Re: Google dance

From: Josh Carlson <jcarlson_at_insurancejournal.com>
Date: Tue 09 Dec 2003 07:15:06 -0600

Robert Day <rpday_at_btinternet.com> wrote:

>"Josh Carlson" <jcarlson_at_insurancejournal.com> wrote:
>
>>I disagree, this is based on your experience. Sometimes adwords
>>are more relevant than the search results. Google demands
>>relevancy (adwords have to maintain a minimum CTR) and is smart to
>>do so with a PPC model. Searchers get what they want/advertisers
>>get what they want/Google gets what they want.
>
>Let's start from the stated aim of Google in an email to me that
>they are committed to "fair representation of the Internet".
>This is now out of the window. The present commitment is to
>"fair representation of whoever will pay us the most money".

what are you basing this comment on?

>And as to the present state of relevancy, try using
>http://www.scroogle.org/
>with a search for "fruit basket". Can you honestly say that the
>top sites now being shown are relevant? If you wanted to buy
>someone a fruit basket on the net, would you be happy at the
>range of sites being offered to you by Google?

Obviously you can't determine a whole lot from *one* search, but I'll agree
these are not the *best* sites ... Google recently implemented word stemming
(http://www.1-hit.com/faq/word-stemming-definition.htm). searching +fruit
+basket will diable stemming and provide somewhat different results. As i'm
typing the results count is jumping all over so something is changing...
anyway without stemming it returned results I would consider a bit better

>Google has just departed the *real* world and has entered a parallel
>world where they are using their power to make money for themselves.
>It is your money they are after. That is, if you're willing to
>give it to them.
>IMO Google is demonstrating a callous disregard for thousands of
>Internet businesses and their employees. And they did it right before
>Christmas. Probably thousands of these businesses stocked up ready
>to meet demand, which never came following the changes.
>I don't play games. I had clients' sites that were perfect results
>for search terms that people would use. Some of my clients are
>independent insurance brokers. Customers need the benefit of
>independent advice. Now, they will not get it because the results
>at the top of the list are the likes of BUPA i.e. single insurance
>companies who will only offer their own insurance to an enquirer
>whether there is a better plan elsewhere. An independent broker would
>give a client the right policy. In this example Google's actions are
>anti the interests of the consumer.

Depends who you are and what you were looking for. If I search for "amazon"
or "dell" I'm probably not real interested in seeing their resellers
websites. In the above, sure I may be looking for a live agent. The company
website will probably provide contact info. You're obviously upset with the
results because you lost. I just searched a term and found better results
than I saw last I searched it. Yes, there are some big changes. Some are for
better some are for worse.

>See above - our sites honestly do belong at the top of the rankings.
>They are nothing to do with spam, con tricks, or invalid use of
>SEO technology. If you sell pink widgets, then you'd expect a site
>about pink widgets to be top of the rankings, not some obscure
>university web site. Our relevant sites are no longer at the top.
>Spammers can go to hell. All I ask is that Google honours its
>commitment to "fair representation of the Internet". By lumping
>us in with the spammers, they have used their sledgehammer and
>now thousands of businesses will struggle. You will have to pay
>more on Adwords to get your site listed. You will have to pass
>your expenses on to your customers. This is not "tweaking".
>It seems to me to be a cold decision to make as much money as
>possible without any warning of what they were going to do. And as
>far as I know, they are still hiding behind a facade that the
>adjustments are "normal fluctuations".

Maybe this is not normal. Maybe it is a huge change to improve their
technology. Or maybe they are sledgehammering their customers - AFAIK
pissing off your customers is not a great marketing tactic.

If they're after money (they are, they're a business too), then they have
tons of opportunity to pursue. Millions of users run their toolbar software
constantly, (imagine if they incorporated a micropayment system to allow
small item sales [articles/mp3s] with the click of a button and collect a
transaction fee). Tens of 1000's sites run their adsense ads, they send out
millions of emails daily.

>>Good. Then there's better pricing for the rest of us. :)
>
>If you think that this is going to drive down the cost of Adwords
>then you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The price of Adwords is
>set to explode. And who will benefit - Google will.

Well you said you're done with them, so that's one less bidder.

>Is everyone ready to throw more money at them, or is it time to stop
>recommending to your clients, friends and colleagues that Google
>is the best search engine? IMO it no longer is - it is no longer
>producing fair representation of the Internet. You'd have to be a
>fruit basket to think otherwise.

heh, what is "fair representation"?
I get the feeling *your* sites are a fair representation :)

Anyway, Danny Sullivan posted some good stuff on this:
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3286101
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3286181

a couple snips from these articles:
"My belief is that Google, for the first time, has been using two
significantly different algorithms at the same time. The "new" system has
been used for many queries since the change, but some queries were still
handled by the "old" system."

"Yes, free listings aren't guaranteed. Yes, search engines can do what they
want. Yes, it's foolish for anyone to have built a business around getting
what are essentially free business phone calls via Google."

"If you've recently found Google seems better, then overall, the new ranking
system may be working better for your needs. Similarly, if Google suddenly
seems worse, then perhaps overall, the new ranking system isn't as well for
you."


Josh




Received on Tue Dec 09 2003 - 07:15:06 CST