Not sure if people saw the comment that someone left on the original thread: "Seriously? It is because of the Panda update and the resulting shift in traffic away from ad-ridden low-quality sites and towards higher quality sites that often haven't yet been optimized for ads in the Google network. They've addressed this directly in both of the last two earnings calls and have said they expect the effects to be largely transitory."
The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
41–50 of 68 posts
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 publ…
Your website comes up as the 4th results for "slang dictionary". Where was it before panda?
#2. It's fallen in Google rankings for nearly every keyword for which it appears at all.
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#43I manage an adwords campaign for a highly competitive local search term and we are getting gouged because of layout changes. about 5 or 6 months ago google added a local map on the right column and lowered the ads beneath the map. the results has been you have to bid much higher and pay more for less.
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#44Maybe they were simply better than their partners. Is it really a mystery?
They were also better than themselves in previous quarters.
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#45We are AdSense premium partners and have seen our revenues nearly cut in half while our page views remained constant. I can safely say this is due to the fact that a lot of our visitors use ad block plugins. I can't blame them - some ad formats are annoying enough to justify ad blockers. Unfortunately Google does not offer a way for us to receive ads on the server level and integrate them into the page content, bypas…
Ad blockers can block those, too. It's not just blocking calls to the Google ad engine; it's monitoring pages for (user defined and shared) ad divs.
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#46[deleted]
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#47Now we know how Panda determined low quality sites. They looked at the click through rate and cpc rates for adsense ads. If the market didn't click on the ads google served, then they mustn't have been relevant to the content (or more importantly, the content isn't relevant to the ad. IE it's low quality. Furthermore, if the market wasn't prepare d to pay much for the ad, it must be for content that's low value.
Basically, google has redirected traffic from low paying adsense pages to high paying adsense pages for those keywords.
Our site was hit hard with the last panda update, losing 30 percent of our traffic. We have two main types of pages that are quite similar which constitute our site.
Which pages were hit? Only one had google ads on it. Those pages were hit, the others were untouched.
So in their efforts to steal revenue from their partners the corollary is now true:
Put google ads on your site and run the risk of getting deranked.
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#48Not sure if people saw the comment that someone left on the original thread: "Seriously? It is because of the Panda update and the resulting shift in traffic away from ad-ridden low-quality sites and towards higher quality sites that often haven't yet been optimized for ads in the Google network. They've addressed this directly in both of the last two earnings calls and have said they expect the effects to be largely…
Matt, hated to downvote you but your comment didn't add much here. Simply saying that something was addressed and dismissed doesn't tell the reader why it was dismissed so that they could judge for themselves. Your premise seemed to be that if Google says something it must be true, which isn't necessarily the case. (And I'm definitely not implying any evil or bad reason, sometimes people are just mistaken)
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#49Not sure if people saw the comment that someone left on the original thread: "Seriously? It is because of the Panda update and the resulting shift in traffic away from ad-ridden low-quality sites and towards higher quality sites that often haven't yet been optimized for ads in the Google network. They've addressed this directly in both of the last two earnings calls and have said they expect the effects to be largely…
Matt, hated to downvote you but your comment didn't add much here. Simply saying that something was addressed and dismissed doesn't tell the reader why it was dismissed so that they could judge for themselves. Your premise seemed to be that if Google says something it must be true, which isn't necessarily the case. (And I'm definitely not implying any evil or bad reason, sometimes people are just mistaken)
DanielBMarkham, let me try again using quotes from Google's last two earning transcripts from the last two quarters and see whether that helps to clarify.
I'm loath to go anywhere near a subject like corporate earnings for various reasons, but Foremski says "There is no explanation from Google or Wall Street analysts that I could find," but anyone can go read Google's Q2 2011 earnings call transcript, which you can find at http://seekingalpha.com/article/279555-google-s-ceo-discusse... . The relevant sentence is "Network revenue was again negatively impacted by the Search quality improvements made during the latter part of Q1, as you will remember, and know that Q2 reflects a full quarter of this impact."
Now go read Google's Q1 earning's transcript at http://seekingalpha.com/article/263665-google-s-ceo-discusse... . The relevant section is "The Google Network revenue was up 19% year-over-year to $2.4 billion. That Network revenue was negatively impacted by two things, the loss of a Search distribution partnership deal and also, what has been broadly communicated, by Search quality improvement made during the quarter. Regarding the Search quality improvement, remember that we regularly make such trade-offs. We really believe that the quality improvements that benefit the user always serves us well both in the short term and in the mid term in terms of revenue."
So Foremski claims that "For some strange reason no one has picked up on this or noticed this huge change in its business model. There is no explanation from Google or Wall Street analysts that I could find." I would contend that Google has actually been quite clear about the reasons for the change in network revenue in its earnings calls.
In particular, Google has been clear in that it's willing to accept an impact in our revenue in order to improve the quality of our search results.
Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt, hated to downvote you but your comment didn't add much here. Simply saying that something was addressed and dismissed doesn't tell the reader why it was dismissed so that they could judge for themselves. Your premise seemed to be that if Google says something it must be true, which isn't necessarily the case. (And I'm definitely not implying any evil or bad reason, sometimes people are just mistaken)
DanielBMarkham, let me try again using quotes from Google's last two earning transcripts from the last two quarters and see whether that helps to clarify. I'm loath to go anywhere near a subject like corporate earnings for various reasons, but Foremski says "There is no explanation from Google or Wall Street analysts that I could find," but anyone can go read Google's Q2 2011 earnings call transcript, which you can f…
Thanks.
I'm obviously pursuing you into a spot you can't go, and for that I apologize, but the relevant problem here was your quoting a commenter from a blog who claimed from the earnings discussion that the effects would be transitory. That's a little too much indirection and terseness for my tastes. I also lost track of pronoun antecedents. In particular, I read it as transitory in terms of partner performance, when I guess it was meant to be transitory in terms of Google earnings performance? Still a bit unclear there. It's not worth chasing down myself, and we've beat on it enough. I was more concerned about somewhat-famous-person-makes-blanket-pronouncement-which-goes-unquestioned stuff, which is trashy for the quality of the site. Appreciate the clarification and additional resources provided for anybody who cares about this more than I do.