Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
That is the harsh reality and I am now absolutely determined to redress that issue, by being truly remarkable.
I have no regrets about doing what I did with the site because I know it's fantastic and many people have told me so. That's all the proof I need.
[edited by: netmeg at 7:08 pm (utc) on Jul 5, 2011]
[edited by: csargent at 7:28 pm (utc) on Jul 5, 2011]
Exactly. You don't get a reward just for showing up. Or at least, it's a lot less likely.
It's your site in their index when people used Google that made people satisfied. What they gained in usage was a result of finding our websites at the top of their rankings. So what happened? Google had it wrong for all these years? No, because people used their search at a bizarre 80%+ market share
[edited by: MrSavage at 10:34 pm (utc) on Jul 5, 2011]
There was an awful lot of weak sites that got hit. So maybe panda signalled the end of weak/easy SEO.
I haven't seen headlines saying Google search was taken over by spam.
Wired.com: What was the purpose?
Singhal: So we did Caffeine [a major update that improved Google's indexing process] in late 2009. Our index grew so quickly, and we were just crawling at a much faster speed. When that happened, we basically got a lot of good fresh content, and some not so good. The problem had shifted from random gibberish, which the spam team had nicely taken care of, into somewhat more like written prose. But the content was shallow.
Matt Cutts: It was like, "What's the bare minimum that I can do that's not spam?" It sort of fell between our respective groups. And then we decided, okay, we've got to come together and figure out how to address this.
The professional media had noticed the problem. Google had noticed they were right. We may not like what they did about it, but Google didn't spend more than a year reacting to a boogey man.
I have had faith in Google and the Matt Cutts of Google but please offer a crumb of hope here.
Adwords. Just fast forward, should nothing change in the serps, everyone is faced with pay to play...
[edited by: netmeg at 7:41 pm (utc) on Jul 6, 2011]
Other than to think the light gets turned back on for those sites that absolutely did NOT deserve a penalty and were only guilty of having a nice juicy ranking on Google. That was the only sin of many of us.
Like any corporation, we will try to make as much money as possible for our shareholders
...In fact, Google warned prospective shareholders of that intention in 2004, saying in their IPO letter that "new investors will fully share in Google's long-term economic future but will have little ability to influence its strategic decisions through their voting rights."... [news.cnet.com...]
Listen you bunch of leeches, you're only going to get some of this money because by law there is no way around it. But don't you think for one minute that we want to hear a word from you about how we should sail this ship. Is that understood? Yes, good. Now go cash your cheques and don't bother us because even if you do we won't have any published phone numbers for you to reach us anyway.