Is Google Making Life Harder For Aggregators?
-
Theres been a bunch of updates recently which have hurt aggregators:
-
Reducing the number of search results to 7 for branded search queries
-
The DMCA update which penalises those with trademark related takedown requests against them.
-
At least 2 'domain diversity' updates, the most recent last week, which seeks to reduce the ability of sites to dominate SERPS e.g. a site which may have 2 search results on page 1 now may have 1.
Plus Its commonly believed that Google favours big brands over smaller brands e.g. Marriott over examplehotelaggregator.com.
Is this a deliberate ploy against aggregators in favour of brands i.e. does Google believe a brand site is a better search result than an aggregator?
A brand site returned above an aggregator for a branded term may be seen by Google as a better fit, a better search result that should be higher. But is that true? Consumers like to see unbiased reviews and lowest prices and that isnt always available at the brand site.
Thoughts please.
-
-
If Google tried to avoid aggregators & removed 2 domain results from serps, so what will be in the results then?
-
For something a long those lines Google mixes in shopping results to try and bring the best results. But for a hotel kind of search I would much rather get the hotel itself.
-
- Reducing the number of search results to 7 for branded search queries
If a searcher typs in a branded query then there is a higher probability that his is looking for the brand and not Joe Aggregator.
- The DMCA update which penalises those with trademark related takedown requests against them.
This is good. Yes!!
- At least 2 'domain diversity' updates, the most recent last week, which seeks to reduce the ability of sites to dominate SERPS e.g. a site which may have 2 search results on page 1 now may have 1.
Enjoy this. This is actually working against the big brand.
Plus Its commonly believed that Google favours big brands over smaller brands e.g. Marriott over examplehotelaggregator.com.
Sure... most people want something trusted. They know Marriott. I you want examplehotelaggregator.com to rank then work on your brand.
Is this a deliberate ploy against aggregators in favour of brands
Only the aggregators are thinking that it is. The brands are not thinking that way and the average searcher is not thinking that way.
does Google believe a brand site is a better search result than an aggregator?
Yes.
-
This. The aggregator's big win could be fulfilling their role in the form of a media publisher and community hub, serving as a nexus for honest and objective opinions. Aggregators are a form of retailer except that the customer purchase is information exchange. When they abandon this opportunity and instead supply subjective info that doesn't put the consumer first, well, this is what makes the organic results such a polluted mess.
-
"When you do a search would you rather get the official companies or a site with a news feed or aggregation ran by a 3rd party source?"
- As I say in many cases the branded site isnt going to be your first port of call. E.g. Who buys their Wilson tennis racket from Wilson.com when you can get the same product may times cheaper elsewhere (random example, im not picking on Wilson!) and with honest reviews e.g. 'the strings on this racket are poor'?
-
I would say so. Google has been taking a lot of actions to bring back better quality results. When you do a search would you rather get the official companies or a site with a news feed or aggregation ran by a 3rd party source?
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Using Google Reviews for non local business
Hi All, We are deciding on what site is best to capture reviews from customers and I'm just not sure what is the ideal option. We are a SaaS business with multiple offices in different locations but the specific geographies are not really relevant to our customers. Is it worth focusing on google reviews so that when our brand is searched there are plenty of nice shiny stars (plus maybe they can be added into adwords adverts as well...). Search volume for the keywords we don't yet rank for are not massive although still important. Alternatively should we be thinking about something like G2Crowd. None of our competitors are doing anything so there's no real need to our muscle them on a review website and I don't think our end user will visit these sites before buying but we would point to them and say 'hey, look at all these great reviews'. Finally I searched my old company recently who and just under news results were facebook reviews. Maybe that's another option. All advice welcome. All advice appreciated.
Industry News | | jafayeh1 -
Google still showing sitelinks from old website
Hi guys, we relaunched our website www.segafredo.com.au a few weeks ago, however google is still showing site links from our old page that no longer exist... Is there anything we can do about this? Sit back and wait or try demoting the old urls in webmaster tools? Looking forward to see your tips! Ciao, Manny.
Industry News | | Immanuel0 -
Google Changes Up The Search Results Page
Hi Guys, As you Google has made changes on search results page. I have two points two discuss here : 1. Are we going to see more ads on left sidebar in future ? 2. I think it will also affect the CTR of top three ads in SERP ? Waiting for you guys opinion on it ? Reference: http://www.webpronews.com/google-changes-up-the-search-results-page-2012-11
Industry News | | SanketPatel1 -
Anyone else know much about the Google Pirate penalty?
The Google 'Pirate' (no official name) seems to have gone largely undiscussed since it was launched last - Fri 10th August http://insidesearch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/an-update-to-our-search-algorithms.html. The idea of it is to ensure those 'Pirating' content or abusing trademarks e.g. fake ugg boot sites and file sharing sites do not appear higher in the search results than the genuine websites. Google is using DMCA take down requests for labeling sites as Pirate and demote their rankings, Im amazed not even seomoz has covered the subject yet as far as I can see, yet it is a hugely important new update, albeit affecting a relatively small number of sites now, and in some cases (at least one I know first hand) seemingly without justification (the example I know is not a file sharing, fake goods, trademark abusive site at all.) Google updating its search algorithm based on DMCA take down requests seems a bit strong - these are takedown requests, not legal proof that a site is infringing a trademark. A real weapon for negative SEO? Anyone else had experience of the pirate update or know much more about it? Outside Danny Sullivan I dont see many SEO folk covering it. Heres my own insights into it and what ive learned about what (only innocently) affected sites should do to appeal http://www.andy-maclean.net/the-google-pirate-dmca-guidance/
Industry News | | AndyMacLean0 -
Google's Current Wave of Updates (4/24 edition)
Edit: Someone beat me to the punch, here is the thread: http://www.seomoz.org/q/google-webspam-algo-update-24-4-12 Let's just discuss it there. So Google has said they are doing another wave of algorithm updates that could impact anywhere from 3-5% of SERPs. I saw it here: http://searchengineland.com/google-launches-update-targeting-webspam-in-search-results-119295 http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-step-to-reward-high-quality.html Has anyone seen any changes? I've heard from a few friends that their sites are bouncing all over the place, which seems to happy a lot during these updates. We might not actually know the fallout for a few days/weeks/months. I saw a few of my smaller sites take a hit, but most of mine have stayed the same. Anyway what do you guys think? Sometimes an update like this can be a wake-up call to people who think they are doing white hat stuff but may be pushing the envelope a bit too much. Thoughts?
Industry News | | vforvinnie0 -
Google+ profiles and Rel Author. Extensive question
A bit of a mammoth question for discussion here: With the launch of Google+ and profiles, coupled with the ability to link/verify authorship using rel=me to google+ profile - A few questions with respect to the long term use and impact. As an individual - I can have a Google+ Profile, and add links to author pages where I am featured. If rel=me is used back to my G+ profile - google can recognise me as the writer - no problem with that. However - if I write for a variety of different sites, and produce a variety of different content - site owners could arguably become reluctant to link back or accredit me with the rel=me tag on the account I might be writing for a competitor for example, or other content in a totally different vertical that is irrelevant. Additionally - if i write for a company as an employee, and the rel=me tag is linked to my G+ profile - my profile (I would assume) is gaining strength from the fact that my work is cited through the link (even if no link juice is passed - my profile link is going to appear in the search results on a query that matches something I have written, and hence possibly drain some "company traffic" to my profile). If I were to then leave the employment of that company - and begin writing for a direct competitor - is my profile still benefiting from the old company content I have written? Given that google is not allowing pseudonyms or ghost writer profiles - where do we stand with respect to outsourced content? For example: The company has news written for them by a news supplier - (each writer has a name obviously) - but they don't have or don't want to create a G+ profile for me to link to. Is it a case of wait for google to come up with the company profiles? or, use a ghost name and run the gauntlet on G+? Lastly, and I suppose the bottom line - as a website owner/company director/SEO; Is adding rel=me links to all your writers profiles (given that some might only write 1 or 2 articles, and staff will inevitably come and go) an overall positive for SEO? or, a SERP nightmare if a writer moves on to another company? In essence are site owners just improving the writers profile rather than gaining very much?
Industry News | | IPINGlobal541 -
Google places rejected
google has rejected a few listing i have for certain businesses, i have read the guidlines and I am well inside them. It does say that if business name is changed you need to re-verify, but does not allow you to do so. I think google have lost their way, they should stop building operating systems and electric cars and get their web site sorted out.
Industry News | | AlanMosley0 -
Anyone know how to get into Google Advisor search?
Looking for information on how to get into Google Advisor (https://www.google.com/advisor/home). Google is rolling out their own meta search engines in select categories right now - finance and hotels to start - but i cant find any documentation, help or data on how to get yourself in that feed/search. Anyone have experience in with this yet?
Industry News | | rhutchings0