Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

If Google Wants To Be The Knowledge Destination For All....


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13527 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:34 PM

Would that not also create a desire to want to be the web page that has the "best" answer?

 

I've been reading the blog coverage of Matt Cutts' last keynote at Pubcon, plus the discussion we have here about his talk, plus my notes from when I was at that talk.  

 

It has me thinking that Google is seeking a search query utopia were they look to us, the marketers, website designers, etc., for the absolute perfect content to match every search query based on a set of criteria that Google "learns" over time. 

 

So the engine provides the best answers but if you provide the site containing that perfect answer, you get the click, right?



#2 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3803 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:43 PM

but if you provide the site containing that perfect answer, you get the click, right?

 

Why? If google provides the answer, why would the user need to click to go anywhere?



#3 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13527 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 06:25 PM

I was thinking that at first but the more I thought about this, the more it bothered me that the answers for some queries may be easy to do, like "How many planets are there in our galaxy?" but where does the answer appear?  Title tag? Meta? Snippet?  All of which are limited in space.  What about a question that asks for comparisons, or something with variable answers?



#4 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3803 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 07:42 PM

Funny you should mention comparison questions. Google recently announced just such a thing. Here's one example they gave.

 

https://www.google.c...r vs. olive oil

 

 

They discuss this at http://insidesearch....st-getting.html

 

Comparisons and filters in the Knowledge Graph

We keep expanding features of the Knowledge Graph so it can answer more questions—even those that don’t have a simple answer. Let’s say you want to get your daughter excited about a visit to the Met. You can pull up your phone and say to Google: “Tell me about Impressionist artists.” You’ll see who the artists are, and you can dive in to learn more about each of them and explore their most famous works. If you want to switch to Abstract artists, you can do that really easily with our new filter tool:

Nexus+4+-+Impressionist+Artists.png

Or let’s say you want to compare two things: How much saturated fat is in butter versus olive oil? Now you can simply tell Google: “Compare butter with olive oil.” Our new comparison tool gives you new insights by letting you compose your own answer:

Nexus+4+-+Butter+v+Olive+Oil.png

You can try this for some other things you might be curious about, such as dog breeds (“compare pekingese vs. chihuahua”) or celestial objects (“compare earth vs. neptune”)—and we’ll keep adding more.

 

Now, where do you think they are getting that information from? It ain't from their knowledgeable employees, I can tell ya that!



#5 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13527 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 10:36 AM

I can see how this would work for facts.  Having the visuals helps. I wonder about asking Google for opinions?  Or news? Or reviews?  Or how to?  The responses would vary depending on who is asking, where they are asking from and ????

 

Wouldn't some sites still get traffic, like "What are Donna's thoughts on Google?".  What would Google deliver?  

 

Being told by Google to "be the authority" and "know your users" makes more sense.  

 

Has Bill Slawski found any patents that would help us figure this out?



#6 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3803 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 11:27 AM

Yes, of course there are some things that will not fit this model.

 

But little by little, Google is claiming our content for its own.

 

Y'all help me remember it all, will ya? Let's compile the list - and even a timeline - so we can see the picture unfolding. Reminds me of that famous quote:

 

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
 
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
 
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
 
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

First, they came for the images,

and I didn't speak out because I didn't make money from images.

 

Then, they came for Yelp's reviews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't make money from reviews.

 

Then, they came for TripAdvisor reviews

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in travel.

 

Then, they came for the movie listings

and I didn't speak out because I didn't list movies.

 

Then, they came for our business information

and I didn't speak out because I don't have a brick and mortar.

 

Then, they came for our sports listings and our health information

and I didn't speak out because I don't own sports or health sites.

 

Then, they came for all kinds of things

and I'm starting to speak out because I do have sites on all kinds of things.

 

 

Y'all get the idea. I think it would be useful if we created a more complete list, in date order, of this kind of thing. I know I'm missing a lot. Who's with me?



#7 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5414 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 11:43 AM

Google has been infringing on print authors' rights for a long time.

http://www.michbar.o...article1210.pdf

 

(I linked to a very early document from 2007.  Google has since been given the ability to scan the books.  However, the important point is not how they have won or gotten away with each individual type of intellectual property.  The point is that they are systematically going after everyone's property and have angered nearly every type of publisher on the planet.  The sum of the parts is the whole point of your argument.  It is like a case against a monopoly.  It is not about one little thing.  It is the aggressive actions everywhere against everybody!)


Edited by EGOL, 08 November 2013 - 11:49 AM.


#8 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 12:34 PM

There is a current situation on the web which has gotten a little visibility in Mike Blumenthals blog here on this article on SeaWorld and the knowledge graph/local graph.   

 

The knowledge graph/local graph has actually created a greater number of problems that haunt seaworld than this article lets on.

 

Old big mouth (me) added some commentary  ;) here  (:D ) .   I sort of paraphrased on the issue of google taking information from the websites and giving its own answers.  

 

Google is evidently having problems getting information correct on its highly prominent knowledge graphs/local graphs on the entity.

 

Its causing problems for potential visitors.   The visitors problems cause problems for SeaWorld.

 

Other than google's desire to get into the middle of this situation there is no reason for google to be there.   In this case they are providing WORSE INFORMATION.   It all (or most of it) should come from SeaWorld itself.   In fact it should all come from SeaWorld, but google's internal algo's (at least on the local side, and from what I understand from the knowledge graph) can also come from 3rd party websites.

 

Why is that?   Why get in the way of SeaWorld and the potential customers and interested web visitors?

 

Its ominous indeed.   In this case its been an endless morass of problems.    The only reason it even exists is because Google wants it to exist and Google wants to inject themselves in the middle of this.

 

Come on US govt.   Put a stop to this!!!!!   Its an ugly example of monopoly behavior!!!!!



#9 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2059 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:03 PM

And frankly, google why are you in the middle of this whole thing in the
first place???? Unless you are planning on charging everyone for your access?

That would be just great. it would kill them. Anyone remember CompuServe?

Anyone who was anyone was on CompuServe. A bit like "on" Facebook today. You had to subscribe to that. The free Internet killed them. I still remember my number. I was 76314,2200

 

I think it would be useful if we created a more complete list, in date order

Good idea but it will only serve to infuriate people here (and like here)

I can add one to that list. I have mentioned it before. It's click fraud, false testimony, misrepresentation, false advertising, cloaking or call it what you want. Those top 3-4 positions in the organic section, that we have been cultivated to strive for and click on, that are now really paid promotions made to look organic. I'm sure public awareness of this have some effect.

 

I'm referring to this thread.

http://www.cre8asite...ch/#entry344325
 

 

By producing fake reviews, these companies violated multiple state laws
against false advertising and engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices.

 

"Astroturfing" is the 21st century's version of false advertising, and
prosecutors have many tools at their disposal to put an end to it."

 

I sure some smart lawyer can make this fit.


Edited by bobbb, 08 November 2013 - 01:41 PM.


#10 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2059 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:50 PM

The best I could find is that it is a "standard" at which you can probably thumb your nose.

The 14 Clauses of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (there must be a US equivalent)

 

2. Disguised Advertising Techniques
No advertisement shall be presented in a format or style that conceals its commercial intent

 

7. Testimonials
Testimonials, endorsements or representations of opinion or preference, must reflect the genuine, reasonably current opinion of the individual(s), group or organization making such representations, and must be based upon adequate information about or experience with the product or service being advertised, and must not otherwise be deceptive



#11 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5414 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 03:52 PM

Here is an interesting article about a couple of pissant-size websites that are fighting over the use of "public information".  Small companies will attack one another to defend their information, but they probably would not attack Google for doing the same thing.  Size matters.

 

http://money.cnn.com...-com/index.html



#12 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2042 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:12 PM

But from a user point of view I can see why it's a good thing/people like it. For example this evening I needed the number for the local takeaway, I plugged the name in the google search bar on my phones home screen, google found the local branch and provided a 'call' button, I clicked it and my phone rang it. I got the info I wanted at top speed in a minimum of steps. From a users point of view making me click through to a website, then scroll the page for where they had decided to put the number, which may or may not be selectable, was more work than I needed. From a usability perspective they did awesome.



#13 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3803 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 10:38 PM

Posted on ahrefs blog yesterday:

 

http://blog.ahrefs.c...search-results/

 

He shows some interesting examples. Consider the following queries:

 

[how to lose weight]

[how to stop snoring]

[weather boston]

[what is solipsism]

 

Read the article to see how it fits with just what I'm saying.



#14 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2520 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:04 AM

But from a user point of view I can see why it's a good thing/people like it. For example this evening I needed the number for the local takeaway, I plugged the name in the google search bar on my phones home screen, google found the local branch and provided a 'call' button, I clicked it and my phone rang it. I got the info I wanted at top speed in a minimum of steps. From a users point of view making me click through to a website, then scroll the page for where they had decided to put the number, which may or may not be selectable, was more work than I needed. From a usability perspective they did awesome.

 

I can see why it's a good thing too. The problem is when it doesn't work, and the automaticness of the whole process on the auditing and verification of that information. I seem to remember that Google is really big on "good content" and making sure that things are "well written" "researched" and nicely formatted for the "user". Yet they are quite content to serve rubbish results on some verticals just because they want to keep people on their website.

 

What should be happening here is that Google should be paying webmasters to provide their information for this kind of search. How that would work I have no idea but if I spend money on a photo, and you show it on your website. They I am enhancing your product or service offering with my photo. In a licensing world that would have substantial use implications. However, that doesn't happen.

 

Equally if the information is posted by the whatever it's called graph and that information is wrong then there are terms and conditions to protect Google from this erroneous information. What should probably happen is all webmasters should go and change all the info for their business and completely cook the Google index. In that way noone would trust the results and just look for the organic search result for the website instead.

 

G.



#15 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5414 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 08:12 AM

In the past, google displayed a thumbnail of our images and if the searcher clicked that image he was taken straight to our website where he could see the image at full resolution and all of the content that surrounded it.  That served the visitor, and in my opinion was the value that I received for google use of my images.

 

Now, when a searcher clicks the image, he is taken to another page on google.com where my image is displayed at full resolution and at my bandwidth expense.  To get to my website requires yet another click.  How does this better serve the visitor?  I can't even understand how it better serves google?  It makes google a buffoon in a dumbass usability execution. 

 

This serves no one and deprives the webmaster of bandwidth and wastes the searchers time.   Why would google do things this way when they try to save milliseconds in delivering search results and tiny amounts of their own bandwidth?



#16 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:30 AM

As to the Ahrefs blog article.   Wow!!!!   That presentation will cost a lot of webmasters a lot of traffic.  

 

In each case the above the fold results I saw completely eliminated organic results.  For the first 2 all one sees are google ads and the choices google has made for its "answers".

 

Its a full scale attack on webmasters.   

 

Our sites have clearly lost traffic to these changes by google.   We have a couple of local smb's that now are sometimes supplanted by what google deemed to be an "authority site:".

 

Authority my @ss.  They are crappy articles written en masse by paid writers by cbs dot com.   If its not a paid deal I'll eat my hat!!!!!   The particular articles that have supplanted our sites have links to the various actual businesses and  competitors.   We get residual traffic from those sites.   

 

The other way I've seem losses of traffic in local sites are every time an smb site and a hard business has had google information prominently placed that simply redirects the customers to a google page.   The loss is in the huge number of complaints that potential visitors or customers make to the smb.   They had wrong information.  It always points back to Google.  

 

They are a grotesque monopoly both controlling the search highway and now determining completely in and of their own what one sees...with google injecting the answers more and more and more.

 

When you see it in this perspective, highlighted by MC's comments that google will supply the answers and you look at the enormous presentation changes its an ugly story.  

 

 

Every one of these changes is costing organic traffic.  

 

Google is the modern version of the communist party.   Goog is dictating what you see. 



#17 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2059 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:23 AM

To get to my website requires yet another click.  How does this better serve the visitor?

Do we really think that visitor wants to see my/your site? I'd say the visitor wants to just see the picture or more likely wants to steal it and use it on their Facebook page

 

Unfortunately not everyone has unique images, like egol et al, and I'm guessing, but have no evidence, that a lot of images on the World Wild Web are from somewhere else (lifted). G has figured that out also so it can't see how we can/could object to them using "our images".

 

The bandwidth is mine so I do object. Hello Larry: store it on your facilities and be done with it. Buy more disks, keep Seagate in business or buy them out. Keep your bandwidth suppliers and Cisco in business or buy them out too.

 

Google is the modern version of the communist party.

That's a bit strong. There's Bing and Yandex and, and........ but I get what you mean.


Edited by bobbb, 09 November 2013 - 11:29 AM.


#18 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2520 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 07:57 AM

Go look at googles new howto guides to get a sense of where organic sesrch is heading.

#19 mrgoodfox

mrgoodfox

    One Who Engineers

  • Moderators
  • 1011 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 09:46 AM

why doesn't a company with decent size capital go after google for content/copyright infringement then? What you guys are all saying is on the minds of most webmasters and business owners. 

 

Another solution would be webmasters and business owners slowly banning google bots from browsing their sites. If I remember correctly some news websites in France did that already


Edited by mrgoodfox, 10 November 2013 - 09:49 AM.


#20 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3803 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:09 AM

Go look at googles new howto guides to get a sense of where organic sesrch is heading.

 

glyn, could you be more specific? what new google howto guides?



#21 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2059 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:05 PM

why doesn't a company with decent size capital go after google for content/copyright infringement then? What you guys are all saying is on the minds of most webmasters and business owners. 

 

Another solution would be webmasters and business owners slowly banning google bots from browsing their sites. If I remember correctly some news websites in France did that already

1) There's a "fair use" of copyrighted material in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Same idea for UK, Canada,, Australia, and others. It is probably vague enough to hide behind.

 

2) That was Agence Presse France that prevented G from showing its its news for free. Banning G is THE solution but it takes ballz to do. What little comes in for free is more than nothing. Public shaming in the open arena might work. Threat of a lawsuit form those that buy Adwords may be the best bet.


Edited by bobbb, 10 November 2013 - 01:11 PM.


#22 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2520 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 08:54 AM

can't find the link.

 

but bascically it is a product where it's a CPC to get connected with a video done by an expert.

 

Example: how to make a chocolate cake.

 

You sell your video and Google then CPC's you. They serve that the use for a query response.



#23 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 3803 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 09:47 AM

Ah, Google Helpouts. Gotcha, glyn.



#24 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2520 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:42 AM

Great your research skills are better than my memory (or is my brain doing me a favour on Google's new product offering)



#25 sansonj72

sansonj72

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 479 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:50 PM

This is why people need to get off of the Google pipe, so breath some fresh air from phones to searches to paid advertising, etc. We all act like google is everything, but in fact we micro burst sygnertically are everything. If we all make a social movement away from google and droid we will save the day. Otherwise, at the end google will own everything. 



#26 TheAlex

TheAlex

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 223 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:05 AM

This is why people need to get off of the Google pipe, so breath some fresh air from phones to searches to paid advertising, etc. We all act like google is everything, but in fact we micro burst sygnertically are everything. If we all make a social movement away from google and droid we will save the day. Otherwise, at the end google will own everything. 

 

But how likely is that to happen? Google is part of so many people's day-to-day lives. Google makes life easier for millions of people. Many think Google IS the Internet - I'm amazed at the number of people who type URLs into the Google search box without realising that's what a browser's address bar is for. The only way I can see people changing en masse is if the tide starts to turn against Google like it did in a Microsoft kind of way. These big companies are probably all as bad/good as each other and if it all continues to run in cycles there will be another Google in 10 years time anyway.



#27 sansonj72

sansonj72

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 479 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:27 AM

 
But how likely is that to happen? Google is part of so many people's day-to-day lives. Google makes life easier for millions of people. Many think Google IS the Internet - I'm amazed at the number of people who type URLs into the Google search box without realising that's what a browser's address bar is for. The only way I can see people changing en masse is if the tide starts to turn against Google like it did in a Microsoft kind of way. These big companies are probably all as bad/good as each other and if it all continues to run in cycles there will be another Google in 10 years time anyway.


Social movements can be powerful. Constant and steady attacks can bring them down.

#28 sansonj72

sansonj72

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 479 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:35 AM

It only takes one rain drop to start a massive flood that will change the world for ever.

#29 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2059 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:40 AM

LOL But when will it fall.



#30 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9008 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:57 AM

... and of course it cannot be the first raindrop that starts the flood.  It's the last raindrop that break's the camel's back, to change the metaphor. :)



#31 TheAlex

TheAlex

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 223 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:04 AM

"Google’s Broken Promises & Who’s Running The Search Engine?" by Danny Sullivan: http://marketingland...-promises-65121





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users