Out Of Control SERPs

[goodroi]

I searched for "how to rank in Google". There are no organic listings above the fold for me. There is one big massive CPC ad with multiple sitelinks. Then there is a onebox for Forbes.com, because when I think SEO authority website I think of Forbes magazine. Then they push several youtube videos that are 2-4 years old. Finally I get to some organic listings but they are focused on ranking in Google maps and not Google search!?!?!? Of course they plug in another ad at the bottom that looks 99% identical to the organic listing. This is out of control and its not even a Google serp - its Bing search results.

Be careful that your frustration with Google SEO isn't clouding your observations of the overall SEO landscape. The entire SEO landscape is evolving. Each day it is harder and harder to survive. If you want the best chance to survive then focus more on discovering and exploiting the new opportunities. Social & backlink efforts have worked wonders for many of my new & existing sites in the last year. The more time you spend complaining about Google is less time you spend on your business which just makes it easier for your competition to pass you in the SERPs.

PS ... There is an ironic/honest answer when a PPC ad is the first thing displayed for the query "how to rank on Google" Why work hard on SEO when you can just use PPC and jump ahead of the SEO results. Don't get frustrated that the evil search engines are trying to trick people into PPC. Realize that opportunistic marketers are voluntarily rushing into PPC because they can turn a profit and ask yourself if that is a wise business decision for yourself. This isn't kindergarten and there are no teachers around to make sure we all play nice with each other. In business you need to be smart and avoid emotional mistakes & inefficiencies.

[Shepherd]

When I look at the SERP for this query (the entire SERP as opposed to a screenshot with little context) I see:
Ads (relevant and on topic)
A local map (properly calibrated to my location) showing local businesses relevant to the query
Organic listings of websites, relevant and on topic
Some "people also ask" question below the organic results (nice for a change) that are relevant and topical
A few current news stories related to the topic
A few videos related to the topic
A couple of on topic "discover more places" options
and some on topic "related searches" search suggestions.

All in all, a very well formed, on topic, relevant SERP that more likely than not meets the searcher's needs.

We all have our own wants and desires but to say that this SERP is "out of control" is a bit far fetched.
As an advertiser, I'm perfectly happy seeing the ads above the fold.
As a website owner I'd love to see my website above the fold.
As a searcher I'd be perfectly happy with this SERP.

[Selen]

But the question is, if all websites had a similar format, ie. 70% of above-the-fold content are ads, would it be considered usable?

[NickMNS]

@shepherd you assessment is correct, and from the point of view of an advertiser I'm sure it is desirable. From the point of view of the normal user, that only uses Google, the result is pretty good too, they click an ad and get the relevant content. But if you are a webmaster targeting organic traffic, then forget it, you're lucky to get any traffic let alone converting traffic.

Clearly there is a trade off between showing ads and showing organic results. The "out of control", at least from my perspective is that Google is leaning too far to the ads. Why bother with organic at all? Pay to play all the way?

The ruse, in my opinion, is that Google promises the users "unbiased" search results, that is results ranked by some "fair" algo, and then to pay for all this they show a few ads. But when one looks at the results, mostly with respect to these high value competitive commercial keywords, one only see the ads. The "organic" results appear to be obfuscated or socially engineered to fade out of sight.

[Shepherd]

if all websites

All websites are not SERPs, however, I guess it would depend on what one would consider "usable". As an estimate, I would say that at least 70% of the useful information on an Amazon product page is below the fold, they still seem to be fairly usable.

[Shepherd]

from my perspective is that Google is leaning too far to the ads.

You may be right, as evidenced by google's latest quarterly report their growth in paid clicks has slowed (still growing, just a little slower), this may indicate they are closing in on the saturation point.

[tangor]

Old enough to have grown up with real newspapers* ... at the time only the front page was "sorta ad free", every page after that was 25-75% ads. G is doing the same thing. :)

_{*Today's newspapers are tabloid size.}

[StoneSolid]

When I look at the SERP for this query (the entire SERP as opposed to a screenshot with little context) I see:
Ads (relevant and on topic)
A local map (properly calibrated to my location) showing local businesses relevant to the query
Organic listings of websites, relevant and on topic
Some "people also ask" question below the organic results (nice for a change) that are relevant and topical
A few current news stories related to the topic
A few videos related to the topic
A couple of on topic "discover more places" options
and some on topic "related searches" search suggestions.

All in all, a very well formed, on topic, relevant SERP that more likely than not meets the searcher's needs.

When you put it like that and call it a SERP... only thing that is missing is a "BUY NOW" button on google itself and you don't even need to visit any website.

As a searcher I'd be perfectly happy with this SERP.

So, you're the kind of a buyer that decides what to buy based on size of a billboard?

Searcher is searching for what to buy and he is there to do a... search.
His search for best offer / best info would be much more efficient if google serves him ranked results from best to worse (as they pretend that they're doing).

Remember that insane old logic where a site is #1 spot for a reason, because people are recommending it (links, social signals, trust, all that crap)?
Yeah, it is a crazy logic.


Yes, I'm aware that google is a company and they need to make a profit too, but being a "gateway to the internet" should have some rules and responsibilities.

[Shepherd]

and call it a SERP

Well, it is what it's called...

So, you're the kind of a buyer that decides what to buy based on size of a billboard?

I'd say I'm the kind of buyer/searcher that doesn't use a screenshot of a part of a SERP to do my research.

As for the "buy now" button, that's been a thing on google since about 2015 in various forms. I'm sure we will see more of that in the future.

[EditorialGuy]

Old enough to have grown up with real newspapers* ... at the time only the front page was "sorta ad free", every page after that was 25-75% ads. G is doing the same thing. :)

On the other hand, Google still doesn't have display ads. Why not, I wonder? What's keeping Google from running display ads on informational SERPs, which often have no ads at all?

[StoneSolid]

I'd say I'm the kind of buyer/searcher that doesn't use a screenshot of a part of a SERP to do my research.

Screenshot I made is the entire initially visible screen of the google query.
It shouldn't even be called a SERP really, not with that layout.

Only person I can imagine being fine with such is someone whose entire business is based on adwords and he gave up on the whole regular website & seo process.

[Wilburforce]

being a "gateway to the internet" should have some rules and responsibilities

Google is only a gateway to the internet insofar as users make it so. None of us is obliged to use Google for search, or advertising, or anything else.

Having said that, the EU already has Google in its sights for exactly the kind of practices this thread is discussing, and has already imposed record fines:1.49 billion Euros for advertising violations, and 4.3 billion Euros for using Andriod to promote Google search. Clearly this hasn't discouraged them so I doubt that anything anyone says here will have much effect.

As I said earlier, (Google) SEO is an increasing resource drain for a diminishing return. If you don't like it, STOP SPENDING RESOURCES ON IT. Nothing you read or say here will fix it.

[Shepherd]

shouldn't even be called a SERP

You're right, the image you posted was not the SERP, it was an image of a part of the SERP. There's a whole, amazing world outside of the image.

Only person I can imagine being fine with such

No need to imagine, there's plenty of publicly available information to directly, and indirectly, glean searcher satisfaction. (Fun search on Bing: "best search engine") Or, of course one can just keep their head in the sand complaining about the free referrals from a third party they're not getting any more. The logical folks will keep evolving and not getting backed into corners.

Of course there's another option: Do something productive. Rise up, organize, build a collation of website owners to demand that the collective value of the content creators be recognized and rewarded by google.

[StoneSolid]

Google is only a gateway to the internet insofar as users make it so. None of us is obliged to use Google for search, or advertising, or anything else.

Sorry, but I really do need to use it, because their monopolistic market share as "gateway to the internet" dictates it so.

Saying that I don't need to use it is like saying I don't need to use Oceans for my yacht because I can use lakes.
(arguendo, in this case oceans are frikkin full of insane billboards sticking out of the water, planted there by oceanoogle)

[Wilburforce]

I really do need to use it, because their monopolistic market share as "gateway to the internet" dictates it so.

If your business cannot survive without Google, it isn't viable. Google is not a life-support machine.

If you want to use environmental analogies, the climate in internet marketing - in which Google is a major component - has been worsening for a long time, and is now very challenging. Nothing you do or say here will improve it.

Adapt and survive. Engraving "Google killed my business" on the headstone will not stop it from being dead.

[StoneSolid]

Look, I'm not aiming at pointless philosophical discussions.
In my main niche, there is next to none google ads above the fold - but I do recognize it as one of big google problems.

Bluntly said, for me personally, bigger issues are:
- big brand forcing in serps, even if their content is heavily lacking as answer for the query
- mutilation of long tail queries, once again in favor of big brands

When I say "big brand" I mean - site with strong backlink profile.
The way I see it, now in 2019, backlinks are more important than ever, and I find that disturbing.

My business is 100% online and it is far from dead. I'm a one man show with five digit monthly income.

I would never complain about anything, but I visually see total nonsense ahead of me in serps, after spending lots of years on making my sites as they are now.

I find it difficult to believe that someone on a SEO forum would advise me to "survive outside of google". I probably will at some point, when I fully switch to my side business (tourism).
Meanwhile, I'm a webmaster, in a world where google holds 90 or whatever % of the internet.
It is really as simple as that.

[tangor]

Show me the contract one has with g and then I can suggest a lawyer to help you solve your lack of fair play by the other party.

Sans that, one has bupkis.

Last time I looked, there was no "contract" for services/results.

That said, the handwriting has been on the wall for a number of years. Some got the memo early and moved on. Others are just now catching up.

Meanwhile, g is slowly killing their own business. When USERS begin to find the site unusable they will move on.

[Wilburforce]

I'm a webmaster, in a world where google holds 90 or whatever % of the internet.

You're a webmaster in world where what the OP says appplies, and where what you say about results applies.

You can get frustrated with the way that is, or with me or other posters on this and other threads for saying so, but that will make no difference to the outcome.

If you want your pages above the fold in Google results, you need to look at PPC. For a 5-figure/month income it is arguably worth it. Otherwise, as Tangor points out, you don't have a leg to stand on.

It is really as simple as that.

[StoneSolid]

Pretty please Wilburforce, don't preach.

Here is a little story...

Roughly 6 months ago or so, an unknown newbie went on google forums and asked:
"what should I do with my site to get better traffic in google, should I ask my friends to link my site and then try to get more of such links on other sites?"

Surprisingly, the famous JohnMu of google team answered his topic, saying something like:
"No, directly asking others to link your website is against google webmaster guidelines. You should work on quality content and ways to improve your site and backlinks will come naturally."

(I would give a link to that discussion, but since they redesigned those forums I can't find my way around it)

OP actually gave a solution in his initial post if one reads it carefully, and I can fully agree with what he said:
"Social & backlink efforts have worked wonders for many of my new & existing"

Actually putting an EFFORT into backlinking and even socials would put OP on the black hat side, according to JohnMu.

Go visit ANY website that regularly lists expired domains and check it out. Anything even a slightly bit decent gets bought in a heartbeat.
SnapNames and such are probably having the best business years they could ever imagine.


And we're at a point where a webmaster on a SEO forum advises use of PPC because of the state of google these days.

Hah.

[Wilburforce]

if one reads it carefully

Possibly goodroi can clarify what he meant, but I didn't take what he says about social and backlink effort to address Google ranking: I took it to mean social and backlink efforts have benefitted those wbesites directly.

I also wouldn't advise anyone wanting to get better traffic in Google to start by asking John Mueller.

[StoneSolid]

Hehe, regardless of what he means or what he'll say he means - the serp picture and "how to rank" methods are possibly clearer than ever.

Out of all the webmaster discussions, I see Barry posted only "Any SEO Harm From Incrementally Pushing a Redesign?" from yesterday.
I guess redesigning is the bigger issue all together. Take care people when you redesign your sites, just might ruin your seo.

Anyway, I said my peace.

I'm off for the day, gonna spend a few hours on efforts with backlinks and then I'll relax for the weekend.

[Histerius]

If your business cannot survive without Google, it isn't viable.

With all due respect, this is nonsense. Without Google, where will you advertise your product? Where can people find anything about your company? How can you reach your customers in this age of the internet?

When you ask anybody how to find something on the internet, the answer is "I Google it." Not "I Bing it" or "DuckDuckGo it" or anything similar. People are used to Google and that small amount of them that use other search engine is so small that it's not even worth mentioning. Google is monopoly and it's so big that you simply have no choice but to try to use it for the world to see your business. That's what the internet age brought us.

[Mr_Dok]

Google lost it all! its bsolutely chaos now in SERPs. googler engineers need to be shame to themselves. Again and Again - youngest, thin and irrelevant content sites is up and old, rich and quality content sites is no more in priority. if so - what exactly the incentive of site owners to invest in rich and quality content ?! - shameful. Googlers think we all stupid enough to eat and support their unjustly acts in a name of the "AdWords coin". You better get yourself together and back to your roots when rich and quality content sites had priority and really donate to the world.

[MrSavage]

It's funny to hear from self-professed experts who call you a fool for relying on Google, yet offer up and preach advice in a Google SEO Forum. Did i just read a suggestion that paying for traffic is the way now? If that's true, then are we calling the end to this portion of the forum. Google SEO has no relevance now? I always laughed at the SEO sales pitch. Like saying, hey, pay me and I can get you that #1 organic listing on page 2 of Google. It also seems that in 2019, algo updates are nothing more than a bone thrown to the SEO industry. Algo update are largely meaningless when people are observing so much clutter (filters) above that #1 spot. Yet we have enlightened ones with websites that built up authority, ranking and a foothold thanks to an era when Google needed websites for ads and try to apply the same promise of glory when it has no relevance whatsoever.

Personally in a lot of ways I'm in a holding pattern. Let Google crush what they are going to crush. At some point Facebook or Amazon should be bright enough to create a platform where they can learn the searching habits of customers and gain a good portion of the worlds data. How about a search that has no ulterior motive? I think Cutts hands are tied unfortunately.

[Selen]

2010 SEO Expert: "Build useful and authoritative content, get links, provide fast website and simple design to rank high."

2020 SEO Expert: "Adapt. No one knows what it means, but it's provocative, it gets the people going."
:)

[MrSavage]

For those not paying attention and who find affiliate income as a way to make this worthwhile. How does this headline grab you?

Google is testing shopping links under YouTube videos
They point you to Google Express, where you'll be able to buy the goods.

The world's biggest affiliate as well. Be assured it's likely to roll out in other areas, specifically image search as well. Point being? Google is filtering traffic long before SEO or quality content could make a difference. I'm going to enjoy the brief ruckus from YouTube creators who rely on those "affiliate links in the description below". And yes, this is relevant to the topic at hand. YouTube is part of SERPS these days.

OBF. One Big Filter.

[EditorialGuy]

@MrSavage: How much are those YouTube creators paying to have their videos hosted on YouTube?

[Selen]

Is it possible to pay for hosting a Youtube video?

[StoneSolid]

@EditorialGuy don't go down that road. Entire global online community made youtube what it is now. I doubt anyone would move a finger about it if they knew that they are building a future money milking cow that will leach off their videos. Same goes for google.

Becoming that big and holding a monopoly of such level should definitely involve having strict rules and limits.

[sql500]

So far, I can't see any problem with Google!

As long anyone see the ads on Google search, it is okay.

Still most webmasters didn't understand, that Google is a monopoly and as such, Google have responsibility to the society more than just a random company.

The main reason why Google is so big, is just because wemasters still support Google with money and use all their services.

To be clear, the problem is not Google.

[MrSavage]

It's reassuring to me that the "webmasters" now seem to be drowning out the apologists. It's a shift and that's a start. There will always be people who look at their own bank account and income suppliers and become apologists or turn a blind eye to ethics or right and wrong. But those same people deny being influenced by their own good fortune. A lot of people can't call a spade a spade. Bigger things in history happened with certain countries adopting the attitude of "it's not our problem" and then things got out of hand. A lot of people saying or have said nothing is wrong with this picture. History repeating itself in an obviously less sinister way, but repeating non the less. Google fills the pockets of the influencers and that takes care of any PR issues that might arise. Afterall, it's only PR that makes a difference in this case.