Has Google Destroyed Your Business?

by Harlan
110 replies
One way of looking at the Internet is the forces of light vs. the forces of darkness.

On the side of light is of course Google - the heros who have descended from on high to engage mere mortals.

And on the side of darkness are the lowly Internet marketers trying to make a living.

In the recent Google document that circulated clandestinely around the Internet Google flatly stated - if a website exists only to make money - it is a spam site.

The entire Panda update is aimed at cleaning up the Internet.

In its latest iteration, Google vowed to clean the Internet of autoblogs and scrapper sites.

I'm curious how your autoblogs are ranking after December 1.

Are they doing as well for your choice of keywords?

Are they doing better?

Or has Google banished you to the kingdom beyond the sea where no one can find you.

Please let me know.

Peace
#business #destroyed #google
  • Profile picture of the author Ettienne
    One of my sites that was ranking on page 1 for numerous keywords, but only promoted affiliate offers without too much useful content (was one of my first sites I created about 3 years ago) was slammed over the past week.

    Rankings dropped by the hundreds, some keywords disappeared completely. Not cool. Luckily it's not one of my main sites and only pulled about $200 on average from Google traffic alone, it's a loss, but not the end of the world since all my other site's continue to do well in the search engines.
    Signature
    Need SEO and Backlinks?
    Get a 30-Day FREE Trial
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227642].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by Ettienne View Post

      One of my sites that was ranking on page 1 for numerous keywords, but only promoted affiliate offers without too much useful content (was one of my first sites I created about 3 years ago) was slammed over the past week.

      Rankings dropped by the hundreds, some keywords disappeared completely. Not cool. Luckily it's not one of my main sites and only pulled about $200 on average from Google traffic alone, it's a loss, but not the end of the world since all my other site's continue to do well in the search engines.
      Sorry about that.

      Was it an autoblog?
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227724].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

    In the recent Google document that circulated clandestinely around the Internet Google flatly stated - if a website exists only to make money - it is a spam site.
    Guess Google.com can NOW kill themselves...

    Anyways, 99.9% of websites have the goal to make money, one way or the other.

    Maybe Google can trash them all?

    What a bunch of #$##.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227716].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    One of my sites is an autoblog but with unique content on the home page and maybe two other articles.

    It's a couple of years old, promoted through article marketing, web 2.0 sites. Was pretty high up earlier in the year around #3 for its main keyword then it plummeted to nowhere a few months back.

    Just came back to #1 a couple of days ago.

    Lee
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227770].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

      One of my sites is an autoblog but with unique content on the home page and maybe two other articles.

      It's a couple of years old, promoted through article marketing, web 2.0 sites. Was pretty high up earlier in the year around #3 for its main keyword then it plummeted to nowhere a few months back.

      Just came back to #1 a couple of days ago.

      Lee
      How often does it "auto-blog" and is it scraping content?
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227862].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author cashcow
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        How often does it "auto-blog" and is it scraping content?
        It posts a video from youtube every 3 days. It uses WPRobot to get the video and content from youtube.

        It was also posting an Amazon product every week but it looks like it ran into some trouble and hasn't posted one in over a year.

        The blog was originally a PLR blog so it was loaded with PLR articles, Amazon products and videos then I modified the homepage to have unique content (a couple paragraphs) and also posted 2 unique articles to it.

        Lee
        Signature
        Gone Fishing
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228073].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    My monthly traffic is up across the board on all of my money sites.

    On my main site, my traffic is up 55% in November of 2011 over January of 2011. It looks like December will match November in its traffic numbers.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227881].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      My monthly traffic is up across the board on all of my money sites.

      On my main site, my traffic is up 55% in November of 2011 over January of 2011. It looks like December will match November in its traffic numbers.
      I didn't know you ran autoblogs Bill?

      Mind you, I'm sure there's lots of other things I don't know about you business and perhaps I ought to just mind my own :p.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227902].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

        Guess Google.com can NOW kill themselves...

        Anyways, 99.9% of websites have the goal to make money, one way or the other.

        Maybe Google can trash them all?

        What a bunch of #$##.
        You misread what Google said. They intend to get rid of sites that are only around to make money. Most sites at least try to provide value in some form or another to justify those earnings in the first place. Autoblogs sending out crap content filled with affiliate links? That's what they're going after. They don't help anybody.

        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        I didn't know you ran autoblogs Bill?

        Mind you, I'm sure there's lots of other things I don't know about your business and perhaps I ought to just mind my own :p.
        Where's the fun in that? Get all up in his business.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227928].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
          Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

          You misread what Google said. They intend to get rid of sites that are only around to make money. Most sites at least try to provide value in some form or another to justify those earnings in the first place. Autoblogs sending out crap content filled with affiliate links? That's what they're going after. They don't help anybody.
          I haven't misread a single word.

          And if Google will shut down sites that are ONLY around to make money, in my book, they can start shutting down Amazon.

          But this is where we try to define a line : "Oh Amazon provides value". Right. And autoblogs don't? tell that to consumers tat visit them and buy products and are happy about it. Only Google says they are worthless.

          Problem here is Google defines the line. But who am I to discuss this crap? lol

          Oh and I don't own a single autoblog (never had) and my business DOES NOT rely on Google, beside a small % of my annual income.

          So I am an happy camper. But I am not naive.
          Signature
          People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227978].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

            I haven't misread a single word.

            And if Google will shut down sites that are ONLY around to make money, in my book, they can start shutting down Amazon.

            But this is where we try to define a line : "Oh Amazon provides value". Right. And autoblogs don't? tell that to consumers tat visit them and buy products and are happy about it. Only Google says they are worthless.

            Problem here is Google defines the line. But who am I to discuss this crap? lol

            Oh and I don't own a single autoblog (never had) and my business DOES NOT rely on Google, beside a small % of my annual income.

            So I am an happy camper. But I am not naive.
            *Shrugs* I guess it is a very subjective thing after all. I plan to be in the same boat as you, not basing my business off of Google traffic. I'm kind of in that mindset of people wanting to play with "fire" (Google) are going to have to deal with the crap that comes with Google deciding what stays and goes. That's their problem.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228001].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

              *Shrugs* I guess it is a very subjective thing after all. I plan to be in the same boat as you, not basing my business off of Google traffic. I'm kind of in that mindset of people wanting to play with "fire" (Google) are going to have to deal with the crap that comes with Google deciding what stays and goes. That's their problem.

              My view is that I build sites around what I think my customers will want.

              I build links according to what I think will deliver traffic to my websites.

              And if Google tells me that they don't like the way I do things, they can kiss my rosy-red ass.

              But, if Google wants to love me and send me traffic anyway, I ain't gonna kick em out of bed, if you know what I mean.

              Google sends me 15,000 page views per month on my main domain.
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228028].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Harlan
            Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

            And if Google will shut down sites that are ONLY around to make money, in my book, they can start shutting down Amazon.

            But this is where we try to define a line : "Oh Amazon provides value". Right. And autoblogs don't? tell that to consumers tat visit them and buy products and are happy about it. Only Google says they are worthless.
            Amazon allows for people to post comments, reviews, videos, lists, discussions etc.

            And autoblogs allow for all this?
            Signature

            Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
            Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
            http://overnight-copy.com
            Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
            Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228006].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
              Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

              Amazon allows for people to post comments, reviews, videos, lists, discussions etc.

              And autoblogs allow for all this?
              As a matter of fact, some do. But that's not the point.

              Problem is Google says everything that hurts their income has no value and should be banned forever: Seo tricks, how to make money online videos at Youtube, affiliate url's, and so on.

              Autoblogs is just the latest target. One day we'll be you and me.
              Signature
              People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228138].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

                As a matter of fact, some do. But that's not the point.

                Problem is Google says everything that hurts their income has no value and should be banned forever: Seo tricks, how to make money online videos at Youtube, affiliate url's, and so on.

                Autoblogs is just the latest target. One day we'll be you and me.
                There is truth in that; but it is also not the whole story. You also have casual internet surfers that are just sick and tired of running into a sales pitch every time they read about something they are interested in.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228153].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author IMHopeful
          Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

          You misread what Google said. They intend to get rid of sites that are only around to make money. Most sites at least try to provide value in some form or another to justify those earnings in the first place. Autoblogs sending out crap content filled with affiliate links? That's what they're going after. They don't help anybody.



          Where's the fun in that? Get all up in his business.
          This.

          I figure Google is just eating up the spammier sites. I have several 4 and 5 page autoblogs that make the same amount as they did pre-panda. I just make sure they look pretty and have a few articles that are relevant to the niche.
          Signature

          Looking for new writers. PM me.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228127].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        I didn't know you ran autoblogs Bill?

        Mind you, I'm sure there's lots of other things I don't know about you business and perhaps I ought to just mind my own :p.

        I guess I missed the part about "auto-blogs". LOL

        I saw "money sites" and answered accordingly.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227930].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by tpw View Post

          I guess I missed the part about "auto-blogs". LOL
          Sorry chap, I'd have kept quiet if I realised that!

          I was genuinely interested in your take on them .

          Harlan, out of interest, I remember you talking about curation sites. How are yours going since the Panda update? I bought Curation Nation on your recommendation (I think anyway) and I it was quite an eye opener.

          Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

          Where's the fun in that? Get all up in his business.
          Actually I do, I have one part of my business that is very much based on what Bill does, he's someone worth watching. That's why I was interested in whether he was running autoblogs, it wasn't something I'd seen him talk much about before.
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227963].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Harlan
            Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

            Sorry chap, I'd have kept quiet if I realised that!

            I was genuinely interested in your take on them .

            Harlan, out of interest, I remember you talking about curation sites. How are yours going since the Panda update? I bought Curation Nation on your recommendation (I think anyway) and I it was quite an eye opener.
            Curation Nation is indeed a great book.

            Our curation sites are still getting Google love.
            Signature

            Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
            Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
            http://overnight-copy.com
            Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
            Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227995].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AnniePot
        I rely very little on Google rankings for my traffic. Probably 85% of my traffic comes from the content I publish on good authority, context relevant websites.

        The remaining 15% of my traffic does come from the search engines, but if Google was to wipe me out of their search results tomorrow, it certainly wouldn't be a business or income destroying catastrophe..
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227947].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    Google's main source of revenue is adwords.

    We all know that the billions they make every month are purely "not for profit"..the money goes ALL to charity, right

    So...Google give us some slack..we are not worse than you. The fact that "we" are smaller doesn't change intentions or makes us "bad" and you the good guys.

    Without us/our sites..you (Google) are nothing...and without you WE are nothing either. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, remember?
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5227894].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ben Gordon
      Originally Posted by GeorgR. View Post

      Google's main source of revenue is adwords.

      We all know that the billions they make every month are purely "not for profit"..the money goes ALL to charity, right

      So...Google give us some slack..we are not worse than you. The fact that "we" are smaller doesn't change intentions or makes us "bad" and you the good guys.

      Without us/our sites..you (Google) are nothing...and without you WE are nothing either. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, remember?
      Brilliantly stated. I just couldn't help quoting this.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5238742].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Franklin
    Interesting post, I think perhaps the more meaningful subject might be what have you done to change your website so that it fits in better in this brave new world.

    Have you abandoned, the auto blogging promises that fail to deliver?

    Have you added unique content that is not rehashed, trash?

    Do you have 80 percent content and 20 percent advertising?

    Or do you have 80 percent advertising, and only 20 percent content?

    Those are the questions that matter, because unless you have big money to spend on
    Adwords, or PPC, or other methods of advertising, you have to bring something real to the table, otherwise yes, your website will be trashed out as a blog farm, as a spam website,

    It is the law of the Jungle and the jungle is owned by Google,

    The only way you can develop a hope or even a glimmer of success online is to create something that you cannot get everywhere online.

    You have to produce unique and valuable content,

    You have to diminish the "in your face" advertising that used to be normal everywhere but is now just a shadow...

    If you dont make those adjustments, your done, finished, gone,

    That is just the way it is.

    The problem with most marketers is that they do not realize that google is a business, it is a cold hard, fact crunching machine, that for the most part, is a series of computerized, AI commands, that exist in a server some where in the vast computing warehouse that is the Internet.

    People make the mistake of thinking that Google is run by humans, it is not.

    Google is a business, first and foremost, a Business, if you want to be valued by Google you have to bring something to the table, and if your not spending more than $2000.00 per month on advertising, your just another brick in the 10 Billion dollar wall that is Google, they will not even know you exist.

    So for most of us, in order to really gain some Google realestate, we have to bring something to the table that is worth more than the thousands of others out there that want to do the same thing.

    If your not bringing value with you to the Google Table, your going to leave empty handed, simple, cold hard truth here,

    The faster you learn that truth, the faster you make those changes, the better you are at adapting, to the changing conditions, that has become this brave new Internet world, the more successful you will become.
    Signature
    Software Development | Applications | OSX | iOS | Android | Cloud Software Engineering |
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228020].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Tim Franklin View Post

      It is the law of the Jungle and the jungle is owned by Google

      The only jungle owned by Google is the Google Jungle.

      Google does not own the whole of the Internet yet... And TBH, I don't think they ever will.

      Google has been losing market share over the last year, and I suspect they will continue to lose market share to Bing/Yahoo.

      Anyone who is committed to only advertising in Google-owned properties is only one algorithm change away from bankruptcy.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228265].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Shannon Herod
        Google is a business, first and foremost, a Business, if you want to be valued by Google you have to bring something to the table, and if your not spending more than $2000.00 per month on advertising, your just another brick in the 10 Billion dollar wall that is Google, they will not even know you exist.
        That number is a lot higher. If you are not spending a $100,000 or more Google does not give a crap about you.

        Shannon
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228299].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tumill
          Originally Posted by Shannon Herod View Post

          That number is a lot higher. If you are not spending a $100,000 or more Google does not give a crap about you.

          Shannon
          From my experience, I would put that number even higher....
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229235].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jficarro
      Originally Posted by Tim Franklin View Post

      Interesting post, I think perhaps the more meaningful subject might be what have you done to change your website so that it fits in better in this brave new world.

      Have you abandoned, the auto blogging promises that fail to deliver?

      Have you added unique content that is not rehashed, trash?

      Do you have 80 percent content and 20 percent advertising?

      Or do you have 80 percent advertising, and only 20 percent content?

      Those are the questions that matter, because unless you have big money to spend on
      Adwords, or PPC, or other methods of advertising, you have to bring something real to the table, otherwise yes, your website will be trashed out as a blog farm, as a spam website,

      It is the law of the Jungle and the jungle is owned by Google,

      The only way you can develop a hope or even a glimmer of success online is to create something that you cannot get everywhere online.

      You have to produce unique and valuable content,

      You have to diminish the "in your face" advertising that used to be normal everywhere but is now just a shadow...

      If you dont make those adjustments, your done, finished, gone,

      That is just the way it is.

      The problem with most marketers is that they do not realize that google is a business, it is a cold hard, fact crunching machine, that for the most part, is a series of computerized, AI commands, that exist in a server some where in the vast computing warehouse that is the Internet.

      People make the mistake of thinking that Google is run by humans, it is not.

      Google is a business, first and foremost, a Business, if you want to be valued by Google you have to bring something to the table, and if your not spending more than $2000.00 per month on advertising, your just another brick in the 10 Billion dollar wall that is Google, they will not even know you exist.

      So for most of us, in order to really gain some Google realestate, we have to bring something to the table that is worth more than the thousands of others out there that want to do the same thing.

      If your not bringing value with you to the Google Table, your going to leave empty handed, simple, cold hard truth here,

      The faster you learn that truth, the faster you make those changes, the better you are at adapting, to the changing conditions, that has become this brave new Internet world, the more successful you will become.
      Are you implying that Google favors (organically) those sites that use PPC? That would be contrary to Google's own policy/ statements.

      Of course, at this point, Google is more powerful than the government, so they can pretty much do whatever the heck they want, including screw us over, take our money, and not even answer a customer inquiry.

      But, just in Matt's reading this.... I LOVE GOOGLE. THEY RULE!!!!!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5232584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tadresources
    I've got a few sites that just have about 20 posts and havent been updated for ages and they are fine and stand on aged domains.

    Where as another that has a very similar set up and the domain is less than a year old has suffered.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228024].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    ^^^ Smart guy right there. Although I would be sure to get Google tested before staying in the same bed. There have been rumors...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228043].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

      ^^^ Smart guy right there. Although I would be sure to get Google tested before staying in the same bed. There have been rumors...

      It is not me that has to worry about what I might catch from Google...

      It is Google that should be worried!!
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228056].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Law guy
    I personally do not use autoblogs as I believe their time is almost at an end. Google can spot them from a mile away and having one can jeopardize your entire collection of websites if Google even so much as suspects that you operate them all.

    Not to mention you will not be able to monetize an autoblog with Adsense, as any manual review from the Adsense team will most likely result in your account getting banned. If Adsense is not your thing, you could still make work with CPA offers, but then again, it is only a matter of time before CPA networks slam autoblogs too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228260].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

      it is only a matter of time before CPA networks slam autoblogs too.

      I don't foresee CPA networks ever slamming autoblogs, because they don't pay for clicks... They pay for conversions...
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228275].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Law guy
        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        I don't foresee CPA networks ever slamming autoblogs, because they don't pay for clicks... They pay for conversions...
        While that is certainly true, a lot of CPA networks don't allow 301s directly to the affiliate offer anymore. I know this is completely different to autoblogs, but the point is that method was resulting in conversions, yet they still banned it. Just because something makes them money, doesn't mean they will always approve of it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228385].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

          While that is certainly true, a lot of CPA networks don't allow 301s directly to the affiliate offer anymore. I know this is completely different to autoblogs, but the point is that method was resulting in conversions, yet they still banned it. Just because something makes them money, doesn't mean they will always approve of it.

          The issue with the 301 Redirect is that the CPA Networks could not see how you constructed your ads.

          The reality is that some of the affiliates were doing black hat things trying to get people to click the ad and process the needed steps to complete the transaction.

          Suppose for example I put up a page that said, "Fill in your zip code, and I will send you a $20 check in the mail," and then I set a 301 Redirect to the offer...

          There are some vendors who prohibit incentived offers, and with the 301 Redirect, they cannot go back to see how you set up the offer.

          Furthermore, suppose I made that offer, and I did not send you the money. "LOL Sucker!!" Where would the consumer go to figure out who to bitch to about their $20 payment that never arrived? Yep, they would go to the vendor who paid for the zip submit. They would forget about me, and go straight to the vendor. Then the vendor would be up a creek for deceptive advertising.

          That is why 301 Redirects are not allowed. The potential is that they could end up costing the network more money than it makes for it.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228459].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Law guy
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            The issue with the 301 Redirect is that the CPA Networks could not see how you constructed your ads.

            The reality is that some of the affiliates were doing black hat things trying to get people to click the ad and process the needed steps to complete the transaction.

            Suppose for example I put up a page that said, "Fill in your zip code, and I will send you a $20 check in the mail," and then I set a 301 Redirect to the offer...

            There are some vendors who prohibit incentived offers, and with the 301 Redirect, they cannot go back to see how you set up the offer.

            Furthermore, suppose I made that offer, and I did not send you the money. "LOL Sucker!!" Where would the consumer go to figure out who to bitch to about their $20 payment that never arrived? Yep, they would go to the vendor who paid for the zip submit. They would forget about me, and go straight to the vendor. Then the vendor would be up a creek for deceptive advertising.

            That is why 301 Redirects are not allowed. The potential is that they could end up costing the network more money than it makes for it.
            Thank you for the informative reply. I guess the risk associated with 301s is in this case higher than the potential reward the networks/vendors stood to gain.

            While I do not see any clear risk to CPA networks/vendors at the moment from allowing autoblogs, there is still the possibility that Google might punish legitimate websites of vendors/networks if a lot of autoblogs are spamming their products. I know it seems like a longshot, but with Google's latest commitment to "cleaning up the Internet" you just can't know for certain.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228574].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    Google can't destroy a real business with one algo change.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228283].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by mosthost View Post

      Google can't destroy a real business with one algo change.

      Google doesn't actually have the power to destroy any business, UNLESS the webmaster is willing to play victim to the whims of Google.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228305].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by mosthost View Post

      Google can't destroy a real business with one algo change.
      If said business was foolish enough to base it's traffic strategy on Google search results, then yes one algorithm change can royally screw things up for them. Go through the archives and look at the threads from when Panda hit until now. A lot of people got screwed and were left with nowhere to turn.

      It's like TPW just said, Google only owns the "Google Jungle". This monopoly that people envision Google having is just in their head. The weird thing is that people will think and complain about this, and still try to optimize their websites to play the Google game. It blows my mind at least.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228309].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yoangov
    Work WITH G, not against them
    Signature

    I will run profitable ad campaigns for money.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228392].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author grandstar
    For me, I felt them in respect of my articles submitted to article directories. Brutal decline in clickthru rate.

    Moral is do not put all your eggs in one basket.

    If you are into article marketing, use article syndication for instance
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228477].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    If an autoblog site exists because of Google, but Google decides as a category such sites are generally garbage and not what hundreds of millions of 'regular folk' want, is it Google who destroyed your business?

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228591].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Law guy
      Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

      If an autoblog site exists because of Google, but Google decides as a category such sites are generally garbage and not what hundreds of millions of 'regular folk' want, is it Google who destroyed your business?

      .
      Yes, it is indeed Google. While in the case of autoblogs it is quite evident that they are detrimental to the overall experience of users on the Internet, where would you draw the line? Or, more importantly, where would Google draw the line?

      As mentioned earlier in the thread, Google deems sites that are solely intent on making money as spam. Is it really as black and white as that? What about sites whos main objective is to make money but that provide useful and unique content to their readers? According to Google they are still to be regarded as spam.

      The real crux of the matter is that we are all, in varying degrees, at the mercy of Google. They can destroy thousands of businesses overnight on a whim and not be held accountable.

      There needs to be accountability, and whether you like it or not - that calls for regulation of search engines. Independent third parties are needed that will audit each and every decision Google and other search engines make that stands to affect a significant amount of webmasters.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228710].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        Originally Posted by Law guy View Post


        There needs to be accountability, and whether you like it or not - that calls for regulation of search engines. Independent third parties are needed that will audit each and every decision Google and other search engines make that stands to affect a significant amount of webmasters.
        How does this work if you don't mind me asking?

        How can someone outside Google audit algorithm changes that Google keep very secret and not a lot of people can understand anyway? I'm not being rude or anything but how do you propose "someone" and who they even are, begin to regulate something like that?

        Google is a business, the natural search results are designed to make it as relevant as possible for the user, they are the customers, not the people that show up on page 1. Are you suggesting that because some people are totally reliant on rankings, Google should run anything it does past another third party? No one is at the mercy of Google unless they put themselves there.

        Why don't people just build their businesses so they're not reliant on any third party like Google and then we don't have to complicate the whole thing even more? Respectfully, anyone that is totally at Googles mercy should re-think their business model to include elements they have control over.
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228775].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Law guy
          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

          How does this work if you don't mind me asking?

          How can someone outside Google audit algorithm changes that Google keep very secret and not a lot of people can understand anyway? I'm not being rude or anything but how do you propose "someone" and who they even are, begin to regulate something like that?

          Google is a business, the natural search results are designed to make it as relevant as possible for the user, are you suggesting that because some people are totally reliant on rankings, Google should run anything it does past another third party?

          Why don't people just build their businesses so they're not reliant on any third party like Google and then we don't have to complicate the whole thing even more?
          Obviously, I can't tell you the details of how something like that would function, because I don't know and I'd rather leave that up to the people that would be tasked with it (if it ever comes to that).

          But as far as regulation goes, that would obviously need to be done on either national/international level or within the industry itself through their own agreement - which obviously will never happen as Google has no plans to subject themselves to that.

          Google may be a business, but they find themselves in a unique situation with very few, if any, similar real-life examples. So many businesses and business transactions happen within their domain that it wouldn't be inaccurate to view Google as a market in itself - one which is currently subjected to Google's own subjective decisions, which at times are even done out of pure self-interest.

          It's easy to make sweeping statements like "why don't people make businesses which are not reliant on Google" but when Google holds such an overwhelming "marketshare" of internet traffic, it is difficult, and for some businesses even unrealistic, to seek traffic elsewhere.

          If you do not see how all these factors, when considered as a whole, call for some form of regulation then you should perhaps take a look at some of the many other unregulated industries in recent history which ended up imploding in spectacular fashion.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228876].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

            It's easy to make sweeping statements like "why don't people make businesses which are not reliant on Google" but when Google holds such an overwhelming "marketshare" of internet traffic, it is difficult, and for some businesses even unrealistic, to seek traffic elsewhere.
            It is easy to make such a sweeping statement because despite what you think Google does not hold a monopoly on internet traffic. Do they hold a monopoly on search engine traffic? You're damn straight. Last I checked though, search engines were not the entire internet.

            Why is it unrealistic to seek traffic elsewhere? Are there ferocious dragons that slowly murder you unless you stay within the confines of Google? Odd, you would think that is something that people would talk about.

            Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

            If you do not see how all these factors, when considered as a whole, call for some form of regulation then you should perhaps take a look at some of the many other unregulated industries in recent history which ended up imploding in spectacular fashion.
            Have you watched all of the regulated industries in recent history that implode just as spectacularly? Doesn't matter if an unregulated idiot or a regulated idiot is doing something: they are still an idiot.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228948].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              There is life without Google. My sites have had record sales year after year, but have never ranked.
              Signature
              “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228990].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

            Google may be a business, but they find themselves in a unique situation with very few, if any, similar real-life examples. So many businesses and business transactions happen within their domain that it wouldn't be inaccurate to view Google as a market in itself - one which is currently subjected to Google's own subjective decisions, which at times are even done out of pure self-interest.
            I agree to some extent but the self interest is quite natural for any business.

            It's easy to make sweeping statements like "why don't people make businesses which are not reliant on Google" but when Google holds such an overwhelming "marketshare" of internet traffic, it is difficult, and for some businesses even unrealistic, to seek traffic elsewhere.
            It's easy to make sweeping statements like every search engine should be regulated.

            If you do not see how all these factors, when considered as a whole, call for some form of regulation then you should perhaps take a look at some of the many other unregulated industries in recent history which ended up imploding in spectacular fashion.
            Thanks, I will but I don't have time sadly. My point is simply a fact, no business should be reliant on Google rankings, that makes no business sense at all. Google is changing it's algorithm constantly, everyone knows there is an inherent danger so I wasn't making a sweeping statement, why build a business on sand that is prone to sink? Think about it - we have no regulation now, so why would build a business reliant on Google rankings? Saying that some people can only do that is nonsense, there are many ways to do it and perhaps one shouldn't be online if that's there only option.

            This, this, this and a thousand times this. A perfect take on the situation.
            I think that sums up your opinion. That is a blatantly anti Google article. I can see both sides, you are only prepared to see one.

            On that note I'll gracefully bow out of this discussion.
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228960].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

        As mentioned earlier in the thread, Google deems sites that are solely intent on making money as spam. Is it really as black and white as that?
        Perhaps not 100% (there are exceptions in almost any case); but it is pretty damn close. In the context of this argument, we are talking about autoblogs. Autoblogs who's sole intent is to bring in money skimps on quality more often than not.

        Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

        What about sites whos main objective is to make money but that provide useful and unique content to their readers? According to Google they are still to be regarded as spam.
        Where exactly did you read this? It doesn't sound like anything I have heard Google saying before. At the end of the day, it seems like they are just trying to ensure that their users aren't getting sent to some crap site full of poorly spun content and affiliate links. As a casual internet surfer as well, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

        Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

        The real crux of the matter is that we are all, in varying degrees, at the mercy of Google. They can destroy thousands of businesses overnight on a whim and not be held accountable.
        What they have the power to destroy is not really a business. Anyone foolish enough to put all of their eggs in one basket is not allowed to call what they have a business.

        Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

        There needs to be accountability, and whether you like it or not - that calls for regulation of search engines. Independent third parties are needed that will audit each and every decision Google and other search engines make that stands to affect a significant amount of webmasters.
        Er, it's their website. Why do they need to be accountable? People are just mad because it is screwing their money making sites over. Guess what? It's your own damn fault for relying on them in the first place. Google makes the algorithm changes that they do to ensure that their user base stays the same or continues to grow. That means outing autoblogs. Their website, their rules. Deal with it, diversify, and your business should be fine.

        Edit: Exactly what Richard just said above me. It's not that hard to grasp people :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228786].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

        The real crux of the matter is that we are all, in varying degrees, at the mercy of Google. They can destroy thousands of businesses overnight on a whim and not be held accountable.

        There needs to be accountability, and whether you like it or not - that calls for regulation of search engines. Independent third parties are needed that will audit each and every decision Google and other search engines make that stands to affect a significant amount of webmasters.

        You are only at the mercy of Google if you allow yourself to be.

        Google's search results are generated by its algorithm.

        If the government regulated the mathematical formula that Google uses to determine the results shown to us, it would be equal to Alta Vista tomorrow -- another fart in the wind.

        Search engine algorithm changes are not a zero-sum game. If they kicked out the top 1000 websites today, there would be another 1000 websites in their place tomorrow.

        Google is not killing everyone and leaving a vacuum in its place. They are killing one, to give to another.

        I just did a search for "make money online" in Google. There are 242,000,000 results for that search.

        If Google tossed its entire algorithm tonight, then tomorrow, there would be 1,000 losers, 1,000 winners, and 241,998,000 web pages whose webmasters are whining about how Google did not pick their pages.

        The key to success online is diversifying your traffic.

        Let me show you something real quick...

        In November of 2011, my main website served 38,406 unique visitors, who looked at 125,879 web pages. Google delivered 14,794 clicks to my site.

        If Google did not send me any traffic, I would still have had 111,085 page views from at least 23,612 people. (If some people who visited my website, after clicking the link in Google, looked at more than one page, then the unique visitor count of people who did not come from Google will be higher.)

        Now, Google sends me a significant amount of traffic, but I can survive Google blacklisting my site.

        I am not at the mercy of Google, and you should not be either, unless of course you want to be at Google's mercy...
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228845].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
        Banned
        As mentioned earlier in the thread, Google deems sites that are solely intent on making money as spam.
        And considering there was zero evidence provided to back up this claim by the OP, I'm guessing that "clandestine" document doesn't quite say that after all.

        Originally Posted by Law guy View Post


        There needs to be accountability, and whether you like it or not - that calls for regulation of search engines. Independent third parties are needed that will audit each and every decision Google and other search engines make that stands to affect a significant amount of webmasters.
        Yes yes, more regulations.....always the solution to everything. Because it's written clear as day in the Constitution that we are all entitled to make a living via Google.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229424].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

          And considering there was zero evidence provided to back up this claim by the OP, I'm guessing that "clandestine" document doesn't quite say that after all.



          Yes yes, more regulations.....always the solution to everything. Because it's written clear as day in the Constitution that we are all entitled to make a living via Google.

          Dude... I ran out of Thanks buttons again... So I had to reply to you instead...
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229445].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Harlan
          Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

          And considering there was zero evidence provided to back up this claim by the OP, I'm guessing that "clandestine" document doesn't quite say that after all.

          .
          Yep, I made it all up. Quoting from a document that was made available all over the web.
          Signature

          Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
          Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
          http://overnight-copy.com
          Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
          Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5232249].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

            And considering there was zero evidence provided to back up this claim by the OP, I'm guessing that "clandestine" document doesn't quite say that after all.
            Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

            Yep, I made it all up. Quoting from a document that was made available all over the web.

            I am pretty sure that he was not talking about you.

            I believed he was talking about the author of the article that you linked -- in this case Other Person, instead of Original Poster.
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5232426].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Harlan
              Originally Posted by tpw View Post

              I am pretty sure that he was not talking about you.

              I believed he was talking about the author of the article that you linked -- in this case Other Person, instead of Original Poster.
              Oh, OP doesn't mean OP. Except when it does.

              Got it. [wink]
              Signature

              Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
              Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
              http://overnight-copy.com
              Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
              Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5234223].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author tpw
                Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

                Oh, OP doesn't mean OP. Except when it does.

                Got it. [wink]

                OP can be interpreted as:
                • Other Post;
                • Other Poster;
                • Original Post;
                • Original Poster;
                • Other Person;
                • Original Person.

                Often, we have to read between the lines to get to see what the person was referring...

                Maybe you are so used to people kicking you around, that you expect everyone is kicking your around. :p
                Signature
                Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5234357].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author michaelcook2003
    Having a business model build on getting free traffic from SE was never a good idea. I always feared Google, and this made me a better marketer because I never relied on SE for bringing traffic to my sites. So, the answer is a resounding NO!, Google didn't destroy my business, it made it better.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228678].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rooze
    I think this is a fantastic read and sums up the point very well -

    "Google's real business is all about profiting from online information. Google is not a search company as most people assume. Google is in effect an information company, with search simply being a means to an end. The end being information by which the company sells keywords and advertising for profit.Google is not the best search engine on the planet but in reality, the only search engine on the planet. With an 80% plus reach, Google is now arguably a monopoly. It is no longer a case of, if you don't like Google go elsewhere. We are stuck in one solitary SEO playground which is steering us closer towards paid Google advertising and services with every algorithm update.
    Google doesn't just offer search, but advertising, keyword search and demographic services centered around this very information and businesses pay for access to the information.
    Google leeches off the work of others and produces nothing. That's right, nothing! The company's core business is about search and advertising, which relies on the content provided by other people and businesses online. Google just doesn't own the information from which it makes nearly all its enormous revenue. Google is the middleman of the information, which it takes for free at will.
    However, we are in turn subjected to very stringent rules as to how we can or cannot manipulate that very information, all to the sole benefit of Google's bottom line and to the slowly deteriorating benefit of online marketers. With some of the latest Google announcements seeming to suggest the slow and deliberate killing off of the SEO industry.
    Google's information stealing ways come without any asking permission. In one sense, people want their web sites to be found and for that information to be available to all for obvious reasons. But they are not ever compensated for something from which Google makes a insane amount of money. Well, not unless they pay for expertise SEO services or are forced to resort to blackhat techniques to get the upper hand.
    Google may pan out to be a dangerous monopoly in the long run. Being a monopoly isn't illegal in the United States, although in Europe it seemingly is so, and here Google is facing enormous problems, because of greater importance given to competitor complaints.
    We actually do think highly and admire Google for giving us such a magnificent platform for which we all work in. However, that does not mean we must abide by stringent rules designed to monopolize and increase revenues to our online detriment.
    Manipulating search results is only "unethical", "immoral" or "against guidelines" because Google says it is. Google is not the police and nothing more then a for-profit business, using our information to make mountains of money."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228820].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post


      We actually do think highly and admire Google for giving us such a magnificent platform for which we all work in. However, that does not mean we must abide by stringent rules designed to monopolize and increase revenues to our online detriment.
      Manipulating search results is only "unethical", "immoral" or "against guidelines" because Google says it is. Google is not the police and nothing more then a for-profit business, using our information to make mountains of money."
      Actually it sums up the point that those people basing their entire business on someone else's website are not sensible.

      Google is not the police and nothing more then a for-profit business, using our information to make mountains of money which we put on the web to get indexed in Google to do exactly what they do - make money
      Respectfully, many people are silly enough to base their entire business on this forum, when has it ever been brought up that we should regulate this forum? We don't because like Google, it doesn't belong to us and we shouldn't be reliant on it.

      Respectfully that article is very biased against Google. The following sums that point up nicely...

      Google leeches off the work of others and produces nothing. That's right, nothing!
      Sounds like someone whose business went down the plug hole because they were reliant on Google.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228870].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5228959].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WilsonJ
      It has not destroyed my business actually..My websites have been given quite a good page rank recently..But what I fear the most now is the fact that I am much more dependent on Google now..Too much dependence on Google is dangerous..If Google stops showing me on the chosen keywords then I'll be doomed.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5234541].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hotboy18
    Google cannot destroy your business alone because there are other powerful search engines such and Bing and Yahoo that gets tons of traffic. Social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter are other great options to choose from so you should not be all focused on Google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229013].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rooze
    Obviously there are some business models which lend themselves to being successful without the need for search traffic. But then there are many which depend on search traffic to reach their prospects, simply because that's where the bulk of them are....there's no other viable choice.

    I market, amongst other things, a very niche vitamin supplement. I can't convert general 'health' traffic even with a heavily informational website, I need to connect directly with people who are looking for my specific product. And the vast majority are using Google to find my specific product.
    Google is a bridge between customers and suppliers. It's a f@$king huge bridge and if I don't want to use it I need to paddle 300 miles down the river and find a little crossing to ferry people across the water one at a time.

    Google is the king in a game of chess. There are other search engines and other methods but they're just pawns in a game where Google is king.

    The problem with this particular king is that he keeps changing the rules of the game. And the new rules seem contrary to common logic, because we've always assumed that Google's objective is to provide quality search results to its users. We look at our website which offers unique and informative content and we look at some of the sites that rank higher than we do, who appear to offer very little, and we wonder why we're being unfairly treated? The problem is that our logic is plain wrong - the assumption that Google exists to provide quality search results is simply bad logic. Google exists as a business and functions to maximize its own profits.
    Its algorithm doesn't seem fair or consistent because we're looking at it from the wrong side of the fence.
    So yes, there are many small businesses being crippled at the hands of Google daily, and many larger businesses getting an ever growing slice of the pie. To call the small business owners naive or criticize them for not having diversified their traffic is just plain arrogant in my opinion. It's like someone fortunate to get one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic looking back at the drowning passengers and saying "well, you should've brought your own lifeboat".
    Flame away.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229076].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      To call the small business owners naive or criticize them for not having diversified their traffic is just plain arrogant in my opinion. It's like someone fortunate to get one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic looking back at the drowning passengers and saying "well, you should've brought your own lifeboat".
      Flame away.

      Yes, I have been called arrogant many times before now... Nothing new about that. :p

      But I am just a single marketer, who strives to get links from a wide-range of sources, including article marketing, forum marketing, blog comments, link directories, paid links, newsletter ads, solo ads, press releases, social media, free and paid reports, document sharing, etc.

      The only difference between me and you is I always strive to get links from a wide range of sources, and you wear your Google horse-blinders.

      In your described business model, I would advise a healthy dose of article marketing and/or newsletter ads, solo ads, free and paid reports, and document sharing. Yet, you can only see Google...

      I see only one thing limiting your potential, and that one thing is you.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229131].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rooze
        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        Yes, I have been called arrogant many times before now... Nothing new about that. :p

        But I am just a single marketer, who strives to get links from a wide-range of sources, including article marketing, forum marketing, blog comments, link directories, paid links, newsletter ads, solo ads, press releases, social media, free and paid reports, document sharing, etc.

        The only difference between me and you is I always strive to get links from a wide range of sources, and you wear your Google horse-blinders.

        In your described business model, I would advise a healthy dose of article marketing and/or newsletter ads and solo ads. Yet, you can only see Google...

        I see only one thing limiting your potential, and that one thing is you.
        That's quite funny Bill ....you think I had a pop at you so you tried to have a pop back at me

        From one post I make you assume you know everything about me.... and get it completely wrong.

        I've run a successful SEO and design company for 14 years, along with art galleries, retail stores, live music venues....and a very successful vitamin supplement business. I use ALL forms of marketing to promote my businesses, online, offline, articles, affiliates, etc etc and I'm doing OK with marketing thanks. But Google really is an issue with smaller businesses that don't have the options you and I have for diversity.

        Cheers for your concern and feedback.

        Rooze
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229177].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by rooze View Post

          From one post I make you assume you know everything about me.... and get it completely wrong.

          I made no such assumptions.

          I was commenting based on the very limited viewpoint you shared in your previous comment.


          Originally Posted by rooze View Post

          I market, amongst other things, a very niche vitamin supplement. I can't convert general 'health' traffic even with a heavily informational website, I need to connect directly with people who are looking for my specific product. And the vast majority are using Google to find my specific product.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229185].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Law guy
        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        Yes, I have been called arrogant many times before now... Nothing new about that. :p

        But I am just a single marketer, who strives to get links from a wide-range of sources, including article marketing, forum marketing, blog comments, link directories, paid links, newsletter ads, solo ads, press releases, social media, free and paid reports, document sharing, etc.

        The only difference between me and you is I always strive to get links from a wide range of sources, and you wear your Google horse-blinders.

        In your described business model, I would advise a healthy dose of article marketing and/or newsletter ads, solo ads, free and paid reports, and document sharing. Yet, you can only see Google...

        I see only one thing limiting your potential, and that one thing is you.
        You will be singing a different song when Google deems blog comments as spam and penalizes your website. Or when Panda arbitrarily decides the content on your site is not up to par to the extremely vague guidelines set out by Google. Take off the rose-coloured glasses.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229233].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

          You will be singing a different song when Google deems blog comments as spam and penalizes your website. Or when Panda arbitrarily decides the content on your site is not up to par to the extremely vague guidelines set out by Google. Take off the rose-coloured glasses.

          LOL

          Re-read what I said in post #45 and post #20.

          If Google doesn't like how I build links to my websites, they can kiss my rosy-red ass. :p



          p.s. I am a redneck, not a hippie.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229308].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            If Google doesn't like how I build links to my websites, they can kiss my rosy-red ass. :p
            It only looks rosy-red through them rose-colored glasses.
            Signature
            “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      The problem with this particular king is that he keeps changing the rules of the game.
      Their house, their rules. If it doesn't fit your business, that's tough luck but it is their website, and they do not need to pander to your whims. The world needs burger flippers.


      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      And the new rules seem contrary to common logic, because we've always assumed that Google's objective is to provide quality search results to its users. We look at our website which offers unique and informative content...
      DING DING DING! Here lies your problem. It is not contrary to common logic, just your logic. You believe that since you think it, everyone else must think the same way too. You are biased because you wrote the content, and surely you couldn't put out something that could possibly be misconstrued as less than excellent? Here's the problem though: there are now 7 billion people in the world now. Many of them think differently than you.


      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      The problem is that our logic is plain wrong - the assumption that Google exists to provide quality search results is simply bad logic. Google exists as a business and functions to maximize its own profits.
      Its algorithm doesn't seem fair or consistent because we're looking at it from the wrong side of the fence.
      You are entirely correct in stating that you are looking at things from the wrong side of the fence. Problem is you are thinking of the wrong fence entirely. You are thinking of things from the perspective of your business and what you perceive the quality of said business to be.

      Google does in fact strive to give quality search results; but they base their definition of quality on what their users say, not what some IMer thinks will get them the most money. On Google's part, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They have their own business to worry about that hinges on keeping their user base happy. Why on earth should they give a damn about you?




      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      So yes, there are many small businesses being crippled at the hands of Google daily, and many larger businesses getting an ever growing slice of the pie. To call the small business owners naive or criticize them for not having diversified their traffic is just plain arrogant in my opinion.
      Perhaps it is arrogant; but no one ever said that business would be like kindergarten where everyone had to play nice and get an equal share of everything.

      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      It's like someone fortunate to get one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic looking back at the drowning passengers and saying "well, you should've brought your own lifeboat".
      Flame away.
      Er...it's like that in a way but not really. No one made those passengers get on a boat and no one made an IMer use Google as the crux of their business. At the end of the day though, the sentiment still is "tough s**t".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229148].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rooze
        Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

        Their house, their rules. If it doesn't fit your business, that's tough luck but it is their website, and they do not need to pander to your whims. The world needs burger flippers.




        DING DING DING! Here lies your problem. It is not contrary to common logic, just your logic. You believe that since you think it, everyone else must think the same way too. You are biased because you wrote the content, and surely you couldn't put out something that could possibly be misconstrued as less than excellent? Here's the problem though: there are now 7 billion people in the world now. Many of them think differently than you.




        You are entirely correct in stating that you are looking at things from the wrong side of the fence. Problem is you are thinking of the wrong fence entirely. You are thinking of things from the perspective of your business and what you perceive the quality of said business to be.

        Google does in fact strive to give quality search results; but they base their definition of quality on what their users say, not what some IMer thinks will get them the most money. On Google's part, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They have their own business to worry about that hinges on keeping their user base happy. Why on earth should they give a damn about you?






        Perhaps it is arrogant; but no one ever said that business would be like kindergarten where everyone had to play nice and get an equal share of everything.



        Er...it's like that in a way but not really. No one made those passengers get on a boat and no one made an IMer use Google as the crux of their business. At the end of the day though, the sentiment still is "tough s**t".

        You really need to learn how to read first, then write later. If you re-read my post you'll see that you've just wasted your time trying to point out weaknesses in my comments, where they were saying exactly the opposite of what you've assumed you've read.

        I know why Google exists, I was saying some people do not.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229191].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by rooze View Post

          You really need to learn how to read first, then write later. If you re-read my post you'll see that you've just wasted your time trying to point out weaknesses in my comments, where they were saying exactly the opposite of what you've assumed you've read.

          I know why Google exists, I was saying some people do not.
          I re-read said post; and all of my opinions stand firm. Would you prefer I reread a third time?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229200].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rooze
            Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

            I re-read said post; and all of my opinions stand firm. Would you prefer I reread a third time?

            Yes, I really think you need to read it a third time. I'll try to make it easier for you by just referring you to this...

            You chose to quote this from me -

            And the new rules seem contrary to common logic, because we've always assumed that Google's objective is to provide quality search results to its users. We look at our website which offers unique and informative content...

            And you replied -

            DING DING DING! Here lies your problem. It is not contrary to common logic, just your logic. You believe that since you think it, everyone else must think the same way too. You are biased because you wrote the content, and surely you couldn't put out something that could possibly be misconstrued as less than excellent? Here's the problem though: there are now 7 billion people in the world now. Many of them think differently than you.

            Yet what you omitted in your quote from me was this part -

            "The problem is that our logic is plain wrong - the assumption that Google exists to provide quality search results is simply bad logic."

            So what you've said to me with your little 'DING DING DING comment just makes you look very foolish.

            So go ahead, have another go.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229290].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Law guy
        Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

        Google does in fact strive to give quality search results; but they base their definition of quality on what their users say, not what some IMer thinks will get them the most money. On Google's part, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They have their own business to worry about that hinges on keeping their user base happy. Why on earth should they give a damn about you?
        Really now? So when google buys a shopping comparison site and sticks its results in the SERPS above many other large websites, whos quality was not an issue prior to them acquiring their own shopping comparison site - that is a direct result of Google listening to wishes of its users? Get real.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229217].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

          Really now? So when google buys a shopping comparison site and sticks its results in the SERPS above many other large websites, whos quality was not an issue prior to them acquiring their own shopping comparison site - that is a direct result of Google listening to wishes of its users? Get real.
          How many users outside of Imers like yourself have you heard complaining? Let's face facts here and admit that it bothers you because you are the one that loses out in that situation. Google doesn't rule the world last I checked. If you aren't creative enough to get traffic from more places than just one search engine, your business deserves to die. Let Google do whatever the hell Google is gonna do.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229234].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Law guy
            Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post

            How many users outside of Imers like yourself have you heard complaining? Let's face facts here and admit that it bothers you because you are the one that loses out in that situation. Google doesn't rule the world last I checked. If you aren't creative enough to get traffic from more places than just one search engine, your business deserves to die. Let Google do whatever the hell Google is gonna do.
            So when an entity which enjoys a monopolistic position within a market - because it is itself the market - abuses its position and pushes competitors out of the way to make room for its own offers, it is ok as long as the end-users aren't negatively affected (which actually remains to be proven)? That is by far the most ridiculous thing I have heard throughout this discussion.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229595].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by Law guy View Post

              So when an entity which enjoys a monopolistic position within a market - because it is itself the market - abuses its position and pushes competitors out of the way to make room for its own offers, it is ok as long as the end-users aren't negatively affected (which actually remains to be proven)? That is by far the most ridiculous thing I have heard throughout this discussion.

              Google's search market share has dropped 10 points in the last year, and FaceBook serves more page views each month than Google does.

              Shouldn't we have slapped them on the way up, rather than to wait until they were on the way down?
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rooze
    Let me just clarify my first post so it's less confusing -

    Not all businesses have the same opportunity for diversification of traffic. For some, it's tough to get targeted traffic aside from Google, and it isn't always down to some 'weakness in marketing strategy'.

    Google can and does make its own rules to suit its own business and there's nothing we can do about it. There's no point whining about it being unfair, since we're not the ones deciding what is fair and what isn't, they are.

    I don't much care for it when people talk down to people who are struggling to make sense of the Internet, with all its quirks, I find it a tad arrogant.

    Thanks
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229239].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
    This isn't the norm....

    Usually when Harlan starts a thread there are arguments but not typically between fellow posters, usually it's with the posters and the OP
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229306].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

      This isn't the norm....

      Usually when Harlan starts a thread there are arguments but not typically between fellow posters, usually it's with the posters and the OP



      It is funny... I was thinking the same half way through page one.

      Usually, I spend my time poking at Harlan... And he at me...
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229330].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

      This isn't the norm....

      Usually when Harlan starts a thread there are arguments but not typically between fellow posters, usually it's with the posters and the OP
      People just love it when I do. ;-)
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5232240].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    Originally Posted by rooze View Post

    Let me just clarify my first post so it's less confusing -

    Not all businesses have the same opportunity for diversification of traffic. For some, it's tough to get targeted traffic aside from Google, and it isn't always down to some 'weakness in marketing strategy'.
    Nobody ever said business was easy. If it was, everyone would have one and we'd all be rich.

    Show me a "business" owner who believes that they absolutely cannot diversify outside of Google, and I will show you a very close minded person indeed.

    I doubt that there is a niche under the sun that can only bring in traffic from Google; but should you find one I would love to see it.

    Originally Posted by rooze View Post

    Google can and does make its own rules to suit its own business and there's nothing we can do about it. There's no point whining about it being unfair, since we're not the ones deciding what is fair and what isn't, they are.
    And yet the article that you posted to join this discussion was nothing more than someone whining about Google, so forgive me if I view you as whining about it as well. You were the one that posted it after all.


    Originally Posted by rooze View Post

    I don't much care for it when people talk down to people who are struggling to make sense of the Internet, with all its quirks, I find it a tad arrogant.
    I'll keep that in mind :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229340].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rooze
      Originally Posted by Joe128139 View Post


      Show me a "business" owner who believes that they absolutely cannot diversify outside of Google, and I will show you a very close minded person indeed.
      I love you Joe, really I do

      "Show me a "business" owner who believes that they absolutely cannot diversify outside of Google, and I will show you a very close minded person indeed"

      If I found such a person I'd have them flogged.

      Yes, my first post was something I'd received in an email from my cloaking provider, I thought it would be of interest given the OP. (OMG, did I just say 'cloaking' in a Google thread!!@)

      I'm glad we're all back on the same page

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ryanjm
    While I do think there is some hypocrisy in letting an e-commerce site pass, which exists solely to make money, and penalizing an affiliate site, you can easily pass these guidelines if you create good sites. Personally I like G because it allows me to make a ton of money doing something that is likely the most stress free job in the world. In return, all I have to do is create a high quality site that actually provides something of value to the visitors, and isn't just pimping a product.

    The only thing I take issue with is when they start to make their Ads and shopping results take up more and more of the front page. But if the user doesn't like what they are showing them, then they won't click there. Eventually people will just filter out those Ads from their mind just like they do with sidebar Ads and TV ads.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229372].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by ryanjm View Post

      The only thing I take issue with is when they start to make their Ads and shopping results take up more and more of the front page. But if the user doesn't like what they are showing them, then they won't click there. Eventually people will just filter out those Ads from their mind just like they do with sidebar Ads and TV ads.

      When you get a chance to talk to a non-IMer, ask them how many ads on Google are paid, and most will tell you none.

      My wife had no idea that Google had paid ads until I pointed it out to her.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229393].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author strive4impact
    I don't have auto-blogs at all. The vast majority of the content that I have produced over the last 12 years is unique and original content, either created by me or hired by me. However, this year, my traffic (on 30+ sites) is down by more than 65%. A couple of sites are up, but most sites are down.

    I feel like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater or the wheat that got tossed with the chaff.

    Guess I need to be growing better wheat... somehow. But my big decision of 2011 has been to create and promote my own products. I've enjoyed and done well promoting everyone else's stuff for the last 12 years, but it's time to focus on building products and branding.
    Signature

    Jonathan Kraft
    There are only three ways you can make money online.
    ThreeMoneyMethods.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229394].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5229778].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

      <yawn>

      Auto-blogs are a violation of Google's Webmaster Quality Guidelines and the "Document" being referred to is nothing new.

      The comment about sites that exist only to make money is a misnomer - it falls back to Google's long-term policy and ongoing battle with sites that intentionally try to skew SERPS through a variety of gray and black hat techniques, primarily for the purpose of profiting from those results.
      That's a fairly direct quote from the recent Google guide to their manual site review team.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5232256].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chrislangley
    Google has always wanted sites that adds value to the net, but with everybody in it to make money, some people get caught in the cross fire
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5233200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dark witness
    well one of my very first websites which was an auto blog is still in the first position for it's keyword.

    It's been there for about 2 years now. It has out ranked some very high authority medical related sites and it's out ranked Wiki as well.

    It only dropped it's position once or twice when we actually had to move it to a new server. The income from the site is only through adsense and that's it.

    A lot of the linking to it has been from web2.0 and directories. The number of competing pages (not that it really means much) is 12.1 million just to give you an idea.

    I have not done much with Autoblogs lately but the ones I do have are still ranking and they have not been touched for a long time.

    Make of it what you will, who can fathom the mind of the big G?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5233634].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by dark witness View Post

      well one of my very first websites which was an auto blog is still in the first position for it's keyword.

      It's been there for about 2 years now. It has out ranked some very high authority medical related sites and it's out ranked Wiki as well.

      It only dropped it's position once or twice when we actually had to move it to a new server. The income from the site is only through adsense and that's it.

      A lot of the linking to it has been from web2.0 and directories. The number of competing pages (not that it really means much) is 12.1 million just to give you an idea.

      I have not done much with Autoblogs lately but the ones I do have are still ranking and they have not been touched for a long time.

      Make of it what you will, who can fathom the mind of the big G?
      Can you share how long the keyword phrase that you are ranking for is?
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5234235].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jacksonlin
    Google sucks, but if I intend to make money from Google I better play along with their rules.
    Signature
    Want a 13 Part FREE Internet Marketing Course - Taught By A PREMIER CLICKBANK SUPPER AFFILIATE? Did I mention taught through VIDEOS?
    Yup, I'm not hyping things up for you. Click here to check it out!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5233736].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5234238].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kauzmo
        The document referred to by the OP does exists but it is being misinterpreted BIG TIME. This starts with the statement about website that are only "designed to make money."

        The missing key to this puzzle was mentioned early on in this thread but almost completely ignored. What Google actually said was that site that are obviously designed to make money (particularly adesense) and provide no real value for the visitor are to be considered spam sites.

        The problem with this for most people is the definition of value as Google sees it.

        Here are a few questions to ask yourself (honestly) to see if your site provides any value:

        • Is the user getting what they expect in relation to the search terms used to find the site?
        • Is the content useful?
        • Does the content add to the topic or is it a mere re-hash of some other content?
        • Is the site easy to use (navigation)?
        • Is the content easy to read?
        • Would your grandmother get what she is expecting if she visits the site?
        • Would she feel comfortable providing credit card information there?
        The argument here (from Google's end) is not about sites that are making money. It is about those garbage sites that provide no VALUE to the users of Google's product - its search engine.

        <bad analogy>
        Imagine you went to a new dentist. On your first visit for a cleaning he/she spends the entire time selling you reconstructive oral surgery. At the end of the visit you never get your cleaning, would you refer other patients there? Especially if those other people only needed cleanings like you?
        </bad analogy>

        This is what the document it question is talking about. Somewhere along the line that message got lost.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5234501].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trytolearnmore
    I see Google as Sharon Stone's character in Basic Instinct: one day it can bring a big smile on your face (you know what i mean ), the next - it can stab you in the back.

    That's why i've quit SEO, and started focusing on other stuff.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5233800].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by trytolearnmore View Post

      I see Google as Sharon Stone's character in Basic Instinct: one day it can bring a big smile on your face (you know what i mean ), the next - it can stab you in the back.

      That's why i've quit SEO, and started focusing on other stuff.

      Do you mean that when I watch a Google video, I should occasionally try to hit the pause button at the perfect time, so that I can see more than I anticipated seeing?
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5233857].message }}
  • Guys, Google is not a governmental service. It's a publicly traded company and both their website and their algorithm are their property, and they are entitled to modify it as they deem appropriate. If you use their services, you're bound to their policies.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5233888].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
    you do realise despite googles dominance among search engines, that search engine traffic only amounts to 3% of the total traffic sources online?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5235266].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

      you do realise despite googles dominance among search engines, that search engine traffic only amounts to 3% of the total traffic sources online?
      ...and you sir, get the cookie.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5235321].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

      you do realise despite googles dominance among search engines, that search engine traffic only amounts to 3% of the total traffic sources online?
      Not sure where you got that stat from Robert but I'm well aware from reading your posts here you most certainly wouldn't have made it up. It is absolute proof in the pudding that those people that rely on Google rankings not only don't have a business but they have every opportunity to create their business so they don't have to rely on it anyway.

      I only wish I had that stat in this thread yesterday, if I had, my fingers would be longer and less worn out today.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5235347].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jficarro
      Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

      you do realise despite googles dominance among search engines, that search engine traffic only amounts to 3% of the total traffic sources online?
      That's a bold (and freaky for those of us obsessed with our search engine placement) statement.

      But, in my experience - if I am on page one (for the right keyword), I make lots of money, if I am not, I make much less.

      Aside from social media and sites that have a dedicated following and dynamic content, it seems most other sources originate from a search. i.e. someone searches for a term and gets directed to an article or video - then clicks on my site.

      What am I missing?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5236880].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sloanjim
    i hear G is rolling out c.p.l. and c.p.a. soon? True?
    Signature

    15 Minute Forex Bar Trading System Free at
    http://www.fxscalpingmethod.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5235944].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5238549].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dms321
    Some of my autoblogs went down in rankings, but not all... So I guess Panda is working... for Google.

    Apparently they are going to keep this trend for better "user experience".
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5239163].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
    I Have an autoblog, 5000 pages of duplicate content that ranked number 1 in google. It was an android site. The panda hit it and fell 7 places but bounced back up to 5th position.

    The funny thing with this site is it has a bounce rate of 10%, can you believe it? and the average time on the site is over 2.50 minutes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5248234].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Kilcoyne
    Great Tips and reports. John.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5248300].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    Has no one here considered that an autoblog could actually provide value to the visitor?

    I suppose when most people picture an autoblog, they have visions of a crappy design loaded with ads that posts awful scraped and spun articles that are gibberish.

    But what if you wanted to make a blog on dog's (or whatever) that offered the latest information, articles, videos and products?

    What if you targeted it towards local users in your area? Or maybe towards a particular dog breed?

    What if you presented it in a magazine style format that looked professional?

    What if it included feeds from eventful that had the latest local dog events?

    What if it also included a section with funny dog videos (everyone loves those, right)?

    What if it also included good articles (not spun) from guest bloggers… err… I mean from article directories (which also included the resource box of course)

    What if it also included the latest dog news from news feeds?

    What if that was all presented beautifully formatted in a magazine style format so it looked nice?

    Would that blog have value even though all the information could found elsewhere?

    Wouldn't there be value in compiling all this information in one easy to access spot so that the visitor doesn't have to go to several different sites to get this information?

    Don't we always talk about how valuable our info products (which simply compile a bunch of information that can be found elsewhere into an easy to digest format) are?

    Why wouldn't that be valuable for a website too?

    Lee
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5248314].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5254627].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

        It's one of the reasons why I don't share my ideas and methods for generating organic traffic anymore. The more widely they're used, the more likely that Google will find a problem with them and shut them down.

        Any system that can be abused will be abused by thousands of marketers who think that nothing is more important than their bottom line.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5255279].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author cashcow
        Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

        It's not what we think, but rather what Google thinks in this case. And unfortunately Lee, I doubt few marketers use autoblogs with any concern about their visitors, other that making money from them. If that weren't the case, Google would otherwise embrace the concept.
        Yes, good point, in my geekiness I was busy thinking how one could put together a cool autoblog that also had value to visitors and I completely forgot how people are so shortsighted.


        Originally Posted by tpw

        Any system that can be abused will be abused by thousands of marketers who think that nothing is more important than their bottom line.
        It's too bad that as a whole we cut off our nose to spite our face a lot of the times.
        Signature
        Gone Fishing
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5255489].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author philiptrav
    Google killed off nearly all of my sites over the last 5 or so years, one I lost with Panda earlier this year was making over 10k a month average 7k for 5 years. people can say ph but you should not rely on google well there is no other proper competition to google so that is not possible for my traffic. Also I don't agree that google take from me and give to another, it is more like google take from me and give more to themselves or to one of their filthy bed partners like Groupon or retailmenot. Have a look at many searches are now spammed by Groupon at the top with paid ads disguised at real listings. Google is a money machine that is only getting bigger and bigger. I predict in 10 years time there will be very few competitors in many markets as Google will own many many markets. They have abused their position as the main search engine to take all off these other markets over yet they spit the dummy with little Joe blog affiliates want to pay their rent. They are a disgusting disease as far as I'm concerned, Google is EVIL, EVIL EVIL EVIL......
    Signature
    How to manage your finances: Credit Relief, Money help, grow your wealth and become rich with little effort with Wealth Tips.
    Hostgator 25% off coupon: 25OFF11111
    Hostgator 1 Cent Hosting coupon: 1CHOST2013
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5254379].message }}

Trending Topics