Forum Moderators: open
Peek into the mind of... Joe Surfer:
Google is the first place I go when I want to find something on the Web or figure out virtually anything. I not only type search terms into Google, I regularly ask it questions—and it nearly always has the answers.Google Watch and other search watchdog sites also worry about how easily others can manipulate Google's algorithms... I can't say I've seen evidence of this manipulation, however.
...odd how in technology, whenever one brand or product becomes dominant, fearful libertarians come out of the woodwork decrying anticompetitive practices, privacy invasion, and technical malice... But Google? This company won a brand name that became a verb the old fashioned way- by earning it.
Dogpile seems really nice if you like seeing "sponsored listings".
I use Google because it "usually" gives me the best results for the things I'm looking for. Period. They've earned their popularity.
My answer to his question: No, that is by no means outside the realm of probability.
If you're hoping for a reversal of these serps, you better plan on spending a lot on AdWords.
MQ
To me, G is much better than it was a few months ago. Squeaky clean results.
It would take google to give really really messed up results to make an average user move from G as his/her first choice.
Not true at all. All it takes to get Joe Surfer to change is to have the same people (the webmaster community) who spread the word about Google being better than AltaVista to begin talking about some of the available alternatives.
I switched ny homepage to Google shortly after AV's Black Monday. I then went out of my way to tell my family and friends about Google. Now, four years later, I've switched my hompage back to AltaVista. I've also reset all the computers in our office (about 20)and I've begun the process of telling all my friends and family that they should switch.
All together, I will more than likely get at least 100 people to switch by the end of the month. Now that might not be much in the big picture, but that process will be replicated by hundreds of other webmasters.
That is how Google was built, and that will be how it is destroyed.
Martinibuster hit the nail on the head when he said "My AdWords spend has shot up since this update and I think the serps have a great deal to do with it."
Do you suppose that increased adwords spending is the result of good, or bad, end user search results?
I'd wager that this increase is due to users NOT finding what they need in the serps and having to turn to Adwords to find something relevant. This means BAD serps....
Ultimately this is bad for Google. Why? Well, increased webmaster spending on Adwords means that the serps are failing "Joe/Jane user" and they are turning to Adwords to find some relevance.
When the serps fail to earn money for webmasters, they will start having to use Adwords. Ha! Good you say... right? Wrong... more desperate webmasters trying to recover profits means more competition for profitable KW's. This in turn means higher cost to webmasters. This higher cost would be fine if profits still came from free listings, however the very thing that started this cycle will end it, namely bad serps.
Many webmasters make the bulk of their money from free listings. The money they are spending for Adwords comes primarily from that profit. If the free listings aren't bringing in a profit, the webmaster has less money to spend on Adwords.... or maybe NO money to spend on Adwords.
Now what? Well, now you have only the biggest businesses being able to afford Adwords and ultimately less choice for end users...
Google is biting the hand that feeds them. It's not "Joe/Jane user" that buy Adwords. Granted, it's "Joe/Jane user" who start the process, but it's a carefully balanced symbiotic relationship that makes it all work.
Many people won't forget the sting of this update. Especially if that person truly feels that they had followed the rules. The timing of the update, the number of websites devalued, etc.. smacks of profiteering...
I hope that this is all a mistake and that the serps change back to something more relevant... it would certainly be in Googles best interest for that to happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the problems we see now are solved sometime soon after Christmas.
Word of mouth built Google... Word of mouth can also end Google. It wouldn't happen immediately and it would happen without hype.
Of the people I work with in my department(IT)only 1 uses Google exclusively now... 1. Although not statistically relevant, it's a bad trend for Google as these were the Google zealots only a short time ago....
I am on page 5 and still no sign of the company website. All I see is this wierd 'sub-domain spam' where the majority of the results belong to a couple of sites with long keyword rich domains trying to sell me this UPS.
Did you find what you needed on the right hand side of the serps?
>telling all my friends and family that they should switch.
With all respect, you seriously need to get out of this self-consuming sphere to know that world exists w/o seo-webmasters.
Amen.
With all due respect, you seriously need to look around and see that all is NOT well. Google is not infallible nor is Google beyond reproach.
That depends on what you look and how you look. For every webpage that has been kicked out of top 10, there is something that is equally replace-able. Those webmasters would be raking in the clicks and silently chuckling. <And you wont hear about those webmasters here>
What is so unique about the sites that sell products in a competitive arena? For every site that sells "widgets", there is equally one more that offers the same service. Google never claims to rank the webpages based on quality of products/price etc. I dont understand how can one claim that his/her website would be relevant to the search and deserves to be in top 1 position, when an equally relevant site has replaced it.
Most of the angst is that a less-seo'ed webpage has taken over the hundreds of hours of effort a SEO put in to his/her website to optimize it for the top 10 position. Well, any SE never asked you to optimize it. No one ever made any promises about their ranking algo.
And ofcourse, there will always be spamy-pages for some searches. No algo is fool-proof.
If you are talking about unique products, then, by definition would have specific keywords and less competition.
You are not joking are you? Look deeper..
<<What is so unique about the sites that sell products in a competitive arena? For every site that sells "widgets", there is equally one more that offers the same service.>>
Again look deeper....Here we are discussing about relevant results. In how many clicks and in what amount of time you can find what you are looking for searching google? Is it like pre-florida?
<<Most of the angst is that a less-seo'ed webpage has taken over the hundreds of hours of effort a SEO put in to his/her website to optimize it for the top 10 position. Well, any SE never asked you to optimize it. No one ever made any promises about their ranking algo.>>
Yes many of us are bitter about are displacement from top ranking to nowhere, after all we are human, but here again we are discussing SE results relevancy and sure google is falling behind.
To sum it up, I am of the same mind of WebGuerrilla's posting in this thread, read it as it makes full sense and as it might predict the future.
When i mean relevancy, (for eg, "buy widgets"), does the current G SERPS give results that have buy elephants and not buy widgets? Nope. Then, i am not sure, what kind of relevancy you are talking about.
Tell me, what distinguishes the results in commercial webpages of pre and post florida update, in the perspective of a user?
To me, nothing. If i want to buy widgets, i still get websites that sell widgets.
And remember there will always be some spammy webpages. Those were there earlier and those will be.
Did you find what you needed on the right hand side of the serps?
c1bernaught,
The search results were spammy...50% of the first 5 pages were sub-domains of 1 or 2 sites. The Adwords links were all (3) retailers selling this UPS.
So in a sense, the only information available on the first five or six pages was catered towards buying the UPS.
I finally figured out the website of the manufacturer and got some other details like whether it came with a PC interface, disaster recovery software, etc.
You miss my point almost entirely and are misinterpeting what others have said.
It is true that for every site that goes down there is one that comes up. At least it used to be true.
There are entire searches where barely relevant information pages have replaced all of those site who should have "chuckling" webmasters. Example "low interest loan in spokane"
You are also wrong about those webmasters here who are doing well in the current serps. You can find them saying things like "Hey, no problems with the serps here." or "Stop whining, for every site that goes down, one comes up."
<< I dont understand how can one claim that his/her website would be relevant to the search and deserves to be in top 1 position, when an equally relevant site has replaced it.>>
The dynamic you are missing here is a simple one. Many "clean" relevant sites are being replaced by "spammy", "doorway" sites. Many "White Hat" sites have been replaced by SERIUOSLY "Black Hat" sites....
<<Most of the angst is that a less-seo'ed webpage has taken over the hundreds of hours of effort a SEO put in to his/her website to optimize it for the top 10 position. Well, any SE never asked you to optimize it. No one ever made any promises about their ranking algo.>>
I've not heard that complaint. However, when a content filled, relevant, easy to navigate and usefull site is replaced by a text only, redirected, affiliate link filled site... I think people have a right to vent their frustration. I mean Google is looking for the "Best" site right? I mean as layed out by Google guidelines and reinforced here by Guys like Brett.... right?
<< And ofcourse, there will always be spamy-pages for some searches. No algo is fool-proof.>>
I would expect some... however wasn't the big shake up here supposed to be Google getting rid of spam? From what I can see... spam survived just fine... in fact whole markets have been taken over by spammers...
<<If you are talking about unique products, then, by definition would have specific keywords and less competition.>>
You're kidding right?
Did you search using specific words required to find information about the UPS? Like "information regarding", "specifications on" or "pc interface on"?
I ask because it seems that this update requires more specific searches be conducted regardless of whether you are looking for information or products/services.
eh? I dont know what kind of keywords you are using. It has been said by many here that, this update is much better when it comes to curtailing spam. I dont think there are many spamy sites than they were before, for sure.
In my area the clean, legit targeted sites have been replaced with government and instititional in-house order forms and documents. If you are looking for widgets you better be an employee of ie: Texas Dept. of Highways...
Adding more specifics cleans out some junk, but I still see pages that have nothing to do with my search criteria.
Really... try these searches. You figure it out.
"mortgage loan in spokane"
"swinging couples in spokane"
"health insurance in spokane"
"how to swing a golf club"
"how to milk a cow"
"surfing instructions"
"taylor made golf club specifications"
Here we have to define what really spam is? If I am selling Florida widgets and I am optimizing my site to rank well for the keyword “Florida widgets” does it mean that I am guilty of spamming? Or if I am promoting Florida City and again I am optimizing my site for the keywords “Florida city” should I carry the emblem of spammer? Certainly not... The existing ranking algorithms of search engines including Google have encouraged me to do so. Google has tried to fight spam but look at the post Florida update and judge its success. Can you really fight spammers? Can you really fight hackers? I have to congratulate Google for its effort. Is this effort tough really worth the price? BUT here is the big question: For how long can an artificial, computer oriented logic exist without meeting its counterpart?
As expected the swinging couples kw is spammy. Also, try surfing instruction instead of surfing instructions.
How to milk a cow (its a vague generalization. like searching for apple and expecting the fruit website to be up first- it is really just two keywords milk and cow).
Except those, from where i am sitting (and the dc i am accessing), all other kw's gave me good relevant results. Also, you can see the abundance of dmoz listing, thereby, authority sites.
You can always ask someone unbiased and see their take. My gut feeling is they are quite alright.
[edited by: Chndru at 11:14 pm (utc) on Dec. 2, 2003]
good point...
To me spam is text not readable by rationale human beings, redirects, empty pages, non relevant content, sub domains all with the same landing page, keyword stuffing of 1 x 1's... etc..
I think it's pretty simple and layed out in the Google guidelines as well as in many a post here on WW including very usefull information posted by Brett...
Build for humans... not for spiders.... or at least build well for both.... geez....
I guess my point is that many of those sites shouldn't be there.
No banks for mortgages....
Subdomain domination 20 pages deep for swingers....
No insurance companies for health insurance....
Only one company actually dealing in golf instruction...
No information on "how to milk a cow"....
surfing instructions yields no surfing instructions....
no specifications for taylor made golf clubs....
I suppose you can find relevance in anything... However "with my end user glasses on" I found very little of what I was searching for...
oh... by the way... the "surfing" and "milk" terms came from my 12 year old who is putting together information for school and the golf stuff came from my wife. They couldn't find what they needed in those searches...
#1 on a search of "how to milk a cow"
Are we seeing different datacentre serps? That was .ca
[google.ca...]
I don't get it... how is that a bad serp?
This is what I get....
[google.com...]
Not many users go with the exact match search....
