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.

[Shaddows]

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

More accurately, they were devoted to returning the MOST RELEVANT results.

Now they have stirred in "quality", which is subjective even in humans. When you have a machine-learnt aproximation of statistically compiled quality-judgement aggregation, there is bound to be some odd outcomes.

But yes, essentially Google wants the results it serves to FEEL like the best possible results.

Frankly, pandering(!) to the lowest common denominator has been happening long before Panda, with G guessing your intentions, correcting your spelling, autosuggesting, etc. Easy consumption pages before high-academia, editiorial opinion on studies before the actual study. All is because G has determined what Joe Public likes best.

No point complaining about it. Plenty of "better" companies have lost to the more popular ones. You hear about dumbing-down all the time (at least this side of the pond).

This thread is asking how we can give Google what it wants. Google is following the same mantra for its user base: Give'em what they want.

[bluntforce]

When we move into the concept "My site took a hit so Google is screwed up" I rapidly lose interest.

Tedster's post makes a lot of sense to me, maybe re-reading it might be beneficial.

[whatson]

History repeats itself, and here it is happening again. There used to be lots of independent newspapers, until JP Morgan bought them all up, and no longer anyone was allowed to report what they deemed newsworthy. Anyone could have a radio station, until the FCC stopped allowing anyone to broadcast their opinions.
Now it is happening again, they have been trying to tighten independent voices on the web for sometime, and as Google is pretty much the backbone, this is how its happening.

[rico_suarez]

As someone noticed, the solution is to be independent from Google as much as you can. Eg. how much of your traffic comes from Google? I receive 45% of traffic and was only marginally hit by Panda and I can live with it. I regained much of the lost traffic from other sites by posting my content there and getting credit for it. If you have 90% of traffic coming from Google that means that not much people come directly to your site or that not many sites link to your site which is all bad ever from G's perspective. You will live in fear forever, whenever G announces algo change, you may be in trouble. Go out, exchange links, post your content on other sites, make people link to your site so that majority of your traffic comes from other sources.

[Shaddows]

When we move into the concept "My site took a hit so Google is screwed up" I rapidly lose interest.

Snap!

Generally, I ignore such threads. However, there do seem to be a large number of members who are NOT the usual suspects as algo change victims. Some are asking valid recovery questions. While there IS a lot of "noise" polluting the actual analysis, there are some goog nuggets of information in here.

As a long-time Google-sceptic that has NEVER been adversely affected by an algo change, I have tried to engage constructively with those affected. Getting shouted down is no fun, and the constant refrain of "google is broken" or "blah blah blay: FAIL" gets old quickly.

But similarly, "I wasn't affected so Google is fine and you lot are whining losers" seems a bit harsh.

Finding what bits of your site is giving Google the wrong impression seems to be the mature response. Analysing the winners and losers is the only strategy. And participation on these forums seems to be a good way of comparing data, and possibly getting the answer sooner.

I would only reitereate that THERE IS NO SINGLE ANSWER, as true now as at any other major algo change

[walkman]

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.

They are, not deserve. There's a huge difference, especially when Google all of the sudden demotes sites that were on the front page for many, many years.

For the record: I have gained net visitors from Google in panda, but it makes zero sense, no matter how I look at it. The sites I cannot defend gained traffic.

[netmeg]

(I was hoping the tendency to anthropomorphise Google would die down after a while, but guess that will just never happen.)

Tedster has it right. I know plenty of people who are killing it who are not big brands, but who are brands nonetheless. And they got that way by being so good at what they do, so much the one authority above all the others in their niche, that when people think of that niche, they immediately associate the brand. And even if they have competitors or scrapers, they're still the authority, because they continue to do just a little bit more than the rest do.

And these people didn't get Pandalized, because they're sending out the right signals about their brands.

Now, how Google attempts to figure all this out is beyond my feeble brain. But to me it seems pretty obvious that they're trying really hard, by using social triggers, semantics, trust factors, originality, and a lot of stuff we take for granted because we don't even think about it. That would probably be how a machine tries to gauge "quality" For us more human types, well, we know it when we see it, but there's no way we could all agree on how to define it.

IMO, that's what Google wants. I do not think they want an index full of nothing but Best Buy, Sears, and Wikipedia. Contrary to what many people believe, they have always given very strong signals that they're in it for the long haul, not the short term money grab. They don't always get it right by a long shot, but that's what they're going for.

[whatson]

I am like most webmasters here, some of my web sites were hit, some have benefited. Overall I have lost traffic and income though.
I am just trying to get my head around working the common factor that the hit sites carry.
And even if I can, and re-do the sites, then what? Do I wait for the new cache, do a submit a request? Is it a penalty, algo, or what?

[aakk9999]

And these people didn't get Pandalized, because they're sending out the right signals about their brands.

Now, how Google attempts to figure all this out is beyond my feeble brain.

Perhaps one of the way is where a brand name of the seller/provider site is added to the search when searching for a general widely available widget that is being offered on many sites?

E.g. instead of searching: green widget
a visitor searches: green widget seller-brand-name

Along the lines - if I want to buy a book, I may search for the book name. But if I want to buy it from Amazon, because the Amazon is the brand I trust, I may type in the book name followed by the word "Amazon".

This type of brand recognition would work for small brands as well as the big ones - and be very visible to Google.

[whatson]

And a lot of businesses are the only vendors of their product line and cannot be sourced anywhere else. Therefore any type of me-too site will not have an opportunity to out rank the most "deserved" site whether a big brand or not.

I think "me-too" is a big factor here, a lot of sites wanting to jump on the band-wagon doing/offering nearly identical services, products, information, etc as others that are well branded and established and more authoritative. The me-too sites might offer a different spin, perhaps some extra tools, different functionality, etc, and most likely more aggressive SEO.

So if you want to make it online you need to be more unique than ever before.

[johnhh]

E.g. instead of searching: green widget
a visitor searches: green widget seller-brand-name

That is an interesting concept - especially if the brand gets a point every time "green widget seller-brand-name " is searched and after x points you don't need to type the brand name.

The only way a new brand could break in is to promote the new brand through over other mediums, print , social media, forums and, of course , adwords, rather than just attempting SEO.

[aakk9999]

The only way a new brand could break in is to promote the new brand through over other mediums, print , social media, forums and, of course , adwords, rather than just attempting SEO.

That too, but also to have what a visitor perceives to be a quality site that to them (sub-consciously) justifies the ranking position achieved via SEO. So we come back to "quality site" here.

<added>
Or to identify and create a brand as a provider for a type of the widget where there is no provider/seller brands being attached to that widget yet.</added>

So, for an e-commerce site, for example, one of questions Google said they had asked was "Would you trust this site with your credit card" - which could be spot on.

If I am buying a widget generally available on many sites, and during my "research/information gathering" phase I came across the site that I would trust with my credit card, then the next time when I am in "buying" mode, I might just type widget name followed by that company (or site) name (that is, the brand name in the making) since I want to buy from them.

And over the time, if the brand gets a point for each of such search being made, Google may associate that widget with this brand name, without the need for the brand to be typed in (exactly as you said).

I saw this process happening with one site we were working with, where at certain point in time, entering a generic keyword in the Google and using Wonder Wheel showed the B&M business as the first node connection despite the same generic widget being on offer on 1000+ sites.

[johnhh]

aakk9999:

Certainly food for thought - especially as our ecommerce site just had the best day for a long time - it has a physical address and contact number therefore fits the "credit card" test.

Whilst on our "information site" that has been hit I am A/B testing including local addresses, oddly on this site 3 word keywords do better.

It also explains Dougs comments re his voucher code site ( on another thread ) that he hasn't actually been hit despite third party stats showing he has.This is as his email list is huge and may gain for searches "keyword mysite"

Perhaps Panda is about user interaction with sites rather than SEO, i.e if you have a website - shout about it.
All this falls apart when you consider daniweb
_{Amazed to hear there is actually a Dani!}

[Reno]

Sites made only to grab rankings and generate income but without any attention to their impact on visitors are a scourge on the web

OK, here's my problem:

All websites are not created equal: In content, in meaning, in theme, in focus, in design, in importance.

So you sell orange widgets. That's all you do, and the widgets are not real sexy ~ but they're orange, so if a person wants an orange widget, you got 'em.

So your visitors arrive, they find, they order, they leave ~ they're not looking for a relationship, they just want an orange widget.

I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning of the word "engagement", I just don't understand how it can be applied across the boards. Some sites can engage because they lend themselves to discussion, contemplation, questions, etc. Others just sell orange widgets, and there just ain't much to say about them ~ they're just orange.

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

[bluntforce]

If you have the definitive site about orange widgets, I tend to believe you'll have some rankings for that.

If you engage in cross-selling(linking), where you also promote big widgets, small widgets, blue widgets and pink widgets, then the signals become a little more mixed. Orange widgets become part of "widgets" without the clear defining aspect that you are based on "Orange Widgets".

A lot of the sites I looked at in other threads had what I'd consider theme issues. Yes, they had prominent ads, but they also had a lot of internal links where I couldn't make a conceptual connection from the page I was on to the other pages internally linked on their site.

If I'm interested in Orange Widgets, perhaps Big Widgets aren't what I'm looking for. So why is an Orange Widget site showing me internal links to Big Widgets?

It's certainly not because they're trying to help me with my Orange Widget search.

[Rlilly]

Ted's post has some points. But the truth of the matter is one cannot compete at the level of engagement the brands can make happen. Add that to Google manual manipulation of the results to help brands dominate. Giving multiple listings for one domain and ussually all ways a big brand. Small business is dead on the web!

[jecasc]

You have to face the following. Since only the top results count you have to ask yourself the question: Do I really belong there? Honestly. Not in terms of SEO. "I belong there because I have more backlinks and use H1 tags and site example.com only has half the backlinks".

Is your website actually the best result for that keyword combination? What makes your site better? What makes it stick out from the crowd? Why do you believe it deserves to be there?

If you find out: Actually no. I don't deserve to be there. Or at least not more than the others. I am average. The others are average, too but I had an edge because I optimized better. Change that and be above average.

If you find out that you belong there and you are not there, then ask yourself what you are doing wrong in communicating this?

Are you sending the wrong signals from your website?
Are you a recognizable brand in your niche? Have you optimized too hard in the past? If your website was a Ferrari have you added spoilers and rear bumpers and new absorbers and your classy sports car looks like it comes out of tuning hell now? Have you turned a first class lady into a cheap whore? Have you sold yourself out? Sold content snippets for backlinks? Split your good content up and spread it artifically over many pages? Are you writing the same stuff as all the others? Do you get ideas for new content by looking what others write and then write about the same? Have you become lazy?

It is not true that the big dominate everything. Big often means average. When I look at the competition in my niche I see all they are trying to do is grow. And in growing they have become sloppy and shallow.

[netmeg]

So you sell orange widgets. That's all you do, and the widgets are not real sexy ~ but they're orange, so if a person wants an orange widget, you got 'em.

So your visitors arrive, they find, they order, they leave ~ they're not looking for a relationship, they just want an orange widget.

That may be orangewidgets.com's business model and it might work well for him. But maybe it's not Google's business model to serve up pages/sites like that, or at least spend a ton of resources figuring out which of a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand sites selling orange widgets (in pretty much the same way) should come up first.

[Shaddows]

The orange widget sounds like a commodity. Anyone can sell them. Be first, be unique, be big, or find another market.

Quite possibly that is a widespread problem. Competing in oversaturated markets where there is an incumbent colossus with money to burn is not a good idea, online or off.

You can only beat incumbents when you innovate. The orange widget niche is too mature to accept new entrants.

[walkman]

You do not need to be #1 to do well, or very well, but IMO, you need to have an exit strategy or a way to go on for 1-2 years without making any or much money. I have mine and was doing pretty well, until Panda hit me :). Now I have to wait.

Personally, I doubt one can plan on making a normal, advanced-economy living, 2-5-10 years from now online, unless (maybe) you have a top name or serious amount of money. It's too unpredictable and to borrow an anecdote from the 1990's stock crash, even cab drivers are giving SEO advice.

Google will seek to make people stay in their site and not go to yours, for obvious reasons, they will own the health, travel, dictionary, financial, local and all the fields where the info can be put in a database. Then there's Google shopping and Amazon and Walmart and BestBuy and ....that will cover pretty much 100% of products.

What does that leave us? If you weren't hit by panda congrats, but it's not time to gloat, Panda 2-3-10 is on the way and it can happen to anyone. Some will deserve it, some will not.

[Shaddows]

Professional hobbyist, message boards, selling physical stock (warehousing, not an affiliate), review sites (what will they collate if no one is publishing), there are plenty of sensible niches to make money.

Unfortunately, Google will cover the high-profit, low-maintenance markets. As someone observed, the Wild West days are over- the web is getting a dose of reality. Similar rules to the real world are coming to bare on the web. I suggest the next appointment your company makes is for someone with real-world marketing experience.

[supercyberbob]

walkman

In other words...

What does Google really want? Your money.

Most businesses exist to make as much money as possible, not help us or anyone pay the mortgage, or save the planet.

Without getting into a detailed discussion, "high quality results" in the serps = self serving with the end goal in mind.

And "end goal" may be world domination or whatever the grand scheme is.

[dibbern2]

Is your website actually the best result for that keyword combination? What makes your site better? What makes it stick out from the crowd? Why do you believe it deserves to be there?

If you find out: Actually no. I don't deserve to be there. Or at least not more than the others. I am average. The others are average, too but I had an edge because I optimized better. Change that and be above average.

If you find out that you belong there and you are not there, then ask yourself what you are doing wrong in communicating this?

Out of all the words in all the posts in all the threads here about Panda, I believe these are the wisest written.

By far.

Thank you jecasc

[netmeg]

Sometimes it's a lot better to be a big fish in a small pond than a little one (or even medium sized fish) in an ocean.

[Rlilly]

I agree with Walkman 100%. Look for ways offline to make sales.

I also agree with what supercyberbob said "What does Google really want? Your money" And that is why Google's killing small biz, the big brands have more money to spend with them. The multiple listing per brand name domian keeps the brand names happier regarding trademarks. There relationship with Google keeps improving...

[tedster]

What about using this litmus test. Think about what a bank wants to see before they grant a small business loan. Or what an investor or potential business partner needs to see before they help a business grow to the next level.

I'm not saying everyone should take out a loan or look for a third party investor - but we can ask if our online business measures up well by those yardsticks - a sound business plan, essentially happy customers and all that good stuff.

I think that kind of test very much lines up with what Google wants to see - and what they hope to measure. Even if they aren't there yet, they are headed in that direction.

[walkman]

Bottom line is this Tedster: if I correctly tell you to fix your broken CD-ROM or comment on NFL salaries what they h*ll do I need to put down my home /business address? What will Google come up with next? The company with the larger number of employees gets the traffic?

And why do this all of the sudden and penalize people for at least 2 months?

[jecasc]

Bottom line is this Tedster: if I correctly tell you to fix your broken CD-ROM or comment on NFL salaries what they h*ll do I need to put down my home /business address?

Because then you are accountable for the information you provide. Accountability is an indication for trust.

Be a brand. Create trust, bind it to your brand. Manage it that people search for "broken cd yourwebsitename" and you will be trusted resource for "broken cd", too. People search for "movie name imdb", "shoe brand zappos", "book name amazon". That is a strong indication they trust this brands. You do not have to be a big brand but you have to be a distinguishable brand in your niche.

[randle]

The company with the larger number of employees gets the traffic?

No, the companies that Schmidt, Brin, Page and the rest of the Google brain trust thinks are the best prospects to provide their users with what they are looking for end up with the higher positions, and ultimately the "Traffic". Theres a lot of talk about Google injecting user based data into the ranking algorithm, but that piece is minuscule compared to the injection of the overall vision of the people who actually create the algorithm that produces the results. Its no coincidence that Erik Schmidt states the internet has become a bit of a sewer and that brands can help clean that up, and then theres a rise in ranking for large brands. The algorithm is a recipe, and theres a group at Google that are the chefs.

You can debate what a "low quality" site is all you want over a few beers, but at the end of the day the people that are tinkering with the algorithm that produces the results get to decide that. Its just the way it is. I think the Google brain trust has been thinking about the changes that Panda brought about for a long time.

In some ways I give them a lot of credit because the impact of this change is affecting millions of people, so theres some courage of conviction on display here; clearly they believe in what their doing. But in other ways I find the process damaging from a really core perspective. I found the value of using Google from a personal search point of view to be so dramatically better 6 or 7 years ago. I just dont find many really unique and interesting sites the way I used to; I do more shopping now and less poking around. In addition, the ability for a very small entity to launch a new business via the internet and truly compete with the larger companies has diminished greatly. There really was a day when David could compete with Goliath when it came to the internet.

At the end of the day, wether you agree with it or not, Google is looking for certain kinds of sites, that meet a certain standard they have set. If your hanging around here, your job is to try and understand what that is, and incorporate those attributes into your own properties.

[londrum]

Be a brand. Create trust, bind it to your brand. Manage it that people search for "broken cd yourwebsitename" and you will be trusted resource for "broken cd", too. People search for "movie name imdb", "shoe brand zappos", "book name amazon". That is a strong indication they trust this brands. You do not have to be a big brand but you have to be a distinguishable brand in your niche.

what has being a brand got to do with quality? im not saying you're not right, but in my mind just because something is a brand doesnt mean i want the website at the top of the serps.

if you go with the "brand equals quality" reasoning, everytime someone types in "restaurant" to plan a romantic meal out they might end up with the biggest restaurant brand of all at the top = McDonalds.

Most searches on the web arent business related anyway. they are just information searches. so being a brand has no meaning.