Big brands do not have the upper hand - Matt Cutts

[Whitey]

Big brands cannot do whatever they want. They look at value add, etc. Faster, better, better UI, content, etc.

It is weird, Google does take action on big sites and big sites often do not like to talk about it. So it happens a lot. [seroundtable.com...]
Live blog interview with Matt Cutts.

How are members seeing those quality signals playing out in the SERP's compared to "smaller" brands.

[CainIV]

In my opinion, it's complete BS to say Google does not favor "big brands" unless they start to provide this type of answer for everyone now that a "big brand" has received a very granular answer since no one else, to my knowledge, has ever received this granular level of reply from a Google Rep.

Agree wholeheartedly. If Google didn't like big brands, they wouldn't like

1. Companies that place value in the consumer - everyday

2. Companies that can and do churn out stellar content - everyday

3. Companies that by nature of site pick up natural links - everyday

4. Companies that have massive current amounts of unique content, further cementing their dominance in place.

5. Companies that get tons and tons of daily searches for their own brand name.

5. Companies that are, many times at the forefront of the newest changes in marketing channels including SEO.

We could go on and on, and some could note the chicken and the egg here, but the fact is that larger businesses that become success brands are in fact favored in the search engines, if not merely for the reasons above.

And to be honest I don't mind it, sometimes. Where it becomes ridiculous is in specific niches like travel where particular brand portals dominate the SERPs - even if the user experience, uniqueness and customer service of a particular provide is 10X better.

I see this a lot, in fact now, where big brands simply replace SERPs that really should be awarding more original and innovative companies driving great customer experience (and they are there - often simply listed below the "giants")

Fantastic customer service from a portal should never replace fantastic customer service from a unique family-built company residing in a town, who has owned a business for 10+ years. And this is a major part of the problem in my eyes.

[Whitey]

2011'ish:

@AnthonysItalianFood traffic got whacked hard dropping 40% swiftly as of the morning of Oct. 14th. When will the nightmare end. And of course BIG brands taking my place instantly! Minor Tweak?.. Really? grrrrrrr! [webmasterworld.com...]

@Tedster Yes, it does appear that more big brands are now ranking well (but not exclusively big brands.) Given what Google said Panda is trying to measure, that's not really a surprise.

Big brands in general are not agile enough to play the technical SEO game and "chase the algo" - but they often can throw a lot of resources (financial and human) at developing good content, analyzing their market and keeping their visitors happy. So I'm not surprised that Panda, on the whole, seems to favor brands. But every iteration has also brought pain to the occasional brand, too. For example, The Motor Report and The Today Show were both losers. [webmasterworld.com...]

@Londrum so, as much as i would like google to stop pushing the same old brands to the top of the SERPs, the truth is that i carry on using them because i know what i'm going to get... the results are predictable enough to make you expect a particular link.

its as if its taken over from amazon's (and wikipedia's.. and tripadvisor's... and the bbc's...) own site search [webmasterworld.com...]

@Tedster Last year I mentioned the new "Holy Grail" for search engines - measuring engagement. That is a term borrowed from social media, but it seems clear how important engagement metrics can be for search, especially in the e-commerce space.

If an online business doesn't engage its market in some real way, you have a danger signal that the "business" may just be good at manipulating the more traditional ranking signals. and if you can measure engagement in a refined and hard-to-game manner, then you have a very potent signal.

So I say Yes to "brand-aware" - even "engagement-aware." [webmasterworld.com...]

I dug up some previous posts, but see nothing much more spoken since 2011 of the involvement of brands in either Penguin or Panda and whether more or less emphasis was given to them. There weren't that many posts, so I kinda thought it might have been missed.

Some further digging around

Searchmetrics, going through the list, summarized the losers as mainly this way:
•Sites using databases to aggregate information
•Press portals and aggregators
•Heavily-templated web sites
[searchengineland.com...]
If I compare in depth a couple of key sites, with branded sites offering less value add features, there appears to have not been the drop on the brands. So it makes me wonder if Google's blurb about "thin affiliates" "value add" and "great UI" really counts as much as Google claimed it could? I can't imagine the bounce rate was inferior on those examples I reviewed. Certainly the service elements were not an issue as they have non [ meta search sites ]. The UI's of the non brands were far slicker and information rich.

Another dig, I see specific core keywords excluded from non branded sites in the SERP's, and those keywords reserved for brands - site wide. Even on thin pages the brands have "reserved" placement. [this kinda ties into the earlier post of good content not always surfacing].

What's the consensus on those updates now, with regards to brands and non brands? Does that firm up your views? Did your hard remedial work pay off or did you meet a brand barrier, no matter what you did?

Is Google surreptiously linking ad spend to rankings via consumer retention methods - I mean where else do business' spend big online to create brand signals that Google uses.

More questions .....

[edited by: Whitey at 7:22 am (utc) on Apr 10, 2013]

[austtr]

I feel I'm looking at paralysis by analysis in this thread.

Google is supposedly on record as voicing their dislike for affiliate sites, because in nearly all cases the affiliate offer nothing of unique value over and above the merchants own site.

So why, after Panda and Penguin do we now see a whole sector, namely travel and tourism, totally dominated by a very small handful of sites that are.... wait for it.... all affiliates selling third party products and services. They don't own a property or service between the lot of them.

Google has managed to create a user experience that entrenches the very thing they profess to detest... SERP's dominated by affiliates. They just happen to be very BIG affiliates spending huge sums on their advertising.

I'm afraid I've grown accustomed to believing what my eyes tell me and in my sector the big brand names have total dominance of the SERP's. The small operator has been driven from the playing field.

Fact of life... we move on.

[Ersebet]

Google has managed to create a user experience that entrenches the very thing they profess to detest... SERP's dominated by affiliates. They just happen to be very BIG affiliates spending huge sums on their advertising

You answer it yourself. Google only cares money for Wall Street. Priceline spend almost $1 Billion a year with Google, Expedia also many money so Google love them. This obvious but people try to go around in circle avoiding truth. Google like 2 promote site that also advertise on Google, other site will be Panda hit.

No need to listen or trust Google people, they no tell truth because truth not convenient.

[tedster]

all affiliates selling third party products and services. They don't own a property or service between the lot of them.

What Google wants is that they add value to the basic affiliate data - not that they sell their own stuff. There's no argument with being an affiliate middle man as long as there's significant value added.

I remember well an earlier time when page one would give you ten different sites with exactly the same text and images, each wrapped in a slightly different skin and coming from different affiliates of the same actual business. As a user, that's a terrible resort and I'm happy that Google took action in this area.

Google like 2 promote site that also advertise on Google, other site will be Panda hit.

Ever since the Adwords program first launched, webmasters have assumed that Google was doing this and Google always said it would defeat their long-term business and they won't do it. I know of several people over the years who have hoped to prove Google was favoring Adwords buyers in the organic part of the SERP, but no one could do it. And they were collecting a lot of data.

I've even seen a study since Panda - and no, it didn't prove any duplicity on Google's part.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Ever since the Adwords program first launched, webmasters have assumed that Google was doing this and Google always said it would defeat their long-term business and they won't do it. I know of several people over the years who have hoped to prove Google was favoring Adwords buyers in the organic part of the SERP, but no one could do it. And they were collecting a lot of data.

I've even seen a study since Panda - and no, it didn't prove any duplicity on Google's part.

I've been working on a site that got tanked to 1 page indexed in a Panda update. Right now today it's reindexed, +15% over last week and +10% over last year and the day isn't even over. It uses 0 AdWords. The issue wasn't easy to find and fix, but it was on site, and there's no indication of an AdWords correlation.

There's another I've worked on recently that uses AdWords and the owner contacted me because they weren't ranking like they should. It's starting to again, but still no AdWords correlation.

It might seem as simple as "pay to play", but it's really not in any of my experiences, recent or past.

NOTE:
Do I think "big brands" have the "upper hand"? Sure I do.

Do I think they should?
Yes I do, and I have my reasons for my thinking that way. (One of the reasons is along the lines of "can't please all the people all the time". And there's also a question of accountability and reliability of information raised in this thread: the short version for my thoughts being: they use an algorithm, so should they favor a "trusted, reliable source" like the Mayo Clinic or try to figure out which of the "obscure sites" present reliable and valid information for their visitors? I think most visitors are fine with generally accepted information over other information that may or may not be "cutting edge and accurate". It seems like it would be very difficult to tell the difference between cutting edge + accurate and bullsh*t to get people to buy a new idea/product algorithmically, to me anyway.) I also have no problem with it, for the preceding and other/expanded reasons. And, no, the reasons don't have anything to do with owning or working for a "big brand" in any way.

What issues do I have with Google about "big brands" having an advantage? They don't just come out and say it.

[diberry]

so should they favor a "trusted, reliable source" like the Mayo Clinic or try to figure out which of the "obscure sites" present reliable and valid information for their visitors?

When Mayo clinic actually doesn't have any information related to the query? I have asked several times in this thread: why is it too much to ask that Google provide relevant information rather than irrelevant information from "trusted sources"? Why doesn't anyone directly answer that question?

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Okay, I'll answer directly then...

When you're writing a hueristic (which is what we call the algo and no one really complains about the distinction even though there is a definite difference) you have to "develop it" meaning it's not an algo or "right" from the start, but eventually you could end up with one.

What they have is a heuristic, and there's a subtle but big difference between an heuristic and and algorithm... A heuristic basically provides best guesses, where an algorithm provides an answer; one singular answer.

So the question, "Why is it too much to ask that Google provide relevant information rather than irrelevant information from 'trusted sources'?" Is actually very simple to answer... You have a "trusted source" as a "seed site" (best guess heuristically) or even linked closely from a "seed site" (best guess heuristically, initially) and visitor behavior in the results indicates an "adequate answer", so it remains.

When you're looking to keep, win, impress, or present visitors with an answer which is what they're looking for and visitor behavior "backs up" a major brand (best guess heuristically), then that's the result you give first (default to) for a query.

You're worried and wondering about "right v. wrong" or "accurate v. most accurate" or "relevant v. not as relevant" answers, but they're dealing with 1,000,000,000,000 pages as possible results and they can't "know everything", so when visitors' behavior backs up what they start with as "seeds" or "initially thought to be accurate" which is presented as a default (initially), they keep presenting it. It would be silly for them to do otherwise.

To get an idea of what I mean and an idea of the size of the numbers they deal with, please, try to review a single 100,000 (even 10,000) page website for information and relevancy to specific queries and try to decide which page should show for every related query for searches on the site, then remember they have 1,000,000,000,000+ pages to deal with. The algo (technically heuristic) just isn't developed enough to deal with and present the minutia you're asking for yet... I would guess in the future it will be, but it's not there yet.

I think what I'm trying to say is:
When you deal with the numbers they do and visitor behavior indicates "extremely trusted" is accepted by a majority over "extremely relevant", "extremely trusted" is what you show as results, because that's what the behavior (or interpreted behavior) of what most people are looking for is and that's what keeps them coming back to you instead of going somewhere else.

It doesn't really matter what we know or think is better on a granular level, what matters to Google is keeping visitors happy and coming back for more, so if that's trusted rather than relevant, it's way better for them to show (err or the side of) trusted.

[austtr]

There's no argument with being an affiliate middle man as long as there's significant value added.

Sorry Ted, this is one of the very few times I have to disagree with you. For research and delivery of quality information in my neck of the woods, its the smaller independent sites that are light years ahead of the big affiliates in the area of significant added value.

But look at the travel and tourism SERP's, especially accommodation, and all you will be offered is the big affiliates (right behind Google hotels of course). I can't accept that as being a good result for the viewer... because like most affiliates they all offer exactly the same stuff (which is why Google went after affiliates in the first place!)

I'd love to see the site that can displace Expedia, Hotels.com, Trip Advisor and Wotif simply by adding more interest/value for the viewer. IMO there is as much chance of Google ranking its big corporate spenders behind other sites as me growing a second backside.

I can accept that big companies with big budgets and smart people can get to dominate a market sector... always have and always will. What I have a problem with is being expected to believe that this is something other than a commercial foregone conclusion.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

really? tripled again... ridiculous... please snip. Totally sorry.

I think there should be a system to prevent my bs tripled posts, because there are some of us like me stupid enough to somehow triple post. Really need some stupidity blocks to save the mods some time. Sorry I don't get to code here.

[edited by: TheOptimizationIdiot at 8:26 am (utc) on Apr 12, 2013]

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Oh, if I could just stop reposting... please delete. sorry again. thanks!

[edited by: TheOptimizationIdiot at 8:47 am (utc) on Apr 12, 2013]

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

I'd love to see the site that can displace Expedia, Hotels.com, Trip Advisor and Wotif simply by adding more interest/value for the viewer.

Me, personally, as a "site owner" and "site operator" sure, I'd like to see that, but honestly, as a searcher? I'll stick with the results you've highlighted, think they're fine, probably exactly what I want to see and definitely not have a problem with them showing if somehow I'm looking for something else.

In some ways I really think this thread should be a reality check on what searchers actually react best to for some people... Chances are if I'm traveling and you're "mom and pop", yeah, you might have a cool site and great deal, but honestly, I'll stick with what I know and have heard of before, so if you're "mom & pop" that's not you, sorry, but it is what it is... Your site is usually not what I'm looking for when traveling.

[Ersebet]

I know of several people over the years who have hoped to prove Google was favoring Adwords buyers in the organic part of the SERP, but no one could do it. And they were collecting a lot of data.

I've even seen a study since Panda - and no, it didn't prove any duplicity on Google's part.

Sevral people not enough because data is in Google only. If was easy to get this data people make billions in search, not prove something. You own view but other notice huge adwords payer on top 10 always and notice that Google make much more money after Panda. All update many people vocal complaint but we see Google make more money like 30% more. For you maybe coincidence, small site disappear, advertiser site takes place and Google make much money.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

You own view but other notice huge adwords payer on top 10 always and notice that Google make much more money after Panda.

Huge AdWords payers are also likely huge SEO payers.

There's no direct "cause" of pays for AdWords = "effect" ranks higher proven at all. There's definitely a "has more money than you" (cause) = (effect) more AdWords ads and better SEO than others. Beyond that, it's all just guessing as far as everything I've seen goes.

[diberry]

You're worried and wondering about "right v. wrong" or "accurate v. most accurate" or "relevant v. not as relevant" answers, but they're dealing with 1,000,000,000,000 pages as possible results and they can't "know everything", so when visitors' behavior backs up what they start with as "seeds" or "initially thought to be accurate" which is presented as a default (initially), they keep presenting it. It would be silly for them to do otherwise.

This is what I was looking for. And I agree. Where I disagree with many in the thread is that Google WANTS things to be this way. Years ago, they were pretty good at delivering what I wanted to me and what you wanted to you. But that's back when they could probably crunch 99% of all webpages.

So if you simply have too much data to process, what do you do? Familiar example: you put out an ad for a job and get thousands of resumes in response. You have to apply broad filters to whittle the numbers down to something manageable. Maybe you eliminate every candidate who has a typo, even though you know that may cause you to miss a great candidate.

I think this is where Google's at. Brand bias is not just about what sites users trust - it's more about what sites Google knows they can trust to deliver non-spam results. (And results Congress won't scream at them for, like it did about them failing to keep out piracy sites.) Penguin and Panda may also be an attempt to wipe out large numbers of sites deemed untrustworthy, just to whittle down the results to something manageable. But I suspect if its humanly possible, Google would prefer the algo be able to crunch all the data and deliver the most relevant results.

The only motive I can imagine for Google deliberately delivering irrelevant results when they could do better is if that would somehow steer people to click Adwords. But I don't see how, since unusual queries are unlikely to show up in Adwords at all. And that's why I believe brand bias is an undesirable but necessary side shortcut for now, rather than something Google is embracing.

And I'm no fan or apologist of Google's. They're a big company and they have to pursue profit. I just don't see any profit in brand bias.

[netmeg]

There's definitely a "has more money than you" (cause) = (effect) more AdWords ads and better SEO than others.

Which is nothing new and true of every other kind of marketing.

[Ersebet]

Hard to follow thread because TheOptimizationIdiot post many, opinion mine, rambling posts but not matter if Google directly on indirect help Adwords advertise. People suggest that I spend money to Adwords because Panda loves it. They tell me target traffic better for Panda and when pay Google get target traffic. Google then send more free clicks because score high on Panda. Google circle of make more money for them.

But I no afford, price increase trible since 2011.

[ColourOfSpring]

Penguin and Panda may also be an attempt to wipe out large numbers of sites deemed untrustworthy, just to whittle down the results to something manageable. But I suspect if its humanly possible, Google would prefer the algo be able to crunch all the data and deliver the most relevant results.

100% agree diberry. The index is growing bigger and bigger every single day. Google's job was a lot easier 5 years ago than it is today. Something had to give. Panda and Penguin ARE broad filters - many many many false positives caught in these nets. Google KNOW that of course - they're well aware that such filters will catch a lot of the good as well as the bad. But the granular filters that we all want simply don't scale to today's index - impossible to measure from Google's point of view. Even Panda and Penguin have been manual "runs" - not part of the algo (though they are apparently now part of it just only recently). The bigger the index, the broader the filter (or at least, the broader the effects of the filter).

[Whitey]

The only motive I can imagine for Google deliberately delivering irrelevant results when they could do better is if that would somehow steer people to click Adwords.

Exactly.

Organise the advertiser market into 3 buckets. Eliminate bucket 3 as it contributes little. Place your highest spending customers in the top bucket, caused by the use of brand related terms being measured in the algo due to user retention.

Then make it difficult for those big spenders to withdraw because it's darn hard to work out where your brand related earnings are coming from when you have a huge marketing mix across many channels; there's sensitivities, variables and invisibles that tracking just can't do effectively enough. So Google creates dependency amongst it's advertising customers by muddying the waters.

Then put the question in every big brand spenders mind, we can't afford not to be in this organic/Adwords mix, so we'll retain and grow our advertising spend.

Google leverages their rates according to their opportunity's, spreads it's risk across multiple devices and channels and conceals all transparency on like for like bids and publisher rates.

Then there's a plan for bucket 2, split between local and wannabe big spending Adwords folks that perhaps rely on organic. Guys with real business' on every street corner, that's called local. Ween them and find a way to charge them. The old telephone paper directories were a gold mine, and Google's well on the way to locking in local brand with further multiple channels and devices.

Also, in that bucket are the organic Adwords prospects, that serve to keep the top brands honest, those are the sites that have an "overall prospect" of keeping the top brands spending. It's lobster over lobster.

Since the beginning of time, the last thing a media operator wants is transparency in which to operate. There's little sustainability in it.

Whilst we may argue about the lack of integrity in surfacing great content such as the earlier medical example, or superior UI's that don't really get acknowledged to compete with the brands, the bottom line to me is that Google is focused on it's overall strategy of profit over integrity, and false positives are sad but irrelevant to Google so long as the user is happy to consume it and Google gives off the appearance of a superior, effective search product.

Through Panda and Penguin, any site that used manipulative tactics, that wasn't brand was put into a sub class, and even if they escape [ and very few have ] , you'll always be a sub class to big spending brands who have preference in the algo through "brand recognition", regardless of your efforts, unless you also build it up to being a brand and properly enable your site with SEO.

One thing - united against Google doesn't suit. So Google will be sure it has enough participants to divide and conquer, playing off brand against brand, and choking off anything organic that scales that doesn't suit them.

[Ersebet]

Google's job was a lot easier 5 years ago than it is today. Something had to give.

You ignore fact Google make a lot more money now. Cannot ignore that. Clear Google has results for push people to click ads and biznes to buy ads after Panda.

The only motive I can imagine for Google deliberately delivering irrelevant results when they could do better is if that would somehow steer people to click Adwords.

This tell truth. Many here look like work for Google, maybe fear Google because Googler know name, but ignore those people. Only to help Google and hurt you those people.

Google easy know what site type advertise and they promote that site type. Clear as day. I no trust integerity of Google results, manipulation for profit, not for user best.

Why after update Google more money makes all time? Why?

[ColourOfSpring]

You ignore fact Google make a lot more money now. Cannot ignore that. Clear Google has results for push people to click ads and biznes to buy ads after Panda.

I am sure you are right, in fact we are both right. I mean that the profit motive can still be there, but regardless of profit motive, Google's job is getting more and more difficult, so they take more and more drastic action with their filtering.

Would Google take actions that harmed their profit margins and got their share price dropping severely? Of course not. No public company would. Would they take actions that improved their profit margins AND also allow them to scale their index filtering? Of course they would. The trick for Google has been to maintain their search share. If they can do that (and they have been able to), then it's a win for Google, a loss for a lot of small businesses, and a loss for the searcher (though they don't really know it). Google have a stranglehold over search. I'm 100% sure Google have experimented with accuracy in the organics just to measure the reaction of searchers. More ad clicks? What is their 2nd search? Or do they go to Bing or Yahoo!(can find out in Firefox / Chrome browsers)? I bet they found what they wanted to find - people click on the results whatever they may be in the numbers that sustain their market share. Google know they have wiggle-room with organic accuracy. We "Google It" these days like the good little netizens we are. We will not be weened off of our Google. If the organics aren't accurate enough, the ads will do. But hey, we think the organics are OK anyway, look there's some familiar brands.

[diberry]

Whitey, thanks for explaining that. I don't buy Adwords, so I wouldn't know how buyers could be manipulated into spending on queries where they probably won't do well (but feel they can't afford not to try). Combined with ColourOfSpring's explanation on how both situations can be true... I get it now.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Why after update Google more money makes all time? Why?

Google updates 500+ times a year. Sometimes they make more money after an update, sometimes they make less after an update. They do not make more every time they update.

BTW: Ersbet, as I've said previously if you don't speak the language well enough to follow my posts, then sorry, but it's easy to not read them. I am sorry if you find them confusing. Many do not.

I really do not appreciate your comments directed at me and my posts, especially the comments in sticky mail where you told me to stop posting at all. As I said in sticky mail, please stop.

I will continue to post when I feel like posting. You are not required to read my posts. If you do not like them or cannot follow them, then simply do not read them.

It's very easy to not read what I post. When you see my user name next to a post, skip it and move on to the next one.

[Ersebet]

Would Google take actions that harmed their profit margins and got their share price dropping severely? Of course not.

Thats why people say results manipulated. Google say result unbiased but we know no true, ads matter.

Google updates 500+ times a year. Sometimes they make more money after an update, sometimes they make less after an update. They do not make more every time they update.

Panda and Penguin major update for Google, change everything. No 500 updates similar but nice try.

BTW: Ersbet, as I've said previously if you don't speak the language well enough to follow my posts, then sorry, but it's easy to not read them. I am sorry if you find them confusing. Many do not.

I understand your posts very well, that's y I comment. Your decision to post long posts and many, not mine. I only say honestly, but I no tell you what to do at all, just sometime I comment honest. Post all day if you have time, forum not mine.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Hard to follow thread because TheOptimizationIdiot post many, opinion mine, rambling posts...

You no make sense much, please write clear and more sense.

I understand your posts very well, that's y I comment.

Which is it?

Panda and Penguin major update for Google, change everything.

Panda made into main algo now. Not update monthly. You, according to, Google now forever every day make more money. Not True.

[Ersebet]

TheOptimizationIdiot,
no waste forum space with personal attack, PM if u like. I understand your post, that's why I say it makes no sense (not rational, logical) and rambling.

Panda only last month added to normal algo. But when introduced huge penalty to webmaster and big increase in Google earning. Maybe older member remember you [wired.com...]

Maybe read more, post less?

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

I'm not attacking you. I'm asking for clarification. In one place you've said my posts ramble and make no sense, yet in another you say you understand them clearly.

If you really have the grasp of the English language you claim to you would know how incorrect your grammar and use of English is, not mine. Sorry to be the one to tell you, but you really do not understand or use English as well as you think you do. English is very difficult to understand and use, and I get that, but please, do not think my posts ramble or make no sense to people who really understand the language.

Your posts indicate you do not have a great grasp of English, but I welcome them and have not once even implied or said for you to stop posting. Not even close. I have simply asked you stop talking about mine and to stop telling my I should quit posting.

I have also said if you really don't understand my posts or think they are rambling, then you should stop reading them. There's a big difference between saying "ignore me" and telling someone to stop posting.

Maybe read more, post less?

Once again you're suggesting I not post, even though you've claimed not to do that.

Maybe older member remember you

Maybe they do. I've been a member here for almost 10 years and have been complimented and thanked for my explanations more than once by more than one member. In nearly a decade and over 5,000 posts I've made you're the first who's ever suggested I not continue posting.

Panda only last month added to normal algo. But when introduced huge penalty to webmaster and big increase in Google earning.

Check the posts here from when they integrated it into the main algo. Many said they could not even tell anything happened. The source article you cited is from July 2011. Nearly two years out of date for this thread.

The article cited does not even come close to confirming what you say. It's pure speculation, noted and worded as such throughout the article. (Sensationalism gets read and is great "link bait", so you often have to read exactly what is said to tell the difference between speculation and fact, especially when it comes to optimization. The article cited is worded as speculation. None of it, even with the updates made since, is reported/worded as fact. It's all complete speculation, which may or may not be accurate.)

The posts here from the update thread when Panda was integrated do not back up that speculation either. Many wondered if anything had even happened or changed when Panda was even integrated into the algo, which indicates there was no "large, profit increasing, everything changed" update.

Sorry, but you're incorrect in your conclusions and statements according to the reports and observations made by a number of members here.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

To continue my "nonsensical rambling", if you keep machine learning in mind and "rolled an update" it's entirely possible "junk" would float to the top to be "weeded out" by the "learning system", but if you were doing it purposely to increase earnings, there's no reason to revert or make the results better over time.

And there's Absolutely No Reason to show a 'big brand' in the top 10.

In reality, what you would do, if your organic results were based on earnings, is to show the little, tiny, obscure sites that can't afford AdWords, because then the "big boys" would have to "pay to play" and the "middle of the road" sites would drive the prices up on them and overall you would make more money.

It would be very easy to justify doing things this way by simply saying "Users seem to indicate finding the 'deep web' and results not provided by 'main stream brands' are better results than 'big brands'... We could be incorrect, but as of now, we present the obscure results rather than 'big brands' because we think those are what our users are looking for in the organic results."

Really, the preceding is an "off the top of my head example" in a few minutes of time, so if I had a week or two to think about it, I'm sure I could word and justify showing sites that couldn't afford advertising in the organic results over anything else, and if they were really manipulating the organic results to make more money, then not showing the big brands is the way to do it.

Showing 'big brands' more often or in higher positions defeats the purpose of making more money, because 'big brands' have deep enough pockets to pay and pay often, where "mom and pop" don't really make anyone any money, because their pockets aren't deep enough to drive the prices of ads way up, so those (mom & pop) are actually the results you'd show to "extract an extra buck" from the SERPs if that's what you were doing with organic rankings.

[netmeg]

Ersebet, everyone's posts are welcome here, yours and TOI's, and as a general rule, it's not terribly polite to suggest someone stop posting because you don't like or understand what he's saying (and particularly as a new user suggesting it to an existing member). You obviously have a set opinion on Google, well, some of us share that opinion and some of us do not, but all are welcome to post as long as they stay within the terms of use.

[diberry]

Getting back on topic, this is interesting. Whitey has proposed a method by which Google could, in theory, make money by intentionally substituting "trusted" but irrelevant sources on less common/unusual queries. TOI has presented the opposite view, which I've always held, that if Google wanted to make money by manipulating search, they'd push the brands down and force them to buy Adwords, easily justifying it by saying the littler sites provide better quality content and/or users respond better to it. We also have corresponding theories about brand bias: that it's there to serve the purpose Whitey mentioned, or that it's not Google's ideal but rather the best they can do as the mountains of data escalate out of control.

Do we have any evidence or citations (not from Google) to back up either set of hypotheses?

Oh, and Ersebet? Let's discuss what is being said rather than our feelings about who is saying it. It's getting a little weird in here.