Google buzz

It’s almost amusing to see so many bloggers talking about the latest Google updates. We all remember the famous “Florida” update. I posted about it at the time, as I’m sure did many others.
Prior to November 2003 there was almost a predictable factor in SEO. If you played by the rules and did certain things you knew more or less where you stood. Page rank (PR) was important, but more importantly you could rely on your position in the search results.
With the Florida update all that changed.
In the case of our company site it was pretty catastrophic, but we were not alone. Not by a long shot. Clients who had had good rankings saw their sites vanish almost overnight.
A lot of theories were put forward as to what was happening, why and how to overcome it (this site contains a summary of some of the more popular theories).
It didn’t matter. The theories were simply that, theories.
What was extremely frustrating was that the quality of the search results after the update seemed to have regressed. If Google had been trying to combat the SEO experts who used dubious methods to boost their clients’ rankings, then a lot of innocent bystanders were caught in the crossfire.
Almost 2 years later the updates still excite the online community and we all wait to see what will happen.
Will our PR increase?
Will our search terms drop?
Will we still be on the first page for that search query that we cherish so much?
In some ways none of this matters as much as before. A lot of us have resorted to using Google’s contextual advertising to boost our presence. We still want to appear in the search results, but even if we don’t we know that we can hope to catch people’s eyes in other ways.
Unfortunately the reality is this. Google is still king.
Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe it’s not. You cannot avoid the facts though.
If I look at the referrer logs for any site that I manage I can expect to see the bulk of referrals coming from Google. What does that mean? Does it mean that Google is the most popular search engine? Or does it mean that the people who are most likely to want the kind of information on those websites are more likely to use Google to find the information?
It’s a hard one to call.
Back in the early days of the web there was no Google. There was no MSN.
Do you remember the virtual tourist?
Can you recall the early days of Yahoo?
Anybody remember Altavista (mk. 1)? Or webcrawler?
Most of these sites are still around in some form or another, but the way we use them has changed dramatically, as has the face of those who choose to use them.
Even the most technically inept ‘net user ends up using Google these days, either directly or through one of the many sites that relies on their search technology.
Of course I still use Yahoo, but not for searching. I might go to Yahoo for news or other information, but not to actually search.