Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  • Jump to page:
    #1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0

    Follow the money


    Here are my observations.

    As a result of being one of the many companies dropped from from Google (not really dropped but gone from page 1 to who knows where) my thinking is this and it's based on Occam's Razor. At it's core the Razor assumes that simpler explanations are inherently "better" than complicated ones. That the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.

    The simplest explanation I have is, to follow the money. This dramatic change in the end is really about Adwords, about making people start to pay for what was once free. It is no mere coincidence that since Google has an IPO coming up that something like the new filter has been implemented. I do believe it is a filter by the way. The timing I believe is not based on upsetting people at Christmas time, but that this "New Google" probably has been in the works for many months if not years and the timing for going live with the new algorithm just happened to be now.

    This will give them enough time to make any adjustments they feel are necessary to get things settled down and working smoothly before the IPO.

    Any of you familiar with running a company know there are endless meetings about what can we do to increase our revenues and what can we do to find new revenue streams. If your like me, you do not have to answer to stock holders and up until the near future neither did Google. Their books will soon be public and they will implement and continue to implement strategies to increase or start new revenue.

    A public company's stock price is driven by a number of factors, a key one being increasing revenues. I believe they are thinking years out with this change they just put in place. If in the short run they upset a lot of people, lose some people who use Google as their primary search engine or have a lot of negative things said about them, so be it, best get it out of the way now. This to shall pass, is probably what they are saying and they can get on with what's really important, making money.
  2. #2
  3. Super Moderator
    SEO Chat Super Hero (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,578
    Rep Power
    669
    same thing with discontinuing thje banner ads. money money money. I'm going to have to dump a pantload in adwords to get top positioning instead of a flat rate per thousande impressions.
  4. #3
  5. Contributing User

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    120
    Rep Power
    16
    I have never seen a banner ad on google?

    :-?
  6. #4
  7. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    576
    Rep Power
    16
    The more I think about it the more I lean on the "mo' money" side of the discussion. Every one at Google get a nice big fat Christmas bonus!

    I really do belive they are trying to provide relevant results... they just screwed this one up. Wouldn't it be great to get more money for screwing things up?
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Follow the money


    Originally posted by K-Tee
    Here are my observations.

    As a result of being one of the many companies dropped from from Google (not really dropped but gone from page 1 to who knows where) my thinking is this and it's based on Occam's Razor. At it's core the Razor assumes that simpler explanations are inherently "better" than complicated ones. That the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.

    The simplest explanation I have is, to follow the money. This dramatic change in the end is really about Adwords, about making people start to pay for what was once free. It is no mere coincidence that since Google has an IPO coming up that something like the new filter has been implemented. I do believe it is a filter by the way. The timing I believe is not based on upsetting people at Christmas time, but that this "New Google" probably has been in the works for many months if not years and the timing for going live with the new algorithm just happened to be now.

    This will give them enough time to make any adjustments they feel are necessary to get things settled down and working smoothly before the IPO.

    Any of you familiar with running a company know there are endless meetings about what can we do to increase our revenues and what can we do to find new revenue streams. If your like me, you do not have to answer to stock holders and up until the near future neither did Google. Their books will soon be public and they will implement and continue to implement strategies to increase or start new revenue.

    A public company's stock price is driven by a number of factors, a key one being increasing revenues. I believe they are thinking years out with this change they just put in place. If in the short run they upset a lot of people, lose some people who use Google as their primary search engine or have a lot of negative things said about them, so be it, best get it out of the way now. This to shall pass, is probably what they are saying and they can get on with what's really important, making money.
    I agree 100%. Paid search is the future and if that hasn't become apparent in the past year to everyone than you've had your eyes closed.

    Paid search does 2 things. Insures relevance and insures revenue. In the short-term this has been and will be great for those who work and fund Google. After an IPO or sale they will all have made their money. However 3 years from now Google will no longer have a distinct advantage over anyone else. But why should anyone working there care about that now? They will all walk away with their millions and the poor souls who bought the shares will get left holding the bag. Sound familiar? Heck, it worked once before, it can work again.

    BBB
  10. #6
  11. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0
    When our company first launched a web presence in 1999 you could get listed in Altavista, Excite, Lycos, Yahoo,Go and others for free, now they are all paid inclusion.

    The days for free inclusion in Google are most definitely numbered.
  12. #7
  13. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    115
    Rep Power
    16
    The simplest explanation I have is, to follow the money.
    Poor implementation of Occam's razor, IMO.

    The simplest explanation is Google wants to improve search results.
  14. #8
  15. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0
    The new results are not an improvement. I don't know how many posts I've read on a number of forums from people that fall under the same umbrella. Companies that although they sell products and/or services also offer great content with many pages of detailed useful information that is updated on a regular basis.

    Instead, in SERP in our category you now have amazon, yahoo, bizrate, a spammer and some returns that are not even related to our field. Admittedly there are two sites on the 1st page that are related but do not have half the content or information our site does, or all of our competitors who also disappeared, and one has not even been updated since early 2002.

    I confess I am no SEO expert just a guy who has always had an interest in computers and with the generous help of the experts who at these forums kindly share there expertise with us dilettantes managed to get some great rankings for our company.

    If Google really wanted to improve the search results they could have just hired some of the best guys who post here and said fellas we want to clean up our searches, eliminate the spammers and return better results, whats the plan. I feel very confident that the SERP would not look like they do now if they had done something along these lines. A plan could have been implemented that was much more precise and not so shotgun like and that would not have put such a hurting on thousands of companies that followed Google's guidelines in designing their sites and who have now disappeared.

    The simplest explanation to me for this change when it's all said and done is its about the money.
  16. #9
  17. web designer
    SEO Chat Super Hero (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    designing a web site in columbus ohio
    Posts
    2,997
    Rep Power
    50

    Post


    oh boy....not another google=good...google=evil argument in the making......[yawn]
  18. #10
  19. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas!
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    47
    Good points, but really do you think Google become the #1 search engine on the web by following the money. No! It was because they wanted to create the most relevant search engine results, and they have succeeded in some aspects of doing so. The money is always a secondary effect of success, people follow the money, people follow success, and where there is something good there will always be people trying to profit from it. Example: SEO. We all profit in some way from Google whether it be direct in $$ or indirectly in the knowledge we gain.
  20. #11
  21. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    272
    Rep Power
    17
    Why do all these debates pit Google against a mythical Search Engine that is pure and everyone loves?? Why does no one ever compare them to Yahoo (who own virtually every other crawler: AltaVista, Inktomi and FAST)??

    I reckon evil, good, bad, indifferent, non of this changes anything.

    repeat after me people:
    SEO is reactive. Search Engines do, we react.
    SEO is reactive. Search Engines do, we react.
    SEO is reactive. Search Engines do, we react.

    Morality and Ethics are interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to anyone that actually owns a site, or makes a living dealing with sites.
  22. #12
  23. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    115
    Rep Power
    16
    relaxzoolander, my comments had nothing to do with Good vs. Evil... or even google. ;)
  24. #13
  25. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0
    Phoenix I agree with you to point. You are entirely right, they did become number one because although money mattered the target was to dominate the search engine field and deliver the best results with no one looking over their financial shoulder.

    They are probably making an enormous amount of money right now, but no one really knows what their top and bottom lines look like. In the near future their financial results will be pored over quarter to quarter by analysts and people (shareholders) will be looking for year to year growth in the double digit area. This is how I believe the IPO (money) has changed everything.

    You can look for Google in the future to follow other search engine's example of paid inclusions for all listings and commercial inclusions at much higher rates. For a little conspiracy thinking they might even make it that new commercial sites that pay $300-$500 a year are exempt from any filtering. They may not be able to keyword stuff or outright spam or be banned if they do but exempt if you followed their site building guide lines.

    I am not saying this is evil or bad but the reality of a private company that is now becoming a public company has to deal with.
  26. #14
  27. No Profile Picture
    EGOL
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    9,689
    Rep Power
    2482
    redjam....

    Your email list is incorrect. It should be....

    egol@hotmail.com
    egol@yahoo.com
    egol@whistlepoint.com
  28. #15
  29. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    0
    Well said EGOL.
    Now where is the "REPORT THIS POST" button on this forum.
    I'll be surprised if people can fall for it, on the other hand, it shows that scams like this are no longer working through email.
    "IN A MATTER OF DAYS, THIS LETTER WILL BE IN EVERY MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET. NO SCAM, NO SPAM, NO PYRAMID"
    Correction, it wouldn't get on our boards for longer than few minutes, if it does, whoever posted it will have their IP banned, their ISP contacted, believe me we've done that successfully to 4 people so fare.
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Is there a max number of internal links Google will follow?
    By callenb in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Jan 16th, 2004, 05:43 PM
  2. Will UA's follow bookmarks?
    By LinkBratwurst™ in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Dec 8th, 2003, 01:02 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jul 29th, 2003, 10:00 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo