Let me begin by saying, I feel the majority of algorithm updates which Google have enforced during the last year have been beneficial in levelling the competitive online playing field. If poor sites were allowed to continually use link-building SEO practises to rank ahead of sites perceived to be of better quality by the user, this would result in a very poor search engine indeed. However, I have a recurring nightmare which I need to share, eventually.
Google believes its search engine uses the same rules as those of a capitalist, free market, in which consumers make rational judgements about a product or service and ultimately decide whether or not the value proposition offered by a company is worthy of their investment. If the products or services of an enterprise (or the quality of a site for that matter) cannot compete with similar offers within the market, the enterprise is surely left to die. The recession has brought constant reminders recently with the falling into administration of many established high street names, including GAME, La Senza and Peacocks.
If Google didn’t think of their search engine as following the same rules as a capitalist, free market, then why would they subject companies, which until the algorithm changes had enjoyed success in business, to seemingly arbitrary changes? This has resulted in the loss of search engine rankings, customers and I have no doubt, the very livelihoods of people who made their living from their website?
What I mean here is these companies were obviously contrary to the entire premise of Google’s updates. These companies were successful! Again I say, these companies were successful, meaning whatever their page-quality or link building practises, their products and/or services were able to successfully meet the needs of their users/consumers. So, if the quality of a website’s user interaction is poor, wouldn’t this eventually render the site obsolete from a user perspective, no matter where they happen to rank on a SERP?
I thought only bankers were guilty of economic terrorism. I mean, the notion of bankers frivolously gambling away the hard earned money of good, honest people is ecumenical. However, I’m not sure how it became possible for a website to become an internet monopoly and ransack the online businesses of individuals who arguably made as honest a living as anyone working at Google. The search engine monopoly (I feel this is the only way to describe Google based on Bing being its ‘biggest’ competitor and the most highly searched keyword on Bing being, “Oh, what is it again” …Google!) was allowed to bypass the government after deciding on its new vision for the internet and shut businesses down for no other reasons than moral subjectivity and to make up for their own design flaws.
Google was of the opinion that an act which they deemed reprehensible, but which was practised by a large percentage of sites, was immediately punishable, without warning; by instant DEATH. Even the police issue warnings before throwing you before the judge. “Now clean up your act, sonny! I don’t want to have to see you again because gosh darn it, next time I’ll have to nick you”! I therefore find the pejorative acts committed by Google impossible to comprehend. Ultimately, if officers of the law are ordered to act in ways to discourage bad behaviour before being allowed to condemn and punish an offender, why is an enterprise (nothing else, just a successful enterprise) not held to the same standards by those elected to govern and uphold reasonable justice?
The repercussions of Google’s updates were felt not only through SME’s and one-man bands. Some of the internet’s larger successful websites also felt the shockwaves. www.similarsites.com/ saw a 73% decrease in SEO visibility after the updates, while sites such as www.merchantcircle.com/ and www.ticketnetwork.com/ saw decreases of up to 60%. (https://searchengineland.com/winners-losers-from-googles-webspam-update-119493 2012),
Google now has websites constantly watching their backs for the next cuddly black and white animal that might creep up and bite them. To paraphrase a quote I read recently by Gore Vidal, once an enterprise is entrusted with substantial power and they abuse or mistrust this power in whatever way, it is always difficult for them to make sense of reality once again. On July 24th the European Union ‘s competition commission received a settlement and a promise that Google would change its ways, after threatening them with anti-trust fines due to their favouring of Google-own-brand products (such as Google shopping and YouTube). If the EU is so quick to punish Google for favouring their own products, why are they not so quick to place restriction on the amount of power an enterprise is able to wield?
With this previous paragraph firmly engrained on your mind, I can finally tell you my nightmare. The case above is a case which Google knew they would lose, eventually. They were guilty of favouring their own products and services ahead of their competitors. So with this information firmly engrained in your mind, my nightmare is this. If Google was able to prioritise its own sites ahead of competitors, why wouldn’t they do the same and favour sites which, for example, were in business partnerships with Google. Or worse still, what’s to stop those at the top of Google’s corporate ladder from having sites they personally enjoy rise to the top of SERP one. Wouldn’t it be such a tragic world if we only ever used Google to browse the same five sites every day? That sounds nightmarish to me. Maybe you disagree.
The internet behemoth has torn apart businesses which they felt lacked user-determined quality and which took advantage of a flaw in the design makeup of a search engine; nothing more. There is very little stopping Google from using the same ‘quality’ arguments to de-rank sites which lack their subjective quality standards in the future.
My first thought for this blog was that the Google search engine believes itself to follow the same rules as a capitalist, free market economy. Now we know that’s rubbish. Google is a club in which all members need to dress similarly and abide by certain rules. The rules change monthly but no one is ever told exactly what these rules are and instead are given insights which must be decoded using tested hypotheses until one stumbles on the perfect line between over-optimisation and effective SEO practise. This, my fellow Google pessimist, is the future of SEO.