Does google pose a serious threat to affiliates

[pistol101]

Tweet

Its the disparity that annoys me. How can Google say my site is the most relevant in its field by giving me a number 1 search result on both UK and Worldwide searches, yet say the same site is poor quality for the same keyword on Adwords?

It's certainly possible for that to be the case. The adwords spider has to take more relevancy from whats on the page. Google need new blood coming into their system, so they can't look at the inbound links etc as much. Although i'm sure there is some element to it.

[Rich]

QGJ: Yes…. I have been squeaking about this for ages, the feedback I got from those I have been speaking to is, oh you need money (BIG MONEY), we could never go up against the likes of Google or MSN..., I say never say never, where are the dreamers? Where are the guts? Where is the fight? YES… an affiliate SE for Affiliates by affiliates. Thing is I don’t know what technology is needed so this is where I start and finish.

It would be a really interesting project but you just have to look at the number of start up search engines that are around and making no headway. The financial cost is high, the volume of data is mind blowing and you need very skilled people to work out where to start. The size of web applications now is so massive compared to anything most people have any experiance of. For example Facebook use a 100 machine cluster just for processing the log files, Yahoo uses a 10,000 core cluster for (the equivalent of) page rank calculation. Services like Amazon EC2(servers by the hour) and S3(storage by the GB) make it a little easier to compete, but Amazon is slowly making itself into a very powerful company and who says they will be any better than Google.

[leveldisc]

I do understand that but they should treat affiliates on the merits of their sites, not just lumping all affiliates in together.

I would say they do treat affiliates on the merits of their sites. No question about it.

My sites do add value which is why I get such a high conversion rate.

That's your point of view though. The adbots think differently for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly.

Its the disparity that annoys me. How can Google say my site is the most relevant in its field by giving me a number 1 search result on both UK and Worldwide searches, yet say the same site is poor quality for the same keyword on Adwords?

Because search and ppc are completely different maybe ?

[tbp]

It's certainly possible for that to be the case. The adwords spider has to take more relevancy from whats on the page. Google need new blood coming into their system, so they can't look at the inbound links etc as much

I understand what you're saying peter, but my site at number 1 only has a single incoming link, therefore I can say that the site is at number 1 entirely on its relevancy alone.

I know the adbot has to make a call, but I just think in this case they got it wrong. This isn't just my opinion, as i`m obviously biased , but the site has had a conversion rate of over 50%, so obviously the general public find it relevant and useful, which is supposedly what Google wanted.

Also, when I questioned it with google, they said the decision to make the keywords inactive was down to the fact that the display and actual urls were different. This was completely wrong, as they were, and always have been identical.

[Brendon]

>> my site at number 1 only has a single incoming link

I would very nearly bet my life that that isn't the case, unless it's for a VERY uncompetitive term it has more than 1. If it's what Googles link: command tells you, don't believe it

[oxleyBM]

The impression I get from everything that has happened in the last few weeks (the Google slap discussion, the Calacanis interview, the apparantly leaked google Quality form etc ) is that Google have come to the consensus that many, but not all, affiliates provide a poor quality user experience.

Now, instead of evaluating affiliates in the exact same way as any other site, or , looking for 'red' flags on affilaite sites I think the process is rather the reverse. Google attempt (or going forward will do) to determine firstly whether your site is an affilaite site , and then, if it is, look to see whether there enough 'green flags' (things like FAQ's, lyrics pages etc) to warrant NOT penalising you.

If this is the case, and it's the way things go, I'd say affilaites have broadly two choices :

- Try and stay ahead of G and trick them into thinking you are a true merchant. Disguise you are an affiliate at all costs.
- Be open about your business model but concentrate more than ever to satisfy google's user experience tests. Satisfy them you are an exception to the (affiliate) rule.


The latter obviously involves developing more features, content, and possibly choice for your users.

My hope is that many affiliates really work on the latter and pursuade G in the long term that affiliates are a positive part in the industry. This is easier said than done though, and I anticipate that certain affiliate business models will not survive.

Matthew

[tbp]

I would very nearly bet my life that that isn't the case, unless it's for a VERY uncompetitive term it has more than 1. If it's what Googles link: command tells you, don't believe it

Almost all of my sites that are at number 1 only have one backlink, and thats the one I created to get google to see the site in the first place. Don't bother going out getting other links, as theres no need. All of them are in fairly competitive areas.

There are much more important things than links when getting to the top of Google, and its possible to get to the top with 1 link.

[drivetowin]

its possible to get to the top with 1 link.

I would second that view.

[Brendon]

>> its possible to get to the top with 1 link.

Yes, but only if the 1 link is very powerful, or you're in a non-competitive sector. I have (once) seen a site achieve a decent ranking in a competitive sector with decent linking data from a single source, but that's very much the exception.

>> Almost all of my sites that are at number 1 only have one backlink

Do you mean you only built one link yourself, or that the site only has 1 link, for sure? If the latter then presumably you have some sort of power domain to drop links from, which could possibly drive that kind of performance

[tbp]

Nope, no power domains, usually use a link from craigslist or gumtree as it gets sites into google quicker.

The most important factors in getting a good ranking for me are the domain name, which is most important, and then content and standard optimisation.

The sites are niche markets, but still have a lot of competition, and outrank the merchants sites for that term.

Things are changing in google, and the old important factors aren't so important now. Everything i`ve found out has been through testing and experimentation. Links are no longer as important as they were, which I guess is because of people selling links, so they can no longer be relied on as a "natural vote" for the site.

[Stellar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbp View Post
its possible to get to the top with 1 link.
I would second that view.

I third it. It have seen the same thing. Onsite SEO is more important then ever, which includes, domain name, quality relevant content, directory structure, onsite linking etc. All of that is far more important then inbound links IMHO.

I have achieved number 1 status in competitive areas by contentrating on just the site and largly ignoring inbound linking efforts.

[tbp]

I third it. It have seen the same thing.

lol it's nice to have some people backing this up!

I know it's correct because its occurred with a lot of my sites, to the point where I don't bother much with links now.

It does go against pretty much everything that is normaly in the SEO guides though, so it can pretty hard to convince people that it is actually the case.

As I said before, I think the reason behind it is that theres so many ways to get links now, through paid links, spam bots etc and in massive numbers. As a result, it seems to have a lot less important now, as a link no longer counts as a "vote" for the site, and instead its actually whats on the site that counts a lot more.

I do actualy think its the way it should be (and not just because it helps me out ), as the web is growing so fast that theres a huge number of sites you'll never come across, and so can't link to because you liked them. A great site may not get many links to it, but that doesn't mean that its worthless.

[Brendon]

>> I have achieved number 1 status in competitive areas by contentrating on just the site and largly ignoring inbound linking efforts

I clearly have a different definition of "competitive" to many people here - fair enough

>> Nope, no power domains, usually use a link from craigslist or gumtree

Um, so links from a power domain then...

[Leeky]

We have two sites which are very similar in design and link structure throughout the internal pages.

Pagerank10.co.uk and Whiterankers.com

Both sites rank high for their main purpose of the site ie. 'advertise your website'

Pagerank10 has hundreds of thousands of backlnks, whiterankers hardly has any in comparison but still ranks the same for its main purpose.

But with pagerank10 having all the backlinks it also ranks for most keyword search terms which are nothing to do with 'advertise website' where as whiterankers doesn't

So it is possible to rank high for competative search terms with limted backlinks if its the main topic of your site but i doubt its possible for the site with no backlinks to rank high for anything other than its main keywords it was designed for.

Lee

[amisuggests]

Wow this thread has evolved really quickly.

When i read the original post, google was the bigger business partner to be viewed with some trepidation.
As i continued with the replies, Google became the greeneyed monster with dripping fangs and breath of fire and by the end , it is a fair partner that does not like junk websites and with whom we want to build a healthy relationship

Well, which is it guys!!!:cry