Google is cr@p, its ranking algorithm is A JOKE, Google should be scrapped...

by 33 replies
39
I know, i know, the headline is a little sensational, but here is the deal:

I stand 100% behind this statement, and i can tell you why:

*) Do you believe that Google ranking is solely determined by "authority" of a site and the quality of its content? (Google makes you want to believe this since their ranking algorithm is supposedly so great to give preference to quality content and authority sites.)

We all know that this is not true - not in the slightest!

Google rankings is not determined by how well and competent your site covers a topic.

It's determined by stupid things like number of backlinks or even syntactical structure of your site/page (like H1 tags, titles and so forth, amongst other things).

Do you seriously believe that whatever weight loss/viagra site is on page #1 in Google right now earned its position by providing quality content?

No!

They (this includes us webmasters and SEOs too, i won't deny it!) got their rankings because they have immense budgets for doing SEO or hiring SEO specialists. THIS is why they got their rankings.

That random "made for adsense site" on page #1 in Google got their rankings because it has 15.000 backlinks.

Do you believe that those 15.000 backlinks for some crap MFA site #1 on Google came naturally?

Of course not. But obviously Google is still in the stone ages, or how would you explain this otherwise?

We can list countless competitive niches, weight loss, marketing, sales, whatever product name, YOU NAME IT.

The point is, the sites you see dominating the search engines in MANY (most?) niches get their position from SEO.

And SEO exists solely because Google's algorithms are so "easy" to be fooled it's possible to get ANY site (be it as crappy as you can imagine) to the top - the ONLY hurdle would be how much you can spend on SEO.

What about a $10.000 monthly budget for getting some competent link builders? Dont you think that 10 Grand would help YOUR site to get very high in the rankings, regardless of your niche? They must be really crappy SEOs if they wouldn't be able to do this.

Because the little webmaster already can do A LOT with a few simple programs and some time - now imagine what big companies do.

As interesting and challenging it is to be able to rank a site for a keyword (because i am a webmaster/SEO too) - as ABSURD is it at the same time.

Because i know...my competitors do the same thing!

There is nothing in the slightest "natural" going on on, it's basically a race of webmasters competing for positions for keywords: The one with the most links and the best SEO work is the one who wins!

Not the one with the best site, not the one with the most competent insight in regards to a subject.

Go on Google and do some random searches about "[PRODUCTNAME] Review". (Very funny especially in the internet marketing niche where we can assume that the majority of webmasters KNOW some tricks)

You will get a heap of garbage, pseudo sites which provide ZERO content whatsoever.

How many "real" reviews for whatever IM product can you find on Google page #1? Probably none. Because Google can't differ the crap from the good sites

Makes you wonder how many "good" sites about whatever topic are actually burried way, way behind in Google and never get traffic. Because the poor fools have no idea about SEO..and the slick ones are the ones dominating and getting all the traffic.

And now tell me that Google does NOT suck and their concept of counting backlinks and "evaluating" and ranking sites is all great.

Because it's not, not at all. It's pure garbage as long as it can be manipulated and as long as a monthly SEO budget (or number of Xrumer blasts) can be a big deciding factor for a site's ranking!

Do i only rant without a solution? Maybe.

But in my opinion, Google would have a lot to do, possibly starting with de-valuing each and ANY backlink (as a start). A backlink shouldnt count anymore, AT ALL.

Ironically, with that crazy concept of "big number of backlinks is good" Google made concepts like SPAM (links) possible in the first place. And now they are complaining that it exists...

If they would come up with other ways of ranking and completely eliminate backlinks as a factor, this would also mean that link SPAM would ultimately disappear, just as a nice side effect.
#search engine optimization #algorithm #cr@p #google #joke #ranking #scrapped
  • Interesting analysis. For the most part I agree.
    • [1] reply
    • Google is no more perfect than yahoo-now-bing.
      My money stays with google. They have proven that they
      are a cut above the rest.

      Yeah google sucks. Money and competitors. Like a vacuum cleaner.

      You assume the real world searches like some of the people here.
      They don't. The real world does real world searches and gets
      real world results. And the real world has spoken. Google is king
      of the search. We cannot judge search results by joe blow
      getting his lame "wii fit with wireless boxing gloves review" #1.
      Too many times we focus on narrow, niche, and downright weird
      and tricky searches.

      Case in point: Right now one of the popular searches is oscar
      nominations. You won't find any lame-@$$ micro niche sites in
      the top bunch.

      Paul
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • tl;dr

    I see your rant posts everywhere... all the time. If Google is crap - don't use it. Can't do SEO - do something else.

    What is the point of your post?

    P.S. Google does not suck. Hey, it's an opinion - I can haz one too.

    Have a lovely evening mate!
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I don't disagree with the majority of it. Unfortunately, as long as 65%+ of search traffic continues from there, it will stay that way. I do disagree with your budget. I beat out banks and insurance companies in .ca for the words life insurance, for less than $15 a month...just takes work, time, and knowledge.
  • Banned
    LMAO!! at OPs

    All that complaining & your selling the same $hit in your sig, that you are ranting about, lol. :rolleyes:
  • For the most part, I agree. On the other hand, I don't see how they could come up with a formula solely based on how good your content is, I mean, formulas can't actually read.
  • Why they include backlinks at all in their algorithm is beyond me as they're literally asking for lots of spammy results cluttering up their search engine.
  • Without backlinks there is no such thing as a web and there is no indication of relationships of sites to another. (?). And this is what the google algorithm in its core is based on. Could google evaluate and rank sites WITHOUT taking into consideration how sites are "related" to each other, without backlinks?
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Somebody is a sore loser, lol. What do you need Google for anyway? The offer in your sig delivers 6,000 visitors a day. That's more than enough to make you a millionaire.
  • Do you use Google to find things you are looking for, on the web?

    If so, why?
  • Google is the best one. But it sucks because it hinders our SEO attempts. Yahoo sucks even more as it does not count profile backlinks significantly.
  • Ok guys, here is "the point":

    As an internet marketer and webmaster, i see myself spending more time doing SEO as compared to actual web design, product creation or content writing for the web.

    And i am sure that some/many of you are in the same boat!

    But this is an absurd situation - KNOWING that you could have "the best" article, web site, whatsoever...but simply would not be able to compete without extensive SEO.

    25% web work - 75% SEO work because i want people to find my web site?

    And there is no way around it since your competitors can be tough, they do the same thing and probably more. Do you want the OTHERS rank for some keyword or your own site? If your own site doesnt rank - what's the point in making it?

    Fraggler,

    we all know the answer..but this doesnt mean that their deciding factors are sound. There is manipulation going on...and the results ARE distorted. You know that, every SEO knows that.

    BHC..no i am not a loser. I am actually playing the game, but i don't like it. I would rather dedicate ALL my work to product creation, writing, design, whatever, instead of that stupid ranking game for backlinks. But i am "forced" to play the game.
    • [1] reply
    • I see your point, but surely your situation is analogous to any business. A good product is not an automatic customer magnet. Such is life.

      Many, many companies have had the shiniest product, the glossiest brochures, the cleverest design - but failed at the key and toughest part of any business : getting customers through the door to browse your wares.

      SEO = getting customers = a tough job for any business.

      Except that (aside from a fat adwords budget), SEO is one of the easier ways to get customers.

      I count myself lucky that I'm doing SEO and not cold calling, that's for sure. The glass is half full.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Yes, but the algorithm is as efficient as they can make it to cover the entire playing field. Just because you have the prettiest, fanciest site with well-written content and lots of big words, doesn't mean your site is the most relevant to the user's search. That's what Google attempts to provide - relevancy. Not necessarily the highest quality, but the most relevant, and in terms of relevancy I'd say they do a pretty good job. It can't be helped that the 'crappy' niche sites on page 1 have dont more SEO than the fancier sites targeting the same keyword.
    • [1] reply
    • But google decides relevancy also (and mainly, i think) by how many (and how authoritative) sites link to whatever sites.

      On-page content and its analysis will play a role too in determining relevancy - but at the end it will be the in-links which give you the ranking.

      Make a site about weight loss, get your on-page relevancy via unique articles. A 12 year old can do it. The rest is hiring some guys for $150 a month. Give it 12 months, you might be on top of Google.

      And even the "relevant" links from other, authoritative ("high PR") related sites...we know that MANY are either bought, or traded, or coming from blog networks and so on. Again: Manipulation left and right. The $150/month you spend on your guys in Bangladesh WILL give you relevancy for sure. It's just a matter of time.
  • While I agree with what you're saying, we're not going to change it. You can start optimizing for Yahoo/Bing but then you're severely limiting your potential visitors. Google is obviously the most used search engine. We play by their rules (or rather break them in "acceptable" ways) or we don't get their visitors.
  • Agreed, run with the big dogs in google and fight or get off the porch. You cant fight the beast , just play along dude!!!!!!!
  • There is manipulation but it is no where near as bad as the older search engines. They are continually improving the system and removing significant loop holes but they have to be careful they don't punish sites that don't deserve it.

    Where I want a result as a general user and not an internet marketer I usually get what I want in the first page. The click through results of the top 10 shows that for the majority of people they find the result they want in the top 2 or 3 results, very rarely having to go past the first page.

    There is no way to peer review every article on the web, it has to be done automatically. Backlinks are a great way to measure authority. Google just has to make sure they reward the right kind of backlinks. (Many people avoid directory sites, guestbooks, old school bulletin boards and calanders these days because Google stopped the linking power of these formats. Expect the same for other abused methods too - it is only a matter of time.)

    If a user wants to get a trusted source for their info then they head to a reputable related site and get their info from them. If you are struggling with Google then perhaps your content is better off with these reputable sites.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I don't see why Viagra is so harshly looked upon. It has served a number of our fellow men well. If you get to the top for that, then you surely deserve it.

    However, I do agree.....they are a joke... some parts of the algorithm
    Who's gonna beat it?

    Also agree with George on the "wares" side and also nice input from LiamP on the "SEO" side.
    To get both honed down finely is surely THE match made in heaven?
    • [1] reply
    • Then do something else? It's completely up to you what you spend your time on. But, I find it kind of "rich" that someone such as yourself would be such a debbie downer when it comes to gaming the system, and how Google doesn't give credit to "good sites" when you promote a product that people use to throw up what most would consider crappy sites.

      Nope, I got ten fingers, and ten buttons to push

      That's not really true. If you create something that is exceptional and other people think it is exceptional and link to it, you will typically beat someone out that is manufacturing their ranking, at least in my opinion. The rankings for keywords like "make money online" and a few others kind of validate that, from the stand point that most of their incoming links are from people who naturally linked to them.

      The problem is that what most people consider exceptional doesn't match up with what the general public thinks is both useful and exceptional, so there is no viral componant most of the time.

      To some extent that's always been the way it is, at least for as long as I've been online. The only thing different now is that the element that most people are focusing on is backlinking. In the past it was keyword stuffing or doing crazy things with your meta tags, etc...

      That is really only true if you choose to focus on Search Engine traffic. In some niches, you gotta look at them and say the hell with this build it and wait stuff...build it and buy traffic. It's obvious from your posts that you don't like SEO - the way it's done, the tools that are used, or the philosophy behind it...why play the game if you don't like it?



      Their is manipulation is just about every single aspect of marketing. From SEO to social proof to actual results. At the end of the day, there is going to be some sort of deciding factor that determines who is on the top of the pile, if it's not SEO and backlinks, it will be something else. Once people figure out what it is, the manipulation will start again. Google knows that manipulation happens, but all things being equal content and site wise, their bot doesn't have the intelligence to differentiate between natural and manufactured links, and they dont' have the man power to rank sites "by hand".

      We all have a choice.There are tons of other traffic options that you can use so that you never have to do even an ounce of SEO.

      Adwords
      CPV
      PPV
      Facebook
      Banners
      JV's
      etc
      etc
      etc

      In the end, you're only in the "rat race" if you choose to be in it, we all have choices and alternatives.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • This is the crux:

    "If you create something that is exceptional and other people think it is exceptional and link to it, you will typically beat someone out that is manufacturing their ranking"

    And Kelsall is the nuts!
  • If it sucks dont use it then. Instead, why dont you come up with a better search engine and an algo. which is not based on "Stupid Links Game" ? I bet your business runs and you earn money just because of "Google is cr@p, it's ranking algorithm is A JOKE" ehhh??
  • The problem is that the links that occur most naturally are the ones discounted from the search engines or low value: forum links, tumblr/blogger blogs, yahoo answers.

    Google counts a link from a new C-class ip and won't count a link from a different user on a forum.
  • Google is easy to play with if you are more clever than google but if some newbie gone with one time Xrumer blast, then his site will die in just a matter of minutes.
  • Don't agree with much of this statement. I have some humble blogs that were born 3 years ago that have nothing but one or two good quality posts written a week for their lives.

    One in particular is still only a low PR 1 but has over 5000 uniques day. It ranks on the first page of Google for 3 keywords now where the competing page count is over 175,000,000.

    I have NEVER ever tried to create an artificial link to the domain. No so-called SEO work at all - JUST content. Some posts are over 7000 words, and some only 100 words. The content is good, but not THAT good. It's OK I would say, but Google sees over 350 articles of purely original content and a steady and slow growth.

    Google works just fine, but it favors domains that have serious chunks of original, or "original looking" content flowing on them.

    I AGREE that there is spam on their results, and I have had many spam sites beat me out for lucrative keywords.....guess what? They ALL die a horrible death, or find themselves on page 113.

    Steady patience and a love for bouncing your fingers on the keyboard will always spell success.

    And then there are the "fun" domains where we experiment and "play" with their algo. Autoblogging, etc. So far they still work for making cash, and they are FUN too when you learn to dance with Google.

    I believe that success online only comes to those who learn to love writing, and/or manipulating content to your advantage.

    I just don't see how someone with over 4500 post on this forum would be so busy and yet seem so jaded. Is this from years of frustration? Really, I don't mean this in a mean way. I mean this as a dead pan question.

    Oh, and just watch bounce rate become a bigger and bigger influence.

    I believe the irony we are all going to witness is watching Larry Page take over and slowly move their algo a little bit further away from judging web properties based so heavily on links.
  • It's definitely not a perfect algorithm but technology far more superior to bing and yahoo...The key to SEO is not a quick fix or quick work..Its a lot of work as most know it. But if you look at those sites that took the time to leverage 100,000's of pages and get all unique and high quality content out there, Google will definitely boost you higher considering you have done all the onsite properly and at the same time some offsite...So dominating rankings can be done with smaller budgets too without all the payments in the back links...With any business you need some capital to invest and expand..online business is no different..
  • I do not agree with you..I have ruined my sites ranking by massive blog commenting..The site i have been doing blog commenting for using screpebox was a disaster..I came on the second page instead going getting a better ranking..this was the first time i was trying to use a blackhat software and i was unaware of the results..My other site which a have a strong base of article marketing i doing very well..infact i am very musc satisfied with it..try writing good articles (content)..

    Also on the part where you said about the meta tags (title, description), you should know that there are thousands of sites coming up everyday..its important for google to sort the best out of the lot..thats the reason they have given it so much of importance..If you were a webmaster in 2003 this would have been a different case..
    • [2] replies
    • Hi GeorgR,

      Have you ever heard the expression: "one man's junk is another man's treasure"

      Based on your post, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google works, particularly how they rank pages in their index.

      First, let me say they do not index and rank websites, they index individual pages. At least some of your misunderstanding seems to stem from a failure to recognize this fact.

      Secondly, they do not attempt to judge the quality of the content, instead they attempt to recognize the relevance and usefulness of the information based on user behavior. If you assume that Google is acting like a judge at a county fair, judging the quality of a homemade pie or something of that sort, you completely misunderstand Google's purpose. Google tries to help you find the information you are looking for no matter how poor or good the quality might be judged by an individual. "One man's junk is another man's treasure."

      Many of the things that you mention as having nothing to do with content quality are valid signals of relevance. Furthermore, the quality of the content often has no bearing on the usefulness of the content. Google's focus is on relevant usefulness, quality as many define it is completely ignored. This is not to say that they ignore all signals of quality, just those that don't apply to relevancy and relative usefulness.

      You may view Google as "junk" while many others will see it as a "treasure". One thing for sure is that I can use it to find both "treasure" and "junk" if it might be relevant to my search. The Google I know is superior to all others in this regard.
    • I dont think that syntactical page elements should play a role AT ALL. If you watch a movie - do you judge the movie based on how your TELEVISION SET looks like?
  • Too bad. 90% of us rely on Google and their "crappy" algorithm to get ahead in this IM game. So if you can't go through the wall, go around it.
  • This is stupid, I didn't even read it whole. There are like 100,000,000 sites on the internet, you think google should try to hire a bunch of people to read content carefully in all of them, check for mistakes and make sure information is authentic? Of course not, this is stupid.

    In case you provide really good content people will find you by word of mouth, not by google.

    Imagine, without backlinks, first pages of different kw's would be fulfilled with nearly exact pages like "weight loss for men - how a fatty lost blah blah... weight loss for men".

    I'm glad google has backlink algorithm because of two reasons:
    1) It provides quality content for people (naturally, or even if it was blasted through xrumer, to sell something a guy would still have to write something decent to be perceived as an expert and get a sale (I've never seen a pitchy marketer's site like "BUY THIS OR DIE" ranking... Anywhere)).
    2) Because of reason number one people are not furious at search engines and use them happilly without getting spammed by "buy this, buy this, because I'm a retard which knows how to write correct title, description and metatags so I could rank for this keyword"

    Machine can't (and probably won't) separate good content from bad so what would other factor be? Hiring tenths of thousands of slaves each day that would read every site out there and sort it out whether its good or bad? Whether it tries to sell something? Whether it has tracking cookie in code and on and on?

    Yes, keyword like "[product name] review" will never throw anything you wanted. People should understand how to outrun this by simply adding one word like "[product name] review FORUM" (seriously, only honest reviews are in forums - social sites where people are actually interested in niche), but I guess I've typed about 50,000 keywords in Big G and about 90% I was satisfied with the results so, IMO, it is doing a pretty good job (and it improves everyday with the help of monstrous, well earned salary it gets).

    Don't get greedy - google feeds so many people, also, it gives user what he wanted most of the time. Nothing is perfect, and google is no exception, also, will probably never be, be glad with what you get.
    • [1] reply
    • "Google rankings is not determined by how well and competent your site covers a topic."


      I realize I got into a HIGHLY competitive keyword/niche but that doesn't matter to me because I can overcome many things. What I don't understand, WHAT I CAN'T COMPREHEND...are the sites that not only out rank me but blow me out of the water. And why does that disturb me?

      Because they have no, ZERO, content. It appears to be based on PR which then appears to be based on age of site AND backlinks. What kind of crap is that?

      Here's an example in Miami. The keywords used by the developer are: "Miami Roofing Company, Miami Roofer, Miami Roofing"

      I searched for "Miami roofing company" (companies doesn't rank for him well). But with the searched for term miamiroofingcompany.org comes up #2 on Page 1 of google. Now he has a PR of 0 but has 1,000 backlinks of bogus garbage.

      Google sucks.
      • [1] reply
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed