.

[Shatner]

>>>it might lead to a widespread sense of discontent.

This. I've already talked to many people who run larger sites which weren't hit, who are still completely freaked out that this could happen to them at any time, and they're working on ways to get away from Google as fast as possible.

[walkman]

Is anyone seeing an indication in their own website analytics that fewer people are coming from Google searches, even though the rankings are stable? I am not seeing any effect like that. I can't rule out that it might happen - IF the general public does not feel good about the 12% of search results that are affected by Panda.

2-3% at time is not felt Tedster and we know SERPS move normally. I can tell you that before Panda, Bing + Y! made 25-30% of my searches. Not something to laugh at, and it was my best keywords, not for a section that I made no money on and is/was popular for Google referrals.

Google and MSFT and big companies don't fall in a day or two, short of a major snafu. It happens little by little and bad press, badmouthing and general dissatisfaction plays a major role (there's a reason why big corps monitor comments and tweets via Nielsen and Radian6.)
Google had a much better product but great press for them, horrible press for big-bad-arrogant MSFT and legions of Google fan-boys made Google a success. The opposite is just as true.

Do you think any big or even small site is relaxed today after seeing what Panda did to many other sites? As everything moves online people are bound to hear a Google horror story, maybe adsense disabled, email and all services cutoff, site trashed by panda, stories of monopolies etc etc. It starts to create e negative image. 99% of people that try Bing probably have no reason to leave it, it's good enough. Maybe they have to click to the third listed SERP vs the first one in Google, not a big deal at all. IF (and it's an if) Bing got 3% gain on Google in March alone, that is one scary trend.

[tedster]

Everything you say is true. If Google falls, that is probably the way it would start, and a 3% drop in search share for one month is quite dramatic. The only other way would be a major management error like too many acquisitions too fast or something like that.

I wonder if Google does their own Social Media monitoring. They've certainly got all the ingredients needed to do it in-house.

[Whitey]

There is not much established law that easily applies to search engine ranking

... so legislation needs to be strenghtend by Government, but Government is a few steps behind Google. Ultimately, it is not in the public interest to have so much commercial dependence on a single player for the distribution and retrieval of information.

But it may take a decade or more to catch up, by which time the party will be over and the business opportunity exploited. Google knows that ... just as we learned from MS and the Telco's.

Google provided all of the upfront advice it could about unique content and other potential elements in it's guidelines. Perhaps the World needed to have a stronger message and a date put before them as an ultimatum. That would be credible IMO

It would be the decent thing to do to provide substantial notice of algorithmic change so as to allow everyone to afford and execute the necessary adjustments. But not much is decent in the commercial world, given it's competitive nature, so i'm probably going to have to dream on.

[tedster]

I still don't see how any search engine can make their algorithm changes public in any kind of detail. And without the detail, even six months warning wouldn't do the site owners much good.

[Whitey]

How about .....

"we're ramping up our algo on content quality in 1st quarter, 2011 and noticed you produce little content of any quality. Why don't you get your act together before you get dropped. If you don't improve your sites quality, you may be cactus

These are the pages we thought weren't worth publishing, they are so bad.

... and apart from those disastrous pages, you expect us to rank you when you don't have a single quality link to your site, apart from the batch of low form paid links from XYZ link brokers. C'mon !

btw - Have a nice day ,

Google loves you and your business.

Always

Webmastertools "

... or am i dreaming ? Some improvement at least in WMT in the communication might help.

[walkman]

How about "We'll re-calculate the sites again in..." .
Now people are up in the air, they have no clue what Google did them and for how long will this stupid update not care about changes. Way to go Google make enemies by being capricious, we'll promote your social thing and your other products, don't worry.

[Dan01]

Tedster:

I still don't see how any search engine can make their algorithm changes public

I was thinking about this today. There is a lot of speculation as to what Panda did. Ads, links, scraped content, shallow pages - how did they determine shallow content or a low quality site?

The algo change was either a trade secret or a patent. If it was a patent, it would be out there for everyone to see. Someone on another thread mentioned that they made a breakthrough a few months before Panda came out. I think Mad Scientist mentioned that he reads the Google patents.

If it was a trade secret, then all we can do is listen to what Matt Cutts and other say.