Trust bust Google

[Eaglewings]

The only way to get up in the ratings now is $$$$....

Not true. You just have to be very, very creative and know what you're doing. It isn't easy though, but the best tip is to focus on the long tail...

Try getting as many people into your circle on Google + .. , you can do that by liking anyone in business.. google will bring up your ratings ..be sure to use your business name.

Not really. Social activity, including G+, isn't really factored into their ranking algorithms. It's almost entirely based on quality backlinks and on-site engagement.

Back links do not matter if you have the big business paying big money to make the first page.. ..

Google plus helped me with my husbands website, and there is a lot of competition in his field of work.

.

 

[Eaglewings]

Ah, I see....I've never advertised on Google...it wasn't around when I sold my last business. But from what I hear they are worth every nickel they charge since most potential customers never look further than the first page of links.

And Google has been intentionally returning more and more junk results for years now, all while reducing the number of first page results, and increasing the price of advertising through non-transparent "auction" systems, which require ceding control to Google themselves to decide what is "optimal" for your ads. Oh, and they can decide for themselves to turn on ad campaigns that you've paused, and bill you a month later.

How much are you spending per month with them? If you don't mind..

I've moved on from spending money with Google. Years ago, I used to be able to get my fill of clients with an average $175 a month in ads. Nowadays, I could easily piss away $500 in a month without getting a single client. The higher of a budget you let them have, the higher the per-click costs they'll charge you.

My husband was able to advertise in the yellow pages...when things changed over a company who was suppose to get his ratings up (he is an attorney ) charged him 1,500.00 a month bill, and he still wasn't on the 1st page...The big law firms paid major money.

We fired them and I made him a free website with his own domain , worked to get as many lawyers in his circle which helped but not a lot..

Not only has google scammed us by selling to companies on how we search, but they sold us out to the big money firms who give them money.



.

 

[SYTFE]

The only way to get up in the ratings now is $$$$....

Not true. You just have to be very, very creative and know what you're doing. It isn't easy though, but the best tip is to focus on the long tail...

Try getting as many people into your circle on Google + .. , you can do that by liking anyone in business.. google will bring up your ratings ..be sure to use your business name.

Not really. Social activity, including G+, isn't really factored into their ranking algorithms. It's almost entirely based on quality backlinks and on-site engagement.

Back links do not matter if you have the big business paying big money to make the first page.. ..

Google plus helped me with my husbands website, and there is a lot of competition in his field of work.

.

Yes, they do. Not everyone clicks on sponsored results. They go straight to the organic rankings. Actually, the majority of users don't actually click on ads, especially in search.

 

[SwimExpert]

Where it has stiff competetion, Microsoft Windows dominates PCs and iOS is a strong alternative on mobile devices, although Apple tied it to Apple hardware, unlike vendor agnostic Android.

Wait a second, are you seriously trying to say that the above statement makes any sense? Android is the dominant OS for mobile devices. Google has only attempted to enter the PC OS world relatively recently. They first came out with chrombooks specifically only marketing them as a stripped down machine. Very recently, now that they've gotten their footing, they've begun to become assertive to penetrate that realm. In any event, you cannot deny the substantial conflict of interest by simply saying "I don't care."

Again chrome is not popular for lack of competition

You're trying to debundle the argument here. Where did I ever say that there weren't multiple web browsers. I'm not going to let things derail because you want to strip the vehicle and deny the individual parts comprise a vehicle.

Do you know why Chrome has become so "popular"? One of the major reasons is because Google has used its infrastructure to basically force its own preferences for web design. If you don't comply with Google's "preferred" conventions, your page ranking is penalized. Oh, and it just so happens that Chrome is designed to be most friendly to many of those, as well as friendly to other Google interests. For example, Chrome natively integrates withing things like Gmail, and other google products. Meanwhile, Google makes it extremely difficult to integrate these things in other browsers.

The reality is that Chrome is actually a pathetically poor web browser. It has very sloppy rendering, takes up massive resources, and is amazingly under powered. It's not popular because it's a good browser. It's only popular because of Google's massive infrastructure.

I use Gmail because it's a great email service and I use Google Maps because it is the best GPS software.

Okay, this right here shows that you're positively lunatic. Gmail is not especially great. And like Google search, it's far lesser quality than it was several years ago. For ****'s sake, Gmail caused people to get fired earlier this year because Google thought it would be fun to **** around and insert sarcastic images into people's emails without their permission.

And Google Maps as a GPS application is pretty much rubbish. This past year especially Google Maps has developed an extreme mindlessness. Between rattling off a series of 10 contradictory instructions when you're at a red light, persistently navigating in circles for no good reason, and other nonsense, I wouldn't be opposed my state outlawing it as a public safety danger.

Conflict of interest? I don't understand that giving how open Google products operate and how they integrate with other vendor products, unlike Apple products for example.

Open? Are you kidding me? The problem here is you don't seem to have the slightest clue what you're talking about. All you see is a pretty interface that you use to search for porn or play with your phone. In fact, Google does NOT integrate with other products well. Not products in areas where they are involved. They purposely complicate such integrations to control other categories. On the other hand, they leverage their infrastructure to insert themselves into all kinds of other integrations where it suits them. Why the **** do I need google docs to integrate with my merchant services? Google wants me to export my reports to Google sheets, which they then want me to send to Google drive, which they then want me to access from gmail. And why? Because they want me to buy business email accounts, integrate Google Calendar into my website, buy web design services from Google, and then pay Google an arm and a leg to advertise my business which no longer is able to achieve organic search results.

Yeah, that seems like a conflict of interest.

Google has much competition in everything it does, but they manage to out-compete and do so on fair terms as far as I can see.

Google doesn't out-compete. They just spread like a plague, and leverage a wide infrastructure to pressure people to use their suite of integrated products. So here we are right in the same place, where Google is essentially no different than the Bell companies. Large infrastructure, no significant competitor in their core revenue generating business, leveraging their infrastructure to force their customers to only do business with them.

 

[SwimExpert]

Ah, I see....I've never advertised on Google...it wasn't around when I sold my last business. But from what I hear they are worth every nickel they charge since most potential customers never look further than the first page of links.

And Google has been intentionally returning more and more junk results for years now, all while reducing the number of first page results, and increasing the price of advertising through non-transparent "auction" systems, which require ceding control to Google themselves to decide what is "optimal" for your ads. Oh, and they can decide for themselves to turn on ad campaigns that you've paused, and bill you a month later.

How much are you spending per month with them? If you don't mind..

I've moved on from spending money with Google. Years ago, I used to be able to get my fill of clients with an average $175 a month in ads. Nowadays, I could easily piss away $500 in a month without getting a single client. The higher of a budget you let them have, the higher the per-click costs they'll charge you.

My husband was able to advertise in the yellow pages...when things changed over a company who was suppose to get his ratings up (he is an attorney ) charged him 1,500.00 a month bill, and he still wasn't on the 1st page...The big law firms paid major money.

We fired them and I made him a free website with his own domain , worked to get as many lawyers in his circle which helped but not a lot..

Not only has google scammed us by selling to companies on how we search, but they sold us out to the big money firms who give them money.



.

Exactly. Google double deals both sides of the fence.

 

[OKTexas]

Bing?

Bing is pretty much an illusion. A year ago I tried to start running advertising on Bing. Like Google, new accounts are offered something like a $100 credit after spending your first $25. So I made an upfront $25 payment, set up a campaign with a budget of $20 a day. Six months later, I still hadn't even used $5 of the initial $25 I paid. I was getting absolutely zero impressions on the vast majority of days. A virtually identical Google campaign was getting thousands of daily impressions. Sadly, a $20 budget there only meant 3-5 ad clicks. Bing has virtually no traffic.

It's the only search engine I use.

 

[SYTFE]

Not true. You just have to be very, very creative and know what you're doing. It isn't easy though, but the best tip is to focus on the long tail...

No, it really is true. One way, or another, it costs you. And Google's goal is to make it so difficult and costly that people will simply acquiesce to being entirely dependent on paid advertising. The whole idea of focusing on the long tail is actually a bunch of bullshit, but your bringing it up highlights my point about how it's all built on a game of increasing spending on meaningless results.

Yes and no. I don't do any ad buys. Yes, it can be done. No, it isn't easy. However, content is what I do, and it's different from brick and mortar businesses.

You do wedding cakes, yes? Man, that area is wide open. There's so much that can be done with it, you could be getting traffic from all kinds of places. But it would be time consuming. You're running a business. Therefore, ads are where you go. I feel ya. This is how it works for entrepreneurs. They don't have time to **** around with all this bullshit.

Referral business is what you really want. Friends recommending your business. I'm sure that's your single biggest source of actual traffic actually.

To explain, first consider the fact that unless you're in the business of blogging, the "long tail" is pretty much going to be nonexistent. Let's say you're a plumber. You have a website so that potential customers can hopefully find you. I live in your town and I need a plumber. What kind of long tail search could I honestly be performing?

Exactly. Agree 100%.

Second, let's also consider the fact that long tails do not increase relevance of search results, they decrease relevance. Let's imagine I perform a search for "plumbers in Metropolis who specialize in septic tank problems." All these extra keywords increase the avenues from which results may be returned, and lead to such first page results as "Metropolis Plumbers Association Gala Runs Into Problems" etc. Google will deem this result to be relevant, even though it's anything but.

Relevance is based on the content on your site. So, if you obtain traffic from random long tail keywords, it does not decrease relevance. Google knows what your site is about. This aspect of SEO is particularly confusing for people because of some disinfo out there.

The idea of focusing on the long tail to improve results stems from Google's drive to promote more blogging and article results, while suppressing websites of businesses who are trying to reach a customer base. It increases the overall scope of internet based advertising as those types of websites themselves make money primarily from advertising, including Google's own integrated ad platform. In short, it is only good for generating results for promoting internet activity based on web surfing and perpetual click through actions. Not for a results based system of bringing users to a desired end point.

I don't necessarily disagree here. Sometimes I forget that it's a different ballgame for brick and mortar biz.

Not really. Social activity, including G+, isn't really factored into their ranking algorithms. It's almost entirely based on quality backlinks and on-site engagement.

I'm afraid your information is extremely outdated. First, social activity does indeed factor on. Websites like Facebook are indexed. Second, even your usage of "quality" backlink highlights that fact. Not all backlinks are created equal, and thus a social media presence increases the alleged quality of a backlink.

It's not, I promise you. Just because facebook is indexed doesn't mean it's part of their algo. Twitter is indexed. Does it factor into their algorithms? No, it does not. That's straight out of Matthew Cutt's mouth. Will it matter in the future? Perhaps, but it's unlikely.

Very true that not all backlinks are created equal, but social media does not -- in any way whatsoever -- increase the juice of a backlink. I wish it did, really. That would make it just too easy.

That aside, what you're not understanding is that Google wants you to use their products, and is able to give preference to people who do. Being on Google+ leads to being listed elsewhere within the Googlesphere, and results in increased search rankings. For example, if you put your plumbing business on Google+, you can now be reviewed in Google. Google likes this, because they want to increase the utilization of Google Reviews. You can now gain increased ranking for search results, so that when someone searches for a plumber, your Google Business pops up in the results.

That part about Google+ is true, for sure. And I don't disagree that they want you to use their products. Absolutely. But they do not give "preference" to people who do. Again, I wish they did.

The truth of the matter is that Google's algorithms utilize well over a hundred factors, with most of them being seemingly arbitrary, or more commonly being intended to push additional Google products or thwart potential advertisers from gaining a high organic ranking. Google penalizes your ranking if they don't like your web page design, for crying out loud.

Correct, last time I checked it was well over 200. But, any honest SEO guy will tell you that little has changed to their core algorithm, which is quality backlinks and site engagement. And the reason why it hasn't changed is because those 2 factors are very difficult to manipulate.

Sounds like your main gripe is that you feel forced to do your advertising on google, is that correct?

 

[AntonToo]

Where it has stiff competetion, Microsoft Windows dominates PCs and iOS is a strong alternative on mobile devices, although Apple tied it to Apple hardware, unlike vendor agnostic Android.

Wait a second, are you seriously trying to say that the above statement makes any sense? Android is the dominant OS for mobile devices. Google has only attempted to enter the PC OS world relatively recently. They first came out with chrombooks specifically only marketing them as a stripped down machine. Very recently, now that they've gotten their footing, they've begun to become assertive to penetrate that realm. In any event, you cannot deny the substantial conflict of interest by simply saying "I don't care."

IT IS DOMINANT BECAUSE,
1. IT IS GOOD
2.IT IS HARDWARE AGNOSTIC unlike Apple products that are locked down to Apple's hardware.

And what do you mean by "conflict of interest"????

There is no conflict of interest - Google is a company with money making interests (though often very indirect). What is the OTHER interest you are talking about?

 

[SwimExpert]

Yeah, that's pretty low. Years ago, the CPC was dirt cheap. Not sure when you started, but it used to be awesome. Now, the big G is really focused on accounts that are spending at least 5-10k a month.

Which is an impossible amount for small businesses, especially microenterprises.

If you aren't getting anything from $500 a month, there could be a targeting issue, a problem with the copy in the ad, or some other factor.

Well, you could say that. The problem is that Google makes it impossible to target appropriately anymore. I'm in the wedding industry. The first problem is that it's impossible to target ads away from weddings, generally, thus I have to compete with businesses like venues who are looking for sales of $10k - $20k. Then there's the directories, which used to be frowned upon by Google a long time ago. But now, Google is in bed with them.

Do you ever do direct ad buys with specific web sites? That's a pretty advanced technique that a lot of really smart ad buyers do, they'll gather what sites convert for them the best (if running content display ads) from G, then go to the sites directly and see if they sell direct. Way, way cheaper and you already know they convert.

God no. That would be an even worse waste of money. May work well for certain circumstances, but my services (especially at google's rates) require very serious prospects. Until they are very specifically looking for exactly what I do, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to have a paid ad in front of them. It's fine for a casual websurfer to suddenly think "Oh that reminds me, I need to buy a new umbrella, let's look at this one. Oh, that looks good, okay $20, here you go." I provide extremely personal services that require time and emotional investment by the client, for hundreds of dollars.

 

[AntonToo]

The first problem is that it's impossible to target ads away from weddings, generally, thus I have to compete with businesses like venues who are looking for sales of $10k - $20k.

So that's your problem - you are having tougher time competing with bigger business that is willing to pay more than you for the advertisement.

 

[Tom Horn]

I provide extremely personal services that require time and emotional investment by the client, for hundreds of dollars.

So you're a call-girl?

 

[SwimExpert]

You do wedding cakes, yes?

No, I do ceremonies. Think of me as the custom manufactured suit version of what I do. Those who sell wedding goods have a much wider field. They can (theoretically) serve an infinite number of wedding simultaneously. Those of us who provide personal services have a much more limited volume because we can only be at one wedding at a time. That's why I had to leave google advertising behind.

But really, this has been a bit of a tangent, because what I'm really irked about is modern day piss poor performance of the google search engine. It's next to impossible to find what you're looking for nowadays. Google used to be a very good search engine. But it's gone to shit. They've purposely made it shit so that they can increase advertising prices. And they've fucked everything else up along the way. Even if you wanted to create a new competing search engine, you'd basically be forced to just imitate Google's engine at this point. Because Google has become so ubiquitous that everything is designed to (attempt to) respond to Google's engine.

 

[SwimExpert]

The first problem is that it's impossible to target ads away from weddings, generally, thus I have to compete with businesses like venues who are looking for sales of $10k - $20k.

So that's your problem - you are having tougher time competing with bigger business that is willing to pay more than you for the advertisement.

No, jackass. My beef is that when I search for credit card wholesale rates as set by the credit card companies I get pages and pages of results trying to sell me credit cards, or "educate" me with meaningless advice about how to repair my credit score, or endless blogs telling me what a credit card wholesale rates mean.

 

[AntonToo]

No, jackass.

ok enough, you can go **** yourself.