How Many Legitimate Business Did Google Kill?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by ducky987

I am not in fear of the mighty "G" but I challenge you to show me that you
are in fact not scared of them either.

Will you give me your business domain name and let me have at it?

I don't think offering to try and "harm" someones business to illustrate a point you're trying to make is a good idea. Providing them with information or links to information that illustrate the point you are trying to make is a different matter.

I also don't think it's fair to label anyone a "worshipper" or a "hater" because they are critical or supportive of what any company is doing. Google included.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by ducky987

Will you give me your business domain name and let me have at it?

No, thanks.

[ducky987]

Crankydave: From Wikipedia.
"Worship usually refers to specific acts of religious praise, honour, or devotion, typically directed to a supernatural being such as God, a god or goddess."

My point stands. I am trying to help the poor chap who started this thread and get out of the world of theory. People online are scared to doing anything that might anger the gods and the God in this case is Google.

MJ said that she and I were on different planets and that her planet was not fear based.
When I ask for a domain to apply "cracks in the Google infrastructure" that Google has known about for at least 3 years and been unable to handle or correct, she responds with, "no thanks."

I call that FEAR. (and I say that with complete respect.)

If you and MJ want to continue to drink the Google Kool Aid that's cool.

Everybody has an opinion for what this guy should do to get his site back on track with with the might "G." Thrown more links at the page, get a site map, revise your title tags, etc.

Anytime that I criticize Google I get attacked. Yet Google who has hurt this guys livelihood gets off sky free, provides no explanation.


Did he do something wrong?

Maybe? I dunno. It is all circumstantial. If so, why is it so difficult for a search engine with the technical prowess of the Mighty G to communicate what the wrongdoing might have been?

Yet if you have been SEO for any period of time you will quickly realize that sometimes you can do everything right but one small iota can absolutely shipwreck a campaign and stop you from getting traffic.

So let me review the crime scene...

Google takes his copyrighted information without asking permission for it.
Arbitrarily indexes it.
When they feel they have something better they throw him to the dogs.


Repeat, Lather and Rinse.

I think the video link I shared earlier....nails it.
http://www.haraldanderson.com/Make%20Your%20Competition%20Disappear.zip

[weslinda]

Ducky: The guy never said that Google was killing his business. He said, he wasn't getting as much traffic from Google as he was from other sites, and figured he must be suffering some type of penalty. I don't see this as Google doing something wrong. I see this as someone feeling they aren't getting enough from Google and complaining about it.

Now, I propose something for Google. Since everyone feels they should be able to get a site review by the Google team, Google should setup a place where for a fee, they will review the issues with your site. Who knows what that fee would be, or what the detail to the answer will be, but it's a start right?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by ducky987

MJ said that she and I were on different planets and that her planet was not fear based.
When I ask for a domain to apply "cracks in the Google infrastructure" that Google has known about for at least 3 years and been unable to handle or correct, she responds with, "no thanks."

I call that FEAR. (and I say that with complete respect.)

Um, well, I agreed with you that we are on different planets ... that was your construct. And you said you visited a lot of sites where SEOs are full of fear. And I so I said that I personally don't feel fear based. But that doesn't mean I never feel fear. It's just not the place I start. I don't see the world as evil or feel as though I am in any way a victim.

Of course, I feel something approximating fear when someone essentially offers to harm something of mine. But that is not being fear-based.

I generally believe that the world is good, that all is right in my world, and that there is enough business for everyone. I don't tend to feel competitive with other SEOs or other women. That doesn't mean that I never feel competitive or never feel fear. I am human, and my faith that world is good is not always perfect.

The truth? You could probably harm my website and I would very much prefer that you didn't. But it would not change my life in any truly appreciable way. And I know that.

Same goes with Google. While I do try my best to optimize for Google, I don't see Google as a God. I see it as the most important search engine. If my sites fall off the face of the earth as Google describes it, I will be unhappy, but I will not believe it was done maliciously to me. And I will know it's my job to fix it. And I will know that it's possible.

That's optimism. Yes, I am humanly capable of fear, but I am not fear based in my point of view.

MJ

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ducky987

http://www.seofaststart.com/blog/google-proxy-hacking

Thanks for the reminder. I told my Team Chief Developer about this forgotten issue, and he have implemented right away.
Bad bots get a 403 Forbidden now!

We have to wait for the SE to visit our site to see if it really works and we do not block them.

But who cares?

[crankydave]

If you'd like to illustrate the point you are trying to make by trying to cause "harm" to a domain, use one of your own domains for that purpose. Whether not a person recognizes that "dangers" exist is one thing. Choosing not to live or operate in "fear" of them is quite another.

"Hey, how about if I try and hurt you?" "No thanks, I think I'll pass" And you call that fear? Openly offering to cause "harm" and being met by a polite "no thank you" is certainly not living in fear. That, quite frankly, is one of the most ridiculous conclusions I think I've heard. (all due respect)

"Google hurt this guy?" Hardly. They hurt themselves and Google even provided the means for them to see what one problems was. It's a text only cache. You think Google should have to contact every webmaster or site owner when their links can't be read as links? Is it Googles fault when a site owner or webmaster, of their own doing whether intentional or not, is serving up 2 different homepages? I suppose Google should contact all webmasters and inform that of that too? How about all the other SE's? Should they hold our hands too? Spoon feed us?

No, Google is certainly not perfect but I don't expect them to build my site for me nor do I expect them to contact me evertime the see an "issue" with one of my sites. Not their job. Want someone to do that for you? Hire someone who's good at it.

You seem to like to paint with a very broad brush. "People Online..." Sorry, but all people online are not blind to the potential problems they face. Assuming they do would be an error on your part IMO. Google a god? Your characterization of what they are or are you somehow suggesting that the rest of us see Google that way?

Clearly you are quite confused when it comes to me. I have on many occasions openly criticized things that Google has done. I am not a Google hater. I am not a Google worshipper either. Yet you've decided to label me. Clearly, you see things in black and white. "Hate" or "Worship". Try recognizing shades of grey. Many of us already do. (all due respect)

Business models adapt all the time. It's when they don't adapt when neccessary they can and do fail. Happens all the time. When a business model doesn't adapt, and fails, it's easy to blame someone else for its' failure.

If Google goes under and all the business models that derived the majority of their success on Google fail, it would be Googles fault isn't it? Yeah right.

It's easy to blame someone or someone else for a personal failure or mistake. That mistake can easily be a business model in which case they have noone to blame but themselves. Build a better model. Build a better understanding, a better knowledge base from which to draw from.

Dave

[DanThies]

Arius,

This site has thousands of near-identical doorway pages targeting local SERPs, thousands of pages of drug-name doorway pages, and probably plenty of other junk pages. I stopped looking after about a minute, but there's probably plenty of other garbage.

Are you seriously asking why Google doesn't like it?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weslinda

I would like to clarify, if I noted that you specifically were whining, that wasn't my point, it's that so many want so much from a company that is in the advertising business. Google gives you tools to understand what you need to improve your site, free of charge. Google provides you tools to analyze and traffic your site's visitors, again a resource to improve your site, free of charge. Google has developed applications to allow you communicate and run your business, free of charge. No one is complaining about those things. On top of that, expecting Google to communicate with every web site owner in the world, that's simply not a realistic goal from a company that is actually in the advertising business.

Ironically, those personal experiences in which I found Google's support most lacking were issues related to AdWords, for which I am paying!

Originally Posted by weslinda

Why should Google help every web site owner achieve better rankings in their engine? What is Google's financial return for that level of investment? The ROI simply isn't there. They have put numerous tools in place for a web site to place within their engine. There is mountains of quality information available on the tips to succeeding in this game, and my point is that business owners need to take this responsibility on themselves and make the effort before griping that Google or Yahoo or MSN or anyone else isn't doing enough for them.

As noted by you, Google is a publisher; and, no publisher is any better than the works that it publishes. Print publishers, be they newpapers offering classified ads, directory publishers offering various listing services, or traditional publishers of books & magazines all seek to aid authors and potential authors so as to maximize the benefits that are realized. Publishers who fail to provide that which their intended audience desires lose readers, and subsequently, authors.

In this respect, Google is no different; they are not immune to the effects of the dissatisfactions of either readers or authors. Therefore, and to repeat, it is in their own best interest to support their authors, in this case the owner/operators of web sites, to the fullest possible extent.

That having been said, it should of course be obvious that the "fullest possible extent" is quite different from "unbounded to all comers;" clearly practical considerations will not allow for such. And, from a practical standpoint, it is eminently practical to give greater support to those who pay for their ads being published. Unfortunately, as above noted, support for AdWords leaves much to be desired.

As for support for those being given "free inclusion," via the organic listings, Google clearly has a long way to go with respect to their online documentation, with regards to both the use of their online services and their explanations re. site guidelines.

With respect to the former, I have found many instances of, and lost countless hours attempting to fathom, descriptions & instructions re. Analytics (and, AdWords as well) which bear little to no resemblence to the functions as implemented and/or the screens actually presented. As regards the latter, compared to the doucmentation that I have come to expect, based on my decades of experience with IT, dating to the later 50s, when it was known as DP, as being sufficiently complete, accurate and usable, I find Google's documentation is be woefully unsatisfactory; while it provides a plethora of generalities, it contains a dearth of specifics.

And, this lack of specificity carries over into their patent filings as well, althougth, in all fairness, it must be noted that, in this regards, they have much company. While I can certainly understand the desire to retain an edge over ones competition, Google's publicly available documentation and patent filings read more like trade secrets. Patent filings, on the other hand, are required to be sufficiently detailed so that one trained in the state of the art can in fact duplicate that which is claimed to have been invented; in this regards, Google's patent filings clearly fall well short of the mark. And, while trade secrets work well in a market where the users need not know that which one seeks to protect in order to fully use the product or service which is derived from such secret, they are most inappropriate when the users' ability to derive full benefit is diminished by the lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by weslinda

I could fully understand the original posters thoughts if he had worked through the numerous internal issues his site has before looking at and blaming an outside force. Google isn't ignoring him, Google isn't keeping him from making money, his complaint is that he isn't ranking as high as he thinks he should in Google and wants to know how to make Google stand up and recognize that his site is better than anyone else's and should rank accordingly. I looked up a few of the terms on his site, and he isn't doing poorly. He has a number of products being shown through Google Base / Product listings. I would bet that this business didn't exist before Google and the other search engines came along and I would also bet that Google brings him a fair amount of business each month. It just isn't bringing him enough in his eyes and that's where I happen to feel that people don't have the right to gripe and complain.

Sometimes you have to hit the mule on the head a few times with a two-by-four in order to get his attention.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by DanThies

Arius,

This site has thousands of near-identical doorway pages targeting local SERPs, thousands of pages of drug-name doorway pages, and probably plenty of other junk pages. I stopped looking after about a minute, but there's probably plenty of other garbage.

Are you seriously asking why Google doesn't like it?

That is funny, so we have a Viagra type promotional SEO program (spam con game) going on in addition to the problems CrankyDave mentions.

[weslinda]

Deep: Lets just agree to disagree. I think that it's absurd to feel that Google is supposed to handhold everyone in the development of their own content. You feel otherwise. Nothing we're going to do is going to change the other's opinion on that. There is no ROI for Google to improve their natural search results via working with web sites to develop content. They take what is the best out there and organize it to the best of their ability. The only thing they have to do, is do it better than anyone else, not do it perfectly. You're hoping they'll optimize the content, here is the key, the other search engines are working with the same crap, so why does Google care about improving the actual web content, they simply need to sort it better than anyone else.

[ducky987]

Cranky Dave and mjtaylor: The point that I was trying to make is that I cannot think of any other industry where it is so easy to injure, harm or destroy another businesses reputation.

That is not my cup of tea. I am all about building a better internet.

The problem is that other people do not share that idealistic point of view.

When the top player in the game (Google) is not called on the carpet for the serious flaws in its methodology I see it as a major problem for all of us. (Calling Matt Cutts, please start talking out both sides of your blowhole!)

Re: Google Bowling,

"If buying site-wide text link ads en masse will get my site into hot water with Google, why not buy them for my competitor's site instead? Then just sit back and wait for Google to solve my number one business headache... the competition." (Cue evil laughter sound track.)

Can you name another industry where damaging someone else is so easy?

Like I said, I am not about hurting people....if the system was even remotely civilized it would be pretty difficult to damage to your brand or business. You interpret my communication with mjtaylor as a threat to do harm. I was trying to communicate it as a vulnerability that Google refuses or is incapable of fixing! That is what creates the fear. We all instinctively recognize the vulnerability but we do not wish to anger the gods.

God I hope that doesn't piss Google off.

In the computer industry, software developers originally would promote how their latest software was SECURE. White Hat hackers would prove them to be liars and would equally suffer under the attack of well financed public relations departments. I think that is a perfect analogy to what Google is doing today.

Today computer security has evolved to a point that companies actually hire hackers before they launch to try and make sure that their platforms are in fact as secure as possible. White hat hackers were maligned for showing how vulnerable the universe is when you marry a vulnerable computer with a vulnerable telephone. Giant software manufacturers would always spin the Public Relations battle as if they had been harmed every time they were hacked.

Google is certainly not perfect but I don't expect them to build my site for me nor do I expect them to contact me evertime the see an "issue" with one of my sites. Not their job. Want someone to do that for you? Hire someone who's good at it.

Who would you suggest that I contact? Indiana Jones?

Let's make a very important distinction here.
Our disagreements (yours and mine) and our differences in perspectives do not cause each other economic hardship.

Secondly, we are also providing each other with a basis for the judgments we are making. Like them or not.

Furthermore we are giving each other an opportunity to respond and clarify.

I would consider that to be rather civilized.

On the other hand, the search engines do not provide any of us for a basis for their judgments.
Nor do they give us an opportunity to respond.
Nor do they give us an opportunity to understand and clarify.

I would consider that rather uncivilized.
They make judgments and execute them in a nano-second.

If the Search Engines were powerless nobody would care.
But the problem is that they have become very powerful and their judgments do have huge economic consequences.

Wouldn't it be great if businesses could protect the quality of the hard work they put into their
search engine campaigns?

Search does not make the search engines any money. Unless you look at it as a lead generator for their advertising platform. 95% of their income is derived from advertising. They change their advertising algorithm much more often than their search algorithm.

I have seen garbage sites with all kinds of flaws get top rankings.
I have seen top content sites suffer because they could not understand this crazy game.

I contend Google does a lot of cool things. Unfortunately, search is not one of them.

CrankyDave, you claim that I see things as black and white yet I cannot see anything more black and white than a search engine ranking. It is either black or it is either white.

I'm more than willing to let you rise in my rankings by continuing a civilized discourse.
Is it asking too much that a search engine that made $15 billion last year do the same?

[crankydave]

Ducky...

Google can remove you from only their index. They can take away your green pixels. That's about it. They cannot destroy your reputation.

Let's take a look at the press. Television and newspapers. How quickly and easily can they destroy a reputation?

How about a good lawyer? How quickly can they destroy a reputation with a frivolous lawsuit?

Business is business. You adapt your business model to suit the evironment in which you want it succed and prosper. You don't expect the evironment to adapt to you. This is presicely why I have been openly critical of Google and how they have chosen to implement their position on paid links.

I will continue to evaluate and adapt my business models to suit my needs, the needs of my clients and customers, and the ever evolving and changing marketplace. While it would certainly be nice to be able to easily and quickly change the environments in which they operate, that's not going to happen.

Dave

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Any business, and I mean any business that is soley based off of Google and is dependent on Google for income is a poor business idea.

I AM SICK of you SEO types saying the same old thing for every thread: "any business that is soley based off of Google and is dependent on Google for income is a poor business idea". So you tell me, just HOW ELSE is someone supposed to have an ONLINE SALES business, when it's not in G??? They CANNOT.

If Google can kill your business with a simple algorithm update, then you need a new business to be in.

Which precisely proves the point he's been trying to make!! They ruin businesses with their totally reckless and irresponsible behavior! They run legit people OUT OF business forcing them to find other means of income! And according to your flawed logic of "you need a new business to be in", you think it's perfectly OK for them to do this, because those "types of businesses are not worthy of being online", and that is BS. And your statement proves another point, and that is how they are ruining entire niches! There are countless niches that CAN ONLY work ONLINE and CAN ONLY rely on search engines!! To deny that is to deny reality! How many people go to some site's link exchange pages to shop?? How many people go to or link farms to shop?? How many people go to directories to shop?? Now on the other hand, how many people go to search engines to shop?? And how many of those people go to GOOGLE? It's simple math and percentages.

You tell everyone just how you think your business is going to make it, when it gets trashed in G?? You can't honestly think that anyone is going to go to the Yellow Pages to look for website design or e-commerce. You can't honestly think that anyone is going to go to pick up a magazine to look at its advertisements for website design or e-commerce. You can't honestly think that anyone is going to go to newspaper ads or classifieds to look for website design or e-commerce. They are going to go to a SEARCH ENGINE! And which one? I think we all know which one. So when your site gets trashed in G (and all of the other people here with the same attitude), let's see how YOU are going to make it in your SEO businesses! Then we can all say to your types "how stupid you are for relying on search engines", the same way you attack others that's may have been a victim of unjust removal or unwarranted penalties.

And another thing about this incessant talk of G not owing anyone anything--G does owe some people, their VICTIMS, something....an EXPLANATION. They wield their erroneous executioner's sword with total impunity and without any morals nor responsibility.

I wonder what companies that failed did before there was a Google to blame? Think anyone complained that the Yellow Pages didn't send them enough customers?

There were far fewer failed business before G! Like one person here said, G did help many businesses; however, the google God giveth and the google God taketh away; regardless of how perfect you follow their so-called guidelines!!

Seriously...lets stop giving away tens of thousands of dollars in free advice to those that simply want to rant.

All you google worshipers are all the same. No one can ask anything or say anything at any forum, that has the slightest hint of G negativity without you people calling it "ranting" or "whining". That's pathetic. All of your 10's of thousands of $ of "Free advice" is worthless when it never acknowledges that G is NOT PERFECT and screws legit business regularly. Most people here will never admit that because that would harm their "SEO businesses" which claim to be able to fix anything. But none of the SEO types will guarantee you getting back your spots in G, which makes it totally worthless.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by weslinda

There are how many domains in the world? How many people should Google employ to answer calls from those 100 Million Business owners want to grip that their company isn't ranked higher than another company in Google's search results. How much should they spend? If you had it your way, Google should set up a complaint line so you can gripe that you aren't the worlds largest testing supplies company.

Come on, lets get real.

Ok, you wanna "get real"? THAT IS GOOGLE's PROBLEM. If they are going to delete totally legit webpages and even entire sites from their index, or penalize totally legit webpages and even entire sites, that is their problem on how they are going to make it right! If they can't handle it, then they should stop doing it! And no, I'm not talking about just a small drop in rankings which ALL of us can expect at one time or another. I'm talking about the much more serious issues! Yes, they SHOULD start a complaint line for those that have been unjustly removed or unjustly suffered penalties! They have the moral obligation to do this when they wield such power in such irresponsible ways! But they don't give a crap, they are indeed evil. Their actions (or lack of actions) have proven this. Once they start showing some concern for those unfairly victimized by their flawed algo's, THEN and ONLY then can we say again they are a "do no evil" company, as they once were.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by nelsonez

I see it said all the time and the company always thinks they are some victim of some terribly random tragedy. Here is my opinion .... I have not seen one single website that was knocked out of the Google "natural" rankings for no apparent reason. Not a single one. There is always a reason and you just have to figure it out. 99 times out of a 100 we will find that there is a glaring reason such as link-farms, cloaking methods, poor code, or keyword stuffing.

Sorry to have to tell you Nelson, but you are totally wrong. You're another one that does not live in reality and things G is perfect and never makes mistakes, and their algo's are always 100% perfect. I've seen this happen countless times over the years. Myself being one of them. My main site was one of thousands that got deleted after some algo change. Having done not a single thing blackhat nor wrong, I contacted G about this. Matt Cutts personally replied and check out my site, along with "several other google engineers" as he put it, and he said "We can't find any reason why this happened to your site. Apparently we need to further tweak the algo". I lost thousands in sales. A few weeks after that, I was back in the index in most, but not all of my previous positions.

I was just one of thousands, millions of others. So you cannot say that it has never happened. That's just totally unrealistic.

That was several years ago during the "Bourbon Update", back when G lived by their "do no evil" motto, back when you COULD contact them about such issues, back when they CARED. Obviously since then things have gone all downhill for site owners in similar situations. About 2 years ago, the same thing happened to one of my other sites, and I contacted them again. This time, Adam L. replied and basically told me to go to hell. Yet in PUBLIC, he acts like he cares. LOL. That email address for them has of course been trashed since then. And the AR for it tells you to "go to the forums", where you can get abused by G groupies and mouthpieces for their "damage control team", the same way they abuse and attack others here...(which of course the moderators here allow, and when we fight back to defend ourselves, we're the ones that get chastised for it).

Someone purposely tried to game the system and maybe they get away with it for 2-3 years but eventually Google figures it out and then penalizes you. We have clients complain to us about competitor websites that are using some of these methods and they are achieving higher rankings than our client's website. But we always have to explain that at some point these competitors will get caught and will drop like stones from the rankings.

They rarely ever figure it out, even after years of spam reports on THE SAME WEBSITES, they still don't get it. Their screwed up algo's allow the black-hatters to game and play the system without penalty, yet screws the innocent site owners that have never done anything wrong. If they can kill ONE black-hatter, at the expense of 10,000 WHITE-hatters, that's "good shootin'" to them. They couldn't care any less about collateral damages. I have a list of sites that are using blackhat techniques that I have been reporting FOR YEARS, and these sites STILL MAINTAIN their TOP positions. Sites using hidden text, cloaked pages, bogus redirects, search engine bait pages, even sites that have stolen MY OWN content which got MY pages from where they stole the content deleted! They don't care, obviously no one ever even reads those spam reports.

I am not trying to be rude to anyone, I'm just reporting facts. Frankly, after all these years, I'm still shocked that these (obvious) facts still have to be mentioned.

Google IS NOT PERFECT. G makes mistakes all the time on a regular basis. These mistakes DO HARM whitehat webpages and websites. How often it happens, is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant when it happens to you. Anyone that doesn't realize this, is denying reality.

[crankydave]

Clint...

Any business model that predicates its' success or failure solely on its' ability to "rank high" in any search portal collectively or singularly, and happens to fail, has noone to blame but themselves.

Any business model that pedicates its' success or failure solely on "online sales" and cannot achieve enough visibilty to succeed has noone to blame but themselves.

That's the risk businesses take. They design their business model.

Tell you what Clint, take any popular genre you like... clothing, jewelry, tools, computers, any one you like. Amass only the good and legitimate ones any way you like. Display them on the internet anyway you like.

Guess what? At least 70%-80% of your list, good and legitimate businesses, are not going to achieve enough visibility to succeed if their business model is predicated solely on what you provide and they will fail.

Whose fault is that?

Dave

[ducky987]

Google can remove you from only their index. They can take away your green pixels. That's about it. They cannot destroy your reputation.

Dave you should email your response to Google and get a job in their public relations department.
It is so artful. Yet it provides a such Third World Power perspective of power.

It reminds me of Benazir Bhuttos assasination in Pakistan.
You are 100% correct the bomb blast did not ruin her reputation....only her ability to communicate.

I stand corrected.

Details.

True a lawyer can destroy a reputation with a frivolous lawsuit. However, that takes time, energy and money.

True a television reporter can do the same. But there is a cost involved and the payoff is still uncertain.

With Google it is a simple flip of the switch and a large part of your ability to communicate online is gone. It is hard for me to fathom that anyone would permit and justify that kind of power to exist.

[weslinda]

Clint: I'm not Google worshiper, I simply know that anyone dumb enough to put their entire business fortune into the basket of one Search Engine deserves what they get. There is not one reason to only worry about Google's traffic for your business.

Case in point, my wife and I just purchased a company, it had been floundering for over a year. Do you think we're only concerned with traffic Google will bring us? Of course not, that would simply be idiotic to say the least. We have ad campaigns on Google, Yahoo, MSN, Yahoo Shopping and Shopzilla. We began building IBL's from various sites from day one and we've listed our products in Google Base and MSN Shopping's free catalogs. We're now looking at advertising on various blogs and sites that are connected to our vertical market. Also, we're evaluating print marketing again in magazines servicing our vertical market.

It would be simply idiotic for me to think Google owes me business, which they don't, and even more idiotic to only use Google to bring me business.

Regarding the OP, he never said Google was killing his business. He said that he wasn't getting enough business from Google. HE SAID HE WASN'T RANKING WELL ENOUGH, WHICH IS HIS OPINION. He chose not to begin fixing his own issues before he started griping about the outside world "hating him" which isn't even true, he chose not to evaluate his own work before complaining that someone didn't like it. He just wanted to complain. Google does not owe him an explanation why he doesn't rank #1 for every search term he thinks he should rank #1 for.

Regarding the responsibilities of a search engine:

No search engine has a responsibility to help you improve your content! They are simply allowing folks to search the available content. Google, Yahoo, MSN, ASK and any other search engine does not need to setup customer service departments to explain why companies aren't ranking well in that engine, it isn't their jobs to help everyone get better rankings. First and foremost, everyone doesn't deserve better rankings. Some sites do deserve being removed. They've made it very clear what can get your site ripped from the engine, and I've never heard of someone that was doing their best to provide a high quality, well designed, content rich web site that was simply dropped from Google or any of the other Major search engines. Anyone realistically pulled from Google, has done something.

The overall logic that Google should help all web site owners improve their web sites free of charge would be similar to requiring the Federal Government providing all small businesses with accounting services so that the companies can grow and bring in more tax revenue for the government along with avoiding the penalties that come along with tax evasion. Lets get real. The responsibility of improving a web site and it's content lies solely on the owner of said web site and no one else.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by ducky987

Dave you should email your response to Google and get a job in their public relations department.
It is so artful. Yet it provides a such Third World Power perspective of power.

It reminds me of Benazir Bhuttos assasination in Pakistan.
You are 100% correct the bomb blast did not ruin her reputation....only her ability to communicate.

I stand corrected.

Details.

True a lawyer can destroy a reputation with a frivolous lawsuit. However, that takes time, energy and money.

True a television reporter can do the same. But there is a cost involved and the payoff is still uncertain.

With Google it is a simple flip of the switch and a large part of your ability to communicate online is gone. It is hard for me to fathom that anyone would permit and justify that kind of power to exist.

wow Ducky...

Equating my opinion to the deliberate murder, the assasination of Benazir Bhuttos.

I think I've shared all the opinions in this thread I care to.

Dave

[weslinda]

Originally Posted by ducky987

It reminds me of Benazir Bhuttos assasination in Pakistan.
You are 100% correct the bomb blast did not ruin her reputation....only her ability to communicate.

Are you serious? You want to equate the death of a woman fighting for freedom to a search engine? You must learn a little taste and have some standards if you are going to be respected by anyone.

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by ducky987

It is hard for me to fathom that anyone would permit and justify that kind of power to exist.

The people with a gripe are those who are paying big dollars for PPC advertising only to find their competitors getting the same exposure for FREE....

[AVC]

Yes Clint, you are right about some of the updates, in Big Daddy many sites just disappeared from the main index, this was due to capacity problems as the CEO has admitted, Google had to reindex the entire web and was not able to hold a proper index at the time the Big Daddy crisis was happening, but nor could Microsoft or Yahoo because all the engines have capacity problems today.

That is why Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are investing billions in new data centers all over the world.

Google taking millions of sites to supplementals is a result of lack of capacity to index every file in the world, when they included video, books, catalogs, maps, base and all the other files you can understand why many sites disappeared due to technical problems.

Yes, many sites are deindexed due to linking with link farms and they should be, but this has less to do with algo and more to do with tweaking the algo to get more out of present server farm capacity and to spread firepower around to different products like video, books, maps and so on.

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Clint1

I AM SICK of you SEO types saying the same old thing for every thread: "any business that is soley based off of Google and is dependent on Google for income is a poor business idea". So you tell me, just HOW ELSE is someone supposed to have an ONLINE SALES business, when it's not in G??? They CANNOT.

Actually, only 37% of my traffic comes from search engines.. Of that amount Google only accounts for 42% of that with Yahoo! at 32% with all the others following.. What does that work out to?? Google accounts for about 15% of my total traffic.. I could survive just fine without them..

But then I'm not an "SEO" in the traditional sense..

Any business with one type of customer, one type of traffic, one type of supplier, one type of product, or one type of anything else, is doomed to follow the whims of those it is aligned with.. It could be successful, it could fail utterly.. Long term success requires diversification.. Why do you think companies like Microsoft, Google, etc etc etc are constantly getting in to new markets??

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Clint1

There were far fewer failed business before G! Like one person here said, G did help many businesses; however, the google God giveth and the google God taketh away; regardless of how perfect you follow their so-called guidelines!!

Probably because far fewer bad business ideas were started before Google.. Or far fewer businesses were started by people that had no business trying to start a business.. Business isn't easy.. And successful business is even harder..

[mtheory]

Actually Google allowed many businesses to enjoy temorary succes that a severely flawed business plan and management. (relying solely on search to drive their customer base).

These business most likely would have or will fail anyway.

If you are playing the blame game and not taking resposiblity for your poor business plan, this is only another indication that your business is destine to fail.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

I have a list of sites that are using blackhat techniques that I have been reporting FOR YEARS, and these sites STILL MAINTAIN their TOP positions. Sites using hidden text, cloaked pages, bogus redirects, search engine bait pages, even sites that have stolen MY OWN content which got MY pages from where they stole the content deleted! They don't care, obviously no one ever even reads those spam reports.

Clint I fully understand your frustration, but allow me to disagree with you up to a certain point. I have reported myself several sites to Google and I have seen some of them flying out the index in a time-frame of 60-90 days. But you can also be sure that they get millions of spam reports like I or you send them. So physically it is impossible to deal with all of them.

They sure have a reason for not kicking all those sites out of their index, since they are live demos for tweaking and improving their spam filters/algorithms.

I am not a Google worshiper or an enemy either. I am just a Google power user and I appreciate very much that they offer me the opportunity to be promote my business through their search engine for free.

And besides, I have never been confronted with any kind of over-natural requirements from Google or other SE to be indexed and ranking well in their search engines.

If I was you, I would observe what your competition is doing better than you, and learn from their mistakes or violations to defend you site and rankings for long terms.

At last: No one is perfect or almighty. That means search engines either. And they will never be!

PEACE!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Deep: Lets just agree to disagree. I think that it's absurd to feel that Google is supposed to handhold everyone in the development of their own content. You feel otherwise.

If you carefully reread my posts, you'll find that nowhere did I make such a statement. To the contrary, I clearly qualified any and all statements re. Google's assistance to its suppliers.

Originally Posted by weslinda

You're hoping they'll optimize the content, here is the key, the other search engines are working with the same crap, so why does Google care about improving the actual web content, they simply need to sort it better than anyone else.

The only content that I identified as being in need of improvement was that produced by Google itself.

Regarding the symbiotic relationship between authors and publishers, what leads you to believe that Google is somehow not in, and is therefore not subject to, the attendant bilateral effects of such a relationship?

As for my contention that Google's "openness" re. its measure(s) of "quality," as judged from either its patent filings and/or online "documentation," is(are) illusory, have you no rebuttal?

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by arius

This has happened to me before, and is happening at a different online business again. For no apparent reason Google is penalizing our site:Testcountry.com. It must be a penalty since the site gets ample traffic from other search engines (Ask almost twice as Google Organic traffic , that should give you an idea), but there is definitely something.

There are couple very uncompetitive keywords the SERP is high, but for anything valuable it is 10+ pages later. Site is old, full of content, no black (even light gray) SEO. We just can not figure out.

In the office we are trying to figure out what should we do. This is so unfair that Google with the might and power that it gets from the millions of visitors (not to mention $billions in market cap) does not provide any means to small and medium size businesses and webmaster to communicate. After all they are supposedly the no-do evil, good guys but what are we going to do?

*Close the business (free)
*send legal papers to Google to ask give us an answer, ($10k)
*send creative and interesting presents to Google search team elite in Googleplex and beg for help and hope to get on somebody important's good side ($2k),
*give a national magazine ad and ask an answer ($25k)
*nothing (probably the most expensive one)

What would you do? If you are sure your site is penalized but can not get an answer to know what it is. We feel like a 1 year old that can not speak but do not understand why mommy & daddy is mad?

I don't think I like the tone of your post very much, especially the title. How many legitimate businesses were created because of Google do you think? An enormous lot, that I am sure of. Google doesn't kill businesses. Most businesses that didn't make it, didn't make it because of them selves. Very rarely you can say it really was killed by somebody else.

But I do have an answer to your question. What you need to do is hire somebody (me for example) to analize your site and your business to find out what the reason is that your site has lost rankings.

Your whole argument in your post is about blaming Google. You should consider that the Google Search Results are nothing more than a tool that shows the quality of your website. They´re basing the quality of your website on many things, but mostly on links and all the factors related to links. Especially since they´re keeping track of many historical factors, a drop in ranking is the result of something you did, but more likely something you didn't do.


When I mentioned analizing your site and your business you may have wondered what your business has to do with your search engine rankings. Search engines now a days are so sophisticated that when I investigate a problem case like yours, I spend more time on asking a bunch of questions to the owner(s) and webmasters, then actually looking at their website. The real problem in most cases is not directly related to the website it self. (which makes it understandable you´re upset with Google, but really, Google is just monitoring a lot of factors that are indirectly related to your business.)

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by cw1865

The people with a gripe are those who are paying big dollars for PPC advertising only to find their competitors getting the same exposure for FREE....

Firstly, those who rank highly in the organic listings rarely achieved such "for free."

And, unfortunately, in all too many instances, such do not provide that which the users seek; that is frequently better found among the PPC listings.

Optimizing ones site to rank highly for "XYZ widgets" does not guarantee either that one has anything of real value to say about such widgets or has a supply of them available.

[weslinda]

Originally Posted by deepsand

As for my contention that Google's "openness" re. its measure(s) of "quality," as judged from either its patent filings and/or online "documentation," is(are) illusory, have you no rebuttal?

Why should Google tell you how every little thing about how they rank pages? I have no problem ranking pages in Google. I haven't had problems doing it for years. I'll continue not having problems for years to come. Why? Because I'm not working to "figure out" Google's technology and algorithm. I focus on quality, and amazingly, success comes from that quality. It's not rocket science, and if you are reading every patent filing of Google's versus working on the simple quality of your own site, your spending your time in the wrong place.

Google, Yahoo, Ask, MSN or any other search engine has exactly 0 reasons to give out every little piece of their measure of quality. They have provided plenty of general information when used approrpriately works amazing results in their search engine. They have provided tools to folks to analyze and optimize their site, and yet that isn't good enough for folks like you. What would you like? A step by step guide to success?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

They have provided tools to folks to analyze and optimize their site, and yet that isn't good enough for folks like you. What would you like? A step by step guide to success?

Wes allow me to add my two cents to this.

For the ones who are blaming Google for their ranking problems, I would kindly like to ask them to have a look at this page Webmaster Guidelines and tell if he/she follow every single step edited there.

I thought of setting up a poll, to make it easier, but I hope it will not be necessary.

My site ranks very well, but not because I am an SEO. Google does not do favors to SEOs.
My success is based on the fact that I did not find any requirement on that page where I can say that I did not met so far.

And I did not find any here either:
Yahoo! Search Content Quality Guidelines. - Yahoo! Search Help
Site Owner Help

If anyone has doubts, please feel free to tear my site apart.

PEACE!

[DanThies]

Amazing that so much discussion has been kicked off by the author of such gems as:

Lubbock HIV Tests & AIDS LubbockTesting Centers & Home Access HIV Test Kits
Tempe HIV Tests & AIDS TempeTesting Centers & Home Access HIV Test Kits
etc.

Deceptive advertising, at best: "Your Local Tempe HIV / AIDS Testing Centers" - no, that's exactly what it's not...

"Site is old, full of content, no black (even light gray) SEO. We just can not figure out." Right...

[SemAdvance]

Originally Posted by arius

For no apparent reason Google is penalizing our site:Testcountry.com.

I always have these simple questions for those who complain about Googles Free Service AKA Organic Listing.

1. Do you pay Google for your free organic listings??

This leaves you little room to complain.

2. If you choose to build a business on a search engines whims, then you should have Chapter 13 Bankruptcy forms handy as well.

3. Try paid advertising, it has worked for 500 years, & there is little reason to suspect it will no longer work in the future.

Peace!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Why should Google tell you how every little thing about how they rank pages? I have no problem ranking pages in Google. I haven't had problems doing it for years. I'll continue not having problems for years to come. Why? Because I'm not working to "figure out" Google's technology and algorithm. I focus on quality, and amazingly, success comes from that quality. It's not rocket science, and if you are reading every patent filing of Google's versus working on the simple quality of your own site, your spending your time in the wrong place.

Google, Yahoo, Ask, MSN or any other search engine has exactly 0 reasons to give out every little piece of their measure of quality. They have provided plenty of general information when used approrpriately works amazing results in their search engine. They have provided tools to folks to analyze and optimize their site, and yet that isn't good enough for folks like you. What would you like? A step by step guide to success?

That simply evades the issue; after all, it was you who stated:

"Google makes ranking in Google unbelievably easy."

"Google has told us what defines quality, ... "

"Google gives you tools to understand what you need to improve your site, ... "

In turn, I offered factual evidence to the contrary; nothing you here state addresses that matter. It should also be noted that the plethora of WPW discussions re. PR/SERP, what such represents, how such is determined, etal., based both on Google's on-line information and their related patent, and the greatly divergent opinions expressed in such discussions serves to stand as proof that Google's disclosure's in these matters is in fact neither so complete nor clear as you would have us believe.

Equally unaddressed is my question "Regarding the symbiotic relationship between authors and publishers, what leads you to believe that Google is somehow not in, and is therefore not subject to, the attendant bilateral effects of such a relationship?"

Re. your statement that "They have provided tools to folks to analyze and optimize their site, and yet that isn't good enough for folks like you.", that is yet another misrepresentation of my statements. What I really said was that that which they did provide failed to meet that which you claimed they provide.

As for how I spend my time, and whether or not such is of value, that is for me alone to determine, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. However, the knowledge thereby gained is relevant to the extent that it provides pertinent facts, such as the observation re. the obscure nature of Google's patent filings mirroring that of its on-line "documentation," thus serving to refute your claims re. the usefulness of information proved us by them.

[Peter (IMC)]

In turn, I offered factual evidence to the contrary; nothing you here state addresses that matter. It should also be noted that the plethora of WPW discussions re. PR/SERP, what such represents, how such is determined, etal., based both on Google's on-line information and their related patent, and the greatly divergent opinions expressed in such discussions serves to stand as proof that Google's disclosure's in these matters is in fact neither so complete nor clear as you would have us believe.

That just means you haven't read everything Google publishes... Also means you don't understand the Google Patent(s). Not saying that I completely understand them, but just blaming Google because you don't understand everything they say or haven't read everything they say can not really be considered proof.

If you don't rank high in Google it is never Google's fault! Blaming Google is just lazyness and at best lack of understanding. Also many people like to fight in stead of solving their problems. I guess a **** fight is just considered more fun.

If a restaurant loses a star should the restaurant blame the judge, or work on improving its kitchen and service?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

That just means you haven't read everything Google publishes... Also means you don't understand the Google Patent(s).

1) Draws a conclusion based on facts not in evidence - You know neither what relevant material is available for reading nor what I have and have not read.
2) Irrelevant & non-substantive - Does not offer substantive rebuttal of the facts that I have stated.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Not saying that I completely understand them, but just blaming Google because you don't understand everything they say or haven't read everything they say can not really be considered proof.

1) Assumes facts not in evidence - You know not what I understand.
2) Assumes facts not in evidence - see above re. materials available, read or not.
3) Misrepresentative - I have made no statements re. "fault" or "blame."

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

If you don't rank high in Google it is never Google's fault! Blaming Google is just lazyness and at best lack of understanding.

1) Irrelevant - I have made no statements re. the ranking of any site(s).
2) Misrepresentative - same as above item 3)
3) Non sequitur - Issues re. "blame" do not logically follow from my statements re. Google's documention.
4) Specious - Attributing "lazyness" and/or "lack of understanding" as the grounds for ones complaint in the absence of supporting premise(s) require a leap of faith.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Also many people like to fight in stead of solving their problems. I guess a **** fight is just considered more fun.

Apparently, some are also given to jumping to conclusions, rather than taking the time and care to read and properly understand the statements of other, with the results that their replies fall well short of being substantive logically cohesive ones.

As for my knowledge and understanding of the issues at hand, it seems that you have not read all of my posts in this discussion, and therefore missed the fact that my experiences in IT date began in 1958, when IT was known as DP (Data Processing.) From my perspective, a Search Engine is just a particular kind of application, one that is amenable to the same understanding as is any other application. Accordingly, I am in a postition to observe and understand that Google has gone to great and deliberate lengths to obscure and obfuscate the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of its SE.

Finally, it must be noted that your confessed lack of confidence in your own understanding of Google's documantation does in fact serve to support my position that such documentation is in fact lacking with respect to completeness and/or clarity.

[Peter (IMC)]

Ok Deepsand, here's what you should do when you read a post of mine: Replace each "you" with "one". I wasn't specifically talking about you, but using the word "you" more in the sense of "one". Like this:

In stead of:
"That just means you haven't read everything Google publishes... Also means you don't understand the Google Patent(s)."

Read this:
"That just means one hasn't read everything Google publishes... Also means one doesn't understand the Google Patent(s)."

I just use more talking language when I write a post. It's not really a letter or a legal document,..

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Ok Deepsand, here's what you should do when you read a post of mine: Replace each "you" with "one". I wasn't specifically talking about you, but using the word "you" more in the sense of "one". Like this:

In stead of:
"That just means you haven't read everything Google publishes... Also means you don't understand the Google Patent(s)."

Read this:
"That just means one hasn't read everything Google publishes... Also means one doesn't understand the Google Patent(s)."

I just use more talking language when I write a post. It's not really a letter or a legal document,..

Peter,

The need to clarify your(yes I mean you LOL) answers to Deepsand is tantamount to you empathizing with Google's perspective and not dissimilar to the narrow point of view(Deepsand) construing the skewed rationalization for which this entire threads somewhat shakey foundation is based upon.

Your observations have been logical and pragmatic.

[risk]

I'd take DRUGS oiut of the title

Google doesn't do DRUGS .............................or gambling

RISK

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Ok Deepsand, here's what you should do when you read a post of mine: Replace each "you" with "one". I wasn't specifically talking about you, but using the word "you" more in the sense of "one". Like this:

In stead of:
"That just means you haven't read everything Google publishes... Also means you don't understand the Google Patent(s)."

Read this:
"That just means one hasn't read everything Google publishes... Also means one doesn't understand the Google Patent(s)."

I just use more talking language when I write a post. It's not really a letter or a legal document,..

However, if you're quoting another, then, unless specifically stated otherwise, the implicit meaning is that your statement is directed toward that person being quoted.

And, in this instance, since no other had raised the points that I had and which you were revisiting, it remains unclear as to the purpose served by quoting me while addressing parties unknown.

[weslinda]

Deep: Really? How long are you going to keep going on about this? Seriously folks, doesn't everyone have something better to do? No one is changing their mind. I say it's best we all just move on.

[mjtaylor]

Hmm-hmm. I say it might be time to note whether the OP is still around and interested ...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Deep: Really? How long are you going to keep going on about this? Seriously folks, doesn't everyone have something better to do? No one is changing their mind. I say it's best we all just move on.

For so long as there are those who misrepresent my statements, or reply to them in an otherwise fallacious manner, I will defend.

[AVC]

As Dan is mentioning, this website would be reported to Google for all the Black hat stuff anyway, so it may have been a bad idea for this member to start this thread.

If you are doing the blackhat stuff Dan discovered, you should never post your URL on a webmaster forum, because webmasters will submit spam reports if they see it now days.

[weslinda]

Originally Posted by deepsand

For so long as there are those who misrepresent my statements, or reply to them in an otherwise fallacious manner, I will defend.

Deep: I'm not even going to respond to this. Find something better to do with your time. Such as following Google's guidelines to improve your web site.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Deep: I'm not even going to respond to this. Find something better to do with your time. Such as following Google's guidelines to improve your web site.

My site? Assumes facts not in evidence.

As for Google's "guidelines," while they may be fine for those sites whose goal is to deliver editorial content, they are irrelevant to advertising content, and of questionable value to sites whose goal to sell.

The site that you assume is mine does just fine, thank you, supplying, on average, 85% of the tickets sold on the secondary market for Penn State Football. And, customer feedback very strongly shows that its simplicity, lack of non-essential clutter, and ease of use is precisely what the target audience wants.

[weslinda]

Originally Posted by deepsand

My site? Assumes facts not in evidence.
As for Google's "guidelines," while they may be fine for those sites whose goal is to deliver editorial content, they are irrelevant to advertising content, and of questionable value to sites whose goal to sell.

Sorry, I must disagree. I recently purchased a company whose web site was not doing well, in 90 days, by implementing some of the most basic items listed in Google's guide to Webmasters, we've increased sales by 500%, we've moved to top 10 positions for the majority of our major search terms and it's only been achieved in a short time frame. We have only begun tranisitioning this site to be instep with the Guidelines Google and all of the other major search engines provide to web site owners to improve their web site.

Please don't insult me, or the users of this forum, with such statements that are so far from the truth it isn't even funny.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Sorry, I must disagree. I recently purchased a company whose web site was not doing well, in 90 days, by implementing some of the most basic items listed in Google's guide to Webmasters, we've increased sales by 500%, we've moved to top 10 positions for the majority of our major search terms and it's only been achieved in a short time frame. We have only begun tranisitioning this site to be instep with the Guidelines Google and all of the other major search engines provide to web site owners to improve their web site.

Please don't insult me, or the users of this forum, with such statements that are so far from the truth it isn't even funny.

None of which serves to refute any of what I've said re. the differences between the needs of those who seek editorial content and those who seek to buy, and the need for different measures of sites according to which users are being targeted.

And, please do not continue to insult me by again mis-respresenting my statements.