61 replies to this topic

[Jill]

Welcome tonts!

Where did say anything about special treatment. Those that are running websites without economic ability to buy advertising are relying on free search. When they lose ranking they have big stress....that's all.

Nobody is saying they don't have compassion for people who are down and out.

I don't have compassion, however, for people who lose their Google rankings because Google decided not to list their site any more. That's life. That's business.

Sure it sucks. And I am sorry for the people it happened to. But this board isn't a self-help board, it's about search marketing and it's about helping people learn how to make great sites that do well in the engines as well as do well in general.

It's important for anyone who is doing any form of search marketing to know that they should never ever rely on free search results for their livelihood. Whether they are a single mom, a handicapped veteran, a businessman or a giant corporation.

NONE of them should ever rely on free search engine results as the bulk of the income. That's just the facts. If they do, then they shouldn't and that's what we're trying to tell them.

Google can't and shouldn't feel bad about making their changes. No matter what change they make, some sites are gonna get knocked down. That's how it works. If it's too stressful of a way of doing business, do something else. Or better yet, never rely on free search engines for your income. It should always be the gravy.

[Jill]

well it just seems unfair

How in the world does fair or unfair enter into anything in life?

Strike the word unfair/fair from your vocabulary and you'll be a lot happier.

[dbmasters]

Strike the word unfair/fair from your vocabulary and you'll be a lot happier.

Amen. Whether it's fair or not is a completely moot point...no time for whining, just time to figure out how to remedy the situation over which we have little to no control.

[Scottie]

All I'm saying is there is nothing wrong with a little compassion for their
situation. That's all. No where in my post did I suggest they should get special treatment from G or anyone else.

Hi Tonts!

This theme started because Jill said people who depend solely on Google for their livelihood should get another livelihood.

However I think you are assuming that everyone has the economic means to promote within other venues.

If they don't have the economic means to promote their business, then they are stuck accepting whatever comes down the pike. I'm not chastising them or being harsh at all- that's just the way it is.

Therefore....a little compassion is not too much to ask. For others that have the financial means and ability to have other livlihood alternatives.....they deserve a bit of chastising. But you can't blanket everyone with the same cloth.

I don't think anyone deserves chastising. They do deserve to be pointed in the right direction, though.

(For the record, many people think that if you don't agree with their position or their statement, they are being chastised.)

And my point is that yes, everyone is blanketed with the same cloth when it comes to search marketing. It's the people who think they deserve something different because they have pinned their earnings to a company that owes them nothing.

Everyone has other alternatives- life existed for many many centuries before the Internet existed. And people found ways to earn a living. The problem is that people can sometimes get good results and start an income rolling without a business or marketing plan, then they are and when it stops working.

I'm not sure what you mean by compassion. If that means saying Google is wrong to change their algo because it hurts people who've gotten a free ride up til now, well, I just can't agree. I'm sorry they are having problems, I really am. But truly, the most helpful thing I can say is don't get in this position again- make a well-rounded plan to market your business.

When people stop feeling like a victim and blaming outside forces for their own problems, they can actually do something about it. As long as a person feels helpless and angry and sorry for themselves, they can't see the big picture and make a plan to improve it.

After all, it's much easier to say "Google is awful for making changes that impact small business owners" than to say to yourself, "I should have been prepared for this. What do I do going forward?"

I have a 30 year old neice with the mental capacity of a 12 year old. She lives on her own and does an Ebay gig with discarded clothing to survive. She has no other ability to get a job. I admire the tenacity they show. They try their best without any means to advertise.

See? This is a perfect example of what I'm saying! Your niece sells on Ebay- which isn't free. Ebay is a form of marketing that she controls and pays for. She controls the listing, the timing, the initial price, and when it's sold, she pays her listing fees. She isn't complaining that Google is taking her business away- she's out there getting business. She sounds like a smart cookie!

[pemburung]

it would take something dramatic to remove the popularity of google so i thnk we are going to have to live with the nonsense google delivers sometimes.. problem is that it affects peoples livelihood.

Actually it started with this from energybalance. Note he said "affects", not depend on.

Most small businesses do have alternative incomes streams, but they also have tight cash flow. They also don't have deep pockets, so an unforeseen interruption to one of income streams can be significant or crippling. Google has clearly stated that it thinks the internet is about commerce, and it want to be the player in this field. It is not an entity in space, but also sees itself as a partner of business, especially those doing business on the internet. It has extensive cooperation with businesses of all sizes, to the extent of joining in as partners - Adwords and Adsense, now Analytics. Such companies have responsibilites to their partners, and to those it uses to grow its own business. Don't forget, Google is using a taxpayer-operated resource, for which it pays no fees, to distribute content from suppliers for which it pays no fees. In this model there are clear understandings, at least from legitimate suppliers, that they will provide content, the government maintains a distribution channel, and Google, and others, provide a shopfront. Three partners, and for the system to work, all partners have to understand the other's intentions and methodology. And, most importantly, all partners bear a responsibility to each other.

In this instance Google has hurt some of its legitimate partners, and not in an unfortunate but sound business way - say a company being forced to lay off employees, or changing suppliers due to financial pressure from competition - but due to some arbitrary software-driven change in its operating system. Worse, it is saying to its partners, "tough - we don't care, we're making plenty off the others who remained, go take a hike." This is not the way of responsible, corporate citizenship, and wealth-building capitalism, but the law of the jungle, where all that matters is the success of the moment, for whoever can win.

No-one is asking for special consideration, but quite the opposite - they have already been given "special consideration" by Google, and are asking not be, as they have been doing exactly what Google has asked them to do to as they developed their business partnership together, and as the others not given "special consideration" are still doing. Now they are asking Google simply to explain why it has singled them out, but Google refuses to answer.

[Jill]

No-one is asking for special consideration, but quite the opposite - they have already been given "special consideration" by Google, and are asking not be, as they have been doing exactly what Google has asked them to do to as they developed their business partnership together, and as the others not given "special consideration" are still doing. Now they are asking Google simply to explain why it has singled them out, but Google refuses to answer.

And this is where many people are completely mixed up.

There is NO business partnership. What makes you think there is? There is no money that has changed hands. There is no contract either implied or not implied.

No relationship at all.

You create a site, if you're lucky a search engine that likes to help people find what they're looking for will list it.

If you are unlucky, they won't list it at all.

If you're semi lucky/unlucky, they'll list it, but not how/where you want it to be listed.

There is no business relationship. There is no Google asking you to do things a certain way or not to do things a certain way.

There is no right to be listed in any search engine. And there is no duty of any search engine to list any/every site. And there is no Google singling out any one site or site owner. Period.

[Michael Martinez]

Whatever the degree of reliance on free SE listings, its when Google delivers the spammer sites, or sites who have joined link farms, well it just seems unfair.  Whilst it is delivering free listings, then they can at least be fair about it.

I'm not saying spam is good or that anyone should spam, but spammers put effort into their campaign, just like the rest of us. From a spammer's point of view, effort should be rewarded.

The thing about spam, though, is that it tends to be very narrowly focused. Even the spammers don't tie up all the productive search expressions.

So, if you find yourself blocked in one expression, try another, even if it seems less profitable. Some profit is better than none, right?

[pemburung]

... There is no Google asking you to do things a certain way or not to do things a certain way. 

Webmaster Guidelines
Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site.

http://www.google.co...guidelines.html


Imagine if a town had a market, where many people sold their goods to make a living. The land is owned by the town, not the operators, who get it for free, and it has become such a feature of the town over the years that it almost is the town. Many people were attracted by this particular town's market, and set up their stalls there in preference to other towns, as it was well run and attracted a large clientele. They even moved to the town to live. Being well-run has always been one of the operator's selling points, to both the stallholders and the town that owns the land, and the customers. Not everyone depended on the market for their entire livelihood, but many did at least part of it, which enabled them to get by. As the market generated more of their income they naturally focused on it, and less so on other nearby markets, as this was clearly a stable one.

Sellers enter the physical market through various doors to get to their stalls, and can only enter by the door designated to them. If they enter by the wrong door, by the time they get to their stall to set up, all the customers have left for the day. The market’s operators publish pretty clear guidelines about which door to use, and sellers who follow these enter easily. One day, without warning, the market's operators seal up one of the doors, and some stallholders can no longer enter, except by the wrong door. No explanation, and only a few percent of the stallholders are affected. These stallholders are no different to anyone else still gaining access. However, as they can longer get to work, they suddenly are without a chunk of their income. Despite many pleas, the operators refuse to say why they closed the door, and the stallholders do not know what they need to do to access through another door, as they were already following the guidelines. Their only alternative is to relocate to another town, where they needed a different sort of stall. They can do this, but it takes a fair bit of time, and many of the stallholders do not have the financial resources, as most people don't, to go without a proportion of their income for an extended period.

The market operators originally welcomed these stallholders, offered them advice on how to set up their stall for this particular market, and even helped them, if the stallholders paid a fee, to direct customers to their stalls. Given this, and as it also used the presence of the stallholders and the town’s free land to generate its own income, most people would agree that the market operator has a relationship with the stallholders, and a responsibility to them and the town. It also told customers that any stallholder was welcome, and as long as they followed the guidelines their stall would be reasonably easy to find, so this was the best market at which to shop.

Doesn’t the market operator have a responsibility to both stallholder and customer, even without a written contract?

[Jill]

Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site.

Please note the use of the word HELP. Not will index, not will rank. Will help to do those things.

You are welcome to follow their guidelines and your site might get indexed, or it still might not.

You're welcome to not follow them, and you may end up with the same results.

They have never said you have to follow their guidelines. It's your site and your decision to create it in any way you see fit.

But only business relationship is with their searchers, and even that one isn't really a business one. What keeps them in business is showing results that fit the searcher's query. If they do a poor job of it, people will stop searching there. So far, people seem to continue to flock to Google as their search engine of choice, in droves.

One has to conclude that they're doing an okay job of what they set out to do.

Your market analogy has nothing to do with the relationship Google has with site owners. Sellers in a market are the market's customers. They have a business relationship with them.

Site owners are absolutely in no way Google's customer. There is ZERO business relationship between Google and site owners (unless they are a Google Adwords customer, in which case there is now a business relationship).

[Tom Philo]

A paraphrase from an ancient movie

"What is the function of a newspaper?"
"To report the news!"
"No! It is to sell newspapers!"

Google is there to SELL ADs. the search results are the filler (aka news articles) between the ads - no different than a newspaper.

If a newspaper does an article on your business (radio show, webcast whatever) it may help your business, but that is NOT the reason they are reporting it - they want people to watch / hear the ads around the reporting.

I started my photo business by word of mouth. I do a few free photo shows still, give away prints to charity auctions and other small advertising items since the beginning and been on the web since 1992 (CServe and Prodigy web page days.) Search engines definately have helped my business, I get 90% of it via the free engines.

I am PART TIME photographer. I don't do it full time. Thus, I do not have to spend a lot of money to make money to survive. If I was doing it full time then I MUST take a higher percentage of my money and put it into advertising to let people know about my services to earn more. We do not live in a world where no one travels more than 10 miles (a days walk) ever from their village from where they were born.

Do I advertise yes, but I only spend a few hundred a year in specific related service sites. (Doing more I would be swamped with too much work and never have time for myself and family.)

People running a business must - had better - realize that they have to advertise even with free search engines out there. Start with a "shotgun" approach, see what works and what does not, before only advertising in the mediums / methods that bring in more money than you spent to get them.

[mcanerin]

Well, I can't pass this thread up....

life existed for many many centuries before the Internet existed.

NO! I don't believe it, and I refuse to believe it. You can't make me believe it. And you'll pry my high speed connection from me only from my cold, dead, hands....

re: compassion

I'll readily accept an argument that Google (or any search engine) should be focused on relevant results. I'd even accept arguments that they should focus on profitable results, charitable results or bad results, if that is what their mandate is. In Google's case, it's relevant results.

Therefore, arguments that center around the relevancy get my (and Googles) notice, but ones centered around issues that are not their mandate would not, and should not. This includes arguments for special treatment based on issues not connected to relevancy, like marital status, race, religion, income, etc.

re: small business

1. Almost all spammers are fall into the "have no money, and are a small business" group as well. So saying that Google should avoid harming anyone in that group would not be a very effective anti-spam tactic, I think.

2. How on earth can anyone tell who is a small business or not on the internet? I've seen sites owned by multinational, multi-million dollar corporations that, frankly, suck. I've also seen beautiful and incredibly professional sites owned by people working out of their home. You can't tell based on the site, and short of requiring everyone to send in their tax receipts there is no way or Google to know (or care) who is big or small. If sites owned by small business got a break, then you could expect all the spammers in the world to suddenly become "small businesses". Don't blame Google, blame spammers, they are the ones messing things up.

re: free, tax-payer supported, etc

First, different tax payers support different areas of the internet. Canadian taxpayers support the Canadian sections, etc. Second, small businesses tend to pay very little tax, especially compared to what Google and big companies pay. If paying tax has anything to do with it, small business would not even be allowed on the internet, and forget kids and the unemployed. Third, I suspect Google pays a LOT of money for the bandwidth they use. It most certainly is not "free". According to their financials, it looks like millions. And yet I can compete on the internet for $40 a month (or less) if I need to.

re: business

If you are running a small business, then it should be run as a business, not a charity. And business is not always nice. There are some nice business people, though, including members of this forum who donate time and effort (for free) to help people get (free) rankings.

I'm rather disappointed that is being interpreted as not being compassionate. I help here in the HR forum for free, but I charge big business clients $200/hr. I think Jill is even more expensive, yet I see she has more than 18,000 (free) postings in this forum, compared to my measly (but free) 2,600 or so.

It's not that we don't care, or sympathize. We do. But the way to help someone achieve their goals is through tough love, good information (whether you want to hear it or not) and coaching, not "awww that's too bad, come cry on my shoulder".

That doesn't help anyone, other than enforce a culture of victim-hood. Personally, I'd rather see people succeed in life and business than succeed in feeling sorry for themselves. Shoulders are nice, but even your best friend will usually eventually tell you to stop soaking her sweater and go fix something. At least, they will if they are really your friend.

re: the good news

The good news is - it's not personal. It's not about you. There is no evil person at the Googleplex bent on your personal destruction. It's more like a force of nature. Hurricanes tend to hurt the poor more often than the rich because the poor are living on the edge already and it takes very little to push them over. But they don't "go after" the poor.

Small businesses that are barely making it are more at risk when something happens than larger or more mature ones, but that's not Googles fault or problem. You don't tell the hurricane to behave and play nice, or to only pick on rich people, you avoid getting in it's way and make sure that you have a plan to deal with it.

There is a lot of great information on this forum about exactly that, and the members and mods are here to help people who wish to take control of their own destiny.

My opinion,

Ian

[meta]

Certainly no business should rely only on Google search results, or any other single means of promotion, for survival. But there are many ways to publicize a business that are free or cheap. Many threads in this forum focus on promoting web sites, and businesses in general. There are books and web sites devoted to this topic. Anyone with access to a good library can read all these sources - free. A business, however modest, that has been riding on Google SERPs alone and getting by that way has just been lucky. Even with little cash, there are many other strategies that a small business owner can pursue.

Even tonts' niece, who certainly seems to face more challenges than most of us, is using e-bay, which is after all a form of paid advertising. Those of us lucky enough to have reasonably good health and mental capacity have a lot of options.

[pemburung]

Tont, energybar, where are you? Help!

[rohgan03]

Just wanted to say that this is a really interesting thread. I agree with Jill & Scottie. They are being practical and it is not a feasible option for an oniline business to always expect to survive on google ranking . You should concentrate on SEM as a whole ....something on which there a wealth of information on this forum. Write articles, run banners, list with directories, buy some PPC traffic, provide meaningful content etc...everything together will add up and lower the risk of losing google ranking

When I said "lowe the risk of losing rankings"...what I meant was lower the reliance on google rankings for busienss

[pemburung]

Rohgan03, agreed; businesses need numerous marketing tools, and income streams. The point I've been making is not about a business relying on Google, but about Google acknowledging its position - a position it has actively sought - as the major player in web search, and the responisbility that comes with that. and Web search has enabled many businesses, large and small, to use the web as part of their marketing strategy, and small businesses especially have been able to use this marketing channel & distribution to develop. Google publishes guidelines as to what it deems acceptable web design for it to index the page and treat the page as any other, and what it considers unacceptable. Sudden and unexplained changes to those guidelines which effectively eliminate some previously legitimate pages (not just change their rankings) will change the distribution channel for the businesses in an unplanned way, regardless of how many other channels they have. This can have a significant or fatal effect on the business. Even if such sudden change is necessary to avoid some other issue, Google, as a good corporate citizen, should by now have an effective system in place to address the innocent colleteral damage of the aim of these changes. Martyrdom may bring its own rewards, but few businesses, or people, are willing to be injured or die for the good of the many. Not without signing up.

I guess it's this simple. If you know your actions are hurting innocent people, you either change those actions, you try to make amends, or you warn the people to get out of the way first. You don't just ignore them.