Getting it.... what does Google really want?

[whatson]

I thought I got Google, and made sites that were best for my visitors, giving them the most informative, relevant, unique information they were seeking. I thought that [in a nut shell] was it. But I guess I am wrong. So what actually is it they want? I want to play ball, within the rules, and I thought that was what I was doing.

And one you accomplish all this how do you monetize it? Especially considering it is likely you have put a lot of effort, time and money in making a site with such great content and tools.

[Shatner]

I think right now they are focused on promoting big name, established brands.

I think that's what they want.

They've pretty much said as much.

[whatson]

So we are all scr-oogled?

[tangor]

Nah... just marginalized. We don't have the same deep pockets to pay their ransom... er... green fees to tee up.

Don't let anyone fool ya... Google is all about how to twist more ka-ching into their mysterious black box advertising and they will do everything they can to keep us from knowing how it works.

[kd454]

Yes G$$gle is all about the big brands now, what until they "fix" the long tails like they are talking about, going to take all the scrapes from the little guy.

scr-oogled we are, I am thinking doing all the work on your site is not going to help, buying some high powered links will I bet.

[whatson]

So this is going to get worse? Are they saying why? Where did they mention about "fixing" long-tail?

[ron15]

In 2011 and beyond, I think its all about finding traffic from means other than Google. Take what they will give you, but look elsewhere for what they won't give you. I think adapt or die time is approaching.

[kd454]

[googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com...]

In addition, this change also goes deeper into the “long tail” of low-quality websites to return higher-quality results where the algorithm might not have been able to make an assessment before.

@whatson

Oops they have already done it, this was from googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com .. Sorry about that.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 5:02 am (utc) on Apr 20, 2011]
[edit reason] Added link to Google Blog [/edit]

[whatson]

Oh ok, so this is about as bad as it gets? I have lost close to half my income, well perhaps 40%, but I can still make my mortgage payments at least. Any less though, and I am in serious trouble and I assume I am not the only one.

So is this to say links and PR are once again more important?

[walkman]

I tell you my feelings: it's over. You cannot quit your day job, you cannot buy a house, you cannot buy a domain name or site hoping to grow it, you cannot do anything and hope that Google will act rationally. I wish I could grab my bags and move to Costa Rica where you may manage on $1500 to $2000 a month.

There is nothing to "get," it all depends on Google. You can work 24/7 along with your staff, do eactly what Google tells you to do, be #1 for a decade and still be pandalized while others are taking your share for no apparent reason. Google is out to kill small time bloggers and sites, now the likes of Yahoo, Amazon, Huffington Post, AOL, Conde Nast etc will rank for every single thing.

So let's do our part, let's not help Google kill us faster, OK?

[whatson]

So they have sold out? Joined the elite corporations?

[whatson]

Anyway, I am still not going to give up that easily. I got seriously scr-oogled with the infamous Florida update, yet I got back into it and started profiting again, so I am sure I can do it again.

[walkman]

Anyway, I am still not going to give up that easily. I got seriously scr-oogled with the infamous Florida update, yet I got back into it and started profiting again, so I am sure I can do it again.

I didn't say block Googlebot, I was just stating my opinion on the trend and that it doesn't look good for small timers.
We will have many Panda X versions this year and the next.

And Florida hit on 2004, long before you had huge corporations becoming SEO machines.

[whatson]

I think it is possibly more to do with if the information that your web site is providing, can be sourced elsewhere from a more "authoritative" site, then you will be pandarized. But what is it that makes them an authority? More Pagerank?

[kd454]

But what is it that makes them an authority?

They are big brands, big money, big everything that is what makes them an authority. $$$

Pretty much the same thing as Walmart coming to your little town, takes the traffic from the smaller stores then they go bye bye.

[whatson]

And now they will receive this extra bump in traffic and fewer competitors, making them stronger and more profitable than ever.

But what about the niches, perhaps some small site with a very specialized theme like skiing on a particular mountain. Would that mean if a big brand web site did an article on this mountain it would make the niche site obsolete?

[whatson]

Or is it the me too web sites that have been trying to jump on other ideas with their own unique (expendable) spin?

[tangor]

As "they" have always said... "Follow the money!"

We have a few years yet before the Web becomes completely commercialized, but it will be only a FEW years. It won't be long before the "small", "niche", "mom and pop" sites are relegated to the same place that "vanity" publishing enjoyed when all information was disseminated via printing presses. Each time there has been a new information technology a period of "wild west" and small houses making good money obtained...then were over-shadowed or swallowed by larger concerns of the previous technology. Only those small houses who became large houses during the "wild west" will survive the transition to the next level.

I suspect that we will see a number of new search engines in future...those specializing in anything EXCEPT the "big box/brands", or extended niche, much the same way that the print industry has Best Sellers, Romance, SF, Magazines, Newspapers, etc. These do not compete with each other, but they are all "print". (Same can be said for Audio and Film as to the many divisions possible).

Google's INDEX THE WEB is eventually going to bite it in the A$$ because they NEED the big bucks to satisfy their shareholders...and that means they will have to ignore the smaller sites (while scraping such content for as long as they can...ie. until the small site wake-up that bans their Bot).

Possibly there will be two or three levels of "net", each with their own "niche" of players. But as to what Google wants now is everything you have, your money too, and is secure in the knowledge that they are in the cat-bird seat and able to tell anyone to piss off/ban for whatever reason.

[realmaverick]

Well, that was about the most depressing thread I've ever read in my life :o/

[whatson]

And those small houses that survived will likely be bought out anyway.

But there is still going to be the local business market right? Searching for your local chinese restaurant? Is that more likely to become one large Yahoo restaurant database, than the actual restaurants own web site?

Or are we slightly over-reacting due to the shock of it all? Will there still be a place for niches and long tails?

[realmaverick]

I personally feel people are over reacting to the speculation. This is precisely what Google want though. They're giving us a massive slap in the face and showing us exactly who the boss is.

I cannot personally imagine a Google driven by large brands. What even equates as a large brand? Do we all need to start leaving our site name trailing our titles. I guess time will tell.

[walkman]

This is precisely what Google want though. They're giving us a massive slap in the face and showing us exactly who the boss is.

True, the slap might backfire though. Arrogance has killed more one company and now they have to worry about Bing, Twitter, Facebook etc etc. Not sure if Google can afford to slap innocent webmasters just to show it's teeth. Next year the Bing forum might be the more popular one for all we know.

[koan]

I cannot personally imagine a Google driven by large brands.

The irony being Google was once promoted by techies over the big, clueless search/portals of the day because it was that small and different company delivering real results instead of bland, corporate crap.

[bluntforce]

I suppose one question might be: What does a large brand do differently than a smaller, perhaps individually owned site?

Do they provide the user with the information they were seeking and provide a decision/purchasing moment? Or, do they provide endless chains of opportunities and options?

[dickbaker]

In my niche, the large brands don't dominate. There's been a reshuffling of SERPS, and there's a lot of newer small sites that have made it to page one. Not necessarily better than the sites that were there before, but new.

I'm not entirely sure why they deserve to be on the first page, as they don't meet the conditions considered on this forum to be what everyone thinks Google wants, but they're there, and they're small.

[bluntforce]

@dickbaker

They deserve to be on the front page because they fit what the current Google algorithm considers important. It's not significant what forum opinions consider important, what's important is analysis of why those sites rank.

[Shatner]

>>What does a large brand do differently than a smaller, perhaps individually owned site?

It's all about trust. People automatically (and irrationally) trust big brand names that they see on TV on all the time and see on billboards. There's no reason for it, but the name is familiar, so people trust it, even if that brand is inferior in every way to some smaller brand.

And Google understands that, and realizes that if they put Sears at the top of the search results instead of Mom N' Pop Hardware that people will think Google's results are good, because people automatically think Sears is the best, whether or not it actually is.

It's why people still go to AOL, even though AOL hasn't been relevant in 15 years.

And Google is acknowledging people's desire for inferior yet more comfortingly familiar search results.

That's what's going on. That's how it works, and that's what Google is going for. It's not about delivering the best search results it's about delivering what people THINK are the best when they look.

It's also why there's been discussion of the winner sites having a far lower reading level in their writing. Simpler isn't better, but people don't want to read, so it seems better to them.

[edited by: Shatner at 6:47 am (utc) on Apr 20, 2011]

[tedster]

Yes, Google does want brands - but not necessarily BIG brands. Give that idea some thought and you may find a way to generate genuine branding for your online business.

That is a big topic, worthy of a week of seminars. But the main thing all search engines are looking for is ENGAGEMENT - signs that a website actually engages their visitors in some way. We can all see at least some of what Eric Schmidt called "the cesspool" on the web, so imagine how putrid it must look on Google's end.

Sites made only to grab rankings and generate income but without any attention to their impact on visitors are a scourge on the web. So the question becomes, how can your site not not look like one of those? That is essentially what Google wants in their rankings, as I see it, no matter what any moment in the struggle looks like.

[tangor]

what's important is analysis of why those sites rank

That part is easy... they moved into the vacuum left after the previously ranked sites were demoted. :)

[Shatner]

Here's what I think is the very simplest way to state what's happening.

In the past Google was devoted to delivering the very best search results.

Now Google is devoted to delivering what SEEMS like the best results, to the average user.

Subtle difference, but an important one.