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.

[EditorialGuy]

OK, folks, even if you buy into the argument that Google is evil, Google hates small businesses, Google fudges its algorithm to make organic results less appealing, Google can't be trusted because it's a profit-making business like yours, etc., what's your answer to the second part of the question posed in this thread's title: "And future strategies?"

[glakes]

OK, folks, even if you buy into the argument that Google is evil, Google hates small businesses, Google fudges its algorithm to make organic results less appealing, Google can't be trusted because it's a profit-making business like yours, etc., what's your answer to the second part of the question posed in this thread's title: "And future strategies?"

We don't "buy into it," but we live it everyday. I suspect you never had to let any employees go because Google sought fit to rank three amazon listings in a row, under their spads (Google's spam ads), a Wikipedia listing (donation popup spam hell these days) and some YouTube listings and some big box warehouse brands.
<snip>
Oh yes, we live the Google monopoly nightmare on a daily basis and get to witness the carnage in person. But keep on cheerleading. Until you've had someone standing in front of you balling their eyes out, because they lost their job and health insurance for a sick child, you don't have a clue of how much of a lie Google's spoonfed propaganda actually is.

As far as future strategies go, probably the best strategy is to get regulators to their jobs. If they don't want to perform their basic functions, by preventing an expanding search, video, web browser, email, etc. monopoly from killing off the economy, those regulatory agencies should close.

[edited by: goodroi at 7:01 pm (utc) on Dec 31, 2015]
[edit reason] Please focus on the topic and not other members or their sites [/edit]

[fathom]

Build traffic and ranks (even Google ranks) will take care of themselves via greater brand awareness. As always!

Although brand awareness will never take care of itself... You have to work at it.

The thing I learned over the past 18 years, brand-based queries convert substantially better than any keyword phrase... whether that is just CTR or actual conversions to sales. Which is why social media does so well.

Anyone can built ranks UNNATURALLY. Whether intentionally or unintentionally doesn't much matter.

But keep on cheerleading.

...some cheerlead failure instead as if someone else owe them something.

[MrSavage]

In terms of future strategies or current strategies, it would seem those are in short supply because at one time this was the hub for all things webmastering. Post frequency is indicative of interest in a given subject. Enthusiasm shows itself by threads and posts. The impetus of the OP was on that point. First is acknowledging the fact that things have decayed, then we can discuss why they have decayed. I put Panda and the shift that signaled at Google. Instead of being generous, it became far more fickle. So I'm not sure what other rationale reasons or theories people have come up with about why the community (the majority) have slowly but surely turned off. It's undeniable. The proof is in the pudding. I'm sure a few people will say all the good ones left because of all the negativity. Whelp, people that sensitive will struggle online don't you think? Thicker skin required. If the majority are facing demise, then that would be the majority of posts. It's denial to think that negativity is prevalent because a few negative thinkers rather than it simply being the majority don't see things the way you do.

The strategies that I've gone with include downsizing, reducing holdings, spending less time on various projects and being 100% realistic about time invested. If there is not going to be any residual value with declines in organic traffic, then those projects can't justify time. I also have opted to not chase my tail in fixing websites. Lost time on Panda fixes and hopes is what I call it.

@Editorial, regardless of what I said, thanks for those suggestions earlier. My opinion hasn't changed, but thanks.

[ken_b]

If the majority are facing demise, then that would be the majority of posts.

I dunno about, I think it's pretty well accepted that people who are unhappy with a situation are more likely to comment about it than are those who are happy with the situation. I guess that could mean that the majority of posts come from the unhappy minority.

Which is probably the case whatever the issue is.

.

.

[fathom]

You can't really evolve out from PANDA without also dealing with the nuance of PENGUIN, they are both cut from the same cloth.

Of all the websites I have reviewed poor site architecture is the underlying issue with a PANDA problem. Site Architecture extends the topic to other pages and many people think you only need external links and then links directly from the homepage but the homepage is the least important page to rank for any topic.

The forum charter doesn't really allow a demonstration of an example but Brett Tabke 16 year old post is a perfect model without discussing actual topics: [webmasterworld.com...]

This tied to Wikipedia's 2002 disambiguation strategy [en.m.wikipedia.org...] some thoughts from SURL 2003/2004
[usabilitynews.org...]
[usabilitynews.org...]

These have been around for more than a decade. Brilliant work!

Many years later Bruce Clay published this. [bruceclay.com...]

These four works is everything you need to do with the exception of the actual content.

Assuming you don't have copied, thin, affiliated, or auto-generated content (and everyone claims they don't).

[glakes]

I dunno about, I think it's pretty well accepted that people who are unhappy with a situation are more likely to comment about it than are those who are happy with the situation. I guess that could mean that the majority of posts come from the unhappy minority.

That's a tough call there. What is more upsetting, Google's anti-competition practices or the people who actually try to defend it? I suspect some of the Google fanboys are paid in full by Google, are stock holders or have some other reason to toss objectivity out the window. Thankfully we are not all that stupid to buy into that nonsense.

So, to sum up Google I will say they suck. Organic search results organized in such a way that pushes their own self interests. Regulators, at least in the USA, who are having their strings pulled by politicians that Google funds ( see [webmasterworld.com...] ), scraped content that ranks higher than the original on Google's own blogspot, a lack of transparency in providing keyword data, money grubbing Adwords reps that only want to jack up your bids, rules that don't apply to some (think Wikipedia and their big ass donation spam ads), etc. The list goes on, but one thing is for certain, nobody in the USA is going to stop the cancer Google has become. Maybe the EU has the guts to do it, and I hope they pursue it without being influenced by corrupt American politics or other lobbying efforts. So, what is one to do? I sell products, and I'm selling them on Amazon and doing just fine with that. If Google wants to rank three Amazon listings in a row, those will be my listings. To offset the cost of selling on Amazon, the money has to come from somewhere. The first place money came from was from my Adwords budget. Now, Adwords is just a toy I play with as my time/money is better spent elsewhere, in marketplaces that are not as corrupt or unstable as Google is. Others in the ecommerce industry should make an attempt to do the same and kick Google to the curb.

With no checks and balances to ensure a free marketplace in the USA, I have no doubt Google will use their search dominance to promote other interests that Google gets involved with in 2016. What this means is we will probably see more of the same - small businesses closing faster then they are created since Google uses their search dominance to favor their own self interests and big brands that use robots to fill orders and soon drones to deliver them. More jobs will be lost and those small businesses that survive will have to run very lean operations because everyone will want their cut (Amazon, Google, credit card processors, etc.).

[fathom]

Regulators, at least in the USA, who are having their strings pulled by politicians that Google funds

I would be interested in knowing PRECISELY what was being lobbied? Don't you? Surely that matters, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm a Google Fanboy but more likely I just require the actual facts first... Something not really demonstrated here. Lots of unsubstantiated claims though.

[EditorialGuy]

Suggestion for 2016: Webmaster World should open a "Google Criticism" forum for members who want to vent. That might help to improve this forum's S/N ratio and make it easier to find useful, actionable information.

[Leosghost]

Personally , I'd prefer if members at all had to declare in their profiles whether they owned shares in Google, or in alphabet properties..
This would enable everyone to see whose posts might be influenced by their direct financial relation ship to Google..most of us know who runs adsense( and thus whose posts pro or anti Google might be influenced by their Google derived income )...but only a few of us know wsome of those who also own Google stock and whose posts might also be influenced by that finacial relationship..

Bloggers are required by law to disclose such "relationships" ( stock holdings or payments, or things which might influence their posts ) ...in an "SEO site", it might also be ethically more honest if everyone knew who gains financially when Google gains..

[ken_b]

Personally , I'd prefer if members at all had to declare in their profiles whether they owned shares in Google, or in alphabet properties..

Geeze LG, that's an idea, but I didn't see your declaration in your profile :)

How about you go first, since it's your idea, OK? :)

.

[glakes]

I would be interested in knowing PRECISELY what was being lobbied? Don't you? Surely that matters, doesn't it?

Maybe if Google was transparent, then we would have facts. What facts we as individuals have are the ones that make headlines. The facts where Google is not the fine netizen that a small part of the population paints them out to be.

Maybe I'm a Google Fanboy but more likely I just require the actual facts first... Something not really demonstrated here.

What facts have you presented? All I see are a small number of people who dispute other opinions, which does not make what either party says as factual. What is factual is that Google is under investigation in the EU and India for antitrust violations. What is fact is that the USA FTC members investigating Google for antitrust violations recommended a lawsuit be pursued, only to be trumped (not the Donald type either) by every FTC committee member. What is fact is that Google skirts USA Federal privacy laws in regards to education by declaring Google a school official (see [consumerist.com...] ) and are profiling students ( see [washingtonpost.com...] ). What is fact is that many people with ties to Google have left to go onto high level Government jobs (think Michelle Lee the head of the US Patents and Trademarks Office). What is fact is that Eric Schmidt helped Obama get reelected. What is fact, is Amazon's CEO Bezos was an early investor in Google and it just so happens Amazon dominates every product search I've conducted in the last year.

One does not have to be a complete moron to overlook THE FACTS. Let's start out 2016 with recognition that THE FACTS don't paint Google with a halo over their heads. All the nations that make up the EU, India and even FTC members who investigated and recommended legal action against Google are not fools. And let's not pretend that we are incapable of using common sense (think of YouTube videos appearing in Google Search but none from competing services) to confirm our own theories as fact.

I don't doubt that Google created Alphabet to shield executives and assets from the dubious activities of their flagship product Google Search. That's what I would do if I were violating a host of laws intended to protect competition, consumers and the privacy rights of both kids and adults.

[Leosghost]

Ken..Happily :))..But there is no where in my ( or any member's ) profile to indicate whether or not I own Google stock, or stock in any alphabet company..
However..( whilst I and others wait for such a field to be available in our profiles ) I can state publicly here in this thread..That I do not own any stock in Google or any alphabet company ..and never have..

Nor have I ever owned , nor do I own any stock in any other search engine, nor social media company..

If I did own such stock..I'd feel that I'd have to declare such ownership, otherwise in my eyes and those of many others I'd be posting unethically..

"Conflict of interest"

[fathom]

Well I did own this: [google.com...] which has been reported here a few times in other threads. This was my 2nd network Google's Webspam Team took out, which cost me just south of $250,000 but that was my cheapest network and the only one publicly ousted.

I don't own any Adsense account. Haven't since 2005.

I don't own any stocks for anything (and I don't play the lottery either for the same reason).

I did meet Matt Cutts & had a beer at Pubcon in Boston 2003, but I will concede I really do hate beer... but Matt bought so I was uncharacteristically polite.

In total, I lost $1.2 million in four network crashes all prior to PANDA (Farmer). But I learned as much from Google as Google learned from me about PBN. It's just the cost of doing business.

[edited by: fathom at 10:16 pm (utc) on Dec 31, 2015]

[ken_b]

I don't own any Google or related stock of any sort either, nor Yahoo or MS, never have.

But I do happily spend my AdSense money.

[aristotle]

This is ridiculous. Most of the members here who try to defend google are so inept at doing so, that if somehow they actually are being paid, then they're certainly not earning their money. In fact, they look so silly that they're actually hurting google's image. :)

[EditorialGuy]

I don't own any Google/Alphabet stock either, and I've never done any work for Google (paid or unpaid). For that matter, I've never met a Google employee in person, and I've never been to the Googleplex, although I did see The Internship with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson.

I have worked (directly or through agencies) for some of Google's rivals, including Microsoft and Apple.

[Leosghost]

Being paid to post pro "something", is very different to posting pro "something" if one has investments in stocks in the "something"..
I agree with you on the "inept" though :)
The number of posts that I see that say "Google said". or "X from Google said or posted or wrote"..as if Google and any other corporation or their employees and or PR people actually speak the truth..especially when we know that G and it's people have lied on many occasions such as over pharmacy ads etc..

"Google says" or "x from Google says or writes" has no credibility at all..( whether it be about what they are say they are doing with their algos, or Panda or penguin, or whether they promote or demote etc etc, or anything that they do ) and shows the person promoting such as being naive in the extreme as to how PR works..

Applies to any corp..not just Google..

[tangor]

What an interesting read, kiddies. Will admit that I haven't been in this thread for quite some time (and didn't read all of it either). Such passions!

Me... it is capitalism at work. And that means the true meaning of the word: a fee for work/effort between two who are willing to negotiate to satisfaction. What seems to be missing in that simple definition in this thread is who are the players?

My "contract" for exchange is between me and the user. G or B or Y or the other Y or the one that sounds like a water fowl do not enter into that transaction. However, those entities are methods by which I might attract potential customers. Useful, of course, but not part of the transaction. In this case I am direct sales, services, solutions and thus have an actual product to which a quantifiable value has been applied.

What I am hearing in this thread is a great angst that those without product, but do have a website littered with advertising (which is not capitalism in the true sense: a contract between two parties for a product or service at point of sale as no such contract exists as quid pro quo) complaining that their wall paper space is not getting a "fair share" of the traffic. Of course, in the eyes of the wall paper hangers, that fair share is 100% of all traffic. Chuckles.

Ad servers, such as google, however, do have a contract with their advertisers to place those ads on sites that give satisfaction and return to the advertisers (not the publishers). If the advertisers get ticked that many of their ad dollars are wasted on krap sites, well, it makes sense the service company would do something about it.

Do not cry foul, please. I am sure all of your sites are perfectly ethical and white hat and clean and all that happy stuff. (But then again, I am not delusional either).

Panda didn't kill the web. Neither did Penguin. Both were housekeeping, sweeping the dust and clutter of low/no value sites from the serps to keep the advertisers happy. And that's capitalism at work.

It is human nature to love what we create. It is also human nature to never recognize (easily) when we take a short cut/wrong path and thus wail with lamentations when whacked. I do feel that pain, having made a few mistakes in my life, and not all of them on the web. It hurts. It is also human to do a face palm, slap yourself straight, and get back to work. Change your ways, your direction, your end result. I will not repeat all the good advice which has been given so far, most of it is patently obvious even to those who deny. The web is a wonderful place where even bad starts can be corrected and 2nd chances abound... as long as an honest AND DIFFERENT effort is made. Find your own solutions. Google will not give you one, or even tell you how. There's no agreement (contract) in that regard.

[iamlost]

Disclaimer (once again): my sites are niche specific evergreen information with direct ad sales, affiliate pre-sell, and AdSense filler as revenue streams.

Most in eCommerce are selling the same or similar widgets to everyone else in the category. So the widget is not as important as the sizzle and support (or price if you like the race to the bottom against behemoths). I see very very few where a widget selling site stands out from it's competitors. Certainly not enough to make me care. And if I don't why should anyone else, including search engines.

Many in eCommerce are selling the same or similar services to everyone else in the category. So the service is not as critical as the person and firm offering the service. I see very few where a service proffering site stands out from it's competitors. Certainly not enough to make me care. And if I don't why should anyone else, including search engines.

Most info sites are thin to slender representations of the same information. Many are simply republishing other sites. Yes, SEs should be able to distinguish but apparently can not (or do not care). And now SEs are increasingly pulling facts to present on top of the links to follow. If you are not offering value beyond the 'facts', if there is little that is unique to you then you are simply a readily replaceable resource cog. If you do not know how to make mere facts your own exquisite unique offering you need to revisit your business model. Because if all I want are the facts and only the facts you don't matter to me or to the SEs; if I can not see a striking difference between your title and description, landing page and content or that of your competitors why should the SEs?

With the advent of content publishing frameworks, i.e. WordPress, and shopping cart frameworks/add-ons, there is a visual sameness that is reminiscent of the worst strip malls. I can, more often than not, look at a rendered page and identify the backend. Yet many/most of such third party frameworks allow some quite extraordinary customisation most can not do not bother.

Similarly, I often see the exact same stock images as well as the exact same product images on every site returned for a query. Simple, easy, and cheap is how one blends in and gets lost among the clutter, not how one stands out, catches the eye, draws in, holds, converts, encourages subsequent visits and goodwill.

Put aside whether your SE traffic is good or bad, sparse or abundant; print out the query return pages including yours; pin them up on the wall. Odds are they look like clones. If it looks like a duck... My point is that when every choice appears to be pretty much equivalent it is like one pizza store in a side street strip mall being replaced by another... and who gives a...?

Which brings back a perennial point: if a site (and from the sound of it most here qualify) gets most to all of it's traffic from one source aka Google and only 15-25% (depending on study) of queries are navigational in nature that means that you are forever relying on 75-85% new traffic day in and day out. Minimum. Do you honestly think that that is:
1. a best business practice?
2. sustainable?

Perhaps you should not have been hit by whatever algo (there are always false positives and given search volume a fraction of a percent is large in absolute numbers), site unseen I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So? Perhaps the interstates that changed traffic patterns and killed entire towns in the 50s and 60s was not fair. So? What is is. Doing/saying the same thing repeatedly and apparently expecting things to change is not healthy.

There are nuggets of real problems in amongst the furor and angst. I see all sorts of weird things and apparently systemic/regular occurrences in the logfiles. Some are or may be with testing solvable or mitigable on my part, others simply not.
* if Google is the problem then you need to work on alternative traffic sources.
* if your site/business model are not enough of a difference (in kind not just degree) or better (as in head and shoulders above) solution compared to competitors then you need to work until they are.
* if your product/service/niche is going the way of the buggy whip or outsourced to Outer Slobovia or you got this year's fad wrong...you have some necessary re-think/grouping to do.
* if...whatever...make choices...get on with it. Or get out.

Yes, I've been fortunate in that I've not been hit by any of the algo changes. But I've also worked my behinder off to diversify traffic referrers and revenue streams on top of excellent sites of superb content (imo :) and that of my advertisers and affiliate merchants). That doesn't mean that I'm happy about the changes in search since 2007, I'm most definitely not.

I'm so not thrilled I'm testing cutting Google off even more; from current 60-75% of pages to ~1%: to only the Admin (home, about, contact, etc.) and category pages. Of course that Google is only ~22% of total traffic means I'm only shooting myself in the foot not the head with this test. But I am serious about just how much where to limit Google access and therefor which queries I'm willing to forgo. Should be interesting. :)

[glakes]

What I am hearing in this thread is a great angst that those without product, but do have a website littered with advertising (which is not capitalism in the true sense: a contract between two parties for a product or service at point of sale as no such contract exists as quid pro quo) complaining that their wall paper space is not getting a "fair share" of the traffic. Of course, in the eyes of the wall paper hangers, that fair share is 100% of all traffic. Chuckles.

You are entirely wrong. Most of the people pro-Google around here operate MFA websites, supplementing their social security checks with a few Adsense dollars. Most of these sites simply regurgitate the same information that can be found at hundreds of other places. I produce what I sell, have no ads on my site and have witnessed Google's games firsthand. I have no bad links, all my content (text, images and video) are unique. The site is mobile friendly, uses https on all pages, etc. Despite Google's games, the site still converts well on most traffic except for the zombie crap Google sends most days of the week. Thankfully Bing, Yahoo and social traffic keeps me busy enough along with sales originating from other marketplaces.

Do not cry foul, please. I am sure all of your sites are perfectly ethical and white hat and clean and all that happy stuff. (But then again, I am not delusional either).

You toss this out a lot like us small business owners are responsible for not appearing on the first page of the search results. How can we when Google loads the first page with Amazon ads, YouTube, Wikipedia and some other big brands who don't even stock the products and instead link off to third party sites? Organic search results, for most products anyways, is just a sales funnel designed to drive legitimate merchants into Adwords. Anyone who does not see this as plain as day, just does not understand marketing very well.

Panda didn't kill the web. Neither did Penguin. Both were housekeeping, sweeping the dust and clutter of low/no value sites from the serps to keep the advertisers happy. And that's capitalism at work.

Penguin, Panda and all the other cute and cuddly names are nothing more than a smokescreen. Small businesses that sell product are hard to find in Google these days, unless they pay to be in Adwords. Considering small businesses collectively employ more people than big corps, are you implying those employees and employers are of low/no value?

It is human nature to love what we create.

It's also human nature for people to see something in a positive light when they are not the victim. I will close this post in saying that most of your posts referring to capitalism should instead reference chrony capitalism. That is a more accurate description of what we have witnessed in the past few years, and there is enough publicly available evidence to make that fact (Google's massive lobbying budget, ex-Googlers in high level government jobs, politicians writing the EU on Google's behalf, etc.).

[fathom]

You are entirely wrong. Most of the people pro-Google around here operate MFA websites, supplementing their social security checks with a few Adsense dollars. Most of these sites simply regurgitate the same information that can be found at hundreds of other places.

Name two?

Most implies more than one.

[tangor]

You are entirely wrong. Most of the people pro-Google around here operate MFA websites, supplementing their social security checks with a few Adsense dollars.

Yikes! After all that I wonder if I know how to read ... or if others can read what others have written. I am the least google lover there is so perhaps it might be true I don't know how all the MFA site owners feel. Never had that kind of site. Do admit to being old enough for SS, but not yet. :)

I do have small businesses (and big businesses, too) and each works about the same way, just different scales of return on effort, and like everyone else saw some traffic change when Panda and Penguin came round... and the previous changes, too. One can either respond and grow, ... or not. I choose growth (and diversification, but that's a different topic).

It is highly unlikely that anyone will provide a hand book 1-2-3 for escaping Panda Heck. Why would they?

Edit: Meant to add that the sites I manage are unique, manufacturing, et al. and are powered by a homegrown ad service with more than 500 clients. While we do not rely on G, we aren't opposed to it either... and do note when the company makes changes to its search algos. Then again, there's diversification (other engines)... but that's beyond the scope of the Panda thread here.

[bsand715]

Wow - lot of noise - Liane+ page 3 My vote for top post.
"It is what it is."
I am a "do what google says they want done type guy". They that have the gold make the rules.

Now that being said, to try and offer a real world example, in my niche, my site was #1 for years for so many keywords and KW phrases - Still ranks #3 for main KW -

The #1, going on a year now, is a new site with a .us extension. When you run this #1 site thru the test that google provides, speed, links, responsive, etc, its fails every test by a wide margin.

Now the #4 site is a site I built for a client (friend) that wanted a piece of the pie. This friend's site was number one for a while, but he lost interest, so I have used it for testing for the last couple of years. At this point have removed all meta tags, title tag and links. Has nothing between <head> and <body> removed all main KW from text. Not much content left to remove - It still shows up at 4 and 5.
The domain name is "keywordpharse.com"

So in my niche is content king? Absolutely not
Is Quality king? No
Doing what google says they want done - not so much

Don't get me wrong I've enjoyed the ride - I use google
Only wish I could depend on google to do what they say do for best methods.

Good luck to all.

[glakes]

Name two?

You've been here long enough to know who they are (we sure do), or at least you should if you read their posts. Anyway, outing people, sites, etc. violates this forum's charter.

I do have small businesses (and big businesses, too) and each works about the same way, just different scales of return on effort, and like everyone else saw some traffic change when Panda and Penguin came round... and the previous changes, too. One can either respond and grow, ... or not. I choose growth (and diversification, but that's a different topic).

I completely agree about the growth tangor, and have done so as well. The issue is how we grow our businesses, or for some how their businesses have contracted, and what role Google has in that equation and just how much responsibility they should have being the most dominant search engine and dominance in other areas as well. I would say Google is taking as much of the pie as they can, which operating with impunity in our chrony capitalism environment allows, has become less transparent and has utilized their dominance in search to artificially prop up their other financial interests. At least this is the environment that I see myself operating in. And I believe it is only going to get worse because Google accepts no responsibility for their role in the global economy - it's just their for their taking.

Future strategies involving Google, whether they be because of panda, penguin or some other cute cuddly name, really involves diversification of traffic and buyers outside of Google which you eluded to. Whatever free traffic Google wants to send my way (the non-zombie type) is fine. A better strategy, which has proven lucrative thus far, is to instead invest what was my Adwords budget elsewhere. Even good ole print advertising is offering a better roi than Adwords because of zombie/fake clicks.

[fathom]

You are entirely wrong. Most of the people pro-Google around here operate MFA websites, supplementing their social security checks with a few Adsense dollars. Most of these sites simply regurgitate the same information that can be found at hundreds of other places.

Name two?

You've been here long enough to know who they are (we sure do), or at least you should if you read their posts. Anyway, outing people, sites, etc. violates this forum's charter.

Forum Charter states: Generic editorializing, whether pro or con, may be removed.

That seems to be reflective of your post.

I would think that any MFA that you describe would be on the side of the anti-Google/victimized.

When PANDA initially took out 12% of results, and maybe another 12% with their 30 updates they didn't leave all MFA active, and I would think all those counting on SS checks wouldn't likely be pro-Google.

I question both your math skills and your ability to be objective.

BTW earlier you noted the pro-Google camp paints Google with a halo (or rather you seem to think that), actually I find most for vs against debates start with the devil horns, tail, and pitchfork slant that deserve a balance of opinions. Point out any praise thread in 2015 where the debate starts the other way.

I generally haven't started a thread since 2004... So my comment are reactive to what others have posted. Unsubstantiated claims are a pet peeve of mine. WebmasterWorld like all forums with an SEO slant are reactive to observations. Observations are biased to the observers experience (or lack of) and whether the output was based on risk management control or "WTF happened?"

Putting trust into WTF happened ... Causes me to question posted observations.

[edited by: fathom at 4:31 pm (utc) on Jan 1, 2016]

[EditorialGuy]

For what it's worth, our Google traffic in 2015 was:

- Up 70.6 percent over 2014

- Up 234.58 percent over 2013

- Up 54.95 percent over 2012

And those numbers are for a mature site that mostly been doing well in Google, with occasional ups and downs, since 2001.

The most significant changes in the site over the years have been what I outlined in an earlier post (primarily, more emphasis on the subtopics where we've long had subject expertise and authority, with less emphasis on minor subtopics that are now covered in more depth on other sites). We've also added mobile versions of our most popular pages, and they're ranking well in Google's mobile search.

And no, we haven't ever spent a dime on AdWords. We do run AdSense ads at present (no more than one per page), but we haven't done so consistently over the past few years, and the presence or absence of AdSense ads hasn't had any discernible impact on our Google traffic.

Bottom line: It is possible for a mom-and-pop site to get significant (and profitable) traffic from Google Search. Some sites won't, of course, but that's inevitable when there are millions (billions?) of Web sites and no more than 10 first-page search results for any given query.

[ken_b]

It kind of sounds like the anti-google posters think that Google has broken some kind of "contract" between Google and the posters business(es).

Which makes me wonder what the posters lawyers had to say about the "breaking" of that "contract"?

And for those who had to fire staff, did they fire their ad sales/management team also? Did they even have an ad sales/manager team? Or did they just go along taking the easy money and not plan and prepare for the possibility of losing the G traffic?

.

[iamlost]

There are two assumptions/views in this thread and others that aren't addressed enough, I know because both are constantly reiterated. I'm splitting this answer over two posts to keep things simple. Hopefully.

The first is:

1. that when Google (or any SE but this forum is seriously Google fixated) does something weird or contrary many treat it as intentional. Given the complexity of what G does and all the servers and data centres it pulls from for a given query result the fact that it works at all let alone most of the time is quite amazing.

So, when we see an obviously (to human eyes) crap site apparently similar to whatever other crap sites an update banished still sitting pretty at the top of the return... an underpopulated or even blank query return... a return that lists foreign language sites when English only was specified... a return that lists half or more sites that have (to human eyes) absolutely no connection to the query... we get upset. A full time SEO, on the other hand, chortles and gets digging to find out why the discrepancy because it is such edge cases that silhouette the workings of the black box.

Google's algorithm is not perfect. Nor human. Not even AI. It makes mistakes all the time. For every attempt to clean house of something there are both false positives and negatives. Sometimes so obvious the change is rolled back. It is what it is. Accept it as it is and work within that or...don't.

2. that because Google is, and has long long long been, an ad server network using search as a customer capture mechanism they are faced with two conflicting business models:
* click my answer link.
* click my ad.

The second has always trumped the first. But very carefully in a multi-prong approach:
* by returning search results that are 'good enough' but not necessarily 'best available'.
This can be seen in that sites such as Wikipedia and the DemandMedia sites were so dominant for so long.

* by adding in Google properties beginning with Universal Search on the first page to get second and third kicks at the ad click can.

* by introducing direct answers, etc.
Google is what it is. Accept it as it is and work within that or...don't.

3. as Google goes about it's self-proclaimed mission of indexing (and cacheing) the world's information it is collecting more noise aka garbage than signal aka information. It should not be a surprise therefor that Google search is increasingly GIGO search.

[iamlost]

The second is:
That many/most people have forgotten history as in historical behaviour trends and so are condemned to be shocked anew.

Back before the web (which probably eliminates 80% of current webdevs as to personal experience/knowledge) there was this search device known as Yellow Pages. It was printed, on yellow coloured paper, hence the name, in book form. It was alphabetically divided into business categories (Accountant, Plumber, Restaurant, etc.) and each category listed those who paid to be included by business name (Albert & Sons Plumbing, Ziggy's 24hr Plumbing, etc.). And some wise pre-SEO type created 'AAA Triple A Plumbing' to get first listing. And his competitors jumped in until 'AAAAAAAA Plumbing Experts' was not unusual.

Besides straight listings one could buy display ads in various sizes. Personal Injury Lawyers tended to single, double, and many page display ads... because it was well known that people equate large and more with expensive and expensive with best. Listings weren't too expensive, ads were very. And so, in niches where YP aka new customer acquisition was competitive and lucrative big business could outspend small or new business.

Also, back when, retail disruption was well known: the mall in the suburbs that killed downtown cores, the big box store coming that drove small local competitors down and out, the Wal-Mart Effect. I spent years in retail, and learned the hard way how to compete (answer: not directly) with the draw of malls and pricing of big boxes. One example: we both sold BBQs, theirs were under $500, ours well over; we both sold BBQ parts, they were consistently out of stock, we were not. And the parts markup was (and is) loverly atrocious.

Back to the near past: we have Google the great digital search engine that (mostly) can. The web is a decade old, the (first) eCom bubble has burst, and all that remains are scurrying little rodent webdevs. So we are what Google indexes and we are who get the referred searchers. Small businesses, entrepreneurs, few enterprises still shocked by the bubble burst. But over the next decade enterprise retail came back (or on).

Each and every query has a maximum 1000 results. In most cases it is ~300 domains. But in reality, just as with AAAAA and the yellow pages, it is the first 3-pages, especially the first page, that matters, that gets the traffic. And with enterprise in the game the mall/box store effect happened digitally. Basically Wal-Mart came to town and pushed competitors down the listings of many competitive because lucrative queries. Except with only 10 (in most settings) slots available and often a half dozen big box equivalents in the market small businesses/sites are increasingly not visible in Google.

I'm sure it has been a shock to many but this, as with Google entity placement, should not be a surprise. Some of us have been posting forecasts about these and other changes for years. Denial is not a good business partner. Neither is obliviousness.

So a whole mass of so called head term and many long tail queries have been co-opted by enterprise business. They have used their resources to push you out. Welcome to business in the real world. So what are you going to use your resources to do? Where and how can you compete? Are you going to be the downtown premises with the 'out of business' sign or...?

Google is also running scared. Not, perhaps for your reasons but they can see changes that undercut or bypass their business model. And they are trying a number of things in hope they can stave off, catch up, or get ahead and remain relevant and profitable. If, for instance, you allow Google to index your apps or host your content you are keeping them alive a bit longer. While killing yourself softly.

Historical behaviour.
Welcome to the mall, small downtown business.
Do you enjoy the higher costs?
What will you do when the mall ups your rent? Or fails?
Or...?