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.

[mrengine]

Take what you know and develop other peripheral businesses (and websites) around your core business.

Did you just describe a private blog network? I understand there may be gray and black areas of seo, but we run businesses, stock inventory and have employees on the payroll. If we as business owners must be reduced to bottom feeders trying to game the system, even if it is corrupt, why even bother? Instead, throwing in the Google towel would be a better choice so that we could concentrate our efforts elsewhere.

[fathom]

Whether, right or wrong, the owner of WebmasterWorld does that with their forum, blog, and tool network, Search Engine Land same thing, so does MOZ, in fact Google did this as well with Google, YouTube, Blogspot to name a few ... Are these the bottom feeders trying to game the system.

[Liane]

Did you just describe a private blog network?

Not at all. Nor am I trying to "game ANY system". I just finished saying I was going to block all search engines and ONLY use targeted forums and other legitimate online advertising venues, rather than search engines.

Look ... I need to make a living while Google gets it's act together and figures out that my site really IS better than the competition and offers far more to those searching for what I sell. The business I have in mind is related to that which I have provided for the past 20 years, and which I know intimately. However, it is not in competition with my business, nor in competition with the readership I SHOULD be enjoying (but am not) now.

It is simply a side business and I would hardly call it a bottom feeder. It is a service which does not currently exist in my very tiny part of the world. It would "compliment" what I offer, but would in no way detract from it.

And please don't refer to SEO when referencing anything I do. I am NOT an SEO and in fact, for this particular new business, there will be no search engine traffic involved ... whatsoever ... so I hardly think the term applies. I am a business owner who owns a website, nothing more. The name of this website is Webmasterworld, not SEO world and the question posed by EditorialGuy was:

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 am going to attempt to prove to myself that life (on the web) can go on WITHOUT search engines ... and Google in particular.

I have already thrown in the Google towel and am now going to expand my horizons into OTHER advertising and promotion venues that are far more targeted for my purposes than any search engine.

[Giorgi]

So, social media marketing then?

[Liane]

So, social media marketing then?

To some extent, yes but mainly involving forums, online and print media dedicated to my topic, and trade shows. Back to basics ... old school stuff. There's also one new wrinkle I am going to try and that involves a small kiosk and a computer at a very popular restaurant that caters to the crowd I sell to. Face to face - one on one sales with qualified buyers.

If I am going to spend money advertising, I am going to target places where the people I sell to hang out ... not some impossible to deal with, faceless search engine that can't seem to figure out what's up-to-date, meaningful and delivers what people are looking for.

The vehicles I am talking about have live people who sell space! You don't have to "manage your account" or worry about doing something against their rules or guidelines. You talk to real people and they actually treat you like a real person rather than some unknown entity out to scam their precious algorithm!

All I'll have to do is sell ... what a concept eh?

[Nutterum]

Kudos to Liane for the last two posts. Many people even here in webmasterworld throw all the eggs in one basket when it comes to their business...as if they are entitled to the internet traffic and others are not. Then when something changes (regardless of _why_) they come here for the magic que ball, that will answer their questions.

The world does not work like that. Especially when you aim to target the first spot on the first page of Google. There are far more intricate details that are missed by the regular webmasters. Things like demand nurturing, funnel expansion, non SE traffic verticals, conferences and trade shows - the works. If all the cogs work well with one another, your business will make a dent in the internet web and will enjoy the steady stream of high converting brand traffic.

Never forget people give their vote on your products with their wallets, if they like them and if you reached them at a suitable time they will buy them, if they don't, they won't. Everything else is FOTM SEO tactics that aim to bring you traffic and conversions, that you do not really deserve.

[raseone]

I completely agree that there are two distinct eras. I completely agree that recovery from this overnight distruction that Google deals out is impossible. Post panda built sites are in a more confusing, less stable & predictable situation. Not everyone was hit, not everyone understands but the effect is MUCH more severe than "a small percentage of sites".

For me Panda killed my most powerful, most long standing and authoritative sites. It killed sites that had done steady, daily business for over a decade in some cases. It killed sites that won awards, sites that pioneered entire genres, sites with tens of thousands of authoritative and natural incoming links, sites that sold & licensed content to the likes of LucasFilm, Warner Bros., Midway, THQ, Penguin Publishing .... It killed sites that could sell a $600 piece of software to a starving artist.

As evidenced by the 70ish sites I was running when panda hit quality was likely not the goal. A number of my #*$!tiest, most unfinished, tiny, little no content havin side projects immediately shot up in traffic. A number of my old client sites that were essentially abandoned, just sitting there decaying were left untouched or benefitted. Client sites that had massive daily traffic, dedicated followings, counterparts in print or brick & mortar, thousands of natural incoming links suffered to varying degrees. The result seemed exactly the opposite of a search for quality.

I've come to see it as a total scam. I've come to see how hollow and vague the pro-Google, pro-panda argument is... How it just doesn't hold water or stand up to facts. My business happens to be plagued by piracy... A good thing in a way since it confirms that people like and value what I do. Unfortunately my dealings with Google in regards to that piracy have made it quite clear how entirely unethical that company has become.

[raseone]

@Liane

Applause! I'm an inch away from blocking Google myself. I've moved almost entirely off-line in the last few years because of Google. They do waaay more harm then good. Anything of value that I publish online is scraped, pirated etc. and immediately promoted and monetized by Google.

I didn't need Googles help to get started. They didn't even exist yet. Over the years my business became largely dependent on organic search. As "searching" gave way to "Googling" it turned into a dependency on Google. Not exactly my fault but also not entirely beyond my power to work around.

None of this really matters though. The fact that we can survive somehow does not change the fact that massive, irreparable damage has been done and done in the name of greed.

For the web to survive it will need to break Googles strangle-hold.

[raseone]

There is no such thing as a "technically perfect" site. Design is subjective. Code is language, not math.

Panda/Penguin/Farmer may have succeeded in killing a lot of web spam. They killed most of the good sites too. 14 years as a web publisher before Panda... After a couple years fighting Google at every turn instead of being able to focus on publishing my art & design & designing good sites for my clients I moved away from web design as a service & away form dependency on the internet for my business in general. I'm still devoted enough to certain things that I still maintain/build certain sites but the game is no fun when you can't win.

Panda cost me my life's work. I Basically had to start from scratch at thirty-something with 2 young kids and a new mortgage.

Panda replaced original work with piracy so we go broke but Google still gets to make money from our content.

Panda replaced creators with aggregators so people willing to give away their content don't even get the benefit of the traffic.

Panda stole the "authority" and credibility some of us worked decades to build by using Google's "authority" to make us look like lesser options to a bunch of straight-up horse#*$!.

Panda turned the net into a maze of tabloid, clickbait, regurgitated nonsense cat-list #*$!y.

Panda took away our ability to compete honestly against our competition & forced us to fight Google instead.

Panda forced good webmasters & publishers to waste valuable time on earth focusing on the icky pseudo-science of SEO.

Panda is a long-con, the switch in a bait & switch, the biggest theft ever.

Panda is Google eating it's own tail.

#*$! Panda & #*$! Google.

[fathom]

As engine noted earier "it is disruptive," and I'm equally positive that was the aim to reduce "gaming of the system". Whether your intent was to purposely game the system or to simply hedge your webpages above the competition, that is the same thing.

WHITEHAT SEO is purely about traffic building... Traffic from EVERYWHERE. If you are purely focused on building traffic as opposed to purely building Google ranks any loss wouldn't matter, as much... Google traffic would just be another source.

[jambam]

Google is autocratic and is gaming the search results for their own gain. Thus lies the problem and threat to not just our economy but also our society and freedoms.

[aristotle]

jambam wrote:
Thus lies the problem and threat to not just our economy but also our society and freedoms.

Enormous sums of money are being spent to flood the web with lies and mis-information. We have to pin our hopes on google to recognize this massive attack on truth and help shield the public from it. So before condemning google as the main threat, you need to look at the whole picture.

[Leosghost]

We have to pin our hopes on google to recognize this massive attack on truth and help shield the public from it.

My latest irony meter just melted..

[glakes]

We have to pin our hopes on google to recognize this massive attack on truth and help shield the public from it.

All I can say is wow. We should pin our hopes on a company under investigation for antitrust violations in various regions across the globe, a company that has been fined for abuses, a company that profiles its users across many different properties and a company that spends more on lobbying than the next three largest technology companies combined? I doubt Google will do anything but protect their own interests and profits. Maybe instead we should be pinning our hopes on challenging the vast amount of misinformation being disseminated in forums by some users.

[fathom]

... a company that spends more on lobbying than the next three largest technology companies combined?

...

Maybe instead we should be pinning our hopes on challenging the vast amount of misinformation being disseminated in forums by some users.

Lobbying forces change (or maybe to prevent it) and that isn't always a bad thing... While I'll concede the "CHANGE" desired by the company doing the lobbying is certainly focused on their own best interests.

[opensecrets.org...]

As far as organizations go Google did make the top 10 but Comcast Corp., beat them out for 8th spot as far as technology goes.

It's interesting to note the NRA almost doubled Google's lobbying funds, clearly focused on protecting your rights to carry an automatic weapon, as well as all the criminals and insane individuals that desire blowing your brains out forcing you to protect yourself e.g. MAD

The breakdown of how funds were use is eyepopping!

[aristotle]

glakes -- Enormous sums of money are being spent to flood the web with lies and mis-information. We have no other choice but to pin our hopes on google to prevent its search results from being overwhelmed by this massive attack. Given google's dominance in search, surely you must hope that it can protect its search results from being overwhelmed.

[EditorialGuy]

So, the new post-Panda strategy is to complain about Google's lobbying budget?

That's going to work really, really well.

[deuces]

I don't think the panda update has had a big of an impact as the penguin update. Especially if you create a meaningful website from the get go. From my experience the only time you get a panda penalty is if you have a page for every little long tail keyword(which isn't needed since Google aggregates them together) or if you just repeat your keyword a ton of times in h1, title, paragraph, etc. I remember clearly how everyone on forums was losing their mind with the first penguin update though.

[glakes]

aristotle, I for one believe people are not as stupid as some think they are. For example, joe blow's blog about cancer treatment options is not going to be seen with the same trust as the Mayo Clinic if an individual is using the information to make an important medical decision. Relying on a for profit organization that is alleged to have violated a number of laws across the globe seems like a far less sensible approach to dealing with misinformation than relying on individual common sense. Granted, there is a small percentile of the population that believes everything Google spoonfeeds to them, but I think the majority of those people frequent webmaster and seo forums as fanboys, cheerleaders, etc. The ordinary consumer is quite capable of making decisions, and in it's current state I know of people who start their Google search at page 7 and work their way up to page 1. The reason? Because these people, who are not webmasters but ordinary consumers, can see clear as day Google's self interests in the pages Google presents to them on page 1 of the SERPS.

Relying on a corrupt organization to eliminate misinformation from their search results has to be one of the greatest oxymorons of 2015.

[fathom]

Granted, there is a small percentile of the population that believes everything Google spoonfeeds to them, but I think the majority of those people frequent webmaster and seo forums as fanboys, cheerleaders, etc.

Just because some of us don't drink the same Kool-aid as those that got devalued by PANDA or PENGUIN doesn't mean anything.

Additionally, owning a domain or website doesn't make you corrupt, offering ad space doesn't mean you are corrupt, profit sharing with manufacturers doesn't make you corrupt, profit sharing with publishers doesn't make you corrupt, crawling webpages from websites that want you to crawl them doesn't mean you are corrupt.

[aristotle]

glakes --This isn't about small-time medical quacks or naive fanboys. We're talking about a huge organized effort involving hundreds of millions, or possibly even billions, of dollars.

I know of one "news" site which used massive advertising to go from obscurity three or four years ago to almost brand status today. That's what money can do. This is just one of many websites that are being created for the sole purpose of disseminating false information to the U.S. public.

You mentioned fighting it out on forums, but you should realize that in some cases you'll be up against paid "professional" posters, people who, believe it or not, actually make a good living by posting lies and misinformation on forums and in comment sections of news articles.

Another way in which money has been spent is to pay for DDOS attacks against sites in certain niches of the web. So far this hasn't occurred on a large scale, but who knows what could happen in the future.

I didn't suggest that anyone should "rely" on google to do anything. I said that we have to "hope" that google tries to protect its search results, at least partially, from this massive invasion of the web.

[Leosghost]

So far this hasn't occurred on a large scale

You might want to look outside of the "niche(s)" bubble that you and google create for yourself..
it has been happening on a very large scale..for a long time..

We're talking about a huge organized effort involving hundreds of millions, or possibly even billions, of dollars.

You think that G are not involved ..? ...I have a bridge/ Arizona beach front property for sale ...

I know of one "news" site which used massive advertising to go from obscurity three or four years ago to almost brand status today. That's what money can do. This is just one of many websites that are being created for the sole purpose of disseminating false information to the U.S. public.

Which search engine was right up there taking the massive advertising ad dollars ..

I didn't suggest that anyone should "rely" on google to do anything. I said that we have to "hope" that google tries to protect its search results, at least partially, from this massive invasion of the web.

Put not your faith in idols with feet of clay..some of the VC backed Golems ( nearly misspelled that there..G then O..then..h m m m m m ;) ) are even entirely made to measure ( one might even say personalised ) for each of us..
and are even entirely made of clay..they'll lead to to whatever you wish for ( and they'll take notes on what you desire ) your own personal Google ( thanks Depeche mode and Johnny Cash) ) moldable search for malleable minds..

Someone to care..for ( the product ) their users ..

Hey..look..Squirrel..!

strategies ?..move to areas that G won't go to or touch directly, or even via their proxy companies..bad for their image..there are many ;)

[jambam]

I think aristole is right about misinformation but google does like to lobby and thus is disingenuous.
Also google fanboys like to spread misinformation.
A lot of google fanboys (think google webmaster forums) have a hidden agenda when it comes to google... they have invested so much time on writing their "white hat" tips websites all they can write about is basically write quality content or some sort of rehash of the "google guidelines" over and over again and they are incapable of actually writing about anything else so they must protect the google bible and everything google else what do they have? because their site do not actually rank for anything anyway so being a guru keeps them happy.

[Leosghost]

because their site do not actually rank for anything anyway so being a guru keeps them happy.

Unfortunately some of those whose SEO sites rank no higher than page ten for SEO in their small home town , are amongst the most prolific pro G posters both here and in Google's forums..and even more unfortunately, some webmaster newbies fall for the "guru" posting and hire them..thus being conned into giving large sums of money to charlatans..and never getting more customers or traffic or higher places in SERPs..

[ken_b]

I guess you could say Panda "killed some sites, or you could just face the facts the Google via Panda and later Penguin simply "caught up with" those sites.

My site is in the latter group :)

And I'm still doing ok, not as good as before by a long shot, but ok.

Considering that except for converting to mobile friendly and a few AdSense tweaks the site has more or less been on autopilot since Panda struck, I'm ok with that. :)

But then I never claimed I was an SEO, or even really understood it. Or that I built the most outstanding site in my niche. I knew what I was doing, and that it could crash at any given minute as far as G traffic was concerned.

But hey, it's easier to blame the other guy.

Life goes on :)

[fathom]

@Leosghost

Unfortunately some of those whose SEO sites rank no higher than page ten for SEO in their small home town , are amongst the most prolific pro G posters both here and in Google's forums..and even more unfortunately, some webmaster newbies fall for the "guru" posting and hire them..thus being conned into giving large sums of money to charlatans..and never getting more customers or traffic or higher places in SERPs.

Don't forget SEOChat!

Not interested in local sales so why in the world would I conn anyone from a small home town, when all of the USA is quite a bit more profitable than local and I don't charge local prices & customers want nationwide campaigns.

Never once tried to rank my site, which must mean "I suck at SEO" - right?

Course I could be misreading your post.

@ken_b

And I'm still doing ok, not as good as before by a long shot, but ok.

It is very unlikely achievable again without the unnatural anchors without many times more links than you had.

[glakes]

aristotle, I understand there is misinformation everywhere we go and do not dispute that there are paid professionals spewing lies for a living. In fact, I believe there are some here.

You mentioned news sites are spreading misinformation, but it has been happening in the newspapers and on TV for years. Biased media, driven by their corporate agendas is nothing new. The FCC is not stepping in to challenge their lies, nor do I expect them to because it's those corporate media executives that are pulling the politicians strings. Google has their own political strings that they pull, and that should be quite clear by the congressmen they bankrolled who wrote a letter to the EU asking them to back off on the antitrust case against Google (see the full document at [theguardian.com...] ).

I don't find misinformation from news sites to be anything new. An ordinary person is quite capable of doing their own research to formulate an opinion on any given subject. That's what makes the internet so useful - the ability to sift through the BS and find truth. What is more troubling is how Google favors their own interests, making it much more difficult to use their search engine to find the truth, products or whatever else it is they are looking for. That is far more harmful to societies, free speech and consumer choice than media sites that twist the truth.

While I share your belief that misinformation is a problem, and yes Google should keep their search results clear of falsehoods, their own less than stellar track record on truth, honesty and transparency leads me to believe that they will do just as any other big corp will do. And that is whatever it takes to further their own interests, whether it be ethical or not.

[raseone]

Still this insistance by some that Google only devalued spam sites or sites that tried to cheat poor Google... Nonsense.

The FACT that they killed huge numbers of legitimate sites that did nothing wrong is what started this whole debate almost 5 years ago. The fact that they wont allow any of them to recover is what keeps it going.

Its like locking up innocent people with no trial, refusing to view or present any evidence while blatantly running your own crime ring.

People have every right to be pissed & frankly we should all be doing something about it beyond begging google for mercy and arguing with these numbnuts who bizarrely ooze out of the woodwork to attack regular people who speak out on Google's abuse.

[fathom]

What evidence... You have posted nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

Good luck!

[MrSavage]

I go back to my original thought. Panda and Penguin signaled a shift from Google where it became about their best interests, not ours (the people providing the websites for the search results which fetch advertising money). It signaled double speak. Sure we care and want to help you make better sites while at the same time the strategy appears to be about monetizing and be a bit more greedy in terms of who would benefit from organic traffic. I see that line in the sand. The shift.

From about that time period until now, I've seen nothing indicating there is a sincere concern for the webmaster. Too much money to be made and it did seem like there was a shift in attitude with Panda and Penguin. It created a rift and chaos for a lot of webmasters. I will say whatever the viewpoint, the fact is the web and organic traffic became too valuable and Google decided that it shouldn't be as generous with it. It's just about as simple as that for me.

If Google cared about wee webmaster then they would not be going in the direction with being the one-stop for everything you need. It's not about fairness of ethics, it's about giving visitors what they want. They apparently want the answer on Google rather than a website. They want a photo or image on Google rather than the source site. This is the game now.

People are talking about a lot of other "things", but to me this was really a discussion about Google organic traffic. Future strategies? Be smarter next time than trusting that a corporation would conduct itself with innocence and fairness. The lesson and future strategy is to never ever become reliant on one "thing" unless there is a plan and process in place to move to another less dependent phase.

I still use their products, so I'm not anti. I'm more of a realist. They were handing money to many of us being able to monetize our organic traffic from Google SERPS. The challenge to make and maintain a decent ranking is what post Panda is to me. I call the shift a stemming of the tide. Greed is the motivation, but that is the nature of a corporation. It was fun but it's over. So it signaled the end of a partnership to me. I've seen nothing to indicate things ever going back.