1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Why I Think Google Is Slowly But Surely Loosing On Quality

Discussion in 'Google' started by siteurl, Feb 3, 2013.

?

Do you agree?

  1. Yes

    24 vote(s)
    61.5%
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
    20.5%
  3. Cant say

    7 vote(s)
    17.9%
  1. unity100

    unity100 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    128
    Digital Goods:
    1
    #61
    a private company changing the rules of the game on a whim of a few department heads is not 'changing with the times'. and its not a change of technology. if what happened was due to majority of internet usage moving to mobiles (and it has) and these guys not adapting to that, you would be right. but it isnt. its basically just one single privately controlled company changing something and it breaking your business.

    and, regarding that :

    google still distributes around 50% of internet traffic. and, before this, they were known as a company which was reliable. most people think they are still reliable even. and they were too, before all these 'quality' updates started. yahoo was and is struggling, bing is something that is trying to come up with around 6% or so of search market.

    what would they do ?

    many people, like these, obliged by the guidelines and methods google itself advocated and pushed forward. it was rational and logical, right ? the company which is delivering the search traffic, giving you the guidelines for that. its pretty straightforward.

    then suddenly all the guidelines you obeyed became a liability.

    even major websites like digg lost 50 to 80% of their traffic with that. thankfully they are providing a social, interactive service which can garner daily ongoing loyal users, so they are still floating. but for small and mid size ecommerce merchants and similar, it was a disaster.


    they didnt weed out anything other than precise and specific results for relevant queries. now for searches like "combining three tables across two databases without a foreign key in mysql", all i get is stackoverflow results - authoritative they are, they dont have much to do with what i am searching.

    before the 'quality' update, i would get a 3-4 page blog some datacenter operative posted back in 2006something, answering the exact thing i am searching for in exact terms.

    but with this new 'quality' update, the very relevant and informative page is no good anymore, because it doesnt have 'authoritative' sites linking to it (why the hell would stackoverflow link to those external sites anyway), it has pathetically low pages, and its old. (even though it is still valid)

    but, when i search for shopping, i get very quality and authoritative results. and they are mostly either amazon, or ebay. someone who would shop at amazon, would shop at amazon anyway, so it is insanely stupid to show results from amazon for a certain search.

    this 'quality' update has harmed medium and small time sites and people, and benefited major players. and it is not good for us. leave aside not being good for users.

    as for whether can google change its algorithm on a whim or not - yes they can. because they are privately owned company. they can even stop sending traffic to any site on a whim too. its their own private right. total private tyranny in the end.

    but that is not good for others - like those people, like me, like you, and internet users. if a company is controlling 50% of entire internet traffic, it means that that company has gone way past the line of being a business, and became a strategic infrastructure. like roads, telecommunications, water or food. they should be regulated more properly so one day they wont come up starting to discriminate businesses and websites on a whim - and dont even for a moment think that they may not do it ; companies like at&t, comcast are already trying to assert that the internet backbone they are providing are their property, and they have the right to decide which websites you can see from their network as they please. the catch is they own entire internet backbone of united states altogether.

    if expanded upon, this is a very large subject. however, short version is, i find it utterly crazy to trust google with anything - be it your hobby website, be it your business, be it your clients.[/quote]
     
    unity100, Mar 10, 2013 IP
  2. Irop Paze

    Irop Paze Active Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #62
    You made a remarkable reply, but you shatter your opinions when you contradict yourself.

    I just have to disagree here; what is the algorithm? It's technology - Google (publicly) trades in the technology sector. They made a technology advance - it's the same thing if a company updates the operating system they provide and makes your software or app incompatible. What would your advice be to companies facing imminent danger from change? Mine would be research the change and update when it matters. Not that this matters to the discussion, but part of my duties as a consultant and technical adviser would have been assisting and planing to avoid what happened to the bankrupt company.

    Not sure I see your point here, are you saying that Google who's stock price is still rising, is making bad decisions? Maybe Bing and Yahoo should lessen their reliability and quality like Google so that they can get a little bit of that profit margin.

    FYI, a bad questing to ask an analyst is if something is logical; Your argument here isn't sound or valid based on your premise that doesn't support the your conclusion. Rational, however is philosophical and therefore you can make any claim you want. So, what's rational/reasonable is that if a organization sets the policy and guidelines, then the subordinate that has chosen to accept it (by structuring their business around it) must also accept when it changes <-- that's actual conditional logic.

    You must not have been reading my previous posts... A) This search isn't relevant to the topic unless you actually know about database design B) What's wrong with the stackoverflow results? C) If for some reason you don't like stackoverflow then in your search use "-stackoverflow and you won't get their results

    Okay - understood besides using quality in there because that is a contradiction to the premise that you are saying Google doesn't provide quality searches.

    Is this a contradiction to the previous? Why is it insanely stupid to show amazon results?

    I consider million dollar businesses big business, and that contradicts your post where you assumed I was focused on small business; or, do you consider million dollar businesses small/medium? Also, you have to cite a source for your claims or something that backups up your assumptions. The reason is because before you mention some that profit from the change, now you write who it harms.

    For the sake of argument - Google is a public company that trades on the NASDAQ.

    Wow, just wow. Your asking for government regulation of search engines. To do what exactly? Imagine if Google couldn't change their algorithm without government approval so that some internet business wouldn't suffer (your claim). You would slow progression through regulation. I do agree that it could happen, but I think it would have a negative impact on new technology and trends. Old stale business that don't want to change their models or practices would strangle advancements.

    A little different topic, but similar is Aereo wanting to stream broadcast TV over the internet, why is it so difficult? Because of regulation. Now, don't get me wrong - I agree with regulation where it's needed, but willy-nilly enforcement for a few companies that failed to have extra cash in their coffers to surpass hard times is just ridiculous. Regulation is great to stop monopolies, but Google is providing a free service so they aren't gauging prices or unscrupulously forcing competitors out of business. They are just popular and therefore hated.

    Also, funny that you mention Comcast and AT&T - have you read their history?

    I agree, how large a subject it is, but I don't agree about the trust part. Google is making a ton of money for it's share and stake holders so they are doing something right. If you bought stock in Google during their IPO at $100, you would have much more then you invested. You even mention that they have 50% of the market, which again means someone is benefiting from it even if it's stackoverflow, eBay, or Amazon. Your best bet is like few others is to move on away from Google and do whatever defectors do when they leave search engines. Unfortunately, you realize that Google does actually provide the best search engine service and will still end up using it or one of their other many services. Not because they are the only provider like cable tv, or phone companies, but because they are the best in the game.

    I've cut the cable and I'm a dedicated Linux user so I understand sacrifice by moving away from mainstream to prove a point and if I didn't believe that Google provided a quality service I would cut them too. The bottom line is that all I read is complaining and no one has been able to provide a solid argument with facts about why Google’s quality is lower especially when their stock price is rising and they still have such a large amount of the market. That to me is success and logistcians would have a difficult time producing a valid counter argument.
     
    Irop Paze, Mar 10, 2013 IP
  3. siteurl

    siteurl Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #63
    This debate is really getting hot. But my point was straight forward.

    If I am going to london and need a hotel room, I will end up using Google and Google is giving me these results.

    http://www.lastminute.com/hotels-d10073-london-hotels
    http://www.laterooms.com/en/k16295585_london-hotels.aspx
    http://www.travelsupermarket.com/c/hotels/england/london/
    http://www.hotels.com/de549499/hotels-london-united-kingdom/
    http://www.trivago.co.uk/london-38715/hotel
    http://www.londontown.com/hotels/
    http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotels-g186338-London_England-Hotels.html
    http://www.superbreak.com/london.htm
    http://www.hoteldirect.co.uk/london/
    http://www.visitlondon.com/where-to-stay/hotel

    None of these are a real hotel website. All are offering a special search/directory for hotels.

    Now, do not think like a SEO. Think like a user. You have to do searches again in these websites.

    This is like you go to a consultant and ask for a opinion and he shows 10 more consultants to ask the opinion.


    If I am a user, who is a regular traveler, after few times, I will start looking at hotels.com / tripadvisor.com instead of google.com to find what I need.

    Defending Google or criticize Google is not my point here. It is just an observation and many friends here are agreeing to that lines.

    I have guessed why this is happening and it is a very important factor for any SEO consultant. But by posting those views here i will be deviating this topic which i do not want to. (But this is directly to do with the Google's attitude of penalizing webmasters who try to compete with adwords market share. Google has successfully penalized these webmasters for sure but in effect downgraded its search product as well.)
     
    siteurl, Mar 11, 2013 IP
  4. siteurl

    siteurl Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #64
    1. Are you saying, Google is not easy to use? One has to learn using Google?
    Google's success came from simplicity

    2. Are you assuming that despite Google not giving straight forward results, people will stick to Google and try using all tools it offers?

    3. Are you saying that entry level internet users are not wanted by Google? google is only for people who know how to use Google effectively?

    Becoming a fan of a company is absolutely OK. But expecting every internet user to be so is dangerous especially if your profession is helping businesses generate leads/ business online (Web developer / designer / SEO consultant etc.)

    If you are not in this field and becoming a fan of Google is not a problem.



    Note that I too like Google but with changing algorithms I see Google is spoiling its quality and I may not like it for long if someone else comes up with a simpler search engine where I do not have to learn how to use it and results are matching what I am looking for.
     
    siteurl, Mar 11, 2013 IP
  5. Tuscan Chef

    Tuscan Chef Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #65
    I will try to prove that google is less quality. One web site I deal with is about cooking classes in tuscany. OK. Well, the keyword is the same "cooking class tuscany". Before penguin and panda, the first were the one with more link activity, more money but also better site. However there was no tripadvisor of fodors of NY times articles in the list. It was showing what people was looking for: sites offering what the keyword was asking for. Now in first page there are 4 pages of tripadvisor and one of fodors followed by an article on the NY times, pushing everyone back two or three pages, also because organic searches now have less space per page since the pink paid ones are 3 at the top and 1 at the bottom.
    Basically the result of that search is: go on tripadvisor and don't mess with direct search!.
    Here is the interesting part, the tripadvisor pages have nothing that makes them fly so high, excepting for being tripadvisor. I also notice that the pink on the back to highlight commercial result and not organic result is lighter, difficult to see the difference, is that true or just my immagination? If is my immagination maybe you are right!.
     
    Tuscan Chef, Mar 11, 2013 IP
    siteurl likes this.
  6. siteurl

    siteurl Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #66
    Completely agree.

    When I show this to my clients to make them understand the diff between SEM & SEO, most of them observe it for first time and almost say that they can not see the background.

    Someone recently patted me for making his site come in 1st place for a competitive keyword in 2 days and I have to convince him hard to make him believe that it was not SEO but it was an ad I had put for him for the SEM contract.
     
    siteurl, Mar 11, 2013 IP
  7. Irop Paze

    Irop Paze Active Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #67
    @siteurl - Thanks for clarifying your post. The simple matter is that you consult on an SEM/SEO basis while I consult on the technical basis. My use and understanding is different for that reason alone. The other reason is in my previous job I traveled a lot so I understand looking for destinations. I also have database design experience and understand the methodology of what a search engine is trying to do (or any data storage and retrieval tool). SEO just happens to be a by-product of the underlying technology. Therefore you could make a great case for how SEO has changed in quality, but it's not quantitative or measurable because there is no standard. Some will disagree, but the guides and how-to's that Google puts out is not policy. One could also argue the same thing about search policy (and quality), but I would lean toward their being search polices because of copywrite concerns. So the matter of quality either search related or SEO is pure opinion. I think no one is debating that and all understand that. My questions are if Google's quality is suffering, why do they still control so much of the search traffic? Who is actually suffering from Googles algorithm change? Does Googles change effect anyone paying for service? There are plenty of questions that can be asked, but at the end of the day people that are paying are rewarded while SEO doesn't matter to shareholders because there is no gain. However, someone is befitting from the SEO shift, but who are they?


    That's a pretty difficult questions to answer even though it is so simple. It's like a calculator, easy to use 4+4, but if you want more from it you have to read the manual. The same thing can be said for MS Word - I taught classes people who have used it for years and they still learned more efficient and advanced ways of doing things - format painter for example.

    So I believe that Google at least from my perspective provides straight forward result for what I look for. I also feel that people to perform poor searches and don't get the results they want may try something different, but realize Google provides better results.

    I'm not saying that at all, I may have mentioned something similar to there being a learning curve if you are frustrated and want better results. Some people thing they are good drivers until they are tested by snow and ice - new or old driver if you aren't trained or prepared for the situation, then your SOL.

    I agree, I'm not in internet marketing and I can see why people are frustrated, but they have to understand that SEO is tied to the free portion of a search engine and since relevant search results take priority, changes/improvement/degradation could change everything.

    So this is where I feel you are in the wrong direction and is why this topic exists. You understand what SEO is, but not what a search engine is or how SEO relates directly to it. I'm not saying you don't do a great job performing SEO functions, but if you asked a database designer to make a search engine without boolean functions and he/she built it, they would be providing a major disservice. Boolean operations are a basis of database functionality (retrieval) and could severely strip capability from it if removed.

    It's difficult to say that Google is "spoiling" it's quality because of a change to it's algorithm. I agree that a lot aren't happy with it and that there are complaints, but the idea is to improve results not provide irrelevant results.

    Why aren't people changing their SEO practices to match the new algorithm like they did the past? I feel the reason is that they worked hard learning it and implementing it and are now too lazy to start from scratch. Que Sera Sera, maybe I should learn the new SEO guidance and get into the game while there is so much disarray and turn a profit. On second though, as long as people don't understand technology they will need consultants and my career field will always be in demand.
     
    Irop Paze, Mar 11, 2013 IP
  8. siteurl

    siteurl Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #68
    Man, you are not understanding what I am saying.

    You are thinking Google is for SEO

    Even if you ask Google, they will say, "Google is for common people to use"

    That is where "Google Is Slowly But Surely Loosing"
    It is becoming a search engine for experts like you and not for someone who is looking for a simple search result like

    "Hotels in London" or "cooking classes in ny" where Google is saying

    Do not use me. Use some local directory. I will give you many junk results because I want to penalize some small webmasters.
     
    siteurl, Mar 11, 2013 IP
  9. GBK667

    GBK667 Greenhorn

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    #69
    ^^ i got 7 hotels from london though after searching for hotel london" ..beside the mentioned hotel-finder sites
     
    GBK667, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  10. Irop Paze

    Irop Paze Active Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #70
    @siteurl - I'm not saying a search engine is created for SEO, I'm saying it's used that way and why we are having the discussion in the first place (the root of the discussion not the actual topic of quality). The reason I put it that way is that I'm not convinced that "search" quality is any worse. The amount of time I spend using Google for research (both for work and personal) is astronomical and I have to be efficient at finding things because I wouldn't be able to get anything else done.

    So now lets dive into your search for "hotels in London." You got it right when you called it a simple search. The results you got were simple results, and you get out what you put in. Hotels in London is a pretty vague question for a person to answer let alone an artificial intelligence. If someone asked you that and required you to give 10 relevant results how would you answer? If telephone books were still the norm, I would say start there or using more modern forms like traveolicity or kayak - true story by the way. It's the same for cooking classes in NY. Would you expect a person to rattle of at random dozens upon dozens of classes or think they would want you to define better what you are looking for. NY is a large state, so how it would be good practice to look at your neighbourhood first, then span out to the type of food you want to learn to cook. Then you would feel foolish if you showed up to a class for children or similar situation so you would need to be more precise in what you are looking for even it it's not obvious. It's the same with a search engine as the same way you pull information out of someones memory. Asking bad questions usually gets a bad answer as they say.
     
    Irop Paze, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  11. siteurl

    siteurl Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #71
    @Irop Paze

    I completely agree with you: "People who know how to search can use Google"

    People who do not know how to search can go to travalocity

    If I am a hotel owner, if Google continues the current algorithm, travalocity ads will be more attractive option than strugling with SEO

    May be Google has an hidden agenda to push adwords (better relevant ads) than search results.

    Hopefully, a new search engine will evolve from nowhere where people who do not know how to search gets relevant answers which Google used to provide an year back.
     
    siteurl, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  12. qwikad.com

    qwikad.com Illustrious Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    7,151
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Best Answers:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    475
    #72
    I am pretty sure there's a reason why Google's search results seem to be less accurate than what they used to be. My gut feeling tells me it's all done, so that they could start charging businesses for appearing at the top of their FREE searches. So, the room needs to be prepared so to say. There's a ton of articles online about that.
     
    qwikad.com, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  13. unity100

    unity100 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    128
    Digital Goods:
    1
    #73
    sufficient attention when reading would prevent you from misperceiving existence of nonexistent contradictions. as before, you are very hasty in reading and responding. i will help you :

    instructing an already existing algorithm by changing values is not technological progress. its using an EXISTING technology.

    just as in if google gave values to their algorithm to penalize and evaporate all existing websites from their search index, that would not be a technological progress. it would just be USING an existing technology.

    google's stock price has no relevance to the arbitrary decisions they may take regarding search. google has many businesses in addition to search, so this is an irrelevant proposition.

    your reply has no relevance to the core issue here. it doesnt matter whether it is logical or not - the success, livelihood, information access of millions of people depend on this. so, it doesnt matter shizz whether what google does is logical for themselves or not.

    if you want to go down to basics, the fact that 50% of entire internet traffic, something that is of strategical resource level, is being dominated privately by a single company on private whim, is something totally illogical.

    A) that search, like ANY other google search, is related to the topic of GOOGLE LOSING ON QUALITY. if you go to 1st post of this thread and read it, the first paragraph explains how the op thinks google's search result qualities have been declining.

    again, repeating : this thread is about google's search queries going down on quality.

    B) they come up irrelevant except common topics

    C) yes, and you would need to do that for like ~10,000 times to remove all the sites which rose in rankings because google thinks 'authority' is better, to get to the very specific, 3 page blog which has the precise information searched.

    gearing an entire search engine to give 'best shopping results' from 'authority' sites does not mean search quality.

    it only does when the search engine has become a shopping search engine.

    very simple - there isnt an online shopper who doesnt know amazon. those who want to shop at amazon, go to amazon. amazon has its own search engine which searches amazon database much better than the external google engine.

    a million dollar business is a medium business. i didnt base this classification on what passes as understanding of small/medium/big business in small webmaster forums. this was based on engineering/economy education.

    as i said before i wont give any specifics regarding the example i have given, due to privacy concerns regarding the parties i work on. if you dont believe it, dont.

    that digg lost its traffic down to 30% on first panda update should be proof enough.

    and ? does this change the fact that few majority shareholders and 1 executive has the power to unilaterally decide what happens to millions of businesses depending on their search ? leaving aside the department heads which may come up with those ideas ?

    dont answer. question was rhetorical. it does not.

    yes, im asking for government regulation of search engines. just like how there is government regulation of isps and backbone providers so they cannot declare the network entire countries are using as their 'private property' and exercise 'their right to decide who can access what information'.

    if government did not prevent itself until now, at&t and comcast would already have made entire continental u.s. internet their own property, and they were going to start charging BOTH end users (isp subscribers in their homes) AND the websites (digitalpoint) on both ends. isp subscriber because of subscription, and the website for the 'privilege to be able to access users on its own network'. not to mention retaining the right to charge whichever website whatever they want, and even refuse to show your website to their subscribers even if you pay. and they dont give 2 shizz whether you are a 'stale old business' or not.

    this is not hypothesis or theorizing. they are pushing for this openly since 2005, officially. they have sued fcc various times and lost. if they win, you will see why regulation is necessary for.

    something that becomes an indispensable part of life in the level of strategic resource, cannot be left to private whims.

    i have been following what is going on about net neutrality since 2005. leaving aside the particular corporations' histories, i know when they have attempted to do what, at what expense.

    a service being free does not make it less strategic if it has become an indispensable part of daily life. it does not matter whether the organization profits from what they are providing or not - the point is, something billions of people depend on, should not be ruled under private whims.

    apple has the highest profitability for many years in tech field, and yet are continually locking their customers in and exploiting them in endless ways, to the point of issuing specific screws and screwdrivers so that noone else than apple stores will be able to open them. leaving aside their private tyranny in their application stores. being profitable does not mean being harmless.

    i provided the specific example for you. you moved to discount it as being irrelevant to search quality. and you did this for a technical, specific search.

    and your defense of google has been that 'they are profitable'.

    monsanto is also profitable. so is bp.
     
    unity100, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  14. Irop Paze

    Irop Paze Active Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #74
    I could agree with you guys siteurl & qwikad on the idea that revenue has something to do with the results you have because free doesn't net income, but it's a hard sell for me to actually believe. Heck, Google could even be purposely putting their review results at the top. They could even be manipulating people into using more of their products or toward affiliated third parties. Major sites could have put pressure on Google to rank higher. If that were true, I could understand frustration unless you are the paying party that gets rewarded through those practices. However, I don't think that is the case because of actual pay programs like adsense.

    So now back to the "hotels in London" search, what are you trying to find with such a broad query?

    I get your point about individual hotel owners not showing up in the search and you make a great point about placing ads instead of SEO, but travel clubs and engines deal with hotel(s) and is more relevant to me than hotel A or B that used SEO to get the top rank. The travel engines at least let me filter by price, availability, reviews, etc. helping me better define what it is exactly I'm looking for. If I want better results I look for "haunted hotels in London" or "Hilton hotels in London."

    The reason I'm so versed in this sort of field is predicting exactly what people want and providing them the best answer is what I do daily. I get people coming to me all the time saying, "well what is this or that since you know a lot about computers (broad google search)" and I tell them, "no I don't but I can point you in the best/right direction so you can get the best result (travel search engine)." Google doesn't have to be a travel related search engine if someone else is better at it.

    Try searching for "major chain hotels in London" it's still pretty general, but your top 10 has some actual major chains in there. Then try "bed and breakfast hotels in London" and you get different results. Also try "hotels in London with great views" and you get different results. I'm not trying to say, people don't know how to (generally) use a search engine, but you might have to try a few times to get your desired result. That's not difficult nor advanced and the results have nothing to do with shady backdoor deals or payments (IMHO).
     
    Irop Paze, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  15. Irop Paze

    Irop Paze Active Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #75
    Thank you for the assistance, and your responses are getting better so I will indulge myself in trying to reply to the 90% garbage` you posted. Your definitions are not industry standard and you appear to be hunkering into a level that supersedes your knowledge and experience.

    Sorry, but I work with developers and engineers and your definition of change not being progress when you try to improve code is not industry standard.

    http://www.seroundtable.com/goog-drop-webmasters-15860.html (not a reliable source, but look at their stock performance)

    So yeah - it does, but it didn't take long to climb back up after the initial negativity surrounding "whatever" caused it to drop.

    livelihood, and depend on it huh? It's the classic case of ethics vs. logic and I'm very well versed in both. You have an ethical approach, while I have a logical approach. It's not an ethical issue i.e. depending on something - it's a contingency issue. SEO isn't dogma - SEO isn't the basis of database design; technology and search demand changes - SEO can't stay the same forever.

    So what would happen if Google got shut down or disappeared from the face of the earth? I work with contingency planners, we actually talk about how it would effect our organization in such a case.

    I don't feel Google's going down in quality and my posts are why.

    You ask a common question you get a common reply.

    Why are authoritative results not the best? Just a question...

    Wow, really? Your world must be very small...

    Okay, I get that 5 people can move 20 mil and 499 people can move $500 mil, however the industry I work in has (industry) standards for the amount of money a company makes and how many they employ to differentiate small/med/big business. So, process of elimination, if they aren't a large business, then they were small and too small to sustain operations after a code change - fragile and destined to fail if not with panda with something else.

    Understood, we can learn from them not to keep all eggs in one basket and to diversify capabilities. Also adapt to a changing word.

    You keep posting that, do I need to respond to it?

    I'm not saying that you aren’t successful at the business you run, but there are many different ways to run a business - I wouldn't work for or create a company that solely depends on search to exist <-- statement not an answer.

    Before I respond I need to know what you are talking about here... This is a pretty touch subject.

    http://searchenginewatch.com/articl...overnment-Regulation-of-Search-Engines-Survey

    Are we talking SEO or search results? Are you saying that Google has to freeze their code before they make a change? Who determines what an approved change is? How long before they can release the change? Who is responsible if the change does more harm than good? Who determines who is better and worse off? And the million dollar question - Who determines what a quality result is? If it's someone like me it would be much like it is, but how would it be if someone like you set the standards for search quality? Would that mean Google has to provide similar results as Bing, and Yahoo or would there be a standard algorithm? There are more questions I can ask about policy and regulation because occasionally my organization gets drilled with similar question by other organizations depending on their services. I'd love to go more into it, but that is enough of that topic.

    What is your stance on regulation and net neut?

    Your killing me with this dependency stuff... Remember the dot com bubble and the housing bubble?- things go bad all the time? Don't become dependent on something that is so volatile. And don't try to regulate something that is so volatile.

    I don't buy apple products for the reasons you mention. Don't use Google for the reasons you mention.

    I don't follow monsanto, but I do follow BP - not sure what you are saying about BP. Their lack of decision making or not taking action caused a recent environmental disaster. So? In some countries the promised to do better and re-branded themselves to start over fresh. There is nothing free about oil so I don't get the comparison. Gas is a by-product of oil like SEO is a by-product of search - is that what you are getting at? Or is it that if you stop using Google search they will still exist like if people stopped buying gas from BP (BP can re-brand and sell their gas to other companies)?

    So we are kind of in circles right now, so we can bring it back to the topic or continue this or whatever. I feel that my results are still quality because the panda change didn't add any time to my efficiency and I didn't even notice the change. If anything, I haven't given up on a search recently due to difficulty finding something. If I had paid attention, I could argue that my results are better and quality is improving, but I didn't think to take metrics.
     
    Irop Paze, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  16. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,924
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #76
    It really does not matter which hotel sites pop up first. What matters is that London hotels are popping up first. And they do. In general search as in ads.

    Google's profit is increasing and the average searcher remains satisfied.

    No change in quality. Just that it's harder for those with a budget less than the top ranked companies are unhappy that their sites are not up there. (Understandable, but Google doesn't care.)
     
    Blogmaster, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  17. JerrickYeoh

    JerrickYeoh Active Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #77
    I will vote for can't said while i notice lot of directories sites are dying cause they do not have quality and unique content .
    Google provide better search result the the end users. Maybe in the cars line , lot of people prefer to search through yellow pages or classified instead of the main webpage. They study customer behavior and give them the result that what they prefer to see.
     
    JerrickYeoh, Mar 12, 2013 IP
  18. annamolly777

    annamolly777 Greenhorn

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    10
    #78
    I have been using Bing lately. Bing is like the old Google, not as censored, and you know what you will get when searching. The algorhtm is not as in flux as Googles now.
     
    annamolly777, Mar 13, 2013 IP
  19. VideoWhisper.com

    VideoWhisper.com Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Digital Goods:
    2
    #79
    Google search as it used to be is becoming less relevant and used.

    These days masses prefer internet experiences starting from Facebook content or mobile apps rather than searching with search engines. Private pages, apps, their contents and links are harder to index and rank.
    A bad dream begun with flash but new internet content like apps and private social networks are a nightmare for search engines.
     
    VideoWhisper.com, Mar 13, 2013 IP
  20. siteurl

    siteurl Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #80

    Bing is no better. That is sole reason, Google search is still ruling the roast.
     
    siteurl, Mar 13, 2013 IP