Is it safe to build a business completely reliant on free Google traffic?

[petertdavis]

One of the things every buyer needs to do is learn how to evaluate what is a healthy balance of traffic for the type of website you're buying. Personally, I am way more suspicious of high-traffic websites who's main source of traffic is not Google. I'm sure that's in part because of the type of sites I buy (forums), but it's also obvious to me from seeing the traffic stats of hundreds of websites that it's easier to fake direct or referral traffic than it is to fake healthy Google traffic. It is almost always the case that a site which has lost its Google traffic just didn't have anything compelling enough to justify the Google traffic in the first place. Who needs another directory in the Google SERPs anyway? The people on places like WMW or SP complaining about losing their Google traffic, 99% of them are running thin affiliate sites, lead gen sites, made-for-Adsense sites, ecommerce sites without any significant unique content, yet-another-directory site, etc, etc. When you're not offering anything that is both unique and compelling, then you really shouldn't expect Google traffic in the first place. And, if you're buying a site like that, you need to recognize the risks.

[JJMcClure]

I don't think people are worried by the possibility of Google going away. They are concerned by the fact that, for whatever reason, their Google traffic might disappear. That might be more likely to happen with some sites than with others, but it's a very real risk that shouldn't be ignored. If you're wholly reliant on Google, then you're stuffed.

Yeah, I meant to say something about that but got sidetracked.

If you genuinely deserve a ranking then you don't have anything to worry about. That's what it boils down to. Google's ability to identify and reward the signals that indicate genuine usefulness is improving all the time so real rankings will never be lost unless someone becomes more useful in which case you have a genuine reason for losing that traffic/business that has nothing to do with Google changing things, just someone out competing you.

People moaning about 'google slaps' or getting 'punished' by Google usually had rankings that they didn't deserve in the first place and Google just caught up with them in the end.

[benitez17]

So which of the 1000 sites selling wris****ches (or insert any other common item) deserves the top spot? Can Google tell which one has the best service or provides the best value for your money?

I agree with the general premise of your argument that many of the people who worry about Google cracking down on them know they are doing something Google doesn't approve of to game the system, but Google is far from perfect, and many of their actions appear to be arbitrary while leaving the person impacted with no recourse.

[tke71709]

So which of the 1000 sites selling wris****ches (or insert any other common item) deserves the top spot? Can Google tell which one has the best service or provides the best value for your money?

In theory, the ones with the best service or that provide the best value would be cited more often on the web and thus have more backlinks. Of course, a site might be so horrible that it acquires a ton of negative backlinks that would still give it link juice and push it to the top I suppose.

Google does the best that they can, it's far from perfect but I tried using Bing for a while and found it completely useless.

[JJMcClure]

In theory, the ones with the best service or that provide the best value would be cited more often on the web and thus have more backlinks. Of course, a site might be so horrible that it acquires a ton of negative backlinks that would still give it link juice and push it to the top I suppose.

Google does the best that they can, it's far from perfect but I tried using Bing for a while and found it completely useless.

Pretty much exactly what I would have said.

As for the negative backlinks, the site would most likely rank for whatever was causing the negative feedback so it still works the way it's supposed to and it wouldn't help them much. Just like the White House used to rank number one for 'miserable failure'.

many of their actions appear to be arbitrary while leaving the person impacted with no recourse.

Can you give an example of one of these actions?

[benitez17]

Sure, in an enivronment where no one is attempting to collect backlinks that will work out fine, which is what Google attempts to create by threatening people who don't follow their rules with punishment.

I agree it is the best search engine, and it probably will remain so until someone else comes up with a better way to organize and sort webpages.

My point is that not every decision Google makes is the right one, and there are plenty of people who are hurt by algorithm changes even though they followed all of the rules. Planning your business around another party that has no responsbility to you and doesn't care if your sites continue to exist at all is not a wise decision.

[benitez17]

Can you give an example of one of these actions?

Arbitrary: text-link-ads.com is banned from Google, but much of their competition is not.
No recourse: Clinton had a site hacked that was blocking Google, and it then went on Google's malware list that is used by Firefox because Google crawled it while it was hacked. The only way to get off the list is to submit the site to Google for review, which would defeat the goal of keeping it away from Google's prying eyes. There is a thread about it here on this site.

Also see the links in previous posts in this thread for more examples.

Sorry for the brief and somewhat terse reply, but I am on my phone and can't do a ton of research. I would be willing to bet that there are plenty of examples out there besides these, and I think you know that.

They are a company offering a very useful service on their terms, which is fine with me, but I don't elevate them to any special status above other companies I interact with or plan any aspect of my life around them.

[meathead1234]

How does high rankings in SERPS affect your valuation of a prospective buy?

I'm very much a cynic when it comes to sites with high SE rankings. I would never trust myself (or Google) to maintain any rankings that a site may have currently. As a rule of thumb, I will ignore any site that relies on SE traffic, especially if it is already at number one for x keywords as it could be difficult to improve the site and earnings (which is where my profit comes).

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me, and I'm certainly not doubting the fact that sites with a high % of Google traffic sell for nice premiums. Everyone has their own buying preferences and SE traffic just doesn't fit with me.

[Andy]

"Is it safe to build a business completely reliant on..." ANY one source? I've known businesses that got most of their business from Kodak or Xerox. It's just not good business sense to depend on one source - period. And then there's Google.

Way back when - I was a huge fan of Google. Hardly anyone knew about them and I pointed lots of folks in their direction. Recently I heard someone say something like "Google is the best business ever". And I cringed. Why? What turned me around?

Google did.

Yeah I got slapped down a couple of times. Not for "web spam" but my landing pages for AdWords. This was my first huge tiff with Google and the basis of my opinion that they do not understand business. Here's why:

I write and adwords ad. The ad says I've got something to sell. It sends folks to a sales page. I get slapped because it's a sales page. WHAT? Why? I'm supposed to provide for a pleasant user "experience" or some such nonsense. Lemmetellya - I go down to the local coffee shop for a cup of coffee, I'm not looking for an education about how coffee beans are grown. I want a fix and I want it now. Google just doesn't get it.

Maybe I don't get it. But from the way I see it is the user experience should be defined by the user - not a search engine.

Google doesn't get marketing - at least not how I see it. Here's the thing: I'm not going to spend too much money on bad marketing. I might try some stuff to see what the reaction is but if I don't hit a chord, I'm gone. Google doesn't like that. If it don't fit in their formula, they slap it hard.

Google ain't the be all and tell all of search engines either. I get plenty of stupid results from them. You ever try "search within results"? I'm tellin ya - you'll find all sorts of strange connections if you do. I've also hit some really awful results in regular searches. One time when they were crying about how awful "web page spam" was, I was getting all sorts of crappy "optimized" pages from Google searches.

I do have a list of "alternate" search engines for specialized research. I admit, I don't use it much, but when I need in-depth information, I dig it out.

And like it's said before, all they've got to do is change their mind about who has good information on a subject and you could be gone.

Even if Google was an impeccable source for the best information all the time and you could count on their policies with your eyes closed, I would not put all my financial eggs in their basket. It's just asking for trouble.

Andy

[JJMcClure]

they do not understand business.

Google just doesn't get it.

Google doesn't get marketing

Google ain't the be all and tell all of search engines either I would not put all my financial eggs in their basket. It's just asking for trouble.

You're talking about a company worth billions and staffed by PHDs and who's primary goal is to maintain the quality of their product. I'm not going to second guess them nor am I going to feel personally singeld out just because I fell foul of their quality guidelines, that'd be like saying that they shoulda let me on that plane last time I was drunk or moaning cos I got caught speeding.

user experience should be defined by the user - not a search engine.

It very much is with Google, I wonder if it's you that doesn't get them, not the other way around Andy. Everything they do is aimed at being as useful as possible for their own users otherwise they don't make any money, they're not directly responsible for the content of their index so they have to control it second hand, not an easy job.