is Searching for its own “Answers”

Recently, reported a 28% drop in traffic to their site. Answers places the blame squarely on Google for recent changes in their search algorithm. In a press release issued to the public today, criticized Google for making the change and assured investors that they are working hard to resolve the issue.

For Answers, this crisis could not have come at a worse time. The company is trying to raise 100 million dollars for a buyout of CEO, Bob Rosenschein said,

“This change only demonstrates the sound business rationale behind our agreement to purchase, because it underscores a primary motivation for the deal: to secure a steady source of direct traffic and mitigate our current dependence on search engine algorithms.”

Many reports confirm that Google’s algorithmic adjustment caused the drop in traffic for, prompting search professionals to criticize Answers for relying too heavily on Google. Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land writes,

“Indeed, algorithms do change all the time. That’s why it has never been a good idea for any business to be so heavily dependent on search traffic, in case they lose listings driving visitors. Many site owners learned this painful lesson during the Google “Florida” update of 2003 — but even then, many of them should have already known better. belatedly understanding it needs to diversify is almost inexcusable.”

Though it is easy to fault for their over-dependence on Google traffic, it’s also difficult to find viable alternatives in a Google-dominated search market place. As eBay demonstrated in June, the cost of “boycotting” Google by shifting resources to other engines (in advertising dollars, and otherwise) doesn’t outweigh the benefits.

By virtue of the performance gap between Google and its closest competitors (Yahoo and MSN), it seems that all major websites have an over-dependence on Google. As Om Malik points out, this is yet another red flag that raises questions about Google’s power.

5 Responses to “ is Searching for its own “Answers””

  1. tekyniky

    You write that criticized Google for making the change. WRONG! Where did you get this info?

  2. ssipssiws

    I see where it says “ANSW places the blame squarely on Google”. I don’t see any mention of criticism. Looks like an accurate assessment of the situation.

  3. ssipssiws

    You’d better fix that comment about “criticism”. It’s a loaded term.

    Please remove my prior comment about this article.


  4. Rawnoc-is-an-idiot

    I can’t believe I let Rawnoc convince me to buy this POS at $11, $12, $14 and $18. Rawnoc even said ANSW would get bought out at $70!! I’ve lost most of my hard earned savings. I HATE that son-of-a-bitch.

  5. Josh has tons of scraped content. Pick some random sentences from the site and put them into Google (in quotes). They could rework a lot of that content. Much of it is GFDL.

    Clever link building, but a lot of IBLs are cloaked (e.g., with a class called “hideit” on display:none).

    Not sure if those are the problems, but there are many possibilities, even from just a quick look.


Leave a Reply