6 ms·
"It's a bug that you could rank highly in Google without buying ads, and Google is trying to fix the bug." (1) I love that quote - by HN's own jrockway - when
by aresant 11y ago
"It's a bug that you could rank highly in Google without buying ads, and Google is trying to fix the bug." (1)
I love that quote - by HN's own jrockway - when he was under employ at Google. He wound up effectively retracting and clarifying (2) but I believe it wholeheartedly in original form.
When you take apart Google's "Page Quality Score" algorithm they use to determine what to charge / rank you for each click you can see the brilliant intersection of Google's business and their product.
AKA they believe that the most reliable way to drive search relevancy is to make sure the guy on the other end of the table is willing to pay for that user's attention.
And they'll penalize the advertiser if they don't hit "relevancy" metrics to make it more expensive for that advertiser to reach you.
The relevancy metrics they'll use include page speed (good for user), time user spends on site (relevancy), actions taken - tracked by Google Analytics (relevancy), and content quality / uniqueness (relevancy).
If you've got a guy willing to pay with high relevancy it's a compelling reason to show nothing but ads.
Now is that REALLY good for the user across the board? No way.
Does this leave in the dust the small guys and dramatically favor the big guys with time and attention to get everything right? Totally.
Is every small business going to wind up paying a "Google Tax" - no question.
But still, that's why they do it.
(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3535153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3535153
(2) http://searchengineland.com/google-clarifies-no-ads-shouldnt-help-rankings-no-seo-isnt-bad-110673 http://searchengineland.com/google-clarifies-no-ads-shouldnt...
- StavrosK 11y agoNow that you mention that, does anyone else find it incredibly scummy that Google shows ads for a company, leading to the company's website, above the first result, which is also the company's website when I search for something like the company name? The ad is minimally distinguished from the content, and most users don't care anyway, they'll click the top result and cost the company money that they could have saved if Google didn't present that ad there. I guess, however, that the alternative is an ad for Bar, Inc appearing above Foo, Inc when you search for "foo, inc". In that case, it feels like extortion ("if you want us to show your website first when users search for you, buy the ad").
- ssharp 11y agoThere are things you can't do when bidding on competitor's brand names, but essentially, you're correct.
- nostromo 11y agoI saw exactly that a few hours ago. http://i.imgur.com/7ymtPjd.png http://i.imgur.com/7ymtPjd.png (Search for "united airlines" and the top link on the page is for "alaska airlines")
- pedrogpimenta 11y agoYou are correct and that is scummy and should happen, but you misinterpreted (the post is difficult to understand, I had to read it 2 or 3 times). What he's saying is that it is scummy to show an ad for unitedairlines.com when the second result is unitedairlines.com thus making the company spend money on the click but the user would click anyway, because the first would be unitedairlines.com even without the ad!
- StavrosK 11y agoSorry, yes, that's what I meant.
- matt4077 11y agoSome SEO guy once told me companies decide to buy these ads because it costs essentially nothing (b/c CTR is almost 100%) and improves the advertisers quality score.
- soared 11y agoThis is the correct answer. Metrics that determine cost for these specific ads are so high, that the cpc is very low. This also ensures competitors don't buy it out, but also allows a company to slightly alter the consumer's journey (by choosing the messaging in the ad).
- bshoemaker 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]