Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Google Vs Webmasters

g##### hates us what link guidelines do g guidelines say anything?

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 03:41 PM

@imalost is going to like this -- see quote below.

 

This is a great artlcle by Aaron Wall that talks about g#####'s new ban on optimized press releases, their linking policies in general, the war on SEO's with reasons why, and whether focusing on the details of g#####'s policies misses the point altogether.

 

*** This Is Hot! There's a section in the article that lays out what Amit Singhal says the new ranking factors are based on.

 

Google vs Webmasters

 

Focusing on the minuate of Google's policies is, indeed, to miss the point.

 

This is a question of risk management. What happens if your main site,

or your clients site, runs foul of a Google policy change and gets trashed?

Do you run multiple sites? Run one site with no SEO strategy at all, whilst

you run other sites that push hard? Do you stay well within the guidelines

and trust that will always be good enough? If you stay well within the guidelines,
but don’t rank, isn’t that effectively the same as a ban i.e. you’re invisible?

Do you treat search traffic as a bonus, rather than the main course?

 

Be careful about putting Google’s needs before your own. And manage your risk,

on your own terms.

 

End of Quote ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There's an underlying, but unstated, theme here.  This is why webmaster's pursue Black Hat SEO's methods.  And, it's not all the blackhatters that cause g##### to do this.  It's g#####'s [justifiable] need to protect their advertising revenue that causes their attacks on webmasters --> people have that chicken and egg thing backwards here.  Blackhatters don't cause g#####'s actions, g##### implements these onerous algorithm changes and manual actions in attempt to save their revenue stream from other "highly viable" advertising sources, one of which is Organic SEO. 

 

It's clearly "Us or Them" and it's not going to change any time soon.


Edited by chuckfinley, 08 August 2013 - 03:46 PM.
made it look pretty


#2 Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 418 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 03:57 PM

Somebody answer a question I'm not familiar with because I don't follow all these sites. How many of these widely followed SEO guys/websites from yesteryear have been hit by all these crazy Google changes the past three years? I see more and more disenchantment from quite a few of them. That includes Brett Tabke in his supporters forum which now anyone can view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because..trying to figure out how Chuck got that comment under reason for edit.


Edited by Ken Fisher, 08 August 2013 - 04:00 PM.


#3 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1654 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:39 PM

I think over many years Aaron Wall has had a terrific big picture perspective as with this latest article.

 

mulitple sites/   manage risk.    good ideas.



#4 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2152 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:56 PM

It's clearly "Us or Them" and it's not going to change any time soon.

Wasn't it always except we never realised it. :(



#5 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1654 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:44 PM

Aaron Walls subject matter is about google versus webmasters.  He touches on a number of points.   I like to look at these issues in terms of our own sites, our own experiences, and our own numbers.

 

In a different thread I referenced a methodology we've used to analyse the effectiveness of our seo and ppc efforts.   In that the sites are local we have regional campaigns with finite borders theoretically capturing both the total volumes of impressions on a keyword phrase and then in our own analytics we can see how many total clicks we get.

 

I looked at data for one important phrase for us from a before "not provided" and before IOS6 was blocking all search traffic and then from a recent perspective.   I also know that roughly over that time we've had very similar visibility in google for that phrase.  It was strong a couple of years ago.  Its strong now.  Basically over those years we've had a #1ppc position 24/7, an organic result above the google PAC, a number 1 position in the map Pac...and the map itself showed either only our business or it shows us at the top of a PAC.

 

Mobile traffic percentages and totals have grown a lot in the last few years.  In mobile the visibility might be relatively stronger.   With smaller screens all that relative dominance gives us even bigger percentages of the mobile screen.   There are some other elements to mobile.  both the ppc ads and the PAC version have prominent CALL buttons..which we like.   If a user hits the call button off the ad, we know it and can track it.   If the user hits the call button off the PAC location we don't track it.   ( I think if we add event tracking we can capture those calls from an analytic basis.

 

We actually track total leads separately and internally.  Fortunately leads are going up.

 

But our base analysis of comparing all clicks against impressions in the region just doesn't work like it did.  Huge volumes of not provideds from google and until the last few days Directs via the IOS6 in mobile simply distort and change the hard data.

 

Pre not provided days with that strong visibility we were seeing 60, 65--up to 68% of the impressions hitting our site.  Jeez that is a lot.  The phrase is a local discovery phrase for the service-->  service/city   we also have checked it for variations on that search phrase:    city/service and service in city;   we had similar visibility for the same phrases and similar stats. We have plenty of other long tail and geo phrases that hit the site but that is a big one and fortunately for us an effective one.

 

I looked at the same phrase from Jan 1 to July 31 this year.  All that desktop, mobile and tablet traffic.  On mobile we see over 50% came in as DIRECT.   that is Apple's doing ...not google.  But jeez.  Before the IOS6 we were getting 70-80% google search traffic   so that makes that analysis virtually worthless.   On the desktop/and tablets...well over 40% of our organic google traffic was not provided.

 

the net result was that of search phrases I could count....for that phrase we saw about 34% of impressions...not the 60-68% we were seeing before all this SE and IOS6 blocking.  Of the 34% a large part of that is ppc.  

 

Without context or understanding...the whole thing looks to me like Google PPC is REALLY HUGE and vital roughly worth about 1/2 of all that traffic.

 

But its only with context and history that I know its not.  When I back out all the not provideds and all that Apple Direct traffic...it looks to me like google and apple blocked my access to in depth information of about 35% of all the traffic on the site...and well over 40% of the probable google traffic.

 

The visibility of these keywords is very close to the screenshots we have from it from prior years...when there wasn't this kind of data blockage from google and from apple.   On a mobile it seems to me to be more prominent.and with more prominence comes more clicks and calls.   

 

But we can't measure results on this important phrase like we could as little as a year ago and longer.   Google and Apple blocked us...and Apple just stopped...but google stepped in immediately to block that data.

 

To me these hard numbers support Aaron Wall's claims.  Its google versus webmasters.  Possibly it always has been as Bobb referenced above...but its more pronounced in a more insidious way...with a side effect being that google is simultaneously more aggressively pushing ppc/adwords....and frankly the only data you have access to gives them even more credibility.

 

I just keep going back to the same thought process.   Go-ogle is a big monopoly--too big for everyone else.  The EU should hit them hard, imho, the US gov should hit them hard, Canada should hit them hard, etc.

 

:D   at least that is my $0.02



#6 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2152 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:01 PM

Canada will only hit if the US does it first. Then we will go the "me too" scenario.



#7 pattanaik

pattanaik

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:52 AM

This is a great artlcle by Aaron Wall that talks about g#####'s new ban on optimized press releases, their linking policies in general, the war on SEO's with reasons why, and whether focusing on the details of g#####'s policies misses the point altogether.  

 

It says the author is PeterD. Is it Aaron Wall? 


Edited by pattanaik, 09 August 2013 - 02:55 AM.


#8 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4633 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:56 AM

Chuck 'eyes like hawk' ...
* needs glasses
* needs to read and comprehend not skim and spin :D
... Peter Da Vanzo, is an associate of Aaron Wall who has taken over much of SEOBook blog posting of recent years.

On a similar note I'd like to meet this imalost, obviously an exceptional person given that Chuck references him as an arbiter of quoted WebDev opinion...

Silliness aside, I, iamlost, did indeed like that linked opinion post. I hadn't given it much thought as:
* Google is indeed actually quite consistent
* many 'SEOs' are idjits in their own little fantasy realm
* there is nothing new at all in the entire piece

Not that repetition is bad, it can take quite a lot of pounding to get the obvious and long apparent through determined denial.

Edited by iamlost, 09 August 2013 - 09:58 AM.


#9 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:46 PM

Just because..trying to figure out how Chuck got that comment under reason for edit.

 

After you post, go back and select edit.  A box will be provided to give the reason for the edit.

 

The idea is that you shouldn't go back and change your post after the fact, you should add a new post or add or change opinions.  I have my own rules, though.

 

We don't have spell checker and I hate mis-spellings or poor grammar.  It always looks different after you post it than when writing.  Maybe bigger print, I don't know.  I'm CDO which is OCD in alphabetical order -- as it should be! ;)


Edited by chuckfinley, 09 August 2013 - 05:55 PM.
sp - did it again.


#10 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:54 PM

It says the author is PeterD. Is it Aaron Wall? 

 

Good point.  It would be better to say it came from SEO Book, which, of course, is Aaron Wall's creation and edited by Aaron Wall.  It matches the themes Aaron tends to write about.  As it is a piece that Aaron chose to share with his readership, I attribute it to Aaron.

 

And, I couldn't agree more.  No one provides better insights about the business side of SEO than Aaron Wall.

 

I should be careful to give the writer credit too, it's well deserved.

 

Thanks for pointing that out, @pattanaik.



#11 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:05 PM

To me these hard numbers support Aaron Wall's claims.  Its google versus webmasters.  Possibly it always has been as Bobb referenced above...but its more pronounced in a more insidious way...with a side effect being that google is simultaneously more aggressively pushing ppc/adwords....and frankly the only data you have access to gives them even more credibility.

 

There's no way to determine Organic Cannibalization without the data.  That keeps people using PPC via the "poke and hope" method.  Who knows what the optimum PPC position is or which keywords you want to promote via PPC.

 

You are clearly right.  There's has to be a big push on expanding/maintaining advertising market share and that's what is behind all of this.  I'll bet in the background, managers at g##### are getting brutalized to increase ad revenue.  The way they look at it is "it's them or us."  What is it that rolls down hill?

 

Same with Local.  I'll bet the future of Local depends on the success of Adwords Express.  I'd hate to be working over there.

 

Always follow the money .......



#12 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:29 PM

btw, there's a ton of new and important info in that blog post.  If you have a business, you may find it very valuable.  No spin here.



#13 test-ok

test-ok

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 371 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:07 PM

I'm CDO which is OCD in alphabetical order 

A little touch of dyslexia too? ;)

 

I've noticed a big push to PPC as well....penguin 2.0 comes to mind and seeing how this isn't in a private forum I'll leave it at that.



#14 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:26 PM

I've noticed a big push to PPC as well....penguin 2.0 comes to mind and seeing how this isn't in a private forum I'll leave it at that.

 

If you have some time PM me.



#15 sansonj72

sansonj72

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 479 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:34 AM

What is all of the SEO people went with a different analytic tool than gr0g1e would this begin to help? Basically starve gr0g1e of wide spread data mining?


Edited by sansonj72, 04 October 2013 - 03:34 AM.


#16 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2152 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:25 AM

I think it would help but they would still have a lot of that data anyway. What they get now is how much traffic you get from other SEs and the keywords. Anything to do with google search anywhere they have maybe in not so neat a package. What's left? Stuff they can get because the visitor has executed the GA javascript code. I only recently got on the GA train and wonder if I should not have.

 

The obvious solution won't/can't happen. We can only hope that Bing can somehow chip away at the monopoly oligopoly.



#17 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:10 PM

I think it would help but they would still have a lot of that data anyway. What they get now is how much traffic you get from other SEs and the keywords. Anything to do with google search anywhere they have maybe in not so neat a package. What's left? Stuff they can get because the visitor has executed the GA javascript code. I only recently got on the GA train and wonder if I should not have.

 

The obvious solution won't/can't happen. We can only hope that Bing can somehow chip away at the monopoly oligopoly.

 

We're going to have to get the data other ways.

 

I have a solution that I need to write up.  I've been saying this for a week but I've been very busy.  I promise I'll get it done early next week.  Keep an eye out for it.

 

Let's hope Bing can do it.

 

I just re-installed the operating system on my laptop so i've re-installed a lot of software too.  I was amazed at how many partners Microsoft has brought on board that include an option to change your default browser to Bing and your Homepage to MSN  (boxes checked for you for your convenience, of course ;) ).  Here's the latest.  I just loaded the most recent Skype update. -->

 

Bing_Browser_Offered_On_Skype.png


Edited by chuckfinley, 04 October 2013 - 02:13 PM.
sp


#18 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:15 PM

Surf's up!  Anybody want to go?



#19 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3828 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:02 PM

Microsoft owns Skype now - they aren't just a partner.



#20 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:05 PM

Why yes they did -- for $8.5 billion back in 2011.

 

That one slipped past me, thanks! :)

 

I probably went on vacation that week.  Who can keep track of all of this?

 

Nevertheless, I'm seeing the same all over the place.





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users