Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Kudos to Jill Whalen and Wed Advisor


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13599 posts

Posted 30 October 2003 - 02:17 PM

I really like Jill's response to a letter writer in this week's Advisor newsletter. The inquiry concerns Google and questionable SERPs (search engine results pages).

She says:

So what's up, Google?  Tell me it isn't so.  Tell me that you still
believe in good vs. evil and that the ends don't justify the means.
Cuz right now, you're telling me that it does, and that makes me sad.


Those of you who know how much of a cheerleader she is for Google know this couldn't have been easy for her to publish.

You can read the whole response she wrote here:

Are the Bad Guys Winning at Google?

http://www.highranki...ssue077.htm#seo

I know many of us are disappointed with Google, for various reasons. I'm bugged by the claims of it being user oriented. It depends on which user you're talking about - the one trying to get rank for their site or the one trying to find something in the index. What price is being paid when the two objectives are bonking each other on the head?

Kim

#2 polarmate

polarmate

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 513 posts

Posted 30 October 2003 - 03:24 PM

Kim, Google does not view someone trying to rank their site as a user. Google's user is the one who searches. IMO, Google remains user-oriented and its results have not lost relevancy.

There is a discussion here about the same thing, no doubt inspired by the same newsletter.

#3 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13599 posts

Posted 30 October 2003 - 04:02 PM

Google's user is the one who searches. IMO, Google remains user-oriented and its results have not lost relevancy.


From that perspective, yes. Agreed.

But, I don't feel, and I could be dead on wrong, that the Google stakeholders view JUST the searchers as the users they're targeting. They're not paying for anything. The people paying for Ads are.

From the usability angle (and my trusty usability blinders!), I see an entity that must meet the needs of a variety of users and be "usable" to all them. Whether or not Google can meet one need without undermining the objectives of another is more the question, in my mind.

We may get excellent or quality SERPS, but at what price?

Kim

#4 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 30 October 2003 - 06:22 PM

One view worth thinking about is that advertisers use Google because that's where the audience is. There are thousands of other places to advertise that are cheaper, treat you wonderfully, and are a joy to be an advertiser on except in the fundamental point - the advertisers don't actually get to deliver a message to the audience.

Conversely, where the users are, people will always seek to advertise, no matter how poor the customer service given. Before Google had advertising, many SEOs were already being paid generous sums to work the system to give them the coverage of advertising, even where in some cases this involved completely redesigning a website, adjusting carefully crafted copy, or in extreme cases, using technologies to rewrite URLs and add extra loading to the server just to appear in the SERPs.

#5 polarmate

polarmate

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 513 posts

Posted 30 October 2003 - 08:56 PM

Kim, I don't understand your question: "We may get excellent or quality SERPS, but at what price?"

Google has different users for different services. Searchers for their free search. Advertisers for AdWords. Publishers for AdSense. And so on. Where is it that you see a clash or undermining of one to meet the needs of another? There have been many attempts to prove that not being in Google's index is a direct result of being an advertiser on AdWords. Is this what you are talking about?

The search users are getting what they want, as are the advertisers. Ads are separated from the SERPs and not mixed with the SERPs. Like Ammon said, where there is an audience, you will find advertising regardless of customer service. And Google's customer service for AdWords is not lacking.

When you say at what price, where do you see a reduced benefit to any of these users for the different services that Google provides or what do you feel is being compromised upon?

The newsletter appears to be referring to methods and techniques adopted to get higher rankings for specific keywords. And if you see this post here Jill seems to want to know if the people at Google 'care' about this. They have to care! It's their core business.

I'm sorry but I don't get what this is about... :)

#6 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 30 October 2003 - 09:46 PM

Hey all! Wow, this topic is being discussed everywhere!

Polarmate, you say that Google does care because they have to care.

Yes, Google cares a whole lot about relevance. And they've got very good relevance. I don't see very many people dispute that. So is that all they care about (in terms of which sites show up for queries).

The SERPs mentioned in my newsletter bring up relevant sites. Those gas scooter pages apparently have lots of great gas scooters. They were highly relevant to the query at hand. But when looked at closely, if 9 out of the 10 sites are owned by the same company, is that a good thing? That's what I want to know if Google cares about.

The other SERP I mentioned, and have used as an example for a long time is "email marketing consultant." Now with that one, they're cloaked sites that actually don't bring up relevant results. Most of them bring up some Internet Marketing ebook! And yet, even though it was mentioned publicly in my newsletter over 6 months ago, plus I reported it to Google through their channels, the bad results are still there. (I swear that I have no investment in that keyword phrase and just picked it as a random thing to check one day!)

I'd love to have a chat with some of the folks at Google about all this. Maybe I'll get up the nerve at the Chicago conference. But I have feeling they really can't/won't say anything but the usual pat answers.

Jill

#7 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13599 posts

Posted 30 October 2003 - 09:54 PM

The search users are getting what they want


Are they? The person who wrote Jill the email in which she responded to is a Google user who found the results upsetting. Granted, he saw things only webmasters might see, but he still has the same two legs, arms and eyes as every other user. (Okay, not EVERY user :shock: )

The "price" isn't financial. It's in the form of reputation. If a search engine comes out and passes the scrutiny of SEO's who are evaluating search results looking for cheaters, and they find no cheating, then word is going to spread about the better quality of search results. That "better" may mean "fair" to SEOs', whereas regular folks won't know or care about the difference as long as they get what they're looking for.

The other more more important point Jill made is that she thought attempts to catch devious SEO tricks was something Google was diligent about catching. She's finding this may not be true. From an SEO perspective, why in the heck should ANY SEO bother to follow Google's own guidelines for SEO's when Google itself isn't monitoring what's going on?

I like Google but I'm finding this search engine (Killer Info - http://www.killerinfo.com/m/) is bringing me the kinds of results I want and I've been using it more. It's an unknown. If any unknown can whoo me away from Google, something's wrong with the Google picture. I'm a user who has lost confidence.

Kim

#8 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 12:00 AM

I'm a user who has lost confidence.

And there lies the problem. All else is immaterial. Currently, the perception is Google == search. This perception is a large component of their success, and is driven, at least in part, by webmasters. Once the Web savy stop using Google, and indeed start actively advocating alternatives, Google will be in trouble. Google's Guerilla marketing is a top down (where tech savy is @ the top) marketing strategy, that will be effectively nullified if the tech savy stop sprouting Google's virtue.

And in many ways, Google has acknowledged that keeping Webmasters at least quasi happy has to be a part of Google's marketing and branding. Why else does Googleguy have 1800+ posts @ webmasterworld and growing almost daily, and Inktomi have 33 and none in 10 months? Keeping in front of the people that matter and have the loudest online voice will continue to be a vital factor in Google's success.

That is why, for so many reasons, Google needs to keep this highly related third party, if not happy, then contented or at least calm there rage and anger. It is Like theatre and Theatre Critics. Theatres don't like them, they ad no direct revenue (as they get free tickets) and often cost them heaps when they pan a show they paid nothing to see. When was the last time a theatre actively attacking a critic, or banning them from shows? It wont happen. Sucker fish live off Sharks, and all the sharks can do is put up with it. Some parasites you have to just accept, and Webmasters and / or SEOs are just that to Google. Well, maybe not a parasite, but certainly a third party they make no money out of but to whom their future is inevitably linked to.

On a side note, reminds me of the time Lisa Simpson got to the final of the essay writing competition. She saw a corupt politician, and rewrote her speech, condeming teh system and my favourite line: "My god, we have a crisis, a little girl has lost faith in democracy".

"My god, I just saw a post @ cre8asite forums, and a webmaster has lost faith in Google!!!'

"Good God man, start cracking down on spam. NOW!!!!!"

#9 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 12:11 AM

Are they? The person who wrote Jill the email in which she responded to is a Google user who found the results upsetting.


Actually Kim, the person who wrote me was a competitor to the "spammer" who is hogging the rankings. It had nothing to do with a user finding irrelevant results.

If you do that search as a regular user, the results are just peachy.

They got there through what appears to be deceptive means, however.

From an SEO perspective, why in the heck should ANY SEO bother to follow Google's own guidelines for SEO's when Google itself isn't monitoring what's going on?


Yes, that was exactly my point. Why should they? Cuz I say so? Cuz Google has it in it's guidelines? :rofl:

Jill

#10 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13599 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 10:44 AM

Actually Kim, the person who wrote me was a competitor to the "spammer" who is hogging the rankings. It had nothing to do with a user finding irrelevant results.


That's what I meant, in my head anyway. :shock: Thanks for the clarification and popping in too!

Kim

#11 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13599 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 10:51 AM

Nice post Project!

On a side note, reminds me of the time Lisa Simpson got to the final of the essay writing competition. She saw a corupt politician, and rewrote her speech, condeming teh system and my favourite line: "My god, we have a crisis, a little girl has lost faith in democracy".


Google may have to share me with another engine, but they have my kids hook, line and sinker.

The other day my 9 year old son proudly told me he practiced his math studies online. I asked if he used the link (that they've been using in his class) to the site I had put for him on my desktop PC. He said, "No mom. I just typed in www dot thesitename.com in Google and it took me right there!"

He can barely type, but he knows to use Google to get where he needs to go :)

Kim

#12 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 11:23 AM

Google are a business like any other, they will do what they see as being in their long term financial interest.

Not surprisingly, this is likely to revolve around keeping advertisers happy and keeping searchers happy.

The guys with the web sites who are not advertising are well down their priority list - this is only to be expected.

The only surprise to me is that so many people take their public statements as somehow more truthful than any other press release.

Google have mastered the art of appearing to be the nice guy, and being close to their market, but they are still a business and that means that the truth is only told when it does not damage them financially. It also means that fear, uncertainty and doubt are used when is it suits them financially.

Most of their guidelines and advice on hiring SEOs fall into the FUD category.

But thats cool, I'm a business too - I am sure they will understand why I chose to break their guidelines from time to time :wink:

#13 Tenyque

Tenyque

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 01:51 PM

kim wrote:  
From an SEO perspective, why in the heck should ANY SEO bother to follow Google's own guidelines for SEO's when Google itself isn't monitoring what's going on?  


Yes, that was exactly my point. Why should they? Cuz I say so? Cuz Google has it in it's guidelines?  

Jill


Two reasons come to mind, Respect and/or Fear. People could appreciate Google to a point where they become compliant out of respect to Google's free traffic and relevant search service. Also, people could work on Google's terms because they fear the Google tech eventually processing Spam Report #18902335552-30 made by their competitor, or the next new algorithm change that shuts down a spammy technique.

In this mostly anonymous and dynamic online world it's easy to imagine how quickly respect and fear can go out the window when you feel entitled and fear extends only to losing a domain or IP block.

As to the original question, "Are the Bad Guys Winning at Google?" I voted that they were - whenever I research a product I find far too many instances of duplicate and content intended for the spiders, not for my usability. Any other kind of search? Google stills comes through for me hands down.

Personally, IMHO, while it may seem "evil" to let these spammers get through I believe that Google feels it would be far more "evil" to penalise innocent sites when trying to crack down on spam (Plus, think about how some bloggers get press for complaining about rankings they don't feel are right - imagine how much worse it would be if they were actually penalized!).

The magnitude of the problem is too great for relying on manual edits, and the algorithm detection of spam might capture too many innocent sites. Talk about a rock and a hard place! I like to think that they're still plugging away at innovating new algorithm instructions to determine spam, with capturing as few innocent sites as possible. Wether they come through or not to a point where we wouldn't be having this discussion is anyone's guess.

I've focused on the technical concerns, but as others have pointed out Google is a business with a bottom line. If most of the users are being served relevant results most of the time, why bother enforcing guidelines? After all, people not too long ago used to be able to argue that Google was focused on search because it had nothing else to focus on! But nowadays there's ad revenues, Blogger, and a rumored attempt at Friendster. There is one argument though that the CEO keeps pointing out during interviews.. it only takes a second to switch to another service, they simply MUST be dedicated to search, because that's what Google is, what the brand is.

-ps: great Simpson's reference project php! I can imagine it too. Because their process isn't transparent, it is a matter of faith in some ways.

#14 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 09:56 PM

I did a search for gas scooter, and found gas scooters. I did a search for "email marketing consultant" and found email marketing consultants. Kudos to Google.

I think the whine was more about the people in the top, namely that the whiner was not in the top SERP's.

How to remedy this.... How? I've got an idea. Why not hire the highly effective SEO who put those pages in those SERP's?

#15 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13599 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 10:22 PM

Why not hire the highly effective SEO who put those pages in those SERP's?


Because in all likelihood it cost a wheelbarrow load of money to hire that SEO to pull off that feat.

Meaning, may the best man, with money to blow, win rank, and the hell with those who have relevant sites, but don't have the budget for no holes barred SEO to compete with those who do.

How did it get so cut throat? and why?

Kim

#16 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 10:35 PM

Being top in the SERP's is a location. It's like that ooff-line as well - the person who is most serious about business leases space in the high traffic areas for $30,000 a month. People who aren't so serious can lease space off some alley somewhere.

I seriously see nothing wrong with those SERP's.

#17 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 31 October 2003 - 11:30 PM

How did it get so cut throat? and why?

I guess its because there are only 10 slots in the top ten and in some cases, the ones that are there make lots of money.

Sorry if its stating the obvious, but in our (mostly) capitalist society there is pressure on companies to get return for shareholders. For most, that means making money by whatever means are legal. As long is it remains legal to game the search engines then companies will throw loads of money at so doing. If they don't do so, then the SEO may possibly be failing in his duties to the shareholders.

Its sad, but its how the thing works.

#18 peter_d

peter_d

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1914 posts

Posted 01 November 2003 - 12:26 AM

How did it get so cut throat? and why?


Business as usual. No different from business offline.

#19 Guest_scottiecl_*

Guest_scottiecl_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2003 - 10:33 PM

What is more suprising to me is that it took so long for so many industries. Once they realized the potential of the Internet, it didn't take long for the big guns to shift the marketing budget and get experts who can "get the job done". Plenty do it within SE guidelines while others have to find the tricks and loopholes to get it done.

Kind of reminds you of Netscape and Internet Explorer... amazing what you can do with enough money, regardless of how far along the game is.

If the searchers become unhappy (and vocal about it) it will change. As long as Sally surfer types in "cheap ink jet cartridges" and gets sites that sell cheap ink jet cartridges, she's happy. The paid advertisers are happy. The top 10 listings are happy.

That being said, I do believe there is constant work being done to improve Google and I do think they worry about SERP manipulation a lot. But as anyone who runs a business knows, some things are higher priorities than others. If the customer is happy, work on bigger fires first.

#20 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9018 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 06:56 AM

But as anyone who runs a business knows, some things are higher priorities than others. If the customer is happy, work on bigger fires first.

Yes, scottiecl, that's true, except ...

Sometimes there may be slight dissatisfactions that the customer is feeling. OK the product is the best available, but if only ... That's why you have to be very close to your customers, and probe and probe.

Is there anything you don't like about the product? No, it's just fine. (who wants to get into any conflict situations?)
OK but if you could change anything at all about the product, what might you change? then you may hear the truth. It often takes a second question to get to the heart of the matter.

If you can identify your lost customers, this is a great source of information. Why did you switch?

So why do all this if the customer is happy? Well perhaps someone else will come along and produce a product that satisfies some of these "hidden" gripes. You can never sit back on your laurels. You've got to stay ahead of the competition.

Stick a sign above your desk. What have I done today to make my product/service even better for my favourite customers?

#21 Guest_scottiecl_*

Guest_scottiecl_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2003 - 03:13 PM

That's excellent advice, Barry!

And I do believe they are working everyday on fixing the gaps in the algo- I certainly don't think they are resting on their laurels, do you?

When it comes to prioritizing and implementing changes and fixes, you have to fix the things that are most urgent first. Anyone who's ever managed a project knows you have wants and needs on your list and the needs get implemented first.

As long as the majority of searchers and advertisers are happy, it's not a fire yet. As relevancy continues to decline and 1 or 2 spammy companies dominate the listings for many, many searches, the algo holes will become a more urgent need. And I think things are moving that way.

#22 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9018 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 03:22 PM

And I do believe they are working everyday on fixing the gaps in the algo- I certainly don't think they are resting on their laurels, do you?

I agree with you, Scottie. In my neck of the Internet woods, I think searchers would see only improvements. Looking under the hood of the search machine, that's another matter ...

However some other Good Guys seem to feel in their necks of the woods the searchers may be feeling some irritations.

#23 DianeV

DianeV

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 7216 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 03:42 PM

It's an interesting point, Barry.

On the other hand, considering what we had before Google, it's possible that we've now been spoiled by Google and want ... perfect. <g>

#24 peter_d

peter_d

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1914 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 03:43 PM

As relevancy continues to decline and 1 or 2 spammy companies dominate the listings for many, many searches, the algo holes will become a more urgent need. And I think things are moving that way.


I think there is a danger in viewing relevancy purely from an seo viewpoint. The presence of hardcore seo sites does not mean the serps are therefore irrelevant to the user. Rather, their presence makes ineffective seos irrelevant.

Google certainly work constantly to improve their relevancy algos, however relevancy, as far as Google is concerned, is not defined soely in seo terms. Relevancy includes other variables such as timeliness, cultural bias, semantics, inter-relationships etc etc. They have certainly improved timeliness of late. It's obviously a pretty important factor.

It all comes back to Googles user centric model. If the user is happy, Google is happy. I'm a user, I always find what I want with Google and I couldn't care less how those top ten sites got there, so long as they are relevant to me.

#25 Guest_scottiecl_*

Guest_scottiecl_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2003 - 03:45 PM

So... if you got 10 top results all pointing to the same company, or the same 2 companies, you would still see that as a relevant search? I wouldn't. That's not an SEO perspective at all- that's a user annoyance perspective.

I agree with you- the searcher doesn't care how they got there. But if they are all the same, the searcher will care. And go elsewhere.

#26 peter_d

peter_d

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1914 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 03:57 PM

if you got 10 top results all pointing to the same company, or the same 2 companies, you would still see that as a relevant search?


I think variety is certainly important. I would rather have a wider choice.
I think we'll see paid listings making up more of the front page in the future.

AdWords are often more relevant, and more varied, than the serps and they provide a revenue stream. Something to think about :)

#27 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 04:01 PM

Yes, indeed, all very good points.

It will surely be interesting to see what the future brings with Google and the other search engines too!

Jill

#28 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 04:05 PM

So... if you got 10 top results all pointing to the same company, or the same 2 companies, you would still see that as a relevant search? I wouldn't. That's not an SEO perspective at all- that's a user annoyance perspective.

Of course. :) However if they have different domains, names etc I wonder how often average Joe even realises. That's the thing - we study the results so carefully - users see a link that looks right to then and click.

#29 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 07:52 PM

Everyone in SEO talks about searches that are for something to buy, but what percentage of the time is this true? If 5% of the all searches were for product to purchase, I would be very surprised. There are numerous searches that are either clearly informational, or are in that lovely grey area such as "online recipe", on which commercial sites appear, usually selling a related product.

The real key has nothing to do with whether a user's search for "cheap ink cartridges", is filled, because AdWords will always have ads for such products, but whether her search for "how ink cartridges work" gets the information the user is after.

Google has to balance the needs of those looking to buy things with the needs of those looking for information about those things. This is not just because of some moral imperative that doesn't exist, but rather because of Gogole's business model, which is based around market share. If people don't find what they need for every search, of which the vast majority of searches are not commercial, Google will either lose part of this market share, or at least be vulnerable to such a lose. Unless Google change their business model, keeping the how, what and why searchers happy is vital.

As far as the free SERPs are concerned, this places a need to slant them heavily in favour of informational content, which is so very hard to define. This is not just for revenue raising purposes (although, financially, it does make sense to disadvantage commercial sites), but because there will always be AdWords selling stuff, meaning such users will always have access to what the need, but AdWords for people giving away stuff for free is far less likely, and only likley to be filled via the free component. I think Google know this, and I think they work hard @ making sure these searches are filled.

IMHO Google also know that their USP is not so much how good their algorithmic search is, but rather how good it is perceived to be. The former is very difficult to define and murky teritory, but the later is much easier to define and, inevitably, far easier to manipulate. That is why keeping SEOs happy, particularly those with blogs (Peter_d), is important to Google from a marketing perspective. In many ways, SEOs / SEMs are kinda like the NRA in American politics (sans ageing former star): a small group of vocal people who exert far more influence than perhaps they should. Because of the power of the web and Blogs, rightly or wrongly, Google has a vested interest in appeasing this group, to at least some degree, and by defining spam, Google is creating a playing field, which it controls, and funneling peoples attacks in a direction they can quite easily respond to. Punishing spam then becomes an excercise in PR (public relations, that is), in which Google can be seen to be living up to its end of the bargain.

#30 peter_d

peter_d

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1914 posts

Posted 02 November 2003 - 07:58 PM

Good post, projectphp. Perception is indeed everything in marketing. And Google have some of the smartest marketing people around.

#31 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9018 posts

Posted 03 November 2003 - 08:02 AM

Google has to balance the needs of those looking to buy things with the needs of those looking for information about those things.

That gives me a thought that Google might find useful. It builds on their new function define:

If you search for define:lederhosen, then Google serves up:
leather shorts often worn with suspenders; worn especially by men and boys in Bavaria

So building on your idea, projectphp, perhaps Google could allow you to search on either
buy:lederhosen
or
info:lederhosen

The Google search results would then change the relevancy measure to reflect the Searcher's interest.

I realize that Google has Froogle but this only works for precisely defined items with a published price.

#32 Grumpus

Grumpus

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6323 posts

Posted 03 November 2003 - 08:15 AM

It builds on their new function define:


Off topic a bit, but this is always fun when you are bored. Type in (no quotes needed) "feet in a mile" at Google. I blanked on that a few months ago (my mind was telling me 5700 and something feet, but I knew that wasn't right).

G.

#33 Sharon_and_Roy

Sharon_and_Roy

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 03 November 2003 - 01:27 PM

Polarmate, you say that Google does care because they have to care.  

Yes, Google cares a whole lot about relevance. And they've got very good relevance. I don't see very many people dispute that. So is that all they care about (in terms of which sites show up for queries).  

The SERPs mentioned in my newsletter bring up relevant sites. Those gas scooter pages apparently have lots of great gas scooters. They were highly relevant to the query at hand. But when looked at closely, if 9 out of the 10 sites are owned by the same company, is that a good thing? That's what I want to know if Google cares about.  


Jill, if the same company has 9 DIFFERENT domains in the Top 10 results for a particular query AND they are NOT spamming to be listed there, then that IS a GOOD thing.

And since it is a GOOD thing, which we will define as a page that uses "Google Compliant Optimization Techniques" to rank high in the SERP (Search Engine Results Pages), then Google MOST CERTAINLY doesn't penalize or ban a page just because they are owned by the same company.

So let us make sure that we understand your statement correctly ... Are you saying that you agree that those 9 pages in the Top 10 SERP should be there because they are using "Google Compliant Optimization Techniques" to warrant their positions, but you do NOT think that it is a "good thing" (which we will ask you to define for us) that one company should be positioned with 9 pages in the Top 10 SERP, even if they "played by the rules" like every one else to achieve them?

Are we correct in our assumption of what you are actually saying?


If that is in fact what you are saying, would we be correct in our assumption that you would think that Google should add a statement to their Webmaster Guidelines that reads something like this.

In order to be fair and because we care, we will not allow any one company to occupy more than one position (with multiple owned domains) in the Top 10 (or Top whatever) because if we did it may appear that we don't care. If there is such an occurrence please bring it to our attention and we will remove all but one of the domains from the SERP as soon as possible. Thank you for your understanding.


If not something like that, then how would YOU word it, Jill.

As always, we THANK YOU for your dialog about some of the most controversial SEO issues around.

Your Friends,

Sharon and Roy

#34 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 03 November 2003 - 10:34 PM

Good to see you again Sharon and Roy - I'd been a little worried having not seen you since your site lost its PageRank. Glad to see you are both alright.

#35 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 03 November 2003 - 11:21 PM

Hi S&R,

So let us make sure that we understand your statement correctly ... Are you saying that you agree that those 9 pages in the Top 10 SERP should be there because they are using "Google Compliant Optimization Techniques" to warrant their positions, but you do NOT think that it is a "good thing" (which we will ask you to define for us) that one company should be positioned with 9 pages in the Top 10 SERP, even if they "played by the rules" like every one else to achieve them?


No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm only asking what Google says. It doesn't make one teeny-tiny bit of difference what I say.

My concern is that I thought (whether rightly or wrongly) that Google wanted sites with unique content in their SERPs, not sites that the same company owned, selling the exact same products.

So I was just wondering if I was wrong in my assumption. Judging by the SERPs it appears that I was wrong. Would love to get some confirmation from Google either way, but I won't be holding my breath!

Your friend,

Jill Whalen :)

#36 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 03 November 2003 - 11:22 PM

I'd been a little worried having not seen you since your site lost its PageRank. Glad to see you are both alright.


Is that something that puts people in the hospital these days or something? :puzzled:

Jill

#37 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 12:18 AM

Is that something that puts people in the hospital these days or something?  :puzzled:


Only if it happens to a tough client's site :)

No, that was merely the time-frame reference in my mind of when I'd last expected to see Sharon and Roy and not seen them around. I am glad to see them both 'in action' again so to speak. :glasses:

#38 markus

markus

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 02:29 AM

There are many larger companies out there that own 2 or 3 hundred other companies.. Google may never be able to know what sites are owned by what company...

#39 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 09:34 AM

Right, Markus, but more importantly (to me at least) do they even want to?

Jill

#40 cnovela

cnovela

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 11:16 AM

Personally I like ZEAL, but it is not ready for prime time yet.

Google is full of JUNK sites selling coral calcium.
It has become the EBAY of search engines.

Watch how they promised no ads on top, only little boxes on the side,
well now for $3,000/mth you too can be on top.

Pay for placement destroys the value of the search engine.

Remember Yahoo/Overture?

How good is that number one position? :mad:



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users