PDA

View Full Version : Is Google Getting Greedy ?



Harold Mansfield
01-12-2009, 11:59 PM
I don't know if anyone has noticd lately but Google has changed the whole "kit and caboodle" in the search results.

It seems as if they have gone from providing the most relevant results to providing the results that will make them money.

The new algorithms for 2009 are now about personalized search and not ranking ?
everyone will receive different search results based on behavior, and not hard earned SEO put in by the site owner.

This has severely disrupted my own sites and I find many sites now buried that didn't used to be.
Shopping sites are going to take the biggest hit, since it seems that the main players will always rank higher, and Google check out always comes up first.

There is a lot more to it, but it seems that Google is trying to kill SEO and Affiliate marketing, and are now geo-targeting the results, as well as give multi-media sites more love.

So it seems that if you don't have the cash to build using flash, video, as well as your content, you will be a thing of the past.


Check out this link :
Will Personal Search Turn SEO On Its Ear? | WebProNews (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/11/17/seo-about-to-get-turned-on-its-ear)

This probably should be moved to Internet Marketing.

vangogh
01-13-2009, 02:49 AM
Getting?

Actually I think they're just being good to their business model. They make more money when more people use their search engine more often. They keep us by maintaining the perception of having the best search results. They see personalization as a way to delver to better results.

For example if someone searches the word "bass" what are they looking for? Fish? Musical Instrument? There's no way to know. However if you see the same person was searching the day before for trout and reels and rods you can guess they were looking for the fish and most likely you'd be right. That's the theory anyway.

Of course it doesn't hurt that through personalization Google can also better target ads.

Ultimately though they need their search results to be well received. So they can't tip things too far into serving ads. They still have to maintain the perception of having better results.

Your seeing the results as poorer because they don't work as well for your site, but Google can't look at it that way. They have to look at pleasing as many people as possible. I don't think Google minds SEOs and affiliates. What they don't like is people manipulating their results and by definition it's what we do as SEOs and affiliates.

I'm not saying I agree with everything Google does, but I think all they're doing is trying to further their business, the same as you and me. It's just that sometimes those business models are opposed.

Harold Mansfield
01-13-2009, 03:27 AM
I agree. Yes if I owned Google I would probably do the same thing, but I don't, and I'm a little pissed because it's obvious to me that it is getting dangerously close to:
"If you want to be seen, then you will dump some money into adwords".

Which is where I was scared the internet would end up anyway..Pay for Placement.

vangogh
01-13-2009, 11:23 AM
I don't think it's leading to having to use AdWords, but I agree the algorithm changes and will continue to change. Some of what you see with Universal search and personalized search is Google trying to keep people on their results page. If someone is looking for a video and then can find and embed that video directly into a search page the person doesn't leave.

Now that could raise some questions about whether or not Google is stealing content, but I think they're grabbing YouTube videos which is their content even if they don't create it.

With ranking try to see where Google is going. Look to patents or think about what the changes today might mean for tomorrow. Then you can optimize in ways that will work today and still work tomorrow.

As far as them trying to limit competition like I said I think it's just them building their business. Sometimes that gets in the way of what others want to do. Each time I get a new client that means another web designer didn't get one. As I build my client list it might mean another web designer goes out of business or can't get one started. But I don't think that makes me greedy or limits competition in any way. It's just me trying to grow my own business.

Harold Mansfield
01-13-2009, 12:51 PM
I guess it will take some adjustment from all of us. I personally think I will be able to adjust well and move forward based on what i have seen so far, but I am still not convinced at this point that Google is going to be completely fair.

As it is you can pretty much give up #1 in a lot of search terms to Wikipedia, Ask, and You Tube, no matter how much content you have.

For instance, one of my sites is MidnightFunkAssociation.com....it's about an old radio show in Detroit called Midnight Funk Association.

I still don't understand how it is possible to still be beat by a brief explanation from Wikipedia, (named for the DJ, not the show) and one video link from You Tube where it is mentioned in the description, but we accept it because those two will always be number 1 and 2.

If linking and SEO will carry less weight and content will be the judge, that obviously means, "Except for our stuff".
Now I can certainly do more to the site, but will I ever beat Wiki and 1 You Tube Video ? Even with the domain exactly matching the search term ? Probably not.

cbscreative
01-13-2009, 01:43 PM
The future will be interesting to see how this plays out. Personally, I get tired of irrelevant results in the top positions. Not too long ago, page 1 for most search terms seemed to pull up nothing but directories. I hated that and was glad to see it change. If users show signs of resentment toward wiki and YouTube dominating the top, Google will either change their ways or lose domination. I figure they will opt to adapt to user preferences.

I should note that Wiki being on top could work very much against them. Most, if not all schools will not allow the use of Wiki as source material. It has been proven unreliable. Since the web is used a lot for research, forcing Wiki down users throats could cause people to bail on them and send researchers elsewhere. At the very least, it could make page 2 of search results more popular.

I'm sure Google is paying very close attention to whether those top posistions are getting click throughs or not. In addition, they are now looking at visitor patterns after someone clicks. If they quickly leave a site, that is evidence that the site is not relevant to the search. The ones where they stay and click around or follow other links on the page show that the result is more relevant. It wouldn't serve Google's interest to keep forcing certain sites if the users are not responding well.

Time usually tends to sort this stuff out.

vangogh
01-13-2009, 01:52 PM
Like I said this is really just Google acting in their own self interest. Any business would do the same. The may be making good decisions and they may be making bad decisions, but either way it's their decision to make.

Sometimes those decisions will hurt a site in the sense that it doesn't rank as well. But for every site that drops in the results another has to rise to fill the space. So there are just as many people happy about the changes as upset about them.

Wikipedia ranks because it has a lot of authority in the eyes of search engines. I agree it often ranks for things that it shouldn't, but that's the nature of the algorithm as it is. I think Google should change that. If people always end up going to Wikipedia after a Google search it stands to reason in time they'll just go directly to Wikipedia and bypass Google. It's probably one of the reasons why Google started Knol, which is mostly a Wikipedia copy. If Knol can grow enough it could conceivably gain the authority Wikipedia has now.

Google has stated often enough that they prefer solutions that are algorithmically based. They'd prefer to set the algorithm in a way that eliminates some spam or favors one site or another. They aren't above manually editing results, but they would sooner set the algorithm so it favors one type of site over another than having to go in and say move the Wikipedia down 2 or 3 places in results while boosting Knol.

billbenson
01-13-2009, 02:14 PM
>>and Google check out always comes up first.

I haven't looked at the above, but that is the one that scares me. I have a good credit card processor.

I use adwords. Proper SEO dramatically effects the cost of an adwords campaign. What you are suggesting is a bit scary though. I can see them putting content on the top that makes them the most money, but if there are no clear winners, they still will want to place the best content first??

vangogh
01-13-2009, 02:37 PM
Google displays a graphic next to any add for a site that uses Google checkout. It's been shown that people tend to click ads more often when they see the graphic. That should mean a higher CTR on the ad which would lower the average cost of the ad, give it a better quality score, and consequently show up higher.

Why is that scary? You can still do just as well by writing ads that generate a higher CTR and increasing your quality score.

As a company why shouldn't Google do things that makes them the most money? Don't you try to do that too? I don't agree with every decision Google makes. Some I like, some I don't, but it's their right to make decisions that better their business. If they end up with lousy search results another search engine will take market share away from them.

What is SEO? You're doing what you can to get your pages to rank better in search engines. You do that by learning as best you can what ranks well and then optimizing your pages and site so the algorithm looks favorably on them. If the algorithm changes then you have to change too. Why is that scary Things change and people and businesses adapt. Even if Google's algorithm remains exactly as it is today, things still change and you'll still have to adapt.

Harold Mansfield
01-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Based on some threads on other forums, I could totally see bloggers start to promote Yahoo as the worlds best search engine if Google starts screwing sites over in favor of large companies and associated brands.

As it stands, I have seen a few threads about the reliability of Google's webmaster tools, especially it's keyword tool.
I have always loved Google and continue to do so, but, I am starting to question if I can trust it as a search engine, or should I start looking at it as a marketing and advertising engine.

vangogh
01-13-2009, 05:57 PM
It's both. It's still a search engine and it still provides good results. Personally I find their results to be better than the other engines for most things, but I still use other search engines as well.

But Google is a business and so yes, you have to add that into your thinking about them. For example they do not want to see their search results manipulate and so take an active stance against spam. Sometimes I think they go too far in their reaction. They've shown a willingness to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. They'll let a few innocent sites suffer it means less spam. I'd rather let a few spam sites in to protect the innocent.

I think you can still trust it as a search engine, but you should also see Google for what it really is, a business. And as a business they're going to make decisions in their own self interest as would any of us. Most of the time their self interest won't harm yours, but sometimes the two will be opposed.