I am not an active Hubber anymore but today I want to share this information with fellow Hubbers.
These are two images from Quantcast - showing traffic levels of Google and Facebook since last few months. Though they are estimates, the trends are pretty obvious.....
Below is google.com traffic
Below is facebook.com traffic
I think the latest google dance has got something to do with this situation. What do you folks think???
I heard on the news somewhere awhile back that all search engines have had their traffic go down.
Everyone including myself has been freaking out over their hubs going down in Google, but I think they'll return back to where they were in a short time.
My websites have experienced this in the past and then they end up going right back where they were.
"I think the latest google dance has got something to do with this situation. What do you folks think???" I think you are quite correct.
You do realize you are comparing apples to oranges.
Facebook financially isn't capable of having any effect on Google. These two companies are in two completely different atmospheres in value. Google could be effected by Bing? Sure, anything is possible. Bing has it's backer.
Facebook is still a player in social networking which competes with Google's multi-level marketing programs, but works well together. Facebook is fastly growing. It's a few hundred million subscribers, which is wide open mailing list for them. Google has that covered, mostly with many of the same people.
Google isn't losing anything. It is too diverse in it's activity. Facebook is social driven and Google is business driven. Google is safe from Facebook.
I'm not so sure...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b … 069878.ece
Things can change pretty quickly.
I'm sorry, Facebook isn't a billion dollar company. It's not one of the companies that are in that range for revenue generation.
Google is a $100 Billion company, giant and diverse. Facebook is a social networking website. Google could eat Facebook up and still digest other companies too.
And Facebook is a $70bn company.
It is also a $70bn company which is firmly in bed with Microsoft, in fact is partly owned by Microsoft. So it does pose a threat to Google and it will for as long as it runs internal bing searches, which it probably always will.
I didn't expect we'd agree on it. And I don't know what the future holds. But the article, which is only one of many I have been reading implies otherwise.
The recent action re searching indicates to me a weakness rather than a strength. A panic in the Google ranks.
You have completely misunderstood Google.
This is exactly what they NEED to do. Now, you may want to argue that they screwed up this or that and accidentally messed up the other thing and that's all fine, but Google needs to do better at search and that's what this is about.
It's not "panic". This is long overdue and it is undoubtedly the difficulty of it that has taken so long.
They may not succeed and (in spite of what Cags says) Facebook is one of the threats they face and it is a serious threat - though these recent changes aren't addressing that at all. The problem with Facebook is not that Google's searches aren't good, but that Facebook users may not use Google at all.
Facebook may be a threat to people like us, too. Google may cause problems for those it thinks are abusing the Internet, but their business model includes us. Facebook? Not so much.
@Cagsil What if facebook starts its own search engine.
I think that graph shows only a part of the data -
Those are only US figures - Google.com. Including data for google.ca, google.co.in, google.co.uk et al would show a completely different picture.
Even then, google.com is at a higher base than FB, and the graph is on an upward swing -again.
Sure, adding the country specific versions of Google will make a difference in traffic figures.
However, once it was hard to imagine a social networking site...where people basically sign up to chit chat, will pose a threat to Google. The data in itself is pretty amazing I think.
Facebook is a social networking site. Google is a search engine. I really don't think you can compare these to. Its like comparing apples to oranges like some hubber said above.
Bing could be competition because its a search engine, but facebook can not be.
People don't go on facebook to find information, they go to socialize. That's what its designed for.
Facebook ate myspace, not Google. It can not eat Google because its not relevant.
The article I linked to gives a flavour of the change that Google is scared of.
Becoming an irrelevance for users who live within Facebook.
"Facebook now has more than 400m active users — making it, some say, the third most populous country in the world behind India and China — and is at the forefront of a new way of finding information. In Britain, it has 23m users, close to one in three of the population."
At the forefront of a new way of finding information. That's the thing.
And have you considered the threat to Google AdWords? Ultimately, that is the very foundation of the threat.
As more in more people sign up and use Facebook the less and less necessary it becomes to advertise through other mediums.
Facebook is expected to create a multi-billion dollar advertising revenue, if it hasn't already. The danger posed to Google is not that people begin to search less, but that advertisers will begin to spend less - at least less with Google AdWords, and more with Facebooks own advertising network.
Ultimately advertising on Facebook is much more focused or targeted, an advertiser can decide to present an ad only to people who have specifically stated that they like Coldplay for example.
The share of the market in terms of traffic is irrelevant if Google doesn't know how to monetise that traffic.
Facebook can seriously undercut the Google advertising rates too, seeing as there is no 68% to give to publishers. When performing searches on Facebook have you not seen the 'web results' box at the bottom?
Do you know how much Google would pay for that? They lost out to Microsoft, Zuckerberg preferred Gates. That represents the single biggest Google fail of the past decade, especially if Facebook amasses 2 billion users as it is predicted to do.
Have you seen how fast Bing has grown? That growth has occured for two reasons:
1) It is set as default for new Internet Explorer installations.
2) A huge number of their searches are conducted directly and subsequently indirectly through Facebook.
If Google had won the bidding for a slice of Facebook then Bing would have failed in a big way. As they didn't win it is a double whammy for them. They now have an advertising network to compete with and a search engine to compete with. And that goes to show how much control Zuckerberg really has, he is no doubt a massive threat to Google.
And, of course, we can only read one web page at a time. Every minute spent on Facebook is one in which Google is not being searched, yet Bing is being searched.
If FB replaces Google, I will be actually sorry. I am not FB material. However, there are many people who swear by FB, and Bing has recently integrated FB with it's search (I haven't tried it myself, but it says see what your friends suggest or something...). I think Google may feel the heat by these things.
I guess that article makes a good point then. Still, however, I think Google is a smart enough company to deal with any threat from competition like facebook.
Google has been the largest search engine for years now, I do not think they will allow these other companies to be the big dog.
Same could have been said about Yahoo once.
The market share statistics show the whole story. Microsoft's US share increased from 12% to 13.1% in the month up to February 12th. Just one month.
Google's share fell from 66.6% to 65.6% in the same period. You can see a clear swing from Google to Bing. Don't underestimate how seriously Google will take a loss of 1% of the market, that is a huge number.
The same situation in the UK too, Google dropping with Bing picking up the share. And to be honest, as somebody who switched to Bing very recently, it really is refreshing to use for a while.
Facebook traffic is mainly from wall updates, reading other people's updates, and those silly games that people can't get enough of. Which of that is driven by research, such as search engine? Nada.
Your refusal to converse with me makes me realise just how unwelcoming the Hubpages forum can be for newbies. It will make me use my 2 year old account in a much more welcoming and positive way to the benefit of newcomers in approximately 82 minutes time.
That is precisely my point, you ignored me entirely, which is why I wrote:
"Your refusal to converse with me makes me realise just how unwelcoming the Hubpages forum can be for newbies. It will make me use my 2 year old account in a much more welcoming and positive way to the benefit of newcomers in approximately 82 minutes time."
Only it is now 59 minutes time.
there are many businesses on Facebook and Twitter.
This subject has been in the news for a few weeks - I saw this article this afternoon while hopping around the web.
Google will continue to be the leading search engine as long as it continues to innovate as it does. As such its future is assured. I wont be selling my Google shares anytime soon...
advertising (banner adverts), CTR for brands, products and campaigns on the side walls of Facebook pages, I think those are the earners for them. I read it somewhere that the CTR is lower in Facebook than in Google.
I think the change in algorithm is related to (1) the change in the management of Google, (2) for advertisers sake and (3) for the general public to be satisfied with their searches. The most imp. is number 2 perhaps.
Google won't be losing any war.
Google have always kept their business focused on the searcher or end user. The best businesses do this.
If the searcher can find what he/she is looking for, everyone wins and they are more aware of that than other search engines, which is how they became the biggest, and why they will remain so.
Maybe, and I don't want to get into a silly forum argument over it. I am an outside observer, that's all.
The latest Google change smells to me like desperation, a knee jerk reaction, rather than a business that is fully in charge of things. The ranking stats show the huge impact on various sites.
I don't believe the Google 'reasons'. They could have done this years ago, when everyone knew the web was becoming full of spam.
So why now? Again I refer you to the simple article, it is a flavour of stuff I have been reading for some months - and I am just a business section reader.
The other thing which is telling, imo, is that graduates will choose Facebook over Google as the place to work.
I think Google is for parents - Facebook for kids. And the kids are the future.
All the adults I know are right into Facebook and there all pensioners or will be soon.
I can't stand facebook, in fact I am thinking of pulling out of it (if I can).
I hate the way sites like 192.com have pulled my Facebook piccie and details into their directory.
I dislike it too - I joined about a year ago, and then deactivated my account a couple of weeks later.
I'm very twitchy about the "visibility" of things like Facebook. You're using your real name and people can see who you know and who knows you. Yes, I know you can elect to keep a lot of your details private but in that case, you might as well communicate the old-fashioned way, via private email!
As means of finding information FB will not be able to pose a threat to Google. However, FB and Bing integration is a very significant happening. It has the potential to change the preference of millions of people from Google to Bing. Especially when Bing is really up to the mark as a Search Engine.
I could certainly imagine that people could get sick of Facebook. Much like happened with Myspace.
Google can easily be taken over by the likes of Bing, or another search engine. The one reason Google made it was because of its advertizing. Not to mention if this site(or a site like this) keeps expanding and devolopes it's search, a site like this could take over many people's main pages. Which is why I am against the current homepage to attract writers. With all of the views this place gets, it is hard pressed to believe they don't make it look like google at the homepage. Rather than having the same 5 people on the front page the whole time.
The search that will last the longest is the search that is fair for people like us to create the content, because there will always need to be new content. I am a firm believer in this.
One thing you should take into account is that google isn't just google.com, it is also youtube.com - which is basically the second largest search engine in the world.
And they make major algorithm changes like this roughly once every two years. last time was 2009, so we were about due for one
But the bing and facebook alliance is a major threat to google.
Facebook ( the 70 billion $ company ) at war with [the much older and established ] Google (the 100 $ billion ). [ Not much of a financial difference to note ].
Facebook, having teamed up with Microsoft, has extended Bing Searches overall reach.
There is speculation because of the "multiple daily unique visitor" to FB --via web and especially mobile --for all platforms from blackberry to iPad-- and its massive relevant ad service based on internal user data and performance -- could (and in some measures does) have a powerful search engine already. Should it incorporate Bing Search parameters, they would most definitely exceed Google, perhaps even 2-1.
Statistically, people spend more time on Social Platforms than they do individual pages.
As many article marketers use FB as a launch pad for visitors to individual pages.
On FB you have 10-50 links to information by people you know. Plus ads appear based on user likes/dislikes, fan pages, groups, posts, notes, comments, applications, etc --even photos and videos.
That is 100% relevance of content.
So FB in many ways is already exceeding a typical Google search.
Google visitors are generally "one shot" deals, where Social Networks have visitors coming multiple times an hour, and getting relevant content to their mobile devices, before Google Search can index a page.
Unless Google either buys out Yahoo ( and its billions of subscribers ) or expands into a much broader -- very user geared/friendly -- Social Platform it is going to have to rely on its "government contracts" and old school "mid to low level queries" to sustain itself as a progressive service.
Tools like Google Buzz, Docs, Blogger are not going to beat out the social media giant alone. They are going to need help from the common person.
Remember, Yahoo was in the same position when Google came on the scene. And it had Geo Cities --one of the first popular social networks --and even at the time-- a collective user controlled template website system aka a blog community combined into one unit, underneath its search bar (engine).
It's interesting with this move by Google that social networking sites rose in rank along with news sites and retailers. It will be interesting to see how the dust settles on all of this.
this is in 2-28-11 WSJ; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 02540.html
Those sites include social networks LinkedIn.com and Facebook.com and news sites of Time Warner Inc.'s Time Inc., News Corp.'s Fox News and the New York Daily News. Retailer sites, including those of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp. and eBay Inc. also rose in rankings, the study found, as did Google's own video site, YouTube. (News Corp. also publishes The Wall Street Journal.)
The retailers winning is the piece that I was missing in this equation - that is what Google is looking for - will then HP rise as they realize HP drives traffic to Amazon?
I have never written sales hub, but Hubbers like Nell Hoxie have said affialate Amazon products are losing out while the original page of the products in Amazon are ranking.
I doubt that any money has changed hands, not least because they would have to justify it in the accounts and it is technically illegal, BUT....
You never know whether Google and Amazon will join up in some way, an "arrangement" if you like. Just like Facebook joined up with Microsoft/Bing.
Amazon may well have something to offer which appeals to Google, which Microsoft don't currently have
Who knows what that may be, but it could quite possibly see Google become the biggest Amazon associate but allow AdSense ads onto Amazon? Or perhaps something similar.
I just noticed that now clicking on the link only provides a portion of the article. The entire article can be found if you enter the name of the article into the search box.
Google's Search Cleanup Has Big Effect.
Im pretty sure wall street journal has always used the subscription model ? mirroring its offline cost.
So you get teaser only in search
I don't know.. I know when I posted it late last night, the article was a page long with much more info than the link here now provides. If you put it into search, it shows the same page I saw last night but then it changes to subscription at the last link to read more.
The most important thing for online writers is where advertisers choose to put their money. Facebook haven't really tried to maximize their returns yet but have a lot of options. They could suck the money right out of Google. And right out of our pockets too.
Facebook has 400 million (or 500m?) users. How many of them are like me I wonder? I have a facebook account. At first I played the games, got the virtual fish tank, the usual stuff. Now I only go on facebook a couple of times a month if that. In contrast I search on Google 20+ times a day, at work and at home, and spend several hours a day on the internet, looking at sites serving up Google Ads.
Well I've written a Hub about it and Yes Facebook has impacted Google in more ways than one.
Doubleclick ads are appearing on amazon product pages for quite some time. Amazon also works with google for product placements in blogspot blogs.
People saying that Google is a search engine and Facebook is a social networking site thus not competitors do not understand these companies. Both of them are advertisers at their cores. They just use slightly different means of delivering their advertisements. Whichever is able to show their ability to convert customers better is the one who is going to take the bigger piece of the advertisement pie.
Google has a real need to be concerned about Facebook. They have access to an obscene amount of personal information that no other advertiser can come close to. With that information they have to tools to target their advertisements better than any other company can.
Without a public backlash against Facebook and their business practices, which is a real possibility, they definitely have the power to overtake Google as the largest internet advertiser.
The thing people seem to forget is nearly every major --and even minor or NEW company-- is advertising on Facebook to both a small niche market and/or global market of people ages 14+. Companies cannot advertise ON Google. That is a huge factor.
Facebook could --and to large degree-- does serve ads by giant companies, with the HUGE plus of the "ordinary person" buying ad space and reaching the same targeted market. I ran an ad on FB once and got a very decent response.
There is also rumor floating about Twitter Advertising doing the same.
That kind of "instant gratification" for advertising is just ridiculous.
by Anas Shad4 years ago
While I was in the forums, i saw a lot of hubbers complain about the effect of the Google Panda on their traffic and earnings. Some even so disappointed that they were thinking about quitting hubpages. I was wondering...
by Oyewole Folarin5 years ago
I noticed that 98% of my hub organic traffic is from google, why not from other search engines, specifically yahoo search engine and bing?
by Peter Brown7 years ago
Did you hear the news? It's everywhere.http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ … 826397.htmYahoo and Microsoft agreed to a 10 year deal where Yahoo backs away from focusing on its search engine so that Bing can...
by 3bagsfull7 years ago
I was just curiousI don't use bing and don't know who doesMicrosoft has spent alot of money on the new site but I don't seem to be getting any hits no matter what the venuewhat about you?
by Mark Ewbie5 years ago
I need reassuring.Up until a few months back I understand, maybe wrongly, HP pages got additional boost from Google. That implies (to me) that Google wanted content farms to churn out pages so that every possible...
by Will Apse2 years ago
'To the best of Matt’s (Cutts) knowledge, there are currently no signals in the ranking algorithms that put any weight on how many Facebook likes or Twitter followers a specific page...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.