Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

There Is A Bad Odor Emitting From The Googleplex

g##### bing ad blocking keyword not provided

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 07:54 PM

I think Aaron Wall has this one just right -->

 

"When one digs into keyword referral data & ad blocking, there is a bad odor emitting from the GooglePlex."

 

g#####'s activities are looking more monopolistic all the time.



#2 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4623 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 09:04 PM

And this is a surprise?
Nope.
This is simply a continuation of a trend of behaviours going back well over 5-years.
Adapt or die. anyone claiming ignorance at this point is in denial.

#3 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5447 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 09:05 PM

... that percentage didn't include the large percent of mobile search users that were showing no referrals at all & were showing up as direct website visitors...

 

Argh...  I wondered where all of these were coming from.  Until reading this I could not figure out where these direct visitors were coming from.

 

Well.... good to know now.  Thanks Chuck. 



#4 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3817 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 10:28 PM

Gotta love Aaron. :)



#5 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 11:48 PM

This is simply a continuation of a trend of behaviours going back well over 5-years.
Adapt or die. anyone claiming ignorance at this point is in denial.

 

So true, there's no refuting it.



#6 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2550 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:47 AM

Google ads loosing on mobile and tablet so thet reported to the Financial Times. This is where FB are winning.

#7 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:28 AM

Aaron Wall's article is completely on target IMHO.  tx for the article, Chuck.  I hadn't read it in my email.  After reading it and going to the references I eagerly looked at my mobile traffic.

 

Direct traffic had plummeted.  I was excited to look at the keyword traffic.   Bah.  &*^^#&*&^.   google took all that IOS6 traffic and rolled it into its own friggin keyword filter that moved most of that keyword traffic to not provided.   m' f*ckers.   

 

Google is monopolistically against seo.  as it is monopolistic on all fronts it can get its hands on!!

 

Inch by inch it moves folks to "sign into google".   On my mobile I'm auto signed in.  I'm just going to disable that.  I've had it w/ the monopolistic aspects of google.  

 

Our local smb sites do rely on google, as google dominates search.   Can't get away from it.   

 

With more people signed into google when searching seo becomes ever more "impacted and harder" b/c of not provided.   and in that vein, more sites turn to ppc for help.

 

A couple of notes on all these phenomena.

 

1.  from this recent article:  http://www.ppcforhir...eo-infographic/   as an operator of smb sites it strongly motivates me to get google+ followers for the smb's for ranking assistance.

 

of course the more google+ folks there are the more they sign into google and we'll never know there keyword choices.   We become unhappy contributors to google's seo dominance.   As much as contributing to google's market dominance and monopoly is distasteful I have no choice but to pursue it.

 

2.  the loss of keyword knowledge inches website operators to adwords.  

 

Our smb sites use extensive ppc.  We have been doing it for years.  The ROI is positive.  Moreover adwords gives us a feel for the entire keyword search universe for search phrases that convert for the smb's.  

 

We have used this in the following way to help us with our organic seo in the following manner.   Its a method I haven't seen published elsewhere.  I presented it one time, but I think it went over the head of the audience, in part b/c there were 2 topics in the presentation and the other topic was easier to follow.

 

How PPC data helps us determine our seo direction for a small business.

 

1.  we use regional campaigns that align with the rough geographical regions in which the smb can attract customers.

2.  from that data we know the highest volume keyword phrases used to find our smb's.

3.  We total all traffic to the site that reflects that traffic.   Its a combination of the following 3 elements:   A.  ppc traffic   B. organic traffic   C.  an estimate of not provided traffic derived by spreading the not provided traffic among keywords.  (its an estimate--its based on a formula which we've tested a couple of ways;  we spread keyword traffic around before not provided was instituted;  we tested the formula in the early months of not provided when the number and percentage were low...and we update it with current data.   Obviously it gets less trustworthy the higher the volume and percentage of "not provided" gets.(also until July 30th it made analysing mobile traffic incredibly difficult and probably untrustworthy from a keyword perspective, as a majority or close to it of ALL mobile traffic was coming in as "direct"  representing the high percentage of apple Iphone users and the high percentage of that group that had installed IOS6)

 

 

Roughly here is what we found:

 

1.  For recovery keyword phrases (either the name or something very close to the name of the smbs we get huge huge percentages of traffic.  Most of them have ppc connected to them from competitors.   Those percentages of all searches could approximate 80% or more.   VERY HIGH.   (on the other hand these searches don't necessarily relate to the highest conversion rates--- a lot of times existing customers look us up on the web to get the phone number to call us with a question and not for a sale)

 

2.  Fortunately for us we have had some really dominant positions for some keywords.   At their best they included the following:   

 

A.  a #1 ppc position

B)  a #1 organic position

C) a large ONE Map on the right of the screen (where there probably should have been more than one smb)

D) an organic position tied to the Map with some of the different links google has provided for these "pinned results"

E).  The #1 organic had some site links under it.

F)  Some additional internal pages ranked below the #1 ranking.   

 

For those types of keywords that was great dominance of the top of the page real estate.    With those rankings we got up to about 65% of all the traffic per ppc data.

 

Then we had various levels of less dominance and various levels of no dominance and various levels of being 2nd, 3rd, 4th in rankings etc.

 

Pretty roughly the ppc contribution to total traffic was usually in the 10-15% of traffic for the keyword.

 

So if we had 65% of the traffic that meant 50% came from some type of organic and/or local high rankings.   If we had 17% of the traffic...it meant that most of our traffic was coming from ppc.

 

then we went back and looked at how the keyword phrases convert.   If they didn't convert well....well then we spend less time on them.   they are probably more "informational search phrases "   then possible conversion $$$ type phrases.

 

The value of all this are several fold.

 

1.  It tells us in no uncertain terms that really great seo efforts and high rankings or dominant high rankings with multiple pages or site links is FAR FAR FAR more valuable than ppc.   Hence spend more time improving seo than ppc.

 

2.  The difference in total percentages of the universe of all searches was pretty profound and significant.  It tells us to work like a dog to try and get some far far better SERPS results for some phrases.

 

3.  There are some other benefits associated with all that but I won't touch on them.

 

So we think there is deep informational value to ppc beyond the clicks...and frankly the seo side is more valuable.

 

All of which is to say that google is making the seo side infinitely more difficult to pursue by obfuscating keywords.   they really really s*ck.   On top of that I was looking at the ppc keyword tool recently.  Its changed its presentation.    I didn't look at it too closely but I think its less informative.   Any comments or reactions to the keyword tool inside google????

 

CrookedGoogle is a huge monopoly.   That isn't good for anyone else.
 


Edited by earlpearl, 04 August 2013 - 10:53 AM.


#8 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 08:47 PM

This article got me riled up.  I glanced at 2  sites today.  3/4 of our organic traffic from google was "not provided"   3/4   that is ridiculous.  I couldn't do the type of analysis that I did above with that level of untrustworthy data.   I wouldn't know that dominant levels of controlling some keyword phrases are well worth it.  I wouldn't have a feel for how strong they are relative to ppc.   With a lack of knowledge I'd be clueless where to spend time on the site.

 

Google has once again used its monopoly powers to shut out another element of the market  place: the huge universe of all website owners.  That is a large group.  Afterall its EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS with a website on top of every single website in the world where google dominates.

 

When not provided first came out Matt Cutts said it wouldn't reach but about 10%.  Google's spokesman lied.  In a world where google has all the knowledge and shuts out every other player...that is an unhealthy aspect of a monopoly.

 

In a world of poor knowledge more sites will end up depending more and more on ppc.  

 

I'd break that company up in a bunch of ways.  

 

(this post has had all curse words and expletives removed.  They would have overwhelmed the post.  But if you want to experience how I really feel listen to an episode of the Soprano's.  ;)  )


Edited by earlpearl, 04 August 2013 - 08:51 PM.


#9 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:38 PM

This is the solution that won't happen

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /

deny from all 66.249   -> google IPs
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} Googlebot [NC]
RewriteRule .* - [F]

And everyone switch to Bing. I know this won't/can't happen but what a wake-up call for Sergei and Larry. What a shock to Ballmer.

 

Or something like that.



#10 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4399 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 01:13 AM

Funny really. For years people have been saying that Google is wrong. Never heard a regular user complain though, only webmasters and SEOs.



#11 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 06:42 AM

Funny really. For years people have been saying that Google is wrong. Never heard a regular user complain though, only webmasters and SEOs.

I agree.



#12 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 09:35 AM

That's because they give the users what they want. Don't know if you remember the thread we had here about Google and Bing and how they are now leeching images by allowing users to see them with visiting the site by using hotlink techniques.

 

Well I went to a few forums and listened to the comments. People (not all) thought it was great. Image copyright is going extinct. Your images are now Google data to do with as they like.

 

From what I read here I think they also want the SEO business since they own the SEO data.

 

Soon your data will be Google data to do with as they like. Ever look for the definition/synonym of a word? It use to be that there was Merriam-Webster plus a few others that were in the top 5. Now G shows you the definition/synonym as the first entry and they scraped it from Merriam-Webster or other.

 

As a user don't you think that's great? Lets ask Merriam-Webster.

 

I use it as a spell check.


Edited by bobbb, 05 August 2013 - 09:44 AM.


#13 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4399 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 09:49 AM

Yeah, it is tricky. I have been hammered severely by changes, but I do understand why they are doing it. As for images - if you search for an image, you want to see images, not a list of URLs. 

 

I wonder - could be be clever with images? Display an image to the imagebots which has branding / watermarks on, and then a clean image to users?



#14 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 10:55 AM

It's possible. I found that a lot of users came in (from google/bing) with no referer. Mostly mobiles.

 

So if an image gets hot then your bandwidth is serving Google users while it could be serving your users. They have your image why not serve it from their cache?

 

I just send them all a small hot link image unless it's from my page. Excluded Yahoo since they are so tiny. Does the job but not perfect.

 

This also catches Facebook. They were devious. They would specifically not include a referer because they knew most anti-leech techniques did it with the referer.



#15 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 12:49 PM

@Bobb:

 

In what kinds of forums did you see where people liked the changes in presentations on pictures?   You certainly didn't see it in webmaster forums.  LOL.   In our case we have a fluke of a pic that is ranked #1 for a search phrase in Image search.   It turns out its irrelevant to the site.  So in our case it didn't matter from an economic perspective.    Since the change in image presentation we have consistently seen 20% of the traffic we used to see from that page.

 

I know the webmasters who depended on images were crushed.   

 

Of course if the greater world out there likes the new presentation by Google (since late january) that nullifies the cries, screams, and despair of the webmasters.



#16 mrgoodfox

mrgoodfox

    One Who Engineers

  • Moderators
  • 1012 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 02:05 PM

Im not too unhappy about all of these. Its a good thing that Google is slipping off. If Bing (and soon Yahoo) are smart they'll highlight these problems with a good marketing campaign and take advantage of the situation to improve and promote their products


Edited by mrgoodfox, 05 August 2013 - 02:06 PM.


#17 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 05:02 PM

 If Bing (and soon Yahoo) are smart they'll highlight these problems with a good marketing campaign and take advantage of the situation to improve and promote their products

Not going to happen. Bing is doing the G thing.



#18 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 05:20 PM

 Since the change in image presentation we have consistently seen 20% of the traffic we used to see from that page.

 

Of course if the greater world out there likes the new presentation by Google (since late january) that nullifies the cries, screams, and despair of the webmasters.

Yes I seem to remember you, I think, mentioning that in the thread on this forum. And it was not a webmaster forum :)

 

loop:

They only "owe something" to their users the clickers. It's really a catch-22. Without the webmasters, who put up sites they would have nothing to "scrape" and thus no index and no Adwords to sell and no Adsense on sites that their clickers can click to make them $.

 

So they do owe webmasters something but as individuals we have no clout.

GoTo loop:



#19 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4623 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 09:21 PM

Never forget that we, the smaller WebDev entrepreneurs, are at the mercy of (1) a maturing search market and (2) a numbers game. Remember that for every search query there are a maximum 1000 returns (in practice a quarter to half that domains); given that for each such Google can choose from at least millions of pages from hundreds of thousands of domains the vast majority of sites never see a page returned let alone one in the top 10.

What we 'hear' in the WebDev fora are those like most of us that have run afoul of (1) pushing the SEO envelope or changing search algorithm inputs/thresholds, (2) increasing inclusion of Google properties and/or service partners, (3) the addition of ads above, as apparent part of search query results, (4) the belated entry of enterprise business claiming their economic place, (5) the scrapers and spammers who prove the incompetence of the process, etc. We, the lucky few who have ridden the tiger for years and have come to consider it our 'right' to our piece of the Google pie. There is no such right. And never has been.

It is knowing this that has driven my efforts to move beyond Google defaults, to raise my brand presence, recognition, and reputation, etc. To have won the Google search lottery for so long (and hopefully longer) is increasingly against the odds. So say the numbers.

#20 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 03:29 AM

That's because they give the users what they want.

 

Don't you think it's more that the average user is clueless and thinks anything they get is good enough.

 

When I tell average users about how g##### runs its business,  they don't like it.



#21 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 09:50 AM

Don't you think it's more that the average user is clueless and thinks anything they get is good enough.

Yes of course but that is the way it is with anything computing. When search images, people don't want to see your site just "steal" your picture. What about all the words they pop up when starting to type your search. Do you like that instead of formulating your own query?



#22 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 03:38 PM

Never forget that we, the smaller WebDev entrepreneurs, are at the mercy of (1) a maturing search market and (2) a numbers game. Remember that for every search query there are a maximum 1000 returns (in practice a quarter to half that domains); given that for each such Google can choose from at least millions of pages from hundreds of thousands of domains the vast majority of sites never see a page returned let alone one in the top 10.

What we 'hear' in the WebDev fora are those like most of us that have run afoul of (1) pushing the SEO envelope or changing search algorithm inputs/thresholds, (2) increasing inclusion of Google properties and/or service partners, (3) the addition of ads above, as apparent part of search query results, (4) the belated entry of enterprise business claiming their economic place, (5) the scrapers and spammers who prove the incompetence of the process, etc. We, the lucky few who have ridden the tiger for years and have come to consider it our 'right' to our piece of the Google pie. There is no such right. And never has been.

It is knowing this that has driven my efforts to move beyond Google defaults, to raise my brand presence, recognition, and reputation, etc. To have won the Google search lottery for so long (and hopefully longer) is increasingly against the odds. So say the numbers.

@IamLost:

 

We have some smb types that work this way.  We also have a different type that has to survive off of search.  Some websites similarly can work to emphasize things like ...."brand presence, recognition, and reputation, etc."  as you referenced (and other things) and do well.  In our case, with these type smb's and their sites and all their marketing we learned to and apply methods beyond search and simple high rankings in google, let alone ppc.    

 

Frankly, the smb's are small with limited resources, and their services apply to an extraordinary breath of services, products, and perspectives some of which represent huge brand names.   We can't compete on that basis.  So we desperately needed to get that visibility elsewhere.   So far its working.

 

In other cases we have legacy business types that predate the web.   They used to live off of a combination of generally local print ads in classified sections and the print YP's.   When the internet started to dominate print we were able to get good visibility on both fronts on the web.   Essentially the YP element of the attractiveness of the smb was more effective than the classified element.  We had good visibility on both fronts.

 

What for us represented the classified portion became to difficult to compete in.  It became dominated by humongous sites, it became fractured by lots of competitors, and the demands for visibility for our little element via advertising became too expensive for the return.

 

In any case the volume of searches that sort of represented the old print YP became the primary source for finding out about our smb's and their services.   

 

People searched for this business type by phrases that represent the service.   In doing this, the Search Engines simply become the world's largest YP.  With refinements they have elevated local providers for these services across the web.  

 

They created local indexes  and push those results into the first page of google.com search.  That is the local part of search and it is mostly manifested by Local/Google + Local/google maps  (whatever you want to call it these days).

 

Those type businesses are at the mercy of google search.  We know it.  We do everything we can to diversify into other areas.  We spend inordinate amounts of time and energy and money to diversify outside of search.

 

None of the results work!!!  (at least in terms of ROI based just on effort, and hours, and plans, and programs...let alone costs).   

 

the little industry niche is simply dominated by search.

 

...and so in that case we are at the mercy of google.   Its in that case, where I've seen results referenced above...wherein in some cases we seem to pick up about 60% to 2/3 of the traffic for a relatively big phrase.  It ends up converting well also.   Similarly we have this organic strength in some quircky phrases that are relatively small...but again, through some quirks, we have this inordinate visibility strength...and those too convert at extremely high rates.

 

But...with an ability to track keyword traffic diminishing at an ever faster rate we are unable to make smart decisions.  Google has sucked up all that info and keeps it to themselves.  Its the huge volume of "undecided" references to keywords.

 

At last look considering a one month term we are across the board looking at something close to 50% of our google organic search traffic.  If I take a longer look back to the beginning of the year the total for the sites is in the low 40%'s.   Of course last year it was much lower.

 

Google has all the knowledge.  Nobody else has any of that knowledge.  I wouldn't be surprised if google shared that info with its largest favored advertisers...but maybe not.  Who knows?

 

Again...I wouldn't know that really effective seo and domination of the top of the search page is roughly worth about 5 times the value of being #1 in ppc placement.   Google would know that...but the rest of us don't.   I also wouldn't have an idea how to work on the site for visibility to try and gain those advantages.

 

Its a s*ck environment.  Google is using its domination as a huge monopoly to scrap all the useful information and deprive the entire rest of the webworld access to it.

 

Break the f*cker up.   that is my perspective.



#23 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:24 PM

   

Break the f*cker up.   that is my perspective.

Ok I'll buy that but based on what law and how to present it. They are not a monopoly but an oligopoly, a situation in which a particular market is controlled by a small group of firms. Someone would have to prove collusion amongst that small group.

 

I can't think of any law they have broken.



#24 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:43 PM

In the states, take data from webmasters.  They have somewhere about 85-90% of search market share.  That is by any definition monopoly share.   There are long establshed laws that deal with the issues of monopoly.

 

I'm not a tech wizard.  I wouldn't know how to effect a break up.  But there are smart people tasked with figuring these things out.  

 

It simply pisses me off.   This slow but steady removal of keyword data started out with some bs phraseology about protecting users security and a promise that it wouldn't exceed 10%.   

 

They probably passed on keyword data to the NSC for all we know...they have the data and probably use it...and they froze this out of the world of website owners.   On the one hand, they might have internal good reason in order to combat spam.   

 

On the other hand removing this data makes it infinitely easier for them to sell ppc....something they do 24/7 and do it well.   



#25 mrgoodfox

mrgoodfox

    One Who Engineers

  • Moderators
  • 1012 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:46 PM

I don't think we need the law to step in (I very hardly doubt they will). I think the easier way to go about fixing the issue is raising awareness of ordinary people and letting Google and others deal with the public relation issues. Hopefully that would slow down their current practices and open people's minds to other competitors. 



#26 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 07:32 PM

In the states, take data from webmasters.  They have somewhere about 85-90% of search market share.  That is by any definition monopoly share. 

        

They have not taken anything away from anyone since they never promised anything. They have deceived yes. I think IBM and Microsoft both survived well with their monopolistic percentage of market share.

 

Someone could and should do something in the line of what they do to make it easier for them to sell PPC. Some shark lawyer will think of this I'm sure.

 

Microsoft could spearhead this if they thought about it but then they are not known for destroying people's business or trampling all over them.

 

They could start by openly doing everything "wrong" that got others kicked around by the Pandas and the Penquins. Google's credibility would die if they dared to exclude them from their index. Can you imagine all the Windows queries there must be... and not one search result from microsoft.com. They could use this in some sort of publicity campaign. They can afford the "slap on the hands" other biggies got.

 

Now all the others who do the same "wrong" things, and get killed, have some sort of starting point for some sort of class action suit. A little seed money from Microsoft to get the blood flowing. (I know this is against Ballmer's principles) Now enter the sharks above and let the feeding begin.

 

I have other scenarios.


Edited by bobbb, 06 August 2013 - 07:35 PM.


#27 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 07:52 PM

I know I'm venting.  I don't have "clear answers".   It pisses me off, very definitely on the "not provided" thing.  I think Aaron Wall spelled it out very well on this issue and I agree with him.

 

In the big corporate world all these big businesses go after one another while they maintain an outside glean of looking good.  When microsoft was growing its dominance in operating systems and office suites, they slowly but surely slaughtered the competition.  It was also monopolistic.  Cripes on the office suite side I started out very happy with word perfect and lotus 1,2,3 or whatever it was called at the beginning.

 

microsoft has enormous experience defending itself on the monopoly issue.  I'm sure in the back of their sleeve they are piling up evidence and data to try and hit google when they feel the time is right and most advantageous for them, without looking like pure competitive a-holes.   And I suspect google is intimately aware of that.  


Edited by earlpearl, 06 August 2013 - 07:53 PM.


#28 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2045 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 08:17 PM

Not to defend google or anything, but what right do we have to keyword data? Other than the fact it's been provided in the past and it's frustrating to now not have it. You don't get that data from any other source, customer calls - you have to ask them how they heard about you, you don't get a flashing sign saying they saw you in the yellow pages under pink elephants. It's great data but it is googles business data, they don't have to provide it if they don't want to.



#29 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2087 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 09:14 PM

I'm sure in the back of their sleeve they are piling up evidence and data to try and hit google when they feel the time is right and most advantageous for them

It's going to feel weird rooting for Microsoft again.



#30 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1606 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 10:04 PM

It's going to feel weird rooting for Microsoft again.

true dat  ;)

 

Tam:   what right does google have to block the data from organic results....meanwhile if you pay for ppc you see precise data from your ads.   The data has been out there for a long time.  

 

bing isn't blocking it, nor is yahoo nor are other engines.  A third party uses the keyword, google delivers about 85 to 90% of that traffic and if our website is the recipient why is it they are blocking that data from us.

 

They have all the info and nobody else has it.  And they control an extraordinarily humongous share of the market...somewhere around 85 to 90% of the search market.  Its reported by marketing firms at 90% in the UK (I believe) and webmasters in the US would report the same I'm sure.

 

Monopolies of that size are always harmful.   This is a world wide monopoly (excepting a few nations) and it ends up impacting everyone.   

 

On a simple basis it enables them to convince webmasters to turn to google advertising rather than to work on seo.   Yet we know, via having access to that kind of data...that seo results are far far better.   

 

I could go on and rant and rave about it.   Frankly the US should be as tough on them as is the EU and the penalties should be severe IMHO.   



#31 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 07 August 2013 - 11:46 PM

@Tam - g##### has the right to do anything it wants with it's keyword data. 

 

Whether that makes sense business-wise may be a different story.

 

All you have to do it take note of the feelings their approach to business creates here on this thread.

 

Cre8asite's hard drive isn't big enough to recount all the failed promises and disrespect g##### has shown for business owners.

 

One day they may be sorry.  Blockbuster Video comes to mind -- they can't give movies away anymore because of how they treated the public when they were on top.



#32 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9011 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 08:49 AM

Google has such a fixation on trying to make the world fit their PageRank theory that perhaps a more appropriate name for them is Spambuster.  For anyone trying to get a sense of what drives them, that is certainly a very important component.





RSS Feed


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users