Domains Names in SEO, Google Blocking, Arbitrage Leverage - Some Freeform Thoughts

Javier writes:

""Hi Frank

More on the subject of SEO, from another angle:

""I expect the weight on domain names to be lowered significantly (especially for competitive queries) as Google moves toward incorporation more usage data into their relevancy algorithms. This is especially true if many domainers put up low quality to average quality websites on premium domain names. Moves like creating 100,000 keyword laden sites in one massive push (as Marchex recently did) don't bode well for the future of domain names as a signal of quality.""

http://www.seobook.com/archives/002323.shtml

I thought the same as Aaron when Marchex released their domains publicly. I may be wrong, but couldn't see the benefit of ringing Google's alarm like that.

Maybe Marchex know something that I don't (I don't overestimate my knowledge in this area) but they should also know that it is fairly easy and quick for Google to automate in SERPs the downgrade of any site associated to a certain company, or that responds to certain common features.

Yes, I can hear you saying that they have such great domains that they don't need google because they get most direct nav. traffic, and I understand that. But should they have been more discreet, they could benefit from both sources until Google joined the dots.

Unfortunately we live in king Google's realm..."we are not free" anymore for quite some time now.

Maybe you can comment or you are in touch with the Marchex guys and they can give their take on this?

Regards

Javier Marti
Trendirama.com""

***FS***  Great comment Javier. I think Marchex is learning that we don't live in "King Google's realm" after all ;)  It doesn't really matter what Google wants.. It matters what their users want. There comes a point in time when parked pages become so good that they are effectively a real website that was lovingly created by an individual entrepreneur. As those sites each become a mini-nucleus in their own right, 'drawing' unique visitors outside of Google through the keyword weight of domain name and 'keeping' some measure of return visitors coming through the content provided there; it becomes less important what Google thinks - and it does their search engine more harm than good by blocking user intent, failing to display the site the user calls for..

The Google/Marchex relationship becomes more symbiotic when fueled by arbitrage.  Marchex can leverage their own organic visitor stream to buy millions of dollars of targeted traffic from Google each month for it's pages, arbitraging the cost of that traffic against the amount of advertising it can sell. Make no mistake .. Google "needs" the revenue from large scale high-brow arbitrage plays because that arbitrage underpins its stock price. The 4 or 5 large scale arbitrageurs on my radar collectively pay Google more than 300 million dollars a year...  there are many more I don't know of.. Google needs that money.

High quality generic search-term style domain names are the ultimate killer search-app for that reason. You are working "outside" of the Google/search engine framework to get your traffic and revenue, with the option being entirely yours whether you want to get bigger by dipping your toes 'into' the Google realm to buy additional traffic.

Now imagine Wikipedia content (which is often featured in the first 3 links of a Google search query anyway) married to an organic traffic driver (a targeted domain name), coupled with arbitrage to buy incremental targeted visits who's costs are offset against directly-sold (or syndicated) display advertising on those wiki-esq pages. The users win by finding relevant content, the Engine wins by making money selling traffic and the site operator with the potent domain controls the platform and ensures a burn down value in the high quality domain name.

If you can draw incremental visits (non domain, non-arbitrage, algorithmic search visits) from Google as Geosign has done, that's when the potential for incendiary growth exists - but that last element is the only spot where Google can exert any real control. As you pointed out, they can take their foot of your accelerator by blocking algorithmic visits via blacklisting your site or changing algo's.

I think it's safer and more predictable to live outside of that algorithmic world  .. but obviously more profitable to jump in..

Just my free-flowing thoughts on this...  some of it you've heard before.

Comments

[IPTV]

""The 4 or 5 large scale arbitrageurs on my radar collectively pay Google more than 300 million dollars a year... there are many more I don't know of.. Google needs that money.

High quality generic search-term style domain names are the ultimate killer search-app for that reason. You are working "outside" of the Google/search engine framework to get your traffic and revenue, with the option being entirely yours whether you want to get bigger by dipping your toes 'into' the Google realm to buy additional traffic.""

___

I Agree with this concept...but it is still not "forward" thinking" enough.

Goggle may "need the money"...but why do these big players feel paying Google 300 million a year is the best ROI they can get for that 300 million?

Because Its Google...Because thats were the most search traffic on the internet comes from (currently)? LOL

If you have the resources pay 300 Million to Google a year...This really means that you have the resources to avoid paying Google anything per year.

I can see were one would be "happy" to spend 300 Million a year at google if they take in 325 - 350 million or more in return...its a "no brainier"

But,

With a little more "forward thinking"... you could get out of the "google realm" and offer searchers more and spend a lot less money and get a lot more ROI...all the while building more reveune for yourself.

Google is nothing more than a "middle man"...

Who's the first person that should be "cut out" of a deal...between a buyer and seller? answer: "middle man"

Why?...because they run the cost of doing business up for both for buyer or seller.

These "players" do not need Google (none of us domainers do) we just need to change the current Internet search rules that have been "arbritrarily" formed by the major SE's to benefit themselves. Domain owners control the most important/valuable commodity in Internet search...The starting point to get any were on the Internet...the domain name...the domain address.

Peace,
Dan
I tried to make some of these points here:
http://frankschilling.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/domainer-seo-ma.html#comments

[Eric Shannon]

Here's my take on Arron's thesis of the exact match bonus decay - http://www.internetinc.com/exact-match-bonus-decay

[IPTV]

""I expect the weight on domain names to be lowered significantly (especially for competitive queries) as Google moves toward incorporation more usage data into their relevancy algorithms. This is especially true if many domainers put up low quality to average quality websites on premium domain names. Moves like creating 100,000 keyword laden sites in one massive push (as Marchex recently did) don't bode well for the future of domain names as a signal of quality.""

__

This is "exactly" whats wrong with the world as I see it.

"Googles relevancy algorithms"

Why are we letting this...control our property, assets, bussiness, income, life?

____

""Moves like creating 100,000 keyword laden sites in one massive push (as Marchex recently did) don't bode well for the future of domain names as a signal of quality.""

___

It may be some sort of signal to "Googles relevancy algorithms" that they are not what they want at the top of their search results.

But, In reality its not a signal of "bad quality"

Backlinks, Page rank, algorithms....its a big crock!...

Keeping SEO experts and SEM experts up to all hours of the night...trying to keep up with Googles ever changing algorithms mood swings"

Much better way to organize quality websites and information on the Internet...all the while giving control back to domain name owners with websites that have quality content...at the same time providing much better search results to "the people".

Hint: you do not need algorithms, backlinks or page rank or SEO...if you type in a search word like "loan" and the top eight results are:

loan.com
loan.net
loan.org
loan.info
loan.biz
loan.us
loan.edu
loan.mil

But, you say...these sites might have crappy content on them...no way search results could be like this...

contraire my friend's...contraire.

Peace,
Dan

[aaron wall]

The big reason Google wants to prevent content recycling and automation from dominating their organic results is that it doesn't offer what they deem as a unique value add service.

The key to doing well is rather than automating everything create something that is fairly automated and robust, but has a ruleset or algorithm which is used to garner plublicity, build a brand, and help others want to contribute to the pool of content, like Digg and Wikipedia have done.

Check out the leaked Google documents they provided to remote quality raters. From their site review documentation (more info at seobook.com/archives/000917.shtml):

>>>To appreciate the difference, ask yourself this question: would any user want to go to bookfinder4u.com rather than directly to Barnes & Noble? To us.store-directory.org/dvd/movie/B00005JM5E.html rather than to Amazon? The answer to the former question is Yes, because at Barnes & Noble, the user would not be able to see any direct price comparison between the B&N’s price and competitors’ prices for any given item; the answer to the latter question is No or Indifferent between the two.

[IPTV]

Hi Eric,

With regards to the article at:
http://www.internetinc.com/exact-match-bonus-decay

""The search traffic trends are moving toward consolidating traffic onto the largest high authority sites, so it probably is not a good idea to have 100 deep niche domain names like OnlineNursingDegrees.org, OnlineNurseDegrees.net, OnlineNursingSchools.com, OnlineLawDegrees.com, OnlineParalegalDegrees.net etc when you can cover a lot of those topics with a singular broad domain like Online Degrees.org.""

And this is as wrong as wrong gets.

Not that its not whats happening and is going to happen with the current search engines.

Having to play by their/these rules is wrong. And does not benifit anyone but the search engines making these rules.

Google and Yahoo will always be with us...but for God's sake, their search engine models hurt the internet for most of us "mortals".

The Internet was and should be like the "gold rush" in the 1800's

And we are just letting them take over all of our own personal "gold mines."

"high authority sites"...I am getting a head ache...LOL.

Peace,
Dan

[IPTV]

And another thing!...LOL...LOL

Can anyone honestly tell me that if Marchex has 100,000 "keyword domains" and each website has "quality content" and they all have quality products, services, information that Internet searches are looking for when they do a search using whatever keywords they type in... That all of Marchex websites should NOT rank in the top spot for that keyword for each of its websites?

If I type in the keyword "seo"...should not the first website listed be seo.com...if it is a quality and legitimate website on the subject of SEO?

algorithms?

"We don't need any stinking algorithms"

Best,
Dan

***FS*** Picturing you in a sombrero with bandoleros

[IPTV]

Hi AAron,

This is why search engine rankings need to be given back to proper domain names and ranked accordingly.

If I do a search for "books" I do not want to see BarnesandNoble.com or Amazon.com in the top spot.

I want to see books.com

And I want to somewhat "force" these to companies to fight over getting the domain books.com, because it should be the only way for them to get the number one spot in any SE under the keyword search for "books."

And then, this would do a few things...

1. Value of keyword domains would be seen by everyone and rise greatly.
2. Searches would be a lot more "relevant" to users.
3. Say Amazon wins the bidding war for the domain "books.com" and now creates a website with "direct price comparison" with its competitors (B&N) and list all the benefits of buying books with Amazon which only has links back to the main Amazon website.

Now you have something.

You have provided lots of great information to the Internet user. You have a great generic brand name "books". And you have deny your competitors access to the number one spot in the SE's... and you have a valuable asset that just gets more valuable everyday.

The days are coming to an end having to SEO a 500 page website for all your keywords..."hoping" your SEO techniques are better than the next guy's with his own 500 page website.

I know who you are, and the great things you have done in the SEO arena.

So this is just MHO...I am not anywhere remotely close to being in your league.

I might be a little to "idealistic" sometimes...but what these SE's have done to the Internet by making "everyone jump through their hoops", all the while using these same peoples property and assets to make themselves a shit load of money...just does not sit right with me.

They have singled handily, take value out of domain names and place that value on whatever they decide their "algorithms" is going to value on any given day.

Best,
Dan

[IPTV]

***FS*** Picturing you in a sombrero with bandoleros

Frank you must be older than 30...LOL

Not too many yougsters would recognize a qoute from a move made in 1948.

One of the best lines ever in a movie ever.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Best,
Dan

[Geoffgo]

Great comments. Thanks, I'm learning sooooo much from you folks.

As a newbie, I would observe that the wish for "most relevant" spot in the Serps, will be employed first by the brand-owners, who as a group can say to the SEs: Wait a minute you guys! We represent 10:1 volume or 90% of all searches. You make 90% of your revenue off our brands. So, when someone types in anything containing my brand, they're obviously seeking me. You can have your sponsored placements, but clearly my brand should appear as the first unpaid listing. Just sayin'