• Home
  • Topics
  • Articles in Internet Business » SEO
  • Authors
  • Articles by Glenn Murray
  • Feed 
  • Sitemap



  • Partners:

    Articles on PDA
    Submit your software
    TNX.net: Sell links on every page of your site to thousands of advertisers!
    Sape.ru: Sell links on your website
    LinkFeed.ru: buy and sell links on your website




    Translations:

    Google manipulates search results: A boost for small business?

    by Glenn Murray

    As more and more businesses strive for a top ten , it's becoming harder and harder to achieve. This is especially true for smaller businesses that simply don't have the for a big . But hope may be just around the corner. If a top ten for your primary has been eluding you, then read on!

    manipulates the results

    is trialing an '' to the way it displays its results. Instead of showing the top ten results for the you enter, in the trial suggests three related results that you might want to check out. Where does it display these suggestions? It shunts (or replaces) results 6, 7 and 8 !!!

    In this article, I refer to these results as ''.

    To see some 'intruder' results in action, for "piggy bank". Results 6, 7 and 8 are actually 'intruder' results; they're the top three results for the more specific, less popular , "". assumes that people searching for "piggy bank" will probably be interested in results of a for "".

    On , it's tempting to think that this makes it harder to get into the top ten (because now it's really the top seven, and the last two results may be easily overlooked). But it may actually make it easier - especially for smaller businesses. Let me explain why...

    The advantage for smaller businesses

    It all comes down to who can rank in the top ten for the most popular - like "computers", "cars", "doctor", "pets", etc. For anyone in these industries, a top ten for these is the . Unfortunately, these sorts of are presently dominated by big corporations with hefty . Most smaller businesses don't even try to compete. Instead of focusing on these hotly contested , tend to on much more specific phrases - like "computers boston", "second hand cars ohio", "female doctor new england", "discount pets for children", etc.

    But 's trial may change that. Remember, it's replacing results 6, 7 and 8 of a popular, broad with results 1, 2 and 3 of a less popular, more specific . If the trial becomes a standard feature, a for "computers" might well include three 'intruder' results from a such as "computers boston". As discussed above, results 6, 7 and 8 are likely to belong to big companies, whereas results 1, 2 and 3 of the more specific are more likely to belong to smaller businesses. Therefore, when the switch occurs, it's out with the big and in with the small!

    In principle the appears to work in favor of :

    1) Big dominates popular / general results

    2) Smaller businesses have a greater chance of dominating less popular / more specific results

    3) General results are replaced by specific results

    4) Big businesses are shunted out of the top ten by smaller businesses

    Now I hear what you're saying: "Why wouldn't the big companies simply start for the more specific ?" , this is a possibility; but for most big companies, it would be a monumental task. Big companies tend to service a large geographic region, and they typically offer numerous products and services. Even a hefty would be stretched to the limit if it was required to bankroll for every single product, every single service, and every single . And this is what would be required to dominate all of the more specific results, thereby gaining back their number 6, 7 or 8 . It's far more likely that they'll simply try harder for a in the top 5 of the popular/general . This approach would be less complex and probably more rewarding.

    The fine print

    Of course, where is involved, nothing is ever that simple. I've oversimplified things above to make the trial a little easier to understand. In reality, the situation is a bit more complex because of the way chooses which the three 'intruder' results come from. Take the "piggy bank" for example. assumes that most users who for "piggy bank" will also be interested in results from a for "". This assumption is based on the fact that thousands of other people are searching specifically for "" - in fact, it's one of the most popular containing the original term "piggy bank". And that's why it gets the nod.

    In other words, the intruder results come from popular (less popular than the original, but still popular). This means you'd already have to rank highly in a very popular before you'd become an intruder. So, in reality, the above "computer" example is a little simplistic; the intruder results for "computer" are more likely to be from a for something like "computers ibm". In reality, the top three results for "computer peripherals boston" are more likely to appear as in a "computer peripherals" .

    Conclusion

    The important thing to remember is that if this trial becomes a standard feature, it will be implemented on all . And the more specific the original , the easier it would be to become an intruder in that . In theory, it has great potential to help smaller businesses reach the next rung of the ladder.

    Other examples

    Here are some further examples if you're interested:

    for "add url"

    for "on demand"

    Happy shunting!

    About the author:
    * Glenn Murray is a copywriter, copywriter, and article submission and article PR specialist. He owns article submission service Article PR and copywriting studio Divine Write. He can be contacted on Sydney +612 4334 6222 or at glenn@divinewrite.com Visit http://www.DivineWrite.com or http://www.ArticlePR.com for further details, more FREE articles, or to his FREE e-book.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


    Comments

    There are no comments so far.