Google's Downfall: Search Engine Optimization 26 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Shame on you, Search Engine Optimization!
Ironically, Google's (GOOG) "Do No Evil" motto has been turned upside down by its own unparalleled success. The story stock introduced itself to Wall Street with a controversial Dutch auction initial public offering at $85 that spurned the conventional blue blood methods of Lower Manhattan. Investors were treated to spectacular price appreciation, rivaling the late nineties tech boom as Google shares skyrocketed to $725 within three years (GOOG has since retreated to $284).
The Mountain View, CA enterprise has emerged to dominate the search market, trouncing all expectations along this great run. The success has in fact, produced a Google trio of billionaires: Co-founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin and steady-hand chief executive officer Eric Schmidt.
The young Giant has expanded its clean, basic search model into a vertically integrated empire of blogs, maps, images, and open source software - all bankrolled by paid online advertisements that generate 97% of GOOG revenue. With a monopoly-like 70% market share of search ad dollars, Google has throttled all comers. The corporation has left Yahoo (YHOO), former tech heavyweight in shambles, continues to instigate the ire of 800-pound gorilla Microsoft (MSFT), and has wreaked havoc throughout the entire publishing industry.
These guys may just be too smart for their own good.
Google's fatal flaw is a business model reliant upon technological kryptonite. Irrespective of Google's powerful Stanford brain trust - the computer cannot think. The artificial intelligence can only be programmed to execute a code-program implemented by the individual that is indeed, fallible. The creator must remain one step ahead of this perpetual cat and mouse duel of fierce competition and a landscape of opportunists - hell bent upon manipulating the automated computer to destroy its own maker. All machines can be Gamed.
Enter Search Engine Optimization (S.E.O.).
An entire parasitic, cottage industry has risen in the shadows of Google's prominence to bleed the integrity of Search. S.E.O. revolves around the strategy of rigging the search technology 'crawl' algorithm to prioritize particular websites and articles. Popular keywords and complicated tech geek html script is often installed into e-literature as a means to achieve higher search rankings and drive web traffic to one's website. The scheme has produced a charged atmosphere of suspicion, contempt, and outright fear.
Online advertisers will refuse to remit payment to Google in exchange for bogus search results. Google, in turn will perpetuate the paranoia by diligently screening all cyberspace language. Lastly, cynical web content producers will callously berate their well intentioned brethren as 'meritless writers,' exploiting the system to play up to a pandering readership base and feed into an 'inflated ego.' The finger pointing within this important section of the online community has degenerated into a garish spectacle of blame and mockery that may very well have precipitated Google's shocking demise from a $725 story stock to a decimated $284 fallen angel.
We encourage the intelligent marketing of one's product at all costs. However, the appearance of dead-end, unrelated writings of drivel at the top of Google search rankings is our main cause of concern. The emergence of said rubbish is the mark of a scofflaw, more familiar with computer algorithms than the nuts and bolts operation of creating strong, relevant content.
For example, a Google search of the term 'stock market' lists neopets.com as a foremost authority on this term. A neopet is actually a fairy-tale fantasy stuffed animal of some sort that is more suitable for child's play, rather than the machinations of any serious 'stock market' researcher. We may present no parallel connecting the neopet with any stock market of any kind.
The Search Engine Optimization tactic has been degraded - exploited by opportunistic purveyors of irrelevant material, dubious schemes, and at-worst, malicious viruses and spyware. Rampant, tasteless distortions of the method will effectively destroy the integrity of Web 2.0, if left unchecked.
Interestingly, the awe-inspiring success of Google and its sheer dominance of the search market may have led to its ultimate undoing.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 26 comments:
I hardly think Google is undone.
I think you need to slow down, take a deep breath, and rethink the snippet quoted above.
While I certainly dislike Google's "I'm The Big Brother" attitude, Google's search works rather well. I'm getting good results both as a searcher and as a website owner and BOTH for free!
As for GOOG, the stock, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It is an insult to investors. Insiders get ten votes per share while the regular investors only get one. Larry Page, Sergei Brin and Eric Schmidt want your money but not your opinion. They seem to worry about some kind of purity that the market would corrupt. It is just elitist nonsense. They should sell bonds and not stock.
As for other Google services, their customer support sucks big time. I've stopped trying to use several of their offerings. Dealing with Big Brother Bureaucracy is a royal pain.
SEO is snake oil, plain and simple. The entire industry is made up of (mostly) blood suckers who have about 1/10,000th of the intelligence of a team a google employees. To think that joe SEO money grubber can fool the math formulas time and time again is folly.
As to man and machine, please look at chess. And the SEO guys are certainly not Grand Masters, but rather trying to liberate people who don't know better from their money.
Google may not be perfect, but the fake industry of SEO is in a lot more trouble than goog.
What? You don't know where the stock market is?
Better queries will get you better results.
P1. Google is big.
P2. SEO was conceived because Google got big.
P3. SEO is bad.
C. Google lost a ton of market value because of the effects of SEO.
P2 doesn't follow from P1 (and is also demonstrably false as SEO was around before Google), and P3 doesn't even really follow from P2, and C ignores little things like the economy forcing nearly every American-traded company off their highs.
If any of this had some proof behind it I would find it a little more credible. At least you didn't cite that Precursor study or I'd almost have to accuse you of being a troll.
It's an easy target - especially when you're nieve on how it really works.
And this statement: "Online advertisers will refuse to remit payment to Google in exchange for bogus search results." Just goes to prove my point.
Advertising in Google is not the same thing as "search results" at least not in the manner that this writer is conveying.
I think what you probably meant to say ways "Online advertisers will refuse to remit payment to Google because of Click Fraud." Surprisingly this isn't mentioned anywhere in the piece.
Sounds like someone wasn't using their browser properly.
"exploited by opportunistic purveyors of irrelevant material, dubious schemes, and at-worst, malicious viruses and spyware" - Fear Monger much?
"An entire parasitic, cottage industry" - If this was still the days of black hat companies employing rule breaking techniques to game to engines, that would be fair. Today, SEO companies use/recommend techniques that are meant to follow the rules, provide the clients with insight and help to improve rankings. No reputable company is trying to "game" the system. They are all following the same set of rules. If someone employs a disreputable SEO company, the will suffer the consequences.
"a Google search of the term 'stock market' lists neopets.com as a foremost authority on this term" - Way to distort the facts. One listing on the entire first page is not related to the stock market and the description says nothing about stocks. One odd listing and you are ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
I could (and maybe should) sit here and pick apart this embarrassingly fact free post. I am not sure how you link Google stock prices to SEO. Next you are going to tell me that there are WMO's in Iraq.
Google's price is down because the greedy, empty suits of Wall street who have destroyed the economy in the last few years.
You guys are funny. S.A. edited my title a bit. I am not exactly saying that the company is doomed. But - I do think that their business model has cracks in it. There are enormous risks to any tech investment.
And the 'stock market' search was just an example.
Again, this is what I love about Seeking Alpha.
Any idea with holes in it will be unceremoniously ripped!
No hard feelings...
Actually, GOOG is laying off workers and shutting down various applications outside of search this very moment. So, what does that say about top management's views of the direction of this company?
1: The company expanded too quickly.
2: The business has unsuccessfully attempted to diversify away from search.
3: Future value will be less than was anticipated at one point.
Funny, I just did a blog post yesterday debunking someone else's similarly uninformed claim:
www.ninebyblue.com/blo.../
I appreciate your application of logic here, and you do make some good points.
However, I believe you have made a methodological mistake. In my limited understanding of logical argumentation, the P items are "propositions." These are stated as true, and not needing to be proved.
P1= "All men are mortal."
P2 = "Socrates is a man"
Thus, the propositions do not have to follow (logically) one from the other. Only the Conclusions need to follow from previous propositions and conclusions.
One is free to argue against the propositions. "P3 = 'Because Socrates thoughts live after him, he is more than a mere man.' So my P2 is false. Thus C2 = 'he is (better: "may be") immortal.' " This is a valid argument. (You may agree or disagree with my P3. as you will, but if you accept it than C2 is a reasonable conclusion.) (At this point you begin arguing semantics rather than logic, and this is the root of most arguments.)
Peace!
On Dec 08 10:23 AM Daniel Tharp wrote:
> This article reads like one big "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical
> fallacy.
>
> P1. Google is big.
> P2. SEO was conceived because Google got big.
> P3. SEO is bad.
> C. Google lost a ton of market value because of the effects of SEO.
>
>
> P2 doesn't follow from P1 (and is also demonstrably false as SEO
> was around before Google), and P3 doesn't even really follow from
> P2, and C ignores little things like the economy forcing nearly every
> American-traded company off their highs.
>
There are indeed scoundrels who claim to be "SEO experts", however, I just can't make the connection between Google, SEO, and the stock price. As well, as someone else has already commented on, SEO was around way before Google.
And, by the way, I know of 10's of thousand of companies who would "die and go to heaven" to see their stock trading at $274 a share. The only people who have reason to cry are those who bought it when it was trading at $600-$800. As far as I am concerned, I don't really care to shed any tears for anyone who did so since it takes "really deep pockets" and "plenty of money to burn" buying shares trading at that level. But if you got the dough and can afford to play the stock market, mor epower to you.
Bottom line, take a deep chill....Americans have short memories...in 2-5 years, I wouldn't be surprised if the stock gets back to its previous high. I just won't be one of those (e)diots or big spenders.
First - You as a searcher have the power to tell Google that the search results are bogus
Google has a reporting tool to do that: www.google.com/contact...
Does Google listen? Yep!! They want quality results. Everyone that sees this, make a submission, and I suspect that Neopets will be a thing of the past. How do I know that they listen, because top SEO experts/consultants use the form to rat out their competitors that aren't playing by the rules.
As far as SEO goes - it's not an exact science. In a sense, it's a lot like cryptography - you may have bits and pieces to decypher a message, but that doesn't mean that you will ever get the algorithm - but you still get the message decoded, which is the goal. SEO is very similar, we don't know the algorithms that Google uses, but there are hints (like patents that get filed) that give us clues as to what it takes to get a site ranked high - which is the goal in SEO.
Can it be exploited and the system gamed? Sure. Neopet is a prime example that it can , but Google already knows this, and depends on a community to make the submission that the result is bogus. The internet is largely community driven, and is a valid assumption that the community will chip in to make things better, they just need to be informed that it can be done.
My opinion - smile, make the submission, and see better results.
Matt Kettlewell
And after reading all of the comments - I am not so sure that I even remember my own name, anymore.
Do not take my words to the extreme.
I am not saying that GOOG is going to fail. But, I do think that it's days as a story stock may be finished.
We must all acknowledge that S.E.O. gamesmanship is just a small piece of the puzzle that may work to erode the confidence applied to the entire Web 2.0 business model. The lack of confidence will strip away at the eagerness of online journalists, social networking operatives, and advertisers to do business on this medium.
Tech investment appears to be a high-stakes game of 'Whack-a-Mole.'
There may be some kid, in some Silicon Valley back room, intent upon delivering a death blow to GOOG.
Has not every (surviving) tech outfit transitioned into a relative flatline?
(Do not be in denial this is the creative destruction of capitalism - which moves at warp speed in the tech world.)
That is - unless you would label IBM and Microsoft as growth stocks!
My hits are up about 15% in a week. The better page title gives search engines more legit and useful info on which to index.
The best way to get high ranking is by having quality content.
People are 8 times as likely to click an organic search result than click a search PPC ad. Doesn't it make sense to make sure you do everything you can to rank in the top 10 search results?
search.yahoo.com/searc...
inquiries to businesses and receive relevant results in the form
of responses. It’s as easy as texting or sending an email.
Business leads are received without advertising or bidding on
keywords. Businesses get to view sales leads before choosing to
respond, and pay only if they do, making the process immune
to click fraud.