If Google Really Cares About Search Experience, Why The Love Affair With Social Sites
If Google really wants to give searchers a good experience, then why
the love affair with article sites and other social sites?
Every time Google does one of its infamous smackdowns, the reason
they give is always couched in terms of providing a better search
experience.
Yet, we all know they give LOVE to sites like EzineArticles.com, Squidoo,
Hubpages, Blogger etc. sites where anybody can pretend to be an expert on
anything and usually do. There is almost no filtering and Google undoubtedly
KNOWS that the biggest percentage of people providing content on these
sites are doing it with an agenda.
When I search for information online (not doing niche research),
I am looking for accurate, impartial information, preferably from
someone who knows what they are talking about.
I can't imagine that anyone has even a remote shot at that when
they land on an ezinearticle or a squidoo lens or a hub.
If Google really wanted to give searchers a good experience where
they could find what they were looking for as quickly as possible,
I would think that instead of giving LOVE to these sites, it would simply
change its algorithms to give zero credibility to these sites.
While we might not like that as marketers, Google claims to be concerned
with a good experience for searchers. Is a love affair with these types
of sites consistent with a good consumer search experience?
The only reason I can see for doing this is that these sites have one
thing in common: multiple blocks of adsense.
The combination of marginal content and lots of adsense spots means
more money for Google.
Truly content rich sites maintained by actual experts in any niche
are not likely to have adsense on them...and with rich content,
visitors would not be likely to click on the ads to leave.
Am I alone in questioning Google's public motives?
If you are searching for information for yourself, do you give any
credibility to information on social and article sites?
Robyn
the love affair with article sites and other social sites?
Every time Google does one of its infamous smackdowns, the reason
they give is always couched in terms of providing a better search
experience.
Yet, we all know they give LOVE to sites like EzineArticles.com, Squidoo,
Hubpages, Blogger etc. sites where anybody can pretend to be an expert on
anything and usually do. There is almost no filtering and Google undoubtedly
KNOWS that the biggest percentage of people providing content on these
sites are doing it with an agenda.
When I search for information online (not doing niche research),
I am looking for accurate, impartial information, preferably from
someone who knows what they are talking about.
I can't imagine that anyone has even a remote shot at that when
they land on an ezinearticle or a squidoo lens or a hub.
If Google really wanted to give searchers a good experience where
they could find what they were looking for as quickly as possible,
I would think that instead of giving LOVE to these sites, it would simply
change its algorithms to give zero credibility to these sites.
While we might not like that as marketers, Google claims to be concerned
with a good experience for searchers. Is a love affair with these types
of sites consistent with a good consumer search experience?
The only reason I can see for doing this is that these sites have one
thing in common: multiple blocks of adsense.
The combination of marginal content and lots of adsense spots means
more money for Google.
Truly content rich sites maintained by actual experts in any niche
are not likely to have adsense on them...and with rich content,
visitors would not be likely to click on the ads to leave.
Am I alone in questioning Google's public motives?
If you are searching for information for yourself, do you give any
credibility to information on social and article sites?
Robyn
-
TheRichJerksNet -
Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1292787].message }} -