76 replies to this topic

[Jill]

I'm seeing more and more negative sentiments towards Google in many Webmaster/SEO forum sites.

I personally think all the talk of Google "finally getting what they deserve" etc. is totally wishful thinking on the part of those who write stuff like that.

How about you guys?

Is Google really ready to crash and burn or are frustrated SEOs just mad cuz their tricks don't work as well any more and they're sick of explaining it to their clients?

[SearchRank]

Most likely the latter. I don't see Google crashing and burning anytime soon. Their stock at close today was only $191.40. Hardly the price of a company that is ready to crash and burn. ;-)

[Haystack]

I have a theory that many Google bashers know what they're talking about because they use Google all day long every day, have the Google toolbar installed, and send rants about how bad Google is from their gmail accounts.

[Jill]

I'm certainly not saying that Google is perfect. They've done a lot of wacky things lately.

But the avg. person sees Google as synonymous with search and I'm pretty sure will continue to do so for many years. (Regardless of what Yahoo or some SEOs might want to have us believe.)

If they scream it loud enough maybe it will become true?

[projectphp]

It all comes down to power. Any issue with Google is multiplied 4,000 fold, because I have never, NEVER been asked "All that matters to me is a number one ranking on Sensis/MSN/Yahoo". I constantly here that for Google.

Despite what everyone says negative about Google, all examples peopl;e offer are always about Google. The Click Fraud thread ends up with people (myslef included) defaulting to Google == search language.

If even those "in the know" talk about Google first and foremost, and make Google synonymous with search, what hope is there really that Google is heading south??

[robbinsr]

As a member of this Forum who has posted a few threads recently asking about Google and my computer information security site, and wondering what it is doing, I have to add in its defence that I still use it myself, and would use it solely if it wasn't for my Internet business. In other words, despite my questions about it, and worries about its treatment of my site, I have (and expect to) continued to use it for my normal research as a user, and mostly only use the other two (plus some more small ones too) because I have to for my business. Plus, thanks to all you guys help, all my Google questions have been answered, everything is working the way I think it should, my computer information security site is being spidered regularly and deeply, so life is good, and go Google!

[Jill]

I do think that if the average person actually realized that they won't find any site that is less than a year old (for the most part) in Google, they might start to look elsewhere.

However, even though in my head I know this, I still use Google! That said, if I'm truly searching for something commercial I will often try a few engines to make sure I'm not missing something good.

But really, even without the latest sites from the past year, I usually find what I need. It's a case of not really realizing what you're missing.

I think the other engines will have to do a MUCH better job and be many times better than Google if they have even the slightest chance of catching up.

Right now I don't like searching at Yahoo because they show way too many ads at the top of the results that can easily be mistaken for search results. Show one, show two, and show them way up higher than the rest. That I can accept. But don't show 5 at the top and 5 at the bottom (or whatever number they're showing lately). That just pisses me off!

[Michael Martinez]

People became extremely negative toward Altavista after Black Monday, when Altavista dumped a truckload of sites.

People have been extremely negative toward Yahoo! for not listing them.

People became extremely negative toward Inktomi when it repeatedly dropped their sites from its 100 million page primary index (back in the days before Yahoo! bought them).

I see a pattern in the negativity.

[Randy]

I agree that the public perception is certainly still quite stout for Google in a positive way. That said, if there's a change that will be made in this perception it'll have to be a combination of advertising by Yahoo or MSN and a groundswell of negativity pointed squarely at Google.

Now the "advertising" part of it can take many forms. MS has an advantage there since they have the operating system access. Yes, I expect a lawsuit about that when it happens with Longhorn.

But even with the MS dominance, there's going to have to be a groundswell to change the public perception. I think that's what we beginning to see a little bit of. FWIW, it always starts with the webmaster/site development community.

I've already been seeing some movement by the masses away from Google. Nothing huge, and I wouldn't expect it to be. But each month I seem to get a little bit more traffic from MSN/Yahoo and less from Google. Who knows if this trend will continue or not.

FWIW, I'm one of those converts. I don't use Google anymore unless someone asks a Google specific question. For my own searches I use MSN primarily, then go to Yahoo (I hate all of the ads too Jill !) and Teoma if I need to. None of them are perfect. Never have been and never will be.

[Jill]

Ick...MSN Randy?

[Scottie]

I do think that if the average person actually realized that they won't find any site that is less than a year old (for the most part) in Google, they might start to look elsewhere.

I disagree. Does the consumer care about the age of the site? Or, might the consumer feel safer knowing the commerce site they just landed on has been in business a while?

For news or community sites.... again, I'd trust sites that have been around a little longer, more than I'd trust a site tossed up on $25-a-year hosting last week that bought a few run of site links to get to the top.

[Jill]

I disagree. Does the consumer care about the age of the site? Or, might the consumer feel safer knowing the commerce site they just landed on has been in business a while?

Well, it depends. Personally, I might want to know that I had every stone uncovered when looking for certain things. If I was aware that pretty much every site that was 1 year old or less might not be represented, I may be curious enough to make sure I wasn't missing something.

But again, it really depends on what I'm looking for. You're right that most things should be findable on sites that are more than 1-year old, and I certainly might be too lazy to bother looking elsewhere for most things.

I do have a client, however, that has something that is completely unique and MUCH better than the other sites in its niche. (It finds used auto parts in your region immediately, whereas all other sites have to get back to you with an email to provide the results.)

Unfortunately, if you search Google you'll never know because it is still in the sandbox.

I suppose if you don't know what you're missing, you can't miss it?

[Martin C]

Unfortunately, if you search Google you'll never know because it is still in the sandbox. 

Frustrating while you are in the 'sandbox' but then again when you are out of the 'sandbox' it would hopefully stop "me too" copy cat businesses jumping on the bandwagon and cashing in on a good idea.

Although personally I think the sandbox as it seems to stand now is based on some fundamentally flawed logic it does have its advantages once you have paid your dues - and its not as though new sites are not listed - it is just that you have to look harder to find them.

I think MSN and Yahoo et al are these days giving Google more of a run for their money, I am also seeing more people now with the default search set to something other than Google and I think more competition is good for everyone, including Google.

[Hyperformance]

Let's get it started....(dancing) many of you know that I have had some key words to say about Google and their actions lately.

I still believe that their search results are not as relevant as they once were, even 18 months ago. They are throwing their weight around and getting into "everything" that has dollars associated with it versus focusing on real existing issues. They have changed, and you will not get me to say "for the better" (at least not yet).

I like the new MSN, and I like the Yahoo! results lately as well - this is good for both of them and the Industry (IMO) and I hope it continues.

Relevance used to be the focus... whether an old site or a new site - relevance put the proper weight on the sites. Now it's a matter of how well optimized my hard drive is (and what's on it)... or whether or not I can make out my car from their new satellite imaging purchase, or which national libraries they wish to document... (and why), or how many more "sponsored ads" they can fit on a page and keep the confusion high... all fine and good to expand your business, but not to forget what put you there.

In their defense, if I suddenly had an open wallet to the tune of billions, then I would probably be making major changes to my company too. But I would also try (very hard) not to lose what we have grown to and accomplished before that wallet opened up.

Google releases their earnings info this week I think... I will once again watch with interest and learn where the profits have come from and their next expectations as well.

[OldWelshGuy]

Well yahoo have stuffed Google in the earning department by a ratio of around 2:1, so all is not bad.

All I will say is this. Yahoo and google have approximately the same share of the search market at around 45% , yet Google delivers 70-80% of traffic to many sites. That to me tells me I should show some respect to Google.

Personally I have the Google & Yahoo toolbars intalled, and use them both, with Google being foirst port of call.