Thread: Google Just Killed Your Online Business

Originally Posted by Mafiamaster

And while I would love to see Google act neutral, they don't actually have to. Sure, the government will probably force them, but Google should be allowed to do what it wants with its property so long as it doesn't harm or break any laws.

I don't know if Google broke laws, but they are challenged in court all the time for different reasons in different countries.

I could've told any of those business owners what was wrong with their site over a year ago, but would they have done anything? No, it would've cost money to make the changes and why do that if they are making so much now?

Imagine a second that business owners invested tens of thousands dollars or more in their e-commerce. In my opinion there are three types of business owners mind sets, the people following the search engine guidelines, the people who don't really know how it works, and the others taking any opportinity of cheating.

Another factor is that you cannot master what others are doing on their own sites, so if you submit links or unique contents on different platforms, and you are not aware that they don't follow the search engines guidelines or lack integrity or work ethic, or make site for Adsenses after you submitted, you name it.., your business/e-commerce will be indirectly affected and there is nothing you can do about it.

Hey, I get that business owners are investing money in their e-commerce site. and I get that they are trying their darndest. But, it's their responsibility to either A) do the right work and the right research or B) hire someone who can. You should be doing some research on the types of links you get. You should be seeing if they appear like a crappy site. If you're blindly getting backlinks, you're going to get dinged. But, this Panda update is more than backlinks. It's on site.

On your own site, how much would it cost you to have someone write unique product descriptions of every product? How long and how much would it take to ensure that each page had unique content? It would take a long time...And it would cost a lot of money. So, do you want to do it? I'd say you damn well should, but a lot of businesses would say no, especially since, before Panda, they were raking in tons of money. And now suddenly, they get hit by Panda and they blame Google? Could've invested before Panda.

Originally Posted by Mafiamaster

On your own site, how much would it cost you to have someone write unique product descriptions of every product? How long and how much would it take to ensure that each page had unique content? It would take a long time...And it would cost a lot of money. So, do you want to do it? I'd say you damn well should, but a lot of businesses would say no, especially since, before Panda, they were raking in tons of money. And now suddenly, they get hit by Panda and they blame Google? Could've invested before Panda.

I don't know, there are different views on this.

Is it the retailers' job to write unique product descriptions or is it the manufacturers' job to do that? We all know that they will be more precise because they make the products or have the blueprint/formula to outsource.

We prefer to write our own descriptions because my wife tests the products before selling them and we don't have thousands of products on our site. If you have 10,000 products how can you handle that? How much it will cost and how long will it take to write 10,000+ descriptions. If you are a retailer you cannot know if the product will always be available from the manufacturer, so you do not know if you will get the ROI for the descriptions.

Is it Google's job to decide how you should manage your business? What should a retailer do, change the name of the product so it is unique?

I almost wholeheartedly agree with Mafiamaster on this. As I already pointed out antitrust regulations are a joke, and like most regulations, they only serve to distort the natural market conditions. The reason Google got this big is two-fold. First is the government involvement itself, by default, since Google is a corporation and therefore enjoys the (unfair) benefits of a corporation. Second is the fact that they actually provided tremendous value to a huge number of people, including apparently webmasters, since they were so quick to jump on the bandwagon of Google-exclusivity. If Google is a monopoly, webmasters are as much to blame as anyone else!

Yet it is actually NOT a monopoly. 60% market share with multiple competitors (even if weak and often ignored by those who should pay most attention; again the oh so poor webmasters) doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

Also, Google should actually have every right to be non-neutral and favor certain players over others. Shouldn't you? I mean, imagine if someone tried to get government on your back because you choose to be an affiliate of one site instead of another, or chose to sell one brand of products over another. It's ridiculous.

That said, it might help Google if it as a search engine remains as neutral as possible and rely only on signals of quality and relevance, but so long as their customers (who are for the most part the end users, not webmasters) don't complain they have every right to align with anyone or anything or tweak their own index in whichever way they please. If it serves their interests (which is NOT a sin to be clear), and if they think it improves their offering, they should have the right to do it.

The way I see this ongoing webmaster outcry is this. They let their business get so dependent on Google that every movement a Google makes can make or break their business. Did anyone force them to do this? No. Market conditions favored or pressured this, which is actually very arguable, but it is ultimately a trend which was executed by webmasters. To make matters worse, not only did they become dependent, they also wanted to cheat their favorite search engine (enter blackhat, spamming and other BS). And now that Google does what they were expected to do all along, these same webmasters cry foul, and want to control how Google does business.

I'm sorry, but this should be a "lesson learned", and a reason to wean ourselves off of Google, clean up our act, and become independent again, not a reason to start thrashing around with ugly tactics like using the government guns to control how Google does business. We should be business people, not gangsters.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Complaints arise when Google get out of his neutrality and favor some groups of businesses (including Adwords clients) to the detriment of other. I believe that when you are a huge multinational corporation like Google, you have to represent more than just your own business interests, but also your primary function and reputation.

On what grounds? Just because many people depend on them?

As you saw earlier, I sympathize with your and other fellow webmasters situation, but I do not sympathize with this way of thinking. This isn't the way to go. And besides, what exactly do you hope to accomplish in the long term? Trying to force Google to represent your interests only gives you more reason to depend exclusively on them, and therefore doesn't solve the underlying problem in all of this. Wouldn't propping up competition, seeking alternatives, etc. be a more productive (not to mention morally more acceptable) thing to do? The end result may be diminishment of Google's power (probably more so than an antitrust suit), and a healthier marketplace for all of us.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

I came across an article "Google Just Killed Your Online Business" and found that very true.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

All I can see is Google trying to hyper monetize their adwords system overlaping the organic search (which is extremely annoying for any user), and when they assume to care for the user experience, it's not really true. There is no doubt that the organic search in whatever search engine is attacked by their PPC side.

The 'brand links' are a new one. When combined with the shopping links, images, and hyper adwords, it effectly places many websites on the second page of the results.

[QUOTE=Mafiamaster;176914]What are you talking about? First and foremost, Google is a business. It's their right to do whatever they want with their site.[quote]

Does Google have a right to do this? Yes, they do. Google could even do paid inclusion in the organic listings if they wanted to. On the other hand, there are some other issues whic I will touch on next.

Originally Posted by Mafiamaster

If it hurts you, too bad. Find a new way of getting traffic. Google has a monopoly because they have the best service.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Let's be serious a moment, there are antitrust laws, which are regulating anti-competitive conduct.

Google has a great service. But, what makes Google the powerhouse is the advertising acquisitions which is the key. 97% of Google's income is from ads. Everything else doesn't matter.

What I mean is that new search engines can be developed. However, without the revenue stream, they aren't going to get to far.

The cuil search engine, which claimed to have more pages indexed than Google, is dead.

Originally Posted by Mafiamaster

If they mess up, people will got Bing or Yahoo or whatever. Google won't screw up their search because that's their wealth. People come to Google to get results and if someone likes an ad, they'll click. But, don't you worry, organic search won't die for a while because that's what brings people back to Google.

I agree that Google will keep organic search. But, there really aren't too many alternatives. Bing/Yahoo are both the live search engine. I really thing that most of the traffic from Bing/Yahoo is due to the MSN & Yahoo portals. Google probably has closer to 80% of the true search market.

You really need competition to have the best market possible. I think the issue isn't that there aren't new search competitors i.e. blekko | slashtag search and Yippy – Welcome to the Cloud. (a.k.a Vivisimo and Clusty Search Engine)

Rather, the acquistions and consolidations of advertising companies make it difficult for new search players to enter the market.

Originally Posted by Mafiamaster

On your own site, how much would it cost you to have someone write unique product descriptions of every product? How long and how much would it take to ensure that each page had unique content? It would take a long time...And it would cost a lot of money. So, do you want to do it? I'd say you damn well should, but a lot of businesses would say no, especially since, before Panda, they were raking in tons of money. And now suddenly, they get hit by Panda and they blame Google? Could've invested before Panda.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Is it Google's job to decide how you should manage your business? What should a retailer do, change the name of the product so it is unique?

Panda is another issue. If I where an ecommerce site owner. I would start rewriting the descriptions and adding original content on the top pages. Pages that get no traffic, I would consider using nofollow on the pages and not spend the time/money developing the original content.

Originally Posted by memenode

I almost wholeheartedly agree with Mafiamaster on this. As I already pointed out antitrust regulations are a joke, and like most regulations, they only serve to distort the natural market conditions.

I disagree with you on that, even Ron Paul which I like very much, said that there are regulations in free markets. It is impossible to have total natural markets without regulations, and never see in history a system like that.

The reason Google got this big is two-fold. First is the government involvement itself, by default, since Google is a corporation and therefore enjoys the (unfair) benefits of a corporation.

It depends if you are talking about governement involvement in markets or if you are talking about governement involvement in regulations, that's different.

Second is the fact that they actually provided tremendous value to a huge number of people, including apparently webmasters, since they were so quick to jump on the bandwagon of Google-exclusivity. If Google is a monopoly, webmasters are as much to blame as anyone else!

Google provided value to a huge number of people, and that's correct. Why do you want to blame webmasters? That's pretty logical to be irritated when Google take out a part of the cake because they change continuously their rules.

Also, Google should actually have every right to be non-neutral and favor certain players over others. Shouldn't you?

If they are investigated for that in Texas or have lawsuits against them around the world, I guess there are some issues.

That said, it might help Google if it as a search engine remains as neutral as possible and rely only on signals of quality and relevance, but so long as their customers (who are for the most part the end users, not webmasters) don't complain they have every right to align with anyone or anything or tweak their own index in whichever way they please. If it serves their interests (which is NOT a sin to be clear), and if they think it improves their offering, they should have the right to do it.

Do you think Google users don't complain? This is the best assumption I never heard lol
Trust me, Google don't need to help their cronies to be listed on the top, because they are already multi national coporations or franchises and they don't need Google to market their brands, because most of them existed before Google.

The way I see this ongoing webmaster outcry is this. They let their business get so dependent on Google that every movement a Google makes can make or break their business. Did anyone force them to do this? No. Market conditions favored or pressured this, which is actually very arguable, but it is ultimately a trend which was executed by webmasters. To make matters worse, not only did they become dependent, they also wanted to cheat their favorite search engine (enter blackhat, spamming and other BS). And now that Google does what they were expected to do all along, these same webmasters cry foul, and want to control how Google does business.

You are talking about a different subject. I am not happy as a online business owner because, we are following the Google guidelines and if we do something wrong it is not intentional and we are not aware of the problems. All I can say is that hard work is costly in time and money. From Google updates Mayday and Panda we have experienced a big lost. We don't duplicate, we don't do black hat SEO, etc I have no clue why we lost so much after these updates because Google never help or say what is wrong to provide as a webmaster a better user experience.

I'm sorry, but this should be a "lesson learned", and a reason to wean ourselves off of Google, clean up our act, and become independent again

As a business owner we cannot ignore that Google represent 70% of the organic search market, any business man will say the same thing. We have explored many other ways in the past, but the potential will not provide ROI.

On what grounds? Just because many people depend on them?

You always depend on someone for business.

Don't make me wrong, I wish Google can be more helpful with vulnerable business like us trying to provide a great user experience, instead of been sacked.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

I disagree with you on that, even Ron Paul which I like very much, said that there are regulations in free markets. It is impossible to have total natural markets without regulations, and never see in history a system like that.

He was most likely referring to natural regulations embedded within a free market (supply and demand, reputation systems, watchdog groups, industry standards, standard bodies etc.), not government regulating the market. He is a libertarian, and by some accounts possibly a voluntaryist (anarcho-capitalist) like me, which means he doesn't believe in government regulation either.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

It depends if you are talking about governement involvement in markets or if you are talking about governement involvement in regulations, that's different.

Actually I don't think it's different. Government cannot regulate the market without getting involved in it. Every legislation presents dictates that the market has to abide by, and that obviously restricts market movements (by force instead of by the wills and values of its players).

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Google provided value to a huge number of people, and that's correct. Why do you want to blame webmasters? That's pretty logical to be irritated when Google take out a part of the cake because they change continuously their rules.

Well I (only partly) blame webmasters, but I for the most part understand them. It is easy to blame them for contributing to the problem when they obviously did become too Google-dependent and many did use tactics which pressured Google to do things like this Panda update. I understand though that Google's market share is a big pressure, but once we get hit by the consequences of depending too much on it, no market share stats should stop us from trying our best to seek ways to become more independent. It's gone too far. We aren't entirely powerless. As mentioned before, small businesses may be small, but they are many.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

If they are investigated for that in Texas or have lawsuits against them around the world, I guess there are some issues.

I don't know about those issues, but keep in mind I don't believe that law represents morality one-on-one. Someone can break the law and do the right thing or do the wrong thing and be within the law. The argument of "they just broke the law" doesn't impress me, and besides laws differ from country to country and from administration to administration which obviously doesn't make them anywhere near as valid as natural laws or objective morals etc.. That's a big subject, but just wanted to clarify that.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Do you think Google users don't complain? This is the best assumption I never heard lol
Trust me, Google don't need to help their cronies to be listed on the top, because they are already multi national coporations or franchises and they don't need Google to market their brands, because most of them existed before Google.

I didn't say they did or didn't complain. Maybe they do complain, but Google can still do whatever they want, it's just that if they displease their customers it wont end too well for them long-term. I don't think Google lists their "cronies" on top because they need Google, but because Google needs them. Like it or not, the masses out there are attracted to well established historical brands. Maybe a good rule would be: if you don't think, you automatically choose a brand that's been burned into your brain since birth. It's the "default choice", and I suppose Google wants to capitalize on that. Only a movement of small business owners can jeopardize this plan. We have to make it less profitable for Google to ignore us, but NOT by using government force.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

You are talking about a different subject. I am not happy as a online business owner because, we are following the Google guidelines and if we do something wrong it is not intentional and we are not aware of the problems. All I can say is that hard work is costly in time and money. From Google updates Mayday and Panda we have experienced a big lost. We don't duplicate, we don't do black hat SEO, etc I have no clue why we lost so much after these updates because Google never help or say what is wrong to provide as a webmaster a better user experience.

I understand, and sorry if I seemed to lump whitehats with blackhats. It's not my intention. Still, when it is other companies' and peoples' actions with their own property that have negative effect on us, it is not a good reason to use force to control what they do. I mean, take an opposite situation. Sometimes it just so happens that what others do benefits us, and then we never think of controlling their business. Instead we'd say "oh just keep doing what you're doing". In a sense, Google has been doing a lot of that. With its search engine, and adsense, it allowed a huge amount of individuals to start making money online, and even make a living. While we could rely on multiple search engines for traffic, the obvious fact is you get your traffic from Google. So you sometimes get the positive, sometimes negative. Neither is a good reason to start trying to control them. Adaptation is the key.

What happened is that Google is simply providing you with less, but it is still doing it, because it is in some part in business of doing that, but was never and never will be, obliged of sending you traffic. You simply took advantage of something Google offered, and built your business around that, and now that has changed and you're forced to adapt.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

As a business owner we cannot ignore that Google represent 70% of the organic search market, any business man will say the same thing. We have explored many other ways in the past, but the potential will not provide ROI.

Right, but if we want to improve the situation we can't just accept things as they are either. 70% of the market share or not, it shouldn't stop people from starting to look for a better way forward, and the more webmasters do this, the better and sooner there will be solutions.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

You always depend on someone for business.

Don't make me wrong, I wish Google can be more helpful with vulnerable business like us trying to provide a great user experience, instead of been sacked.

I'm on your side. I just might not like the tactic you seem to support. I don't like antitrust legislations and using lawsuits to change their behavior. I don't believe they are obliged to serve our interests, and in that sense the only way to get them to do so is to make them WANT to serve some of our interests, and a way to do that is to organize economic disadvantage to Google if they ignore us. This may be a long term process, but better that than nothing.

Why should you care though? Can't we just hope for an antitrust suit and slap them that way? No... that's part of the point. It wont do a thing, yet by thinking this way we just allow ourselves to be in a dependent mentality even longer, while propagating the idea that we aren't 100% responsible for our business. If you ask me that's just all around bad, and should not be supported. Own up, adapt, rise beyond this. And good luck!

Originally Posted by memenode

He is a libertarian, and by some accounts possibly a voluntaryist (anarcho-capitalist) like me, which means he doesn't believe in government regulation either.

I believe in this:

America is the greatest nation in human history. Belief in Liberty, limited government and sound money made us the freest and most prosperous people in the world.
Ron Paul

Actually I don't think it's different. Government cannot regulate the market without getting involved in it. Every legislation presents dictates that the market has to abide by, and that obviously restricts market movements (by force instead of by the wills and values of its players).

I guess you have take a look at the Revolving doors at: Revolving door between the US Government and Industry

I don't know about those issues, but keep in mind I don't believe that law represents morality one-on-one. Someone can break the law and do the right thing or do the wrong thing and be within the law. The argument of "they just broke the law" doesn't impress me, and besides laws differ from country to country and from administration to administration which obviously doesn't make them anywhere near as valid as natural laws or objective morals etc.. That's a big subject, but just wanted to clarify that.

There are good and bad laws, but we have to respect all laws, some companies play the edge of laws. That's right it is a big subject

Sometimes it just so happens that what others do benefits us, and then we never think of controlling their business. Instead we'd say "oh just keep doing what you're doing". In a sense, Google has been doing a lot of that. With its search engine, and adsense, it allowed a huge amount of individuals to start making money online, and even make a living. While we could rely on multiple search engines for traffic, the obvious fact is you get your traffic from Google. So you sometimes get the positive, sometimes negative. Neither is a good reason to start trying to control them. Adaptation is the key.

What happened is that Google is simply providing you with less, but it is still doing it, because it is in some part in business of doing that, but was never and never will be, obliged of sending you traffic. You simply took advantage of something Google offered, and built your business around that, and now that has changed and you're forced to adapt.

Wait a minute there, We don't take advantage of something Google offered. We offer as small owners free hard work to Google, that give them the possibility to sell their advertising aka Adwords, in return they send us qualified traffic. Let me clearify a theory, they crawl our sites and pick up our work, we did ask anything. From their point of view we should take action to block them if we do not agree to give away our work. The big question is: It all depends where you stand lol

I'm on your side. I just might not like the tactic you seem to support.
I don't like antitrust legislations and using lawsuits to change their behavior. I don't believe they are obliged to serve our interests, and in that sense the only way to get them to do so is to make them WANT to serve some of our interests, and a way to do that is to organize economic disadvantage to Google if they ignore us. This may be a long term process, but better that than nothing.

I don't support specially these tactics, the antitrust legislations are already there, the laws exist.

I don't believe either they are obliged to serve our interests, all the people have different interests. I wish instead an exchange.

And you get an exchange. However, perhaps you're simply not the best. They'll still take your content and index it, but perhaps there is another site that is selling a better version than you or perhaps their site is better than yours. I am going to do you a favor. I'm going to give you a free SEO audit for the next few minutes. And I'll tell you where I--and I cannot claim to be an expert or know exactly what Google wants--think you are going wrong.

First...You have that site wide navigation thing on the left sidebar. Basically, you link to every category and there is no grouping. But, I see that there are some colors being used to differentiate categories. That doesn't make it easier for the consumer. Group the categories. Google likes to see you get to the product page in 2-3 clicks. So, if you group the categories into a few, smaller master categories and then utilize silos (basically, deep linking within one category), you'll decrease the number of links to choose from and increase the amount of flowing link juice. Site wide navigation isn't all that great anymore and I've been seeing a lot of reports of people saying that Google isn't really for that. They want to see easier navigation and drop downs seem to be an alternative to that.

The next thing that I noticed is your site is very limited in content. We've talked about this before and we'll talk about it again, I am sure. But, your site is very limited in content. On your Plumeria Hawaiian Bath Salt (like the anchor text link?), you've got 41 words of unique content. That's it? That should be tripled if not quadrupled (if not 5X or 6X) the amount. Know why Amazon does so well other than the fact it is Amazon? They've got a bunch of content. They have the product description, editor reviews, other reviews, other information and other information. They have a ton of information. You've got 41 words and some ingredients.

But, that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that you were linking to every single page on your site PLUS, in the actual content section, linking to 14 other products that people might be interested in. Your content to code ratio is awful, so Google is likely to come to your site and go, "Yup...Another one of the thousands of e-commerce sites out there that doesn't provide any real value to our visitors." Remember, Google is in it for themselves, so if your site is just looking to make money off the free traffic from Google, they'll find someone who at least provides better value.

BUT!!!

There is hope...

Since you say that your wife does every product and you don't sell thousands and thousands of products, why not write an actual review of each product? Write a 250 or 300 word review and throw it up on the site? That would suddenly make the content to code ratio look different and would make Google happy. But, more than just making Google happy, it'll help you naturally rank for other long-tail keywords that you might never have thought of. Those one or two click a day searches really do add up.

The other thing is work on your navigation. Group the skin stuff, the fragrances, the soaps and all of that. Group it together so that someone can quickly go, "Yup, I'm looking for soap, yup, I want shampoo, ahh, there's my product." That'll make it significantly easier and will decrease the amount of code on the site.

Finally, since we're talking about content, have you ever thought about allowing people to review the stuff you sell? If you opened up comments, suddenly, you've got user generated content (UGC). This UGC is something Google loves. They have quite a love affair...It gets very passionate in Paris. Basically, you have people who love the product say that they love the product and suddenly, there's more unique content on the page. AND! You didn't have to write it.

What I am basically trying to say, mate, is that there are problems with your site. And, instead of pointing the finger at Google saying how evil they are, look to yourself. Make your site more accessible to users. Make it so that there is more unique content on the pages. Google evolves and you have to follow. It's not just about throwing up a sitemap or getting anchor text backlinks. It's not just about title tags or any of that. You have to make the experience worthwhile to the visitor. And the experience is more than just making the sale.

I hope I have not offended...

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

I believe in this:

America is the greatest nation in human history. Belief in Liberty, limited government and sound money made us the freest and most prosperous people in the world.
Ron Paul

That's still a libertarian view, albeit minarchist (not anarchist), but as such it still doesn't support antitrust regulations.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

I guess you have take a look at the Revolving doors at: Revolving door between the US Government and Industry

I'm quite aware of things like that and this is natural where there is a government (especially big one that's all too willing to put their noses where they don't belong). You automatically have people who want to profit by making the government and its laws side with them and serve their interests. This is just another reason why laws have nothing to do with morality and why the only real reason we often abide by them is fear, and that's not a very good reason.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Wait a minute there, We don't take advantage of something Google offered. We offer as small owners free hard work to Google, that give them the possibility to sell their advertising aka Adwords, in return they send us qualified traffic. Let me clearify a theory, they crawl our sites and pick up our work, we did ask anything. From their point of view we should take action to block them if we do not agree to give away our work. The big question is: It all depends where you stand lol

You both offer something and you both take advantage of each other's offerings. Wherever you stand you're right to choose what to offer and how you offer it, and nobody should be able to force you to do this or that. It's funny you say it all depends on where you stand, because one of the great ways of reaching understanding is to flip the roles, effectively flipping "where you stand" for a few moments, to gain perspective. All the stuff that you want to do to Google is automatically the stuff you'd have to accept being done to you (if you don't want to be hypocritical). You want to use government to restrict their business? Ok then, you support other people using the government to restrict your business. This fits that old saying "do unto others as you would others do unto you". It doesn't matter in principle how big Google is or how small you are. The principle still stands.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

I don't support specially these tactics, the antitrust legislations are already there, the laws exist.

Doesn't mean we have to use them. Guns are there too, doesn't mean we have to shoot people with them (unless they try to do it to us ).

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

I don't believe either they are obliged to serve our interests, all the people have different interests. I wish instead an exchange.

And you're getting it, but the terms of exchange are set and agreed upon by both parties, not just one, and sometimes you don't like the terms, and would therefore like to disengage from the relationship. The trouble with Google is that disengaging means killing your business. Solution? Meet their terms, grow bigger, and then work towards being more independent (possibly in concert with other likeminded small businesses). Nothing else can really solve the problem.