I haven't had that much time with the computer lately, and most of it, I've spent on my blog. Sorry to drop off the face of the earth.

If people don't read this blog, they really should - it's the type of thing you're cheating yourself to miss. But this post in particular, http://www.walkonmypath.com/google-strikes-a-nerve, makes it look like Google has decided to shake up their index. It probably should have been done years ago, but better late than never. How many times have you done a search, and everything in the first page of the results is lousy, irrelevant, or horrible on the eyes? Or it's a search engine with nothing but ads, a site you have to join to see the answer, something like that?

Seems like the more work people put into forcing their way to page 1, the less they put into their content. And it looks like Google realizes this, is taking steps to neutralize it. Who knows how the end result will look, but it's a bad situation now, so hopefully it could only be an improvement.

Thoughts?

I thnk its scary that google has this power over peoples business, the whole idea of in bound links meaning anything is strange, if I like a cafe I may link to their web site, it doesn't mean the web site is great, it means I like the coffee or the waitress or something, google is in the business of ranking web sites not coffee, they should disregard inbound links all together I think

Google doesn't control peoples' business! People sometimes go over the top bending their business over backwards to please Google, but no one has to. It's a choice you make. You can even continue to buy and sell links, they just won't be counted for PR purposes. But that's a LOT different from an outright ban.

Originally Posted by sigmahotels

I thnk its scary that google has this power over peoples business, the whole idea of in bound links meaning anything is strange, if I like a cafe I may link to their web site, it doesn't mean the web site is great, it means I like the coffee or the waitress or something, google is in the business of ranking web sites not coffee, they should disregard inbound links all together I think

They only have "power" over your business if you put your business in their hands.
Lets face it, a business that depends on somebody else's search engine is not a serious business. A serious business should be able to stand alone. If a search engine helps, great. Dependency is a bad idea. Especially considering that they are under no, read zero, obligation to list you, ever.

Dammit, John, you rock. You know that? You really rock.

Seriously, John and Paul got it right...you HAVE the POW-ah! (More to come in approximately 10 hours. Stay tuned, folks.)

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Seems like the more work people put into forcing their way to page 1, the less they put into their content. And it looks like Google realizes this, is taking steps to neutralize it. Who knows how the end result will look, but it's a bad situation now, so hopefully it could only be an improvement.

Made-for-AdSense is a dirty phrase, but made-for-link-sales is the same thing.

A web site costs so much less than a TV show or movie, a band tour, or any other means of mass communication. I can see The Simpsons arguing they need ad revenue to pay for their production, but webmasters don't spend millions of dollars to produce their content. Link sales aren't even close to necessary for a site to survive. Or to rank.

My web site exists because I have a passion for photography. I'm not selling prints, running ads, or selling links; none of those help people enjoy my photos. That doesn't mean my site is necessarily better than another photo site that's in it for the money, but it proves a sit can flourish without money as the prime/only motivation.

Its true that google only has power if you give them it, but everyone on this forum is dependent on google to some extent, else why else are they here, 50% of my traffic comes from organic google SR, I didn't plan it that way, but thats the way it is, when I dropped out the ranking for a week or two, due to some google change (which then reverted without me doing anything) I saw a massive drop in traffic, so like it or not, planned or not, google does have a large influence on my business

Originally Posted by sigmahotels

, but everyone on this forum is dependent on google to some extent, else why else are they here,

I'm not dependent on Google in any way. If you choose to be dependent on Google then more fool you.

It's not very clever to rely on free listings for the success of your business.

Originally Posted by gringo

I'm not dependent on Google in any way. If you choose to be dependent on Google then more fool you.

It's not very clever to rely on free listings for the success of your business.

so you get no traffic from google at all then, wonder why you bother posting in here ?

Originally Posted by sigmahotels

so you get no traffic from google at all then, wonder why you bother posting in here ?

I believe the point is to not depend on them. Let google traffic be a bonus, not the objective.

I give up, all websites NEED traffic, therefore DEPEND on traffic, therefore if google sends you any traffic - then and I quote "but everyone on this forum is dependent on google to some extent"
If google dropped me tomorrow, I would lose 40-50% of traffic, so no I don't depend on them, I depend on them to some extent, its just being pedantic really

There's a difference between getting traffic from Google and depending on traffic from Google.

Let's take my blog for example. My blog gets traffic from Google, and a reasonably fair amount of it. But so far this week (Sunday - Thursday), it accounts for less than 5% of my traffic.

Why?

1) It's a new blog.
2) Google hasn't indexed all of the content yet, and will probably be a step behind for at least the next few months.

Does that bother me? Not really. I know it will come with time...I just need to keep doing the things that I'm doing, and not only will more big G traffic come, but more of the other types of traffic will come as well.

This is what most people who practice SEO miss completely: they assume that the only source of traffic is search engine traffic, and quite often Google specifically. This isn't the case and never has been.

Not all websites NEED traffic either. There are sites out there that can't DO anything with the traffic and don't WANT the traffic. For example, a friend of mine has a website on his own .ca domain hosted on his own server. Stupid business idea, right? Not for him. The only reason he has it is to organize his files and give himself an easy means to remotely access them without browser software. He just visits his domain, logs in, and downloads what he needs (doesn't usually reupload them either.)

Intranets are another example of sites that don't need traffic.

Again, it really depends on what you're doing.

I think that this is more of a scare tatic that google is doing if they were to get away from the text links that add PR to your websites then it would reto-actively hurt Google even more as a search engine, with more search engines trying to come on the sceen I think this would be a horrible move for google to make, and many people this like I do that this is just some mis-informatino that Google is putting out.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

There's a difference between getting traffic from Google and depending on traffic from Google.

Let's take my blog for example. My blog gets traffic from Google, and a reasonably fair amount of it. But so far this week (Sunday - Thursday), it accounts for less than 5% of my traffic.

Why?

1) It's a new blog.
2) Google hasn't indexed all of the content yet, and will probably be a step behind for at least the next few months.

Does that bother me? Not really. I know it will come with time...I just need to keep doing the things that I'm doing, and not only will more big G traffic come, but more of the other types of traffic will come as well.

This is what most people who practice SEO miss completely: they assume that the only source of traffic is search engine traffic, and quite often Google specifically. This isn't the case and never has been.

Not all websites NEED traffic either. There are sites out there that can't DO anything with the traffic and don't WANT the traffic. For example, a friend of mine has a website on his own .ca domain hosted on his own server. Stupid business idea, right? Not for him. The only reason he has it is to organize his files and give himself an easy means to remotely access them without browser software. He just visits his domain, logs in, and downloads what he needs (doesn't usually reupload them either.)

Intranets are another example of sites that don't need traffic.

Again, it really depends on what you're doing.

I can't help feeling that I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, I too have a website with no traffic - which its fine, tell me is your mate on this forum - the other qualifying point I made that chose to ignore, and now you tell me that in time your blog will get traffic from google, because you want it to, well thats my point, everyone on this forum is here because they want google traffic, its not rocket science

No, he's not. He doesn't even participate in webmaster discussions. It's his site. As in, he's the only visitor (besides me, the only other person that knows about it). He's the only user. He's the only member.

And it's you who, like most people who study SEO, don't see the bigger picture. Google is a search engine. Google is a popular search engine. But Google is also one of millions of sites in the world, and there are lots of other sites and ways to get traffic beyond that. Google is a part of a bigger picture.

There's also a significant difference between less than 5% (my scenario) and 40-50% (your scenario). If Google flipped the switch and shut down tomorrow, you and a large number of other people would be screaming from the rooftops because half your traffic is gone. I, on the other hand, would be mildly annoyed but shrug my shoulders and say "okay, time to fill in the hole".

I say that I will get more traffic from Google in time because the traffic will be mostly proportionate to the traffic I receive from other websites and type-in/bookmark traffic. In other words, as my Google traffic grows, so too will my traffic from other websites and type-in/bookmark traffic. I will never allow that traffic to reach the 50% point, because that's too much of a dependency. My #1 source of traffic is actually the type-in/bookmark traffic.

I participate in here because I want traffic. It can come from Google. It can come from Yahoo! It can come from MSN. But to be honest, I actually prefer the type of traffic that someone like John would send me...traffic that would visit as the result of an intelligent person posting an organic link in an intelligent and appropriate manner.

If you understand what I have just said here, then you'll understand why I'm not overly concerned with anything that Google does at this point, and why you shouldn't be either.

to quote me

everyone on this forum is here because they want google traffic, its not rocket science

I agree depending on google traffic is risky, thats why I was happy when it went down from 85% to 50% - like you a good proportion of my traffic comes from other sources not just SE's, I understand completely what you are saying, I just think you have mental block about what I'm saying

I quote again

everyone on this forum is here because they want google traffic, its not rocket science

thats why your mate's not here, he doesn't want google traffic, you do, I do thats why we are here

Originally Posted by sigmahotels

to quote me

everyone on this forum is here because they want google traffic, its not rocket science...

...I quote again

everyone on this forum is here because they want google traffic...

You didn't quote yourself. There is a difference between depending on traffic from Google and wanting it. If you are going to 'quote' yourself, at least do it accurately.

Of course I want more traffic from Google, but I don't depend on it. Actually, I would settle for more traffic from any source.

i did quote myself, i copied from my post - learn to read

Originally Posted by sigmahotels

...but everyone on this forum is dependent on google to some extent...

I was looking at this post. If you changed your stance since then, I must apologise.

I think that people are less dependant on google then they think..If Google keeps raising such a stink it will loose it's place as # 2 search engine on the web..And I am sure Google would not want to do that....Surely not on purpose.