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

[3Six]

Rich, that Google is big and successful is not in question. That people will always need a way to search the internet is also not something I'll question. But that isn't the subject under discussion. It's about relying on Google for the bulk of your traffic and, as you say, that's not something you'd want. Anybody who thinks that Google's existence being a "safe bet" is the same as their traffic flow being a safe bet is a fool, and I know you ain't.

If you genuinely deserve a ranking then you don't have anything to worry about.

So if you're #1 in Google for a term, you'll always stay #1? It's their constant attempt to give their users the best experience and serve the best results for a query that is the top argument for why you can't be assured of always staying in the positions you currently enjoy. But they also sometimes play around with the SERPS to test their users' experience. And you could lose there as well.

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.

Is that what happened with BMW, they got slapped for the term BMW because they never deserved it in the first place?

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 remember the MFA fiasco (Made For Adsense). All these sites cropped up with junk information and the sole reaons for their existence was to make money from Adsense. They were in violation of Adsense policy, but Google didn't do anything about it. I waited for month after month after month. Google could have closed the Adsense accounts. Google could have removed them from the SERPS. They did neither. And you know why? Because they wanted to develop an automated and scalable solution. Great. Fantastic. But all the PhDs at the plex took close to two years to do that.

[JJMcClure]

But they also sometimes play around with the SERPS to test their users' experience. And you could lose there as well.

No of course not, you'll only stay there as long as you deserve to and like I said earlier, if you're genuine but you lose your ranking and your traffic it won't be cos of something Google did, it will be because you got out performed. That's life.

But they also sometimes play around with the SERPS to test their users' experience. And you could lose there as well.

The SERP is their product, they don't 'play' with it, they try to refine it and improve it's quality. If you lose out during one of the hundreds of algo tweaks that happen every year it's because you don't meet their definition of 'useful'. Understanding what Google want to show their users is key to ranking well.

Is that what happened with BMW, they got slapped for the term BMW because they never deserved it in the first place?

Correct. They were cloaking and that's a big no no, you don't show Google one thing and your visitors something else because then Gogole loses control of the quality of their product and they can't allow that.

I remember the MFA fiasco (Made For Adsense). All these sites cropped up with junk information and the sole reaons for their existence was to make money from Adsense. They were in violation of Adsense policy, but Google didn't do anything about it. I waited for month after month after month. Google could have closed the Adsense accounts. Google could have removed them from the SERPS. They did neither. And you know why? Because they wanted to develop an automated and scalable solution. Great. Fantastic. But all the PhDs at the plex took close to two years to do that.

Can't comment on that one, don't know anything about it. I've heard Matt Cutts talking about scalable solutions though and I know it's their preferred method, makes sense when you think about the billions of pages in their index. You say it took two years, does sound like a long time.

[JJMcClure]

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.

Why use the word 'punishment', it makes it sound so Big Brother. What's acutally happening is that you failed to meet their definition of quality/useful and you got removed from their product. What's wrong with a company trying to improve the quality of their product? If they didn't Google would be rubbish, like all the search engines it replaced.

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.

Yeah that was unfortunate but it happened because Google were trying to protect their users (and therefore their revenue stream), again, something I admire. They even have a procedure to allow people in Clinton's position to undo the error.

Clinton, what was the site again? Presumably it's only the domain name that's listed and not the site content so it's still effectively hidden form Google users right?

[Clinton]

Rich, I'd rather not disclose the site, but the thread where this was discussed is here.

you'll only stay there as long as you deserve to

Yes, once every successful black-hatter is eliminated

Listen I own the SERPS for some finance terms in Google UK that I completely and absolutely don't deserve. And this site has owned those terms for a long time. What happened to Google quality? I won't give you detailed examples of the finance terms, but I will disclose a different example.

"CRM software" is a valuable term. The average click price is pretty high. There are several massive multinational companies that sell CRM software solutions - From Microsoft to the market leaders, SalesForce.com. These are companies that attract thousands of natural links for the term and, in addition, some of them have the world's top SEOs working on the case. Yet I have a CRM software page on a site (link) that, for years, has been in #1 or #2 for this very lucrative term in the UK, usually #1 (and makes me a fair bit of money from both Google and other ads - several top companies buy ads on that page). Quality? All that page has is a few paragraphs about what CRM software is! I know that the page is ranked unusually highly for the term, but should someone looking to buy that site from me value it on the assumption that it's going to continue getting the same level of traffic and earnings?

you'll only stay there as long as you deserve to

Then the above page would have been gone from SERPS years ago, mate

Google tries to get it right but often get it wrong and the best page is not at #1. Would you agree that a business that relies on their page being at #1 and is in a position where they couldn't exist as a business if they lose that ranking is not really a business, it's a punt, a gamble, it's like going to the bookies?

[benitez17]

Rich,

What would you call Google's actions against text-link-ads.com (to continue my example) other than punishment? If a user is looking for text link ads, they presumably would like to find one of the biggest players in the sector, but they won't be able to using Google. However, plenty other text link brokers are still there. That doesn't sound like they are looking out for the best interests of their users, but are trying to hurt a company that allows people to game their rankings. I feel the same about the BMW ordeal. Clearly users looking for BMW would be best served by having the BMW website at the top of the rankings, but Google didn't like some of the actions BMW took, and slapped them down.

Also, you keep talking about sites getting to the top of Google that "deserve" it, despite all of the evidence being presented to the contrary, not to mention that Google changes their definition of most deserving on a regular basis (as 3Six mentioned above). If Google suddenly knocks your non-blackhat site down in the rankings, like they did recently to many sites when they changed their long tail algorithms, does that mean that you are no longer deserving of that top position? If so, why did you deserve it before? Were they wrong before, or wrong now? I certainly wouldn't want an index that can be changed on a whim to be the foundation of my business.

I'm not even going to go into your question about Google becoming Big Brother in this thread, because I think it's too far off topic. If you want to talk about that some more, we can in another thread, because we definitely disagree there.

(Edit: I started that new thread here).

[JJMcClure]

What would you call Google's actions against text-link-ads.com (to continue my example) other than punishment?

I'd call it protecting the integrity and quality of their product. Anytime you contrive to improve your ranking, rather than letting it happen naturally, you're doing something they can't allow because it reduces the quality of the SERP.

Clearly users looking for BMW would be best served by having the BMW website at the top of the rankings, but Google didn't like some of the actions BMW took, and slapped them down.

'slapped them down', again with the emotive language. What actually happened is that Google realised that the pages they were seeing weren't the pages that BMW were sending their users to and in the interests of making sure that Google users were getting the best service they removed BMW.de pages from the index. If I ran an indexing service and it turned out that one of my users was fooling me about the actual content of their Ad I'd do exactly the same thing.

It's the very fact that Google nerfed thier pages despite them being BMW shows that they have integrity and a genuine concern for the quality of their product. You think it makes them look bad, I love them for it.

Also, you keep talking about sites getting to the top of Google that "deserve" it, despite all of the evidence being presented to the contrary, not to mention that Google changes their definition of most deserving on a regular basis (as 3Six mentioned above). If Google suddenly knocks your non-blackhat site down in the rankings, like they did recently to many sites when they changed their long tail algorithms, does that mean that you are no longer deserving of that top position? If so, why did you deserve it before? Were they wrong before, or wrong now? I certainly wouldn't want an index that can be changed on a whim to be the foundation of my business.

Yes, yes and yes, respectively. They're not perfect but they continuously strive to perfect their product, how can anyone have a problem with that? They don't owe you a living, if you get hurt by an algo tweak then suck it up and figure out what they want now and give it to them.

[benitez17]

I'd call it protecting the integrity and quality of their product. Anytime you contrive to improve your ranking, rather than letting it happen naturally, you're doing something they can't allow because it reduces the quality of the SERP.

Why not blacklist the dozens of other companies that sell text links then? I don't blame them for trying to protect their business, because this is a flaw in their ranking model that they can't avoid as things stand now, but I don't understand why they ban one company but not others who do the exact same thing. I think they should either ban one, ban none, or improve their ranking algorithm to put these companies out of business (which I don't see happening any time soon).

'slapped them down', again with the emotive language. What actually happened is that Google realised that the pages they were seeing weren't the pages that BMW were sending their users to and in the interests of making sure that Google users were getting the best service they removed BMW.de pages from the index. If I ran an indexing service and it turned out that one of my users was fooling me about the actual content of their Ad I'd do exactly the same thing.

It's the very fact that Google nerfed thier pages despite them being BMW shows that they have integrity and a genuine concern for the quality of their product. You think it makes them look bad, I love them for it.

What about their customers who were searching for BMW that weren't able to find BMW.de pages in their results? It seems like they would have a suboptimal experience using Google.

I think it was more about Google making an example out of a major company who was doing something they didn't like as a warning to smaller players.

Also, I did not use "emotive language" when I said that they were "slapped". I was referring to the commonly used term for this practice, known as a "Google slap". However, you did mention that you love the company for their practices, which sounds more like an emotional response to me than an objective analysis.

Yes, yes and yes, respectively. They're not perfect but they continuously strive to perfect their product, how can anyone have a problem with that? They don't owe you a living, if you get hurt by an algo tweak then suck it up and figure out what they want now and give it to them.

I agree completely that they don't owe anyone a living and I don't blame them at all for attempting to improve their product. This is why I'd rather just build a business that doesn't count on them than spend a lot of time trying to keep up with their constant changes.

However, you can't answer yes to 2 of the questions I posed because they aren't yes or no questions, so I'll ask them again:

If a site is no longer deserving of the top position because of algorithm changes, why did the site deserve it before?
Was Google wrong before, or wrong now?

Finally, I don't think we are that far apart on our opinions regarding Google's responsibility to individual sites (I don't think they really have any at all, which is my ultimate point in this thread). However, I think we are going to continue to disagree about their motives and our individual willingness to trust them.

[Clinton]

Just to bring this back on topic - Rich, if your entire income was from the internet, what's your comfort percent of income derived directly or indirectly from free Google traffic?

For me, I'd be uncomfortable if more than 30% of my income is reliant on the whims of the algo (and that's despite the safety of multiple sites on different servers ranking in different industries). If Google wasn't as huge as it is and very unlikely to fail, my comfort percentage would be a lot lower.

[JJMcClure]

What about their customers who were searching for BMW that weren't able to find BMW.de pages in their results? It seems like they would have a suboptimal experience using Google.

If Google had allowed BMW to continue to rank despite the fact that they're cloaking and using deceptive practices to rank, what would you have thought of them? Wouldn't THAT be favouritism?

Plus, there's nothing to stop someone going directly to the BMW.de site if they know it exists, it was only dropped from the SERP not deleted from existence.

think it was more about Google making an example out of a major company who was doing something they didn't like as a warning to smaller players.

And I think it was Google following their own rules, doesn't matter how big you are, if you threaten the quality and integrity of their product, you're gone. Fab.

Also, I did not use "emotive language" when I said that they were "slapped". I was referring to the commonly used term for this practice, known as a "Google slap". However, you did mention that you love the company for their practices, which sounds more like an emotional response to me than an objective analysis.

ok, you weren't being emotive and I was. Ever wondered why it's called a 'slap' though?, it wasn't coined by Google themselves. It was a bunch of disgruntled Adwords advertisers who didn't like that Google tightened up the quality of their service because it cost the advertisers money.

I agree completely that they don't owe anyone a living and I don't blame them at all for attempting to improve their product. This is why I'd rather just build a business that doesn't count on them than spend a lot of time trying to keep up with their constant changes.

However, you can't answer yes to 2 of the questions I posed because they aren't yes or no questions, so I'll ask them again:

If a site is no longer deserving of the top position because of algorithm changes, why did the site deserve it before?
Was Google wrong before, or wrong now?

They were wrong before and they could still be wrong now.

Finally, I don't think we are that far apart on our opinions regarding Google's responsibility to individual sites (I don't think they really have any at all, which is my ultimate point in this thread). However, I think we are going to continue to disagree about their motives and our individual willingness to trust them.

You have to trust someone sometime and given my involvement in/knowledge of ethical living I tend to be quite selective with companies I trust and they've yet to do anything to lose my trust.

Just to bring this back on topic - Rich, if your entire income was from the internet, what's your comfort percent of income derived directly or indirectly from free Google traffic?

For me, I'd be uncomfortable if more than 30% of my income is reliant on the whims of the algo (and that's despite the safety of multiple sites on different servers ranking in different industries). If Google wasn't as huge as it is and very unlikely to fail, my comfort percentage would be a lot lower.

I wouldn't (in theory) be comfortable with 100% of my income coming from any single source, I said that earlier in the thread. I can't put a number on "income derived directly or indirectly from free Google traffic", frankly I'd be happy to have more income and then I'd worry about where it was coming from

It's not the 'whims' of the algo, that's exactly the kind of attitude I just don't understand, like they 'mess' with us for fun or something. If you get what Google want, rankings become very resilient to algo tweaks. If you pay some Indian link builder for 1000 generic directory links and then your ranking tanks cos of an algo change well duh... how can you be so obloivious to what Google want to give their users? The failure is yours, not Google's.

[Clinton]

If you pay some Indian link builder for 1000 generic directory links and then your ranking tanks cos of an algo change well duh...

So I'll just pay an Indian link builder for 1000 generic links to my competitor, the site that "deserves" to be at #1

Afer all Google did change their previous line about "there is nothing you can do to reduce the ranking of a competitor" to "there is almost nothing..."

One thing is certain, there is nothing you can do to ensure you stay permanently at #1 for your key term. Whether you are there or not is due to your implementation of SEO and Google's chopping and changing with the algo. From a business perspective, one's in your control and other isn't. So working to eliminate your free Google traffic may actually be a good thing for your business? The less you depend on them the less likely you are to have a massive drop in turnover/profit and have to tighten your belt or sack employees