Re: Google ranking dropped

From: Robert Day <rpday_at_btinternet.com>
Date: Fri 14 May 2004 07:34:42 -0500

Now I'm the one who's amused.
I AM a search engine optimisation specialist so you can
quit the "why don't you take a look at your site" thread.
I have clients who are small companies indeed who outrank big
national companies on very high volume search phrases.

Explain this to me then.
I'll use one of my sites as an example - www.sheffield-cutlery.com.
The perfect search phrase for it is "sheffield cutlery".
If you do not know, Sheffield has a good reputation for the
quality of its cutlery. Stainless steel was invented in Sheffield
and cutlery has been made here for hundreds of years. The phrase
"sheffield cutlery" is a credible search phrase for me to optimise
my site to.

The keywords, meta tags, site construction, even the hyphenated
URL are set up to ensure that the site is found by anyone who
is looking for "sheffield cutlery". It's the perfect site for
anyone who wants Sheffield cutlery. I'm not using "illegal"
optimisation tactics and I'm not trying to foist on people an
irrelevant site. I'm not saying that it is better than other Sheffield
cutlery company sites, but if you want cutlery from Sheffield, this
is the place to come. I don't think that I'm being arrogant if I
say that my site "deserves" to be in the top 10 and, as I have said,
it used to be number 1.

Last November - my site WAS number 1 on most search engines and
it was number 1 on Google.

After Florida, I was still number 1, except on Google where my
site was nowhere amongst the 859 sites that were returned
when I searched for my site-specific two word phrase. I didn't just
drop a few places, I was removed entirely and could only then be
found if I used my URL in Google's search box. This happened
right in the middle of the run up to Christmas which is my
busiest time of the year. The site that took over number 1 spot
was a university page headed "New history offers fresh perspective
on Sheffield cutlery".

Why would Google remove my site from the results and give priority
to a page with half a dozen paragraphs on the history of cutlery?
Answer: because Google knew that other commercial site owners who
are less well equipped than I to optimise their sites, are paying
them to get their sites onto the first page of Google by using
Adwords. Google has a tremendous amount of data allowing it to
exploit its knowledge of who will pay for rankings via Adwords.
Every expensive phrase could be filtered out forcing site owners
who rely on those phrases to pay or forego their rankings.
Unfortunately for me "sheffield cutlery" was a filtered phrase.
They must have reasoned "why are we giving this guy a top ranking
for free, when we can throw him off entirely and he'll have to pay us?
After all, it's Christmas and we know he has to be listed otherwise
he'll go broke. Others are paying us for the phrase "sheffield cutlery",
so he'll have to do the same."

Now, if that is what they were up to, why didn't they admit it?
At least it would show that they are prepared to be honest. Instead,
as far as I am aware, they are still saying that Florida result
changes were "normal fluctuations".

Now, multiply my experiences by a million and you will begin to
appreciate how many other sites were similarly hit by what I still
believe was Google's cynical attempt to force me to pay for my ranking.
If Google wishes to become a pay-for-placement/pay-for-ranking
search engine then fine. Let it declare its stance and tell the
world that it is no longer the search engine that will find the
best sites for you if those site owners will not pay. If you feel
that Google can do what the hell it likes and if you are happy to be
force fed sites that are either irrelevant to your needs (a university
page) or owned by people who will pay for their rankings (and pass on
the costs to you) then that is the way Google were headed. It's not
what made Google famous but I do recognise that they can make a killing
if they flex their muscles.

Now please don't tell me that the university page is a good result.
It might be for someone searching for "history of sheffield cutlery"
but it doesn't explain why my site was nowhere amongst 859 sites.
Fortunately, Google had a re-think and my site is back in 3rd spot
on Google (and I'm still number 1 on Yahoo).

I will wait to hear from your friend Larry, but I'm not holding my
breath. He probably won't find himself able to offer an apology for
the money it cost me and millions of others. After all, Google probably
made a tidy sum from the people who were forced to use Adwords last
Christmas. We know that Google really needs the money, don't we?

Please try to realise that Google's actions last Christmas were
nothing to do with search engine optimisation. They were all down to
forcing people to pay for their rankings. Sure, we can all adopt
strategies to bypass their 'experiment' but we are just being messed
about when we have to re-optimise pages for Google when we all know
that other search engines see that our sites are properly optimised
otherwise why would we still be at number 1 on those other engines?

I'm just concerned what is going to happen after the IPO. Google's
shareholders might take a look at the results of the Florida
experiment and say "wow, look how we can force people to pay us
money, let's do it next Christmas too". Maybe Larry can tell us
if this is on the cards.

Still waiting for Larry's comments.

Rob







Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 07:34:42 CDT