<rant>

When you think about it, Google has had a huge negative impact on the Web.

First they came in with basing the rankings on link text, which, when Google had become the #1 engine, destroyed the natural linking that existed before they came along. It forced everyone to organise links and link text. Web links were fine before they, and subsequently the other engines, ruined it. If you don't get links, you don't rank well. If others in your field get more link texts that you, they rank higher than you. They completely destroyed the natural linking of the Web.

Then they became the #1 engine, to the extent that, if you didn't get traffic from Google, you didn't get search engine traffic, and that's still largely true. That would be fine if their results were consistent, but they've never been that. They screw with the results so much from time to time, that people have to look into having multiple sites, so that if Google screws one or two of them, there are others still ranking fine, and all is not lost.

Then they come up with AdSense and cause millions of garbage sites, usually with stolen content, to be created just for AdSense.

Does Google want us to organise links that wouldn't naturally occur - no - they fight against it. Do they want us to create multiple sites for the same things, as some insurance against their screwing things up - no. Do they want millions of garbage sites - no. But they've pushed us into doing all of that - filling the Web with unnatural stuff - stuff that even *we* don't even want to fill it with. Google's impact on the Web has been mostly very negative. They've destroyed what the Web was, and what it was intended to be. They've come up with the odd nugget, such as Google Earth, but the nuggest are very minor compared to the destruction that they've caused. It's hard to think of anything positive that they've done for the Web.

Are they to blame? No. They are just another business who are trying to make money on the Web. It's a great shame that they are as successful as they are, because they've inadvertantly destroyed the Web in some ways.

</rant>

Hey, we've got free analytics and gmail, what more do you want? lol

Its true tho and an interesting point when you actually type out what impact they have had.

They are big on anti spam, but they create ways to make it easy for people to spam - Blogger especially - they basically open the door for people to spam and use their resources to do it with.

They inadvertantly encourage black hat tactics because natural rankings dont work - do everything right and wait for 2 years before your site will rank. Well, I guess at least it seems like that sometimes.

They create things that *cause* people to spam. If organising unnatural links is spam - they caused it. If MFA (made for AdSense) garbage sites are spam, they caused them. If having multiple sites on the same topic, as insurance against them screwing a site, they caused it. They caused it all.

Analytics may be a nugget, but gmail is nothing. There was free email long before Google came along.

I have to say that I also think that search engines are still behind the times in terms of what the web is used for now a days. I have been turning over in my head how Google and the others SE's are good for my E-commerce site and to be honest they aren't. More and more retailers are going on-line nowadays and we are all having to compete with each other on a system that has always been designed for finding page on a research/information based web, not an ecommerce based one.

Google seems to have tried to address this to some extent with froogle but that seems to have been more of a reaction to shopping portals which then morphed into a MFA Site. we use froogle and get some good results from it but maybe it's time Google and the like took a step back and decided how search engines should work in this day and age???

Hmm I feel a blog coming on.

That was a fly by comment ;)

Well, Google have *caused* webmasters to spam, but they have also provided free resources to make it easy for them to spam - thats what I was meant. Look how many spam sites Google itself hosts i.e. blogger.

To be honest, I've never looked at blogger, and I've never considered blog spam, so I'm out of my depth with it. But I'll take your word for it

Also, if I'm being honest, Google wasn't the first engine to take links into account for rankings. But, because they became so popular so that if you didn't rank well in Google you didn't get search engine traffic, they forced us into 'organised' links and ruined the natural linking that the Web was and should be about.

well, its just the same as people building spammy sites for adsense - except Google not only provides the adsense, but the webspace as well. ;)

Has anyone looked at froogle ??? if you want a made for adsense site thats it ;)

Welcome to the band and jump on the wagon

Many of us argued the whole link thing back when Google first apeared and meta keyword spam guarenteed a #1 spot..

I Think that the worst thing that google did was actually make "fewer" websites available to browsers.. Right now, when you do a search it's a very rare thing when someone looks at anything lower than #10, #20 in a pinch.. So only 10 to 20 sites on any given topic are getting the lion's share of internet viewers sent directly to them..

Back in the day (1 thru 4 B.G.) the vast majority of topics (especially fan based topics) automatically linked to each other in the wonderful webring.. You could go to any site on a given topic and cruise from site to site on the same topis simply by clicking a link at the bottom of the page.. So many good, bad, ugly, and fringe sites that now never see the light of day were viewed on a regular basis by people that enjoyed that topic..

When was the last time you say a webring?? Now we have link exchanges.. But you can't count on those being relevant to your topic since so many people use them simply for PR and link text..

The problem is that there really will be no solution to the problem until the algos develop some intelligence on their own and can make a judgement call on the content on the page and your personal past search criteria.. But until then, we get to wade through all this garbage trying to find the few gems available..

Search destroyed the web.

Prior to search, natural linking was what mattered. Linking with the right sites for the right reasons. Any other type of linking was a waste of time. Along comes search, and the need to rank those results. Hence, links mattered any kind of links from anywhere.

My own personal issue with it is the total and utter failure to be able to compensate for the "gamers". There always has been and always will be those who will only take the "short cut" the "get rich quick" way.

There should never ever be a "crap" listing on the first page of the results for more than a day or 2. EVER! Offending sites should be crucified immediately. No questions asked. Gone. Clean it up and submit a reinclude, until then every single page within that domain is gone.

Hell, go out and buy a small country. Employ every citizen of that country to do nothing but follow up on SPAM.

Want to cure the linking problem? Make one-ways worthless. Nothing but reciprocal linking counts for anything. Hold the webmasters, site owners and SEO's responsible for their links. You can determine so much more from reciprocal linking than one-ways IMO.

The searcher may not know if thet're getting the best results or not. Quite frankly, they don't care. All they care about is whether or not they're getting the results that satisfy their querie. Google has not been delivering in that area as well as they have done in the past.

Google has branched out is so many directions they have lost foucus on what their core business is. Search. With nearly all their revenue coming from advertising, they had better decide what it is they intend to be as a company. If they continue alnog this path of trying to be all things to all people at the expense of their core business they'll likely find themselves asking "Where did we go wrong?"

The 800 lb gorilla is losing weight.

Dave

It's a long time since I've even heard the phrase "web ring". To the best of my recollection, they came about as a result of linkpop, which pre-dated Google, but there must also have been web rings of the type you described, Steve.

I didn't get into any kind of links strategy with my newest site. It contains hundreds, maybe 4 figures, of straight OBLs (links out), and has only 2 or 3 IBLs, which are there just to get it on the search engines' maps. There's even a statement on the site that it doesn't do link exchanges. It's a perfectly 'natural' site, except for the few IBLs that were necessary (it should never be necessary to do that), and it provides a useful service for people.

It was doing ok for long tail traffic, but it's suffering the same fate as many other sites - massively dropped pages, and plummeted traffic. So I think, if I have several sites like it, I'll have some insurance against Google screwing up. Where's the sense in making people think like that, and pouring loads of unwanted and unnecessary sites into the Web pool? Heck, the site was created for that reason - because Google mistakenly penalised another site. The newer site contains completely different data, so it's not duplicate stuff, but it's a site that would never have existed were it not for Google.

I still have an old site set in stasis as just a reminder of times gone by.. It still has the original webring link on the bottom of the page.. At one point we had nearly 100 sites in the ring.. But all the websites it linked to have long since moved on from the webrings they were in..

It is frustrating when you have to put so much effort into pleasing a search engine when designing a site..

The only problem with making one way links worthless is that many people still link to good sites just to link to them.. It would simply force us back to begging each other to link to us..

I really think that the genie is out of the bottle, gave it's three wishes, and is laying on the beach getting a tan now.. The only thing I see as being able to bring some level of sanity to the web is finally making that AI breakthrough..

Until then we'll just have to rely of playing the game to even have a chance..

I was just looking at another way that Google has destroyed natural linking. Have a look at http://www.forthegoodtimes.co.uk/caravan-parks/england.html, and notice the "We have listings for these alternative types of ..." link texts. The links are useful for people, but the most useful and clearest presentaion of them would be just to use the accommodation types as link texts, and not include the country. But not including the country is not much help for search engines to rank the destination pages properly - even as they would like to rank them. It's a compromise, but there should never be any need for such compromises.

There's a much uglier example at http://www.holidays.org.uk/. Click on Directory in the horizontal menu and look at the right column. I hate having to find compromises like that instead of just designing solely for people. But if you design solely for people, they mostly won't get to see the pages. There would be no need for the right column to be there if it weren't for the engines. It's only there because I'm not prepared to compromise the link texts in the main part of that page. And the only reason that that directory section of the site is there at all is for the engines. People can find what they want using the normal form navigation.

Yeh, and having to do that downgrades the look and feel of the site as well unfortunately.

Its like someone was talking today about splash pages - although they look good on the eye, they are no good for search engines - they say we eat with our eyes - so design is important to attract peoples interest, but if you have a large site and need pages to be indexed, it means you have to put links all over the place to get weight on your search terms, which can make a site look ugly.

Exactly the point. If they are indeed linking just to link they'll keep doing it. No reason to stop.

By making one-ways worthless as far as ranking value is concerned, it makes webmasters take responsibility for their links. You want credit for a link? Link back. If you don't take the time to visit a site and check it out first, you'll end up penalized for linking to a bad neighborhood.

Traffic gained or sent for having a one-way doesn't change.

Dave

The issue then becomes that you like my site because I rawk and you link to me.. I look at your site and it's total crap, with a default skin and everything.. So, even though my site rawks, I get no credit for the link because your site sux0rs and I refuse to link to it.. But thanks for the link anyway..

Which brings me back to needing an intelligent search algo.. One that can work on the content of the page and not be as concerned about external influences..

Presactly! You should get nothing for not linking back. Don't care if your site rawks. Here, this is me... not caring. That's the point. You want credit, link back. You don't like the site, fine, don't link. Nobody gets nuthin. You link to a "naughty site" you get penalized. What you get for a one-way is the traffic that link generates. No more, no less.

In a nutshell, you're telling a SE that yes, you know about the link pointing to you, and yes you approve so you link back.

Dave

I have to totally disagree with you on this one Dave..

May rockin' site doesn't get the juice it deserves because I refuse to link to crap sites.. But other crap sites are happy to link to each other as well as me because they don't have any standards, they just want to link whore..

Now their crap sites out rank a good site simply because they link farmed with each other..

Again, that's the point. Crap passes on crap. It makes it far easier to detect. If it becomes a big "I just want to link" circle jerk, they all get hurt. It also prevents that "crap site" from submitting to a zillion directories for one ways and ranking highly. If they decide to link back to all of them, this again is detectable.

Far easier to find things out about a site by looking at who the reciprocate links with.

Your rockin' site however, still continues to do well because you don't link to crappy sites. It gets all the juice it earns. You gain because of their loss.

Dave

I still disagree completly.. The SEs have already proven that they can't sort out crap from gold so expecting another link scheme to sort that out for them is more optomistic than I'm willing to allow for.. The better solution is one that doesn't take links into account at all..

Oh, and to steer this back on topic - Google sucks..

Yep...

So do doctors with cold swollen hands

Dave

So what you are proposing is that one way links from directories would not count, one way links from CNN would not count, one way links from the whithouse would not count.


Methinks anarchy and confusion lies in that direction.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm proposing.

You want a link to count for ranking, acknowledge the link by linking back, then it counts.

Easier to sniff out schemes this way. Easier to find those linking for the sake of linking.

If a site is getting links from CNN or the Whitehouse, I would suspect the traffic from those links alone would offset any ranking benefit.

Take a look at how many scraper sites and crap gets pushed up in the SERP's based on the strength of one-ways.

Dave

I don't see how link exchanges would do anything to help google sniff out schemes.. Instead of getting hundreds / thousands of one way links the scrappers would simply all link to each other..

And, like the hidden div issue, just because some people may abuse the process doesn't mean that the process should be tossed out..

Which would be easily detectable by them, and not only for just one site, the entire group.

Dave

How does it make it easier to detect?

Man, that made me chuckle!

The problem with your suggestion Dave is that you are suggesting that Google completely throw out the ranking systems that have made them the leaders in the field and substitute a reverse system where links don't count unless they are reciprocated. So if I do something newsworthy and the search engines would like to index that something its not going to be possible unless I ferret out all the places that have linked to me and link back to them, which results in twice as many links as are necessary and would be a heyday for spammers.


If you have a notable site and someone comes across it and likes it enough to place a link to it, that would not be counted by your system even though its a genuine recosmmedation since I might never know about it.

Sorry IMO that idea is 100% backwards.

Not completely throw it out, only part of it.

Your newsworthy accomplishment is going to be indexed just as it always has, from the links. That doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the potential ranking benefit that accomplishment recieves from that link.

The spammers are having a heyday now. By forcing them to reciprocate to receive a ranking benefit, you are forcing them to "tell on" each other. Webmasters, site owners and SEO's would have to go back to the premise of linking with the right sites for the right reasons, not only for traffic that particular link will generate, but for a ranking benefit as well.

You would still be receiving all the genuine reccomendations you always have. You would still be garning the genuine targetted traffic those reccomendations provide now.

IMO it's far easier to game the system using one-ways. Bad ones cannot hurt you. You throw enough "stuff" at the wall some of it is bound to stick.

Yes, my thinking about this may be quite backwards, however, what the current system has evolved into is far cry from forwards. It's too easy to game.

Dave