Forum Moderators: open
I have to laugh at people's mentality. There can only be one #1 position for a keyword but everyone whose site is about that keyword thinks their site deserves that #1 position. Unfortunately, only one site can have that position (and of coarse a similar argument applies to to all the top positions). To get that position, you have to pay. You pay with money or you pay with SEO efforts or you pay with the cost of spam penalties. One way or another you pay. It's just not going to be yours for free because you think your site deserves it.
I was thinking about the Internet and Search Engines in general, but we can focus on Google because it's the big one for now.
Really, what mayor wrote pinpoints a problem with the way SE's present results.
On any SERP where you see more than 10 results (all)it seems to be a toss up as to what site is placed where. Meaning- there really shouldn't be any RANKING of websites. Can many folks point to SERP's where the #10 spot is that much better than the number 20 or even 200?
Although I am still learning from this great forum here, I was able to learn enough to (in all probability) get a client to the Top 5 SERP's across the board for his Industry.
All the sites in his industry are pretty amatuer and were getting ranked on page title alone in some cases...
This is the situation for _many_ websites:
1) All the competition had the same backlinks because they all sell the same service.
2) They all sell the same service.
3) They are all legitimate companies.
4) They are all the same PageRank because they have the same backlinks. :)
5) Their content is more similar than not because..well, again- they sell the same service.
:)
Most people (99.9%) think for some reason a website is "better" because it's high up in the listings. In some SERP's the top sites are there because of dumb luck that someone titled a page with the phrase and it's in the description, and there's an H1 with the phrase as well.
I guess my point is as follows:
With literally millions of websites it's very inefficent to display them in a numerical order as it's done whether the rank is displayed (like Y!) or not.
Really- it's just plain silly. ;)
If I want to buy "shiny happy blue widgets" and there are 5,000 competent legit companies that can sell me "shiny happy blue widgets" will the #1 ranked site be the best place to buy it from?
...one hundred times better than the #100 ranked site? 1,000 times better than the #1000 site?
There just has to be a better (more fair) way of displaying results from websites.
Too bad broadband and 1280x1024 resolution on monitors wasn't the norm. I'd then suggest a display of screenshots of the relevant page like Alexa does for the Top 3 sites- only for dozens of sites could be displayed.
BUT...that's not the way it is and it won't be. :(
Anyone have suggestions as to how current SE's could improve? While I love this forum, the very fact that it is as popular as it is suggests things could be much better.
Sure, it's great that those with knowledge can get higher up the ladder, but the very fact we think of 'positions' and getting UP the rankings is a skewed perspective of the Internet...at best.
I wonder how many years it will take us to figure out how to best present the results of a global self publishing medium?
Sorry to be long winded...but I really had it on my mind because with this pending Google update I get to see the results of my first ever client SEO work.
OK- you may click past this really long message now. ;)
If what you said is true, the searcher will find more or less the same information on position 3 as he will find on position 20 of the SERPS relative to the industry you are describing.
In all occasions the searcher has found the right (the same) information.
Google is there for the searcher not for individual webmasters/companies.
Google adwords is for the latter.
If the searcher is unhappy he will have to use more, or more specific search terms, use local (geotargetted) search options or complain with Google on search results.
Also, this situation creates an oportunity for the one company of this industry to really try to publish even better quality information, with the chance of just getting that one link extra that will push him ahead of the crowd - making himself and the searchers happier.
I'd like to be more succinct and state:
The problem is that Google wants to provide relevant results, but ALL the websites listed will be relevant and Google or any other SE must get very granular in technical issues to decide who is MORE relevant.
If you own a company that sells 'blue widgets' you do so because there is demand. that means others will be selling the exact same thing you want to sell.
The traffic the top 5 listings get relative to Page 2 listings makes that prime virtual real estate.
One could easily argue that a company with a new website selling 'blue widgets' and hires an SEO company that uses shortcuts to get a site listed highly in that prime real estate is simply helping Google provide relevant listings (IF in fact, the site is relevant to the phrase).
If I sell 'blue widgets' and I'm a legit company, but have a new website why should my website get any less traffic than the top 5?
From a business owner's perspective it makes no sense that they have a service or product they want to sell same as the top 5 ranked sites but may NEVER get that prime real estate unless they hire someone to use techniques that would perhaps ban them from Google.
I think all of us should be able to relate to digitalghost's client frustrations.
If you sell a service or products and are losing most of your market share due to some silly technical reasons from thier point of view - they'll have to resort to PPC or an SEO firm that will do all the tricks no matter what.
Google DOES need to be _much_ more vigilant and _____consistent_____ in their actions against spam or their guidelines are useless.
From a business perspective again:
If someone's profit margin was good enough or if the site sells a service that gets repeat business from clients over years...
...would you rather spend 6mos or a year in the Top 5 for your most valuable phrase or spend an eternity getting the "left over" scraps of traffic at position 25 or worse?
The "risk" of using an SEO firm that employs frowned upon techniques is rectified by simply having another domain name reserved with the webssite ready to go, should Google ban the domain.
So, what- 2 mos down time to reap the rewards of Top 5 traffic over the course of say half a year or a year?
Heck- with the money they'd make (providing their offerings were good and site was good) in Top 5 position over time...even if banned....they could easily afford PPC on OV and AdWords for the new domain until Google picked it up and indexed it.
If the website is relevant to the search phrase entered and is within the Top ranked sites...it shouldn't matter _how_ they got there as they are offering a service the searchers are looking for.
There really should not be any sort of moral issues attached to SEO if you think of it purely from the business owners perspective.
Even from Google's perspective. They won't like it because they have a carefully crafted system in place and a few hundred folks dedicated to that system.
BUT...
If the goal of Google is to provide internet users with relevant results for the phrase entered, regardless of how it got there- if it's relevant that should be the final criteria.
Keep in mind I may sound anti Google and a proponent of 'naughty' SEO practices, but I'm not.
Simply stating, that much like digitalghost I'm sure I'll start to be pressured by clients who simply want results. IF Google was swift to penalize sites not playing by their rules, then OK.
But...that's not the case from all I've read here.
Clients who may initially agree to playing it safe and just report the spmaming sites in will lose faith in their SEO company/person if Google doesn't ACT on those spam reports.
So, by not acting quickly on spam reports Google makes honest SEO folks seem incompetent to their clients.
That ain't good. I'm glad my first SEO job was very cut and dry. I know in the future I will encounter the same thing digitalghost and many others have come across and will come across. :(
OK...that's all for my ramblings! :)
Regards,
AW
1.Google 'don't' create spam sites
2. They 'do' want to be seen to rank according to worth for visitors. That's why people use them as opposed to 'who pays the most get's to the top' merchants.
I think we should always bear these points in mind when deciding how to build sites and when to criticise.
In principle, the site with the best and most relevant information is at the top. Of course, that's not always the case but that is what Googles algo is trying to ensure.
If irrelevant or spammy sites are at the top, that is not necessarily the SEs fault unless they have taken payment.
Sure. Understood and I agree. However, I don't think digitalghost had a client who has a 'spammy' or irrelevant website.
My mindset was along the lines of legit sites that are brand new OR facing a block OF spammy sites who are on top and have been there as long as digitalghost mentioned.
Let's say his client said he wanted results period...
For example: If he added white text on white BG as H1 styled via CSS, got links to his client site via link farm, and got some respectable PR links if client was willing to pay for them...like the thread about the Fox news site selling PR9 links- and this bumped his client site WELL up...and client was happy.....
____AND_____ the website was very much on topic for the phrase punched into Google...from the visitor's perspective this is just another GOOD website they may wish to buy services/goods/information from.
To the visitor nothing would appear spammy at all.
Why should Google have a problem with that tactic as long as the site served up a page and site that WAS relevant to the searched phrase?
I'm honestly asking, not being a PITA. ;)
Clearly, if someone has some redirects and the page that comes up in the search doesn't relate to that search- that is spam.
AW
I taught my client about backlinks and he has the toolbar. So, I told him to checl all his competiton (top 10 at least) and pick up any of the links they have that you should be able to get.
So, he politely asked 3 PR4 sites for a link.
They all wanted reciprocal links which there was no way he'd do and I wouldn't blame him.
Why? NONE of his competiton who have the links from those sites reciprocate links as the link goes to a list of competitors.
The people replied that they were going to start checking to see if the listed sites were linking back...but doubt they ever did or will.
So, that's 3 PR4 sites that his competiton benefits from that he cannot get. I don't think they count much as his PR is equal (at least to the round number in toolbar) to all his other competition, but the competition will be benefitting a bit from those links while he cannot. Maybe they are a 5.5 and he is just a 5 for example.
My client worked hard to get other legit links but had to pay for them.
AW
If I want to buy "shiny happy blue widgets" and there are 5,000 competent legit companies that can sell me "shiny happy blue widgets" will the #1 ranked site be the best place to buy it from?...one hundred times better than the #100 ranked site? 1,000 times better than the #1000 site?
There just has to be a better (more fair) way of displaying results from websites.
When you have a lot of sites ranking closely according to whatever final score Google uses to decide the ranking order, it's pretty much the luck of the draw who gets to be on top. But once they get on top, they're usually assured of staying there for at least a whole month.
What if Google were to add a small random term to the final score for each site, on each individual search? Then if a bunch of sites come out almost equal, the random term would scramble the ranking order for each search, allowing each of those sites to come out at or near the top of the listings some of the time.
Not necessarily, and by design. "Best" place to buy from is a value judgement. Not doable with an algo based on site content, and link popularity.
What if Google were to add a small random term to the final score for each site, on each individual search? Then if a bunch of sites come out almost equal, the random term would scramble the ranking order for each search, allowing each of those sites to come out at or near the top of the listings some of the time.
Hmm...I don't think so...that's still a ranking system showing limited results. :)
A large page with multiple columns of screenshots with Alexa top 3 results sorta system would be my preference.
AW
Not necessarily, and by design. "Best" place to buy from is a value judgement. Not doable with an algo based on site content, and link popularity.
Exactly! ;)
I think an option on Google to display Alexa sized screenshots for each listing would be great. I realize there is a huge bandwidth issue for that though.
The current results don't help much to steer a person to what they'd like to see.
Add a screenshot and folks can discriminate based on visual appeal as to whether the site is for sure worthy to check out, maybe or for sure not.
Even if it was still a rank listing the screenshots would help a good deal with spreading out the traffic and let people click on sites they are initially attracted to.
Personally, I would even pay a small monthly fee to Google or Yahoo to get search results with print screents of the pages along with the description.
AW
Actually the only searches where Google doesn't do such a great job is where the SERPs have been manipulated (by us), and that's really not a big problem for the search engine is it? Like you said, one site is as good as another, so why bother trying to make it fair for the site owners? As long as the surfer gets what he wants, who cares?
Have you seen this? [labs.google.com...]
Is that what you mean by a screen shot?
<If I sell 'blue widgets' and I'm a legit company, but have a new website why should my website get any less traffic than the top 5?>
You've got to be kidding! You're talking about the top 5 SERPs being prime real estate, and that sites that have similar content should not be ranked as such.
But that's marketing.. that's how it works in business. The prime real estate in the Yellow Pages belongs to those who pay for it. The prime real estate in a retail store belongs to those who pay for it.
The difference here is that on the Internet, a business owner can potentially promote his site without paying for anything. He can develop content, and he can ask for backlinks. He can get these easier if he pays for them, but he can go creative and get them without monetary payment.
So for businesses, Google works pretty much like any other form of marketing, those who put in the money and the time get the results. For searches, the searchers doesn't care if he finds your business or someone else's, so long as he finds what he's looking for. Personally, I've never had reason to complain with Google's results.
<From a business owner's perspective it makes no sense that they have a service or product they want to sell same as the top 5 ranked sites but may NEVER get that prime real estate unless they hire someone to use techniques that would perhaps ban them from Google.>
It's very easy to get into the top five without spending money and without using techniques that will get you banned.
leo
OK. Get top 5 on a search for "travel" on Google and prove it to us. ;)
<<It's very easy to get into the top five without spending money and without using techniques that will get you banned.>>
<OK. Get top 5 on a search for "travel" on Google and prove it to us. ;)>
Perhaps if I had the free time, and a reason to other than that you wanted to see it :-).
When it became clear that link popularity systems such as Google's PR would take over from "fairly dumb" text analysis as a way of ranking sites, many webmasters vowed it would never work, citing that though it may work in the fairly rarefied academic environment which has its own "formal rules" and a peer review process built-in it would never work in a free-for-all free commercial market.
To some extent they were right. However Google always augmented PR with many other criteria including text analysis. It also used ODP and Yahoo, I feel, as a way of introducing a "review" process to (very imperfectly though better than none) way of providing some quality as peer review did in academia. This blunted the worst efforts of spammers and reciprocal linkers (please note these two categories are mutually independent!) to provide an "artifical" reputation for their site.
Google has successfully implemented a useful ranking system *though not perfect* for any queries other than the most commercially lucrative.
I have no doubt that google's aim is to reduce the ROI of SEO and spamming for commercial sites to the extent that the ROI for PPC/Adwords/Sponsored Links looks a viable option, and even better.
Google's algo NEVER WILL be able to "fairly" or appropriately be able to rank commercial sites in competitive query groups. Its a few PHD's against 1,000s of webmasters and cashed-up companies.
In reality, PPC based Adwords is a much better way for both Google and advertisers/commercial webmasters to expose their products on the Web.
If i was Google, I would even go further and hasten the process of advertisers moving from trying to get top poistions in the main index to paying for advertising in Adwords, by rotating all results for obvious selling type queries. As the first poster mentioned there is not much difference between them anyway. This would reduce the ROI for spamming and SEO and hasten the inevitable that people selling on the web, have to pay for exposure - same as in any media.
I really do think threads like this are based on old assumptions about search engines that no longer hold true. That selling from positions in search engines represents a sustainable business. It did a few years back as the SE industry was developing. It is increasingly obvious that it is not working any more, especially in the future.
If the goal of Google is to provide internet users with relevant results for the phrase entered, regardless of how it got there- if it's relevant that should be the final criteria.
All excellent questions and I don't think that I am mistaken in detecting an air of frustration:
- From the USER's perspective, many sites that offer the same SERVICE should be given the same chance of being found.
Any differences that Google finds among them are ARTIFICIAL to the user's needs.
- Clearly, they cannot displayed in the same place (very hard to read :) - but RANKING them implies an order of usefulness - which in reality doesn't actually exist.
- Well, Yahoo style order (Alphabetically) is just as useless. What else CAN be done?
IMHO - Google is 'not to be blamed'. There is simply NO OTHER WAY for software driven site. After all, any popular search result generates MILLIONS of pages - without the excellent algorithm to sort the most relevant among them Google would not have reached the position it now enjoys. In other words, every page ends up with a NUMBER attached to it - and the SERP just reflect that number. There is no way for Google to know that the first X pages (or sites) actually provide the same level of service to the user.
So, while Google improves all the time and will continue to do so - there seems to be a barrier above which it cannot go, and that's the notion that some DIFFERENCES are NOT important, as far as the user is concerned. That's something that (for the time being) only a human mind can.
Google realized it very early in the game, and incorporated the DMOZ directory, which is obviously human edited. It is well known that a site which appears in DMOZ enjoys a higher ranking in Google. I have no proof for it, but I am quite positive that a DMOZ appearance adds MORE to a site ranking than a link from an identically PR'ed page. This recognizes the fact that 'human do it better' - at least in that respect.
The upshot of it is that only a directory (which is human edited) can really do justice to all the sites that provide the same service - and place them on the same level. That, in turn, has to be complemented by displaying them on the same level too. Sure, it is impossible to do it at the same time, but there is no reason not to do it OVER time. There are several ways to do it, in a directory:
- Rotate the sites position every so often.
- Show a different and random rank of the sites every query
- Assign a random rank to every site for a given period of time.
Such solutions would be totally unsuitable to a software driven search site, like Google.
My 2c
The problem is, from the users point of view, that they too want relevant results
There are 2 ways of providing the user with results
1. A human directory. Humans do it better, but volunteers are unable to be managed within the constraints of the budgets that directories are prepared to allocate.
There are not enough volunteers to do the job properly anyway.
Purely professional editors do not seem to be an acceptable alternative. No directory has managed a business plan that works profitably and delivers relevant results.
2. Spiders finding pages and an algorithm to rank them appears to be the only alternative.
Any algoritm will have weaknesses which can and will be exploited. As of now Google appears to be the best we have available, in spite of its (many) weaknesses.
To the best of my knowledge, that remark is not true. Every post I have read here from informed posters, would indicate that a DMOZ link from a page has no more weight than a link from a similar PR page, with a similar number of links off that page.
Perhaps, but I would say that it should :) There is no way that a site which sells flowers in France will be accepted anywhere else in DMOZ. Also, the editors are fighting a very hard battle against spam, affiliates etc.
This is not a perfect world - but I do believe that they (and other directories) can make a significant contributions to the all elusive 'relevant SERP'.
This time I am only putting in 1c.
Ignoring for a moment the definition of 'relevant results', lets look at the recent (and not so recent) changes in this SE/Directories world.
I don't think I am aware of ANY instance that a SE has purchased a directory, it's only the other way round:
Looksamrt -> WiseNut
AskJeevs -> Teoma
Yahoo -> Inktomi
Overture -> Alta Vista AND fast
So, perhaps humans do it better after all :)
Gosh - I have no change left! I'll better do something about it...
jtbell wrote:
What if Google were to add a small random term to the final score for each site, on each individual search? Then if a bunch of sites come out almost equal, the random term would scramble the ranking order for each search, allowing each of those sites to come out at or near the top of the listings some of the time.
Hmm...I don't think so...that's still a ranking system showing limited results. :)
I think most people searching for something don't *want* to have to scan through a huge list of results. They want a relatively short list that has a good chance of containing something that they can use. Under those circumstances, if a lot of sites are almost equally good, from the searcher's point of view, the only way to be fair to the site-owners is to give them all a turn at being on the first page.
Showing up on the first page for (say) one out of four times for a given set of keywords wouldn't be as good as always being on the first page, but it would be better than being stuck on the second or third page all the time.
If sites abc, bcd, cde all the way through to xyz all sell shiny blue widgets, all have the same backlinks, the same PR, the same sparkling review in DMOZ, employ no dirty tricks, and have an excellent, navigable site which provides an excellent service....
... then site abc is just as much use to the user as all the others through to site xyz, isn't it?
And if that's the case, why should Google ever change the order of its listing?
Surely the aim is to help the user find what they're looking for, not to give equivalent websites equal turns at the top?
Many good comments here- and I'll pick at a few and make one post later on...
No. The Google viewerr is NOT what I meant by printscreens. :)
I have seen that before and don't like it at all. It does not seem to pull up my external files...CSS and JavaScript.
See what Alexa does for the top 3 results for what I'd like to see for every listing. 112x82 screenshots of the page right next to the results.
Will be back later to reply to some of the comments. Aren't ya'll thrilled? ;)
AW
To the best of my knowledge, that remark is not true. Every post I have read here from informed posters, would indicate that a DMOZ link from a page has no more weight than a link from a similar PR page, with a similar number of links off that page.
Technically the DMOZ link is worth no more than any other link.
But ODP is used to form hundreds of directories. And when sites are looking to put together a "useful links" page they will go out and see what the directories have for those categories. Google does not crawl all those copies of directories, but they do crawl some of them.
So in that way, your link in DMOZ is worth more than other links. I think it was Brett that referred to the links in DMOZ and Yahoo! as being "viral links".
the only way to be fair to the site-owners is to give them all a turn at being on the first page.
Google is not in this business to be fair to site owners, or to provide commercial interests with free advertising.
They are in this to try and give the user the absolute best site in the #1 position. Since most searches are for information, not shopping, then there is almost always a *best* page.
If your client wants better results, there are almost always additional legitimate things you can do for just about any search short of the truly spam filled serps. And there are people on this board that are able to get some really great results without spamming even in those spam filled areas.
Then there are others around here that sell their SEO services to small sites, where their biggest contirbution to the sites ranking is a link from their own site. Sure they mess around with the keywords and layout a little, but giving them a link from a PR6 "our clients" page makes them seem like miracle workers. But these SEO experts would be lost if they picked up an online gambling company.
If you are having trouble getting links, instead of hanging out here, go read the archives of the linking forum. Go produce content for your site that is worth linking to. Go be a useful participant on a listserv on your subject.
Educate your client that what they really want is qualified traffic. Worrying about position in a specific SERP is not really time well spent. There are always surrounding keyphrases that are easy to grab. They may not deliver anywhere near the traffic of being #1 in that big keyphrase, but you will still be increasing your traffic while you are creeping up on that main keyphrase. And having that broad base of keyphrases is good protection in case you fall off on that big phrase when google changes their algo.
I must say that I never have been able establish any backlinks on Google from any of these other directories that take DMOZ feeds.
It may well be that they are, by their very nature below PR4. But whatever the reason, there appears to be very little to gain in terms of PR on Google from these DMOZ clones.
I would be interested to hear if you have examples of clones that are spidered by Google and do give PR
AW, you mentioned showing thumbnails of search results. We actually tried that a while ago but stopped after running the experiment and measuring user response. GoogleViewer is another way to look at results, but I don't think it's the final answer either--although many people like it. So I guess my "short" answer to your question is that a ranked list works pretty well, but we're always looking for improved ways to present search results.
