bad news for IM industry - Google says "no" to unnecessary paged results

by eskimoto

Posted: 13 years ago 24 replies

INTERNET MARKETING

This is a text from a Polish website - to save myself some time i have used a google translate so please forgive any dodgy grammar :-)

If they are seriously thinking about it then we are in trouble!!!

"Google says "no" to unnecessary paging

Google announced that they will do everything in their power to make sure search engines users are sent directly to a single page containing the desired content, rather than wade through results that contain the paged version.

Whenever the option is available that provides the entire text, Google will be just to link to it instead to a long line of websites to which most publishers would like to lead the search results. Paging content site owners to help in serving more ads to readers. However, the Google study clearly shows that it is quite intolerable practice from the perspective of Internet users.

True, Google helps publishers to indicate how services are linked together various parts of the article and display them, if they so desire, but also inform that users generally prefer the option that shows all the search results. Exceptions are very large pages, where loading takes a long time, which unnecessarily prolongs the waiting time.

Company of Mountain View has always depended on the speed of delivery of results, so the reports that webmasters can take simple steps to avoid sites like "view-all" in its index (no need to use link rel = "canonical", pointing to the "view-all ", just apply the new attributes rel =" next "and rel =" prev ", so to link to individual pages included in the series).

Certainly, most website owners do not welcome this gesture of open arms, but the comfort of ordinary Google users will increase significantly thanks to him."

#bad #google #google results #industry #news #paged #results #unnecessary

Rick Britton 13 years ago

can you explain what actually means?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4698925].message }}
- eskimoto 13 years ago
  
  it means that if for example you type into google "how to get rid of bad breath" then google will try to get you directly to a website with a full article about it instead of showing a standard page full of results.
  
  its bad for IM because if you organic search results are almost like free ads, even if you are page 1 spot 7 someone might get interested, click on a link and get to you website. however if google introduces this new thing nobody will get a chance to see your link at all.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699077].message }}
Rick Britton 13 years ago

do you mean the user gets no choice in which site they end up reaching?

Will they not get a list of all the sites that contain a related article?

I fail to see the problem but then I am probably thick

EDIT: YEAH I DO

I dont want Google deciding what site I get shown when I do a search. I can decide. Just gimme a list of places that kinda match what I am looking for....

wait

isnt that what happens now?
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699126].message }}

LarryC

13 years ago

This is hard to believe. That would be inconsistent with the whole concept of a search engine. I can imagine a smaller search engine doing something like this, based on paid ads, but not Google. When you think about it, it doesn't even make sense. Suppose you don't like the page they send you to -how would you find another page?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699138].message }}

VinnyBock

13 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

I totally agree, I can't see Google or any major search engine for that matter doing something like this...

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699159].message }}

eskimoto 13 years ago

Whenever the option is available that provides the entire text, Google will be just to link to it instead to a long line of websites to which most publishers would like to lead the search results.

well, they way i understand this is that an end user would not get a choice to which site they get linked to
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699147].message }}
eskimoto 13 years ago

i have just found two source articles about this

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Pagination with rel=“next” and rel=“prev”

Even Google is Tired of Needlessly Paginated Content — SiliconFilter

maybe i am understanding this in the wrong way but if i dont then it seems like the big G is serious about it
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699173].message }}
Rick Britton 13 years ago

I would definitely switch search engine if this happens

I often use Metacrawler anyway so I could switch Google off in there

they would be idiots if they do this
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699196].message }}
- eskimoto 13 years ago
  
  i have tried reading the webmaster central blog article to understand it better but it all sound like gibrish to me.
  
  no way they will just send us to one page, they will have to leave some choice.
  
  does anyone one understand what this article actually means?
  
  Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Pagination with rel=“next” and rel=“prev”
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699239].message }}

kiddi

13 years ago

I don't see the problem here, google wants to direct users to the full version of an article, instead of a version that is paginated over a few pages. I think that's a great move, it's annoying always having to click next several times just to read a page.

Directing searchers straight to a page, instead of showing them a number of search results, is not going to happen.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699206].message }}

eskimoto

13 years ago

Originally Posted by kiddi

Seems like the article was worded very badly. what you are saying makes much more sense to me

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699249].message }}

Freemon 13 years ago

I agree with kiddi. Taking ten different page clicks, waiting for all the ads to load on a site just to get through one article is just a hassle. and you don't back out of it because you're already invested in the information. I couldn't really argue with something that improved that. But not to have results show up in a search like they always have, giving the user a chance to choose? Let's hope not. Many of us would have to rethink our whole program. Ouch.
- Thanks
Signature

FREE - 90 Straight Challenge Days of Drop-shipping and Digital Marketing Training
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699596].message }}

kiddi 13 years ago

Yes, what it means is not what you think. You are completely misunderstanding it.

I'm pretty sure that this won't have any effect on the majority of webmasters, only those that prefer to split their articles in many sections.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699258].message }}
Michael Oksa 13 years ago

I believe what they are saying is that the person doing the search will still see as many results, BUT the sites that are linked to COULD be different.

For example, if you look for "10 Tips to Better Underwater Basket Weaving" the first link of the 10,397 results you click on now would take you to a site where they only show the 1st tip...then you have to click the "Next Tip" button to see Tip #2, and keep clicking "Next Tip" until you get to Tip #10. So, you haven't really visited 1 page, you have visited 10.

Now, let's say that exact same page has a link that says "Printer Friendly Version" or "See All 10 Tips", then Google is saying it will now give preference to THOSE types of pages.

There will still be 10, 397 results for Google's users, but they will be taken to complete articles WHERE THEY EXIST. So, if no option exists, then the searcher will go to the Tip #1 and have to click anyway.

To me, the real question is will Google take weight away from full article pages IF a series of pages also exists.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the whole thing, and it may not be a big deal for marketers. As a user, it will be GOOD for me.

All the best,
Michael
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature

"Ich bin en fuego!"
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699277].message }}
Rick Britton 13 years ago

ahh good

I always have full articles on page
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699356].message }}

eskimoto

13 years ago

Originally Posted by eskimoto

Google announced that they will do everything in their power to make sure search engines users are sent directly to a single page containing the desired content, rather than wade through results that contain the paged version.

yep...i got it 100% wrong...but please make me feel better and admit this sentence could have confused me :-)

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699408].message }}

Daniel Evans 13 years ago

If they chose to direct to a single page, they would be throwing a business down the pan.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699470].message }}
JohnMcCabe 13 years ago

Originally Posted by eskimoto

yep...i got it 100% wrong...but please make me feel better and admit this sentence could have confused me :-)

Okay, I admit it. That sentence could have confused you...

Feel better?
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699478].message }}
- eskimoto 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe
  
  Okay, I admit it. That sentence could have confused you...
  
  Feel better?
  
  yes i do! thanks ;-)
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699720].message }}

tolxeaquarius 13 years ago

I don´t understand this quite so does this mean that you would have to have a keyword optimized article on your site?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

FREE Blueprint PROFIT Report For Ebay
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699496].message }}
- JohnMcCabe 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by tolxeaquarius
  
  I don´t understand this quite so does this mean that you would have to have a keyword optimized article on your site?
  
  Some sites provide two versions of an article on their site. One version has the article on a single page. One version is split up across several pages.
  
  If Google finds both versions on the site, they will give preference to the version on the single page.
  
  That's it.
  
  About the only sites that may suffer will be the ones that scatter content across multiple pages to generate more ad impressions.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699515].message }}
onSubie 13 years ago

Hi

I think the article is talking about what pages Google tries to present in the SERPS.

It wants to publish results that are links to entire articles. Not links to sites that that are collections of lists/links to articles.

So (just my opinion) Google is saying:

"everything in their power to make sure search engines users are sent directly to a single page containing the desired content (when they click on a SERP), rather than wade through results that contain the/a paged (copied/summarized/directory of articles) version."

This is a lot of what they did with Panda and, I think, not new information.

As has been mentioned, it would be impossible to take you to THE page with the complete article when searchers are only typing in a partial sentences or lists of relevant terms.

Mahlon
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699541].message }}
sbucciarel Banned 13 years ago

I don't see a problem with this, but then, I don't paginate articles. I prefer a single page article when I'm reading than to have to view page after page unless it is a very, very long article.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699554].message }}
Rick Britton 13 years ago

yes my sites are all content stuff

articles and info about health and stuff like that, all single page per article

wont affect me then?
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4699734].message }}

bad news for IM industry - Google says "no" to unnecessary paged results

Trending Topics

Google Ads, landing pages, and Clickbank links

Carry out better target audience research

A Very Strange Internet Problem

YouTube gets shopping display tools and affiliate partnership updates

Membership area with multiple income streams