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....
Everything hinges on whether the average user (and despite everything else I do actually USE the search) will get the results they seek. I just don't think the results are quite right at the moment and until they are, the future of SEO AND Google rather hangs in the balance. Chicken and egg possibly.
Quite seriously thinking of using this... now which engine shall we promote?
The only one that could purchase G and put all those people out of a job? ;-)
1) Relevancy is relative
Current SERPS are not less relevant - they are less specific. Being less specific, it means that they are relevant for a higher proportion of any interpretation of the search phrase (Added: Also, a variety of websites gets a place in the spotlight on page1).
The reason the pattern is hard to see, is because Google has a high number of features [google.com] and advanced operators [google.com] - any and all of these might be at play here - and then some. (Added: level of competition for searchphrase seems to have some influence as well)
2) There are means to narrow down your search
Example: blue dotted jumpsuits <-- broad results
Try any of these specific results if you're not satisfied (Added: please do try them, and take note of the differences, i'm not being arrogant here, just offering advice):
Q1: "blue dotted jumpsuits"
Q2: blue dotted +jumpsuits
Q3: +blue "dotted jumpsuits"
Q4: blue dotted jumpsuits -green
Q5: blue dotted jumpsuits blue
Q6: blue dotted jumpsuits blue dotted
Q7: blue dotted jumpsuits -green -overcoats
Now, stop that "-gimmiebacktheold" (or "-mt-tb.cgi") nonsense, please. More info here:
1) [google.com...]
2) [google.com...]
3) Words in search terms matter
Search for blue. Search for dotted within results. Search for jumpsuits within results. For each of these keywords the searcher could in fact be uncertain, as to if this was the proper word. Search for blue within results again. Do look at the search box - did you know what you were doing?
4) There is no SEO filter or conspiracy
There might be all kinds of filters, including such that should filter adult content and/or spam. These might still need fine-tuning (Added: In the case of spam, i still think much could be done. Some spices may still need to be added to the "sauce"). Of course Google (as a company) also would like people to spend on AdWords.
Still, as others have pointed out, there are several money-searches still returning highly optimized sites. Some optimized sites are not broad/good/spammy/bad/lucky/whatever enough to be in the broad search, others are - that's basically it.
5) Recognize that Google is a Search Engine
It's not a marketing tool, meaning - it is "pull" and not "push" (if that makes any sense to you all). The Google SE team (as opposed to the AdWords team) has one objective only: To make these SERPS better for users.
Not the sub-category of users that are also webmasters, and not the subcategory of user-webmasters that also do marketing, specifically not those also doing SEO. I believe Google SEO is helpful to Google on numerous occasions, eg. it can deliver very targeted results for specific searches thanks to SEO.
Still, Google's business is "understanding users" - if your business is also "understanding users", you will do good in Google. Short term AND long term.
I will have nothing more to add to the "current SERPS" highjacked subject of this thread. <-- i do mean that.
/claus
[edited by: claus at 2:11 pm (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
playing straight into the hands of..<!-- include Major Search Name engine --> one feels ;)
NOT!
aspdesigner,
* many of the searches people are finding us on via Google are not relevant to our site. (the random sprinkled keyword thing) It's nice to know we are top-10 for things we aren't even relevant for, but I'm sure it's got to be p*'ing-off some surfers!
Funny how that works ;)
Bad News: Client of ours no longer comes up for locality, state services/keyword offered/keyword that is now showing 376,000 results compared to previous #5 position (nor does any companies related to the service offered).
Good News: They hold the #2 position for state very broad keyword out of 1,260,000 results (site is not really at all relevant to this term).
Their traffic is up, but it is irrelevant traffic. It is doing very well for terms it could never have achieved before this update (and shouldn't) with many 1st page listings with up to 7 million results – trouble is they are irrelevant terms.
I do not believe this update will stick – it can't IMHO. The only way it can stick (conspiracy theory ..ha) is that if Google is making the serps irrelevant so people must click on AdWords or they are going for bragging rights "Our number of searches has gone up 10-times since this update", which may be true since people repeatedly search trying to find relevance ;)
Right now I believe AllTheWeb is showing much more relevant results, and I'm saying this without checking sites positioning that we are connected with in any way.
i find it strange that you comment that google is for mr. joe public and not webmasters/seo's yet you comment on how advanced search options should be used to narrow down results.
is that what joe public really wants? do they want to perform 3 searches before they find what they are looking for?
i have designed my website so users can find what they want quickly and with the minimum of clicks. i believe google should do the same.
From other posts I have read in the past few months it was very clear that anchor text was about the only thing you needed to rank well.
For the future, if another feature seems to have the same power as anchor text did (pre Florida) it would be a good idea to use it sparingly. In other words, don't put all of your eggs in one basket, which is what I think has happened to many people.
This is what makes Brett's theory work so well. If you develop content, work on links, work on usability and even a little 'strategic' copy, etc. you won't get slammed by a single new filter. And your users will like it too.
I had a site get hammered, but only for one keyword combination. The one in the anchor text, in the title, in the H1 tag, in the content. But because of the rest of my work, I'm sitting above all of my competators for every other keyword combination.
I don't know if SEO should be used for Google over the long run. As GG has said over and over, design for your users, Google likes that. Can your users tell what your site is about? Can your users find your site while 'surfing' through your topic in general? Can your users quickly find items or information on your site? Well then GoogleBot can too.
It seems that Google is trying to design a search that will basically save you the 'surfing' time and let you jump right into the middle of the wave. So go Old School and design like you did before the search engines really came about. (but leave out the 'blink' tag please)
Pretend that the only way to find your site is to get links from other sites. Try to get links that people will follow. Don't be afraid to give links, it's what makes the web go around, if your site is a dead end then the chances are that people won't come back.
If you got hammered with this update then I hate to break this to you, but you were doing things wrong. It's unfortunate because I'm sure your site was relevant, but it's time to get to work and clean up your mess. Change your Title, H tags or whatever it takes to get past this filter then think of a way to diversify your keyword anchor text so that it won't be a problem in the future.
* Hopefully that gets us back on topic ;o)
* we're getting a large # of hits from other SEs as well, especially MSN
* many of the searches people are finding us on via Google are not relevant to our site. (the random sprinkled keyword thing) It's nice to know we are top-10 for things we aren't even relevant for, but I'm sure it's got to be p*'ing-off some surfers!
Also The_Contractor
Ditto 100%
This is exactly what we are seeing. Google traffic for our large-ish 10,000 page sites is normal or increased, but conversion rates have plummeted.
It is simply low quality, largely irrelevant traffic.
Also we're seeing significant action from MSN for the first time.
No they don't, and they'll vote with their feet.
>>If you develop content, work on links, work on usability and even a little 'strategic' copy, etc. you won't get slammed by a single new filter<<
I would agree with that up to this point.
>>but only for one keyword combination<<
Mine was actually 2, but that is beside the point. The point is that, if that is what 90% of the people using a SE that makes up an 80% market share uses, well. What then?
>>design for your users<<
Did that. It didn’t make any difference in the long term.
>>So go Old School and design like you did before the search engines really came about.<<
Well, that is the only way I know how to design. I have hardly any graphics, no PHP, no ASP, etc.
>>If you got hammered with this update then I hate to break this to you, but you were doing things wrong<<
I hate to break this to you, but it depends on what you main KW’s are and who also uses those kw’s. But this isn’t about people falling a few spots. It’s about falling a few HUNDRED or THOUSAND spots.
>>but it's time to get to work and clean up your mess.<<
Unless you know a mess exists, you should not point fingers.
>>Hopefully that gets us back on topic<<
People need and will vent. It’s just a question of where and how.
Well this should change but at the moment the questions are when and how.
Also, whether the SERPs are relevant or not will vary from user to user. As I have already said, if you want more relavence then learn how to search with Google.
Current SERPS are not less relevant - they are less specific. Being less specific, it means that they are relevant for a higher proportion of any interpretation of the search phrase.The reason the pattern is hard to see, is because Google has a high number of features and advanced operators - any and all of these might be at play here - and then some.
Huh?
I had a client once who kept insisting that if consumers would just take the time to learn how to use his product, they would love it. He was a pretty technically oriented guy. Not very successful though. :o
You may not like how things have changed for your sites, but in the big picture, the public can still find what they want. Maybe they have to put in another search phrase to do it, but big deal. What is the alternative. Most of the public has never heard of Fast, Alltheweb, Gigablast, etc., and even if they have, the results are inferior.
Once in a while, I can run a search on one of the other search engines, and I find a good site that isn't shown on Google, but that is the exception to the rule.
Stop wasting your time, and just get back to work on your site. Don't focus on SEO. Focus on whatever your site was originally created for. Google has a business model, and it is based completely on delivering the most relevant sites for searches. Go make your site more relevant.
I feel I like I'm a little late in responding.
I have sites that are still doing well I admit, but this does not mean that all the serps are fine. People who are moaning, do so for a reason. I can not believe that this update represents an attempt to improve the serps. The results are just too poor to say this. Strangely though if you do the double minus thing, the results are excellent. It is like Google purposefully tried to remove relevant and authoritative sites.
[edited by: Marcia at 2:25 pm (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]
[edit reason] Please, no specifics pointed out. [/edit]
This is exactly what we are seeing. Google traffic for our large-ish 10,000 page sites is normal or increased, but conversion rates have plummeted. >>
Yah, that seems to be the case for many. More hits, less leads. We are generating tons of traffic on terms that are simply irrelevant to our sites.
For example, you look for product x on google. The first 5 search results are irrlevant, the next 5 show inferior information or sites that have long been closed down.
Search MSN for product x, the top 5 search terms are sites recently updated containing the exact product you are looking for.
I searched for one product y on google and went through 6 pages of serps before finding what i was looking for.
I am an SEO, but as a consumer i have already started to use MSN as a base as it gives me what i am asking for now what they think i am asking for..
The facts are that now good content is being negated by google, most of the top 10 sites on most search terms are now not good content sites as they are not using exact match or 100% relevancy anymore. This is not what search engines where designed to do in the first place, exact match is the ultimate from a consumers point of view, it is one click purchasing. Google is happy because the consumer is happy and they will keep coming back.
Has anyone every studied the effects of irrelevant results and consumer behaviour? How long will a consumer put up with 'broad results' and 10 click purchasing before they look for another option? The has to be the life time value of a search engines consumer.
Can this not be just a matter of days or searches before the real world, not SEO's start to move away from google as a base.
Google will always be huge, but that doesnt gauruntee the fact that consumers are not stupid and neither are SEO's. It doesnt take long for the bank balance to dwindle at major corporations or smaller private SEO's before action will be taken. We are certainly not going to die out because google has decided that it knows what the consumer wants!
>Google has a business model, and it is based completely on delivering the most relevant sites for searches.
Then its broken isnt it
Dismissing this so glibbly is a little bit of an insult, IMO :)
You think google has improved? fine search with them, but as a searcher that cannot find what I want without have to make several jumps through irrelevant sites and links/directory page, it's forcing me elsewhere fast.
Example:
If I want directories listings predominantly returned, I would simply go to a directory website and find from there.
BTW, hats off to WW for apparently making a difficult decision temporarily allow some posters to provide real world search examples. Were that to go on regularly, the boards would deteriorate badly, no doubt, but right now, the widget examples don't really help, and the specific examples do. Uses should continue to be very thoughtful and conservative about using them though. IMHO, anyway. :-)
I am particularly concerned that a select few of the senior folks here have taken a "rose colored glasses" approach to this whole situation.... [SNIP] ...Those who have been around a few years may remember another time Google had a "problem".... [SNIP] ...People were screaming bloody murder. Google never admitted that anything was wrong. But on the next update, all the SERPs mysteriously changed back to normal...
Maybe that's why some of the senior folks are wearing "rose-colored glasses": They've learned through experience that, when Google screws up, it fixes its errors in due time.
I doubt very much, for example, that Google will simply ignore the "missing index pages" problem, which is a problem for Google (not just for Webmasters) since it obviously isn't logical for a site's home page to go missing when its inside pages haven't been banned from the index. But it may take a few days or weeks for such problems to be identified, analyzed, and resolved. Why? Because taking a brute-force approach by rolling back the update might fix the problem in the short term, but it could algo negate whatever progress Google has made on other fronts with the latest update.
Being patient isn't always easy (especially if your revenues are down), but sometimes it's the only option.
>>Go make your site more relevant.<<
I deal with a technology that was developed in the mid 80’s by Motorola. I worked there and was involved in the development of this technology. I have articles on its concepts and problems in the beginning plus original documentation that no one else has. How much more relevant could I get?
europeforvisitors:
>>Being patient isn't always easy (especially if your revenues are down), but sometimes it's the only option<<
Yea, and when you need hits for food, it is even worse ;-))
Is Google SEO long term?
Hey nice one ASPdesigner... I must be getting better you knew what I meantQuite seriously thinking of using this... now which engine shall we promote?
Let me know if it works ;)
Quite right on the code, TMI - I added the UCase as an afterthought, and forget to change the literal - teach me to pgm with no sleep! LOL
>>now which engine shall we promote<<The only one that could purchase G and put all those people out of a job? ;-)
Oh, No, Mr. Billlll.......
(SNL)
Current SERPS are not less relevant - they are less specific.
No, when I say non-relevant, that's what I mean.
When you do a search for jewelry and a real estate firm comes up, that's not "less specific".
I'm begining to think that the term "broad search" is now Google-speak for "poor search quality".
incywincy, good point.
I see quite a few of you are also seeing the same thing regarding the relevancy of Google referrals.
RE: perspective, it doesn't hurt me any if more people are coming to our site from un-relevant search results (it's just more traffic for us) The people who are being hurt by this is the USERS.
europe, it's one thing to be patient, it's another entirely to deny that a problem exists. If the only opinions expressed were of the "rose colored glasses" variety ("no, really, all the SERPs are better than ever!"), then Google might think all was fine and dandy, and hold off on making any changes for a while. I am sure that many of the people here (as well as actual frustrated USERS of Google), would prefer this be fixed sooner rather than later, particularly given the time of year!
"Broad match killing relevancy"
[webmasterworld.com...]
Déjà vu anyone?
1. Google has grown arrogant, making some of its executives as frustrating to deal with in negotiations as AOL's cowboy salesmen during the bubble.
2. It has grown so fast that employees and business partners are often confused about who does what.
3. (Larry)Page says he doesn't spend much time worrying about competitors: "That's not what we're about. We think of what we do as adding more value to the world." (My comment: I think I'll grab my love beads and head for a job at Nirva..., I mean, Google.)
4. Not doing evil is a common concern around Google and loosely translates into avoiding anything that mars Google's user experience, "even at the expense of revenue,"...
5. Those close to Google say that the company has begun to more closely resemble a madhouse than any kind of serene dot-com dream. It's a tough place to work, and a tough place to do business with.
6. And to them (Brin and Page), work experience counts far less than where you went to school,...
7. Aversion to bureaucracy is turning out to be better in theory than in practice. People who work at or do business with Google worry that the company has outgrown that style.
8. Business partners, meanwhile, have had trouble determining who makes decisions among Google's employees.
Long-term SEO may not even be necessary with a company posessing a corporate culture like that.
seasalt
