Is google loosing the plot?

[MASSEY]

You could do any of the dozens of things Wonga, Payday UK, Quick Quid etc are doing.

Those types of companies in this country are few and far between.

95% of companies in this country employ less than 5 people (so i read on here)

That means 95% of companies, give or take, in this country, can't afford to advertise on the tv, or in the daily national newspapers or the radio etc.

Advertising options for many people in this country are dictated by UK's most popular search engine.

I know mine are.

 

[kulture]

Those types of companies in this country are few and far between.

95% of companies in this country employ less than 5 people (so i read on here)

That means 95% of companies, give or take, in this country, can't afford to advertise on the tv, or in the daily national newspapers or the radio etc.

Advertising options for many people in this country are dictated by UK's most popular search engine.

I know mine are.

Yes of course they are, and if your site is one that does not need repeat business and thus depends entirely on new customers, then I can completely understand your reliance on Google. Now other sites can and should have a more rounded marketing plan, where google is part but not all of the plan.

Either way, if google is beginning to loose the plot, and people slowly move away, then if I were you, I would have a quick look to see why the 5% of people who do not use google, never find you. Because that 5% may grow.

 

[terryuk]

But it's a silly affiliate site romping up the serps for terms which show hundreds of thousands of searches a month between them.

How else could you send thousands of visitors to your site a month?

Get higher rankings would be a start, and there are lots of forms of advertising not just SEO online. There are silly affiliate sites, are there are affiliate sites so try think how you can be a real affiliate site? Silly affiliate sites even make money.

And like Suzuki said you can make another one tomorrow, but from my experience it takes a lot of planning & management or else goes tits up

 

[Mystro]

Google for me is still far the best, but these last 2 months i cannot help that think something is broken, results are poor in my industry im seeing tweets out ranking sites, very competitive niches seeing sites with position 1 and 2 much more often loads of comparism sites and directory's

Im sure it will get its act together again soon, but no other search engine is even close so while its like that Google can do as it pleases

Google kind of reminds me of a drug dealer roping new sites in Giving them rankings until that business becomes reliant on the search engine, then out the blue Google turns and you and removes your ranks so you have to pay for the PPC

 

[Annoying Donkey]

If G was taken out of the equation, what would take it out of the equation?

Not sure I understand the question, but in your situation, I'd be asking myself what would happen if I lost all my rankings...

 

[MASSEY]

Not sure I understand the question, but in your situation, I'd be asking myself what would happen if I lost all my rankings...

There are too many if's here for my liking.

What if i get hit by a car tommorow

 

[Chunkford]

I'd be asking myself what would happen if I lost all my rankings...

He'd be screwed, like most businesses

Google supplies a constant stream of customers to a website, where other means only offer a burst of customers over a short period of time. No other method of marketing matches this and is the drug people are hooked on.

 

[Websitehandyman]

Are people so stupid? Google returns the best search results out of all search engines. Anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't know what they are looking for.

Luckily, all of my traffic, bar about 0000000.1% comes from google so enough people think it is perfectly fine.

Ha ha have to laugh at the suggest that anyone who says google is crap don't know what they are looking for

In some way it is true but only the basis that to search google you need to know the secret code that reveals valiance and not selliance

If all your traffic comes from google you must be doing something wrong, it only accounts for 70% at most on all my sites.

 

[MASSEY]

Yes of course they are, and if your site is one that does not need repeat business and thus depends entirely on new customers, then I can completely understand your reliance on Google. Now other sites can and should have a more rounded marketing plan, where google is part but not all of the plan.

Either way, if google is beginning to loose the plot, and people slowly move away, then if I were you, I would have a quick look to see why the 5% of people who do not use google, never find you. Because that 5% may grow.

Trouble is, for local services, google are very dominant.

I'm not really worried about relying on google only, i have done ok for the last 2 years or so.

If i was a big company with staff i would have a different opinion, ofcourse.

 

[facetree]

my site is a classified website in the uk and just started what would be the best way to get seen on google have a few other buisness also?

 

[terryuk]

Ha ha have to laugh at the suggest that anyone who says google is crap don't know what they are looking for

Most people don't know what they are looking for even when it's in front of there eyes

 

[Annoying Donkey]

No other method of marketing matches this and is the drug people are hooked on.

Not necessarily so. There's at least one form of marketing which is timeless and not dependant on search engines...

 

[MASSEY]

Not necessarily so. There's at least one form of marketing which is timeless and not dependant on search engines...

Word of mouth?

Yes, works well, but you need to obtain a decent volume of customers in the first place.

 

[Suzuki]

Word of mouth?

Yes, works well, but you need to obtain a decent volume of customers in the first place.

Your payday site is a MFA spam site... unless you sort that you will never get any word of mouth customers :|

 

[RevaxMedia]

Google seems to be spending a lot of resources trying to out think and negate the work of SEO companies.

Rephrase:

Google seems to be spending a lot of resources trying to out think and negate the work of BAD SEO companies.

Good practice will never be penalized however it may loose its credibility if it's being abused.

 

[MASSEY]

Your payday site is a MFA spam site... unless you sort that you will never get any word of mouth customers :|

Not developed yet.

 

[Suzuki]

If you get a manual review in your current state then you're going to be dead before you even get started. And if its flying up the rankings like you say, that is a real possibility.

You're not even bothering to comply with the Adsense rules either... yet another chance to get your site burned before you even begin.

 

[RadiusBPO]

Rephrase:

Google seems to be spending a lot of resources trying to out think and negate the work of BAD SEO companies.

Good practice will never be penalized however it may loose its credibility if it's being abused.

No they're not, they are trying to take away the ROI and predicability of SEO to force people to use Adwords.

SEO is good for search engines. Only good sites which convert well will continue to invest in SEO, bad sites which make no money will drop.

No SEO would try to rank their furniture site for bike parts.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

No they're not, they are trying to take away the ROI and predicability of SEO to force people to use Adwords.

If they wanted to do that, they could do it easily - just by making regular random changes to the algo.

They're not making random changes. They're making very logical changes that are consistent with their long-held strategy.

SEO is good for search engines. Only good sites which convert well will continue to invest in SEO, bad sites which make no money will drop.

What about mediocre sites that just make enough money? Or sites that don't need to keep re-doing their SEO in order to stay ahead of google?

No SEO would try to rank their furniture site for bike parts.

No, but he might try to rank a site that converts so poorly, it can't use PPC.

Steve

 

[I, Brian]

Good to see exact match keyword domain spam ranking really well in Google!

 

[Prestige-SEO]

loads of people making money selling negative SEO services now.. so I would say google have just opened the doors to more spam, and some very upset people.

 

[RadiusBPO]

If they wanted to do that, they could do it easily - just by making regular random changes to the algo.

Then why are some sites hit by panda and some aren't? Why are some sites hitting penalties and some aren't? I've used a similar strategy on a lot of sites and the way they are hit is at random.

They're not making random changes. They're making very logical changes that are consistent with their long-held strategy.

Which is forcing people to use Adwords and making organics look too ugly to click on.

What about mediocre sites that just make enough money? Or sites that don't need to keep re-doing their SEO in order to stay ahead of google?

Their days are always numbered with a low barrier to entry.

No, but he might try to rank a site that converts so poorly, it can't use PPC.

Yup and then realises organics won't convert either so redoes their site or its panda by poor ux stats.

Andy in bold

 

[Data Rich Australia]

The only people who really complain about Google is SEO companies who are finding it harder to get results for their clients. It's frustrating I know but weather you like it or not although Google may be hated by many SEO consultants the consumers don't know or care about how it works... they search and they find it's really that simple.

You simply need to adhere to the rules of Google because if you optimize only for Bing etc. you wont get nearly as much traffic regardless. Because if you were then you wouldn't have a complaint.

I've learned one major rule in business... don't complain... get to work! lol While you sit there typing how annoying Google is another SEO consultant is out there finding ways to use it to their advantage.

I suggest you start doing more research and do as much as you can to find a way to make it work.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

If they wanted to do that, they could do it easily - just by making regular random changes to the algo.

Then why are some sites hit by panda and some aren't? Why are some sites hitting penalties and some aren't? I've used a similar strategy on a lot of sites and the way they are hit is at random.

I'd suggest it's probably not random, it just differs in a way you don't understand.

They're not making random changes. They're making very logical changes that are consistent with their long-held strategy.

Which is forcing people to use Adwords

It's forcing people who can't do SEO to either use Adwords or give up. That's always been the case. All that's happened is that google has raised the bar (again).

For all the sites that fall off page 1, there'll be sites that climb to page 1.

Frankly, I don't see the big problem - other than people complaining because their spam techniques don't work.

Surely real links matter more now. Isn't that more meritorious?

Steve

 

[RadiusBPO]

I'd suggest it's probably not random, it just differs in a way you don't understand.



It's forcing people who can't do SEO to either use Adwords or give up. That's always been the case. All that's happened is that google has raised the bar (again).

For all the sites that fall off page 1, there'll be sites that climb to page 1.

Frankly, I don't see the big problem - other than people complaining because their spam techniques don't work.

Surely real links matter more now. Isn't that more meritorious?

Steve

Can a computer ever truly be random? Probably not unless its quantum but how do we measure that? Anways.. 10x keyworded domains, 10x same content on each site apart from 2 words in the title, header and content being changed, 10x same service with exactly the same links on the same days, same links all approved. 2 were deindexed the rest are page 1.
I also have quite a few sites which have many pages and subdomains following that pattern, only 1 was panda'd the rest are actually doing better now after G's changes.

How about Google running Adsense and showing the best positions for their Ads as being above the fold, and then out of nowhere penalising sites with ads above the fold?

They aren't forcing people who can't do SEO to use Adwords, they are forcing them to give up. They haven't raised the quality bar, they've raised the price bar.
Companies who can afford to scrape the web and send out automated link requests win. Companies who were lucky enough or rich enough to buy keyworded domains win.
The small guy selling stuff on ebay looking to expand now has no chance with SEO unless he is willing to wait months and months for ROI.
A sidebar link, or a footer link, or a "donations page" link, or a guest post on an unrelated blog isn't a raised bar.

This is the problem. OR maybe disappointment. The internet is meant to be a free and flat playground. It's where small guys can take on big guys and win but every change G makes makes the hill harder to climb, with traps and snakes.
Remember Google suggests and instant, that was a prime place for small guys to start. They'd start with low search volume keywords like those but G killed them. It's not just spam which I dont think blog networks are spam btw.

Oh and SPAM techniques are working! a few guest posts + spam profiles, bookmarks and whatever else is working very well. VERY WELL...

 

[OldWelshGuy]

SNIPPED TO MAKE IT SIMPLER

Surely real links matter more now. Isn't that more meritorious?

Steve

this weekend I have looked at two sites that have been hit by un-natural link building poenalties (and they are penalties as they devalue every single instanmce of that keyword that has ever been used pretty much)

So what was it that these sites had done to deserve such a thrashing? Xrummer links? NOPE, Comment spam? Nope, SENuke spam? NOPE...

What they did was have the misfortune of having a few sites pick up on them and add them to their blogrolls. the company got coverage in the media, some people added them to their blogrolls, and they have been penalised as a result of the actions of others, in giving them merit based links.

Google have got this latest system horrendously wrong, in fact as wrong as they have ever got it. They need to wind the sensitivity right back in because currently, unless you have a rock solid backlink and authority history, your site can get hit and hurt.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I never said it was perfect, I said it was more meritorious.

Prior to panda things weren't perfect either... and I'd bet far more sites benefited from low grade links than sites are currently suffering from "misunderstood" links under Panda.

And, even amongst those that are now being "unfairly treated", how many truly deserve page 1 rankings?

Really. In the sense of being clearly offering better visitor value to the visitor for that search phrase than all but 9 other sites in existence.

Steve

 

[OldWelshGuy]

this one site was on page 1 all the links were natural, no linking at all. they got more recognition loads more natural links, and have been punished.

When innocent people have their livelyhoods wiped out because one company has a virtual monoploy on internet traffic, then something needs to be done.

I don't really want to get into the whole quality of results thing as that is a side issue.

Are you really saying that collateral damage i.e. innocent people losing their businesses and homes is acceptable? I don't think you are but it reads that way to me

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Can a computer ever truly be random? Probably not unless its quantum but how do we measure that? Anways.. 10x keyworded domains, 10x same content on each site apart from 2 words in the title, header and content being changed, 10x same service with exactly the same links on the same days, same links all approved. 2 were deindexed the rest are page 1.

And?

Do you really think this covers every single thing google is looking at?

They aren't forcing people who can't do SEO to use Adwords, they are forcing them to give up.

Give up what?

This make shock some on this thread, but there are sites that don't have SEO, but are still making good money.

They haven't raised the quality bar, they've raised the price bar.

What on earth does that mean?

The small guy selling stuff on ebay looking to expand now has no chance with SEO unless he is willing to wait months and months for ROI.

And (even if that were true)?

A sidebar link, or a footer link, or a "donations page" link, or a guest post on an unrelated blog isn't a raised bar.

I think you're really missing the point. Easy to get links are now being devalued. That's a raised bar.

This is the problem. OR maybe disappointment. The internet is meant to be a free and flat playground.

And how does this mean it isn't?

The inability to piggyback on google for free doesn't mean the internet isn't free.

If an SEO didn't realise that Google is huge a public company that's going to live or die on the quality of search engine results, then he must have been stoned.

5 years ago, I wrote the following:

"The search engines used to be easy to manipulate but every year they become more sophisticated and it takes far more skill (and merit) to get to page 1."

This is nothing new.

It's where small guys can take on big guys and win but every change G makes makes the hill harder to climb, with traps and snakes.

And, speaking as a google user, "good"!

It should be harder. And tough **** to the SEOs that can't up their game.

For every site that drops off page 1, another one will be promoted to it.

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

this one site was on page 1 all the links were natural, no linking at all. they got more recognition loads more natural links, and have been punished.

When innocent people have their livelyhoods wiped out because one company has a virtual monoploy on internet traffic, then something needs to be done.

And what about all the site owners that lost out on page 1 because of competitors using the techniques Panda is trying to combat?

I don't really want to get into the whole quality of results thing as that is a side issue.

I disagree. Surely the quality of the results is Google's motive.

Are you really saying that collateral damage i.e. innocent people losing their businesses and homes is acceptable? I don't think you are but it reads that way to me

Show me the thread from the archives where you were talking about how SEOs were taking away "businesses and homes" from the sites they were keeping off page 1 through artificial link building.

...Since you care so much about this...

Or did you only start caring when the SEO'd sites started to suffer?

Steve

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Word of mouth?

Yes, works well, but you need to obtain a decent volume of customers in the first place.

I was actually thinking of networking... However word of mouth or referrals can be got from the very first prospect/customer if you make it part of your marketing strategy...

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Or did you only start caring when the SEO'd sites started to suffer?

Steve

Steve please lets not get into a personal slanging match as I said, the sites in question have not been SEO'ed, they have done nothing wrong, but they have been punished.

This is what I am talking about (or was,) as I have no wish to get dragged into a flame war as this is how this thread appears to be going.

I see it wrong that people who have not carried out any SEO link building etc, beyond getting mentioned in a national publication, get punished and have their livelihoods taken away from them.

People who engage in SEO know there is always a risk, the risk that the algorithm will change. But innocent people shouldn't be punished. it saddens me to see this going on, and the main factor in the damage caused as a result of the false positive is the pure dominance of a single search engine.

 

[bdw]

When innocent people have their livelyhoods wiped out because one company has a virtual monoploy on internet traffic, then something needs to be done.

I totally agree with this.

For the last six or seven years I have been saying that search should be taken out of the hands of commercial companies. When I first mentioned it in another forum some people actually ridiculed me for doing so.

Google says it is "Organising the World's Information". We should not be allowing any commercial company to do this and to profit from the search results. I know this is a radical idea but some system should be put in place where the world's information is available without any commercial bias. Search should be in public hands.

.

 

[bdw]

I might also add that Google has gone from its "Don't be Evil" days to today's situation where it has become one of the companies with the most cynical disregard for the law within about four or five years. Where is it going to be 5 or ten years down the line?

.

 

[Mystro]

Google says it is "Organising the World's Information". We should not be allowing any commercial company to do this and to profit from the search results. I know this is a radical idea but some system should be put in place where the world's information is available without any commercial bias. Search should be in public hands.

.

Thats the problem people keep refering to and say that you dont pay to be in Google, so any ranking they give you is a bonus

Which i think is absolute crap, Google can put you in front of an audience you do everything right and natural progression of the company expands because you have done whats right then bam, everything gets taken away in 1 swipe, and then goes the livelihood of that company, they look at the results and wonder why, then see money supermarket, go compare, and such.

Fully understand when a company is projected sky high on the back of doing something wrong and underhand but way too many people and business being made to suffer because of these errors.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Steve please lets not get into a personal slanging match as I said, the sites in question have not been SEO'ed, they have done nothing wrong, but they have been punished.

And, as I said, it's about making the results more meritorious. There'll be winners and losers. It doesn't mean every winner deserves to win, or that every loser deserves to lose.

This is what I am talking about (or was,) as I have no wish to get dragged into a flame war as this is how this thread appears to be going.

I'm not sure where you're getting the impression this is personal. I've stated some simple points, that's all.

I see it wrong that people who have not carried out any SEO link building etc, beyond getting mentioned in a national publication, get punished and have their livelihoods taken away from them.

Firstly, is this really what's happening? Why aren't they in a position to adjust to this? Did they assume that, once you get rankings, they're yours to keep?

People who engage in SEO know there is always a risk, the risk that the algorithm will change. But innocent people shouldn't be punished.

I don't agree they have been punished. There's an algorithm that ranks sites. At one point, the algorithm favoured them. Now it doesn't.

Maybe they never deserved to be on page 1 in the first place? Who knows.

Steve

 

[OldWelshGuy]

They got sent an un-natural lnks warning and then got slammed. The links were natural, they are devastated. the algorithm hasn't changed this si the whole point being made here. It is a sub algorithm triggered by links, meant to punish people who build links.

Never mind though, guess they are just one of the losers, a dolphon trapped in the tuna nets of the internet.

 

[Esk247]

I know this is a radical idea but some system should be put in place where the world's information is available without any commercial bias. Search should be in public hands.

.

Like a Wikipedia style site for search? with voluntary moderators and such?

it is similar to a directory type of site but if they could add in some sort of automated algorithm that is also checked by a human to ensure it is relevant then it would surely beat Google hands down?

How you deal with millions of website entries every week though..not a clue.

The problem Google has is the automated system suits the US better than it suits UK search results. I still get US results even after selecting to show only UK because they're still struggling to identify certain websites and their location/reach.

 

[Prestige-SEO]

http://www.negativeseo.me/ << If you dont think the recent update was a mess up look at this, yes I know this has always been possible with enough effort but now its easier than ever, These are the guys which got dan theis both websites a penalty.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Never mind though, guess they are just one of the losers, a dolphon trapped in the tuna nets of the internet.

But my point - one of my points - is that there were plenty of losers before this change.

Where were the SEOs expressing sympathy for those guys?

If one assumes Google are doing this to improve the overall quality of the rankings. And, if one assumes this has improved the overall quality of the rankings then...

- There are sites that have dropped off page 1

- There are sites that have moved up to page 1

Then we're left with the question: what's the greater injustice? The sites being dropped off page 1 "unfairly"? Or that the sites now moving up should have been on page 1 in the past?

They're both stories about sites unfairly losing revenue. (One group losing because of google, the other losing because of SEOs using pre-Panda techniques.)

Well, if the overall rankings have been improved, then it must be the latter.

Now we could argue all day about whether the overall rankings have been improved by this change... but, because there's no answer, the case for sympathy for sites losing rankings is no stronger than the case for sympathy for sites previously artificially held down by artificial link building.

Steve