Impossible to Rank in Google Anymore, Let's All Quit

[goodroi]

The times have changed and Google is to blame. It is impossible to rank in Google anymore, just ask the website that is ranking above you and they will agree.

The results on Google are just horrible and I can prove it by looking at Google's market share. Consumers are so upset with Google's unhelpful results that their market share has plummeted in the US to a record high of 68% and about 90% in many international markets.

Clearly Google is not a winning option for any website. That is why we should all cut our losses and quit this big waste of time called Google.

How are you going to spend your time after quitting Google?

- Press releases designed to attract media coverage & not spammy backlinks
- Participating in relevant industry forums
- Speaking at relevant seminars and conferences
- Partnering with websites that have complimentary audiences to exchange real traffic
- Publishing & selling products via Amazon
- Build up email newsletter following
- Recruiting popular bloggers to be your brand ambassadors
- Partnering with brick & mortar operations

Google is so silly & confused they won't even realize that we have stopped begging like a whiny baby for their free traffic and made a real brand through actual marketing efforts.

What are we waiting for? Let's all quit Google! Since I am a gentleman I will be nice enough to let my competition quit first :)

[JD_Toims]

I don't think they really care about original content anymore.

If you feel that way, then by all means "quit Google."

Or maybe exploring reality to see if your statement is true based on the posts here over the last few years is a better idea, even as much as some people keep trying to deny what's going on since it hasn't become an issue for them, yet...

[kenroar]

If you feel that way, then by all means "quit Google." Robots.txt is your friend.

It's not really a feeling more than it is a fact. When I see about half my site copied across the internet on multiple websites ranking higher than I and when I file DMCA removal requests and Google denies them, I think I can safely say they don't care about original content.

[JD_Toims]

When I see about half my site copied across the internet on multiple websites ranking higher than I and when I file DMCA removal requests and Google denies them, I think I can safely say they don't care about original content.

Shhh! Reality doesn't matter to some people, because it hasn't hit them in the face yet -- Remember, the problem is with your content not Google, and never-mind the fact it's your own content outranking you even though logically/reasonably if the content were really the problem your page/site would drop in the rankings while being replaced by better content, rather than you being outranked by your own work/content that is stolen by another site -- Sometimes the best way to avoid a "blah, blah, blah Google's right and you're wrong" argument is to simply not post or forget about reality and go along with what the people who "know it all" say, because until it hits them and they realize first hand what people are saying/experiencing, they and Google are right; you're wrong. Never mind what the facts about any given situation say/illustrate -- Your site and your content are the problem, so it's best to quit trying to blame Google when your content on another site ranks above you well after you've published it and Google's spidered and ranked it. If your content were good enough and what people really wanted to find it would still rank above the scrapers who duplicate it, really, it would... Think about it for a minute.

[Splugged]

Three months ago, "walking in the web", I found a nice site: it's absolutely and completely the copy of our site except for the template. Same content, same icons, same images... a mirror.

I filed a DMCA removal request, of course. Denied... Conclusion? Google don't take care about original content.

Plus...

My site is getting about 100 to 1000 spammy links per week. I worked hard with a friend to find the origin of this "weird" phenomenon. We found a source: someone with a "lord approach" filed a request on fiverr or "i don't know where" to a professional spammer... just for $10? Maybe...
However, we worked for weeks to collect all spammy links, create a disavow link and submitted to GWT. Not all: I tried to reach someone at Google without success for days... and days... the "someone" replied: "Just submit a disavow file". I replied: "Ehr, but I'm getting thousand of crappy links per day!". Someone, replied... "Ehr..."

Result: site is totally tanked. No more google traffic, penalties on penalties (oh, sorry... "Algorithm Updates").

Conclusion: google does not take care about (real) spam. You are always the spammer. also if a "dork" doesn't have nothing to do if tank your site.

Let's quit.

[philgames]

My sites dropping now for many keywords because a hacker spammer has scraped my entire site (and many other peoples) and has mashed up sentences together from the various content it has scraped whilst not forgetting g to add the usual suglasses, pills or what ever fake counterfeit goods links and then posts to thousands if not millions of spam sites. Problem is because only excerpts are being used per each article I cannot post a dmca (I dont think) but it means if you search any sentence on my site thousands of spam sites pop up and if you search my brand name thousands of spam sites that have ripped the sentence with my brand name also pop up.

Iv lost my main keyword now and im not making this up when I say iv lost everything and im making £0 at moment (I was not even making that much money anyway at around £50 a week.

My site was not spam...... people trusted to buy off my site and even came back to buy more stuff.

Oh well google staff obviously are rich and can stuff their greedy faces as much as they like so who cares about anyone else as long as they can break other peoples spirits as they like to say.

[EditorialGuy]

It's not really a feeling more than it is a fact. When I see about half my site copied across the internet on multiple websites ranking higher than I and when I file DMCA removal requests and Google denies them, I think I can safely say they don't care about original content.

In that case, why not pull the plug? Seriously. Re-read Goodroi's original post (tongue-in-cheek though it may be) and figure out "how are you going to spend your time after quitting Google." (Or you could try to figure out why the scrapers rank higher than you do, but quitting Google is a better fit for the "Google sucks and I'm not going to take this #*$! anymore" narrative.)

[netmeg]

I am so fricking tired of the constant jibes at PEOPLE instead of search engines. Yea, I quit. But not Google.

[JD_Toims]

Or you could try to figure out why the scrapers rank higher than you do...

That's already answered in the post that's quoted and a preceding post:

When I see about half my site copied across the internet on multiple websites ranking higher than I and when I file DMCA removal requests and Google denies them, I think I can safely say they don't care about original content.

***

Google don't take care about original content.

True story. Believe it or not.

[MrSavage]

Funny thing that we've gone into this issue about scraper outranking author. So if we take a chunk of our most succinct text, put it in Google with quotes, would we see Google as the top ranking site IF they are using that text for the A-Z answer box? Aha, but Google isn't really a website is it? Oh it is, but not the true source of content unless they hired writers along with the QA folks. So do tell. I bet if my text is chosen for the answer box, I bet you there is NO WAY IN HELL that you are going to see Google ranking themselves for that content. Call it sneaky? Oh no, who would want to do it. It's all innocent enough...

Quite a strange but interesting thread here. It's gone in many directions to say the least. I think over time, webmasters are the ones singing the same tune. That tune seems to be drowning out some of the voices and that might be hard to accept. Reality and truth comes in different ways. I guess on this forum it's in the form of peoples comments and views. You begin to see cracks and then realize what is really going on out there in the real web master world.

[Edge]

who never seem to post a solution

or proof, research, examples, or any other form of verification.

[Tigrou2]

I haven't posted here in a decade, but Martinibuster linked to JasonD's post. Which is a great post. Nice share man.

Thing is you could take that post and replace "SEO" with any other marketing vehicle, which was kinda his point. If it works, great! If it doesn't work, bummer. But don't chase after stuff someone else is better at. Find your own path.

I did walk away from Google -- soon after I left good and spammy SEO to those better suited, I got into social games, or you might think of it as highly gameified, monitising social networks. I'm good at making deals, and we made deals exactly as Martinibuster said - found brand ambassadors. That works for us. Everything else is pretty much negative ROI for acqusition. Google Adwords was negative 99.7% negative ROI for our industry. So be it.

But once we had players, we were able to invest time in players, and provide a better service than anyone else. We gave a #*$! about our guys, and sweat, bled and stressed for them. They repayed that loyalty ... some for many years now.

We made sure our games generated profits, but that real money wasn't the only way to win. It helps, not dominates. Active playing is still required. Which gives the games longevity.

Notice, that's the ARM of any business : Acquisition, Retention, Monetisation.

We don't talk about ATM, like JasonD, but rather one step back -- "King ROI" is our catchphrase (Roi actually means King in French), and players get that. We try our best for them, but we run a business and the good ones know that.

All that being said, we're going to try some SEO in the next bit (again). Hired a new staffer who can write, got a idea that needs to be tested out (variation on something that works), and we'll see. Here's to a positive ROI! Long live the King!

[gregorysmith]

OP,

I can't agree with you.

I'm sorry that you're having a bad day, though.

Google has always implemented an ever changing (without transparency) algorithm.

They always have -- they always will.

and they sure aren't going anywhere. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

As an SEO or Internet Marketer, it's up to you (all of us) to ride things out, until they change.

I like the marketing strategies you've listed. I've used them all and they all work very well. I still use them today and will use them tomorrow.

Google will always be a headache. But there is still a great bit of market share to work with, and I'm sure that will grow soon enough.

Greg Smith

[EditorialGuy]

who never seem to post a solution

Goodroi, who started this thread, has already posted a solution:

"Let's all quit."

Trouble is, no one wants to listen. :-)

[rish3]

who never seem to post a solution

Google seems to understand javascript generated content better than most of the scrapers. A quick and dirty technical solution would be to:

pre-encode the text using a simple xor, with the url of the page it will display on as the key.

add a small amount of javascript that grabs window.location.href and decodes the text.

I made a simple demo here: [jsfiddle.net...] (Note that the demo would only work at that url...I pre-encoded to text with that specific url as the key)

Wouldn't be much work to make something like that into a plugin for wordpress or some other CMS and make it automated and transparent.

It's easily circumvented if a scraper really wants to, but that's how locks work...you don't have to be a fortress, just harder to scrape than the site next door.

[webcentric]

Or maybe exploring reality to see if your statement is true based on the posts here over the last few years is a better idea, even as much as some people keep trying to deny what's going on since it hasn't become an issue for them, yet...

There are certainly a great many dead or dying canaries in this coal mine. Some probably felt they had an immunity to the bad air right up until the moment they dropped dead.

[brotherhood of LAN]

Surely the thread is about Google being a means to an end, i.e. marketing your product/service, rather than us discussing the finer technical SEO details that are often discussed in other threads.

[mrengine]

Surely the thread is about Google being a means to an end, i.e. marketing your product/service, rather than us discussing the finer technical SEO details that are often discussed in other threads.

Agreed. The Google business and policy forum is a more appropriate place for this discussion to occur.

[brotherhood of LAN]

The point being that there's more to having your head in the sand and figuring out how to gain a rank in Google, because there's many, many other channels out there to bring and keep people on your web properties. Some people refuse to believe it but it's actually true.

The thread title may as well have included "impossible to see the forest for the trees".

I tend to view these threads in "read only" mode because I know that some of the posters in this thread have been doing what they preach for over a decade and know their stuff. They probably do pretty well in Google too :)

If I can read minds, the OP is suggesting you can end the maelstrom of lost ranks and suffering by simply not treating "ranking in Google" as a problem anymore (and by the way, here are some other ways you can continue to promote your website). It's actually entirely relevant to this forum because there's a large element of people who think there's an inherent right to ranking well, or have simply got lost in the details and could do with a wake up call to better spend their time elsewhere.

[Brett_Tabke]

Wow - I was having flashbacks reading GoodROI's opener there. Wow. nice.

Couldn't have said it any better. erm - maybe I could: lol


[webmasterworld.com...]

[rish3]

A forum called "Google SEO News and Discussion" will, of course, be focused around "ranking in Google" :)

[newcrybabynews]

I am rebuilding my new site but have counted on organic SEO for years. I used to focus on rankings on Google and now let the chips fall where they may. All of the changes and corporate domination even stronger over the "little guys", made me focus on other search engines and other means to attract people.

[DavidMetz]

Dude, speak for yourself. It's easier to rank in Google then ever. You just need to know what your doing.

[kenroar]

In that case, why not pull the plug? Seriously. Re-read Goodroi's original post (tongue-in-cheek though it may be) and figure out "how are you going to spend your time after quitting Google." (Or you could try to figure out why the scrapers rank higher than you do, but quitting Google is a better fit for the "Google sucks and I'm not going to take this #*$! anymore" narrative.)

Oh brother. You assume I'm not doing anything about it? As you know, we are left to guess why exactly why we've lost our ranking. We can follow their quality guidelines and still lose ranking for whatever reason. We can post our URL's on websites like this one to get input from "experts" as to why we are ranking lower and then see 50 posts with different advice. We can follow that advice and still rank lower. Google's algorithm isn't smart enough to detect original content so when it encounters duplicate content, it lowers the ranking. Then when the DMCA removal requests are sent to Google, they deny them. We have every right to complain when a company has little respect for publishers like this. As far as "quitting" Google, there is a small chance I will stumble on the reason for being outranked (other than duplicate content) and recover. People have reported recovering from the whims of Google so there is always a chance. Call me a gambler I guess.

[mcneely]

When people talk about "mobile" in this forum does that include "tablets"?

I'm guessing that anything mobile would be anything that can connect to wifi, has a battery, and can be carried from one place to the other with minimal effort ...

[mcneely]

I now need about 5-10 tries to find my information.

And this is how it's supposed to work.

Google needs those eyes to stay 5x to 6x longer in order to more effectively push their ads ...

[EditorialGuy]

When people talk about "mobile" in this forum does that include "tablets"?

"Mobile" is in the eye of the beholder, but it's worth noting that Google Analytics has listed three device categories for a while now:

- Desktop
- Tablets
- Mobile

[docbird]

I believe people have left in droves already, or simply not started.

When was the last time you came across a site by someone who clearly had a tale to tell, info to impart, even if not much web building knowledge?

Part of the issue is surely in google boardroom: seems people there may not really like websites, overall; no real interest in fostering a living mix of interesting websites.
Otherwise, why no googleguy or equivalent in this thread; why the complaints re complaints about copied content going nowhere?

For myself, started sites mainly with content to share - could help myself by doing so, but also partly could benefit others.
Used to see rewards, whether in views, also comments; heck, even requests for links. Now feels more like posting into a vacuum.
Facebook's far easier for quick responses; I'm sure many now post here what might have otherwise gone into website. Sometimes, deservedely so, sometimes not. Instead of perhaps lasting value, the info becomes lost in a mush, subject to facebook whims.

Google seems to emphasise negativity among sites: don't do this, don't do that; sites doing whatever will be penalised.
Big boys floating to top; and they can get away with stuff ["find accommodation at TeenyTinyPlace" and when you visit, they have nothing whatsoever related to TeenyTinyPlace, but outrank some pages with a bit of info]

Bit like rainforest, where a few trees that grow tall can grab most sunlight; saplings beneath might sprout, then fade away.

And yes, it's adapt or struggle more, or give up; but the various alternatives are a darn sight tougher than putting up some content and seeing some reward based on its value.
Goes against the potential of the web.

Sadly, rainforest analogy may apply even to web search: gone are days of excite etc.
And this is surely not good even for google; the folks in boardroom may not appreciate how a thriving, lively web of websites can benefit google too.
They seem unsettled by rise of Facebook, yet not appreciating what helped Google become such a giant in the first place.

[turbocharged]

Google has depleted some sectors of competition with paid ads and organic positions being given to other Google owned companies ( [en.wikipedia.org...] ) and investments ( [gv.com...] ).

I bet the telephone companies are kicking themselves in the behind for not buying up a bunch of companies and listing them first in their phone books many years ago. Had they only spent more money lobbying. Hindsight is 20/20.

[CaptainSalad2]

I bet the telephone companies are kicking themselves in the behind for not buying up a bunch of companies and listing them first in their phone books many years ago.

That is an excellent point actually!

[longen]

Could Google solve the "content ownership problem" this way?
Instead of publishing new content directly to your website place it your Webmaster Tools account where it can be accessed first by the search engine and authenticated as your content. Then when Google flags it as having been recorded you publish it to your website. If someone else were to scraps it at this point Google could simply penalize them for content theft.