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.

[tangor]

that takes care of any PR issues that might arise.

That, and multi-millions thrown at lobbyists in Washington. :)

[EditorialGuy]

Is it possible to pay for hosting a Youtube video?

Not to my knowledge, and that's exactly the point. If a company (whether it's YouTube or anyone else) provides free hosting, it isn't reasonable for the company to monetize that free service with ads or affiliate links?

Side note: The notion that Google affiliate links or shopping ads will suck all the money away from YouTube creators is based on a misconception about how users behave. Some people will click on Google links, some will click on the YouTube creator's links, some will go to their favorite vendors, and some will use a search engine to seek out the lowest price. The device they're using can be a factor, too: If they're using smartphones and their favorite vendor has an app, they may find it convenient to use that app.

[MrSavage]

Google doesn't pay for the hosting of the content they scrape into answer boxes. Google doesn't pay for the website hosting that is providing answers (the usefulness) of their home speaker boxes. Seems like Google is creating their own products off the backs of other people. Google doesn't pay for the human powered research/writing that goes into content creation.

That said, why is this even debatable? Hilarious! Let's keep it real if we go down that path. What's the pure profit YouTube makes off content they didn't create after they pay for that agonizing overhead called hosting? I don't recall Google offering to pay for hosting for the websites being scraped into their "products".

Folks, we all know what we have here. No need to say it.

There isn't a viable alternative at this point so everyone will live with the dying organic environment we are faced with. Another video hosting platform? Not in my lifetime. A viable search? Say, an ethical search engine? Needs to be profit involved to have anyone take on Google. I say the only viable solution is seeing something from Amazon and Facebook and even with that, they may have to combine efforts to even make a dent. Meanwhile I have my popcorn at the ready.

[tangor]

Put me down for popcorn, too! :)

Even adblockers can't change this trend, though more might actually jump on in the future.

Things evolve. Users, while generally sheeple, are not actually stupid ... just lazy.

The revolution, if there is one, will come from them, not webmasters. Webmasters MIGHT make a difference, but few are willing to "rock the boat".

[Wilburforce]

It's reassuring to me that the "webmasters" now seem to be drowning out the apologists.

There is a disctinction between apologists and realists, and I hope you have not inferred from anything I have said that I approve of what Google is doing now, or has been doing for a number of years. As I have already posted, Google has received record EU fines, and further action is pending. Their actions and policies in many areas abuse European law in both letter and spirit, and as Search is their founding and primary activity, there is no reason to expect that what they are doing in Search is any less culpable.

The extent of their resources, however, should give complainants here some perspective. They have effectively shrugged at a 4.3 bn Euro fine, and the efforts of combined nation-states has failed to rein in the abuse. Of course they "should" be brought to book - of course someone in such a monopolistic position "should" behave responsibly - but they don't: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In an "SEO forum" I am not advising anyone to use PPC. I don't personally believe that tyrants behave better if you give them your money, or respect you if you keep trying to jump through their hoops. If you want to guarantee yourself a place above the fold then pay for PPC.

Neither is Google the only "gateway to the internet". How many Facebook users are there? Amazon? How many websites? A good referring link from a relevant page isn't just a "vote" that Google will add to your vote-credit: it is traffic from a source the user has trusted to follow. There is no better referral than a personal recommendation: in trust terms it trumps every advertisement that was ever written. Referrals from Google used to have almost the same gold-stamp, but - whatever the users are actually doing today - they really don't have it now, and in my view their value will only continue to deteriorate from here on in.

Ironically, my own decision several years ago to stop chasing Google, or worrying about what GSC tells me - I haven't logged in in over a year, and won't until they become compliant with GDPR - has been pretty good for my site in SEO terms: it is now ranking nearly as well in searches as it did ten years ago, when it dominated results for sector-relevant queries.

I don't rely on that, however: Google has driven a bulldozer over more businesses that have dropped suddenly and massively in the SERPS than I could possibly count - black-hat and white-hat alike. If you want to stake your business future on Google organic results, go ahead, and if you think they are treating you unfairly, well, they probably are.

I'm not "preaching". I am reading the writing on the wall. If you think you can bank indignation, try opening an account with it.

Going back to the OP - please don't tell somebody who reads things carefully to read things carefully - read it carefully. If you need good SEO advice, read this:

[webmasterworld.com ]

[StoneSolid]

Since you're quoting ME throughout your post, I'll just say that you've missed the point entirely. I didn't write anything here to get an advice or a solution, because there is NO problem with anything - there is just a lousy unfair situation, for all of us.

Yes, you are preaching and you're putting yourself on a pedestal.
We're all getting traffic of this or that kind, but it certainly shouldn't be murky as it is now.

I will not bank my indignation.
I will not be silent about it either.
It is unhealthy to hold it in :)

[Wilburforce]

you're putting yourself on a pedestal

I often find I can see a bit further from a pedestal.

[sql500]

Google is the internet's gatekeeper for the world, a very dangerous monopoly for all and It has become impossible to do business this days.

[RedBar]

Webmasters MIGHT make a difference, but few are willing to "rock the boat".

The question for many is though, "how to rock the boat"?

At the moment small sites have no power to change/influence anything whereas large sites probably don't give a damn what's going on!

[engine]

The question for many is though, "how to rock the boat"?

Use other search services, build a new search engine, and, importantly, stop using Google services.

[StoneSolid]

@RedBar

The question for many is though, "how to rock the boat"?
At the moment small sites have no power to change/influence anything whereas large sites probably don't give a damn what's going on!

I believe I wrote it somewhere earlier, and I was NOT joking.

USA people - mail / call / meet your representatives (congress, senate)
EU people - mail / call / meet your EU parliament representatives

THAT is how a small guy fights for justice in modern times. THIS has to start with webmasters because we can't expect for a 60 year old politicians to "google something and realize something is off there".

WE need to make them aware of the problem and we need to be precise and articulated about it.

No mentioning of our own sites and our personal "I should rank but I'm not..." - we just need to make them aware of the global google schemes, and hope they'll form a highly specialized team that will double check a ton of google query, serps, rankings, and even do all kinds of experiments with it. Such a highly specialized team could potentially even demand access to google itself and REALLY check what kind of manipulations are going on.

[Rndm]

I am not advocating this, but if a large portion of webmasters stopped using AdWords, yanked GA and Adsense from their sites all at once. You might get Google's attention. Emphasis on might. If you keep feeding them...

[iamlost]

if a large portion of webmasters stopped using AdWords, yanked GA and Adsense from their sites all at once. You might get Google's attention.

Not at all.
AdSense (AdWords display ads) is the longtail after thought of Google's revenue streams. In fact advertisers have been moving away from display (AdSense) to YouTube and to other platforms, i.e. FB. That is why the value and the fill rate of AdSense publishers have been broadly dropping the past few years - and crappy advertisers and malware have been increasingly able to afford the channel.

On the other hand AdWords for search has always and remains the bulwark of their ad revenue.
AdSense may be critical to a great many webdevs not so much to G or G's major advertisers.

[Rndm]

iamlost - You are correct. That is why I put it AdSense dead last. I do a lot of PPC and I NEVER EVER EVER use their Partner Network. It is garbage traffic.

[tangor]

G's hold on the market reached saturation in 2014 ... a point of no return for webmasters in that g no longer needed them as the big brands had been sucked up and the small change was no longer necessary. Still, the myth has to be maintained and that's why Adsense still "works", sorta.

[glitterball]

The only way I can see that anything could ever happen to end the abusive monopoly situation would be if a competitor (e.g. Bing) offered some of the world's largest publishers fixed long-term income in return for exclusive access to advertising space - AND that the publishers remove their content from Google (i.e. block Googlebot).
E.g. Bing could offer the BBC a fixed amount per year for the BBC's advertising space (at a premium above what the BBC currently receives), and in return the BBC blocks Google for the next 10 years. If Bing did similar deals with enough of the world's most prestigious publishers, they could guarantee that their SERPs would be better than Google's.

[RedBar]

Use other search services, <snip></snip> and, importantly, stop using Google services.

I did that years ago, has it made any difference, nah!

Do you know what I find strange? When talking to friends who use computers a lot and I mention that G is "hopeless", that they all agree, that they do use other search engines etc however Joe Public seemingly hasn't cottoned on, as yet.

What I also notice is that people, in general, are doing a lot less searching. I am aware that global statistics supposedly do not bear this out however it is something I've noticed both at work and at home ... Is it because all my family and associates have had 25+ years of this stuff?

[RedBar]

E.g. Bing could offer the BBC a fixed amount per year for the BBC's advertising space (at a premium above what the BBC currently receives),

I know you've used the BBC as an example however I am 99.99% sure that would not be allowed on bbc.co.uk, on bbc.com I believe they can, otherwise a good idea.

[EditorialGuy]

I am not advocating this, but if a large portion of webmasters stopped using AdWords, yanked GA and Adsense from their sites all at once. You might get Google's attention. Emphasis on might. If you keep feeding them...

Trouble is, the only Webmasters who'd stop using AdWords, GA, and AdSense would be those who matter least to Google. Successful site owners would have no reason to quit.

[Rndm]

As I said, might...but probably not. I will be honest in that I work with a lot of mid-to-very large b2b corporations so a lot of what is discussed here doesn't resonate with me. I don't even know what a "webmaster" is in this day and age. This site does help me stay in tune with Google changes though.

[Selen]

I've never had Bing Webmaster account, but for some reason content is indexed much faster than with Google. I've started using Bing a few months ago as my default search and it satisfies my searches in 90% - the only thing they must add is the ability to search for exact match / quoted text (in quotation marks) - when they do, they will be on-par with Google, even for technical / detailed searches.

[RedBar]

I have to say that I find Bing poor for image searches, Google is better for that but NOT as good as it used to be, especially so for the original in many cases preferring US sites that have ripped-off the originator ... Yes, this has happened to me many times.