Big dog's gotta eat.
How Google is Killing Organic Search
101–110 of 220 posts
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who sells car insurance leads for a living, this is an interesting discussion. First, Geicko isn't ranked number 1, affiliates who mask themselves as Geicko are. In high rewards markets like insurance (where 30% of the overall price of insurance goes to affiliates) it's actually about which affiliates convert the best and have the best payout. Those SERPs are dominated by black hat SEO. None of that is org…
Could Google Analytics data be used as "something other than links"? They can track traffic, bounce rates, how long people stay, how often the same people return. Would that provide a better indicator of quality pages? It would only apply to sites that opt-in by using Google Analytics, but if it made them rank higher than everyone would do it. (How many don't already?)
Just because blackhat SEO ranked it doesn't mean it's not a page people will use or stay on. That would also require every site to have Google analytical installed. Google is a big company for sure, but not quite that ubiquitous.
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found DDG to be better at finding obscure content, and the Goog to be better at finding what I call "canonical" content. For example, if I search for "binary tree" I probably want Wikipedia followed maybe by StackExchange. Google does that, while DDG sends me deep into the netherworld.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=%22binary+tree%22 For me: 1) Wikipedia (in featured box), 2,3) Some Exchange/Notes migration software called "Binary Tree" that owns binarytree.com, 4) cslibrary.stanford.edu on binary trees w/exercises, 5) "Binary Trees in C++" from cprogramming.com, 6) "Binary Tree" at dictionary.reference.com, and 7) "Binary Tree" on mathworld.wolfram.com ...above the fold.
You've got to admit that 2 and 3 are pretty glaringly bad in this case. My fold ends halfway through 5. Half of the top 4 links are for the data structure, half for some irrelevant company, so DDG is effectively placing this company on par with the data structure. If you didn't know quite what you were looking for in advance, this could lead to serious confusion.
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#104Measuring the usefulness of a page by percentage of screen real estate only seems useful if the user is looking or clicking randomly around the screen. The structure, layout, and clarity of communication are far more important.
> 7% is all that’s left for the entrepreneurs and restaurantuers who believed Google over the years when they were told that good business with well structured pages would be able to get in front of potential customers searching the internet.
I'm really curious how the author would propose to fix this. Even with all of the other stuff cut away, there are only still 10 blue links to give.
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#105Maybe this is a misconception on my part, but isn't local search listings and map info a form of organic search, just derived using different signals for authoritativeness and relevancy, of which proximity is only one variable? If the above is true, Google is dedicating way more real estate to organic than ever. It's just a different form of organic.
I came here to say the same thing. But one of the other comments [1] points out how the "local" listings (Google-owned Zagat) or maps are actually Google's curated business listings, not the business' website. Same goes for Google shopping, Google books, etc, where in popular categories, Google slurps up all the content.
On the one hand, that does level the playing field, because little guy doesn't need huge website and SEO to compete against big guy. But fundamentally, everyone is now handing over the control of their data to Google. Let's say you change your business hours (and as a potential customer, I do love Google's display of today's business hours) or phone number, how quickly does Google update all that? Probably very quickly, but it's now out of your hands.
And as that comment points out, positioning within those "local" results may be determined by ads (and they are not divided into paid and organic sections)--but we don't always know. Google is definitely trying to blur the line by moving away from the be basic search results listing.
I wanted to add that the problem of organic search results is always going to exist for any sort of business (as in both examples of the original article)--as opposed to information. Let's say I'm searching instead for a performance of Beethoven's 9th. Hopefully, people around the internet are linking to good performances, and Google will show me the "best" one. And it will have ads for ringtones and buying CDs of Beethoven's 9th, which is to be expected. But I can be fairly confident the organic part of the results are meaningful. With local search or business search, there is no such thing--Google is not indexing the real world, just what people put on the web. And when there is money on the line, what people put on the web is designed to make them money (SEO, ads, paid reviews, etc.).
[1] akharris: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5972516
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#106Measuring the usefulness of a page by percentage of screen real estate only seems useful if the user is looking or clicking randomly around the screen. The structure, layout, and clarity of communication are far more important. > 7% is all that’s left for the entrepreneurs and restaurantuers who believed Google over the years when they were told that good business with well structured pages would be able to get in fr…
Screen percentage is also incredibly dependent on your screen size. When I replicate their examples, I get far more 'organic' searches on my screen, because I have four times the screen real estate. Google has to delicately balance their advertising with organic results, and this balance works less well at smaller screen sizes.
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#107I turned on my television and none of the programs were organic. Instead all the content was controlled by my cable provider. I'm beginning to suspect that they just put on those shows to make money off the advertising. It's rather simple. When you type terms into the search box, just imagine the words, "Please show me advertisements for " in front of it.
of course, but once you get to a point 50 minutes out of every hour is a commercial, and only 10 minutes is an actual TV show... you start to see a breakdown in the whole business model. Perhaps Google has reached the point where they will soon start experiencing a breakdown that forces them to show more 'content' and less 'ads'. However since the general public cant easily tell what links are paid and what are true searches anymore (and perhaps they dont really even care), maybe this business model will go on for a long time.
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#108The auction model for ads basically ruins internet searches in transactional categories. If you want to win at the "italian restaurant" search game, you have to bid the highest for the ad, which means you must have the highest margin. The best way to win is to open a restaurant with ridiculously high margins (over priced wine and cheap ingredients). Want the "cheapest car insurance"? Google is zero help. It sends you…
What's funny is how different using Consumer Reports online experience is. What? There's no free content? I have to pay a monthly fee to read content and it's not trivial. Best investment I ever made. Especially when buying new appliances. Ha.. It's kind of pathetic that I flinched at spending a few bucks a month for good content.
If you're getting information for free your information likely has a cost you're just paying for it in an obfuscated way in the form of higher margins when you shop at a place that advertises heavily.
If you ever look at Hulbert's Financial digest, which tracks the total return of investment letters you'll see that the ones that do well are $120/year. Oh yeah, you have to pay for the digest which will tell you which newsletter performs the best and that isn't cheap either.
Of course free investment advice is available everywhere online and usually makes a good contra-indicator. If I see a hype filled story show up in the freebie investment news it usually means the stock is about to take a short term down turn.
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#109The auction model for ads basically ruins internet searches in transactional categories. If you want to win at the "italian restaurant" search game, you have to bid the highest for the ad, which means you must have the highest margin. The best way to win is to open a restaurant with ridiculously high margins (over priced wine and cheap ingredients). Want the "cheapest car insurance"? Google is zero help. It sends you…
I think your hypothesis is quite far off. Can you give an example of an auto insurance company that is a non-profit? I couldn't find any. Perhaps you mean a mutual insurance company? Furthermore, when I bought car insurance last month, Geico gave me the most coverage for the least amount of money (after quite a bit of research), so I also don't agree with your assertation that Google is no help in that regard. While…
> Can you give an example of an auto insurance company that is a non-profit?
AAA who do my insurance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Automobile_Association
Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search
#110I'm happy with Google because no ads while using www.google.com ( not .hk ) in Mainland China where Google quited from. Thanks Google! :)