John Andrews is a Competitive Webmaster and Search Engine Optimization Consultant in Seattle, Washington. This is John Andrews blog on issues of interest to the SEO community and competitive webmasters. Want to know more?  Competitive Web & SEO
August 24th, 2007 by john andrews

Understanding the Google

I say it over and over. Stop projecting your own beliefs onto Google, and start listening. Google is practically shouting at you, telling you how to rank well.

Take the Buying Links session at SES as an example. Nyeah nyeah nyeah Google’s not fair and whah whah whah Google’s getting rich and pooh pooh pooh my spam doesn’t rank any more… and meanwhile Matt Cutts tells us not only what Google doesn’t like (observably purchased back links), but what Google rewards and wants to see more of (creative content). I suspect everyone was distracted by the side show to Matt’s right, and maybe not listening. When I attend a panel at these trade shows, I size up the speakers and listen accordingly. One throws around “facts” about search engines so casually I wonder why no one in the audience heckles her with “how do YOU know?” comments. Another starts off saying he has limited experience but has already made more mistakes than anyone he knows, and I wonder whether using that as an intro was just another “big mistake” he was making, or if I was making an even bigger mistake by staying to listen. The Buying Links session was especially colorful.

One panelist likened Google’s rules to the HOV lanes on the highway. He scoffed at those rules and said if they would just remove them, and let the cars drive in all lanes, there wouldn’t be traffic jams and everything would be better. I’m guessing this same short-sighted consumer still hasn’t heard of global warming, and still doesn’t understand that 50,000 people commuting in 50,000 cars is not a sustainable situation. He also said the $300 ticket was worth paying, because it was more costly for him to be late to his meeting. Well, I’m glad he’s willing to pay $300 per violaton, and I hope they raise it to $600. Obviously there is a market, and at least some of that HOV fine money suports the green energy buy backs and such which sponsor research into alternative fuels. But the judgement… look at the judgement. If I have to hear the other guy say “I didn’t prepare anything, because I knew the excellent people before me would cover almost everything….” I’m going to puke.

Anyway, back to Google. Google is telling us how to rank. We have to pay attention.

In the 1980s the telephone companies were extremely competitive, but they didn’t focus on stealing customers from each other. They focused on growth of the telco industry and development of the underlying infrastructure. They assigned business units to seek out and invest in anything that promoted increased use of the phone lines. I lived in New Jersey at the time (home of Thomas Edison, Bell Labs, AT&T, Verizon, “the telco state”), and I knew several of these business managers. They attended entrepreneur meetings, visited research labs, and participated in local community events to promote increased use of the phones. More calls, especially short calls, was the goal. More connections, more switching, and more lifestyle committment to the phone. Such growth would fuel development, as growth in usage and obvious lifestyle committment to the phone convinced investors of the value of investing, and convinced regulators of the value of permitting the phone companies to advance. Companies like ATT and Verizon arranged for investment into startups that promised to increase phone system usage. Pre-Internet, it seemed odd to meet “the Verizon business development guy” at an IEEE meeting on telemedicine, but it was certainly a smart business practice in hind sight.

Google is today’s telco. Matt Cutts communicated very clearly that Google wants to see more of the kind of content that drives adoption of the web. Google is a carrot and stick company, as we all know too well. The stick goes to paid links. The carrot goes to good content. For those who weren’t there, I’ll recap.

The session was about purchased back links, and why Google says they are bad. One of the complaining panelists asked why Google values links earned by a funny video but devalues links that are bought. Specifically, if a real estate guy posts a funny video on the politics of the search marketing industry, and earns a collection of backlinks, why do those back links count when they are off-topic and have nothing to do with real estate? That was a good question. And there was a good answer. Matt answered that the funny video was creative, was unique, and added something to the web, but the paid links did not. Did you hear that?

Google is talking. Are you listening?

Just as the telcos wanted to encourage adoption of the telephone, Google wants to encourage the growth of the web. The web for business, the web for fun, the web for progress. The web as lifestyle. More web, not less. Google doesn’t know what the future holds, but Google is pretty sure that future is more likely to sprout from creative expansion of that commerce-driving web than the institutionalization of link buying. If you understand that everyone today searches, and most searchers use Google, you can see that Google wants more people to adopt the web, right?

For the linear thinkers out there, I don’t mean to suggest you pay those Social Media consultants to make silly videos for your real estate site, and I doubt Matt did either. But if you could just move beyond the obvious “if links have value, I’ll get a million of them” mentality you may start to understand how Google thinks, and earn some Google carrots. If you’re an SEO and you get annoyed by Google’s answer, I have to wonder if maybe you’re in the wrong business.

If you’re an SEO, it’s not all about “make good content” and it’s not all about “buy more links”. If you’re an SEO, it’s all about help make search work to increase utilization of the web, and drive commerce via the web.

There was a chiropractor in San Diego, who wanted to rank well…” goes one story. Listen to it. That chiropractor isn’t getting rewarded for the viral videos. That chiropractor is getting rewarded for adopting this new thing called the web, getting creative, and trying different ways to push chiropractic on the Internet beyond “get listed in as many directories as you can”. Does Google know where chiropractic will go if it creatively adopts the web? No. Do you? Neither does this new “web evangelist” chiropractor. But maybe his next appearance as a guest speaker at the Society for Chiropractics will generate a working group that addresses that issue, and spurs progress in that area. Carrot, meet web evangelist.

How many times have you heard a Googler say “mom and pop“? Listen.

I met a Googler at the Google Dance. She worked on Webmaster Central. She told me a story of a man who discovered, with her help and Google Webmaster console, that his #1 referral from Google was “rainbow sandals”. He had a shoe store, and, as she told me, he didn’t know that his highest ranking search query (according to Google) was “rainbow sandals”. That was, according to her, a “great opportunity” for him to increase his business by selling rainbow sandals. She was so enthusiastic I found myself holding on to the table, as if bracing myself against the wind of her enthusiasm. I swear my hair moved.

I didn’t have the heart to ask her why Google ignored his entire inventory of high-end name brand shoes for which he had probably fronted considerable funds and to which he is probably beholden to sales quotas. I didn’t have the heart to suggest that the profit on a $14 pair of Chinese white brand “rainbow sandals” that local drugstores routinely sold on sidewalk racks for $4 was not very exciting, nor defensible. But I didn’t need to. She was talking, and I was listening. She is Google. Google doesn’t see value in his shoe store ranking for ecco loafers. The consumer can easily find those anywhere. But rainbow sandals…. ahh, those elusive raindbow sandals. They are SOOOO hard to find!

Is Google “right” in it’s approach to the web? Is Google “just” in it’s delivery of the carrot and the stick? Is Google “fair” in the way it operates? None of that matters to the search marketer/SEO. If these attacks are funded as diversions to keep Google busy or otherwise threaten it’s dominance, I understand. But if you’re interested in ranking well in Google, this is all nonsense. You need to get to know Google, and listen to what Google says. You don’t need to agree, and please, stop whining.

Update 11/27/2007: Nicholas Carr just published “Understanding Google“, a commentary on Strategy & Business’ article “The Google Enigma“, which discusses the concept of Compliments in the context of Google and the Internet:

Because the sales of complementary products rise in tandem, a company has a strong strategic interest in reducing the cost and expanding the availability of the complements to its core product. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that a company would like all complements to be given away. If hot dogs became freebies, mustard sales would skyrocket. It’s this natural drive to reduce the cost of complements that, more than anything else, explains Google’s strategy. Nearly everything the company does, including building big data centers, buying optical fiber, promoting free Wi-Fi access, fighting copyright restrictions, supporting open source software, and giving away Web services and data, is aimed at reducing the cost and expanding the scope of Internet use. To borrow a well-worn phrase, Google wants information to be free — and that is why Google strikes fear into so many different kinds of companies.

It’s an interesting read, related to my post here, and not too deep, and it will go under “subscription only” after a while so best read it while it’s “free”.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
August 22nd, 2007 by john andrews

Everything Google

Overheard at SES, during a side discusion with Google engineers over the Google Mini and Custom Google search:

“I’m an ISP and I have 5 of those. We own 4, and a client owns one. We love it. We’re trying to go Everything Google now. Analytics, search, checkout, if it’s Google we want it”

I kid you not.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
August 20th, 2007 by john andrews

Anyone remember Castro Convertibles?

In the 1940s when TV was starting, the first local television commercial in NY showed 4 year old Bernadette Castro opening the Castro sofa bed all by herself. That became one of the most frequently aired commercials of all time. At age 12, Miss Bernadette starred in a re-make which was the first color television commercial to air. If you’re over 35 years old, chances are good you’ve seen it at least a few dozen times in your life.  I’m guessing I was watching cartoons like Gigantor and Speed Racer back in the early seventies,  and I stared at that little girl running around the living room so many times I still have the CAH-stroh CON-vertibles jingle memorized.
I just saw a Beamax projection screen video showing an adorable  2 1/2 year old opening and closing a wall-mounted video projection screen, all by herself.  The screen survives within easy reach of a 2 1/2 year old. That’s gotta be good press for Beamax. Is “Evi” the modern-day Bernadette Castro?

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine

Competitive Webmaster

Wonder how to be more competitive at some aspect of the web? Submit your thoughts.

SEO Secret

Not Post Secret

Click HERE


John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John




comments policy



Recent Posts: ★ SEO Industry Growth, Widespread Failure, and SEO Industry Challenge ★ Do you want to WIN, or just “Be the Winner”? ★ 503: GONE ★ Cloud Storage ★ Identity Poetry for Marketers ★ PR is where the Money Is ★ Google is an Addict ★ When there are no Jobs ★ Google Stifles Innovation, starts Strangling Itself ★ Flying the SEO Helicopter ★ Penguin 2.0 Forewarning Propaganda? ★ Dedicated Class “C” IP addresses for SEO ★ New Domain Extensions (gTLDs) Could Change Everything ★ Kapost Review ★ Aaron Von Frankenstein ★ 2013 is The Year of the Proxy ★ Preparing for the Google Apocalypse ★ Rank #1 in Google for Your Name (for a fee) ★ Pseudo-Random Thoughts on Search ★ Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, or a Blog ★ The BlueGlass Conference Opportunity ★ Google Execs Take a Break from Marissa Mayer, Lend Her to Yahoo! ★ Google SEO Guidelines ★ Reasons your Post-Penguin Link Building Sucks ★ Painful Example of Google’s Capricious Do Not Care Attitude 


☆ about

John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John

☆ navigation

  • John Andrews and Competitive Webmastering
  • E-mail Contact Form
  • What does Creativity have to do with SEO?
  • How to Kill Someone Else’s AdSense Account: 10 Steps
  • Invitation to Twitter Followers
  • …unrelated: another good movie “Clean” with Maggie Cheung
  • …unrelated: My Hundred Dollar Mouse
  • Competitive Thinking
  • Free SEO for NYPHP PHP Talk Members
  • Smart People
  • Disclosure Statement
  • Google Sponsored SPAM
  • Blog Post ideas
  • X-Cart SEO: How to SEO the X Cart Shopping Cart
  • the nastiest bloke in seo
  • Seattle Domainers Conference
  • Import large file into MySQL : use SOURCE command
  • Vanetine’s Day Gift Ideas: Chocolate Fragrance!
  • SEM Rush Keyword Research
  • ☆ blogroll

  • Bellingham SEO
  • Domain Name Consultant
  • Hans Cave Diving in Mexico
  • Healthcare Search Marketing
  • John Andrews
  • John Andrews SEO
  • SEMPDX Interview
  • SEO Quiz
  • SEO Trophy Phrases
  • SMX Search Marketing Expo
  • T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East 2007
  • TOR
  • ☆ categories

    Competition (39)
    Competitive Intelligence (15)
    Competitive Webmastering (547)
    Webmasters to Watch (4)
    domainers (63)
    Oprah (1)
    photography (3)
    Privacy (16)
    Public Relations (187)
    SEO (398)
    Client vs. SEO (2)
    Link Building (3)
    Search Engines vs. SEO (1)
    SEO SECRETS (11)
    SEO vs. SEO (1)
    ThreadWatch Watching (5)
    Silliness (24)
    Social Media (7)
    society (31)
    Uncategorized (23)

    ☆ archives

  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006