Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

The Words No One Noticed At Matt Cutts Pubcon Keynote

answers contract theft matt cutts google

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#41 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5358 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:16 PM

Where I see Google's nemesis is not in search aka SEs but in users bypassing search and increasing going direct be it:
1. Bookmarks or similar
2. Apps or similar
3. Even strictly navigational searches in G are largely bypassing G's business model, in effect riding free.
4. Typing the url to major web destinations directly.

As the world goes mobile it will be interesting to watch the maturing of apps especially whether they interlink much as blogs did with blog rolls. Given that G is cut out of apps they have no power such as they flexed to kill off blog rolls. Currently most apps are, as with mine, specific to one or a select number of sites; over time I expect a number of vertical/niche directories, i.e. OpenTable, to become defacto mobile defaults. Instead of asking G for restaurants, theatre, et al recommendations or directions one will query the appropriate app.

Of course general search and in-depth search engines will remain as the problem they solve is not about to disappear, however, I see the reincarnation of the directory as app cutting into their current usage.

#42 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 03:34 PM

Not sure about that. Yes I am seeing more different SEs in my referer list; more Bing and Y! and a sprinkle of the Duck, AVG, Ask, Norton, etc. Where is their data from? The Duck says Yandex and probably a hybrid of B, Y! and G.

 

The only real SE that could make a difference is Bing. They are #2 but not even a contender. I see them, on a site I have, just wasting their time and resources going after all lower case name URLs when it is mixed case. They have my site map that they read in at times as per Bing WMT.

 

Regardless of the details under the hood, people identify with the brand that provides it.  They don't know where it comes from.

 

If the general public stops using g#####, it will damage g#####'s brand and their ability to sell their products and services.

 

It's fine if you get g##### search results from DuckDuckGo -- DuckDuckGo gets the (brand) credit too which will give them the resources to expand to meet your needs rather than ram what they need to make money down your throat.

 

I agree, I'm pulling for Bing.  I think Bill Gates is a lot more savvy than Eric Schmidt, he could very well win this.  Waiting to see what Mark Penn's next move is.


Edited by chuckfinley, 26 October 2013 - 03:37 PM.


#43 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 05:06 PM

I agree, I'm pulling for Bing.  I think Bill Gates is a lot more savvy than Eric Schmidt, he could very well win this.

Bill Gates already beat Eric Schmidt in the Network wars Microsoft vs Novell. Novell Netware is no longer. Novell owned PC networking in the early days. Novell bought WordPerfect and he killed that also.

 

He'll do it like WordPerfect. Give it away for a while till the kids get use to it and can't do without. MS is giving out tablets preconfigured with Bing. Saw that in a previous thread.

 

Hmmm...... Wonder if this is his [Schmidt] payback time.

 

And I wonder how long G will let the Duck pull in its data if they become a threat. Can't depend on your competitor to succeed.


Edited by bobbb, 26 October 2013 - 05:13 PM.


#44 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 07:19 PM

As the world goes mobile it will be interesting to watch the maturing of apps especially whether they interlink much as blogs did with blog rolls. Given that G is cut out of apps they have no power such as they flexed to kill off blog rolls. Currently most apps are, as with mine, specific to one or a select number of sites; over time I expect a number of vertical/niche directories, i.e. OpenTable, to become defacto mobile defaults. Instead of asking G for restaurants, theatre, et al recommendations or directions one will query the appropriate app.

 

It's interesting that you say that.  I just happened on this a bit ago and was going to put a thread up on it -->

 

Steve Jobs: people not spending their time searching [on mobile devices]

 

 

 

 

 I see the reincarnation of the directory as app cutting into their current usage.

 

Based on what both you and Steve Jobs are saying, I would say you're onto something.  There's some there, there.



#45 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6291 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 07:44 PM

I think that people are learning where to find their information as they get experience with the web.  They discover favorite, proven, reliable places to get what they want.

 

I know that I search less.  If I want basic information on a subject I get it from wikipedia.  For med info I go to cdc or webmd or mayoclinic. 

 

If I want to by books or music I go to amazon, motors or drive parts I go to grainger.   And, you can often find that keyword domains are the places to go for things like baklava, cigars, wine, etc..

 

So, I think that people are more and more going straight to their destination.


Edited by EGOL, 26 October 2013 - 07:46 PM.


#46 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 08:17 PM

So, I think that people are more and more going straight to their destination.

 

I agree.

 

That begs an important question -- how does the small business fit into that scenario?

 

These are troubling times in the kingdom .......



#47 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6291 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 10:16 PM

how does the small business fit into that scenario?

 

It's tough.  In one niche where I compete, I own the keyword domain, sell the products from all important manufacturers, have what might be the best selection of accessories, have a YouTube channel, accept questions by phone/email, blog at a good rate and have deeper and better content than all of my competitors combined.    That ranks me at #7 or #8.  The sites above me who sell this product category are big brands who offer just one to four items - compared to me with a few hundred.  The brands have zero content, you can't call 'em on the phone or get a reply by email.   People tell me... I wrote to five websites with this question.  You were the only one who answered.

 

I can say that I have a lot of repeat customers for consumables and parts.  Some people say that they buy from me because I have so much informative information on the site.   So, I guess that is how you compete.   MEANING.... you don't compete in the search engines... you compete because somebody happened to find you and said... I gotta come back here!

 

Another way to compete is in the long tail.  With my amount of content, I kill the long tail.  The folks above me have three or four pages but kill me on the head terms because of their domain authority.   But, if they start writing longtail..... or Google grants them the longtail through hummingbird or semantics.. then I am screwed.


Edited by EGOL, 26 October 2013 - 10:42 PM.


#48 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9053 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:37 AM

Surely this is where you need to push your websites through social media.  Have a Facebook page, an account on Twitter, a mini-site on Tumblr, a Pinterest account and a Foursquare presence if that makes sense.  You might even go with a Google Plus page if that isn't against your principles. :)



#49 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6291 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:33 AM

You might even go with a Google Plus page if that isn't against your principles. :)

 

 lol   Thanks, Barry.  That is one of the funniest things that I have seen in a long time. 

 

 

Surely this is where you need to push your websites through social media.  Have a Facebook page, an account on Twitter, a mini-site on Tumblr, a Pinterest account and a Foursquare presence if that makes sense.

 

I agree that social is very very valuable, but it is kind of "against my principles" to "build on land that does not belong to me".    I find that if I do a good job on my site my visitors will mention it on social and I will get some traffic from that direction without doing any work.   So, I am working on my own sites and allowing social to happen on its own.   I am betting that what I lose by not going social will be made up for by what I can do on my own sites with the same investment of time.   I just don't "get" social and don't want to "be" social.  So, I'll stubbornly plow my own field. 



#50 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 02:11 PM

There is a way, and we shall find it!



#51 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:30 PM

This was interesting -->

 

Google has begun to place large banner-size images atop search listings for some branded searches

 

 

South West Airlines G Search Banner.jpg


Edited by chuckfinley, 27 October 2013 - 08:28 PM.


#52 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:52 PM

Maybe there is nothing left to fight. They may just kill themselves in the long run.



#53 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:04 AM

Seems like it.  The only question is -- how much pain will we have to endure before they self destruct?


Edited by chuckfinley, 28 October 2013 - 03:05 AM.


#54 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6291 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:35 AM

hmm....    

 

That says "sponsored" at the top of the page.   

 

Would you call this.... "Doorway Page".......    "Infomercial".....   "advertorial"...  or simply  "paid links"

 

Chuck, if you put a page like that on your site your donkey will be in trouble.


Edited by EGOL, 28 October 2013 - 10:05 AM.


#55 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 10:15 AM

After catching up on all the comments since I was last online -- I found myself thinking.... Maybe all of this is too big, just too darned big for anyone to really gain any relevant rankings at this point in time.  There are so many sites, servers and those gaming the system.  It may just be impossible to ever get organics for anyone who isn't already there and tripping the algo in a favorable way -- at least for today.  Out of what is now bazillions of sites, who can even realistically expect to get on the top page or two -- and then hope their listing gets clicked on?  If you are sane you really can't even include that in your business model!

 

If you think about it g##### is owned by the black-hatters -- g##### is on the defense not the offense.  The bad guys exploit something g##### reacts.  Instead of rewarding sites like EGOL's and others they go after the bad guys and if the good guys get caught in the crossfire, oh well - - just buy some ads.  To me that IS an evil POV -- and backwards.

 

Regardless of big, small, good, bad it's all baked in already. What small biz has the time to do all the stuff being talked about here -- good enough to make a difference and run their business at the same time?  They can't -- and they don't have the funds to pay the folks who can really make an exponential difference. 

 

This is where niche directories could do well -- at least until the almighty g##### decided that the "D" word was a bad word.  Ever think about why?  That would certainly nurture any possible focused competition that actually had a human review process and served up good stuff.  Search engines as they are now are just computers talking to computers but they don't show the best, most trustworthy, most interesting, most up to date, easiest to use, blah, blah, blah -- they just show the sites that their "computer" determined fits the algo.  Good, bad or indifferent -- mostly the later.

 

I think there will be value in a Search Engine that actually has standard and customary metrics that good sites have (and aren't published -- they won't have to -- a good site is a good site and *everyone* knows what that really is) and that are then reviewed and added to the index manually based on meeting those metrics. And no big box brands -- everyone knows who you are and you aren't polluting this new "Search" engine. Takes all the shenanigans out of the picture and let's the truly good sites rise to the top.  You can then add additional features or functionality for a price or additional exposure -- but the good sites get top billing because they deserve it.  A girl can dream, can't she?



#56 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:39 AM

that actually had a human review process and served up good stuff

Those days are gone. I don't think you will see that anymore. It use to be called DMOZ. It is also open to manipulation and is outdated in MANY places. It is filled with "little empires". The intentions were good when it started and in those days G actually lived up to the part of "do no evil". Do you remember Google with no ads? I always asked myself the question "why?". Now I know....... Well, actually I always knew deep down.

 

Like you said, with the gazilions and gazilions of sites out there who has time to really review any of this? Only a computer can and Artificial Intelligence is still in the realm of Star Trek.

 

Help Scotty! Beam up Larry and Sergei. Energise.


Edited by bobbb, 28 October 2013 - 11:40 AM.


#57 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 01:11 PM

Those days are gone. I don't think you will see that anymore. It use to be called DMOZ. It is also open to manipulation and is outdated in MANY places. It is filled with "little empires". The intentions were good when it started and in those days G actually lived up to the part of "do no evil". Do you remember Google with no ads? I always asked myself the question "why?". Now I know....... Well, actually I always knew deep down.

 

Like you said, with the gazilions and gazilions of sites out there who has time to really review any of this? Only a computer can and Artificial Intelligence is still in the realm of Star Trek.

 

Help Scotty! Beam up Larry and Sergei. Energise.

 

 

I do remember those days!  I was actually an editor for DMOZ back in the day.  The downfall was that the editors were not monitored -- if you had any basic credentials you were in and let the empire building commence unchecked.  Then, if you quit the next King could come in and wipe you and all yours out -- regardless of relevancy or quality.    So to me that didn't work because it wasn't setup to be unbiased or credible in the long term.

 

For me online is all about looking at what has happened before and correcting, improving, reworking, rewriting and then relaunching as something similar but different.  It could very well be this could work with the right approach.  There are sites trying to do this -- like Angie's list for example.  But Angie screwed up when she started listing those with higher approvals and reviews BELOW those who paid.  Credibility lost.



#58 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:00 PM

I was actually an editor for DMOZ back in the day

same here



#59 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:17 PM

same here

Guess we just dated ourselves, huh?  ;)  



#60 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4747 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 04:20 PM

That's why I never got into DMOZ, you guys blocked me!



#61 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:36 PM

Help Scotty! Beam up Larry and Sergei. Energise.

 

Captain, g##### has drained our energy core.  We can barely keep the force fields up.  I'm sorry, Captain, I can't change the laws of physics, it'll take 30 minutes to regenerate.  There's just no way to beam you up.  I'm afraid, you're on your own! :kill_spam:



#62 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:04 PM

Maybe all of this is too big, just too darned big for anyone to really gain any relevant rankings at this point in time.  There are so many sites, servers and those gaming the system.  It may just be impossible to ever get organics for anyone who isn't already there and tripping the algo in a favorable way -- at least for today.  Out of what is now bazillions of sites, who can even realistically expect to get on the top page or two -- and then hope their listing gets clicked on?  If you are sane you really can't even include that in your business model!

 

You've said something important here. 

 

There only ten spots on the first page and g###### is effectively cutting that down about three that users will react to.  As the internet grows, this model will not work.

 

It seems the Amazon model is where it's heading.  It's no picnic trying to make it over there as a small business either, especially when you have to compete against Amazon.

 

Regardless of where it's heading, we're here now.  It will take a long time to change the paradigm so we're going to have to tough it out and find a way.

 

The good news -- g##### is kind of like a water balloon -- if they push in one place, an opportunity pops out in another place.  We need to find those opportunities.

 

The basics are all the same.  The core of SEO is the same, to include links and anchor text.  We just have one more hurdle -- Penguin.  There's a way around that too.

 

And a few little things like g##### trying to force us off the first page by stuffing it with "brand" content and ads.  Now that I think about it .......

 

what can we do to help Bing get back in the game?



#63 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:34 PM

what can we do to help Bing get back in the game?

 

Start using it more. It's now my default FF search engine.
Get more people to use it. Oh the blank look you will get from folks.

Write Bing and tell how goofy they are: Wrote this in another thread how they keep going after all lower case URLs when I have mixed case as per my sitemap they read.

In the last few days I see them reading the same file (multiple files) 5 to 10 times in about 8 hours. They must really be doing cheap drugs.

Here's a search I did yesterday. This is the kind of search SEs should be good at. non-commercial
I replaced a disk for someone and wanted to check the date of origin labelled date code.
queried: seagate date code 10425
Bing: returned utter rubbish.
Yahoo!: was like Bing of course.
GOD.ca: and I see 2 seagate date calculators. The right answer.
The Duck got it right also. This is expected since it is a hybrid result.
Really I did Y! and the Duck after.
I had to fall back to G but D would have worked.

You can't depend on duckduckgo because they own no data.
Wrote Bing about the mixed case thing.They must have been outside with Cheech and Chong :blowup:


Edited by bobbb, 28 October 2013 - 11:44 PM.


#64 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:16 PM

This was interesting.  A status update on Bing's progress -->

 

Is Bing Making a Dent in Google's Dominance?



#65 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:39 PM

Interesting....  The ending: "could it be that Bing is unable to thwart the habitual aspect of what it is to Google? It seems as though it's yet to truly accomplish this momentous task, but there is potential."

 

We live in a culture of sheeple.  Folks have lost the ability to deduce and think independently of the herd -- many are lemmings doing what everyone else is doing for no other reason other than because everyone else is doing it.  Especially if they been doing a certain thing for years without questioning why. 

 

And a healthy percent of those folks don't appreciate their idea or behaviors being challenged even if it means for something better.  While there are some advantages to that from a marketing POV, when it comes to getting users to change their ingrained behavior it is a much more difficult hill to climb.  That's what any g#####-killer (<-- always fun to type) is up against.  Possible; but difficult.

 

I would start by making g##### uncool.  I think that approach would be more effective in addition to comparing search based on a term by term, industry by industry SERP.  Hammer them on their ethics, lack of privacy TOS and relationship with the .gov.  Now, that's something folks can relate to in 2013.

 

It is so important to have the discussions like those we are having here that can help to propagate the desire for change. 



#66 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:41 PM

Hammer them on their ethics, lack of privacy TOS and relationship with the .gov.  Now, that's something folks can relate to in 2013.

This would work but until they get it right with search results they are not in.

 

Did I just imply that Microsoft would have ethics and respect privacy and not jump in bed with .gov? Hmmm.... let me rethink that. In what year did that happen?

 

Feels funny rooting for the Big blue M.  eh!



#67 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:53 PM

I'm with ya bobbb!!  Better of two (three or four) evils?  The enemy of my enemy is my friend? 

 

I dislike MS too, but not as much as g##### and don't use their products either whenever possible and practical.  Although back in the pre-evil days they were at the top of my list.  I'm getting pretty visceral about Faceybook too.



#68 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4747 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:53 PM

If everybody started using Bing, wouldn't Bing just go the same way as Google?



#69 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:11 PM

You can count on that - we would then have to shift to someone else!  But, isn't that what early adopters have always done?  We are the first to move on when the time comes and start talking up the latest and greatest. The only thing consistent online is change.  And many of us probably helped to feed this monster.  But that doesn't mean it can't be starved now...

 

It is time for folks to start talking about the reality of the type of company g##### is.  When there are entire markets that are contingent upon being in g#####'s good graces -- some are just not up to the challenge of doing what's right just because it is the right thing to do.  Especially in hard times when doing so can cause a loss of income.

 

More folks will have to grow a set and take a stand.  Until then it's the status quo  "Matt Cutt's said this..." "Amit said that...." "Sanjay said the other thing.."  Run to your computers and change, amend, add, delete, hope, pray...  Sucker!

 

Or be involved in actively changing the perceptions of those who don't know what we know.  Just sayin'...



#70 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:27 PM

Could be all for naught -- datacenter barges?  What does g##### know that we don't know!?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...arge/index.html


Edited by WPMuse, 29 October 2013 - 03:27 PM.


#71 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4747 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:33 PM

Hmmm, but the only people who want everybody to use Bing are webmasters and SEOs (a tiny minority) who rank well in Bing .... nobody else gives a toss. The number of searchers out there will continue to increase though. 

 

If you want to rank well in any search engine you have to either play by their rules or game their rules (or do a bit of both) surely. Bing, Google, DuckDogGoo, Bilko or whatever.



#72 Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher

    Light Speed Member

  • 500 Posts Club
  • 789 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:46 PM

Rules? LOL. Where are they?



#73 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:19 PM

Hmmm, but the only people who want everybody to use Bing are webmasters and SEOs (a tiny minority) who rank well in Bing .... nobody else gives a toss. .

That's not the point. It's to level the playing field. Keep people honest. What was the big stink in the 90's about the MS monopoly in OS's and browsers. It's so the oligopoly does not become a real monopoly and dictate whatever it wants. I still use Windows as does probably 80% of people here but it kept Apple alive and allowed Linux to survive and expand.

 

Now, today, we have options. It sure changed the browser world and allowed the W3C specs to be just that. Otherwise MS would have taken over the html protocols and filled them with all kinds of propriety stuff that it would have changed, willy nilly, in order to make sure only its browser displayed things properly. Remember "This site is optimised for Internet Explorer". Everyone was playing catch up.

 

This is how they did it in the MSDOS days until a competitor showed up. This is how they killed Novell who invented and owned PC networking. MS owned the OS and kept changing "fixing things that were wrong". Novell could not keep up. "MSDOS is not done till 1-2-3 won't run". Today all we know is Excel. WordPerfect-Word And on an on.

 

You don't thing a competitor sitting at 30-35% share of the search market would not be good?

 

Of course it would. Competition drives changes.


Edited by bobbb, 29 October 2013 - 05:23 PM.


#74 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:35 PM

We live in a culture of sheeple.  Folks have lost the ability to deduce and think independently of the herd -- many are lemmings doing what everyone else is doing for no other reason other than because everyone else is doing it.  Especially if they been doing a certain thing for years without questioning why. 

 

Think Different



#75 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:02 PM

Hasn't the world always been composed of mostly sheeple?



#76 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:06 PM

Rules? LOL. Where are they?

 

g##### made a new video and condensed their Quality Guidelines down to 8 minutes.  They hired the world famous advertising firm of Abbot & Costello to make the video.  Their Quality Guidelines have never been clearer, really. --> Google Quality Guidelines - Really?



#77 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:32 PM

Perfectly clear.



#78 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4747 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:41 PM

My point is, would it make any real difference? If there were 10 search engines all with an equal share, surely they will all need to compete for the same market and deal with the same problems. Maybe Bing seems better now because they are not dealing with some of the problems that Google is - and they are not doing that because it is not a useful way to spend their resources while they are lagging behind.

 

People started using Google because they gave the best results. As far as I can tell (taking off my Penguined and Panda'd webmaster hat!) they are still doing that. But then that is why I use Google for search. I assume that most people here do not now?



#79 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3264 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:07 PM

People started using Google because they gave the best result

Have to agree with that. Gave an example above (post 63). That is why I still mainly use G but do give B a real tryout for the simple stuff. The Duck too. I must not be alone. I see more non-google traffic than before but no contender.

 

What if there were 4 contenders and one decided to put only 1 ad on top (like the Duck) and that pulled in more users who just hate to see ads. The others would have to follow or lose visitors. There are really lots of people who hate ads. There is software dedicated to doing just that.

 

Thanks ask.com, about.com, how.com, answers.yahoo.com et al for that experience.....  You're welcome



#80 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:31 PM

Back to the original topic, someone finally posted the entire keynote, including the Q&A session:

 

 

At the very end, at 57:52, Matt says, 

 

I think in general, our mission statement is to provide the world with information, and if we can give answers to people, we, you know we do want to give answers. They don't want to only point to webpages if they know how old the prime minister of Turkey is, so, the way I've heard it expressed is, you add enough value so that it's not just one little 3-word factoid that's on your website. You really want people to be landing there to get high-quality reviews, or high-quality content or discussion, you know, to really read about why should i like the ipad air or something like that. Where if it's like what date was the ipad air released, that's a little factoid, and that's, you know, that's a little harder to peg the value for users. So in general, the more value you're adding for users, the more we want to return it in search results. 

 

So now, you can see how my tweeted response makes sense here.

 

Butt [sic] matt, if you give the answers, the users will never see our value.

 

Either Matt is spinning us around in circles to make us forget what the issue is, or Google is too stupid to get it.

 

Google, if you TAKE OUR CONTENT to provide the answer to a user's question on the Google search results page, then the user does NOT need to go to our sites to see the high-quality content we've provided in addition to the 3-word factoid that answered the user's question. 

 

The VALUE we add to users never gets to the users if Google steals our factoids to display in the ANSWERS in the SERPs, preventing users from "landing there" on our sites.

 

Oh, and one other thing. Matt doesn't think our little factoids are valuable to users, however, he thinks they are plenty valuable enough to put it on google itself.


Edited by DonnaFontenot, 29 October 2013 - 11:34 PM.




RSS Feed


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users