Post Panda Era (Is this what killed it?) And Future Strategies?

[MrSavage]

I have two distinct periods in my feeble webmastering life. There is the pre Panda and post Panda era. This is how I see it. I can further say that from what I see, Panda has essentially weeded out and snuffed out most of the enthusiasm that once existed in being a webmaster and running websites. I base this on what I see and the level of interest and participation in this here forum. I don't want to say Panda killed the web, as that's awfully dramatic, but I think it's safe to say that the recovery from post Panda is a fallacy. It's why I'm saying it's an era. I can't SEO my way out of this era. There is little to discuss in the way of organic traffic or so it seems. If anyone can suggest the forums are not a litmus test on the overall optimism or current state of affairs, then tell me a better source of analysis. I'm not dead, but the post Panda era has gone nowhere and I would think it's only traffic source outside of Google that will remedy the Panda era. I know vets have seen bad algo changes, but I can draw a line where all this went south and simply has never and feels like it will never be the same. The partnership is dead pretty much from that day onwards imo. I'm willing to discuss the post Panda effects because to me what we see here now is clear evidence that the impact is still felt today and will continue to chip away at the webmastering community.

[fathom]

Tangor... the quicker, picker, upper! :)

[EditorialGuy]

Andy Langton, I haven't seen any evidence that Google prefers "new content" over old. Some of our site's most popular pages (which rank extremely high in Google) were created in the late 1990s or early 2000, and the top results for the queries that I watch haven't been bumped downward by new entries very often--even for competitive terms.

YMMV, of course.

[aristotle]

EditorialGuy wrote:
Some of our site's most popular pages (which rank extremely high in Google) were created in the late 1990s or early 2000.

This could be an example of an old site with mediocre content being given undeserved high rankings because it's had a long period of time to accumulate backlinks.

[ecommerceprofit]

This could be an example of an old site with mediocre content being given undeserved high rankings because it's had a long period of time to accumulate backlinks.

This is one of the reasons why Google is becoming my grandmother's search engine stuck in their old ways...

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:55 pm (utc) on Nov 28, 2015]
[edit reason] Added quote formatting for clarity... [/edit]

[fathom]

This could be an example of an old site with mediocre content being given undeserved high rankings because it's had a long period of time to accumulate backlinks.

Not that I can dispute that but when have you ever seen mediocre content attracting natural links? Being supported by UNNATURAL LINKS, sure. But almost 20 years of faking quality clearly suggest brain damage was involved with the critic.

[EditorialGuy]

Not that I can dispute that but when have you ever seen mediocre content attracting natural links?

Good point, especially when the site doesn't solicit links.

In any case, if Aristotle's snide remark were true, it would simply confirm my own experience and observation: that Google doesn't favor "new" over "old" (as Andy Langton asserted).

[martinibuster]

It could. But I'm certain it's not. In any case it's probably best not to go off topic discussing someone else's site.
Back on topic. There's a concept called medium quality content. It's important imo to acquaint oneself with it because it may be where the next algo iteration (maybe panda) aspires to go.

[Andy Langton]

Google doesn't favor "new" over "old" (as Andy Langton asserted)

I probably didn't make my point clear. I don't believe date is a factor in terms of choosing where one page ranks over another. However, Google is conscious of the threat from places like Twitter and Facebook. for instance, if you search for overtly commercial queries with a pretty clear transactional intent, you'll often see on the results page:

- Twitter results
- News articles

I was citing this as an example of how I think Google has moved away from "what is most relevant" to "what they think people want". I think this influences search results in general, because it would tend to favour more popular, 'safer' websites.

[EditorialGuy]

I was citing this as an example of how I think Google has moved away from "what is most relevant" to "what they think people want".

Trouble is, what does "relevant" mean for a given query? Even if a search engine can narrow things down to "informational" or "transactional," for example, there may be any number of highly-relevant but very different results.

Case in point: A city that I'm familiar with added a transit line recently after years of planning, construction, and testing. Search on an appropriate keyphrase ("widgetville light rail" or "widgetville puce line" or whatever), and the relevant results could include planning documents, year-old articles about the work in progress, and information for first-time riders now that the line has finally opened ("widgetville puce line fares," "how to ride the widgetville lrt").

For a civic leader or someone who's interested in transit planning, some of those older documents might be more relevant, while for a tourist or commuter, information on fares, stations, timetables, etc. that was published after the line opened is likely to be more relevant. So it makes perfect sense for the search engine to display "what they think people want." The hard part is figuring out what that means.

[aristotle]

Well Google threw relevance out the window years ago because it was an obstacle to their goal of getting big brands and big organizations to the top of the search results. So that doesn't explain anything.

As for whether Google favors old content or new content, I've seen many posts here expressing both views. Usually the complaint is about mediocre content being given undeserved high rankings -- sometimes it's new content and sometimes it's old content. Reportedly Panda is supposed to identify mediocre content and reduce its exposure. But evidently it's still a work in progress since Google keeps making changes to it, and people keep complaining.

[EditorialGuy]

Well Google threw relevance out the window years ago because it was an obstacle to their goal of getting big brands and big organizations to the top of the search results.

I'm sure we'd all love to hear the source of your inside information.

[aristotle]

In my view it's best to make your own observations and do your own analysis, rather than trying to rely on "Inside information", or even public information, from Google. So far that approach has worked out pretty well, at least for me.

[glakes]

In my view it's best to make your own observations and do your own analysis

My own analysis indicates that big brands dominate product searches and Google has left no room for small businesses unless they pay. The big brands are already paying. Only the uninformed, oblivious or those motivated/enticed by deliberately providing misinformation will not acknowledge this.

[EditorialGuy]

My own analysis indicates that big brands dominate product searches and Google has left no room for small businesses unless they pay.

Back in 2008, a Penn State study indicated that 80 percent of Web searches were "informational" searches and only 10 percent were "transactional."(The other 10 percent were "nagivational.") I don't know of many "informational" Web sites that pay for AdWords.

Of course, some "product searches" are informational in nature (people looking for reviews, specifications, etc.), but in my own experience as a searcher, I'd have to say that Google serves up a fairly diverse mixture of big-name and no-name pages for a search on [insert product name or model number + "review"].

Maybe you meant to say "big brands dominate transactional product search results." That may be true (or not, depending on the product), but if it is, it doesn't necessarily mean that Google is consciously favoring "big brands." It could just as easily mean that, according to user metrics, searchers are favoring big brands, just as they do in the world of brick-and-mortar retail.

[glakes]

Maybe you meant to say "big brands dominate transactional product search results." That may be true (or not, depending on the product), but if it is, it doesn't necessarily mean that Google is consciously favoring "big brands." It could just as easily mean that, according to user metrics, searchers are favoring big brands, just as they do in the world of brick-and-mortar retail.

Transactional, yes. Reviews, much of Google's current real estate is reserved for Amazon. And regarding searchers favoring big brands, searchers favor what it is they are spoonfed by Google. If this were not the case, then small businesses would not have logged sales back in 2008. But then again you do not operate in the ecommerce industry so your knowledge, or lack thereof, factors into your limited knowledge of the subject.

[martinibuster]

...searchers favor what it is they are spoonfed by Google.

There's some truth to that, research has discovered problems in user behavior related to SERPs. There have been several studies (discussed here on WebmasterWorld a few years ago) where researchers discovered searchers tended to default to the top results. This phenomenon is known as Position Bias. This is one of the reasons Google conducts click log research, to determine if users are indeed satisfied, to understand what kinds of searches result in click-backs and SERP reformulations, in order to improve the algorithm as well as refine the search-suggest feature.

There have been other studies indicating bias caused by optimized title tags and meta descriptions [cs.cornell.edu], possibly resulting in negative user experience. This phenomenon is known as Presentation Bias. [static.googleusercontent.com] This too is the basis for click-log mining in order to counteract title tag bias. For example, in the first study linked above they reversed the SERPs and noticed that users started to click more links down at the bottom of the page because the summaries were more relevant. It's a fascinating research paper that also discusses algorithms for improving SERPs based on click log mining as well as machine learning etc.

However I have to also disagree that searchers are being spoon-fed because the fact is that users vote with their clicks and those votes are counted and used to train the algorithms on what it is users actually prefer. The truth is a bit of the reverse. The algorithms, to a certain extent, are spoon-fed what users prefer.

[EditorialGuy]

Something else to consider: When people recognize a brand in the SERPs, they may be more likely to click on that brand's result (assuming that they've been satisfied with the brand in the past).

In other words, if I'm searching for a product that's available from many different sources and I see Amazon in the results, I'm probably going to click on that Amazon result because (a) I'm already a satisfied customer of Amazon, and (b) I know the Amazon page will be loaded with user reviews and other information.

For that matter, I may be actively seeking an Amazon result when I search Google, and my eyes will scan the SERP for the Amazon result whether or not that result is in one of the top three positions. In other words, I'm using Google Search as a front end for Amazon instead of beginning my Amazon search on Amazon.com.

My behavior may not have much influence by itself on Google's algorithm, but if there a lot of people who behave in the same way I do, our aggregated behavior isn't likely to go unnoticed. And let's not forget personalization, which should give Amazon yet another boost when I'm searching for "widgetco wc-1000" or "wiskmaster electronic eggbeater."

[aristotle]

If you want to talk about biases, then you should include the biases that Google intentionally builds into its algorithm, since they are the biggest and most important biases of all.

[3zero]

It could just as easily mean that, according to user metrics, searchers are favoring big brands, just as they do in the world of brick-and-mortar retail.

If this was true that would mean there would be no point in advertising as it would be impossible to compete with the organic results of big brands. Searches favour the top results , it's Google that favors big brands.

[martinibuster]

you should include the biases that Google intentionally builds into its algorithm

Care to elaborate? Do you have an authoritative citation?

I can help you a little. It can be said that the quality raters guidelines reveal how Google defines quality and relevance. That's worthy of consideration.

So far I have linked to several documents that show beyond a doubt that the algorithm is, in addition to other signals, is using signals of user satisfaction to help determine success.

Regarding the issue of Brand Preference, that theory has been dismantled point by point. Read it here. [thesempost.com] Every "smoking gun" put forth to promote the idea of brand preference is dismantled point by point. There is no substance to the Brand Preference theory.

[fathom]

Ya ...since there is only one listing that can be #1 that is major bias.

Surely a 300+ billion dollar company could come up with an algorithm that allows a few hundred #1 listings, to be shown at the same time, for the same query.

[glakes]

Care to elaborate? Do you have an authoritative citation?

This is not an episode of America's Dumbest Criminals, and I doubt Google would ever publish anything that would doom their company.

What we do know, being outside the box, is Google's close relationship with Amazon. Besides the Amazon CEO being an early investor in Google, many ex-Amazon executives have sat on Google's Board of Directors. Many ex-Google employees also hold high level government posts and Google's Chairman Schmidt has campaigned for Obama and donated to his campaign by using his wife as a proxy.

What those of us that operate ecommerce websites know, and see on a daily basis, is no room for small ecommerce operators in Google Search. Yes, we can and do participate in Adwords, but that's a money draining sham. Between zombie visitors, unrealistic bids of $1+ on products that sell for $0.30 (I'm for real) and a quality score that does not apply to some big brands ranking #1 in paid ads (think Adwords ads linking to Amazon category pages that don't even have the product keyword on the page), the little ecommerce operator is destined for failure. Maybe that's why more small businesses are closing in the USA then are being created. Much of that closure trend was the result of the economic turmoil from 2008, but an inability to be seen in Google (a digital version of the largest phone book) adds to the grief and accelerates market consolidation.

Relying on organic SEO to sell products a challenge too with Google shopping, paid ads, images, etc. all taking up the above the fold real estate. If you can overcome that, then you must contend with domain crowding. Two or three organic Amazon listings in a row should take away most of the traffic for those that are listed underneath Amazon. Just being on the first page in Google organic search is not enough.

One has to be pretty witty to navigate through all the landmines, but it can be done. The best SEO covers the basic on-page issues and makes it extremely easy for customers to buy. Once that is set, whatever organic traffic we get is a plus. But my efforts and money are focused on marketing in such a way that I see a positive ROI. Granted, without Google being part of this marketing equation I am not selling out of stock. But I'm also not going broke with zombies clicking Adwords ads nor am I too upset about the domain crowding, ad spam and other stuff that makes ranking on the first page of Google organic the great thing that it once was.

[fathom]

Yes, we can and do participate in Adwords, but that's a money draining sham. Between zombie visitors, unrealistic bids of $1+ on products that sell for $0.30 (I'm for real) and a quality score that does not apply to some big brands ranking #1 in paid ads (think Adwords ads linking to Amazon category pages that don't even have the product keyword on the page),

Unfortunately, ad buyers set the rates of what the market is willing to bear, not Google. All company's would go broke selling a single product, a single time, to a single customer at only $0.30 thus there are some facts missing from your equation.

I routinely pay $10.00/click but willing to spend $1000 to get 1 customer and I don't come close to being considered a BIG BRAND. But I also only need about 30 new customers to earn another million per year.

[glakes]

Unfortunately, ad buyers set the rates of what the market is willing to bear, not Google.

You are flat out wrong. There's absolutely no way Amazon would pay the $1+ per click to be in the top position for products they don't have unless it was Google overlooking their poor quality score (how can Amazon have a high quality score when the product and keywords do not appear on the page at all) and Google giving Amazon a Run of Network break. Why should Google force me to bid so high when what is sitting at the top (allegedly top bidders) are linking to category pages that don't have the product at all? It's all about the buck, and Adwords is a rigged system favored to the big brands. I'm too small to negotiate that backroom deal...

[Nutterum]

@fathom - not to derail the thread, but I'd bet you will gladly spend more than 10,000 per customer, if that is your expected ROI.

Now as for the topic. We now again turn our eye on the perpetual Branded SERPS "No YOU!" game where everyone is pointing and blaming everyone else in a vicious circle. What I would like to offer as an opinion stems from the natural laws of attraction. Be it physics, chemistry, economy, the web, or in our case Google, the law is the same. With time the struggle to fight entropy creates artificial authority or attraction. This in our case are huge/or big enough sites that are dominating certain "money" keyword clusters in pretty much all verticals. That is normal and I'd suspect this effect will continue in the foreseeable future as well. With the advent of online shopping, it is normal the big brick and mortar businesses to venture and invest big on their e-commerce stores. Since they pursue the digital space aggressively, with big budgets and advertising campaigns, it stands to reason that their impact will be the highest.

Today we see only the top 3 SERP results being dominated by such companies. In 2-3 years my prediction is that domain crowding will take into effect and you will see 2-3 companies dominating the entire first page including the best CTR adslots. The reason is simple - revenue growth. As big companies it is expected of them as otherwise their stocks will plummet. Even in low competition verticals there are 1 or 2 heavyweight players that are dependant on Y-to-Y growth. The results are already here if anyone cares to check the Google SERP history. Five years ago these websites dominated some keywords and mainly focused on the broad high traffic SERPS. Now, with their expansion, they started dominated most of the long tail SERPS pretty much owning the entire traffic delta. Five years from now the only way they can expand is through aggressive adwords campaigns and domain crowding.

So unless Google tweaks their algorithm to stop this from happening, it will and can't do anything to prevent it. The only safe heaven for the SEO people would be to continue developing local, where backlink strategies are still working, combined with high listing relevancy (keyword wise). Perhaps another point where business can have more "fair" competition is the international pure organic SERPS, where if done right you can position yourself well for non US + Western Europe, assuming your business can operate in the vertical at all (think accommodation/events/machinery/software/outsourcing niches).

As for everyone else, fasten your seatbelts, as the road will get very bumpy for your online business.

[fathom]

When you have millions to blow you tend not to worry about the nickles, where when you only have nickles every penny counts, but that is still about the players. Saying you know and knowing are two completely different things.

But PPC isn't PANDA or organic results and that is about editorial content, and a different quality score.

And yes real-time ROI is important but measuring long cycle where you pay minimally or nothing for the returning 'direct' customer is what big brand do.

[aristotle]

Obviously Google has considerable control over the biases in its algorithm, since it can easily adjust the weightings of the various ranking factors to favor one type of site over another. For example, If they decide to give another boost to the rankings of big brands, they know which factors to adjust.

A completely unbiased algorithm would be virtually impossible because of the complexity. Somebody, either a person or a committee, has to decide what weighting to give to each factor, and these decisions will determine the general nature of the results. Maybe at some point in the future the algorithm will somehow be able to adjust itself, but it's hard to imagine that human control will ever be completely surrendered.

[fathom]

The thing you run into with a completely unbiased algorithim no matter what the signal included are, are only unbaised as far as what the user thinks.

Whether they reward you by more clicks, lower bounce rates, higher delve times > a greater investment into all of those by way of a more robust budget is equally included in that unbaised value.

No where does Google hint a GREAT WEBSITE must be worth $10, $100, $1000, millions, or billions. Your unbiased opinion is included in that scale, but it is a good bet that millions will edge out $100.

[EditorialGuy]

This thread is titled "Post Panda Era (Is this what killed it?) And Future Strategies?"

Do those who are convinced that Google loves only big brands, is out to destroy small businesses, etc. have any strategies for surviving or prospering in the future? If so, what might those strategies be?

[Liane]

Do those who are convinced that Google loves only big brands, is out to destroy small businesses, etc. have any strategies for surviving or prospering in the future? If so, what might those strategies be?

I do not believe that "Google loves only big brands", though I understand why some may believe that. For the sake of bringing this thread back to the core question and away from muscle flexing and sniping at one another, I'll go along with it.

I believe the best solution is diversification.

Take what you know and develop other peripheral businesses (and websites) around your core business. Those new businesses could be closely or distantly related. Just stick with what you know and exploit anything that nobody (or very few) have done yet.

To avoid guilt by association in the eyes of Google, use a distant relative or friend's name, address phone number and email to register the new business, but before you do ... be sure to unlike them on Facebook and any other social media that may connect you. I am kidding of course ... but the paranoia some are telegraphing may warrant such extreme measures in order to make them feel comfortable.

I sincerely believe that if you throw enough crap at the wall, something is bound to stick ... eventually. Forget white hat/black hat and all that old school SEO stuff ... and those who still try to sell SEO here and in other forums.

Use the current Google guidelines (by all means) ... but don't fall all over yourself trying to stick to the letter of the law. As we all know, Google's "laws" (aka guidelines) change frequently and often mean very little if attempting to put a long term business strategy in place. Put your business model and the needs of potential clients first in everything you do.

Seek out targeted forums and other legitimate online advertising venues rather than search engines to get your site(s) seen. Word of mouth is a powerful tool. As an experiment, I intend to block all search engines from one very small site I plan to build and will market it exclusively through targeted forums and social media.

There are several ways to skin a cat. Google doesn't seem to like my site so why should I bother feeding them even more free stuff they probably won't like? I will save them the bother of indexing my new site altogether and will go after peripheral methods of promotion.

In the meantime, I will continue to work on and improve my core business, but I am guessing that the new "peripheral" site will probably provide more income in the short term.

If the small site works, I'll diversify again and then again. I'm going to throw several things at that wall to see what sticks.