The Tale of Two Google Geeks

So what you are saying is that it is not possible to increase cash flow to advertising profit centers by factors in the algo

 

As i said earlier G is two years ahead of the others. Hope Mr. Gates gets a time turner.

Then there is one thing. G's ranking algorithm is copyrighted and that makes MSN and Y to be more careful not to even accidently copy the G equation and get G like results.

 

Fair enough. I think I agree with you up to a point here, and I do think Google is doing a big disservice to newer sites by trying to ignore them.

 

Who said his site was new

 

I was speaking generally.

 

I think we ar taking this discussion too far. Lets conclude something from here.

G is still the best out there and the potential problems customers see is not coz of their technical flaw but coz of the huge database of indexed pages. And MSN and Y is slowly but surely gaining Google's market share due to some of the more over enthusiased startegies they recently adopted.

But in the end its the quality of search we all (both web masters and searchers) look for. Web masters might fight for the rank, but ultimately we wont get disappointed if some site better than ours is ranked above us, do we? That makes us put in extra effiort on our site and so more relavant content and thus better rank. So let us all hope some day real content gets real rank. That way everything will be in order. The searchers are happy coz they get relavent results only (and competition leads to increase in content volume too) and the webmasters too are happy coz no one is above them who is not better than them.

 

A thread on Digital Point can never go "too far" my man

 

Like anthony said, it's not over till it's over.

I agree 100% and since I see so much garbage ahead of me in G the frustration level is highly elevated.

 

First, I just want to say I agree with anthonycea. He makes sense.

Second, I disagree with SE Basic. You say you want proof. I'm to busy trying to rank my websites than to go snooping around the Googleplex for the scoop of the century.

I'd like to ask everyone in this thread if they believe that CORRUPTION exists within corporate America? If everyone in here were completely honest, then I'm sure that 100% of you would say that yes corruption does happen (I believe alot more than we know about). If you say no that corruption does not happen, then you must be living in a fantasy world of denial. To you there are no Watergates, no Enrons, no Martha Stewart insider trading, etc., etc.

Not sure exactly what anthonycea is saying and I don't want to put words in his mouth; but I'll say it: I have long suspected that virtually ALL of the major search engines can be bought - for the right price. If you go and read Google , Yahoo and MSN's pages regarding advertising and read ALL of it, including the fine print you might come to the conclusion that: these are BUSINESSES and they SELL ADVERTISING and the MORE MONEY that you/a company has THE HIGHER PLACEMENT YOUR AD WILL BE GIVEN. The part that is UN-WRITTEN; but I believe is still there is that deals can be cut if the advertiser has the right amount of money. Most of these sites even say to the affect that if you have "such and such a budget" then by all means that a company rep. of yours should contact that Engine so that various advertising avenues can be explored. I am paraphrasing. But that is the general idea. Some say a MONTHLY BUDGET OF $50,000.00 or more. Now wouldn't we all love to know what a $50,000.00 monthly budget will get you on some of the major se's.?!? Try to understand that no company would pay that much, UNLESS the ROI they got justified it!

I'm not mentioning any specfic search engine and am also referring to corporate America in general here, but here's a NEWS FLASH: CORRUPTION IN CORPORATE AMERICA IS RAMPANT. The Enrons' and Martha Stewart, etc. are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Ask the Bush Administration if they believe there is corruption in corporate America - they are presently on a more or less crusade to rid this menace to the American economy.

Anyhow, I believe that with enough money rankings can be bought and are being sold to the highest bidders. If you don't believe that statement, then check page 1 of the various major search engines and look at the top 10 sites - there is almost always no rhyme or reason as to the top 10 sites there. Site # 3 might have far fewer backlinks than say site #10, etc. Some of the disparaties are so obvious that it makes you wonder how in the world some domains are even on page 1 at all.....

 

Link to article about the Bush Administration's war on corruption in corporate America:
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/Corpresp/Pressigns.htm

An interesting read.

 

The Bush family saying they are against corruption and will clean it up holds as much integrety as the Judge that is hard on child molesters and turned out to be one himself. (It really happened)

 

?????????????

Care to elaborate and give some SPECIFICS? Let me guess you are a Democrat? and sore that Kerry didn't win the election.....

BTW, we are way off topic here, my original post was an attempt at humor regarding Masters Brin and Page. They were on TV recently and to me they just looked like a couple of college geeks. Also, I just wanted to say that I have made alot of money off of having my sites highly ranked on Google, so with alot of people I have a love/hate thing for the Google search engine.

Mostly I just wish that at some point in history they would stop tweaking their algorithim, because to constantly change it the way they do to me is an admission that the way they rank websites leaves alot to be desired. Let me repeat that again for emphasis: FOR GOOGLE TO CONSTANTLY CHANGE THEIR ALGORITHIM THE WAY THEY DO TO ME IS AN ADMISSION THAT THE WAY THEY RANK WEBSITES LEAVES ALOT TO BE DESIRED.....

 

Not going to get going on that one guys, way off topic

 

No, I voted for him. I'm just calling a spade a spade. I find it humorous. Sorry your off topic reference was better then mine. (in your opinion)

Why is it so hard to believe all of us are not blind sheep that could have voted for him yet disagree with some of his policies? Try not to think too hard.

 

I agree that Google is really not great at the moment. I would also say that I find Yahoo's results shallow (they don't seem to go very deep into a site) and M$N's quick to update, but disturbingly easy to manipulate.

So my search patterns are - G (general searches) M$N (very new stuff) Ask (when I just want to ask a question rather than "search"!)

However, what we all tend to forget is that the average user is very unsophistcated. Let's face it, every day I get a fair number of visitors to my site who have searched on the domain name and come to my site through that search result.

Most users stick to their favorite SE, or just use the one that comes with the page that their browser has been set to open on (by someone else!)

Your average user has almost certainly not noticed any "deterioration" of G results, and is very very unlikely to comparison search as the experts posting on this thread are in the habit of doing.

So, I think the most likely change will not come from a "user revolt" - whether searchers or webmasters - but because M$N (or maybe Yahoo) manage to bundle their search product into something that users end up using almost by default.

However much we dislike what is happening with G (and my site is stuck in the quicksandbox), I think we have to work on the assumption that G is going to be a major / the major player for a while yet. Just like M$ - you may not like them, but you can't ignore them.

 

The bottom line will always be...

Who are you getting referrals from

Some websites are reporting 90% from Google, so those webmasters are going to sing their praises.

The other side of this issue are the webmasters that can not keep their site or sites in the index, they get nothing from Google and that is where the discontent is coming from.

They have a right to be pissed off if their sites are ranking well in all the other engines but not in Google.

The question is WHY

 

I don't doubt that for a second...

What I do disagree with, is Anthony's statement that the more you spend on adwords, the more prominent a position you will be given in the Organic results...

Again, If anyone can provide any PROOF that I am wrong, I would love to see it.

Until then, I can happily say that you are wrong.

 

On the other hand SE, do you feel that it would hurt your organic listings if you spent $200,000.00 a year on ADWORDS

 

No I don't think it would hurt.

I don't think it would make a difference.

 

No.. it's an acknowledgement that no matter how good a product is it can always be made better, and an acknowledgement that webmasters are ALWAYS trying to manipulate the system so Google has to try to keep one jump ahead of them...