| LED Digest 2051: Google's Dominance and MSN |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest post, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. November 29, 2005 Issue #2051 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== A Truer, Better MSN? ==-- ~ Don Baker "...we would ignore Google if it were not for the fact that [they serve] 50% or more of all searchers." ~ David L. Spahr "My sites have done some considerable shifting around on MSN..." --== Google Base? ==-- ~ Brad Waller "So I still favor the link-variety-is-good hypothesis..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Link Popularity & Google Droppings ==-- ~ Michael Martinez ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Donald L. Baker Subject: Better MSN > MSN has been returning very favorable results > for my websites. Google dances and moves. > Has anybody else experienced truer, better > search results using MSN? - Salem Kashou, LED 2050 We've experienced the same thing with MSN in recent months. It took several months, after the new MSN index was introduced, for it to begin providing what we consider quality search results. Recently, however, the results are much better. And, our clients' sites are ranking very well for important KWs on MSN. MSN seems to be following a middle-of-the-road algorithm philosophy, in which sites that have been well-optimized according to accepted SEO practices (content, titles, tags, navigation, links) do well. Google, on the other hand, "dances and moves" according to which new enemy they're trying to combat. Because of this inconsistency, we would ignore Google if it were not for the fact that the Google index (Google and its partners) serves 50% or more of all searchers. MSN serves around 20%. If you're content with reaching less than half of all potential searchers, you can ignore Google completely. Don Baker NSI Partners ------- new post - same topic ------- From: David L. Spahr Subject: A Truer, Better MSN? I get favorable results on all search sites ("stereoviews"). I have had the opposite experience though. My sites have done some considerable shifting around on MSN and stay mostly the same on Google and Yahoo. On Yahoo I do have 2 sites that exchange number one position fairly often. Today's check of the big three, MSN puts my sites in very similar positions to Google so maybe they have found a way to closely emulate Google's algorithms. MSN has been much more variable right along for several months with sites moving around a great deal. I think MSN has a sandbox too. Two new sites I created this year languished for quite a while in both MSN and Google. They have broken out now though and one of them is always in the top 10 or 5 now. The other is several places back at 21-22 lately (No. 12 on Yahoo). It is hard to understand why this site is so much further back since navigation-wise, design-wise, content-wise, url-wise and keyword-wise they are very similar (and similar to my No. 1 site). The content is similar type of antique photographs - European versus British. There is no duplication of page names / titles or sale items. The British oriented site ranks higher. That site has been far less successful in terms of traffic and sales than the European site, but ranks higher. It also has less content. Hmmm...... I have tried tweaking it a few different ways with not much change. It is still climbing slowly though. MSN and Google seem to treat the situation about the same way these days. My sites are in very similar positions on each one. That said, I always wonder about Google carrying a site at No. 4 that has no content at all. It used to have content and always ranked high over the years but has had no content for over a year and yet, there it is. MSN and Yahoo have dropped it. They seem to have other less relevant site ranking high too but there seem to be anomalies on all three. I know all these sites. I know who has the best ones too. Some of the absolute best content sites are not well rewarded in the search results. David L. Spahr Stereoviews.Com Antique-Photography.com ------- new post - new topic ------ From: Brad Waller Subject: Google Base Google Base is an interesting service, and when I first read about it I started to get worried. After a short test, I am less nervous. Google is quick to fix things that are broken, so I still need to be worried, but at this point Google Base does not seem to be a killer. As a test, I posted two ads for LA Kings hockey tickets on Google Base (Kings vs. Chicago and vs. Detroit - both usually get lots of response) since I was not going to be able to make the games. I gave them pretty good keywords, made them informative, and put in all the required information so that if someone was interested they could contact me. There were two failings. One, I had no idea if anyone ever saw my listings. They were just "there". The same ads on our classifieds service had thousands of displays and I knew this because we tell the advertiser. The second failing is that I ended up with zero responses from those listings. I'm sure that the biggest reason for the lack of response is that few people know about it (unless they read the articles saying that it was a massive porn repository) or use it. I'm sure that will change. Brad Waller Manage and Sell your own site advertising http://adjungle.com waller, adjungle.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Michael Martinez Subject: Google droppings > What do you mean by "automated reciprocal linking?" Do you > mean a directory that requires a reciprocal link and has a > program that will go out and check to verify that link? - Renee Kennedy, LED 2049 > However, in one account of a session where Matt did some live > reviews, he allegedly asked questions such as, "Why are you > participating in this network?" The questions, as reported in a > blog, may have been whitewashed by the blogger to preserve some > anonymity. Well, after writing the above paragraph, I learned about Greg Bozer's analysis of one particular reciprocal linking network's situation. Bozer, known to many people as WebGuerilla, is a generally respected voice in SEO. He has worn both hats, so to speak, and uses both sneaky and straight-forward Web site promotion techniques. In "The Truth About Reciprocal Link Networks" http://snipurl.com/kb9g [webguerrilla.com] he wrote: ------------------- "But we all already new that, right? Anyone who wasn't asleep for the last month knows that Google's last update was all about penalizing sites for reciprocal linking". ------------------- As I stated last week, I think the October 2005 Google Update took on broader issues. In fact, I know some people who claim that some of their reciprocal link campaigns are still ranking well. So I still favor the link-variety-is-good hypothesis over the reciprocal-links-are-dead hypothesis. I did stop my own reciprocal linking years ago because of abuses from Webmasters, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that, if Greg's analysis is good (and he certainly provides enough information for determined people to check his work), then at least one link management network may have been affected by the Google update (NOTE: I did not say that Google targeted any specific network). The debate, I am sure, will continue to rage. Michael Martinez http://www.michael-martinez.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2005 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "It is patriotic to support [the President] insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiently or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." - Theodore Roosevelt (thanks to David Spahr for today's quote!) |
