- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Google makes a lot more than 5 million in adwords revenue on a monthly basis. I spend around 12k a month there, and I know webmasters in the pharmacy industry that spend 10 times that.
Originally posted by Classics
Penalizing crosslinking isn’t a good idea, but putting a dampening factor on the effect is a good idea, and Google already does that to some degree. Perhaps they should do more. Some people here would disagree with you.The key here is excessive crosslinking
not 1 or 2 links to different sites, but dozens upon dozens going to the same site(s.)The decisionmakers at Google right now don’t give one tenth of a crap about adwords right now!
Think about it this way … If you were interested in presenting the appearance of a better / cleaner / quality product and wanted to cleanse your SERP’s for some sort of public showing – where would you start?
Well how about targeting highly competitive terms that you know are being SEO’d to death? How would you determine these competitive terms? Well you already have a gauge of sorts and that’s your AdWord product which could/should serve as a pretty good indicator of competition … and thus the terms that are most likely highly sought after.
Id turn down the $500 from 1 person, but when its 500 from 50,000 then your talking money. If I could force others to enter into that bidding war before long it would be $750 from 100,000 and so on and so on …
Others have said this is an issue regarding the “PageRank” patent which I believe Stanford has rights to. I heard stories saying Google has been more or less forced to come up with a new system and thats what we have been witnessing in real time.
Who knows – all my evidence still seems to point at a filter.
People spend lots of money on adwords, but the point is how much altering the serps would increase that amount.
Put it this way, if today was AFTER the IPO, perhaps a case could be made, but as of now, Google’s product value is quality results. I can’t see how anybody can not see what penny ante nothing adwords is compared to the IPO. Suppose Google’s value even goes down 5% because of crappy results… that would be about a BILLION dollars. All adwords put together between now and the end of April (the late first quarter being thought of as prime IPO time) would be a drop in that bucket. And that is only looking at a 5% drop. And that is all adwords put together, not just the difference between what difference in adwords revenue they could get by screwing up the results.
Google has much bigger fish to fry. There isn’t one in a billion chance right now that Google would intentionally hurt the quality of their results right now.
Also, there are lots of valid reasons to crosslink. Penalizing is different than ignoring, and ignoring is different than dampening. I don’t see any value in Google penalizing. Ignore, maybe. Dampen, sure.
There has never been any evidence of a filter. All you have to do is look at the old results, the post-florida results, and the current results. At the same time that some sites disappear, some sites that ranked 3, 7 and 12… might have gone to 1, 20, 5… might have gone to 4, 8, 2. Obviously there is no filter otherwise the relationship of those sites to each other would not be affected. There is just a much different ranking algorithm.
Google tells people what good SEO tactics are, and what to avoid. http://www.google.com/webmasters/
Investors in the stock market care about one thing: Income growth.
They couldn’t care less about search quality, as long as the profits are rising.
If Google succeeds in bringing the adwords income up the last few months before
the IPO, they have an excellent case for the investors.If you added “-l” after the search term post-Florida, you got the unfiltered results.
That option (meant for internal use only?) is now removed. I agree with
Arkyt: This is a pure commercial filter.Just curious Classics… what is your website?
Good question Blackhawk I have wondered the same thing….
As far as I am concerned we are mincing words between Filter and Algorythem. In either case, or by either term, a very significant number of quality sites with relevant content have been excluded from the SERPs. That is not progress in my eyes.
I really dont think that “real” searchers consider tons of free sites with little value or endless Amazon listings as relevant and desirable.
“If you added “-l” after the search term post-Florida, you got the unfiltered results.”
That was a mistake some people unfortunately made early on. The -sfssts just brought up the old algorithm. A comparison between those results and the post-florida results was the absolute proof their was no filter.
It’s not semantics, but the way some people use filter they are meaning algorithm. If you are a webmaster though the difference is a significant one. A filter presumes there is first a set of results determinded, and then those results are filtered to remove or significantly penalize some sites. An algorithm simply is the calculated end results. Google always filters the final algorithmic results, the most obvious way is by showing no more than two results from the same domain.
Put another way, a filter never boosts anything. You can see these changes are algorithmic in that when some sites go down, others rise dramatically. They don’t rise just because others have been removed.
A filter is a negative. It only “dislikes”. An algorithm dislikes but it also “likes” sites and boosts their ranking. So, it’s a big mistake to look at Google changes as ONLY removing things. Webmasters should be focusing on the stuff that Google is now specifically liking, like links to authoritative sites.
It’s not merely semantics to say there are two sides to this coin.
A similar concept is that some people think they are being penalized when insted they just aren’t getting the benefit from something. For example this site is probably benefitting from Google doing a better job figuring out the words in casino/affiliate/programs.com This does not mean that hyphenated domains are being penalized. It means non-hyphenated domains are getting a more level playing field now.
Classics thank you for your patience. I think the grievance of webmasters is not if its a filter or algorithym change, but the fact that a truckload of quality websites are unfairly penalized or removed all together from the google database. These websites are removed for no reason, when there are obviously websites of lower quality being ranked significantly higher.
While it’s difficult to make a case of this in a competitive industry like online casinos, it’s why i constantly refer to websites that I design in noncompetitive ones.
Some websites I’m the only website on the subject and I’m no where to be found!
You would think the term ‘merchant account affiliate programs’ is uncompetitive, I have the only website devoted to this topic. Yet I am no where to be found. Ahead of me are websites like onlinebusiness.com catalogcity.com linkshare.com & simplythebest.com even http://www.paulbarrs.com !
None of those websites are topic specific, and none of them have anything to do with the topic at hand.
This scenario is repeated with almost every single website. Furthermore returning back to the subject of online casinos, I still dont know why my site safeonlinecasinos.com was removed from the database all together with no reason given. I agree it’s not the best website out there but it is far from the worse.
That is but just one example.
Antoine
AlltheWeb is showing that the site is not in their index either. But then it also doesn’t show up this way http://www.alltheweb.com/search?avkw=fogg&cat=web&cs=utf-8&q=site%3Awww.safeonlinecasinos.com
but thenit does show up this way http://www.alltheweb.com/search?avkw=fogg&cat=web&cs=utf-8&q=site%3Asafeonlinecasinos.com&_sb_lang=anyThat seems kind of weird. Did you have a server outage or something recently?
Maybe this is nothing, but if AlltheWeb is having some difficulty seeing your site accurately maybe Google had a technical problem. Maybe they just decided to hate you for some reason too, but if this domain was removed from Google only recently (like past the past month or so) then maybe there might be a technical explanation. If it has been months and months then I wouldn’t have a clue — unless the content is a near exact copy of what can be found on another domain, then them removing it does make sense. They do filter what they consider duplicate content. Maybe they even think you are duplicate content when you aren’t.
Originally posted by arkyt
I have stated since the first sight of “Florida” SERPs that this is in fact a commercial “FILTER” – You will not change my mind – least not yet. Clearly connected to “competitive terms”I’d call it more of a “stop gaming me” filter. It just turns out that the more “competitive terms” have been ruled by those who know what’s going on. It’s always been that way with every search engine. lol… I used to love hearing news stories and then jumping to the top of Alta Vista 3 days later for related searches.
They just switched the game up. That’s why it seems like a commercial filter. Previously ranking sites aren’t dead. They just need new strategies.
Little changed in the non-commercial areas because nobody cares enough to optimize / game them for those terms.
Believe me… I won’t buy adwords as a result of feeling dogged by Google. I’ll go pay for inktomi PFI or other advertising. It doesn’t make sense for them to alienate me (alienating the average good content generating webmaster that pays for stuff when he needs to.)
The results are getting crappier, though, and they’ll have to do something about that to keep the searchers. Go Ink.
