Implications of Google 1 on your organic rankings

[MrSavage]

A very strange thing happened to me 2 days ago. I have a Pandalized site which has been crunched over the past 8 months.

Imagine my joy to check the keyword phrase and find my site back. Wow, a Panda recovery? Hang on, not so fast. I am smart enough to wait.

Next day, check stats. What? About the same level of traffic. No Panda recovery. How can this be? I see my site back in the SERPS with all the phrases that it once ranked for.

Today I can clearly confirm there is NO panda recovery. However, I for one just figured out the situation and this is the key moving forward.

The reason my site showed up is because I +1'd it. Yes, I sign out of my Google account and I see what all of you see. That's not my site because it's on page 100 or whatever. In other words, the search ranking of my site has changed or been customized to my +1 choice.

Ramifications? There is a big situation if you can think it through. It says to me that organic traffic has no consistency and your site has no "actual" ranking. It's all based on your Google profile and your +1 choices.

So, if a person chose to +1 related sites on the same subject as mine, it puts me even further behind. The reason? Google says okay, you +1 that site, so you like it, so that site will show up higher in your version of Google rankings.

Some of this may have been covered but certainly not clearly laid out as in an example I've just described here. You need to think about this. If you are a small site, guess what? CNET as an example has probably about 10,000 more +1's than you do and those people will see CNET and not your site.

This is a reality check. It's not negative but it's a huge eye opener for me. Yes I'm getting tired of this madness. Yes the organic search traffic is getting put through the grinder and then some. You ranking really means squat now imo.

[MrSavage]

@Leosghost, lol I hear you. I'm divided on it. I can't decide. I did remove +1's on the few sites I had them, but now I'm having to seriously rethink that decision.

Do I feel bad about planting a virus (Google +1) on another persons computer? Sort of. But I see my only hope in organic traffic to be plant seeds on everyone's computer. I hope you catch my jest.. ;-)

I'm not saying it's this way today, but the trend with Google appears to be heading in that direction. Of course the failure of the +1 would change everything. I'm assuming though that with the incredible influence that Google has, that they will succeed in getting a majority of people onboard.

[Reno]

"...or when you visit friends, ask to use their machines for 5 minutes"
...
"Even if you log out you can't entirely escape it"

Since the early days of Pandamonium I have been describing the New Google SERPs as a "moving target", and that's exactly what Google wants. We know the original name for Panda was the "Farmer update", as their cover-story was to improve "quality" (which they never defined) by removing "content farms" (which they only marginally succeeded in denting). But I said then and I say now that an equally important reason for Panda was to destroy SEO, and at that they have found much more success.

If you or your client see a different set of SERPs from everyone else, then it is extremely difficult to determine how the site is doing vis-ŕ-vis Google. And if, in addition to being different for different people, it also changes or a regular basis for everyone, it is even more difficult.

I see only 2 measurements that count: daily traffic and daily income. I may or may not look good in the SERPs at any given moment, but short of following Leo's advice as much as possible, which takes a bunch of time, the most I can hope for in running a keyword test is to get a general sense of the status quo, nothing more. Because, as I said, the combination of personalization and Panda make it a moving target, and that's how it will remain from here on out. Your customers are not necessarily seeing what you are seeing... and no matter what you do, you'll never know for sure what they see ~ the experience that MrSavage offers here only makes that point.

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

[onepointone]

I think it's more important than ever to get your website presence, products, agenda, etc. on 3rd party websites.

Facebook, twitter, squidoo, wordpress.com, ebay, amazon, probably dozens more...

If your main site gets dinged, at least you have a base to move forward with. Put your content on sites that google either can't afford to punish, or doesn't control traffic to.

[Zivush]

Catch22 ?

[Reno]

Catch22 ?

I would say it is FUD taken to a whole new level of absurdity.

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

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

not good for most

Great choice of words for a title. I'm reminded that when you follow the beaten path the outcome cannot be good for most, it's a fact of life. If everyone bought the same stock it's not possible for everyone to become rich, those who choose their exit timing best win. If everyone invests in real estate thinking they'll get rich, only the biggest who sell when the market is on top will get rich.

Likewise +1 cannot possibly return the best metrics for everyone, because humans decided what is a "good" metric those not chosen to be perfect cannot benefit from it as much and suffer for using it.

If you use something on your site, be it comments or reviews or forums or an rss feed and now +1 and other social systems they MUST get use or they do the site NO good.

[littlegiant]

Why not just use a separate browser to look at rankings? I use Google Chrome in Incognito mode when I want to do a simple search of my sites rankings. I use Firefox for everything else. If you don't want to see skewed results use another browser to look at rankings.

That's exactly what I do. I call it my 'clean browser' (*choke* *cough*). It's also important to never actually click on any results when checking your rankings in your clean browser as any clickthroughs will affect the personalized SERPs as well. As soon as you click on anything, you've contaminated the results for any searches after.

[Leosghost]

@littlegiant..as I stated before ( does anyone read previous posts in threads properly ? ) that still doesn't change your IP ( even if you click on nothing ) so your serps are still "contaminated" just to a lesser degree..

[mhansen]

We ran the +1 code for 3 months, directly alongside the other social buttons we have always seen action from... +1 was rarely to never used, so we removed it last week.

Do whats right for your visitors, not for Google. (Hasn't Google always rang that Mantra?)

When the social world tells us that +1 is important again, we may reconsider adding it back, but for now, our visitors are obviously not big +1 users, and it didn't help us.

[mslina2002]

that still doesn't change your IP ( even if you click on nothing ) so your serps are still "contaminated" just to a lesser degree..

You can use anonymous proxy so your IP is not tracked.

[Leosghost]

Indeed you can , but neither poster who suggested clearing history, or changing browsers mentioned it..and in some cases even using anonymous proxies will leak info..( which Google can certainly track ) actually using genuinely different IPs is better..

[rlange]

mslina2002 wrote:
You can use anonymous proxy so your IP is not tracked.

The proxy's IP address can be tracked, though. In fact, if it's a common proxy—and depending on how many people use it to search Google—you may get "personalized" results from the beginning.

--
Ryan

[atlrus]

I guess what the OP is saying is that there is no more "basic" results returned by Google, unless you have just bought the computer and powered up for the first time, i.e. Google returns different results for the same keywords based on a person's search history/ip/interaction with other Google services etc.

And the only way you can get the "basic" ranking is by doing "webmaster stuff" like clearing cookies, histories, using 2 browsers, etc., all things normal users never do. Heck, you can't even turn off location customization anymore, you have to enter some kind of location.

Overall I agree with the OP. Google has become lost in its own ideas, the results are an enormous mess, but the lack of real competition ensures that for now Google will remain the top dog. Google is so vulnerable right now, a big name like Apple or Amazon could easily scoop their entire business by coming out with a search engine with their name behind it...

[Reno]

Google returns different results for the same keywords based on a person's search history/ip/interaction with other Google services etc.

Exactly my point ~ Google is using search history, email content, the Google news stories that you read, the YT videos that you watch, publicly available online information about yourself & etc to create "personalization". Mix into that their "intention engine" (we will know what you want before you know what you want), plus the extraordinarily complex Panda, and it's a crapshoot as to what each individual websurfer will see. There is no way for any mortal to measure that, except by our own visitor stats (and resulting income, if any). There is only one strategy that works anymore, IMO, and that was expressed by mhansen above:

"Do what's right for your visitors, not for Google."

ps. Re Apple entering the fray, it's too bad that Core dotcom is not available ~ what a great name for an Apple search engine ~ works perfectly on multiple levels.

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

[Leosghost]

I guess what the OP is saying is that there is no more "basic" results returned by Google, unless you have just bought the computer and powered up for the first time, i.e. Google returns different results for the same keywords based on a person's search history/ip/interaction with other Google services etc.

That has been the case for a long time now " there have been no "basic results" for the last 2 or 3 years or so, if not longer..well before the advent of +1.. hence my comment re: bears, popes and woods..
+1 just made it harder..the last thing G want, is for webmasters to be able to obtain even a glimpse of what is behind the curtain..

[atlrus]

That has been the case for a long time now " there have been no "basic results" for the last 2 or 3 years or so, if not longer..well before the advent of +1.. hence my comment re: bears, popes and woods..
+1 just made it harder..the last thing G want, is for webmasters to be able to obtain even a glimpse of what is behind the curtain..

Well, that's not quite true. The results have become more "restrictive" only in the past 12 months or so. I would say with the forcing of location customization, which literally forces you to reveal your location (or a location) and ties you to it.

That and the auto enabling of search history really limit a user to a small circle of "related" results, entrapping the user if you would to a certain region and interest. Add to this the +1 and who knows what else that's in the pipeline, and Google is closing the circle tighter around "similar" results.

All this has really devalued Google results, in my eyes as a user. When I do a basic 2-3 word search I almost ALWAYS get what I DON'T want, forcing me to refine my searches and use longer and longer searches to get anything useful. It feels like soon I'd have to start typing in 2-3 sentences in the search box to get anything remotely close to what I intended.

I've been using Google since it first came online, still having a bulldozer icon next to the search bar and I can say - it has gone very far away from its roots, in the wrong direction. The search algorithms are now way too complex for its own good and it's showing. Right now Google is holding on simply on brand name, that's why I said any recognizable household brand with a basic good-links-bad-links search engine will destroy Google.

[Leosghost]

Well, that's not quite true.

Geo location has been skewing results for much longer than the last 12 months..

If I search from France using Google.fr and specify only English results from "web" ..I get very very different results from if I use a Google.com and search for the same results..that began to be really noticeable in 2009..*

Likewise, "signed out personalisation" ( no matter what your settings are in history ) kicked in in 2008 ..Google do many things for a long time before they announce them as "new"..Panda type basic algos were being run on specific areas of serps for specific niches at certain times of the day and / or night for at least 6 months before it went "officially live" in the USA in early 2011..

* eg if I use Google.fr..at the left side they tell me where I am down to the nearest 500 metres..if I use Google.com ..they show nothing re my location in that part of the page ..

( and yes I do know that there are many DCs serving each area...I have large list of direct IPs ..although they may "balance" me to any other anyway..and I can't always be bothered pinging them to confirm that the DC I get is the one I put in the address bar ..except on a country level...I'm simplifying there for the sake of brevity ;-)

[atlrus]

Ah, I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from. I don't know how Google works in France, but here there is a little box on the left side with your location (as in town/city) next to the results and you can only change it, you can't turn it off. And this is relatively new.

I am not talking about .fr vs .com here, but the simple fact that Google always tries to put me in Chicago and I am very far away from living there :) I don't know how it figures that one out - speedtest always claims that a server in Ohio is the closest one to me :) Either way, they are both very wrong.

But my point was that I can either:
1. Get results from Chicago every time I do a search.
2. Enter my zipcode, which I don't think Google has any right to collect
3. Clear browser every time I want to do a search.

Most users will simply succumb to this privacy invasion and enter their zipcode/town. But by doing this they will also make their search life harder, because they now have to specify that they don't need local results every time they search about something.

And let's be frank, not many people search for local stuff - you live in an area for a couple of months - you already know where the pizza is. When I type in "how to make deep dish pizza" I clearly don't need to get the website for every pizzeria in Chicago :) That's just basic stuff for a search engine.

[viggen]

Just click on the very much hidden link of [google.com...]

you might be shocked if you have your twitter account connected with your google plus account how many people will see that innocent plus you did...

[tedster]

Time will tell, but I'm thinking that +1 votes are also going to show a freshness factor. If you get one, and then no more, the general effect will not last very long - although the logged in effect might. But if there is a continuing stream of +1 votes, that can be a long term help. at least that's my guess right now - it's too new to know for sure.

The essential point it that all of these factors being discussed in the thread ARE organic ranking signals. It's not that somehow there is a "pure organic" ranking and then it gets polluted by social signals (including "block this site"), or geographic signals, or freshness signals... or any others.

This evolution has been happening for many, many years. Now for a long time, the ranking shifts were not so dramatic as to disrupt "old school" SEO - so for many years, webmasters still could have success ignoring the growing number of signals. There was the occasional "why is that page in the top ten?" question, but for the most part, many people didn't worry about these anomalies too much as long as they could still rank using their 2002 methods.

What is rather ironic is the number of voices who were crying for years that links and titles were too big a ranking factor - and saying that Google should find new ways to generate organic rankings. Well, they were already doing that six years ago, and they are doing it now, and the process will only continue.

If you want to "do SEO" you need to appreciate every factor that brings your site organic traffic. The big deal with the newer factors is that they've become very hard to simulate. They either exist or they don't, and it's hard to fake.

[netmeg]

Frankly if 3000 more people 'like' or 'plus one' or somehow publicly indicate that they like my site better than someone else's, I think it *should* rank higher than the site who doesn't get those social signals.

And if someone gets 10,000 more likes or plus ones than I do, then they should probably outrank me.

[johnhh]

With our demographic's they would not know what a +1 is and are unlikely to have a Google account at all - and I base that on our our newsletter sign ups. So it's all flawed to start with.

Remeber when Coke changed the recipe, or launched a new water in the UK that turned out to be just tap water. Mr Google is likely to shoot themselves in the foot here.

[onepointone]

Companies/People will offer little bribes to people who +1 their site. Coupon, sweepstakes entry, whatever. I've already seen a lot of that with facebook.

Just another way to manipulate, er.. advertise. If your competition is doing it, you don't want to get left behind.

[MrSavage]

The concept is flawed in a sense. So the best summer movie is? The best movie of the year is? Good luck Mr. Independent. The popularity race is on and your well crafted work doesn't stack up in the +1 department. How many oscars does your typical summer blockbuster win? <---- My point.

[netmeg]

Mr. Independent has to get his butt crackin' (as he always has, either online or offline) There are plenty of success stories there. But it's not going to just fall in his lap.

Life is a popularity contest. Why should the internet be anything else?

[Reno]

The popularity race is on

Yep, on one level it's Google mimicking the longterm trend in this culture to elevate & reward popularity, which of course is especially ironic given their public pronouncements about "quality" (which was mostly a nice sounding PR campaign from the git-go). The Plus-One evolution (or devolution) is very much like PageRank, but instead of a site getting a boost from a lot of backlinks, they'll get a boost from a lot of +1 clicks. It is ripe for manipulation, as onepointone said, and is only marginally related to quality content.

Maybe I'll put a photo of Megan Fox in a thong bikini on my home page, and below that I'll put "If you like Megan click now!"

That sound you hear is another +1 going up on the bigboard....

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

[MrSavage]

I will shoot a hole in my own argument. (I'm humble) People can +1 after seeing the website whereas movies you pay for your ticket and if it sucks, you wouldn't know until you're sitting through it.

If we're heading to "who has the most +1's wins", then my use for Google search results is going to diminish. I have almost been able to predict the page one sites. If that gets worse? Wow. Afterall, the playing field is already skewed and there wouldn't be a hope of gaining enough "popularity" in certain topics. We need a marketing department with site staff unless we are covering such things as "how to deep fry toast and peanut butter" type sites.

Whatever the case, *sigh*.

[mhansen]

<if>

User came from Google (referrer string)

<and>

Querystring is Obfuscated (indicating a logged in Google user)

<then>

Pop a div

"Hey, We Love Google Users Like You Too! How About +1'ing this Page [by clicking here] to Tell Google You Liked Us Too!"

<else>

Don't pop a div

<end>

[Leosghost]

:))

[atlrus]

Frankly if 3000 more people 'like' or 'plus one' or somehow publicly indicate that they like my site better than someone else's, I think it *should* rank higher than the site who doesn't get those social signals.

And if someone gets 10,000 more likes or plus ones than I do, then they should probably outrank me.

The problem is that it forces you to break G-Rule #1 - manage your website for the visitors, not the search engines. My website and its visitors have no need for +1, but now I have to have it, otherwise I'd be outranked, based solely on the fact that a competitor has a button on his website (of no value to its users) and I don't. If I want to outrank - I have to spam the +1 better than my competitors. How is that progressive?!?