Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
sudont 531 days ago | link | parent

Basically, the volatility of their algorithm and the opaqueness of it means that any small business that is getting >80% Google-referred traffic is in for a tough time if they're marked as bad. And mistakes happen. Say:

* A canonical tag that shows up due to a bug. Dead.

* Industry terms that appear duplicative to the NLP parser. Dead.

* Too-diverse content. Lower rankings, but functionally dead.

There's tons more, but I'm not a practitioner of SEO.



snogglethorpe 531 days ago | link

This smells like bullshit to me. Google's search results are generally extremely good from the "customer's" point of view.

People whining about how they're hurt by losing search position inevitably turn out to be spammers or other lowlife that have been trying to use "SEO" or some other shady practice to artificially inflate their search position.

So yeah, Google is bad for con-men. Darn.

-----

don_draper 531 days ago | link

I've been spending time in Black Hat internet marketing forums (out of curiosity). They hate Google. Google is consistently making their search engine better for the user and worse for spammers.

-----

WalterGR 531 days ago | link

People whining about how they're hurt by losing search position inevitably turn out to be spammers or other lowlife that have been trying to use "SEO" or some other shady practice to artificially inflate their search position.

I have a slang dictionary site that's currently being penalized by Google for showing citations of slang use gathered (by hand) from media.

With the penalty, Google sends 1/3 less search traffic. And I whine about it. But I'm not a con man.

-----

joelrunyon 531 days ago | link

> There's tons more, but I'm not a practitioner of SEO.

Sounds like you know an awful lot about SEO and consequences for not being a "practitioner."

-----

ruby_on_rails 531 days ago | link

I also call bullshit on this. Google is very open to webmasters,and has a giant like 40 page .pdf available to them strictly about what things get better search results and what things cause negative results or out right panda-ing. The article says right up front about the voting website that they had duplicated content on pages and no one linking to them to boot. Both are known negatives to anyone working in SEO or web today and it has been known for years.

The entire article seemed to be one giant raving contradiction of its self. Companies don't want to hire good people (or for some reason have ignored what they have said), chosen to keep doing things they way that keeps getting them negative results, then moan about it. What happened to the voting website is the very thing thing that Bing would do to them (and probably has done to them).

Now admittedly, Google tends to promote its services above services of other companies, should they be in competing markets. Its unclear if this is by accident (Google engineers probably know the best Google SEO methods after all) or by design. At worst, if it is done by design, then Google is no worse then any other large company. Remember when all the big super markets started producing their own products at cut rate prices? Before when you walked into a Publix, you had 10ft of shelf space devoted to nationally branded ranch dressing. Now you have 5 ft devoted to Publix brand Ranch dressing and 5ft devoted to everything else. So if you are Kraft, your seeing your [eye-ball] search traffic being reduced by half and your competitor now has a much lower price to boot.

Why is it that Kraft doesn't care about that? They don't care, because they have spent the last half decade building their brand and their customer pool. They know that if their loyal customers go into a super market they will see the cheaper supermarket branded ranch dressing first; then second they will see the high priced Kraft and buy Kraft. I can easily extend this analogy to many of the situations presented in the article. When Google enters a market, they are the underdog. Just like when Publix decides to copy another nationally branded product and sell it in their stores. Even if Publix devoted 9 ft to Publix brand Ranch and 1 ft to National brands, on the shelves, Publix still wouldn't capture 90% of the market.

-----

Evbn 530 days ago | link

Also, Kraft probably wholesales half the store brand stuff to Publix.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: