Is google loosing the plot?

[directmarketingadvice]

I would not say that it is "good" to make it difficult for new sites to rank. There is no reason to suppose that an old site is of more value than a new site.

Doesn't google give greater trust to a site that's been around a long time? And hasn't it done that for many years?

Yes, they did:

They did this in the past with their sandbox

So, it seems that google thinks there's a "reason to suppose that an old site is of more value than a new site".

Blindly using site age as a ranking factor is surely wrong?

Google - and I - don't agree.

Steve

PS I sense a tone on this thread that seems to think Google can rank sites with some high level of objectivity.

Maybe that could be done if google didn't have to contend with people trying to manipulate the rankings, but Google don't have that luxury.

So they have to use signals which, algorithmically, estimate the odds a site is spamming/manipulating - and the rule has to be to omit those sites.

It's not "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[RadiusBPO]

But today is today. And, if this is how google now operates, a good SEO is someone who can work with that.

Steve

You're not getting it are you.

Company A budget = £2000 pm
Company B budget = £500 pm


There aren't a lot of options for links at the moment, the main way is either using the guest posting model with some link bait or spamming the hell out of the net with a tier'd web of links.

A poor SEO could just chat to some guys on myblogguest and get a load of links for company A.
A good SEO could create amazing link bait and a lot of social buzz for company B but it wouldn't be as effective as the myblogguest method.

With the SPAM method company A can afford more blasts than company B and will win.

This is the "google-industrial complex". Companies which are already successful buy more links which gets more customers which makes them more money to buy more links. It is now harder to get in. Ok you don't believe the field should be even and you think big biz should be allowed to control all the top positions. I personally don't, I personally loved how the internet levelled the playing field and allowed small smart guys to take on the big PLC and win. But G's changes have destroyed that.

 

[bdw]

So, it seems that google thinks there's a "reason to suppose that an old site is of more value than a new site".

As I recall, the sandbox was introduced to cope with the spammy, MFA websites with no content of any value that were put up there to make a quick buck. These were sacrificial websites. Their owners knew that Google would catch up with them eventually but they were happy to put them up there (using black hat techniques) to make money until they were caught. When they were caught they just launched another.

Google - and I - don't agree.

I can see that but that does not necessarily make you and Google right.

.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...PS I sense a tone on this thread that seems to think Google can rank sites with some high level of objectivity.

Maybe that could be done if google didn't have to contend with people trying to manipulate the rankings, but Google don't have that luxury.

So they have to use signals which, algorithmically, estimate the odds a site is spamming/manipulating - and the rule has to be to omit those sites.

It's not "innocent until proven guilty".

I agree with you when you are comparing sites of similar content.

But what frustrates me is when Google eliminates the sites purely on age and offers something up does not even contain the phrase you were searching for.

e.f if I set up a new site for the "Llantwit Major Stuffed Badger Collecting Society" it can often take a while for that site to appear at the top of the serps for that term even though it is a unique phrase.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Chunkford]

So what are you suggesting? How do you explain it?

I've offered an explanation that both fits google's stated aims and would benefit google's customers.

If you don't believe that explanation - and, if you believe people do things for a reason - why do you think this has happened?

Steve

I'm suggesting that Google motives are for the share holders not the searchers as you have suggested.

They already favour their sites over the competition, which offers bias results so they can monetise more. And good for them, it's their platform at the end of the day.
But if the orgainic results is all about displaying the most relevant results for their searchers then why do Google constantly display their shopping, video, images etc at around the 3/4 position? That's not natural and goes against what they preach does it not?

 

[deannitendo]

Don't believe for a second that google is losing plot because 84 % of the market is still covered by google the second competitor has only 6% of market this shows how massive the popularity of Google is. And the steps taken to remove SEO are only for the benefit of its users.

 

[bdw]

What hope is there for anyone hoping to hire the services of an SEO person when they cannot even agree on he beat way to rank on google. If any profession(I say that loosely) should be regulated it this one.

Doctors often cannot agree on the best way to treat patients, Lawyers often cannot agree on the best way to defend or prosecute a case, Architects argue on the best way to do architectural stuff, diplomats often cannot decide what is the best way to deal with diplomatic problems, scientists often disagree on research work.

A profession is founded on specialised vocational training based on objective study. Objective study of Google's algorithm is not possible because it is a secret. SEO is not a profession so it can hardly be regulated.

.

 

[bdw]

That's not natural and goes against what they preach does it not?

And they are still preaching it.

Google never accepts money to include or rank sites in our search results, and it costs nothing to appear in our organic search results.

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35291

.

 

[Chunkford]

Google never accepts money to include or rank sites in our orgainic search results, and it costs nothing to appear in our organic search results.

They should amend that statement...

 

[directmarketingadvice]

You're not getting it are you.

I'm not sure you've said anything to "get".

Company A budget = £2000 pm
Company B budget = £500 pm

And?

I can remember Earl saying that SEO was all about budget... but that was over a year ago.

So what's new?

There aren't a lot of options for links at the moment, the main way is either using the guest posting model with some link bait or spamming the hell out of the net with a tier'd web of links.

Maybe there are other ways - such as earning them?

All I'm hearing from you is that the old spam - make a link look like a vote - methods aren't working well any more, unless you have a big budget.

(And, I keep saying, "good".)

There's a solution which is to not use spam techniques.

Ok you don't believe the field should be even

What does that even mean?

If you're link building for a client, do you also build quality links for their competitors... so the field is "even"?

Of course not. The whole thing is a nonsense.

and you think big biz should be allowed to control all the top positions.

Listen, you can make things up and pretend I said them, but that doesn't mean that I said them... or that you'll fool anyone into thinking I said them.

I personally don't, I personally loved how the internet levelled the playing field and allowed small smart guys to take on the big PLC and win.

They still can. Maybe they can no longer do it with Google organic rankings acquired by crappy links.

But that only equates to no longer being able to compete if that's the only form of competing you're willing to consider.

Steve

 

[Prestige-SEO]

I have a few test blogs that Ive been running test on the past 3 weeks,

Heres what Ive found;

• I Can get competitors a penalty if I wish, pretty easy takes about 1-2 weeks depending on thier current backlink profile and costs around $40

• Small tiered spam is working good.

All in all, great update Google! (sarcasm)

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I can see that but that does not necessarily make you and Google right.

It doesn't, but you said it's "surely wrong". It's "surely wrong" in your opinion, and I'm pointing out there are other opinions.

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I agree with you when you are comparing sites of similar content.

But what frustrates me is when Google eliminates the sites purely on age and offers something up does not even contain the phrase you were searching for.

I agree. As I said on another thread at the weekend, they seem to be placing less importance on a page having the exact phase - in favour of highly trusted sites without such pages.

But I don't think this is an age thing. (Judging by the SERPS I've seen.)

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I'm suggesting that Google motives are for the share holders not the searchers as you have suggested.

Yes, of course, they're a public limited company, so the managers have to act in what they see as the best interests of the shareholders.

However, their long term interests must be to maintain their share of the search market - which means they have to satisfy the searchers.

They already favour their sites over the competition, which offers bias results so they can monetise more. And good for them, it's their platform at the end of the day.

I agree. These are Google's results and should be serving Google's interests.

But if the orgainic results is all about displaying the most relevant results for their searchers then why do Google constantly display their shopping, video, images etc at around the 3/4 position?

For the reason you mentioned above.

That's not natural and goes against what they preach does it not?

I think there are various people at google making different statements... and some people at google making sure they're not answering questions like that.

As you said, it's shareholders first. And, when there's a conflict between what searchers want and google's long-term financial interests, it'll be google first.

But the key is "long term".

Google isn't a monopoly - any more than Yahoo was a monopoly 12 years ago - and still have to keep their customers happy.

Steve

 

[Prestige-SEO]

Steve would you care to comment on my post?

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Objective study of Google's algorithm is not possible because it is a secret.

Agreed.

And what would happen when there's a bit algo change? Would everyone have to give up their accreditation?

SEO will never be regulated because of the nature of SEO.

(For a long discussion on this, see CJD's recent thread.)

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Steve would you care to comment on my post?

Would you like to comment (sensibly) on every single one of my posts?

Steve

PS Did you actually do this to competitors?

 

[bdw]

It doesn't, but you said it's "surely wrong".

Come on Steve, I did not just say that it was "surely wrong". I was inviting opinion. Here's what I actually said in full, with the question mark.

Blindly using site age as a ranking factor is surely wrong?

You chastised someone for misquoting you above and in your next post you did the same thing to me.

.

 

[RadiusBPO]

I'm not sure you've said anything to "get".



And?

I can remember Earl saying that SEO was all about budget... but that was over a year ago.

So what's new?



Maybe there are other ways - such as earning them?

All I'm hearing from you is that the old spam - make a link look like a vote - methods aren't working well any more, unless you have a big budget.

(And, I keep saying, "good".)

There's a solution which is to not use spam techniques.



What does that even mean?

If you're link building for a client, do you also build quality links for their competitors... so the field is "even"?

Of course not. The whole thing is a nonsense.



Listen, you can make things up and pretend I said them, but that doesn't mean that I said them... or that you'll fool anyone into thinking I said them.



They still can. Maybe they can no longer do it with Google organic rankings acquired by crappy links.

But that only equates to no longer being able to compete if that's the only form of competing you're willing to consider.

Steve

I don't think you get SEO. All SEO is spam, even what the SEOMOZ crowd are doing is a form of spam unless it some huge PLC with access to the top PR agencies to get in the news with every new sales figure. But even then PR's are responsible for some unnatural link warnings, so that is still spam.

Links aren't earned, they are paid for.

 

[Prestige-SEO]

Steve, I just wanted to know your thoughts on it - thats all, ofcourse you dont have to tell me.

And no, I never done it to a competitor it was to a three year old test blog.

 

[bdw]

Links aren't earned, they are paid for.

I have to disagree with that. I would say that the best form of SEO with the greatest chance of long term success would be to offer unique, interesting content that people would want to link to. (Nobody said it was easy BTW.)

 

[webgeek]

Linkbait FTW!

 

[RadiusBPO]

I have to disagree with that. I would say that the best form of SEO with the greatest chance of long term success would be to offer unique, interesting content that people would want to link to. (Nobody said it was easy BTW.)

And name one company who is ranking due to this method of SEO.

 

[bdw]

One of my other business websites ranked almost entirely on the value of it's content but I am not going to tell you which. Just trust me that I am not lying. Nobody said it was easy.

There are millions of examples on the Internet of websites with interesting, original content that many people link to.

.

 

[trebor8]

Links aren't earned, they are paid for.

That's really quite a shocking statement to make and I would never part with my money to any SEO whom concurs with that ethos

 

[RadiusBPO]

One of my other business websites ranked almost entirely on the value of it's content but I am not going to tell you which. Just trust me that I am not lying. Nobody said it was easy.

There are millions of examples on the Internet of websites with interesting, original content that many people link to.

.

Back in the old days heh?

I have plenty of *not disclosing the niche* websites ranking well and generating leads. Fairly new sites as well, 20 of them are only about 6 weeks old. And their leads are worth big money. But then I am not a typical SEO client, I do SEO, I have SEO assistants, I have some sites to seed links to and I have a fairly large budget AND I don't charge myself for my time. I'm also the 1st ambitious guy in the market.
An average SEO client, or someone thinking of coming off of eBay wouldn't drop that much cash to get started. Not when their average order is £50. There are very few markets left with exact match domains available.

With you own site, how long did it take? How much were you paying per month? How long would you wait?

Without actually manufacturing their own goods, most ecommerce sites find it very hard to generate a large quantity of effective links. Any potential linking partner wants £30-70-140 for a link and this brings us back to money.

 

[RadiusBPO]

That's really quite a shocking statement to make and I would never part with my money to any SEO whom concurs with that ethos

So you think people come to your website which isn't even indexed by Google, which is selling the same stock or service as most of your competitors and think "hey I want to link to this guy, he has a good video and infographic on his site!"

I wouldn't work with someone who doesn't realise SEO is MONEY. I'd let them get burned by a SEOMOZ idiot who thinks that by giving a free sample to a "top blogger" will earn them the number one spot.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

And name one company who is ranking due to this method of SEO.

UKBF?



have to say more as apprently my message was too short.

 

[RadiusBPO]

UKBF?



have to say more as apprently my message was too short.

Good point lol. But I would say that "timewasting" sites are generally very easy to get links for. My own "meme" site ranks number 1 for a lot of keywords from natural links but it's not a real business site like I've been talking about.

I'm talking about say a guy on ebay and amazon who sells printer cartridges, how is he going to get links the natural way. printer cartridges are boring as hell.

 

[trebor8]

So you think people come to your website which isn't even indexed by Google,

what has indexing got to do with it

which is selling the same stock or service as most of your competitors and think "hey I want to link to this guy, he has a good video and infographic on his site!"

Yes that's what I think, that's what I would pay an SEO/M real 'MONEY' to do

I wouldn't work with someone who doesn't realise SEO is MONEY. I'd let them get burned by a SEOMOZ idiot who thinks that by giving a free sample to a "top blogger" will earn them the number one spot.

At the of the end of the day, it is my money, my website and my business you're playing with and I wouldn't want G to come along and burn it

 

[bdw]

So you think people come to your website which isn't even indexed by Google, which is selling the same stock or service as most of your competitors and think "hey I want to link to this guy, he has a good video and infographic on his site!"

This is a total misquote but I assume Trebor8 will be along shortly to confirm it.

.

 

[RadiusBPO]

what has indexing got to do with it


Yes that's what I think, that's what I would throw down the drain for an SEO/M real 'MONEY' to do

Without any linking, using IE, how will Google every know your site exisits?

By the way fixed your post

 

[webgeek]

Just because you have a site selling printer cartridges, doesn't mean you have to write 500 word articles about the composition of printer cartridges.

Someone could provide content like:
- Wacky things people do with ink
- Crazy graphics
- Cool designs
- Have design contests
- Sponsor a 'What would you do for a lifetime supply of ink?' contest
- Get a Danica Patrick clone to pose for their promo works
- Write about anything in design, art, print, banners or other headline news, with a focus on unusual, interesting, big bucks or other remarkables
- Generate top 10 lists for 'top 10 ways to save $10,000 on printing'
- etc, etc

The reason content marketing companies exist is to take what otherwise would be boring as heck and turn it into something linkable, shareable, remarkable...

 

[bdw]

Precisely, it's all about creativity and imagination.

.

 

[RadiusBPO]

Just because you have a site selling printer cartridges, doesn't mean you have to write 500 word articles about the composition of printer cartridges.

Someone could provide content like:
- Wacky things people do with ink
- Crazy graphics
- Cool designs
- Have design contests
- Sponsor a 'What would you do for a lifetime supply of ink?' contest
- Get a Danica Patrick clone to pose for their promo works
- Write about anything in design, art, print, banners or other headline news, with a focus on unusual, interesting, big bucks or other remarkables
- Generate top 10 lists for 'top 10 ways to save $10,000 on printing'
- etc, etc

The reason content marketing companies exist is to take what otherwise would be boring as heck and turn it into something linkable, shareable, remarkable...

Great point! Just like this - http://gizmodo.com/5710235/the-best-most-disgruntled-toner-cartridge-description-youll-ever-read

http://www.inkcartridges.uk.com/
http://www.inkcartridges.uk.com/Remanufactured-HP-300-CC640EE-Black.html

They generated massive amounts of buzz. And ok they have some good rankings but for the manufacturer keywords I've searched I'm not seeing them a few pages in. But they got a lot of links from trusted sites, really though their rankings aren't much to write home about.

BTW - How much would everything you've said cost? And what sort of return would you expect to see?
And would you also have an ipad 2 giveaway to a random person who likes your fb page?

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Come on Steve, I did not just say that it was "surely wrong". I was inviting opinion. Here's what I actually said in full, with the question mark. You chastised someone for misquoting you above and in your next post you did the same thing to me.

I said you wrote "surely wrong". You're saying you wrote "surely wrong".

Where's the misquote?

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I don't think you get SEO. All SEO is spam

I don't think YOU get SEO. Not all SEO is spam.

Steve

 

[bdw]

I said you wrote "surely wrong". You're saying you wrote "surely wrong". Where's the misquote?

Nothing to add - not looking for an argument. Let others decide.

.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Steve, I just wanted to know your thoughts on it - thats all, ofcourse you dont have to tell me.

My view - which I've stated numerous times - is that it comes down to whether or not the SERPS have been improved by this algo change.

I realise that people are focusing on the injustices of people losing rankings... but the same people seem to be blind - and have always been blind - to the injustice of people not having rankings in the first place, due to competitors spamming links.

And no, I never done it to a competitor it was to a three year old test blog.

Good man. People doing this to other people's sites are scum. The moral way to test it is with one of your own sites. (As you did.)

Steve

 

[RadiusBPO]

I don't think YOU get SEO. Not all SEO is spam.

Steve

You're right, I don't get SEO, I get inbound marketing.