The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances • Hacker News Board

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#21

Post by WalterGR » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:28 AM UTC

ez77 wrote: post #17

patio11 wrote: post #9

Some combination of: 1) Panda, which redirected hundreds of millions in revenue from some content farms to other parties (including, likely, the ether) which do not show up on Google's books 2) Google is being increasingly aggressive about monetizing the Google SERPS. More ads in more places with more prominent billing. Other sites on the Internet have not been aggressively up-monetizing principally because they have…

What is Panda?

Changes that Google made, designed to reduce the number of "low quality links" in search results, such as those to content farms. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-qua...

Rather than being an algorithm change, it seems to be a process that Google runs only occasionally, which labels entire sites (rather than individual pages) as low quality. Sites with that label are penalized in search results.

It affected many sites, including those that aren't content farms (mine included,) in what many webmasters believe is collateral damage.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#22

Post by andybak » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:30 AM UTC

WalterGR wrote: post #21

ez77 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is Panda?

Changes that Google made, designed to reduce the number of "low quality links" in search results, such as those to content farms. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-qua... Rather than being an algorithm change, it seems to be a process that Google runs only occasionally, which labels entire sites (rather than individual pages) as low quality. Sites with that label are penalized in search results…

I've found many of the claims of collateral damage to be from sites that I don't honestly feel were adding much value to our lives, even if they weren't strictly content farms.

I'd be interested to hear your specific story?

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#23

Post by WalterGR » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:36 AM UTC

andybak wrote: post #22

WalterGR wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changes that Google made, designed to reduce the number of "low quality links" in search results, such as those to content farms. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-qua... Rather than being an algorithm change, it seems to be a process that Google runs only occasionally, which labels entire sites (rather than individual pages) as low quality. Sites with that label are penalized in search results…

I've found many of the claims of collateral damage to be from sites that I don't honestly feel were adding much value to our lives, even if they weren't strictly content farms. I'd be interested to hear your specific story?

My site that was penalized is The Online Slang Dictionary. http://onlineslangdictionary.com/ It's the oldest slang dictionary on the web and had the only freely accessible slang thesaurus on the web until about a month ago. In contrast to other slang dictionaries, The Online Slang Dictionary is only for legitimate slang words.

I've never used any black-hat or even slightly questionable SEO techniques or means to publicize the site. It started being penalized April 11, which is the launch date of what (IIRC) is being called "Panda 2.0". I've made many changes in hopes of fixing whatever it is that's causing Google to decide that the site is low quality, but haven't seen any improvement in ranking since then. A (now outdated) list of those changes is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2664346 .

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#24

Post by happybuy » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:38 AM UTC

Isn't it true that Google doesn't actually tell advertisers what % of the per click advertising revenue they are paid?

Its amazing that after all these years we have learnt to accept this black box and trust Google is somehow paying advertisers a constant percentage.

It's likely Google wanted a bit more revenue for this quarter so decided to pay advertisers slightly less of the cut. Wouldn't surprise me if this becomes more commonplace in the future as Google keeps being tempted to improve their profits.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#25

Post by jeswin » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:43 AM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #12

Maybe they were simply better than their partners. Is it really a mystery?

Nope. Massive mystery. :)

Every time I see such titles on HN, I worry a little. We should down-vote such links; I have seen way too many sites become infested with trolls and link-baits, and such titles hitting front page is just what gets them excited.

No offence to the poster. But maybe we should all summarize things objectively.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#26

Post by xiaoqmaku » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:53 AM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #9

Some combination of: 1) Panda, which redirected hundreds of millions in revenue from some content farms to other parties (including, likely, the ether) which do not show up on Google's books 2) Google is being increasingly aggressive about monetizing the Google SERPS. More ads in more places with more prominent billing. Other sites on the Internet have not been aggressively up-monetizing principally because they have…

welcometo: http://www.fullmalls.com The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shippingcompetitive priceany size availableaccept the paypal ===== http://www.fullmalls.com =====

jordan shoes $32nike shox $32Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15ed hardy short_tank_woman $16Sandal $32christian loubo utin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27handbag $33AF tank woman $17puma slipper woman $30

===== http://www.fullmalls.com =====

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#27

Post by ry0ohki » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:55 AM UTC

happybuy wrote: post #24

Isn't it true that Google doesn't actually tell advertisers what % of the per click advertising revenue they are paid? Its amazing that after all these years we have learnt to accept this black box and trust Google is somehow paying advertisers a constant percentage. It's likely Google wanted a bit more revenue for this quarter so decided to pay advertisers slightly less of the cut. Wouldn't surprise me if this becom…

They never promise or make it transparent, although in an earnings call in Q1 2007 they basically said they only keep 25% (they generated $1.2B and paid out $916m).

I have noticed that this year my AdSense revenue has fallen even though click-thru rate and impressions have been constant. I assumed it was lower spend on the advertising side, but a bigger Google cut may make sense.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#28

Post by growt » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:57 AM UTC

dirtyaura wrote: post #8

Two wild guesses: Video ads - They finally figured out efficient video ads and have turned YouTube from a loss leader to a money-making machine Mobile ads - Do GMail and other Google apps on Android already show ads?

I think the first one might be true. I'm seeing ads on almost every video now.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#29

Post by hootmon » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:00 PM UTC

Remember that anon service that turned out to be funded by the CIA? Is it a coincidence that Google started just a few blocks from SRI the premier spook work contractor on the planet. Tell me just how useful would it be for the US gov to be able to monitor everyone's searches of the net?

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#30

Post by chalst » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:06 PM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #25

Tichy wrote: post #12

Maybe they were simply better than their partners. Is it really a mystery?

Nope. Massive mystery. :) Every time I see such titles on HN, I worry a little. We should down-vote such links; I have seen way too many sites become infested with trolls and link-baits, and such titles hitting front page is just what gets them excited. No offence to the poster. But maybe we should all summarize things objectively.

I voted up the story because it is a very good question, but the title is awful, as you say. Something like "An unexplained anomaly in Google's Q1-Q2 earnings" would have been better for our site.