Forum Moderators: open
If you speak to all the best Internet Marketing Pros they tell you SEO is a waste of time longterm, everyone in the industry has lost their position at somepoint from what I gather - or am I wrong?
I want to hear from anyone who has had long term success with SEO say for 6 months or longer....
Ok scenario: What if there were only three advertising agencies in the world (or the US) and one of them had accentually 85% of the advertising market. Let’s say that company 100% completely knocked your teeth in and pretty much said you couldn't advertise with them. You’re DONE!
Second scenario: A new and revolutionary SE comes into the picture and everyone jumps on board of this promising SE. Life is happy....10's if not 100's of thousands of companies (most new) jump on it like they have all the other SE's. Then over time this new SE isn't new anymore and you wake up one morning to notice that Sh1t, everybody and their FREAKIN brother is using it or an affiliate of it. WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSDED TO DO! YOU ARE *$%#. Google is a monopoly and it shouldn't be that way. There should be a level playing field.
NFFC would simply say -'roll with the punches, take it like a man, do this do that' (or was that Brett, GG - can't recall!)
Anyway, er, take it like a man etc. etc.
What a sophisticated bunch we are!
Sorry - but I'm a cynical Brit. - it's in our nature to be cynical, and it looks like we've all been sh$agged!
GG is an anglophile, saw him in York a while back, with King Arthur - but that's another story...
Kind regards
[edited by: superscript at 12:56 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
Anyone not wonder about the possibility of removing pdfs when google started indexing them? about perhaps changing use of flash if the new MS update changes how objects are embedded?
Things constantly need updating, the latest BMW Boxer motorcycle may still be a "flat twin" but thats about the only thing apart from two rather than 4 wheels which they share with the initial boxer twins made when BMW first started in production. Users and their marketing channels required progress ....
for webmasters it is the same, users and (one of the channels to them) google may also require change - if google changed rules and you were or are now outside the new definitions ... and some sites were .... or at least are now you just need to evolve a bit!
I dont disagree with much of what has been said, if you have a site / business model which is broad and can remain broadly static yet still bring in relevant traffic during algo shifts thats fine, its possible it will be across a different mix of searches but if its still relevant traffic which converts similarly thats fine and dandy, not guaranteed however nothing is.
If it transpires that your contents may still be great but your architecture or navigation has caused you penalty you may need to change things.
It bothers me a bit that google make so many tools available yet GG expects people to ignore them and just build sites "for users" without any analysis of users searching habits .... well building sites for users AND their searchiong habits is what I understand Bretts Guidelines being about .... when webmasters can analyise the top 20 - 50 sites for any term and find some measurables on them .... link pop, PR, density, site pages, linking pages and anchor etc etc etc ... then many of them will.
Google provided these tools and they get the raw logs of users habits on them ... why provide the tools at all is a question I dont really comprehend if Google actually expect (as GG has suggested) that we should ignore this data and just build contents and sites as we think users want?
[well in fact I think I do know why they provided them - but thats another story and its too long for this typing session]
However more importantly "webmasterworld is damaged" ....
It has happenned before .. I clicked notify updates on this thread because I thought it would remain a "non update" thread and only have thoughtful long term posts .. I dont need an email every couple of minutes thanks ... I want the option to remove my choice to receive updates on something which I previously selected .. but changed .. is that option there already and I dont know about it? if not can some admin remove me from this threads update emails ...? pretty please ..
[edited by: Stefan at 1:15 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
The Internet is already full of irrelevant nonsense - it makes no sense to produce more and more nonsense in order to succeed.
There's no sense, no logic, no competence in what is being proposed.
Deliberately de-optimise in order to optimise?
Think, sleep, then think again.
Then consider - Mad?
Yes!
Goodnight
p.s. ref: NFFC stands for Nottingham Forest Football Club -I have lived in Nottingham - a fine city - but Notts Forrest are rubbish ;)
[edited by: superscript at 12:49 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
Please try to remember that this is not the "Florida update" thread. It's a question about what is the right thing to do long term and specifically, if "Google SEO" is it (the right thing).
As ciml points out, (Google) SEO can actually be a business model - for SEO´s, or "Internet marketing types". It's true we had a window of considerable time; one that was so open that anyone could see it, and quite a lot climbed in. I said it quite a few times in posts here: It was too d*** easy.
Windows tend to close. New ones sometimes open. Still, if you want to sell widgets, concentrate on that - chasing windows will leave you with no time to sell any products.
If you have visitors coming in on "inferior pages" and these visitors don't buy anything, then that's not Google's fault. It's your site that just doesn't convert well. Make it convert better, that's what you should do - that, in turn, is no matter for a SEO, nor for a Search Engine. Then, if Google just doesn't send you enough visitors, find ways of getting that traffic, possibly alternative ones. As long as you earn more than you pay, you have a business model.
If your business model can't work without Google traffic - and that is true for at least some current business models, i know that much - then you'll have to invest what it takes to get that traffic, be it good content, shady tactics, plain advertising, SEO assistance, or whatever. It's a cost for your business plan. If you have matching revenues, then: no problem.
Otherwise, try reconsidering the business plan. I definitely don't mean to say "get out of business" rather, make all the changes you can to get less dependent on this one source. If it's possible to twist your business somehow, so that you can make a living with a less risky profile, then by all means do it.
I'm quite confident in restating that "Yes, Google SEO is a waste of time long term". That's simply not something you can make a living from long term, unless it's actually that thing you do for a living. Provided of course, that Google will also be around long term (which is not unlikely) and that SE's and "the internet" will also be what it is now, long term (which is less likely)
Does the shoe shop on the corner do it's own advertising? If yes, do their ads have reach in the millions? Are they among the Super Bowl ads(*) on TV? If yes, how much do you think they pay for it, and what is the price tag on a pair of shoes?
I recognize the mom&pop business thing. Yes i do, and i think the internet is a wonderful thing for such enterprises. I also think that there are several different kinds of businesses. Some may require more than others to become successful long term. Some may not even be long term by nature. Think about it.
/claus
[edited by: claus at 1:10 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
Yes my sites subpages rank for other keyphrases, but nobody searches using those keyphrases!
This site is a part of the wedding sector. 80% plus of searchers use a two word keyphrase to find this range of products.
The index page of this site ranked consistently from #3 to #7 for the past year. It is now nowhere to be found for this keyphrase.
This is the major issue many webmasters are facing after Florida. Their sites have gone from the rankings and they have no idea why. The google guidelines haven't helped because they've been followed to the letter. The site is clean HTML and CSS, uses descriptive Titles, Header tags, good internal linking, doesn't use keyword stuffing or irrelevant keyword h1 tags, doesn't have hundreds of crappy links from forums, blogs, but only links from related wedding sector sites and directories, most of which have requested the links due to being complementary sectors.
So please, someone do tell me...how can a site like this suddenly no longer be relevant when it is following every guideline in the book? If the google guidelines don't work longterm then what does?
I am perfectly happy with the site sliding up and down the rankings as updates happen, other sites appear and disappear, but to be absolutely nowhere for a keyphrase for no apparent reason...this can only be a filter of some kind that has been tripped, or the site would only have dropped 10,20,50 places.
If the google guidelines no longer protect us from update shifts, then long term, how are we supposed to achieve googles perception of relevance?
I don't agree with creating hundreds of pages of content...Our site has about 70 pages of content, which is all it needs. Other competitors have similar sites, and they are ranking well. I just don't understand what has caused this overnight disappearance for a keyphrase. If the google guidelines are missing something then I for one would like to know what it is so I can avoid it...
Specifically for the Florida update, it depends on how you fared with their most recent filter. Those doing the complaining have a valid complaint in most cases... those who are happy with the update, should consider themselves lucky that their particular market wasn't affected, and spend less time ridiculing those that Google slapped.
Having the advantage of a larger viewing area than some, I perceive 'Florida' as an update with two distinct characteristics:
The 'Florida Paradise' Update:
* I have several dozen news-related sites that have significantly improved after the latest update. Rankings continue to improve, regular freshtags (some same-day), and new articles going online (and to the top) in competetive 3 mil. search result categories;
* Several dozen commercial and e-commerce sites have continued to hold their own, or improve, despite G recently dumping an additional 1-2 million results in several categories;
* Several recently developed sites that for the prior two quarters would take several months to become stable in the SERPS, are now stable in a few weeks;
* Several sites that only maintain PR5 and PR6 PageRank, continue to dramatically increase in the SERPS in fairly competitive 5 mil. to 10 mil. search results.
The 'Florida Massacre' Update:
Out of more than 100 sites I manage, I have found only three that have fallen to the Google Florida-filter nightmare, and, for the sake of simplicity, will only focus on one:
* A commercial e-commerce site that has been online since 1996. Basic SEO, no tricks, just lots of quality content. The product line is in a fairly competitive market of 5 million+ total results, and there are a dozen competitors that we've been fighting over the top positions in Google for years.
While we all maintained solid page 1, sometimes page 2 positions throughout the many years, this latest update has literally wiped us ALL out!
There is not a single one of these websites that show up in the first 2 pages since -va dropped last Thursday. They have all been replaced by Amazon, Bizrate, dealtime, 'opinion' sites, and the rest are odd-ball throw-ins.
To make matters worse, Mine, nor the others even show up at all for our two-keyword phrase in the first 80 pages (800 results of Google using Google-100).
This is not a matter of sour grapes that, 'oops' we shifted to page 3, or even page 5. This is a serious problem that few see, but certainly affects the search results of the average user.
Obviously, if these results were only on my site, I would think it is an isolated problem. But, to wipe out a complete category of sites in favor of the 'mass merchandisors' tells me there is a much bigger problem we are dealing with.
[As a side-note, none of these sites are out of the index. Users just have to type in 'pink velvet widgets model 100,' rather than widgets - or to take GG's 'Cheesburger' example a step further, users must type in 'crushed apples with sugar and cinnamon,' rather than simply 'Applesauce.']
-----------
While overall I think the Florida update is an improvement, that last 2% can be a killer to those of us that have to deal with it.
Steve
Please try to remember that this is not the "Florida update" thread.
That's right, they took that thread away by locking it. This one will have to do.
dazzlindonna says:
it would be nice to hear one of the authorities on the subject explain why adding -getyeroldresultsback after the dropped phrase shows our sites back where they used to be.
ROFL. We're approaching the point of no return. They can fix this bug, at which point we all erupt into a chorus of "I told you so!", or they can fail to fix it, which means more and more webmasters start asking questions.
There is a third possibility: crank the knob back slightly. While I concur that the affected pages were most likely preprocessed and preparsed for e-commerce optimization terms, I still think there's an on-the-fly dictionary that's consulted. If not a dictionary, at least an on-the-fly threshold variable that can be adjusted between zero and 100.
I think what might happen, assuming that Googleplex mid-managers care at all and can convince Sergey and Larry, is that we might start seeing the threshold variable get turned down a bit, or start seeing some terms purged from the dictionary, or both.
By the way, there is one person who has done a bunch of testing and claims, on some other forum, that most terms relating to the practice of SEO (in other words, the terms that SEO professionals might use to describe themselves on their own sites) have been excluded from the so-called "dictionary." This, along with all the diversity of BBS, would explain why WebmasterWorld and similar BBS sites didn't get hit.
If true, this means it was all carefully premeditated at the Googleplex. But who even doubts this anymore?
No use, Claus. Discussions about longterm Internet strategies will have to be led elsewhere. There were some points that I would have liked to comment, but I consider it to be hopeless.
[edited by: Newman at 1:32 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
If you add -mt-tb.cgi to the end of any keyword affected the results look like they are back to normal with some changes in ranking.
the extension -mt-tb.cgi seems to generated by Weblog sotware Movabletype.org when it creates a trackback. I need some of you experts help, but if you do a search for this on Google by itself without the (-) in front it generates blank pages created by trackbacks. If you follow the second result for this search and then go to the homepage listed on this page you will see that the blog is powered by movabletype.org by a very small link on the right hand side of the page.
So here's my question... what's does this have to do with me setting up reciprocal links with other companies that want to help me do business and why should Google penalize me..... I didn't even know what a blog was until Sunday and this is the second post 9now third) I've made. What am I to do?
Google is a monopoly and it shouldn't be that way. There should be a level playing field.
[edited by: buckworks at 1:33 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
it would be nice to hear one of the authorities on the subject explain why adding -getyeroldresultsback after the dropped phrase shows our sites back where they used to be.
It just occured to me what that is. It is a 3 word phrase or it is one more word than it was before. Trying doing a search with one word and 10 "-" Google will only let you do 9 because 10 words is the max for a searh. Google looks at the "-" as a word. The -asdfadsf means nothing so it returns the right results for a 3 word pharse not a 2 word phrase.
Google is now presenting lots of ideas to the user, in an effort to match the context of the results with the idea(s) within the users head. Googles results are now showing abstractions of the ideas within the search phrase which is why they look irrelevant when viewed with your particular focus.
When you look at the Top 10 results for searches now you see that Google is offering variety - its not really an ordered list. Perhaps this has always been the case with pure informational areas, but in the money areas we are used to seeing exact matches with the search phrase - webmasters had learned to feed the algorithm what it wanted to climb up the ladder. In part, Google were responsible for this - Page Rank and its Toolbar representation actually encouraged the 2D view. By learning the elements of the algorithm, coupling it with PR, commercial webmasters had managed to impose implicit commercial ideas on most search terms so more and more search results began to have an implicit commercial aspect.
Google have just changed all that. Your website can no longer rise to the top on specific keyword relevancy alone. There is going to have to be a context within which the search terms exist on your site. Google can't know the exact context of the users search (especially for short 2-3 word phrases) - your webpages are going to have to help it offer different contexts to the user. Not only will Google use on page factors to determine the conetxt of your webpage its going to use inbound links and anchor text - BUT here is the real difference - the keywords being in the anchor text isn't going to help - its the idea within the anchor text, which probably includes ideas of where the link originates as well.
If your webpage is useful in lots of different ways, then you will stand a good chance of being visible. This is going to make it much harder to gain an advantage using reciprocal links - how do you know what text to put in the links? That's why your're going to have to build content that will be naturally linked to for a whole lot of reasons - some you wouldn't even have considered.
All considerations about is H1, H2, keyword density, URL, etc, are now trivial - they just aren't going to help get *just another set of words* elevated up the rankings.
The impact of this on commercial websites, particularly affiliates and widget resellers is going to be devastating. I imagine that the rankings will now change frequently - unless you are a mega-brand or niche authority expect lots of constant turbulence. If you're hawking what 100,000 other websites are hawking then find something new to hawk. If your promoting products that 100,000 other websites are promoting then you'd better have something interesting to say about them.
If you can't find anything new to hawk and you don't have anything interesting to say then enjoy your hobby website.
Google is now in a different league to any of the other SEs. AV is simply where Google was last month - it will take them years to catch up.
The index pages aren't coming back. Think about it.
EOD.
[edited by: claus at 1:50 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
Google is now in a different league to any of the other SEs. AV is simply where Google was last month - it will take them years to catch up.
Nah, it's just a crude filter. Some of us have done too much homework over the last week to believe otherwise.
Or, it's an incredible, four-dimensional, sophisticated artificial intelligence algorithm that behaves exactly like a crude filter for all intents and purposes. Darn! Twenty years of AI research is shown to be fraudulent!
Take your pick.
It's a question about what is the right thing to do long term
Long term?
Google years are now like dog-years, but kicked up a few notches.
Therefore, "long term" in "google-years" means next week;)
The only question for me is how to rack up more traffic by TOMORROW;) (or possibly Saturday at the latest).
"Next week" is as long term as I am willing to contemplate;)
And guess what. Im back in my regular spot for the keywords that matter to me, but not all former keywords.
And I have a freshbot date of Nov 23.
I not sure if www-in is the start of the new update to be spawned across the other datacenters, or just a test database. Anyways the results are post-florida.
[edited by: LateNight at 3:50 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
I had succombed to the idea that Google was filtering some sorts of searches - I no longer believe that. Its just that webmasters have gotten used to the 2D view, the view from their one particular focus, especially when that focus is commercial.
I only partially agree with your assessment of the new landscape, but I also believe kackle's long term analysis is true and dead-on accurate, and a part of this new landscape.
Those who think no KW filter is being applied are misleading themselves I think, because I have done tests for similar keywords (which are all used in the same context).
Here are the results of those tests:
Of the several KW's tested, they all rank "top 10" except for the one KW which originally had a slightly higher density than the others. The higher density KW is no longer ranked at all (nowhere to be seen within the top 500) but the similar KW's (which are used in the same context and have many of the same words) are now ranked top 10.
This kind of throws a wrench into the theory that google is using only "context" based searches and no KW filtering whatsoever.
I do know that google is also using "context" filters and some form of "word stemming" as you have stated (that is correct), but they are ALSO using KW filters as Kackle has said. It's a broad new landscape, it includes all of these things.
By the way, this information is important for LONG TERM seo on google, because how can you plan for long term seo without discussing what we know about the current algo?
Forget PR, just exchange links with on topics sites that will help YOUR visitors. Forget the whistles and bells and stick with nothing more that boring old HTML. the oooh arrh days have long gone. People don't have time, they want the stuff downloaded ASAP.
Bottom line is, build your site for humans and NOT Google, being humans ouseleves we know pretty much what they want. Googles ultimate aim is to give humans what they want. Regardless of what we read, make your Titles and Meta tags readable for humans with some keywords inculded. Don't even bother with keyword density, just write text on your pages for your HUMAN visitors. Once you do this humams will find you via Google.
Stop wasting time and engery (that should be channeled on your site)checking all Googles data centers for various keywords/phrases 10 times a day then posting your findings back here. It's a TOTAL waste of time and only complicates what is really very simple. Same goes for Allintitle etc Remember your visitors don't search this way. 99% simply type in some keywords.
Although common sense is not always that common, in this case it is.
Dave
And why for the love of google is another of my sites which has a distinctive whiff of the spam about it, and has keywords stuffed not only in H1s, titles and internal links, but stuffed up it's jumper and down it's pants, doing really well after this update in comparison to my whitehat site that is trying really hard to be a good little googleoid?
I hereby give up. I'm off to spend more on overture.
"Those who think no KW filter is being applied are misleading themselves I think, because I have done tests for similar keywords (which are all used in the same context)"
And there is the flaw in your argument. You have decided that the words are all in the same context within your own mind. To 10,000 or 100,000 other people those words could represent very different ideas within their own mind. This is the leap that Google are making - they are preventing webmasters from imposing their own ideas on what keywords mean and assessing the web in general to see all the different ideas that exist around the keyphrase the user has entered.
This is web cartography Google style. And to many website owners its going to be unreadable.
