Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Other Added - Google Rules! No, This Isn't Another Glowing Report of the Search Engine Giant
I will generally open the content email by telling them why I want to share this, either because I get a lot of questions about it, or because I have been thinking about it, or because it is something new and I want to get them thinking. I will tell them that – why I am writing about this.Then I will shoot from the hip – tell people exactly what I am thinking.I will also generally make the content email action oriented. For example, if I write a co
This has been mostly a frustration rant and perhaps a challenge to Google. What gives Google the power to decide what we as consumers want to find when we search? Who are they to decide that a new site is less worthy than an older established site? Isn’t the content what is important to us when we search? Is there a better way for Google, and the others to provide better more relevant results?
Perhaps Google should consider offering an option to its faithful followers.
I attended my first national convention in 1999 and didn’t have a clue as to what I was doing. I was going on the advice, “If you want to be a national speaker, you have to network nationally.” That made sense, so I decided to attend the AWC (Association for Women in Communication) national convention in Fort Lauderdale Florida. Once I got there, I didn’t know what to do. I couldn’t just walk up to people and say, “Hey, do you need a motivational speaker or a
My question is why? Does the public know that Google has a “sandbox”? The existence of the sandbox has never been verified by Google, but it’s widely believed to exist.
The sandbox is like a penalty box for new web sites. Most say that a new web site will have to do it’s time in the sandbox for about 6 months before ever having a hope of ranking well in Google. In effect, when you search for “widgets” in Google, there is little chance that you are going to find a new widget company, or even a 50 year old widget company that has just produced a web site for the first time.
What I want to know is; is that fair? Is it what the masses want? Do the masses care how old a site is or how many people link to it? Not likely. As a consumer, if I’m looking for a widget I want a good quality inexpensive widget and I want one that I can order online maybe or one that is local to me so that I can go get it. I could give a rat’s behind how long the website has been up or how many other websites link to it… I just want my widget!
I recently created a web site for my company which offers web design and logo design services. There are a gazillion companies offering that ok, well Google says 170 million but close enough! My chances of getting a top 10, or even to the top 50 are minimal, I have to rely on some more obscure keywords and other advertising methods to get anywhere. I can also rely on Msn search because in a matter of a month I’m now in the top 10 to 30 on three of my keyword phrases.
So what’s the difference? Msn doesn’t have a penalty box? They don’t care how long the site existed? They don’t care how many back links you have? My personal theory is that what they do care about is fresh content and a new website has fresh content.
So… what does this all mean? Not much really other than to point out that Google is a snob and Msn isn’t? That if you are looking for the latest on a topic, perhaps msn should be your search engine of choice? To point out that the average consumer doesn’t really care that there are 170 million websites found for their search term, what they want is relevance in the top 10 – 30 (most won’t go further than 3 pages before they try changing their search term or select a site within the top 30)
This has been mostly a frustration rant and perhaps a challenge to Google. What gives Google the power to decide what we as consumers want to find when we search? Who are they to decide that a new site is less worthy than an older established site? Isn’t the content what is important to us when we search? Is there a better way for Google, and the others to provide better more relevant results?
Perhaps Google should consider offering an option to its faithful followers.
A website is the most important marketing tool for many businesses these days. It is often the first point of contact for a prospective client, who could well make a decision about whether or not to use your services based on a ten second first impression of the look and feel of the home page. It is therefore crucial that those ten seconds convey a professional, polished image. The design can be slick or simple, flash or static – whatever suits the style and budge
What I want to know is; is that fair? Is it what the masses want? Do the masses care how old a site is or how many people link to it? Not likely. As a consumer, if I’m looking for a widget I want a good quality inexpensive widget and I want one that I can order online maybe or one that is local to me so that I can go get it. I could give a rat’s behind how long the website has been up or how many other websites link to it… I just want my widget!
I recently created a web site for my company which offers web design and logo design services. There are a gazillion companies offering that ok, well Google says 170 million but close enough! My chances of getting a top 10, or even to the top 50 are minimal, I have to rely on some more obscure keywords and other advertising methods to get anywhere. I can also rely on Msn search because in a matter of a month I’m now in the top 10 to 30 on three of my keyword phrases.
So what’s the difference? Msn doesn’t have a penalty box? They don’t care how long the site existed? They don’t care how many back links you have? My personal theory is that what they do care about is fresh content and a new website has fresh content.
So… what does this all mean? Not much really other than to point out that Google is a snob and Msn isn’t? That if you are looking for the latest on a topic, perhaps msn should be your search engine of choice? To point out that the average consumer doesn’t really care that there are 170 million websites found for their search term, what they want is relevance in the top 10 – 30 (most won’t go further than 3 pages before they try changing their search term or select a site within the top 30)
This has been mostly a frustration rant and perhaps a challenge to Google. What gives Google the power to decide what we as consumers want to find when we search? Who are they to decide that a new site is less worthy than an older established site? Isn’t the content what is important to us when we search? Is there a better way for Google, and the others to provide better more relevant results?
Perhaps Google should consider offering an option to its faithful followers.
Right now I'm working on a total of three hours worth of sleep. I'm tired, cranky, and my brain died. Of course it's at this moment that I actually need to be creative and create some content for my websites. Sure, it's difficult to create content when you're brain dead, but I have a little list of tricks and exercises anyone can use to jump start their brains: Go take a walk. Not just any old walk around the block, but a walk around your en
I recently created a web site for my company which offers web design and logo design services. There are a gazillion companies offering that ok, well Google says 170 million but close enough! My chances of getting a top 10, or even to the top 50 are minimal, I have to rely on some more obscure keywords and other advertising methods to get anywhere. I can also rely on Msn search because in a matter of a month I’m now in the top 10 to 30 on three of my keyword phrases.
So what’s the difference? Msn doesn’t have a penalty box? They don’t care how long the site existed? They don’t care how many back links you have? My personal theory is that what they do care about is fresh content and a new website has fresh content.
So… what does this all mean? Not much really other than to point out that Google is a snob and Msn isn’t? That if you are looking for the latest on a topic, perhaps msn should be your search engine of choice? To point out that the average consumer doesn’t really care that there are 170 million websites found for their search term, what they want is relevance in the top 10 – 30 (most won’t go further than 3 pages before they try changing their search term or select a site within the top 30)
This has been mostly a frustration rant and perhaps a challenge to Google. What gives Google the power to decide what we as consumers want to find when we search? Who are they to decide that a new site is less worthy than an older established site? Isn’t the content what is important to us when we search? Is there a better way for Google, and the others to provide better more relevant results?
Perhaps Google should consider offering an option to its faithful followers.
Affiliates who make colossal amounts of money online are usually experts at marketing and many are constantly searching for tips via email newsletters and from marketing sites that will dramatically impact on their traffic and affiliate revenues.If you want to be a successful affiliate, it is not too difficult to pick up email marketing tips and become an expert in this important and effective form of online marketing.The first of many email marketin
So… what does this all mean? Not much really other than to point out that Google is a snob and Msn isn’t? That if you are looking for the latest on a topic, perhaps msn should be your search engine of choice? To point out that the average consumer doesn’t really care that there are 170 million websites found for their search term, what they want is relevance in the top 10 – 30 (most won’t go further than 3 pages before they try changing their search term or select a site within the top 30)
This has been mostly a frustration rant and perhaps a challenge to Google. What gives Google the power to decide what we as consumers want to find when we search? Who are they to decide that a new site is less worthy than an older established site? Isn’t the content what is important to us when we search? Is there a better way for Google, and the others to provide better more relevant results?
Perhaps Google should consider offering an option to its faithful followers.
Are you planning to sell on eBay? Or have you tried in the past but not had much success with your online auctions? If so, here's a strategy that has worked very well for me.In my experience, the auction lots where I created a useful collection of related items got more bids and closed at higher prices than auction lots that were all one thing.For example, instead of listing an auction lot of a simple strand of rose quartz oval shape beads, why not
This has been mostly a frustration rant and perhaps a challenge to Google. What gives Google the power to decide what we as consumers want to find when we search? Who are they to decide that a new site is less worthy than an older established site? Isn’t the content what is important to us when we search? Is there a better way for Google, and the others to provide better more relevant results?
Perhaps Google should consider offering an option to its faithful followers. An option to search without their penalty filter, an option to search on new content, an option to search on the age of the website – giving us the choice to decide what’s important to us – giving us credit for knowing what we want. It would rock the world of the SEO and force us webmasters and designers to go back to working on unique content and service for our customers instead of obsessing on keywords and backlinks. I think that would be good for everyone.
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.otheradded.com/article/78355/otheradded-Google-Rules-No-This-Isnt-Another-Glowing-Report-of-the-Search-Engine-Giant.html">Google Rules! No, This Isn't Another Glowing Report of the Search Engine Giant</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.otheradded.com/article/78355/otheradded-Google-Rules-No-This-Isnt-Another-Glowing-Report-of-the-Search-Engine-Giant.html]Google Rules! No, This Isn't Another Glowing Report of the Search Engine Giant[/url]
Related Articles:
Get Your Foot In The Door: Having Trouble Getting An Employer To Give You A Chance?
Understanding & Managing Change
Seven Reasons Why New Products Fail
Bookmark it:
|