Google changed its search algorithms to hurt my business, as well as other Realtors' and real estate brokers' businesses recently. It also hurts other small businesses, as well. I did wonder why my average of four to seven daily leads suddenly disappeared from my website, then I found out why in a recent Inman News article.
Google has chosen to favor big businesses, rather than smaller businesses who don't have anywhere near the amount of capital that the larger ones do to pay for advertising, but Google's new algorithms give them better rankings, which is the equivalent to free advertising. Instead of making big business pay, Google wants small businesses, such as real estate brokers and independent contractors to pay, even though they have far less capital to spend.
Google should start paying people to submit to its search engine. After all, it is going to go public soon and without anything to search for a search engine is totally meaningless. Without its search engine, pay per click's foundation would be shoddy at best.
Google should pay me $1,000 per link with my name in it if it's going to unethically manipulate its algorithms to purposefully favor big business over my business, and I'm not kidding. You can quote me on that. Send me my check now, Google, for making your money off of my likeness that exists all over your search engine. You can pay me $25,000 for each time my family name, Mudd, exists in your search engine, as well. That includes Mudd Mask, Mudd Jeans or any other prominent Mudd name.
I will gladly stop insisting that Google pay me when Google stops rigging its search algorithm to favor MSN, HomeGain and other big businesses over us small-business, independent contractors. Google should compensate small businesses that it has hurt by rigging its algorithm to favor large business entities who have plenty of capital to pay for their own advertising. After all, without its entries, including small business entries, Google would be nothing. It should, therefore, not favor one over the other.
Here's the article from Inman News:
- Google frequently changes its formulas for calculating the most relevant results in its Web searches. But recent changes in the rankings have dramatically reorganized the results and knocked some Web sites off the list altogether, Internet search gurus say.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - anu
Oh God - what is this nonsense ? Actually, it's quite amusing, although I'm not sure that's what the author had in mind.
How much do you owe Google for sending traffic your way in the first place ?
Do you have a contract with Google ? Exactly what do you think you are owed by this private company - prime position ? Why shouldn't the LA Times classified have that position - why do you, or some other random little realtor have a greater right to the top spot ?
2 - anu
One more thing - if you really need the Google flow, use AdWords.
Oh, and it's spelt algorithm.
3 - John Mudd
What right does a larger company have to a top spot? It doesn't have such a right, especially in a search engine, which is part of the public domain.
Furthermore, how does Google giving larger companies that aren't actually real estate companies serve home buyers or sellers seeking real estate services?
It doesn't.
What it does do is create a monopoly for advertising services, but it does not serve home buyers or sellers seeking real estate services.
It also hurts small businesses, including but not limited to real estate businesses. If Google is going to hurt my business by rigging its search algorythms, it should compensate me for the use of my name, wherever it is in the search engine. I own the rights to my name, not Google, therefore it doesn't have the right to manipulate it in its search engine. Does Google have a contract with me to manipulate where it places me in its search engine? No.
You may not be familiar with the right to fair use, and perhaps neither is Google. I'm not sure that Google's rigging of algorythms is fair to the general public, and it is a search engine, making it public domain to a certain degree.
By hurting my business, Google isn't encouraging me to buy ad space, either. If I do buy I won't buy from Google because of its recent actions. I'll buy from Overture.
If the larger companies paid for the better rankings, that is one thing, for Google to hurt one group of businesses to favor another is another thing.
Search engines are portals for use by the public domain. They should, therefore, serve the general public. When someone is looking to buy a home they are looking for homes, not HomeGain, but Google is ignoring what the public wants, hoping Realtors and brokers will buy text ads. This is an unfair practice, at best.
When it goes public I think I'll buy Google stock. Search engines really should be level playing fields made to serve the public, not give wealthy companies high search engine rankings free of charge to extort a certain group of people to buy AdSense ads.
I would suggest educating yourself on the issue entirely before calling it nonsense. You won't be calling it nonsense when the National Association Realtors gets Congress to pass legislation prohibiting such activity. If Google continues this sort of thing don't think it won't happen, because it will.
4 - Mark Saleski
I would suggest educating yourself on the issue entirely before calling it nonsense. You won't be calling it nonsense when the National Association Realtors gets Congress to pass legislation prohibiting such activity. If Google continues this sort of thing don't think it won't happen, because it will.
uh oh...i think i can see mr. barger's forehead vein throbbing from way up here.
5 - John Mudd
Google can give me free AdWords. Mudd Jeans AdWords ads come up when my name is typed in Google. Google is therefore earning income from my name by selling ad space to a Mudd Jeans seller. However, I am not compensated even though Google is actually profiting from my name.
I did not give Google the right to use my name to serve its clients, but Google is profiting from using my name.
Google owes me for profitting from the use of my name to sell AdWords. It actually owes quite a few people for that.
If search engines are going to use unethical practices in order to make a profit, the government will simply have to regulate them.
A search engine, which is public domain, should not be able to rig its search rankings to coerce a group of people to purchase AdWords or AdSense. It does appear that Google is doing this, though.
Tell me, sir, do you work for Google?
6 - Anita Campbell
John, thanks for raising an important issue for discussion, i.e., the recent change by Google in how it indexes sites.
Check out Scroogle: http://www.scroogle.org.
It tells you the position your site would have had with a search term before and after the recent Google changes.
Also, this phenom is hitting just about every industry hard. For more background, see http://www.searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3114531
7 - John Mudd
Here's a snippet from a Fast Company article on Google:
For now, though, most of the cars in the lot outside Google's modest offices in a Mountain View, California office park are beat-up Volvos and Subarus, not Porsches. And while Googlers may relish their shot at impossible wealth, they appear driven more by the quest for impossible perfection. They want to build something that searches every bit of information on the Web. More important, they want to deliver exactly what the user is looking for, every time.
When the user is looking for homes, though, Google now forces the user to find the L.A. Times, HomeGain or something else not directly related to homes that are currently on the market. What happened, Google?
Google may be able to one day write a book called: "How We Lost Mindshare and Marketshare to Yahoo!-Overture by Going Public Too Fast".
When you alienate one stakeholder directly, you often alienate more, albeit indirectly, usually making you lose more in the long run. Perhaps Google isn't ready to go public, after all.
Google's real purpose doesn't appear to be a search engine, anyway. It appears to be an information-gatherer, allowing Google to potentially sell user information to the highest bidder. That cookie they have is pretty powerful. Some say it's not even legal.
8 - John Mudd
Thanks for the links, Anita.
If it's hitting every industry hard, guess what that means Google apologists? Their trade groups will lobby the federal government to force Google to get its act together.
Google, kiss your dream of successfully going public goodbye for now. You have a lot of making up to do with your publics - your stakeholders.
Better do it quick before this gets into the media...but it might be too late.
Everyone Google has hurt will naturally line up behind Yahoo!-Overture, an alliance which will be able to knock Google out of business if Google doesn't quickly change its ways.
9 - Craig Lyndall
Ultimately I don't think this is that much of a legal issue. We are talking about a company that searches, collects, and outputs information. They should be able to output it however they want in my opinion.
Everyone is going about this the right way. They came across in a certain way. Their changes are unfavorable to large numbers of consumers. The fragmented consumers mobilize by putting up informational websites and if changes aren't made then they will act by switching to Yahoo or some other company. Ball is in their court. Make changes or else. They have the right to screw up their business and lose visitors.
Isn't that kind of the natural progression of things?
10 - jadester
remember the dot com bubble, and its bursting? remember how many hundreds, maybe thousands, of "business" websites had no real business model - no way of making money.
Google needs to make money somehow. As long as they don't hide the fact from users that search rankings are affected by how much sites pay to get their ranking
I think all search engines take advertising money to improve advertisers' rankings. How the hell would they stay in business otherwise? it's not like they get public funding or donations.
11 - John Mudd
LOL.
It is, Craig, but for a company that was planning on going public, alienating the people who benefit from its existence just doesn't seem to smart.
If they were public, a change like this could have destroyed them.
If no one would have noticed it wouldn't be hurting them now, but everyone noticed and they aren't happy.
It was a stupid move, plain and simple. My business suffered from their move and I'm not happy. The first amendment gives me the right to tell the world about it if I want to, and I want to, so I'm going to.
If they do it again I'm writing a book. I'm not kidding.
12 - John Mudd
Google can make money without using coercive, unethical tactics, thank you.
It will lose money due to its recent algorithm change, as it has alienated a huge number of its stakeholders.
Business and industry need to make money, too. When Google understands that, perhaps business and industry will share some of its profits with Google.
I'm not buying anything from them for this shady maneuver, unless they pay me for profiting from my name's use and give me some free ads. Google hurt my business, and many others' businesses, too. It also hurt consumers. It has to make up for it, plain and simple.
If it doesn't, we'll all go over to Yahoo!-Overture and turn it into the next Google.
13 - Nick Douglas
John Mudd, you cannot trademark, copyright, or otherwise protect a name. I read it in a legal column a few years back when a sergeant named Slaughter wanted to trademark "Sgt. Slaughter" to end jokes from friends about the wrestler.
Why is it illegal to do something mean? Licensees of Google have a right to sue, as they've paid to use the site, but those of us who use it for free have no legal recourse. I trust Google will fix their problems anyway. I've read enough about the founders and CEO to trust them.
14 - Al Barger
John, you're wrong, totally and completely. You have NO legitimate issue AT ALL. Google doesn't owe you a damned thing.
I might tend to be sympathetic to somebody worried about business, but the aggressive irrationality and hostility of your post, and the (empty) threat of force frankly makes me more inclined to simply rebuke you.
For starters, you broadly claim that they have done something to cut you little guys out of the loop, but have made not even a claim as to what they have specifically done. All you know is that you're not getting the pole position that you were used to. From there you simply ASSume some nefarious plot to screw you.
Perhaps the Powers That Be at Google have decided that people searching for real estate would rather start at a general real estate page rather than with a specific agent. That seems sensible to me, but I won't presume to know their business. If they are wrong, then people can go to other search engines, or the yellow pages, or any number of other ways to find what they want.
Not to put too fine a point on it, who the hell do you think you are to presume to force search engines to give you the ranking that you want on THEIR search engine- or to list you AT ALL?
Your cheap Nietzchean slave morality resentment does not impress. Your empty threats of government intervention are laughable. What kind of supposed conservative Republican has so little regard for private property as to demand federal micromanagement of the alogrithms of search engines to guarantee the results that THEY want?
Your claims of oppression by the big guys are particularly unimpressive considering the cheap targeted advertising available from Google. Their AdWords program charges only for click-throughs, and last I checked you could be getting in on those for as little as a nickel a throw. Not only that, but you can set ad budgets within the program so that you don't spend more than you can afford- as little as a dollar or two.
In short, quit you goddam whining.
PS Your claim that Google owes you money because you have the same last name as a brand of jeans may be the stupidest one statement I've ever read on Blogcritics.
15 - ClubhouseCancer
John:
Sorry for your loss of a bunch of referrals that you didn't have to work for. Perhaps a business plan utilizing the Net in some other, more creative manner should be undertaken.
I'd advise it, because Johnny Cochran himself couldn't get a dime out of Google based on your silly arguments.
Seems to me you were lucky to get all those hits over the years.
16 - John Mudd
Oh, sure, everyone gang up on the little guy. ;)
(grin)
From the comments it appears that the responses were more emotional rather than logical, so I'll just take them for what they are.
(1) No one said anything about filing suit against Google.
(2) Al there is an issue, and if you had a clue you would see it, rather than libeling me and defending Google.
If you're going to argue, please throw facts, not stones. Thank you.
It's been documented that Google's algorithm change upset both consumers who use Google and businesses who are indexed in Google.
Perhaps instead of flaming me you should visit Google and do some reaserch on the issue. As far as Google's algorithm change hurting my business, it did hurt my business, and I can express whatever disappointment toward them that I please. It's called the First Amendment.
They can do whatever they want and if it's shady and unethical, I can call it that. If I would have ever manipulated mortgage paperwork for a homebuyer client, I would have lost my real estate license, because it's manipulation and manipulation is unethical and shady (and illegal in most professions). Perhaps Google should lose its license for manipulating its algorithms to coerce various businesses to by AdWords or AdSense. Oh, wait! Search engines don't have to have licenses or ethical codes to operate! Perhaps they should.
It's okay to be unethical, though, right, Al, as long as you own Enron..err..I mean the business? It's okay to hurt other businesses who have helped you to build your business if it helps your business, right? I think Enron thought that, but they're leaders have mostly been sentenced, I think.
Google has yet to prove that what I have said is wrong. When it does I'll be happy to retract my statement. I'm sure so will everyone else who has thought the same thing I did.
Cheers.
17 - John Mudd
Well, I must be doing something right, because every time someone comments, my ranking increases.
Cheers.
18 - Craig Lyndall
There is no comparison between fraudulently "trading" energy in a market that is monitored by the SEC and creating a VOLUNTARY service that compiles publicly available information on the web.
The only point I think you have is that you have the right to complain. You also have the right to say that Google should do something better or differently. The difference is they are in no way obligated by expectations of consumers or government to run their business in any way.
19 - John Mudd
Good point, Craig.
They aren't obligated, but it won't have a positive impact on them in the long run, because they've just alienated a lot of people.
If I ever do buy text ads, I will buy Yahoo!-Overture. Yahoo! brings me more traffic than Google does, anyway, which is really quite surprising.
20 - TDavid
To think any *one* website or person is the focus and/or fixation of the Google programmers is silly and should be totally dismissed.
Yeah, ok, maybe if someone is spamming, using bogus mirrors and fake entrance pages then Google will ban their IPs and websites from the index, but then that is what the Google programmers are focused on, not on moving traffic away from "the little guy" to put in the hands of the paid advertisers ... or any other perceived agenda or conspiracy. I chuckle almost every time I read folks suggesting this.
Google has a primary purpose in delivering the most relevant search results. Without that then they'll end up like Alta Vista, Yahoo and other has beens.
If I'm looking for "real estate agents" that's different than searching for "real estate" -- If your website comes up unrelated for what I'm actually looking for then I'm not going to think the search engine -- Google -- did not their job. The converse is true as well if I'm looking for you. I would suggest that you are probably getting more traffic you shouldn't be getting to offset the traffic that you probably should. It balances itself out.
John Mudd Real Estate turns you up as #1 which sounds like the search engine is doing its job just fine.
Now if you were page 100 for these terms, then there might be a scintilla of legitimacy to this post, but instead, sorry, it just sounds like sour grapes to me.
With all that said, you are right, you are picking up some additional relevance from this post, so kudos to you there! :)
21 - TDavid
I'm not going to think the search engine -- Google -- did not their job. should read: "I'm not going to think the search engine -- Google -- did their job"
Oops!
22 - John Mudd
Those are all very good points, David.
I was basing my complaint on Inman News's article, actually, which may not pertain to me at all since I am a blogger.
My concern was that people looking for "Tampa Bay homes" or something similar may find the Tampa Bay Devil Rays or Tampa Bay Buaccaneers websites first, rather than finding real estate websites with homes in Tampa Bay. I have run the search for those terms in Google and had that happen.
It's been interesting to see everyone's views of Google.
23 - TDavid
Now see if you do a search for "David" then you won't find me or my websites. But if you do a search for my name: "TDavid" then what do you find?
;)
David is too common a name to try and target ... thus the addition of the "T", even though many people make the mistake of dropping the "T".
24 - John Mudd
Now that's smart targeting.
25 - jadester
i would also point out that the dodgy sites which had the same "dialler" program on them that had somehow managed to get top rankings for ALOT of search terms are now in many cases far nearer the bottom of search results for the same keywords. they are highly dodgy sites, they make out the dialler is for some service that allows you to get warez, porn, cracks, hacks etc. for free but even if it's not it's going to be some kind of scam, probably run by criminals. It was also annoying because recently more and more mirror sites had popped up (altho at least they used the same keyword pattern so you could spot them and not visit them)
I would also ask you, just for a moment, to consider the job of coming up with a new search algorithm and/or improving an existing one. Think of all the material out there on the 'net, and what happens every time you do a search. Now, when an algorithm is changed, of course rankings are too, but the Google people aren't stupid, they aren't going to intentionally alienate a huge proportion of they market/users just to suck up to a few big corporations
You know, here in england, we have a free telephone directory for businesses called the Yellow Pages. Some companies have large ads, half a page or even a full page, because they pay for it. No-one kicks up a stink, because getting listed is free, you only have to pay if you want an ad (many companies *do* pay but that's beside the point)