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

#81 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:04 AM

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.

 

Touche' -- that says it all.  That perfectly explains our relationship with g#####.  It's O.K. to steal from us, but don't get in g#####'s way when it come to making money, oh no! :blowup: :blowup: :blowup: :blowup: :blowup:



#82 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 14762 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 10:06 AM

kimasks.png

 

I asked questions of Matt on how small businesses can compete, regarding establishing "authority".



#83 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5455 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:34 PM

The hard truth is that facts (with some exceptions/circumstances) are not subject to copyright. A factoid may be subject as an original work, but not the fact(s) mentioned within. This is why I among others such as EGOL have long recommended going well beyond the mere publication of facts. Originally the advice was to counteract other webdevs but long ago broadened to include SEs and the Demand Media type of simplistic fact reiteration.

The 'fact' market long ago became a commodity with near free aka scraped costs and very thin margins. It is the information that goes beyond the mere facts, that is broad, deep, and dense that withstands the fact republishers best. And is subject to copyright. And while Wikipedia may dominate a given query result it is that extra value added content that can still compete. All else being relatively equal. :)

While I do understand that MC actually saying what he did is news it really isn't new. Except for those needing the Gospel according to Matt before they will believe. And act in their own best interest. Or not.

#84 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4757 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:50 PM

Facts are harder to rank, but mindless drivel still works. Woooppeee!



#85 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:24 PM

The hard truth is that facts (with some exceptions/circumstances) are not subject to copyright.

 

But it doesn't (and won't) stop at mere facts. Whether it's movie times, or plane schedules, or something else that might be specific to a particular business, if Google thinks it can steal the info, and provide it in the search results (and call it an "answer"), it will. 

 

Imagine this scenario:

 

You build a car called the Super Duper Car. It's really cool (like a Tesla might be). It generates a lot of interest. You run a test to see just how fast this puppy can go, and you supply the question and answer on your site.

 

How fast can the Super Duper Car go? 250 mph!

 

Everyone is talking about the Super duper car, and people start searching for how fast it can go.

 

Google grabs the info from your site and displays it as an answer in the SERPs.

 

This isn't something like How old was Lincoln when he died?

 

This is your product, your test, and your "factoid". 

 

Google, you are evil.



#86 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3357 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:53 PM

And unfortunately that is what people want. Instant answers.  56

 

But also no chance to click an ad as in "if I had gone to the site"


Edited by bobbb, 30 October 2013 - 09:55 PM.


#87 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:00 AM

But it doesn't (and won't) stop at mere facts. Whether it's movie times, or plane schedules, or something else that might be specific to a particular business, if Google thinks it can steal the info, and provide it in the search results (and call it an "answer"), it will. 

 

Imagine this scenario:

 

You build a car called the Super Duper Car. It's really cool (like a Tesla might be). It generates a lot of interest. You run a test to see just how fast this puppy can go, and you supply the question and answer on your site.

 

How fast can the Super Duper Car go? 250 mph!

 

Everyone is talking about the Super duper car, and people start searching for how fast it can go.

 

Google grabs the info from your site and displays it as an answer in the SERPs.

 

This isn't something like How old was Lincoln when he died?

 

This is your product, your test, and your "factoid". 

 

Google, you are evil.

 

 

What's the difference between this and a 302 page hijack?



#88 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:02 AM

What's the difference between this and a 302 page hijack?

 

What do you mean?



#89 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:10 AM

A while back mattt cutts and google were doing a big dance about 302 hijacking - redirecting search traffic to your page via nefarious means.

 

g#####'s doing the same thing.



#90 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5455 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 09:13 AM

The difference is obvious: a 302 is redirecting a URL aka a page, facts can generally be taken piecemeal from many places online and off.

Note: many of the sites from which G acknowledges getting facts themselves got them from somewhere else.

#91 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 10:32 AM

I know what 302 hijacking is, I just don't see how it relates to this at all.



#92 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:27 AM

The effect is the same.  g##### is getting benefit for your content.  As Donnal points out, that traffic won't show up on your site.  g##### has effectively redirected it to itself via the myriad links to other g##### content that it provides when it directly provides answers (which it pulled from your content).

 

So technically they don't 302 redirect your page.  Because they have the controls, they redirect the traffic before it ever gets to your site.  SUPER SPAMMER!!!

 

If you like the analogy better, maybe you could call it a doorway page --> from your content that they serve up in the search results to one of g#####'s pages.

 

No matter how you characterize it, it's devious and the exact same thing g##### accuses spammers of doing.

 

Sergey, have you no shame!!!


Edited by chuckfinley, 04 November 2013 - 06:33 AM.


#93 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 137 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:45 AM

"Do as I say, not as I do!" ~ The Do No Evil, Evil g#####

 

How is using our content to keep folks on g##### and not send us any benefit a good thing in any way shape or form?  Why aren't more site owners having fits over this?   Because they still think if they are "nice" and play by the rules they have a chance of getting found. 

 

"That's g#####; get used to it, get in line and stop your whining!"

 

None of this would be a problem if g##### didn't crash and burn so many good businesses to get to this model.  Why don't they just make a statement?  Forget about organics -- you want exposure on our evil site, this is how you can buy it.  That's what you have to do anyway.

 

That would end optimizing for unknown, undeclared criteria.  It would end spammy because the rules would be clear about criteria to be included.  No one says the organics have improved anyway -- that's been long over -- so why pretend it has?

 

At this point doing so shouldn't be a big deal because that is what they are doing -- why not come out and make that clear so everyone knows? Maybe because they want this game of smoke and mirrors to continue?



#94 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:57 AM

Other sites can present the facts also but if google does so it can present the facts and rank its own answer highly in its own search engine with its own algo's for ranking highly.  I can write about Donna's super duper car.  But if I don't have an "authority site" it doesn't naturally rank highly or if its not google's product it doesn't naturally rank highly.

 

Now I can use a different strategy that has been described in this forum and write endlessly to catch the long tail relevant to Donna's super duper car.  maybe I'll rank highly on the long tail, maybe not.  I'll have to write endlessly and out service every other player to get the long tail customers...if I'm servicing the contacts...not just hoping for traffic.

 

On the local side for those smb's that "claimed their listings" they supplied google with data abt their smb's.  Google created its own pages about those smb's.  You had "some" control over those pages but not complete control.  For a long time those pages, which google owns had ads (often to competitors) and links often to competitors.   

 

F#ck that!!!!   I don't want pages that create links or ads to competitors.   

 

Frankly yelp does that!!!!   They are transparent about it.  If you advertise with them they drop the ads to competitors...and in fact they'll show your site as ads on competitors sites.

 

But yelp is not a monopoly.  Its own visibility is subject to google's algo's.  Of our smb's we have one that gets a lot of yelp visibility.   We haven't bought advertising.  It not only has high visibility but because of the review content it gets visits.   A lot of visits relative to other sources.

 

But its not google and its "relatively lot of visits" pale in comparison to what google itself delivers.

 

In those 2 months this one smb site got about 8k google visits.  We got about 200 visits from yelp sites and yelp reported to us there were about 900 visits to yelp sites wherein our site was "seen".  

As far as that last data...I don't know how true or not that is.

 

Meanwhile google reported about 61,000 "impressions" when they showed our ads...but only gave us data on about 17,000 of those impressions.

 

The difference between how a "yelp" can impact our site with its content, versus how a "google" can impact our site is night and day

 

google is the monopoly in search, it controls how every site ranks...and it can create its own content from our information and show it in any way it wishes.

 

Its too damn powerful.



#95 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:34 PM

This article, by PeterD over on SEOBook, was written back in May, 2013, but it does an excellent job of hitting the nail on the head in regards to this topic. I strongly encourage you to read it. http://www.seobook.com/googlemart

 

Google are provided raw materials by people. Web publishers allow Google to take their work, at no charge, and for Google to use that work and add value to Google’s network. Google then charges advertisers to place their advertising next to the aggregated information.

Why do web publishers do this?

Publishers create and give away their work in the hope they’ll get traffic back, from which they may derive benefit. Some publishers make money, so they can then pay real-world expenses, like housing, food and clothing. The majority of internet publishers make little, or nothing, from this informal deal. A few publishers make a lot. The long tail, when it comes to internet publishing, is pretty long. The majority of wealth, and power, is centralized at the head.

 

If those creating the information don’t get paid, quality must decrease, or become less available than it otherwise would be. They can buy less stuff in the real world. If they can’t buy as much stuff in the real world, then Google and Facebook’s advertisers have fewer people to talk to that they otherwise would.

 

In relation to this post, if those creating the information, and who provide that information to Google in exchange for getting traffic from Google, suddenly realize that Google is still using their information but is no longer sending traffic back to the publisher's site (which allows them to get paid in some fashion), then they also realize that the scraps they've been thrown have been taken away. Then what happens?

 

Read the rest of the article - and the comments. I don't know if this could ever be the answer, but it's worth discussing. Here's some of what he says:

 

Laniers suggestion is everyone gets paid, via micro-payments, linked back to the value they helped create. These payments continue so long as people are using their stuff, be it a line of code, a photograph, a piece of music, or an article.

For example, if you wrote a blog post, and someone quoted a paragraph of it, you would receive a tiny payment. The more often you’re quoted, the more relevant you are, therefore the more payment you receive. If a search engine indexes your pages, then you receive a micro-payment in return. If people view your pages, you receive a micro-payment. Likewise, when you consume, you pay. If you conduct a search, then you run Google’s code, and Google gets paid. The payments are tiny, as far as the individual is concerned, but they all add up.

 

Thoughts??



#96 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 137 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:57 PM

Good stuff, Donna!  My only thought after reading is that even with "micro" payments no payment is too small for something folks (both sides) are used to getting for free, right?



#97 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 05:17 PM

Right, not sure it's workable, but *if* the flip side is total collapse, then maybe...



#98 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3357 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:11 PM

Sound good even utopian. But have to agree it is unworkable. Don't think total collapse will occur.

I believe collective lawsuit would have some impact. We don't figure in the "lawsuit". It can only come from the people who pay G for Adwords and demonstrate that the way they cloak results is click fraud. Bing does it too.

 

And this lawsuit does not ever need happen. Just the fact that a bunch of customers are banding together to sue is enough. With the EU biting at their tails, the last thing they want is the DOJ in their monopoly oligopoly business with some sort of oversight legislation.


Edited by bobbb, 04 November 2013 - 06:21 PM.


#99 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 09:35 PM

But its not google and its "relatively lot of visits" pale in comparison to what google itself delivers.

 

In those 2 months this one smb site got about 8k google visits.  We got about 200 visits from yelp sites and yelp reported to us there were about 900 visits to yelp sites wherein our site was "seen".  

As far as that last data...I don't know how true or not that is.

 

Which is exactly why we need to "break the code" on g#####.  We can will do it.  It's just a matter of time.  In the Anti-g##### Labs -- studying, reviewing, researching ....... :3dglasses:



#100 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:11 PM

How is using our content to keep folks on g##### and not send us any benefit a good thing in any way shape or form?  Why aren't more site owners having fits over this?   Because they still think if they are "nice" and play by the rules they have a chance of getting found. 

 

They need a leader, someone to organize and focus an effort, like a trade group would.  This could be a viable business for someone.  I really think they have an "inferiority complex" so they do nothing.  They don't give themselves credit for the power they control.

 

Imagine that you made a connection with several customer facing businesses that work with or come in contact with hundreds to thousands of businesses each year.  Do you think they could help you grow a business.  Would that be important to growing your business?  Would that be a powerful marketing strategy?

 

Well it works in reverse too, on steriods.  As Tom Peters points out -- when someone has a good experience, they tell one or two people; when they have a bad experience, they tell, on average, eleven people.

 

If every small business was telling the public what we know, it would have an impact and g##### would be afraid of it!

 

Imagine what would happen if that trade group teamed up with Microsoft and the many advocate groups out there already, and growing.  Hmmmmmm......... I wonder who would control small business advertising then?

 

This a major league business idea just waiting for someone to take it and run with it.

 

If people saw there was a path to a solution they would get on board.  You could put a million or two in the bank every year by just collecting $25 to $50 per website.

 

 

"That's g#####; get used to it, get in line and stop your whining!"

 

These are the people that think they have something to gain by preserving the status quo.  No speaking truth to power there.

 

 

Why don't they just make a statement?  Forget about organics -- you want exposure on our evil site, this is how you can buy it.  That's what you have to do anyway.

 

That would end optimizing for unknown, undeclared criteria.  It would end spammy because the rules would be clear about criteria to be included.  No one says the organics have improved anyway -- that's been long over -- so why pretend it has?

 

At this point doing so shouldn't be a big deal because that is what they are doing -- why not come out and make that clear so everyone knows? Maybe because they want this game of smoke and mirrors to continue?

 

Because they want to be able to go any direction that will make them money.  They don't want to be bound by rules that may prevent them from a quick pivot for profits.  They just want to create the appearance of rules and fairness.

 

They don't have to worry about customer service because they make it clear that website owners and SEO's aren't their customers.  And, website onwers and SEO's are still interested in playing ball by g#####'s pseudo-rules???

 

They only do it because they don't see a viable alternative.

 

I do love your way of thinking, right on target. Now if we can just find solutions. ;)  We can do this!


Edited by chuckfinley, 05 November 2013 - 10:25 PM.


#101 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:32 PM

This article, by PeterD over on SEOBook, was written back in May, 2013, but it does an excellent job of hitting the nail on the head in regards to this topic. I strongly encourage you to read it. http://www.seobook.com/googlemart

 

Read the rest of the article - and the comments. I don't know if this could ever be the answer, but it's worth discussing. Here's some of what he says:

 

Thoughts??

 

I'm going to have to read that book as it does pose some interesting ideas.

 

The problem is that there are no laws or structure to implement Lanier's ideas.  There will be plenty of legislation and law suits in the future to define it.  I doubt it will come out as Lanier is thinking.

 

Lanier's thinking is more of a Berkeley-Utopian veiwpoint.  I don't think it will ever fly.

 

He does identify some very relevant issues -- such as we have no way to employ the middle class as foreign workers are more willing to take the work than we are.  But, to go any further will take us off into the realm of politics which is not allowed here ......


Edited by chuckfinley, 05 November 2013 - 10:33 PM.


#102 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 02:50 AM

Laws, schmaws...We have more laws than we know what to do with. Pfffttt...



#103 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:07 AM

Its an interesting article, Donna.  In a sense it creates an analogy between google, the monopoly on the web with the greater forces of economics that dominate within our larger world in the US.  

 

In the larger world money and economic benefits continue to flow to an ever smaller number of participants.  It is being concentrated in a tinier and tinier party of the population.  In the aftereffects of the recession the existing wealthy and powerful classes have seen increasing profits and revenues.   The great swath of people have stagnated economically.

 

It is the same in search.  

 

Theoretically I like Lanier's suggestion(s).  Putting it in practice would probably be very difficult.   It seems sort of utopian.  But....one starts with a concept and then tries to implement it.

 

Who knows?



#104 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:01 AM

Donna:

 

I went back to the original post in light of certain frustrations with regard to actions by google.  

 

(Parenthetically, describing Google's PR master of misinformation to webmasters, MC, as Butt was very appropriate IMHO,   :D  ).

 

Google controls everything and its a monopoly.   Those two issues are the one's which are critical in my opinion.

 

I review traffic results for our smb's on a virtual daily basis.   We study rankings on an every week basis.   Rankings are not as simple as SEO reports usually lay out, for what are essentially regional smb's in different regional markets.    

 

Because of geographical personalization a site could be ranked #1 in one part of the region and ranked #3 in another part of the region on any day.  And it switches.  Its very micro and very subject to constant change in our experience.

 

While google shifts and adjusts algo's on a very micro basis or a larger basis, they have ALL THE INFORMATION.  We now have none of the info.  NONE.  NOTHING.  NADA.  ZILCH.   BUBKIS.  BLECH!   

 

This is not how search originally worked or data worked with regard to search.  Query strings that connected searches to websites carry keyword phrases.  Now of course we know NOTHING/NADA/ZILCH/   about those query strings.

 

But google knows exactly what this data is carrying.  Frankly google uses this data and uses user reactions to adjust its algos and adjust how websites and information is shown on the web.   

 

It has all the information while starving/depriving/ eliminating that info from any other source and it manipulates how information is shown.

 

....and then it sends out its BUTT/PR voice, MC, to give us some gobbledygook techno babble.    If it chooses to highlight its own results...frankly the rest of the world has a far smaller substantive leg to stand on to rebut and argue against these changes.   We simply don't know with precision how this affected us....other than our traffic is less.

 

Google's is presumably greater.   At the very least, the volume of adwords revenues they continue to grow, month after month, quarter after quarter, year after year portrays that change.

 

I do wish the big competitors and all the big companies would push the US to go after them on an anti trust basis as the EEC is doing.  

 

its so fricking annoying.



#105 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3357 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:53 AM

if that trade group teamed up with Microsoft

Need to be careful about getting in bed with M$. They can be just as evil. Must not let them take the reins. They would want to rig it to their advantage instead of G.

 

I do wish the big competitors and all the big companies would push the US to go after them on an anti trust basis as the EEC is doing.

Finally someone thinking lawsuit.



#106 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:07 PM

In a separate thread on this self same topic, I referenced a recent article wherein Google's interjection of its own information is causing problems for an entity, in this case Seaworld.  Mike Blumenthal writes about some of the issues and misinformation that the knowledge graph is causing SeaWorld here:  http://blumenthals.c...aph-sucks-more/

 

There have been more problems.

 

It brings to mind that since 2005/2006 when Google first introduced maps.google dot com information into the first page of google via universal search  there has been evidence and a world of problems associated with the information that google has presented.

 

The info excerpted from maps and injected into the first page of google via the PAC with its associated Map is actually an example of this scenario of Google taking information from websites (or in this case from the smbs' themselves and from 3rd party websites) and re presenting the information in Googlese or google's own format.

 

Google has not to date monetized this process.  On the other hand, they incorporate the call for smb's to "claim" a listing and provide information into a long subtle process to get smb's to use adwords.   Additionally they push adwords to smb's through reselling partners.   But on to the discussion of google providing its own data and information.

 

The PAC featured information about the smbs that google took from many sources (the smb's themselves and from scraping the web) and represented within the PAC.

 

Clearly between 2005 till about 2011 there were endless problems with the information being wrong and misleading.  It was horrendous.   Thousands of smb's and their webmasters could be seen wailing and crying and beseeching google to correct misinformation that kept flooding the PAC.

 

The misinformation kept creating problems for visitors, for the smb's and often created havoc for the smbs.   I spent considerable time inside google's local forum, helping some smb's studying the issues, dealing with some of these problems as they affected  our own smbs.

 

I'd say around late 2011 till this day the volume of issues has diminished.  They still pop up, albeit at less frequency and they tend to get fixed more quickly.

 

Additionally, google's local data added driving directions via google.  From its inception till about 2010 google maps and directions were poor;   giving bad directions, sending people down the wrong roads, sometimes sending people down the wrong way on a one way street.   It took years for that information to become "good" and reliable.   

 

Frankly we had smb sites with our own directions on the sites.  They were far superior to google's directions for years.   For a number of years for different smb's we fielded calls from people who were lost because they followed Google's poor mapping.   When we asked them where they got those directions the responses were always Google.

 

How often did users go to Google's data versus our own websites or those of the many smb's who suffered from misinformation via the Google PAC and its aberrational misinformative PAC information?   Its hard to say.   One could track traffic to one's own website.  Nobody though has any information as to how many searchers relied on information provided provided by the PAC.  Those are google's pages and you can't track the traffic.  On top of that they supplied information to those smb's that "claimed listings.  

 

It was often completely misleading.  One could not trust that data.

 

Assuming Google started injecting its own information via local maps and universal search back in 2005/2006 its been 7 to 8 years since this process of taking information from other sources has been going on and creating google information.

 

To date they haven't monetized it directly but frankly for the majority of the 7 to 8 years so much of the information has been so bad so repeatedly.

 

Its astounding that in all this time no larger more powerful force hasn't hammered at Google.  They have been the monopolistic power over access to information on the web, and frankly they have been mostly non responsive to all their mistakes and flaws.   In that long process their mistakes have caused uncountable damage to certain brick and mortar smbs.   In that regard its not surprising Google, which prides itself on being the repository of all information on the web, took all the commentary in the google forum for local businesses and TANKED IT.  Hid it.   

 

You cannot access all those complaints and cries and disgust and pleas and anger.  Google hid it.

 

The current reference to the problems at SeaWorld are a current window into this situation that Donna highlighted.    Some of the ongoing issues are far worse than Mike's article highlights.

 

Its astounding in my eyes that google gets away with this.



#107 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 04:18 PM

If you want to see how google is planning to use the content it takes....take a gander at this piece that Barry caught and referenced at SEORoundtable:  http://www.seroundta...-ads-17813.html

 

Knowledge graphs and local graphs are google's content.  Google has been creating local pages for several years.  They have gone through quite a few changes over many years.   Currently they are google+ pages.  Additionally if you search on the branded name of a business on the right hand side of the pc screen google's knowledge graph or local graph info will appear.

 

Its google's page.  Don't think otherwise.  In the above example they are running ads.   Over a long period of time the google business pages often included links to "nearby businesses".   Those businesses were often competitors.   How outrageous!!!!

 

One of the significant changes in local surrounding a lot of businesses in the US and I assume Canada had to do with the carousel view that started appearing in desktop views this summer for restaurant, hotel, and places like amusement parks:   for a search such as italian restaurants arlington va  the carousel view has been showing up since this summer.   If one clicks on a picture on the top google redirects the search to a secondary google search which represents a name/branding search with location.

 

When this first came out it was before the complete removal of all keyword data.   I hypothesized that part of the reason for the change was to "confuse" or redirect search phrases that the smb's would receive.  If one first clicked on a  picture on the carousel and then saw the 2nd set of results and finally clicked on the site itself...the data as to the search phrase would have been for the branded name/location search not the first search....italian restaurants arlington va.   

 

Ha what a great way for google to misdirect info to the businesses and website owners.   Then of course...they removed all organic results anyway...so what did it matter?

 

But from a second perspective, as google keeps flooding the results with its own products in knowledge graphs and local graphs and endless google pages and information it actually can get visitors to click more and more....and possibly it encourages more clicks on ads.

 

Actually only google would know any of this...as nobody can track what is going on.

 

In any case as referenced and tweeted by one person and caught by Barry Schwartz at SEORoundtable....this is one look at what google could be doing with your content.



#108 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 07:15 PM

(it turns out this is completely unfounded suspicion)  --sorry earlpearl  see example loaded to a website--below

What is Yours is Google's and what is Google's is Google's (and not yours)

 

Here is an interesting perspective.   I was referenced to this article at the Moz blog about google's indoor photography of businesses  The article is about the 360 degree photos that are arranged by a google approved photographer, use a google technology for 360 degree shots...and can show on a local graph or knowledge graph package of google information about a business.

 

For instance take a look at the knowledge graph/local graph information for this liquor store referenced in the moz blog through this search:  Hazels beverage store in Boulder Colorado

 

The knowledge graph/local graph includes two sets of pics.  click on the "see inside" one and you'll get google's 360 degree view of the store interior.  

 

Its a nifty view.  Its a nice marketing tool.   I've looked at some restaurants with those views, found them attractive and gone to them.   

 

Yet it looks to me as if a business can't load this on their own website.   I don't know that as hard evidence.  I haven't contracted to have one of those views provided for one of our smb's and I haven't checked with a google approved photographer...BUT

 

I looked at a bunch of these.  I have yet to find one where the business smb site has the 360 degree view on its own site.   In fact Hazel's in Boulder has a link to a view of the store....BUT....

 

The comprehensive view is a video on youtube.   

 

Frankly its a great marketing tool but it seems it belongs to google's knowledge graph about your own business.   GEEZ.   I sort of doubt it gets the visibility it merits or might help a business.   In order to see this view, one has to do a name or branded search on the business to get the knowledge graph/local graph to show.  Then of that number of searchers they have to click on the "INSIDE" view in the pics on the right.   That all competes with the website link on the right.

 

As a business person we want visitors to click on our site.  Google knows how visitors react.  They know if a visitor clicks on the images, the map, or the inside view and then clicks on the website.  Nobody else knows that information.   Google, or maybe more aptly named "GobbleItAllUp-oogle has all that information....exclusively.

 

Cripes...are they going to set up a pay as you go access to information on our own site based on their knowledge and our lack of knowledge???   Its scary.

 

Google takes your information.  It processes it.  It controls access to that information.  Meanwhile it appears if you do "something" with one of google's services...you don't get access to the information or the end product.

 

...and that is creepy and scary.   Go EU.  slam GobbleItAllUp-oogle 


Edited by earlpearl, 18 December 2013 - 11:19 AM.


#109 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3840 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 07:30 PM

Nope, you're wrong about this one.

 

You can embed this on your own site.

 

I just threw a simple page up on one of my sites, for this very same inside view example that you gave.

 

You can see it here:

 

http://www.ebuzzcoac...insideview.html

 

All you have to do is grab the code from the map page and embed it just like you would any map. The code for this particular example is:

 

 

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://www.google.com/maps?layer=c&amp;sll=40.020861,-105.26002&amp;cid=7258774774017651786&amp;panoid=pRaupxR7uG37Mky2rtRhBA&amp;cbp=13,181.84,,0,4.21&amp;q=hazels+beverage+store+boulder+colorado&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=hazels+beverage+store+boulder+colorado&amp;hnear=&amp;ll=40.020861,-105.26002&amp;spn=0.006295,0.006295&amp;t=m&amp;cbll=40.020845,-105.260167&amp;source=embed&amp;output=svembed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="https://www.google.com/maps?layer=c&amp;sll=40.020861,-105.26002&amp;cid=7258774774017651786&amp;panoid=pRaupxR7uG37Mky2rtRhBA&amp;cbp=13,181.84,,0,4.21&amp;q=hazels+beverage+store+boulder+colorado&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=hazels+beverage+store+boulder+colorado&amp;hnear=&amp;ll=40.020861,-105.26002&amp;spn=0.006295,0.006295&amp;t=m&amp;cbll=40.020845,-105.260167&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>
 

 



#110 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 07:44 PM

thanks Donna.  I didn't know that.   I've looked at a number of sites (but not lots) who had the 360 degree pics and hadn't seen it anywhere on anyone's own site.  So I made assumptions.  

 

I have a local contact number for a google authorized photographer in my area.  I'll call him and ask about this.  

 

...and when I hear from that guy...assuming you are correct I'll edit my post...and admit....I'm full of sh!t on that assumption.   :D     ;)

 

meanwhile you should highlight that page....ebuzz coach also sells booze...or something like that.   ;)

 

and from the comments on the moz blog...from Jeff the author himself

 

Jeff Finkelstein

 

Brandon -

Yes, in order to have Google Business Photos associated with your Google+ / places page, they do have to be done by a Google-certified, Trusted Independent Photographer (TIP). It's a lengthy testing and certification process, even for a professional photographer.

I believe that the reason for this is that Google wants a very consistent user experience. The panoramic photos are technically complex, and require very specific camera equipment.

It's not something that can be done with an iPhone :).

Businesses can, of course, upload images to their Google + page, and I did find that more images uploaded to a Google+ page does correlate with higher ranking. But then again, businesses that know how to upload images and have taken control over their Google+ page may be far ahead of their competitors anyway.

Thanks!


Edited by earlpearl, 17 December 2013 - 08:32 PM.


#111 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 11:21 AM

well...my suspicions on the 360 degree photographs are completely unfounded.  Here is a  360 degree visit done by a google photographer and loaded to a customer's website:   the customer did it w/ a google approved photographer and had to sign all papers regarding the service.

 

http://endocc.com/tour-our-office/


Edited by earlpearl, 18 December 2013 - 11:21 AM.




RSS Feed


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: answers, contract, theft, matt cutts, google

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users