6 ms·

Google hates strong SEO sites, because they won't make them any money. So that's a clever way of pushing them further down. I wondered when all results on the f

by baxtr 7y ago

Google hates strong SEO sites, because they won't make them any money. So that's a clever way of pushing them further down. I wondered when all results on the first page will be Ads only.

rijoja 7y ago
Do they really? Wouldn't a "strong SEO" site be ideal for their spiders?
- xenocratus 7y ago
  I think the idea is that a strong SEO site doesn't have to pay to be seen through searches.
  - dmix 7y ago
    There will still be 2-4+ ads above the fold of the real "good SEO" results anyway.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  If you have good SEO and drift to the top of queries that actually are relevant for your site then you don't need to buy as many Google ads.
  - brennebeck 7y ago
    Wouldn’t having strong SEO incentive competition to buy ads? Of course it also incentives them to work on SEO, but the only way to ‘get above’ a top ranking site would be to buy an ad, no?
    - Retric 7y ago
      Increasing costs for your competition is a net win for you.
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        And Google
        Retric 7y ago
        Depends on the industry, but if you can profit at lower prices you can force your competition to spend less on advertising. That’s bad for Google.
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        That makes sense. I meant increasing the ad buy spend of a firm's competitors helps Google
  - xp84 7y ago
    The way Google defends its income stream against that is simple: They allow your competitors to buy ads on your own names and trademarks, then you're forced to do so as well because otherwise your organic link is below the ads. It used to be that it mattered since only dumb users would click the ads. But now that they're unshaded and look 99% identical, only super nerds bypass ads. Meaning your #1 organic result is basically only good for bragging rights and nothing more if there's anyone willing to pay even a small amount to jump up above you.
- dheera 7y ago
  I guess sites with real, useful content (e.g. Wikipedia) don't need strong SEO since they have a ton of back-links from other sites that validate their high ranking, so "strong SEO" is really about making a less useful site look more useful, which makes sense for them to hate. SEO really translates to "How to fool Google into boosting your ranking artifically".
  - pyrale 7y ago
    In my experience, Wikipedia has been relegated lower and lower in search results. So much so that I now specifically use their search tool rather than go through google just in case some interesting thing pops up.
    - CalChris 7y ago
      I would love to be able to overrule Google and always sort Wikipedia as the first result. Maybe this can be done with a browser extension.
    - jethro_tell 7y ago
      I use duckduckgo, and for the most part, you know what you are searching for so the !tags are really good. !w search term, just takes you right to wikipedea. When I really have no ideal what or where I'm looking for something, I still find myself looking on google a bit, but for the most part, !youtube, !arch, !git, !stack, get me exactly what I want about 99 percent of the time. Check it out, because it sounds like it might start to match your workflow: https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q= https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q=
      - takeda 7y ago
        For YouTube you can use !yt, much shorter.
      - wolco 7y ago
        Is there a shorter domain name for ddg?
Gustomaximus 7y ago
Google decides the layout. You can have the 'strongest SEO' in the world and Google still decide if they put 1 ad or 9 in front of the result. Strength of SEO is irrelevant to the ads. The only thing Google hate is when sites manipulate themself to rank higher and offer a worse user experience.
- onion2k 7y ago
  Strength of SEO is irrelevant to the ads. It wouldn't be very surprising if Google varies the number of ads in a search results page based on the search term. For sites that have strong SEO for all of their key search terms that would be indistinguishable from Google placing more ads in pages where that site ranks highly.
  - Gustomaximus 7y ago
    My understanding it is very linked to 1) Profitability. Search terms around things like lawyers and credit cards. You'll almost always see 4 ads. 2) Genuine relevance. Google know for certain searches your not likely looking to buy something and to keep credibility don't show ads. Occasionally you can find pockets of less competitive search's that 1) allow ads 2) relate to your product via the algorithm even if they don't to a human brain 3) Align to your desired audience and these can give great return.

by baxtr 7y ago

Google hates strong SEO sites, because they won't make them any money. So that's a clever way of pushing them further down. I wondered when all results on the first page will be Ads only.

rijoja 7y ago

Do they really? Wouldn't a "strong SEO" site be ideal for their spiders?

xenocratus 7y ago
I think the idea is that a strong SEO site doesn't have to pay to be seen through searches.
- dmix 7y ago
  There will still be 2-4+ ads above the fold of the real "good SEO" results anyway.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
If you have good SEO and drift to the top of queries that actually are relevant for your site then you don't need to buy as many Google ads.
- brennebeck 7y ago
  Wouldn’t having strong SEO incentive competition to buy ads? Of course it also incentives them to work on SEO, but the only way to ‘get above’ a top ranking site would be to buy an ad, no?
  - Retric 7y ago
    Increasing costs for your competition is a net win for you.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      And Google
      - Retric 7y ago
        Depends on the industry, but if you can profit at lower prices you can force your competition to spend less on advertising. That’s bad for Google.
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        That makes sense. I meant increasing the ad buy spend of a firm's competitors helps Google
- xp84 7y ago
  The way Google defends its income stream against that is simple: They allow your competitors to buy ads on your own names and trademarks, then you're forced to do so as well because otherwise your organic link is below the ads. It used to be that it mattered since only dumb users would click the ads. But now that they're unshaded and look 99% identical, only super nerds bypass ads. Meaning your #1 organic result is basically only good for bragging rights and nothing more if there's anyone willing to pay even a small amount to jump up above you.
dheera 7y ago
I guess sites with real, useful content (e.g. Wikipedia) don't need strong SEO since they have a ton of back-links from other sites that validate their high ranking, so "strong SEO" is really about making a less useful site look more useful, which makes sense for them to hate. SEO really translates to "How to fool Google into boosting your ranking artifically".
- pyrale 7y ago
  In my experience, Wikipedia has been relegated lower and lower in search results. So much so that I now specifically use their search tool rather than go through google just in case some interesting thing pops up.
  - CalChris 7y ago
    I would love to be able to overrule Google and always sort Wikipedia as the first result. Maybe this can be done with a browser extension.
  - jethro_tell 7y ago
    I use duckduckgo, and for the most part, you know what you are searching for so the !tags are really good. !w search term, just takes you right to wikipedea. When I really have no ideal what or where I'm looking for something, I still find myself looking on google a bit, but for the most part, !youtube, !arch, !git, !stack, get me exactly what I want about 99 percent of the time. Check it out, because it sounds like it might start to match your workflow: https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q= https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q=
    - takeda 7y ago
      For YouTube you can use !yt, much shorter.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Is there a shorter domain name for ddg?

Gustomaximus 7y ago

Google decides the layout. You can have the 'strongest SEO' in the world and Google still decide if they put 1 ad or 9 in front of the result. Strength of SEO is irrelevant to the ads. The only thing Google hate is when sites manipulate themself to rank higher and offer a worse user experience.

onion2k 7y ago
Strength of SEO is irrelevant to the ads. It wouldn't be very surprising if Google varies the number of ads in a search results page based on the search term. For sites that have strong SEO for all of their key search terms that would be indistinguishable from Google placing more ads in pages where that site ranks highly.
- Gustomaximus 7y ago
  My understanding it is very linked to 1) Profitability. Search terms around things like lawyers and credit cards. You'll almost always see 4 ads. 2) Genuine relevance. Google know for certain searches your not likely looking to buy something and to keep credibility don't show ads. Occasionally you can find pockets of less competitive search's that 1) allow ads 2) relate to your product via the algorithm even if they don't to a human brain 3) Align to your desired audience and these can give great return.