Re: Google dance

From: Robert Day <rpday_at_btinternet.com>
Date: Wed 10 Dec 2003 07:27:27 -0600

"Josh Carlson" <jcarlson_at_insurancejournal.com> wrote:

> Robert Day <rpday_at_btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >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?

I base it on the present situation where, for example, if I want to
search for a commodity that I may be thinking of buying, I now see
mainly .org's, .ac's, .gov's, directories, and only the big big companies.
Whereas we used to get a choice of competing sellers/suppliers, we
don't see them any more. This is bad for the consumer who is now
more likely to find him/herself at the site of a conglomerate. And, I'm
not sure how the directories have survived. They are in competition with
Google so stand by to see if they too are zapped.

>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

Stemming is not what is at the root of this present state of affairs.
I think that it's bad (e.g. stemming might now regard "train" and "training"
as the same word?) but I think that it's just one of a range of new ideas
that someone in charge of the alogrithms has decided to foist on us all at
the same time to muddy the waters. IMO the main strategy is the sledgehammer
tactic of trying to force people to buy Adwords. Maybe they thought that by
introducing a range of changes at the same time, we wouldn't know what
really is going on.

>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.

If you can give me an example of any changes for the better, I'd love
to hear of them. By using Scroogle, we can compare.
And, while we're on the subject, what is wrong with being an affiliate
and trying to get your site as high as possible on a search engine?
Why would companies run affiliate programs if they don't want their
affiliates to sell (or am I being naive?)? There does seem to be a
section of people on this list who have an intense dislike of affiliates,
particularly when they start to be successful. I have affiliate programs
where my sites are ranked higher than the merchants. Should the merchant
take exception to this?

>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.

I don't see any improvements at Google. Can anyone tell me how things
are better now? For the site owner or for the searcher?
I see a search engine on the downward spiral of cashing in by giving people
results according to who is prepared to pay the most money. Is that
how Google got to be where they are today? I think not. And if they
abandon the thing that got them where they are, then they won't be
there for long.


>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.

It would have been easier to adapt had they even bothered to tell us
that they were going to kick off the commercial sites. Instead, we find
out one day that our site are nowhere to be seen. Not just dropped a bit
down the rankings - nowhere! And when I complain, they assure me that
it is "normal fluctuations".

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

"Fair representation" are Google's words. They told me that this was
their commitment in an email a couple of weeks ago. If they feel that
kicking off commercial sites and replacing them by .ac's, .org's and
.gov's, is fair representation then they have seriously lost the plot.

Yes - I'm complaining but don't think for a minute that I'm a spammer.
I'll come clean with you about one of my sites - www.sheffield-cutlery.com.
Two weeks ago, it was number one for "Sheffield cutlery". It is a site
that sells Sheffield cutlery. It contains information about Sheffield
cutlery. It is one of the most perfect sites on the net for "Sheffield
cutlery". If Google were committed to "fair representation" then my site
would still be there. If Google wanted to force me to buy Adwords to
get my site back onto their directory, they would kick off my site. Guess
which situation we now have?


>"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."

I don't see any evidence of Google being "better" unless you are one of
the big company site owners that seems to have survived the blitz. Tell me,
would you rather buy your next version of Windows from Microsoft or from
a competitive smaller retailer who has a web site. If these small retailers
remain zapped, then you'll soon have no choice.
So far, they have zapped thousands of commercial keyphrases. This means
that thousands of web site owners are now much worse off. I have noticed
some phrases that they have missed. Maybe they will zap them too next time
round. If you're in the business of making money on the Internet, then you
are going to find it will become harder by the day. And if you are someone
who is just using Google to search for info or services, then you will soon
realise that they are not really delivering that any more, at least not to
the extent that "fair representation" would require.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Day rpday_at_btinternet.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Received on Wed Dec 10 2003 - 07:27:27 CST