The loss of organic result relevance in Google search

[MrSavage]

Things change. Search changes. Our traffic changes. People move into our space. All things require adjustments to survive in business and the web is no different.

But right now I have to speak to something I've seen in the past week. Right now, on my monitor, I see an "answer box", with the good part of a website summarized and displayed and even contains a thumbnail from said web page. Now perhaps that's fine to some, but when I see to the right, an even larger box that says "Shop for.....(insert your search keywords here)" and sponsored shopping links?

That says right now, it's okay to take my content to answer succinctly a persons inquiry, and then display to them, a handful (more than a handful in this instance) of shopping links. Of which of course, said site receives ZILCH from sales. Said website in this example provided the key "answer", with a link of course at the bottom, but the eyes move to the images and the shopping ads. If the answer is good enough, and it is in this case, then WHO CARES ABOUT SAID WEBSITE. That's an extra click afterall.

So, I'm all ears. How is organic results no becoming irrelevant? I've seen in the past weeks, or even days, a substantial, and I mean substantial blocking out of the top portion of page 1 search results for shopping and ads. It's about as aggressive as I've ever seen. This is why I post. This isn't a rant. It's a realization today, what I thought for some time. I'm just wondering if everyone else is ahead of the curve on this one. It's a movement, and I see it as being big time evidence that organic traffic from Google just because a few notches lower in their priority or concern. As a webmaster when I see my relevance clearly slipping away, this is a milestone moment. I would post a pic of what I'm seeing, but find your own for now.

It's absurd that my content or yours could provide an answer and that said content could provide a useful and easy way to get clicks on shopping links for which you don't get a penny. A new frontier and I won't just pin this on Google because I'm sure Bing does this or will do this because together, it's far better than going out alone on these types of content eating sprees.

At this point all I can do about it is to care less about organic and consider long term viability of organic traffic. Also a revision on subjects that might be outside of the shopping ads etc. Not sure. To me this is a biggie. It's the most robust and accurate answer box that I've seen. *Comes complete with a thumbnail image!* (We all know how images affect ads and the no-no about putting images next to ads)

[MrSavage]

@jon, I think your part 3 has become more of a consideration. First and foremost my business model needs serious updating. Outside of that though, I've already had those post Panda mornings when I've come to realize that the work I put into my site(s) could be wiped off in a day. If I learn a skill, that time spent can't be taken away. If I'm dependent on search engine traffic today, then I'm just setting myself up for those regrets. Like I could have gone here with the kids rather than creating that page of content or article. I just can't get to a place today in my own mind where I see free organic traffic as being reliable. The pursuit is appearing more futile, but the plan now is to find the niches or areas where there is some life left. As websites go, there are thousands of different business models. Many people have lessened their dependency on free traffic from search engines. Those are the bright ones. I guess it's a time of reflection for me. Big picture stuff. The fact is if Bing and Google are competing with me on keeping visitors on site, it's pretty clear who wins that battle. Success for search, or the goal appears to be (and has been said) to give the quickest answer because that's what consumers want. That goal collides face on with my existence, which is depending on free search traffic to visit my site for the best answer to their query. It's pretty obvious to me that I need to change in face of their strategic directions (no pun intended).

[glakes]

I think WebmasterWorld should accept that for the majority in this section, Google is their hourly concern - and not in a constructive way for most.

I could not agree more. But instead of participating in a pity party, people should face the facts. And the fact is Google under-represents small businesses in their organic search results, knowledge graph, etc. So instead of continually feeding the the mouth that bites, with Adwords money in our hands, use that money and effort to diversify away from Google. That's what I've done and last month was our best month yet. This month looks like it will surpass last month too, which is a continuation of a trend of solid and stable growth. Each day and month that goes by Google becomes less relevant in the success of my business. No, it is not easy taking those first steps to really diversify but is necessary in an era when Google's grip on many industries continues to grow and the level at which they squeeze profits out of us is growing too.

[jon_uk]

@MrSavage

Like you, I have spent far too much time at the coalface. Get up to the surface and breathe some fresher, better air. There is a strange but understandable addiction to Google most of us have. It's utterly stupid and an ever-increasing waste of time and life, which reading between the lines, you agree with like many others here. The first thing with any addiction is to admit you have reached rock bottom and will die if you continue the self-abuse. This revelation of realising this powerlessness over Google (gambling, drugs, drink, sex) and doing only what you can control is the answer to greater happiness. I am not moralizing, but seeing it as an addiction helps the perspective. Remove Google from your vocabulary and erase it from your brain - far easier said then done I know.

@Glakes

Well done, you have described the answer in a nutshell. But the methods for many are VERY HARD, I appreciate this and am trying to gather a collection of 'ways' myself.

I am trying to avoid the pity party bit. Just trying some necessary counselling. They say the best therapists are those that have experienced the problem they are trying to help :-)

The opportunity funnel is getting ever-narrower. At some point it will have the diameter of a pin. Today, there is only room for a very few of us to squeeze through - and it's getting worse. My senses tell me unless you are willing to appear nude with three friends at the top of Nelson's column every day. You won't get much attention. Even this ostentation will become standard as everybody tries to out-do each other with more and more outrageous, attention seeking screams. What happens when G is no longer a search engine? This is their ambition, it won't have room for the little guy. I remember watching Matt Cutts suggesting all the 'spammers' would be better spending their time on making phone apps ?!? Yeah, good luck with that.

It's bleak. But an alignment with Google is even bleaker (I am an Englishman, we are not armed with the great American optimist character).

[netmeg]

Is any of this much different than offline, though? If you have a local brick and mortar, you are always at the mercy of the mall or the Wal-Mart or the Costco. The big fish will always try to swallow up the small fish. The fish that survive are the ones that either become big fish themselves, stay small enough to escape notice, or are agile enough to spot new trends and move more quickly to act on them and stay ahead of the big fish. Why would we expect online to be any different than offline? Because it seemed more "fair" at the beginning? Well, so did offline.

[jon_uk]

That is certainly a good point Netmeg.

Offline, at least here in the UK, there is a slow return to smaller shops in the high street. The supermarkets are suffering badly. There is the greater chance of being noticed and it's lot easier to publicise yourself on a local level - many more ways than depending on a 90%+ monopoly for unstable pickings.

People are getting more fed up with being ripped off by large companies. Google (irony noted) The Naked Brand.

[jon_uk]

PS. Netmeg - I have seen you promote the sensible way of trust.

Here the link I wanted:

[theguardian.com...]

I rather think you will like it and agree :-)

[EditorialGuy]

If you have a local brick and mortar, you are always at the mercy of the mall or the Wal-Mart or the Costco.

Not to mention the city department of public works (which may tear up the street in front of your business for a season), the state highway department (which may build a bypass around downtown), the public-transit agency (which may change a bus route), a big employer near your business (which may go broke or move out of town), and consumer tastes (doughnuts give away to muffins, muffins to cupcakes, cupcakes to cronuts).

People here like to complain about changes in search, and about how Google (and, by extension, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, etc.) are evil for putting them out of business. I wonder how many of the people here who own e-commerce sites feel guilty about taking bread from the mouths of brick-and-mortar business owners' babies? Do the people who invented word processors feel guilty because typewriter assemblers and technicians were put out of work? Do the people who create WordPress templates and plug-ins feel ashamed because they're making it harder for the small-town Web designer or HTML coder to earn a living?

[rish3]

Is any of this much different than offline, though? If you have a local brick and mortar, you are always at the mercy of the mall or the Wal-Mart or the Costco.

I happen to own a brick and mortar, and I disagree with the comparison, at least in terms of degrees.

There is no offline equivalent to Google. With brick and mortar, the sources of "traffic" are more evenly distributed, with no single entity even remotely approaching the control that Google has in the online world.

And, some of the alternatives to Google aren't terrific either. I can, for example, go around Google by listing products on Amazon or eBay. But, both of those entities want a percentage based cut. In the offline world, advertising prices are market based, not percentage of revenue based. You also take some pretty big contractual hits going this direction. For example, with both eBay and Amazon, the customer is NOT your customer. You are not, for example, allowed to market to them after the sale.

Wal-Mart and Costco, in the brick and mortar world, are just competitors. Big ones, in terms of pricing, but they don't, for example, have the ability to control the street traffic in front of my store.

The way people's opinions fall regarding Google tend to center around one basic point of contention. It's whether you think that, due to their overwhelming market share, they should be obligated to "be fair" or not.
A purely capitalist view is that it's their site, and they can do what they want. A different point of view is that while technically, consumers have choice, the fact of the matter is that Google uses it's marketshare to ensure that things aren't seen that way by end users. For example, I don't think my mother would be able to figure out how to change the default search engine on her Android phone, or maybe even on her windows PC. That leaves Google with something like the brick-and-mortar equivalent of owning all the roads in front of businesses, and putting up visual barriers between the road and those businesses.

Every pro/con Google argument I've seen here all boils down to that basic argument. Are they a business that can do whatever they want, or does their market share (and the way they got it) create some moral or legal obligation to be fair?

[rish3]

People here like to complain about changes in search, and about how Google (and, by extension, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, etc.) are evil for putting them out of business. I wonder how many of the people here who own e-commerce sites feel guilty about taking bread from the mouths of brick-and-mortar business owners' babies?

This comparison misses the mark. People complain because search is the on-ramp to the internet, and when the on-ramp starts to monetize your vertical, in a non-merit based way...you're screwed. It's the same reason that people would get upset if, for example, some large business bribed the city council to tear up the road in front of a competitor's business.

[superclown2]

(I am an Englishman, we are not armed with the great American optimist character).

Speak for yourself. I am English too so I never give up and I expect to make more from Google this year than I have ever done, by treating this, as usual, as a serious business which demands dedication, determination and investment. Of course it's a tough game but it certainly beats working for a living, whatever Google does.

[superclown2]

People complain because search is the on-ramp to the internet, and when the on-ramp starts to monetize your vertical, in a non-merit based way...you're screwed.

The guy with the store who's put out of business by the local council or the new megastore is the one who's screwed, with a huge investment down the pan. The webmaster whose vertical is invaded by the big brands or Google itself can pick just about any product or service under the sun to move into instead. What does it cost to build a new website, or better still, collection of sites? And if you don't know by now how to promote those new sites then you're in the wrong business anyhow.

Or do you seriously believe that Google will move into, and dominate, every single money making niche? Or that they'll be allowed to?

[rish3]

The guy with the store who's put out of business by the local council or the new megastore is the one who's screwed, with a huge investment down the pan.

I agree that a local city council has similar power in the offline world as google does in the online world. The scale if obviously different, and of course, I can move a business out of specific city's reach. I disagree that a megastore does. A megastore can undercut you on price, etc, but they don't control your sales funnel.

The webmaster whose vertical is invaded by the big brands or Google itself can pick just about any product or service under the sun to move into instead.

I don't agree with this. It may be true for those who are just slinging commodities. In our case, we do well because we have expertise in the products. Switching products would take away our advantage. That's aside from the fact that many of Google's tactics cut across ALL verticals.

And if you don't know by now how to promote those new sites then you're in the wrong business anyhow.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you saying that anyone that has a beef with Google's business practices must be unskilled or otherwise not intelligent?

I'm not saying that my business cannot survive without Google. It can. But, their market share is undeniable. Their tactics cut into my business, and I happen to find some of them unfair.

Or do you seriously believe that Google will move into, and dominate, every single money making niche? Or that they'll be allowed to?

Not "every single" niche, no. But there are large swaths, like "physical products that people search for and buy online" that they have already encroached on in a big way.

[MrSavage]

I can appreciate the real offline world vs. the online world. However, the internet is what it is because it's not like the offline world. People growing up with the internet now, have a certain expectation and that doesn't include commercialization. Everyone will have a different opinion on that of course. Ad laden videos call television is part of the offline world, but are people going to allow video content online to be the same? The point is that the internet isn't controllable like the offline world is. A new option can always pop up as people sour on overly commercialized internet sources. Ad blockers? Younger generation right there. Those users aren't going to allow the internet to be run like the offline world.

It's the philosophy that to me is worrisome. The quest for the quick answer or solution appears to have no bounds right now. I just can't grasp, for the life of me, how it's reasonable to achieve a #2 or #1 ranking for an inquiry and now in 2015 it's quite possible that the article is good enough to qualify for a solution box, only to have someone else host that solution for themselves and cutting me out of the equation. I just can't bring myself to understand how that is acceptable to others. So to me, as this goes, I really question a lot of the energy and motivation in trying to attain that spot. Short term it may be fine, but as an investible and worthwhile business plan?

I could see this coming to a head at some point where as a webmaster, I may have a box I can tick that allows or disallows my content to be featured in a solution box. If it becomes commonplace, then perhaps one of the engines (perhaps search engine will be a term of historical relevance) will pay out for each reference. Like a newspaper paying for articles or stories that makeup the newspaper that is sold with ads. I'm not sure. As it is now, the goal of search is to give you what you need as fast as possible. Thus, having people going into page 2 or lower down on page 1 to click organic ads would indicate failure. So at Google it must be becoming a conundrum. How could it not be?

[guggi2000]

@EditorialGuy Structured data is good for your daughter because she is in the museum-business and not in the website-business.

Social marketing and non-informational websites are the only way out, IMO.

[jon_uk]

@SuperClown - Speak for yourself. I am English too so I never give up and I expect to make more from Google this year than I have ever done, by treating this, as usual, as a serious business which demands dedication, determination and investment. Of course it's a tough game but it certainly beats working for a living, whatever Google does.

I work with people that have warehouses of at least several thousand square feet, quite a few trained staff and established infrastructure. Their product expertise is top notch - they have been handling them for years.

Scene - Monday morning at the factory in Borsetshire. The staff meeting.

Boss: "OK boys and girls. The time has come to stop selling our laser precision computer controlled industrial robots and go into fridge freezers - I spoke to a mate at the golf club. He can help with stock - a lorry will be here by Thursday. I want all our present clutter thrown out to make room by then. Anybody that is not up to speed with these new thingies will have to report to HR. You all OK with that?"

[jon_uk]

Actually, it was this quote I meant to reply to ...

@ Superclown - The guy with the store who's put out of business by the local council or the new megastore is the one who's screwed, with a huge investment down the pan. The webmaster whose vertical is invaded by the big brands or Google itself can pick just about any product or service under the sun to move into instead. What does it cost to build a new website, or better still, collection of sites? And if you don't know by now how to promote those new sites then you're in the wrong business anyhow.

[EditorialGuy]

After all is said and done, the real question (as posed in the title of this thread) is whether there is a "loss of organic relevance in Google Search."

if your Google organic search traffic is declining, you're probably going to have a different point of view than the site owner whose Google organic search traffic is increasing.

It's like the old definition of "spam" as "Sites Positioned Above Mine."

[superclown2]

Boss: "OK boys and girls. The time has come to stop selling our laser precision computer controlled industrial robots and go into fridge freezers

People have had to make similar choices ever since trade was invented. I don't say it's a good thing but it's the way business works. I've had to face these choices myself several times in the last decade - but I'm still here.

I don't see any greater loss of organic results in the UK niches that I'm interested in - the opposite in fact. I'm watching several spam sites that are only a few months old but with thousands of links including .gov and .edu (all dishonestly acquired) marching up the SERPs and rising above good, long established sites. They'll disappear eventually of course, but lose us all a lot of money in the meanwhile. However; tough. Again, that's the way business works. It's easy to understand, though, why some visitors may actually have a better experience with a Google property than junk sites that have been gamed onto the first page.

I've no doubt the European legislators will tame Google eventually but that will probably be years down the road. In the meanwhile it may be more productive to look for fresh markets or better ways of working within this one than flogging dead horses.

[RedBar]

I spoke to a mate at the golf club. He can help with stock - a lorry will be here by Thursday.

This is the problem with FMCG, anything and everything is available for cash even though the buyer may not have a clue about that particular sector.

I have seen massive losses made by well-known, household name companies trying to "muscle" into my widget sector only to walk away a year or so later licking their wounds and because of their investment in the sector having to farm out their enquiries. Very few exist these days, honestly, they cannot compete with the local family firm and local tradespeople.

Some trades may seem to be easy yet are completely the opposite without the correct training and machinery.

[rish3]

if your Google organic search traffic is declining, you're probably going to have a different point of view than the site owner whose Google organic search traffic is increasing.

It's like the old definition of "spam" as "Sites Positioned Above Mine."

Or like the definition of "most of my experience is in an informational niche that Google hasn't directly targeted yet".

[EditorialGuy]

In the meanwhile it may be more productive to look for fresh markets or better ways of working within this one than flogging dead horses.

Exactly. In my informational sector, there's been a significant decline in ad rates over the years, thanks to things like programmatic media buying. At the same time, search engines (notably Google) seem to be rewarding niche subject authority to a greater extent in the past.

The consequence of these changes has turned out to be positive, because the evolution of the ad business and search has given us an incentive to invest more in expanding content for our strongest subtopics where we earn the most affiliate and advertising revenue. That has given us an advantage over competitors who can't or won't keep up with the times.

[netmeg]

Or like the definition of "most of my experience is in an informational niche that Google hasn't directly targeted yet".

Nope.

[rish3]

Nope.

Forget to switch accounts? Or are the two of you close enough that you speak for EG?

[brotherhood of LAN]

Let's keep on-topic instead of making it personal, other people don't want to spend time reading niggly arguments about who should know what. Thanks.

[rish3]

Let's keep on-topic instead of making it personal.

I'm all for keeping it professional. The first volley is usually, however, someone implying that anyone complaining about Google is being an idiot, as in "just complaining that sites rank above mine".

[brotherhood of LAN]

If you don't fancy someone's opinion, simply overlook it. There's room for disagreement or different points of view, even differing conclusions.

There's an element of truth to the sites positioned above mine argument, but it's easy when said from the other side of the fence. Seems to be the OP has taken a more pragmatic viewpoint of what's in his power to affect, which is a good thing (IMO).

[edited by: brotherhood_of_LAN at 7:45 pm (utc) on May 11, 2015]

[superclown2]

The first volley is usually, however, someone implying that anyone complaining about Google is being an idiot, as in "just complaining that sites rank above mine".

I don't think that the case at all. We all know that Google is intruding more and more into areas we don't want them intruding into and that's something which, hopefully, Europe will put a block on. Until then though it's one of those problems we have to live with and it is far more productive to discuss ways of getting round this than complaining about it.

If Google made this business too easy everyone would jump into it and none of us would make any money.

[EditorialGuy]

The first volley is usually, however, someone implying that anyone complaining about Google is being an idiot, as in "just complaining that sites rank above mine".

Brett Tabke, the former owner of Webmaster World, may have coined that phrase. He certainly used it quite a bit. I merely borrowed it. :-)

Also, don't assume that, just because you infer something, someone else is implying it.

[netmeg]

Well I wrote about six different replies to this and then decide screw it, it's not worth it.

[aristotle]

Posters should make a distinction between spam and worthless garbage. Most of us realized long ago that Google will never get rid of spam. What annoys everyone is seeing so much worthless garbage in the results. That's what so hard for people to understand. Oftentimes members who complain about spam really have worthless garbage in mind, but don't make the distinction, and so others get confused as to what the complaint is about.