Have Google’s Results Improved After Two Years Of Panda?

By: Chris Crum - February 28, 2013

Google Panda Update It’s been two years since Google unleashed the Panda update. How the time flies.

Do you think Google’s search results have improved significantly in that time? Let us know in the comments.

As you probably know, the update was designed to promote higher quality content from sites in Google’s search results. Shortly after launching Panda, Google laid out some unofficial guidelines for what it means by “quality”. Victims of the update strived to recover from the huge drop in search visibility suffered as a result of it, by following these guidelines as best as possible. Few have been successful.

Let’s revisit these guidelines, and see if Google is living up to its part of the bargain.

Would you trust the information presented in this article?

How often do you find search results with information that appears untrustworthy? This was a big issue when Panda was launched. So called “content farms” were cluttering up the results, and often getting top rankings with articles written by people with no real trustworthy credentials. Google continues to try and tackle this issue with authorship, but that’s completely separate from Panda. How do you think it’s done on the Panda front?

Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?

In my opinion, this is kind of a trick question. This gives the impression that a result needs to be a long, in-depth piece on any given subject, yet when it comes down to it, a more “shallow” post (or even a tweet) from the right “expert” can carry a lot more weight in credibility. You can just browse Techmeme on any given day and get that impression (though that site certainly has its share of other issues).

Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?

Is Google doing well at delivering trustworthy ecommerce results? Is it burying legitimate ecommerce sites because it doesn’t think they look trustworthy enough?

Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?

Let’s be honest, these things happen to even the most highly-read publications on the web from time to time. The fast-paced culture of web content often breeds a “get it out, and update later” nature, and I’m not sure Panda has done anything to change that.

Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?

As Rafat Ali, the founder of media industry follower PaidContent recently said:

That said, isn’t it Google’s job to provide content that’s useful to its own users (searchers) as opposed to what’s useful to any given site’s audience? Sites typically want to expand their audiences anyway.

Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?

It’s a good question, but how often is this kind of content truly rewarded by the Panda update?

Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?

Ditto from last question.

How much quality control is done on content?

Ditto from question about spelling, stylistic, or factual errors.

Does the article describe both sides of a story?

I’m curious to know how Google might algorithmically approach this one. I’m also curious to know how much Google is really holding content accountable to this. What do you think?

Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?

Nothing wrong with showing users content from recognized authorities, but this also begs the question: How does one gain recognition without visibility?

Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?

If a piece of content is relevant for a query, isn’t that more important to the user experience than what content on some other page looks like? Sure, it’s good practice to maintain quality control, but should good, relevant content suffer because of lesser content on other parts of a site?

Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?

Once again, this goes along with the other questions about quality control and errors.

For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?

I think we pretty much covered this with the “trust” question, though for medical queries, the stakes can go up. In fact, this was one of the big concerns before Panda launched. Has Google gotten better at providing trustworthy medical-related results? It has launched its own Knowledge Graph results for some of this stuff. But again, that’s not really Panda-related.

Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?

Sites who are more authoritative on certain subjects often cover a much broader range of topics. This should really be more about the author of the article (along with other factors), should it not? Again, Google is really into this authorship thing, and probably with good reason, but I’m not sure Panda has all the answers on this one.

Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?

Frankly, this is not always needed in every article. That’s why the web is based around links. It’s probably also why Google loves Wikipedia so much.

Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?

Can this be determined algorithmically?

Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?

Wouldn’t it be helpful if Google tapped into Facebook for the social relevance of content?

Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?

I think this is covered by the page layout update.

Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?.

Isn’t print dying?

Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?

Does the right answer always have to be long?

Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?

Didn’t we already cover this?

Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

Not the most specific of guidelines.

Some companies had to rethink their entire business models because of Panda. Smart content providers found ways to diversify their web traffic better as to not have to rely as much on Google. Demand Media’s site eHow has been the prime example of this. While it did go through a massive quality clean-up initiative to get back in Google’s good graces, it has also largely expanded its social media strategies, and increased partnerships, and the site is in as good of shape as ever, based on recent earnings calls from the company (which is now separating its content business from its registrar business).

Demand Media ranked as a top 20 U.S. web property throughout last year, and was ranked at number 13 in January, according to comScore. The company reached over 125 million unique visitors worldwide in January, and eHow itself was ranked number 12 in the U.S. with 62 million unique visitors in January.

Not everyone has been as successful as Demand Media. Matt McGee at Search Engine Land has put together some articles (apparently the first two in an ongoing series) looking at Panda victims two years later. He finds, citing Searchmetrics data (which has been questionable at times in the past, for the record), that none of 22 victims from the original Panda update, as listed by Searchmetrics, has returned to pre-Panda visibility, and that only two have improved compared to their post-Panda visibility.

MotorTrend.com, which was hit by the original update for some reason, has managed to bounce back, and McGee calls it the “true Panda recovery” in terms of search visibility. Today, he says (again, citing Searchmetrics data), it appears to have better visibility than it had pre-Panda.

For sites like EzineArticles, HubPages, and the like, no such luck. He says that even eHow’s visibility is down 63% from pre-Panda levels.

But again, the Demand Media strategy is not as reliant on Google as it was pre-Panda. And that’s probably the best thing to take away from the whole thing. ChaCha, another Panda victim, has adopted a similar approach, as CEO Scott Jones recently described to us.

Last year was all about Penguin, though Google continued to push Panda refreshes on a regular basis. Panda was kind of in the background as the Internet was already accustomed to it. Still, it’s Panda that tends to rear its head more often than Penguin.

Google has been pushing out a major update early in each of the past couple years. We’re still wondering if they have a 2013 counterpart to Panda and Penguin in store. We’re also still waiting for Google to release months worth of its “search quality highlights”.

Google announced the launch of its latest known Panda refresh in late January. The company said it affected 1.2% of English queries.

Have Google’s results gotten better since it first launched Panda? Has quality gone up? Let us know what you think.

Photo: Ken Bohn, San Diego Zoo (via National Geographic)

About the Author

Chris CrumChris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Follow Chris on Twitter, on StumbleUpon, on Pinterest and/or on Google: +Chris Crum.

View all posts by Chris Crum
  • https://twitter.com/weboptmization Rajesh

    Wishing you many more updates from Google. :)

  • Sam

    google’s last panda update in previous month(Jan), it was such a stupid update coz it shows crappy result on every search query… google is not going to make search result better but going to make it downgrade day by day… You may try on any search query, you’ll get result which are not related to your search query… you have only 1 or 2 websites useful and other all are irrelevant on every Serp…

  • SKM

    Everyone is noticing that Google ranking is now favoring the big national name brand companies, like Walmart, Sears, JC Penny, Ikea, Kohls, Overstock, Amazon, Ebay. Big national brands are now not only for major keywords, but also for the “long tail keywords.’

    The smaller companies are not ranking on the first few pages anymore, for both principle keywords as well as “long-tail” keywords. The smaller companies tend to offer more american made products and more diversity in manufacturing sources, whereas the national brands offer predominately Chinese made products. So by favoring national name brands, Google is not helping the US economy.

    The smaller companies also offer better customer service with actual people answering the phones. By favoring national name brands Google is not helping the US employment rate.

    The smaller companies tend to specialize in certain areas of expertise or products offered. Even though a name brand company will offer maybe just one or two products under a certain keyword phrase and a smaller specialized company may offer 5-6 products under that phrase….Google is now favoring the large company with the smaller stock of product.

  • Lewis

    Google lost a sense of stability now. Every time you search for something it changes the order in which it lists the search results. Every search result is in a state of constant change. For normal users, Google has thrown the baby along with the bath water in its quest for removing the spammers. Ironically you find more spam now than before.

    It is DuckDuckGo, Blekko or the gold old Yahoo which offer consistent better quality search results – once Google did.

  • Sam

    Panda destroyed google serp completely. Penguin made this situation even worse.
    Also google ad placement, their mini-mfa sites (like hotels reservation, credit cards review) made their serp a very little-bit usable (when before their serp was real satisfaction). It not possibly to find what you want at google now, only LOT of ADWORDS, big brands, youtube, wikipedia and ehow/livestrong content farms.

  • Sam

    >>> Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?

    Check matt cutts blog. Looks like a authority blog, member of google spam team and public relations on google. But this blog is shallow in nature. No facts, no explanations, just nonsense! But why panda not penalize it???

    • Robert

      because him have access to penalize/un-penalize button.
      Like for ‘sponsored by google chrome posts’, and no real penalty for big G url.

  • Julie

    It’s sad when you wish you had search results from 2007. But truly you could find actual useful stuff back then. I have never caught myself jumping to page 5, more than the last two years. I primarily use bing now.

    Google used it’s core product to keep you searching more. Who would of thought

    Search more = more profits

    They are a public company, that’s the goal.

  • BlokeToys

    Google has proven that it is all about profits, not the user experience or making the web easier to navigate for users. They are hypocrites, demanding standards of many while allowing a few to completely ignore those standards because they are already popular. They crush small businesses for practices that they conveniently ignore when a multinational corporation is found doing the same.

    Google is the mafia for the modern age.

    Panda didn’t affect me, because I use original content on my sites – always have and always will. But everything else Google has done over the last five years should have proven to everyone that Google has one goal in mind – absolute control.

    It’s about time people stopped trying to please Google. It is declining. Traffic will be moving to others as Google continues to grasp more power wherever it can. When a corporation becomes as blatant about stealing control of global business as Google is becoming right now, people quickly start to look for alternatives. That is happening and people are starting to realize that they have supported the creation of a real monster.

  • http://cozumelmexico.net Bob Rodriguez


  • http://atticdiggers.com WAHM

    No. They haven’t.

    I also find that I MUST run with personalized search turned off or it’s even WORSE. I do a lot of research on very varied items for my antiques/vintage business, and if I forget to switch browsers to one not signed in when I’m running a search query I get absolutely USELESS results that have nothing to do with what I’m searching for. Even worse, almost every result is a SHOPPING result for a new product. The entries could not possibly be more inappropriate.

    And it tells me that Google is no longer a search engine. It’s just advertising, basically. Nothing but a shopping portal bought and paid for by the big corporations.

    We really do need a new player in this space.

  • http://cetap4plger.blogspot.co.il/ mahmooud

    Hello. Should tell the truth
    Google created the Inter Net. Without Google Cao j anything Wide Web.
    Insult. Google is track a broad and diverse to all researchers.
    Google benefits. All what you are looking for you find once you enter words in the search box
    Google Panda is the best solution to ensure the quality of the Inter Net.
    There are a lot of sites put thousands of pages for profit put ads on those pages and Booze abound lies for the money …..

    I support Google in their choices regarding the quality of content on the browser
    . And support Google about. (Google Panda)

    • John

      Google did not create the net.

  • John

    For major sites like Overstock,Amazon etc yes it has worked out great. They now dominate first page searches for my niche/keyword phrases….I used to do well with many first page and second page placements.I follow the rules and take into account Google suggestions. It is all total crap. I am watching my site die now mater what I do….Thanks for the level playing field you promised us Matt, you lying POS. I hope the FTC guts Google soon

    • Robert


  • http://www.belfast-architects.co.uk Alan

    Why use Google when there are now better alternatives, that have less advertising?

  • http://www.Quantisoft.com Howard Deutsch

    Google has been very successful in making Bing the best search engine, by far. Penguin and Panda are failures. You now get way too many page 1 and page 2 results for large sites that have a single or minor mention of the searched keyword while the useful and serious results are only visibe on pages 4 and beyond. I have now made Ging my browser and it is muchbetter than Google. People need to wake up to this.

    Google Analytics tells website owners to they have “unnatural links” pointing to their site and they need to get them removed. Has anyone ever tried to figure out which unnatural links are linked to your site? It is impossible to do so!!! Then have you tried to contact these supposedly unnatural link sites to get them to remove their link to your site? GOOD LUCK. This is a fools game. Google has failed miserably with Penguin and Panda and they are too self-assured and arrogant to realize they have made a mistake and they should go back to pre- Penguin and Panda search algorithms.

    For now, Bink is clearly better.

  • http://buffaloriverchamber.com Michael

    Our analytics are up 225% YOY, with a 600% gap up in mobile traffic. Google is our primary source. We have an under 5% bounce rate. In many states we have a 0% bounce rate.

    There may be issues, but if you are a true authority site, and we are, with no ads,Google is getting it right.

    I do think it is fair to say authority sites are a special case online.

    I don’t know how small retail will survive or compete with the big guys short of really powerful niche positioning. There are new search engines coming along like Yandex.com. I don’t see Google being dislodged any time soon.

  • http://www.referencement-site-montreal.com/ Mohammed ALAMI

    Here’s what a former Googler says : “Once I was a blackhat spammer and I only looked after my own intere$ts…. Then I was caught… A few times. So I decided to start “defending” the poor and oppressed against evil Google.” https://plus.google.com/113104553286769158393/posts/J6wPUL69TFg

  • Shelley

    Sit down at your omputer with a credit card in hand and try to find someplace to buy what you are looking for at the best possible price. Forget it. For many searches it is virtually impossible to find ANY site with a shopping cart. #googlesucks

  • http://spain-info.co.uk/ Ian

    Google has succeeded in the area we work in, in villa and apartment renters The only results these days that show up are from the four large companies who specialize in taking on villas and apartments at a price. Google has managed to more a less knock out all the small companies and the many owners who just had a page with their property on. I have stopped trying to compete YOU WIN GOOGLE YOU ARE 2 BIG TO FIGHT.

  • Adam

    Cynic says . . .

    If you know of an event before it happens then you can make a killing. So many M$’s shift on website valuations every time Panda twitches, is there really no one in Google coining it? Do the sums, what can they make in a few years of controlling the markets compared to years of being an honest search engine? They have sold out and capitalised on the friendly, independent, we’re-not-nasty-Microsoft, Google.

    Don’t worry about your Google rankings – fu##’em and move on.


  • http://reynoldspest.com Brian Reynolds

    I have seen a cleaner Internet with a lot more accurate local results at least in my niche. This hasn’t always been to my benefit, but what can you say, it is what it is. What is really great is that there is a lot less article spinning, and scraping of videos and content. Nice to see some real names of authors, rather than some fly by night alphabet soup named author getting the credit.

  • Yoda

    I have a forum that has been on the net since 1996. The #1 resource for it’s specific topic with about 1000 posts a day. I used to rank on the first SERP for more than a decade… Then Google changed their algorithms, and now my site cannot be found within 6 pages when looking for the product name on it’s own. This is an automotive forum. Thankfully this hasn’t affected my earnings, but the point is I have been white hat, I have followed Google’s guidelines, and specific recommendations. I am a well recognized resource in my field, yet Google thinks more of a generic site like Edmunds, than they think of a site geared specifically to those interested in honest owner generated reviews, step by step maintenance help etc… Frustrating for sure.

  • http://www.theakurians.com Colonel Robert F. Cunningham

    Google, across the board, is a KAK-SUCK situation. Their ‘updates’ never fail to jackass every formerly working-well setting. I tried Google Analytics for FIVE years, to no avail and finally deleted the poppycock from every page of our several sites: and went UP in their own search engines!

    Anyone, user or servicer, that believes anything Google presents doesn’t have anything wrong with them that a brand new set of brains wouldn’t cure. Especially Google’s ‘updates’ which can be best described as jackass aforethought.

    Colonel Robert F. Cunningham,

  • http://www.mindconnection.com Mark

    Google HAS made SERPs worse, and other SEs provide much a better user experience. There are at least a dozen reasons for this, including the fact they penalize a site that has a mysterious toxic link to one page so all of its other great pages don’t show up.

    We have great search results on Bing, because Bing rewards for good content. Page 1 is normal on Bing for all of our major search terms. We are practically invisible on Google.

    Prior to Panda, my business was thriving. Now, it costs me far more than it makes and I have racked up huge debts. I’m waiting for enough online buyers to switch from Google to an ethical search engine (anyone but Google) that sales will come back up. As Google continues to degrade the user experience, that should happen any day now.

    Google has changed its operating philosophy to “Do more evil.” As they transitioned to this, I began to refer to them as “the new Microsoft” but they’ve gone way past that.

    It looks like Google and Microsoft have traded places. Google makes a better OS and better browser, while surrendering the search engine space to Microsoft. MS has made its OS into garbageware, but is now running circles around Google in the search engine space.

  • http://www.dewey-cheatham-howe.com/ Dewey Cheatham & Howe

    Wow, you have a lot of whiners commenting. Personally I don’t feel it’s made things a whole lot better, but certainly not worse and it has cut down on spammy sites.

    I have a friend who works in a field that borders on spammy and it has really cut into their business.

    My biggest gripe is that there are sites that copy my content. They don’t outrank me but they still show up in search results, and they shouldn’t because they’re spam. My site has features that allow users to update info and the copycats don’t, so their sites are way out of date.

    Should be obvious that they’re copies and Google should trash them. So Panda and search quality efforts are not catching that.

    • Joe

      It has NOT cut down on spam sites, here is an exsample of a very competive word with TONS of spam:

      Spot 1 satellitedishcanada.com nothing to do with the keyword
      Spot 2 laurier100.ca using hidden backlinks
      spot 8 onlinecasino-games.com , using tons spam hidden backlinks links
      spot 9 online-casino-rws.com using tons spam hidden backlinks links
      spot 10 bestcasino.webeden.co.uk using tons spam hidden backlinks links

      Its a big mess what they done Google

    • Steve Kilmer

      Where has been cut spam? Where? I don’t see it. Give me a query…

  • http://www.viraltraffic4u.com/ Jason

    I have been so far unimpressed with Googles results across the board. Examples?
    1. There used to be a mini-niche where a few webmasters made money running a very useful, mathmatical conversion site. Gallons to liters, pounds to kilograms anything you want! So what does Google decide to do? Build a mini-conversion calculator right into the serps page and what do you know, googles magic calculator is number 1. The other sites? Some pushed down the page and some just gone.
    2. There once was a website ranking for things like “free advertising sites”. After Panda/Penguin that same top spot is held by a outdated forum post from 2008. The site that was removed featured links and recommendations to free advertising resources, good articles, free web tools, a built in forum and all told over 1000 inner pages. If you were looking for free advertising it was a good place to start reading. Yet now, Google thinks that some guy posting in a forum 5 years ago is better than a current up to date website?

    I have been using Bing because it just plain works better. I have given up on chasing after Google any more, Instead I am using more social media and other search engines. I have removed Google analytics as it only helps then screwggle me and I advise everyone to do the same.

  • Tony

    There’s one way they could improve, stop showing a whole page full of one domain, or, return to the old system of showing maximum two results from each domain, I guess they’re trying to stop people clicking for page 2, saves server power, saves queries, saves money, don’t be so money-oriented Google please, we’re not.

  • David

    Google takes being narcissistic to a whole new level.

    There is no way they can stay on top but for so long treating their customers the way they do. They “think” they are the center of the Internet, and that the Internet revolves around them.

    I have a website that was listed #1 on Google for over 15 keywords (that I know of) for YEARS. It is very clearly the most relevant, most informative, most content rich site of it’s type in existence. After the Penguin update on 4/24/12, my site dropped from #1 to 5th, then to 9th, then to 13th, and so on until now I can’t even find it in the first 10 pages for most of those keywords, YET on almost every other search engine it’s still ranked at the very top (including Yahoo and Bing). So Google is right about my site, and all other search engines are wrong??? That’s HIGHLY DOUBTFUL.

    Now, replaced in my former top spots are places like Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, Lowes, Wikipedia, etc. who don’t have 1/100th of the relevant content about the subject that my site has.

    For months after the Penguin update I tried everything I could to get my site back into Google’s good graces (higher up in their serps), all to no avail. The only thing that I have seen work for others is to recreate your website with a new domain name, one that has never been penalized by Google.

    But guess what? I am not doing that because I’m not going to be Google’s bitch, and my website is not going to catch a cold (drop in the serps) every time they sneeze (do updates) from here on out.

    The good news is, I have found the solution.

    1. Forget Google exists. Build and PROMOTE your website the way YOU want to, in a way that gives it’s visitors a better experience than any of your competitors do, not in the way Google wants it done.

    2. Start doing what most successful businesses have always had to do…start buying traffic by paying for advertising.

    PLUS, start promoting your site on relevant forums, make and post videos on popular video hosting websites, write and post interesting and relevant articles across the web, do lots of social media; things like creating a Facebook Fan Page and posting on Twitter, etc. Create a relevant blog and update it regularly.

    It’s my personal belief that if Google continues treating it’s customers the way they do now, they will end up here one day:


    And for me personally, after the way they’ve mistreated so many websites, that day can’t come too soon.

  • http://www.netprofitmarketing.com Jared

    I know that for many that were hit by these updates, they’re still trying to recover.

  • Rob Crombie

    The article and many of the comments appear oriented towards those wishing to be ranked (retrieved) fairly.
    I am just someone who wishes to get relevant hits when I do a search.
    My impression is – the results have gone to hades in the last couple of years.
    I would like to have the ability to put a word or words that MUST appear in EVERY RESULT. That ability does not appear to exist anymore ?

  • http://www.rankwatch.com Rank Watch

    Google’s results for almost 80% of the queries have been very relevant post penguin and panda. Google’s algorithm updates seem to be helping them separate the wheat from the chaff quite easily and in turn helping their users get the relevant possible result for their queries.

  • Bing

    Google has devolved into complete irrelevancy. First sucking your dick for something and then turning around and punishing you for doing the exact same thing. Google is a nasty, slutty whore dressed in corporate clothing.

    One word: BING

  • Robert

    Google is a POS and I’m not implying the acronym for Point of Sale! As others have mentioned it’s only for the deep pocket Companies now, those with endless cash to pay for search results. Adwords is ridiculous and when they tied the Mechant Center to it they took away any possibility of small businesses to compete.

  • John

    Google has turned me in to one of Bing’s biggest fans.

  • Simon

    Google’s search results are becoming a joke with so many irrelevant search results for many queries. This is a brilliant example of how Google really get things mixed up – And they know it as the same search in Google images gives the kind of results one would expect. Search this ‘CHINESE DOLLS’, then try searching Google images then Yahoo and you will see what I mean! Yahoo does not get the words CHINA and CHINESE confused so readily, at least it asks you to qualify your search.

  • http://www.your-choice.co.za jose

    I done some searches and sites occupying the top position are actually spammy sites that they intended to get rid-off in the first place.

  • http://www.ignivasolutions.com/ Igniva

    I see no big qualitative changes in Google results after Penguin or Panda updates or many more it has made by now… Some good sites results got punished for little wrongdoings(or better say things that were doing well with Google few years before). And what we see today is few useless spam filled results floating over the top results. Why, for Google has put them behind the bars for unspecified period of time. :)

  • Chris

    No, Google’s search results returned are horrible after the updates. I have changed all of my default searches to Bing – I even downloaded a Bing app on my Android phone! I won’t be using Google services now or in the future, I just cannot support them any longer.

  • max

    Its on a level with altavista from around 2000 now, real good content mostly gone now because the weight is on authority and links relevant content has no value at google. The people who program this algo have gone into irreal and abstraction which has nothing to do with the way PEOPLE are thinking and searching, google make the same mistake like so many other they think they can dictate people the way they search, irrelevancy is the result.

  • Matt

    Google should just scrap all changes in the last 2 years. Their search results now are worse than ever and rather than point you to an article that matched your search they just point you to the biggest players in that field whether their website meets your search criteria or not.

  • http://makethisway.com/ Lauren Wilson

    The people who program this algo have gone into irreal and abstraction which has nothing to do with the way PEOPLE are thinking and searching, google make the same mistake like so many other they think they can dictate people the way they search

  • http://www.graciousstore.com Nina

    How many of all these “original” contents that pop up daily on the web will Google read before assigning or elevated a site’s rank. How many of these articles will customers read before deciding if they can trust the expertise of the author so as to know if to entrust their credit to them or not?

  • pandogoogle

    Google is full of ads and after that are the sites of advertisers.

    Panda was good just for Google

  • http://www.totoya.com Sukanta Chowdhury

    This is nice car.

  • http://www.megadox.com Heather

    I haven’t seen any significant improvement in Google search results since all of their vaunted algo changes began. I’m still seeing plenty of link farms and spam sites out there, and they’re still finding ways of placing in the top 10 spots on the SERPs. But if Google’s aim was to make doing business online much more difficult and expensive for small businesses, they’ve certainly succeeded in that.

    • http://www.thehousesignstudio.co.uk Antonia J

      Well said Heather. I am convinced that Google are creating a situation where the result can only be the squeezing out of small independent businesses. What has happened in our high streets here in the UK has started to happen on the web. I.e. large multiples only, no small independent traders, hence little choice for consumers. I for one am fed up with dancing to googles tune.