Should SEOs Prepare for the End of Google as We Know It?

[snakeair]

Interesting read. Don't answer the question in the thread title till you read the blog post. You may disagree with the blog author on some things and want to voice your opinion.

I’m not usually one for a conspiracy theory, unless it’s contained within a decent yarn like “The Da Vinci Code”, but over the last year in particular, I’m becoming increasingly convinced that Google wants to get rid of natural search results – to the point where I would really like them to make a statement of some kind and put people out of their misery.

Google will always base any statements around the words “user intent” or “user experience” and on the face of it, most of the things I’m about to list could easily be batted away by Google’s ever-inventive PR wing using one of the two phrases above. However, user intent aside, Google has consistently taken steps to devalue the natural search results.

The question remains: is Google’s master plan to....

Continued at: http://searchenginewatch.com/article...-as-We-Know-It

Your thoughts? Backup your response and not post 1 sentence.

[Jim Gillum]

If there is any doubt that Google is in it for the money?......bingo...

That has been a very obvious visible trend for many years...

Used car sales people will tell you they want you to have the very best car suited to YOUR needs.....user experience......

Both the same...translated means...how can I get more money from you?

[bogs]

there' alot theory on this blog post.. but for me as long as there is internet and users google still going to continue. The main issue here is the popularity, if google is not popular then there's no issue.. and because of this popularity there is always money involve.

[sundancerz]

He's got a good point....intent=money, just like all other big companies..they want more money and they'll do whats necessary to make that bottom dollar. If it hurts the little man..oh well.

[Jim 25]

Soon we will all be using MC Hammers search engine anyway

[Jim Gillum]

Consider.....before Google ..Yahoo was the big dog....different rules.....

No guarantee that Google will not fall to some engine we have not yet heard about on the ever growing ever evolving net....

[neo127]

Rather the whole post gave a nightmare feeling but after reading it twice, I thought it in Google's way. They are trying these experiments so everyone can get its own choice for the results or what he liked in past times so even his experience can get expanded and may be thus quality and usability of website can get more improved (at least for top seeds). And the thing about getting all paid model than this what their opponents won't able them to implement that. So just think in a positive way.

[timmy.norris]

With all the ads and promoted results that Google has I think that they won't do that. It will tarnish their image as a strong and trusted search engine. You can credit Google's search theme, if they changed their format that will surely lose supporters. Just my 2 cents. Thanks

[PromoDirect]

After reading the post I can only say that if in case Google stops organic search results... then people will stop using Google and will start using Social Media, Bookmarking Sites like stumbleupon etc for searching. Google can't afford to stop Organic Search.

[icecube_media]

As the leading search engine google is not gonna and but if it go out if the market then only reason going to be the some other search engine overtaking it and if it happens them SEO experts going to use thats search engine so no need to worry for seo experts .

[Brave7]

Everybody needs to face the fact that Google Organic search is shrinking fast.

I believe that small sites who have big brand competitors will have some dark days ahead. It is obvious that Google has already made the switch with their Panda algorithm taking the side of the corporations and big businesses willing to spend large amounts on their Adwords system.

Just check this link and read what experts have to say here http://www.seobook.com/future-your-seo-career

[TheWarehouse]

lol ...Go Bing...?

Sorry if this rambles a bit, but the truth is I don't know where to begin.

1.) People may very well gravitate to paid listings, but tend to buy from the organics. The caveat to this being big brand advertisers.

Most users know that the whole sidebar and top 3 listings are ads (it does say 'ads' after all). It is my understanding that these are, by and large, clicked more out of curiosity than intent to take the site they are delivered to seriously. Back to organic results they go - unless, again, big brands have bought-up the top of the fold.

2.) It has always been the case that if you're not on page 1 top 3 (organic) that you're getting almost none of the pie.

3.) The article again cites this "successful searches" based on "CTR" bull^%&t that I've read in about 37,000 other places at this point. WTF is a "successful search"?!?

There is absolutely no way - whatsoever - to define a "successful search" in any meaningful way on Google's side of things: People use the engine in different ways. I'd be willing to wager that 90%+ of webmasters and website owners use Google, and a HUGE chunk of them check their SERPs via the engine, itself, as opposed to using tools like SEO book's stuff, or Link Assistant, etc. etc. That - in and of itself - can account for every single "[un]successful search".

Honestly, I don't really understand the fuss...what it is - precisely - that is supposed to be so different now as concerns organic search: People bought their way to the top pre-Panda and they're doing it now. PageRank buying is worse than ever, etc.

Anywho, I told ya I was gonna ramble.

[sundancerz]

I might be wrong but if Google kept the small companies showing up in the natural results the bigger companies would be more likely to pay the big bucks to be on top...in the PPC.
But they might not be thinking that way.

[HTMLBasicTutor]

The referenced post above ruffled some feathers apparently:

Editor's Note: Richard Kirk, Head of SEO at Performics, took issue with Gareth Owen's (Head of SEO at Steak) recent column on Search Engine Watch and asked if he could post a rebuttal. Given this is a thorny issue that really has divided the industry, SEW agreed to run the story with Gareth's permission. After all, isn't it time everyone just calm down?

Keep Calm & Carry On Despite Google SSL Search Term Encryption

[TheWarehouse]

Originally Posted by HTMLBasicTutor

The referenced post above ruffled some feathers apparently:


Keep Calm & Carry On Despite Google SSL Search Term Encryption

^This article seems far more rational.

This, from rebuttal, however...

...why you can’t pay to rank well in natural listings.

Wow...what?

errrr...seriously?

[szaviyah]

Originally Posted by TheWarehouse

lol ...Go Bing...?

Sorry if this rambles a bit, but the truth is I don't know where to begin.

1.) People may very well gravitate to paid listings, but tend to buy from the organics. The caveat to this being big brand advertisers.

Most users know that the whole sidebar and top 3 listings are ads (it does say 'ads' after all). It is my understanding that these are, by and large, clicked more out of curiosity than intent to take the site they are delivered to seriously. Back to organic results they go - unless, again, big brands have bought-up the top of the fold.

2.) It has always been the case that if you're not on page 1 top 3 (organic) that you're getting almost none of the pie.

3.) The article again cites this "successful searches" based on "CTR" bull^%&t that I've read in about 37,000 other places at this point. WTF is a "successful search"?!?

There is absolutely no way - whatsoever - to define a "successful search" in any meaningful way on Google's side of things: People use the engine in different ways. I'd be willing to wager that 90%+ of webmasters and website owners use Google, and a HUGE chunk of them check their SERPs via the engine, itself, as opposed to using tools like SEO book's stuff, or Link Assistant, etc. etc. That - in and of itself - can account for every single "[un]successful search".

Honestly, I don't really understand the fuss...what it is - precisely - that is supposed to be so different now as concerns organic search: People bought their way to the top pre-Panda and they're doing it now. PageRank buying is worse than ever, etc.

Anywho, I told ya I was gonna ramble.

Absolutely

[indybail]

I find myself finding the rebuttal article as having the firmer grasp of the issue. As far the original post goes I find it bothersome for all study results the poster is throwing out there, he doesn't cite any of them.

In any case Google is dominant because it perceived to be the superior choice among users. If Google starts offering itself as some kind of Yellow Pages, users will recognize this and move to other options.

These options do exist and others will be developed. If Google carries on as the original poster fears, the result will be a variety of search choices being offered that will be superior to the Google commercially based product.

[BlossomingBlogger]

People don't even like paid listings.
I really don't foresee Google being all paid in the next several years. They still need to draw users to their site with the free links.