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)

[brotherhood of LAN]

Two quick notes about the topic

The forum is geared towards using Google to our advantage, how to avoid and resolve penalties and generally 'technical' SEO as it's often called, working on things that you can control. The layout of a results page is obviously relevant but it's really up to the search engine itself how things are displayed.

I'm not sure what you want to hear, or what outcome you want to happen. Google 'is what it is' and you can either play the game or not. It's just my humble opinion that spending too much time deciding whether it is 'fair' or not is time badly spent. I'm quite sure we can find many members here who do quite well out of Google, but perhaps they'd agree that the window of opportunity is closing, or getting more crowded, or isn't quite what it used to be. I'd say organic is entirely viable.

[MrSavage]

Fair enough. We're not just about questions and answers? Discussing trends is valid? I doubt every subject that falls under discussion has a question/answer. I'm not sure there has to be an "outcome" from every discussion. The discussion point for me is what I saw above the fold today. Not to nitpick, but "news" isn't question/answer. There have been many discussions about the answer box. Considering the example I saw today is more invasive that what I've ever seen, then I thought it was relevant to mention. It's a point of discussion, I thought. People, I think, are seeing traffic declines and the fact is it may have nothing to do with anything they are doing or not doing. The ongoing thread about daily SERPS doesn't offer solutions, but merely observations. If this discussion is discouraged, then close it out. I've seen a serious bump in above the fold ad crowing with shopping links to the right of organics, along with this enhanced answer box I saw today. There is no way I know if it's just me or if other see the same unless we can discuss it.

[superclown2]

If I was in Google's shoes, facing the oncoming problems in Europe, I'd do one of two things:
(a) I'd cut back on the more abusive of my practices and look for a settlement, or
(b) I'd go for broke, screw every penny I could and fight every inch of the way.

Either way It'll give us some entertainment over the coning months/years.

[mrengine]

You forget the most popular option:
(c) Buy or lobby enough politicians to make the problem go away.

As much as many of us don't like Google's continually growing grip on the economy, we must work within its constraints. Outside of actively lobbying elected officials ourselves, we must work with what we have. If Google is closing the door on us, it's is up to us to find some other doors to open. If we don't do it, our competitors will.

[Selen]

Many valid points by MrSavage. Most webmasters who lose traffic try to figure out what's wrong with their sites, but their efforts will not change the bad trend.

[EditorialGuy]

Bing does exactly the same thing (answer boxes, plenty of ads for commercial queries, plus other forms of clutter), so MrSavage's complaint seems to be less about Google than about where the search industry is headed. Search engines, like operating systems, have expanded beyond their original core functions. Whether that's progress, an annoyance, or something more sinister is in the eye of the beholder.

I do think the notion that "organic results are becoming irrelevant" smacks of hyperbole. Some queries may lend themselves to answer boxes and ads, but unless you're looking for simple answers (the capital of South Dakota, the current weather forecast, or a selection of prices for Birkenstock sandals), you'll probably find yourself browsing through the organic results.

[RedBar]

As a realworld producer of realworld products for realworld projects and realworld consumers, Google is more or less an irrelevance in my realworld sector...construction...honestly, G hasn't a clue, all it mostly does is promote US importing/wholesaling companies with its totally whacky algo and even more obscure impossible-to-source-from scraper sites.

It is totally and utterly pathetic.

[MrSavage]

In reply to your point @Editorial, I have seen an absurd amount of ad clutter in Bing before. In a sense that was par for the course. I'm suggesting in this discussion that in the past week, Google has for me and my recent searches, made me look twice because the amount of ad clutter above the fold was tricking me into thinking I was using Bing. That's my experience as of late. I'm trying to see if others are finding a very recent bump in that ad bloat. I'm not joking about this. I have never in the past thought that Google page 1 ever looked like Bing's until this past week or so.

I'm just wondering if the webmaster community has seen a new notch in this. A new level of it. A growth. Whatever you want to call it. We know Google page 1 better than most people, so that's why it's a discussion point.

Beyond just that, and there have been discussions galore about answer boxes, but in this instance, it was accurate, it contained an image from that website (that to me is slightly tacky in my opinion), but then there is something that I hadn't seen before, which is the even bigger shopping ads box to the right. I have never see an bonanza like that before. It's like blackjack, Bingo!, whatever. It was full on tacky.

I think it's good to discuss what we see and whether the content grabbing is becoming more invasive and if those organic rankings slipped even more in the past couple of weeks. I know a new Adwords system or something started up and the timing seems to match up.

Sometimes though I wonder if a lot of people here are not actively using Google for everyday type searches as I'm doing. Oh well. And to be clear, I'm not talking about "what is 2+2", "what time is it in New York", or "what is the size of uranus", type searches. So in terms of answer box, it's something that should be monitored and understood because those discussions about "geez, where did my traffic go?" might have a pretty damn easy answer (no pun intended).

It's deeply ironic that we are here to seek solutions to getting more organic traffic yet some of the more obvious answers are not discussed or watched. It might be time don't you think to have a sticky thread about what searches nowadays are not requiring click throughs? The advice at some point being given might just be completely irrelevant if Google starts providing that content on their pages. You could do this and you could do that and you could add this and link here, but if answer boxes decide that the content is best served on the search results page, there is but one word for the pursuit. It's called FUTILE. But whatever...

[Awarn]

I think Google took the idea of being an information engine down a road that they truly didn't think out. I deal in a highly specialized niche. For years things ran smooth. We sold the product. In this field the items are collectible and so at times we buy the items back from collectors who had items to sell too. We bought a lot of collections. Over the past few years it seemed like Google really latched on to this idea that people could sell to us. Sure we have information about the products etc. About 12K pages and one page that tells you how to sell your items to us. Guess what Google focuses on? They focus on that one page. Seems like they think we spent the time to build 12K pages as an information source so people can sell their items to us.

The end result is we get tons of emails where people want to sell us their items but we buy way fewer than we did before because we sell less because of the way Google ranks the site. Another thing I get is people wanting an item but they want me to drop the price. I had one today. I know the market I deal in. I told the woman the price and she said oh I can find it on Amazon for so much and another site for so much. She is right too. But the one on Amazon is used and the seller has a bad rating. The other is the price she stated and not in stock. So yes Google provided information but the information was rather irrelevant. And that user went to how many sites to even find the item?

I expect that over time companies will find other avenues to sell their products. That information they are hoarding will gradually start to dry up. It is simple, if Google doesn't allow us the opportunity maintain a profitable business then I don't have a need to provide that information they are hoarding. Google needs to realize that business need them and they need businesses to provide the information so they can be an information engine. Google currently is like a large government that is taxing the people huge sums to achieve their agenda. When it gets to the point where people say your taxing me too much and they quit working then the agenda failed and NODODY wins. So Google needs to realize we are getting real close to saying I have had enough of this garbage and I might as well sit on the sidelines and have a few beers. Somebody else can create the information for a while (until they realize Google isn't using the information as intended). Business change Google, study IBM, AT & T, Kodak, GM, Sears etc. All businesses that were top in their field but chose the wrong direction and lost their dominance.

[MrSavage]

I also don't want this to be a Google attack because it isn't. Bing is equally guilty of moving into the providing of answers. Heck, it's a party. I'm sure there will be others. However, for organic traffic we know which one matters the most. It's also pretty clear that Google is far superior in their abilities in search, and the expanding of content providing. If Google pushes out organic results in your niche, it's going to have a far bigger impact than if Bing decides to do it. It's all bad, but it's just not the same scale.

[masterjoe]

I actually posted about this earlier today in another thread. I was stunned to find answer boxes for some of my main keywords at the very top of the results, from an "authority" site but with a thin article as the source. Below that, were a few subpar amazon listings, and right next to it, a huge answer box which I believe is what has been sucking my conversions dry in my particular vertical.

I have resorted to learning about adwords. I do not mind paying for traffic, but the prices for some keywords are astronomical and not viable to turn a profit. Not to mention, it seems to be pretty complicated and vague unless you drop in enough money to figure out how it works to a proper level. Which I will be doing carefully... however, what aggravates me is how they have been treating webmasters in general, with punitive algos, and not providing a reasonable way to get yourself out of it after all the "quality guidelines" we have had to follow and implement.

[martinibuster]

Thanks Mr.Savage for bringing up this topic. It's a good one. It's a curtain pulled open in the morning, blinding and momentarily shocking.

Google has always been in the business of providing answers. It's going to become worse for us once their artificial intelligence project is completed. Google's goal is to be more than a search engine. Their goal is to build a machine that can understand all information, not just textual, visual, aural, all of it. Information from books, information in photos. Information in movies. All of it. With that knowledge it will then be able to respond with answers and do more for you. That's projected to come online within 13 to 15 years.

Google provides answers using our information. Google will continue to provide answers with all data. Once that reality is confronted and understood then it's to our benefit to figure out where we go from here. We are at a fork in the road. Move forward? Give up? Turning back is not an option because the road we traveled to get here is fast disappearing behind us. Capture visitors with apps the way Yelp and other big brands are doing?

The point of my response is not to pat Google on the head and defend it. Just to point out that this is the reality we live in. It's the window just after dawn with the curtains pulled aside. No doubt you may wish to go back to bed, pull the covers over your head. But that won't stop the sun from reaching it's meridian height.

[MrSavage]

Well in terms of strategizing, it's not something to ignore. If there is no monitoring by webmasters, then it's a disservice to the community. I'm sure the Q/A types of situations are still somewhat relevant, but how do you SEO your way out of this one? More than anything, the answers being provided by both Google and Bing should be the first or second part of troubleshooting questions about "where did all my traffic go?"

Perhaps other people like myself need to analyze time invested vs. long term viability. I've had it myself. Time spent on a project that was organic traffic dependent, only to realize that the source of eyeballs was leaving town. Sometimes a house is worth investing in, fixing up, etc, because that land value is going to never go down. Any site I have depending on organic search traffic for survival is under review at this point. I don't see a long term value being a stable situation. In terms of maturity and business planning, I'm just wondering how realistic or intelligent it is to pursue a business model that is largely dependent on free organic search traffic in 2015 and beyond. Is that pursuit still relevant? Seems to be shrinking pretty fast based on my recent observations and "giant step forward" that I've seen with ads on ads on answer boxes. Spending hours to create content is great, but for myself I have to ask about the audience and if it's going to be growing, shrinking, or if I'm going to have to ultimately pay to have that audience. I know my business model needs to change that's for sure.

At some point though, most things have to pass the ethical test. People don't care ultimately under what conditions their clothes or shoes were made and under what conditions those workers are working in. By the same token, people don't care about where the answers or solutions come from so long as (according to what Google said last week) that people want answers right now. They don't want to be clicking here and there. It's an inquiry, then an answer. It just so happens that my site might provide that answer to said consumer, I guess for the betterment of mankind because I've saved them the time of having to visit my website.

Nothing is better in this world than a free resource from which you can build a business. As these changes occur more and more, then the 'ol ethical debate might arise. It's a race, so the little details about fairness, ethics and perhaps legalities, are back seat topics (see book scanning project A). I'm moving forward on the basis that consumers ultimately don't care and likely won't care about where that information may have came from. If it's good enough information to show people on that one inquiry, then it certainly contains....value. It has to be worth something doesn't it? At this point, it's just a service and good feelings about helping the cause. Are people investing hours and money on websites these days on the basis of gaining greater organic search traffic now and in the future?

I'm just wondering if people have found viable areas of growth that in the long haul, will be worthwhile in terms of time spent working on. Perhaps a money maker for 5 years is achievable, but going into it being realistic is another matter all together. A house you can hand down to your children, but I'm just wondering is a lot of peoples websites are becoming less and less of an asset these days. I'm finding myself letting go off and closing out projects based on the trends in organic search traffic and the reduction in ad/affiliate revenue. I can't get past the irony. The better content or solutions I create on my site, the greater the chance of a top ranking (in theory) which in turn increases the chances of being that "answer". The better you are, the less likely you will get the visits. How does this makes sense and how is that an investable business plan? I'm not suggesting every subject is getting answers, but a long term plan might take that possibility into account.

[EditorialGuy]

Google's goal is to be more than a search engine.

Nothing new about that. Google's mission statement was written a long time ago:

"To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful"

Answer boxes, image search, maps, etc. fit right in with that mission statement.

The better content or solutions I create on my site, the greater the chance of a top ranking (in theory) which in turn increases the chances of being that "answer".

Maybe, if you're just serving up simple answers. But not everyone is looking for a simple answer. If you want to complement the search engines (instead of merely hoping to compete with them), focus on reaching the searcher who regards an "answer box" as a starting point.

[Selen]

.. a starting point until the box becomes scrollable, extendable, watchable, talkable, editable, recordable, and archivable .. ; )

[MrSavage]

I think when the SERPS become a "one stop destination", such as what I saw which included the answer and the relevant shopping links above the fold, there isn't much room for the said website to be a starting point. I need to be clear once again that some of what I see isn't a cut and dry question. Not a simple question in other words. That would be an obvious discussion, but I'm talking about a double and triple threat which in turn is rendering said website(s) irrelevant to the searcher. Answer to a question about a product -> answer box -> shopping options. Question about time in new york -> answer box -> flights and hotels. Question about how to spell a word -> nothing to sell. The more I look at this, the more depressing the forecast becomes. Useful content is valuable to searcher and I don't quite understand how that usefulness could be excluded from the one stop shop mentality or trend with search engines.

[martinibuster]

I think it's possible the answer boxes might not be a threat because the queries that trigger them are not easily monetized. Maybe I'm wrong. But honestly, would you advertise on the queries that trigger the answer box and do you believe those adwords clicks would lead to conversions? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just throwing that out there to hear some answers.

[MrSavage]

In my opinion, when I did my search (the one that spurred this post), it was a type of search inquiry that had some product overtones, and thus popped up the shopping box, which as a quick reminder was far larger than the answer box itself. I would be less worried (not the right word) if this was a wikipedia style only approach. It may have been, but part of what I'm hoping is that other people might share a few observations. So if for example I'm looking for the newest widget, a concise answer on SERP could very well lend itself to a shopping link, as a suggestive sell as it were. It's organic traffic diversion. That's about how I would sum it up. If the answer box doesn't keep them on the search engine page, then the obvious shopping options might, and as a third option, a searcher may decide to scroll down to result 1 or 2, maybe. I would call that a growing irrelevance, but maybe it's just me.

Here's another food for thought item. What is success for Bing or Google when it comes to data and the answer box? For a webmaster, the goal is time on page. And their? The goal would be to keep users on their page for as long as possible. If the goal is to provide an instant answer, then success would be a person NOT clicking an organic result. If people are leaving the SERPS via an organic link, then the answer box essentially failed. At the team meetings, don't you think they are analyzing why people didn't stick around and why that particular answer box didn't keep the searcher on page? It's not being worked on to fail and be sloppy I would think. It's there to be helpful and snuff out the need to go elsewhere. That's the cut and dry of it from my perspective. Heck, I have stay on SERPS more and more so I guess it must be a good thing. Mind you it might or should make me question my own existence on the web however.

I think the focus, from what I did read, is that Google sees people wanting instantaneous information. Right to the point. So there is starting to be a struggle here in their goals vs. our goals. If keeping on page means success, then I wonder about a lot of what I'm spending time on right now. It's a bizarre situation for those taking time to think about it.

[guggi2000]

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.

They convinced naive webmasters to add "Rich snippets" and "Structured Data"... I think it is a brilliant play!

I think this thread would be great if we come up with ideas to keep organic alive a little longer. I.e. we decided a few years ago that we stop focusing on "reference lists" (sport results) and create more interactive tools that Google cannot display on the SERPs. It is true, the quantity of traffic went down, but the quality went up.

[toidi]

Why did it take them so long? A company has to maximize it's potential now because it might not be around in 10 years.

Realistically, 75% of the websites could go away in the next 5 years and the public would hardly notice. It might even be seen as a benefit. Remove the profit from spammers and they go away, unfortunately, along with a bunch of bystanders.

organic is history, just no one let it know yet

[masterjoe]

I honestly hope the EU does a number on them with the anti-trust suit and US follows - this will be the only way to stop screwing webmasters over that I can see.

The answer box is good for Google and searchers who want information fast, but at the same time, it is having a noticeable impact on traffic statistics... I have noticed significant losses of clickthroughs for my site because my niche is somewhat commercial. However, being overrun by amazon with a few minor (crap) products for my terms just because they are an authority site is just disgusting to watch. I started noticing that I have to go several pages on to find quality websites, but I guess that was the strategy to get more people paying for ads and clicking them anyway.

Regardless, I have changed my search to Bing and finding the results pretty decent. I think they have some way to go, but I refuse to use a search engine hell bent on screwing webmasters who just want some decent traffic for putting good content out there.

[glakes]

Why did it take them so long?

Because slow incremental changes do not have as much of an impact. This has helped to keep Google in good graces with many webmasters and out of regulators crosshairs. If Google were to change too quickly, the public at large would would be screaming.

When Google talks of changes in the serps, they often refer to such changes producing improved "quality." It just so happens that each "quality" change Google makes generates them millions in profits. To me it is no different than what many police departments do - write traffic tickets like crazy in the name of "safety" when the revenue comprises a significant portion of a city's budget. Though I think we are at a point where most webmasters understand Google's use of quality is synonymous with profit just as most drivers realize police departments are cash generating machines for municipalities. Because in both instances the changes occurred slowly, there was less resistance from people along the way and a majority who now feel content with things as they are.

[masterjoe]

Glakes is spot on. Last year their revenue increased substantially, to the tune of billions of dollars. I don't understand the greediness and the rush to cash in when they are already winning by a very long shot in the search game... perhaps they are afraid of Bing catching up (with microsoft making a new browser), and Apple possibly making their own search engine - which would also capture a substantial part of the mobile market.

It's propaganda, and its slowly demoralizing webmasters who get less traffic and customers for more and more effort - in regards to content, SEO, and walking on eggshells with links, to having to take care of links other people make to make sure they're not "spammy" etc. It's gotten to the point where if they don't ease up webmasters will figure out a way to fight back. I believe we are in that space where we collectively need to decide how to combat these "updates" and fight further control by Google.

[Awarn]

The crazy part on this is that the end user is paying nothing. For product searches people go to the internet for free information and the lowest price. Something has to give eventually. If Google and Bing monetize their sites which they have every right, companies will have increased costs in Adwords etc. Prices will have to rise to cover these costs. So effectively they are hurting one of the features that made the internet grow so rapidly. Google appears to be on a model similar to Amazon. They want to be the interface and take a 15% cut on everything. I don't think Amazon provides enough added value and I question if Google does too.

Adwords should be way more effective than it currently is to achieve a sizable cut. This is where I question how good Google's algorithm is. If Google has this data where they know what you are looking for etc then they should be able to send the user to the exact best website to buy a product the first time. But see the user may not like the price so they continue the search. So why does Google or Bing list sites with products that are cheap but out of stock? Why aren't people with Adwords accounts given a preference? From what I see it looks like they are almost trying to produce chaos in the Serps so the user has to click on several sites, several ads. So which is it? Are they trying give that user the answer fast or the answer after so many clicks that generate revenue. There in is the problem. Organic and paid (Adwords) are separated in Google and that might be why we see the chaos. Is the organic side trying to produce the best information? Or is the Adwords side and shareholders trying to maximize profits. Appears like the organic side is not trying to produce this grand product they preach.

[EditorialGuy]

Re structured data markup (which was mentioned a few posts back):

The site owners who use it aren't being tricked or conned by Google (Google didn't invent structured data markup in any case). They're using it because it meets their needs.

Example: My daughter is the director of a museum. One of her primary goals is to increase "visitation." Sure, she wants interested people to read her museum's Web site, but wen someone looks up "[name of museum] hours" or "[name of museum] address," she's more interested in getting that prospective visitor in the door. It's in the museum's best interest to have Google and Bing display an "answer box" about the museum (with opening hours, address, and phone number) even if that means the prospective visitor doesn't click through to the museum's Web site.

The same rule of thumb could be applied to any number of organizations and businesses, such as stores, bars, restaurants, motels, veterinary clinics, dentists' offices, schools, and the local DMV service center. When those organizations and businesses use structured data markup on their sites, it isn't because they're being duped by Google, Bing, or Schema dot org; it's because they're smart enough to understand that, for their purposes, structured data markup and "answer boxes" (and rich snuippets, for that matter) are like free advertising.

[masterjoe]

Editorial Guy, that is a reasonable point - but that is in regards to a very specific search. For example, if I was to type in the name of a certain museum, then it would be reasonable for Google to try and deliver an answer box with direct information. However, when somebody types in a potentially commercial query and presented with an answer box, amazon shopping results and other paid ads then it takes away a lot of hard work webmasters have put into creating their content and marketing their business to compete with the big boys.

[glakes]

Appears like the organic side is not trying to produce this grand product they preach.

Nor do they need to have quality organic listings with 100% ads above the fold for many commercial queries. And when organic results are less than desirable, it makes those ads look even better.

Everything Google is doing is by design attempting to funnel their users to paid ads. I don't blame Google for doing this, because most of us direct our visitors to revenue generating events such as product sales, but the end result is less traffic for organic listings. The knowledge graph is another tool Google uses to keep users focused on content above the fold where the paid ads are. When users get the answer to their question what are they then most likely to do - click one of the many paid ads around it. But with the answer to their question already produced, the attention span of users is greatly diminished and they are less likely to spend as much time at the site receiving the adwords traffic. At least that's my experience. So while the knowledge graph produces more paying clicks for Google, the quality of traffic we receive from them is greatly reduced. This may play into the downward price trend of CPC too since the ROI for adwords advertisers has been watered down.

[MrSavage]

The thought process on the subject has to move forward. Doesn't it? I'm not posting this because of a business address or a business name search. In fact I'm not even really looking at what's going on yesterday, but it keeps coming up. It's about what growth I've seen in website content being shown in the SERPS and the step 2 links, which is far more enticing than a typical Adwords ad. Perhaps their is an argument for some sites to not care about their organic search rankings. If that's true, like a museum as mentioned, I hope their never invested much money into their website and I hope they don't too spend money on increasing their organic rankings. To me though, I've always thought of it as a bit asinine in the sense that most smart business people will have some type of upsell on their site. Deals, mailing list, less obvious things to spend money on, etc. All those are cut out of the equation when people need not come to their site. I'm not quite sure I agree with the pursuit of making your website irrelevant, but that may just be me.

I wish though this could move past the obvious which is the previous trigger point searches that offer up answers on SERPS. I'm sure there are solid safe zones, but it's requiring forward thinking. Of couse this only matters for a worthwhile long term investment of time and money building a site. I'm sure that for short term planning or short term projects, much of this discussion is meaningless. I'm just looking at being realistic about free traffic avenues and whether the investment vs. reward makes sense.

[jon_uk]

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. It's gnawing. It's the impotency.

Face it, there is little an SME/SMB can do to gain from trying to influence Google to shine their spotlight on their enterprise. "Investor Polluted", I saw used by @Hollywood in another thread. It's an excellent phrase. In fact it's so accurate, I had to spend my first post on saying so. I have no idea what the value of this thread is any more. Group therapy perhaps? Like all groups, it has the usual oddballs with mind-control agendas of their own. Face it, unless you have deep pockets and an army of workers - each year the land is more barren. The tenant farmer is being run out.

The Selfish Giant** doesn't want you playing in his garden.

[eastoftheweb.com...]

All empires peak, all civilisations have their moment. Just make sure you are not in the city as it is finally rased completely. Move on. Find some fresh running water on-line, some fertile land and put down some roots. Very difficult as G has brainwashed us all into a free, junk food dependency.

The mind mantra is "SEO is over". So what now?

1) Learn PR, learn branding, talk a lot (doesn't have to make sense) and get good at the old ways of marketing.

2) If you can't do 1) and can afford it - find someone that can, and pay them.

3) Accept defeat and get your old life back. The real world is beckoning. It's spring and the blackbirds are at full voice.

Whatever happens, the internet is going to get more boring, superficial and self-obsessed. All extraneous noise will be silenced for good and bad - It's Google's mission until they run out of market. With only a few people left able to participate - G will become the big boy's bitch. One day, they will realise that diversity and HUMAN curiosity was their secret sauce, but inevitably too late.