An interesting discussion is going on in the WebmasterWorld on Google Panda update. A veteran webmaster “MrSavage” says that the Internet is commercialized with Google Panda. It is further felt that this may be the end of organic search. Another webmaster “londrum” gave the following interesting SE results:
Here are 3 well known figures, in totally different fields, who must have thousands and thousands of sites devoted to each. but google puts the exact same sites in the top 10 for each
“Winston Churchill”
wikipedia
nobelprize
brainyquote
time
“Mother Teresa”
wikipedia
nobelprize
brainyquote
time
“Albert Einstein”
wikipedia
nobelprize
brainyquote
Some of these sites have just one pic and a few paragraphs of content related to the search term. Is it not appropriate to show websites that are dedicated to them before the search engine shows a wiki page? It is argued that big brands have taken over the Internet, lead by Google.
Interesting discoveries, and by no means a simple topic. But a great topic.
Here’s my thoughts… But keep in mind I’ve been out of the optimization field for a while so be nice
I’m going to start with the end since that comes first. Lol.
Will the Internet be Free?
One could [and I will] argue that in order for the internet to be free, Google has to be free to do as they please in their listings. Sure they have the traffic but McDonalds shouldn’t be forced to sell Pepsi just because someone people prefer it, and if Google wants to have certain rankings it’s really only a function of what that does to their business that should matter… after all, if their listings are not relevant we will find Bing or Yahoo or someone brand new in their seat.
They’re free to be great or to suck, we’re free to use them or not.
Second we have a commercialization argument. Google makes a lot of money but I’ve seen nothing solid to suggest that they dropped / impacted organic in favor of some paid listings or behind the scenes deals. If that’s the case and someone has the ammo that’s one heck of a thread but if not, it’s likely just speculation and frankly, hard to believe given that they stand to make a lot of money by forcing big names to keep advertising up. I’ve spent the big bucks and no one ever called offering a better spot…
As for the results… Maybe Google didn’t sanity check on these terms, maybe they’re getting gamed… or maybe it’s a little of both. Wikipedia may not be the most extensive source on a given topic but when you watch people search, look at the authorities they turn too, it tends to be a very early pick. If people are self selecting Wikipedia as the top destination, doesn’t that make it the most relevant result by the definition of the function of searching? Listings that are less impressive and less interacted with, would of course not fall into this protection and are likely gaming off of the big site’s success… Since all 3 terms are historically it’s not surprising that they applied whatever trick across those terms.
One thing that I do agree with is the end of SEO – as we’ve thought of it. It’s a big statement but it’s been coming for a long time. Not that search or rankings won’t happen but that the days of the internet as some very haphazard force have slowed. There’s serious brand equity on the web these days and guess what, consumers are controlling a big part of it – that changes the game.
The long and short of it is that the Wild West days are over. Panda is about bringing normal human behavioural patterns to Google. Since real world business is defined by human behaviour patterns, it should be no surprise there has been a closer alignment. – Shaddows @ Webmaster World
The goal of a search engine is, in theory, to understand my intent and show me the best result relative to what I am expecting.
On one hand Google and others have a long ways to go on doing this [i.e. figuring out apple fruit versus apple computers] but on the other side they’ve grow up a lot in showing people what’s they expect. It certainly limits discovery of the “new” but it’s also delivering on their promise and my desire to get it all… the sources I trust, the user feedback I demand, the sites I go to.
Lots is being written about the web overly personalizing and pushing people into the same corners, limiting what’s new, but then some girl playing a Lady Gaga song gets 35 million views in 3 months. So at the same time one has to realize that people are finding new… but different than before.
Everything has changed though - people now leave reviews about products and services, share thoughts, talk to millions of other people. Everything can be seen and virally spread. Brands can be almost irreparably damaged by people who all of a sudden have a voice, and can get a following. It’s a huge shift towards more power for consumers. -Onders @ webmaster world
The social revolution. Social sites are sending tons of traffic around these days from people discovering what’s new & interesting to them… but just as the corporate world struggles with a transparent world, so is the SEO field where people have to adapt to an era in which the consumer picks what’s popular, not the marketer. And while the game is far different, there’s still lots of opportunity to play with…
Google is in the business of trying to return the best page for any search term, based on content, relevance and popularity. Like it or not, Wikipedia has become the de facto reference for most people who think further than “type it into Google”. It has a mass of content on it (the Albert Einstein page, for ex, comes to 28 pages on print preview – that’s a veritable bible in internet terms), and it has squillions of links back to it, because it’s very easy to do. Which other pages do you think are more relevant and should be listed above it?
Yes, big brands are taking over the internet – and they have been since it started. I don’t see Google as being complicit in helping them. There are lots of sites that are genuine repositories for aggregated and custom-written information rather than simply scraping from other sites, but what is Google supposed to do about that? Do you want it to re-write its algorithms to deliberately not choose sites with the most content and most links to them?
(And the terms you’ve searched for are very closely related. There are billions of other search terms where Wikipedia won’t appear at the top, or even on the first page.)
In terms of the end of SEO – for the last 10 years, Google has been getting progressively smarter and harder to beat, and that trend will only continue. Site owners have to realise that the focus for the future must be on content and quality. Spamming forums and blogs and directories is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, it may look better for 5 minutes but the long-term impact is that you’ll still be going under.
Thank you for the long, detailed post. I have been studying SEO for some time now and attempting to grok how google does their thing. There are many competing opinions on the topic of how to rise in the search for a particular array of keywords. Personally, I mostly agree with your argument that google is ultimately in the business of making money and is able to do so because they offer an excellent search product. If they compromise the utility or value of their service, people will naturally look elsewhere. I still remember years ago when Yahoo and AltaVista were the big contenders. Moreover, google makes a ton of money from the fact that there are numerous, diverse websites out there. I suspect they would make less (and know it) if they were to tweak their algorithms so as to produce artificial and skewed results. That’s what PPC is for. On the other hand, the democratic, almost anarchistic nature of the internet is not likely to last forever. Wherever there’s profit to be made, the way of doing so ends up owned by the wealthy. Would it be so surprising if this were happening to the internet?
I’m not surprised or alarmed that Wikipedia ranks #1 as it is the go-to place for looking up basic info on people or topics. As many errors as it contains, it is on the whole a pretty good starting place for general information - I feel it oversteps its boundaries sometimes, but if I searched for those topics I would start at Wikipedia.
Being from the UK, I don’t actually see the other results you mentioned so high up - the BBC ranks #2 for example which is to be expected as that would be my #2 place to look for general info too.
Whilst these geographical personalisations are quite useful, the “filter bubble” in general is more of a worry. Sites like Wikipedia and the BBC don’t have a political bias (or at least try not to), but with the filter bubble if you are a conservative then Google looks at your past history and gives you the results with a conservative slant as those are the links you licked on previously - you don’t see the other results and your bubble is reinforced. The internet has been the great equalizer where you can be exposed to everyone’s position and your thoughts are challenged - with the filter bubble you don’t get exposed and your world gets smaller not bigger.
However where the web differs from say TV or print is in access.
That young girl with the 35 million YouTube views was not picked by any editor or boosted up by Google, she simply hit with people. That’s the ****… the problem so many companies can’t yet get over. Whether it’s the next star or perception of a brand, the consumer’s voice is visible and sometimes very visible. Control has changed hands.
This impacts SEO in that people are searching differently. I don’t need an engine to tell me there’s something fishy with an offer, I know to sub-search on “reviews” or “problem” or “scam”. Social & true content sites help me find what’s interesting to me… and hopefully my network is diverse enough to show me others things too.
The fact that the web does not require a big upfront cost or payment dos keep it fairly open & ever changing. Certainly some of that freedom eroded as big names take big seats but even then, very little stops someone from outseatting a poor performer in a market where the cost to entry is small and the decision is not up to the brand.
Which is why net neutrality is so important. Without it poor performers with deep pockets can still beat the competition as their sites would connect faster and videos stream without buffering - leaving the competitor struggling to stay afloat.
Censorship blacklists are another issue affecting this - if entertainment companies manage to get sites blocked from access without due legal process there is nothing to stop them attempting to block legal websites that just compete and would usurp them on an even playing field.
“The fact that the web does not require a big upfront cost or payment dos keep it fairly open & ever changing. Certainly some of that freedom eroded as big names take big seats but even then, very little stops someone from outseatting a poor performer in a market where the cost to entry is small and the decision is not up to the brand.”
Agreed, this is the saving grace. As masm50 points out, net neutrality is of paramount importance if this saving grace is to remain meaningful. I am extremely concerned that well-moneyed interests will find more and more effective ways to strangle the bandwidth of competitors and non-partners, effectively creating commercial sub-networks of business partners. The openness we’ve enjoyed with the internet so far has been fantastic, but I worry that it may be in its sunset days. There are certainly major players trying to make this happen, but fortunately, there is a robust movement, if you will, working to preserve net neutrality. Getting back more to the original point about Panda, I see a lot of commentary all over about this, particularly is SEO circles, but I wonder how much anyone really knows, other than what we can deduce from SERPs changes after the update. This is certainly indicative, but not definitive.
Well, let’s see. And let’s not limit to top three or four results (though research has shown it apparently sucks to be right after the pics/google products/places list section).
After wrestling with stupid google to give me google.com
Winston Churchill:
Frankly, if I’m searching Winston Churchill, I’m incredibly likely to be searching for his biography, some dates, or possibly famous quotes. From the results, that’s what most other people are looking for as well. How is this wrong? Why do I want small spammy retarded sites showing up here, possibly providing incorrect facts OR just copying from Wikipedia (which isn’t the best source to copy from, but everyone still does it, which is silly and dangerous). I, as a searcher, absolutely do NOT care about “the little guy” when it comes to this kind of search. This is not a good example to use when wondering if the Internet is free. If this were China and government sponsored sites, then I’d worry, but so far as we know, this isn’t the case.
Google.nl:
nl.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org (either Dutch sites link to this one too, or because he was British… not sure, but this doesn’t happen with, say, names of garden plants)
images of Winston Churchill (text in Dutch tho of course)
I agree, Winston Churchill+other famous historical figures is a poor search term set for trying to determine if certain sites are always ranking and if so, are they ranking because of back-room deals (speaking specifically of Panda, are these small content-thin spammy imitation sites? No). I would expect less commercialisation of biographies than, say, stuff people buy.
[ot] This was interesting (though apparently not Google’s fault but jQuery’s).[/ot]
For filter bubble checking, typing in a set of political terms across the world/machines is probably more likely to show differences that matter. Try a country name, a political party name, and then maybe a known political topic (immigration for example). Would a conservative be served up more conservative news sources? Would a left-winger be served more left-wing sources?
For corporate checking, I would have a set of words associated with maybe a type of product (where there should be several vendors). Like, “garden hoses”, “netbooks and laptops”, “pack dry-erase markers”.
Are the results all big shopping systems/companies? Yes.
I’m not sure if even most of these sites have brick and mortar here in the Netherlands, nor am I sure if I am getting more British results than someone in North America. I also don’t know if these sites even ship from their e-commerce platforms to the Netherlands.
But I don’t see this as something to do with Panda. Where we might see Panda results is in the areas that are constantly hit with low-content spam (scrapers/spinners) or the fraudulent sites like fake brand name whatevers.
MrSavage is wondering if the Little Guy is getting squeezed out of results by Big Commercial Guys. Well, yes. Unlike the telephone book, only the ones used the most/sought the most/talked-about the most get shown. Though I remember the old trick to search optimisation: starting your business name with “a” (where all the Acme stuff came from likely).
While I too have some sense of alarm as far as, when searching for, say, products, only so many certain suppliers show up in results, which creates homoginisation (which has pros and cons). Using other search engines would not really solve this issue, since large companies have large budgets and they ship in more places, offer more stuff, and are considered Trustworthy.
I am not a Google-dependent business owner like he is so I don’t have fears deeper than that.
But on the other hand, suppose that’s what 90% of users want? They want the product they looked for from a trustworthy, large site. Maybe SEs can offer an option for those who know they want something different (a button called “show me more awesome” or something). Or users will start using non-retarded search terms? Adding stuff like “organic” to their foods, “slave-free” to their chocolate, “area name” for local choices? “reviews [area name] garage [vehicle brand name]”?
The social revolution. Social sites are sending tons of traffic around these days from people discovering what’s new & interesting to them… but just as the corporate world struggles with a transparent world, so is the SEO field where people have to adapt to an era in which the consumer picks what’s popular, not the marketer. And while the game is far different, there’s still lots of opportunity to play with…
Agree with you. If you look back, it (Social) appears to have influenced the Google Algo greatly, thus resulting in Google Panda. In addition, there are other mega websites like Amazon, Wikipedia, and eBay. A few years back, website traffic was primarily made of Search traffic (with Google controlling 80%+). The Internet was arranged more like a Hub (Google) and Spokes (other sites primarily aided by Google traffic). However, the landscape has changed during the past few years greatly and is changing rapidly. The Internet is now like mesh architecture, wherein Google is one of the few big nodes in the mesh. Elaborating on this, sites like FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, and Amazon are competing with Google for traffic (though they serve different purposes). In addition to this, Google is challenged within its own specialty, “Search”. It is possible that they (Search providers) are seeing less dependence from Internet users on Search Engines during the years to come. Big launch of Google+ is a clear indication of this trend.
It is possible that the term SEO may become obsolete or atleast loose much of its significance, but webmasters have to look at a wider perspective.
In the process to adapt to changes and simultaneously accommodate corporate interests, Google Search appears to be making a big mistake of showing mega sites frequently in its search results. Why is this a mistake? It is because, the information provided to the user by showing these sites is negligible. The Internet user already have this information. This will only ensure the sharp fall of search engines usage from the Internet scape. At the same time, it doesn’t mean that they have to show crap sites, etc. The search has to be refined further, and more granularity needs to be incorporated so that the value of information provided to a user is maximized.
This is an oft-repeated adage and sounds fine… unless you’re selling a perfectly good product about which there’s nothing interesting to say. I started a thread on this premise, giving a realistic example and asking how the “quality content” strategy could be used to attract links and get rankings. I heard crickets - not one single suggestion was offered by anyone.
In higher-quality venues like this one, SEO discussions tend to center around examples like “Albert Einstein,” but what about commercial searches like the “dry erase markers” of Stomme Poes? I’d say there are a lot more website owners worrying about the latter.
asking how the “quality content” strategy could be used to attract links and get rankings.
I don’t think it can be. Merchants have the problem of getting the product description from some manufacturer’s database. Some bigger companies like Amazon make those pages special by adding more stuff like reviews and “people who bought this also liked these other things” etc.
A product page needs to be useful, rather than have “quality content”. What the hell does that even mean anyway? When I look at a product, I usually want pictures, its specs, its price, and then I often want to know if there were any bad reviews of it or if it works with something I already have (if it’s a techie stuff). I don’t want some prose from some writer. That’s not useful: I’m there to see if this is something I want to buy. Likely I typed the very item’s name into a search engine, rather than some vague term like “markers”.
However if I’m looking for, say, stapler haiku, then I’m probably not a potential customer looking for a product page for buying stuff… I’m looking for people being silly, for my own entertainment. virtualstapler.com should appear if I type in “stapler haiku”.
I think search engines are still much too dumb to tell what I need based on my search terms. They’re trying, with personalisation, but that’s silly here; they need to know my ROLE (purchaser? browser? looking to be mindlessly entertained? doing research just because, or for someone else?) when I do that search. Regardless of my “personal” setup or who I am.
In the Manufacturing Consent DVD a newspaper executive highlighted that they liked to have a 60/40 ratio between ads and content.
Google says that if over half your page’s content is ads then your pages are of insufficient value.
What Google engineers miss when delivering sermons to webmasters is that Google is fine with disappearing their organic search results for self promotion & even advertises that consumers can’t tell the difference between their search ads and the organic results.
You see, tricking people is bad. Unless you are Google. In which case you have to hit the quarterly numbers.
Everyone else needs to read Google platitudes, create deep content, and pray to turn the corner before bankruptcy hits.
Matt Cutts stated that you should make your products like Apple products by packaging them nicely.
Wonder if there is a bit of virus / spyware impact. I put a search term in and look for a site I know. Like sitepoint, alistapart, etc. (okay a lot of times they have the answer) but I link from their sites to others sites. These major sites are like a reference guide saying its okay to visit this blog or that unknown site.
Stevie, nice post. However, would like to differ on a couple of points as below:
By giving Wiki first place, that most people already know they could find it in Wiki, what is the value of information that a Search Engine is providing to the User? Is this information not redundant?
Yes, big brands are taking over the internet – and they have been since it started. I don’t see Google as being complicit in helping them. There are lots of sites that are genuine repositories for aggregated and custom-written information rather than simply scraping from other sites, but what is Google supposed to do about that? Do you want it to re-write its algorithms to deliberately not choose sites with the most content and most links to them?
Again, same thing as above holds good. Search Engines need to provide information that the User doesn’t have readily. It is very likely that the User is searching for an answer that is not Wiki type or Amazon type. Most users (as was mentioned in your post), know that they can go to Wiki if they want Wiki type answer. Ideally, the algo should be in such a way that the User gets non-redundant, and valuable information.
In terms of the end of SEO – for the last 10 years, Google has been getting progressively smarter and harder to beat, and that trend will only continue. Site owners have to realise that the focus for the future must be on content and quality. Spamming forums and blogs and directories is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, it may look better for 5 minutes but the long-term impact is that you’ll still be going under.
The number of people who search for domain.com on a daily basis is staggering… In a world where Google is the default homepage for millions, people search for what they could type in.
Despite being an early adopter, web savvy, etc. I never go to wikipedia directly but I very frequently click the search result for it. I know there’s a listing, I know I can go there first but I prefer Google’s spell check and I like being able to run one search and check multiple sites. From the #s I see in client sites, the general user is even more likely to want this flexibility.
People are not trusting in search engines to show them only what’s new. We’re using them to get connected to the sites we already had in mind.
“People are not trusting in search engines to show them only what’s new. We’re using them to get connected to the sites we already had in mind.”
That’s another good point. I’ve read that approximately 8% of hits can come from “direct searches” in the address bar. I’ve had trouble believing this for just the reasons you cite. I’ve been playing this internet game since the very beginning, and I will still often search in google rather than doing a so-called “direct search.” In fact, I don’t really know anyone who, when seeking new info or product data, will do a “direct search”.
An additional point to consider is that the volume of information is growing more-or-less exponentially, and everyone knows that new resources or new articles in existing resources are coming online all the time. Sometimes re-doing a search later with the same search terms will produce rewarding new results. Random intermittant positive reinforcement like that is an effective motivator. In other words, while their role is surely evolving, I doubt the umph of search engines is waning.
To be honest, even I do this. I never go to Wikipedia and type my search there… I usually google “my topic wiki” if I want a Wikipedia page. Likewise, there are a number of pages which I don’t bother typing the domain, I just do a quick search that I know will get it and save myself some characters… and I’m plenty web savvy. =p
It only highlights that Site Search of individual sites is poor, and therefore a User goes to a SE like Google to find an answer in Wiki instead of going to Wiki and searching for it. It is actually the problem with Site Search, and not that of Search Engine. Individual sites need to improve their search performance. What is getting lost in the process is that branded sites are getting to the first page, and a site that is probably a result of scholarly work is getting to the second page or less.
People are not trusting in search engines to show them only what’s new. We’re using them to get connected to the sites we already had in mind.
It is not that the SEs have to provide new results. A Search Engine has much more responsibility than that. It should be able to grade the sites that are result of genuine work in a given domain. Sites that specialize in a given domain should get more prominence than those that hit every topic on Earth.
Search Engines should not be reduced to Gateways for searching branded sites.
