search engine domination

[Greenguy]

I paid Yahoo $600 back in the day

[GonZo]

Originally Posted by eman

Google (Live, Yahoo and others) could very easily forge direct relationships with porn producers/distributors and totally eliminate the linklist/tgp/directory model (they may already be preparing to do so).

The advantages to the producing businesses are obvious. Most obviously, Google (or whoever) could guarantee a precisely measured flow of highly convertible traffic to the producer's sites. Measure this against the effectiveness of the hit-or-miss affiliate model.

I suspect that Google (and the other big SEs), merely tolerate the presence of Link-o-rama, DD, Tommy or whoever. When the time is ripe they will drop all porn-promoting sites at a stroke. After a week or two nobody will notice that they've gone.

Discuss.

PS - since linklists/tgps/direcories have a purely commercial objective there's no logical reason for a commercial search engine (Google etc) to give them any credence - let alone prominence.

I dont think you have a clue as to how much affiliates spend on google adwords.

[Halfdeck]

Eman, you're just pissed becaused you lost your ranking for "xxx trailer."

Google can manipulate the serps as they please while still raking in the adwords revenue.

For whatever term people is searching for, Google wants to generate useful results. That keeps people coming back to Google, instead of heading off to Yahoo or MSN. If people stop searching, they'll never see AdWords ads, and if no one sees them, no clicks = no revenue.

Some spammers think worse organic results will force people to click more often on AdWord ads (since that's how MFA sites work). The difference is that Google is much less interested in ad revenue than a spammer. Google's main goal isn't to make money (they already got more money than they know what to do with).


Some rock bands play gigs so one day they'll be millionares. Some rockers just want to pay their bills. Some rock bands don't give a shit about money, but they make millions anyway because people dig their music.

If your life depends on Google traffic, that's a sign you need to revamp your site and your marketing strategy. Google is just a middle man that helps people find what they're looking for. If you have a strong brand and people know your site, you don't need Google. Do I use Google to find Wikipedia, Ebay, Digg, newegg? No I got those sites bookmarked in my browser.

A little time out to review Google's Philosophy and rethink your business model:


Great just isn't good enough. Always deliver more than expected. Google does not accept being the best as an endpoint, but a starting point.

You can be serious without a suit.

You can make money without doing evil.

Focus on the user and all else will follow. From its inception, Google has focused on providing the best user experience possible. While many companies claim to put their customers first, few are able to resist the temptation to make small sacrifices to increase shareholder value. Google has steadfastly refused to make any change that does not offer a benefit to the users who come to the site

Never settle for the best

"The perfect search engine," says Google co-founder Larry Page, "would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want." Given the state of search technology today, that's a far-reaching vision requiring research, development and innovation to realize. Google is committed to blazing that trail. Though acknowledged as the world's leading search technology company, Google's goal is to provide a much higher level of service to all those who seek information, whether they're at a desk in Boston, driving through Bonn, or strolling in Bangkok.

To that end, Google has persistently pursued innovation and pushed the limits of existing technology to provide a fast, accurate and easy-to-use search service that can be accessed from anywhere. To fully understand Google, it's helpful to understand all the ways in which the company has helped to redefine how individuals, businesses and technologists view the Internet.

[Greenguy]

I think Halfdeck summed this entire thread up with his 1st 12 words.

[stuveltje]

way to go the halfdeck rat and goddamn i wish i could speak proper english then i could realy talk along with this thread...time i realy should take some lessons

[ffmihai]

this was a nice thread to read. thank you!
most people are looking for free stuff on google most of the time, the free stuff that the poor gallery submiter provides day by day.
i dont think google or other SE will do that.

[Jim]

I am just curious. Did "xxx trailers" bring in a lot of traffic? It just seems that not a large percentage of surfers would search for that.

[Bill]

Free Porn Post closes it's doors, the La group is trying radical experiments to recover google traffic, small link lists are dying right and left.

And you guys are claiming eman is bitching because of xxx trailers.

That's just fuckin bullshit.

eman may be just a small amount of alarmist by suggesting that google could dump all linklists (like yahoo did when it started it's database a few years back - oh wait, so it's happened before...), but the overall pattern is clear as day.

[plateman]

Originally Posted by Jim

I am just curious. Did "xxx trailers" bring in a lot of traffic? It just seems that not a large percentage of surfers would search for that.

and more important the quality of that traffic from that term|shocking|

you can't cash hits only checks.....

[Useless]

I don't recall seeing eman say anything about "xxx trailers".

Originally Posted by plateman

and more important the quality of that traffic from that term

Well, what's the quality of any search term? And how would that term be of any lower value than any other term these monkeys struggle for?

Though I don't necessarily agree with eman's theory (knock on wood), it was momentarily an interesting debate to read.

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I don't recall seeing eman say anything about "xxx trailers".

In the other thread in the se forum.

Bill, Google is not killing off the small linklists. If you think they are responsible for that, maybe you should explain how.

On the term "xxx trailers", I have never owned the #1 spot but from my experience so far I doubt the term has much juice. But, sometimes I am wrong.

[eman]

Originally Posted by Jim

I am just curious. Did "xxx trailers" bring in a lot of traffic? It just seems that not a large percentage of surfers would search for that.

It only accounted for about 5% of my SE traffic and I've no idea how well it converted.

UW - "xxx trailers" is the subject of another thread.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Bill

...like yahoo did when it started it's database a few years back - oh wait, so it's happened before...

LOR is still listed in the exact same place it's always been on Yahoo & the traffic dropped off as soon as the spammed up the index page. There's not a lot of people actually "searching" on Yahoo anymore - they click on this & that on the index, but few actually search.

At least Google asks you if you want to clutter up their index page

[alexey]

i'm the king of trailers now
see 'free sex trailers' 'sex trailers' 'porn trailers'

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Greenie

LOR is still listed in the exact same place it's always been on Yahoo

LOR is one of the well known exceptions. You may recall when Jay posted here congratulating you on that fact.

I'm not tracking LL positions on yahoo now, so I have no idea if they have discontinued the policy, but when it started, some yahoo wonk stated that yahoo preferred to link directly to content rather than linking to other directories that then linked to content.

The point of the yahoo example is that SE's have decided in the past to remove whole classes of websites, so, it's not impossible that it could happen again.

I think eman didn't formulate his initial presentation as well as he could have - as he presented it, there's only one logical answer - yeah, if linklists are removed from google, it would suck, and everyone would have to move to a different model, but there ain't squat we can do about it to stop it.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

Bill, Google is not killing off the small linklists. If you think they are responsible for that, maybe you should explain how.

Killing them - maybe, maybe not. Hurting them bad, contributing to their deaths, yes, I'm saying that.

As to how, we've repeatedly described how in other threads, but to restate what should be obvious by now:

1. devalueing recip links
2. devalueing duplicate content
3. increasing dramatically the value of one way incoming links.
4. possibly phraseing analysis
5. possibly page structure analysis
6. possibly a new system of flagging bad networks

In effect devalueing the whole structure and concept of the small linklist.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Bill

...but there ain't squat we can do about it to stop it.

Why do these "what if..." threads always end up reading like these kooky scenarios are right around the corner?

[Useless]

Originally Posted by eman

UW - "xxx trailers" is the subject of another thread.

Ok, so I was correct in assuming that it had nothing to do with this thread. Halfdeck had me confused, though I do essentially agree with his position.

As stated by Tommy and Greenie, if eman's hypothesis ever came to fruition, the old sites, though effected, would survive happily on due to years of branding and bookmarking. We little schmucks would feel the heaviest blow, but we deserve it for being young and beautiful.

[sabin]

Someone should make a smiley that puts on a tin foil hat and tweaks out.

[Halfdeck]

I think Halfdeck summed this entire thread up with his 1st 12 words.

I can take a hint

Killing them - maybe, maybe not. Hurting them bad, contributing to their deaths, yes, I'm saying that.

Google isn't attacking porn. Google isn't attacking commerical sites, though sometimes I see Google pushing commercial sites off organic results and into PPC, depending on the search term (e.g. "who is Paris hilton" is probably biased against commercial sites (top results: wikipedia, imdb, askmen), while "cheapest paris hilton dvd" probably favors commercial sites (top results: hotfrog.com/products/, amazon.com, cduniverse/productinfo). In the former, a surfer is looking for information; in the latter, a surfer is looking to buy).

Google is attacking spammy tactics that promote useless products or thousands of similar pages promoting the same product. In the Webmaster Guidelines, Google makes it clear it doesn't like affiliate marketing sites (pages with ref codes) that don't provide a unique, compelling surfing experience.

If smaller LLs are dying, they're dying because they're affiliate marketing sites trying to be the 200th ebay or 200th youtube. When I think of Link Lists, I think of LOR, penisbot, tommy's bookmark, and a handful of other quality sites that have a strong brand. Do surfers really need hundreds of other LLs that offer less content based on a copycat business model?

If you want search traffic, it's time to think out of the box; the LL "seat" is already taken.

[eman]

Originally Posted by GonZo

I dont think you have a clue as to how much affiliates spend on google adwords.

If I'm typical then it's about 37 cents

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Do surfers really need hundreds of other LLs that offer less content based on a copycat business model?

Certainly not. But that's the beauty of building any type of business when there is plenty of pre-existing competition. It's a long, rough road uphill, and one is more likely to fail than truly compete, but the possibility of success is possible - somewhat. (And I realize that I'm speaking from the position of never being successful.) I'm not sure if Google penalizes the newer, smaller link list, but I'm fairly confident that they favor Dave, Greenie, Tommy, and Emerald (SG). But is what I refer to as 'favor' merely due to the amount of content and inbound links or does Google have a secret list of trusted sites with a strong history of being what the surfer wants?

I very much agree with your thinking outside the box statement and I have some interesting ideas for my newest list. But I've been afraid of breaking too far from the pack of out fear that Google will suddenly drop me (though my ideas are nothing special) and that my fellow link listers will call me crazy. And then again, I think it could help improve the site from both a SE and surfer perspective. I'm conflicted.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I'm not sure if Google penalizes the newer, smaller link list, but I'm fairly confident that they favor Dave, Greenie, Tommy, and Emerald (SG). But is what I refer to as 'favor' merely due to the amount of content and inbound links or does Google have a secret list of trusted sites with a strong history of being what the surfer wants?

Ok, so I've given this statement 30 seconds of thought and I don't agree with myself. If the big G favored the well-branded sites in some way, then wouldn't they always appear as the top results?

[Halfdeck]

But that's the beauty of building any type of business when there is plenty of pre-existing competition.

Useless, I agree - if your goal is to build a better link list than DD or penisbot. I don't agree if your goal is to build a site just like penisbot or LOR in the hopes of making money by replicating something that's proven to work.

If the big G favored the well-branded sites in some way, then wouldn't they always appear as the top results?

Google is like American Idol. The judges have little control over who ends up winning. Ultimately, voters decide the outcome. All you can do as a contestant is to please the crowd and hope you get the most votes.

Wikipedia never bothered with one link trade, reciprocal link, or content submission but millions of people feel compelled to link to it. And those votes help Wikipedia rank on the first page for everything under the sun. Even a deep page about Splinter Cell is TBPR 6, which reflects the overwhelming visibility and popularity of that site.

The big LLs have an edge (more trust, more organic IBLs, higher visibility), but they don't have a lock on their front page positions because Google doesn't trust them completely.

For example, linking out to free sites that have iffy linking profiles (e.g. reciprocal linking with 30+ sites on domain root) will hurt your SERP ranking and lower Google's trust in your site, but I'm guessing all free site reviewers accept submits without checking the outlinks of the domain a free site is on. Notice how all outbound links on sites like Technorati and del.icio.us are indiscriminately nofollowed? A high quality paid directory will not nofollow links but they check submitted links more thoroughly and they charge $100+ per submission.

Penisbot's low home page TBPR 5 is a reflection of Google's lack of trust in that site. I mean, c'mon, 316,000 IBLS (according to Site Explorer) and only TBPR 5 (medium PageRank)? A Googler's new blog (vanessafoxnude.com), only a few months old, is already TBPR 7. That tells me none of the IBLs to her site are being devalued (and why should they? They're all editorial and one-way, no ABA, ABC crap).

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Bill

Killing them - maybe, maybe not. Hurting them bad, contributing to their deaths, yes, I'm saying that.

As to how, we've repeatedly described how in other threads, but to restate what should be obvious by now:

1. devalueing recip links
2. devalueing duplicate content
3. increasing dramatically the value of one way incoming links.
4. possibly phraseing analysis
5. possibly page structure analysis
6. possibly a new system of flagging bad networks

In effect devalueing the whole structure and concept of the small linklist.

Bill, it's not obvious for several reasons. Most of what you stated above is unproven and just a theory. Another reason it's not obvious to me is because I don't believe Google is killing off the small LL's at all. Howcome we don't see any MSN or Yahoo killed my site threads? Google isn't the only search engine, and anyone who relies on just Google isn't going to last anyways.