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....
Very nice, but do not forget : GG is a business, and the e-commerce sites pays your bills
Marin, I agree.
I also see GG's point though. Sure, it's not going to be perfect immediately. Some further analysis on phrases and user behaviour, to determine if they are likely to be purchase-oriented searches, would be useful information to phrase in over the ensuing months.
[edited by: James_Dale at 5:11 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]
I don't understand. (Yes I've read Bretts articles)
If the page that obtains 50 referrals a day does just that, then surely you've succeeded in giving the searcher exactly what they wanted. No?
How many pages can you add about a certain product without it appearing spammy?
Before Florida my site (index page) was number 1 in its niche and I was receiving on average 6 uniques per sale. My traffic has halved since Florida and now I am receiving 18 uniques per sale from vistors entering my site by internal pages that are related to my product. It seems that vistors are just not receiving what they're searching for. That sentence doesn't sound quite right, I know what I want to say but dont know how to word it. The page that has replaced mine is only remotely related to my product. The rest of the serps look like I just did a link:mysite.com, ie. it lists pages that only have my backlinks on them, serps page after page. These are topic related sites but definetly not what the user would have been looking for.
Why replace a site that was precisely what the searcher was looking for with obscure slightly on topic sites?
superscript, why wouldn't you type buy cheeseburger or cheeseburger prices?
Normally I would, but at the moment, adding 'buy' produces some even stranger results.
If you recall GG, I was the chap who survived the first wave of Florida - the one who you first used the now famous 'white hat' phrase with.
Now I'm sunk!
But the best of respect anyway.
I think Google has become more concerned with "who" is on top and/or "how" they got there, when in fact the most important thing for a search engine to be concerened with is "what" is on top and "how relevant" it is.
I think Google has shifted too much from a "provider of relevant results" to a "policer of who is providing results" and "how they are doing it". And as a result I think the relevancy of their search results has taken a huge hit.
There are others who may see it differently. But I see many people questioning the results they are getting.
My wife mentioned it to me this weekend that she just couldn't find anything and it was really causing her trouble timewise because of her deadline... She had no idea why she was having trouble finding what she was looking for. Naturally I told her what was going on and suggested using alltheweb until Google can give her the relevant results she requires on a daily basis.
GL
[edited by: ineedmoreexercise at 5:16 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]
I have a question regarding your recent statements.
Are you trying to justify the way the results are now?
Or..
Are you letting us know the justification for why they are this way now?
Thank you
This seems like the right direction to go in. I think it will ultimately make Google a better search engine from a user's perspective. It might take a few months, but I am sure Google had gone as far as it could go with the old ranking methods.
Anyway, I used "cheeseburger" as an example of real life thinking, knowing that using "cheeseburger" wouldn't step on many web toes.
Thanks for clarifying GG, I hope it works for you guys.
I don't understand. (Yes I've read Bretts articles)
If the page that obtains 50 referrals a day does just that, then surely you've succeeded in giving the searcher exactly what they wanted. No?
That point is not about google, it's about webmasters placing too much reliance on one performing search term.
Google is the first to admit to not being perfect, so don't rely on perfect SERPS - instead, spread the betting.
TJ
Many SEO techniques will no longer work. It has become much harder to game the system I think. This is great news for the searching public, and horrible news for most people here at WW.
Every update effects lots of people - but not all saw negative results, and certainly not the 99.9% of the old pros. Many of them, made out like bandits this update. There are guys throwing parties and headed to Vegas right now.
Are you trying to justify the way the results are now?Or..
Are you letting us know the justification for why they are this way now?
I dont think GG has to justify anything to us. I thank god that he came back here to offer some real advice after all the rubbish that was posted in the update threads.
Seems to me that he is letting us know why things are the way they are and what needs to be done to win in the end.
I think the free lunch on Google is over.. I believe we have just begun a new era in SEO.
P.S. Caryl: Welcome to WebmasterWorld!
[edited by: synergy at 5:22 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]
I think you nailed it. The primary focus of this update appears to be something other than increasing relevancy. In
my opinion "increasing relevancy" has always got to be #1 for an engine that relies on people turning to them everyday for relevant results. But something other than relevancy appears to have jumped to the forefront.
At least, that is how I see it. I could be wrong now. But I don't think so. It's a jungle out there. It's a jungle out there.
[edited by: ineedmoreexercise at 5:23 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]
+ Informative textual content
+ Logical site navigation
+ Logical page structure
+ Accessibile page structure
+ Lean, clean code
+ Valid HTML and CSS (W3C standards)
+ Links
I think it's reasonable to assume that SE's will be *trying* to reward those, even if they don't always get it right. So .. no matter what else you do, strive to be strong in those basics.
As for Google "destroying businesses" ... Google cannot touch your traffic that comes from well-placed, relevant links and ads, Google cannot touch your traffic that comes from bookmarks, Google cannot touch your traffic that comes from off-line publicity, Google cannot touch your newsletter lists, Google cannot touch your word-of-mouth recommendations ...
Um, you do have those, don't you?
[edited by: buckworks at 5:23 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]
Anyway, I used "cheeseburger" as an example of real life thinking
Er, I think we gathered that :) - but it gives me an idea for my next business venture. I am going to sell Spam (tm) on the Internet!
I will be the most successful Spam merchant on Google!
[edited by: superscript at 5:22 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]
Why is your perception of what people are looking for the overriding one? No disrespect intended, but I think your bias is fairly strong here.
I know when I search for a recipe, let's say, I use the word recipe in my search. If I want some othet piece of information, I would include that in my search.
However, when I want to purchase something like.... I don't know, a pellet gun or something, I'll search on the brand name... maybe I'll use the word "discount" or "deal".... or something.... of that nature.
Why does ecommerce get such a bad rap...? I would venture to guess that the majority of people running a business on the web, and using Google for traffic, want the same things Google does. We don't like competeing with spammers, redirectors, etc..
There IS a difference between informational websites and commerce websites. They can't be measured in the same ways...
