homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.22.59.252
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
google is a business
getting some perspective on their evolution
chinook

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 2:12 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

To understand the changes going on at Google, it is prime to remember that Google is a business. Its search engine is a product and clicks are market share.

Google is a business not a philanthropic search organization, so logically its goals are going to be ROI (return on investment). It costs a lot of money to run a googleplex & datacenters etc. It is ROI that will guide how the Google Product evolves in the future.

Reading through many of the posts about dominic and even before, one gets the sense that it is all about " the best search results" or "fairness" or "least spammy". Those terms are in reality marketing terms that describe the google product, which is no different than Coke describing its drink as the best or CNN saying it has the best news coverage. Of course Google will always try to improve the search experience because a better product translates into better ROI.

Will Google always be fair to webmasters(sites)? As fair as possible after the ROI goal. Do you know of any major corporation that doesn't work hard on its reputation for social responsibility etc (all those things that foster warm and fuzzies with the consumer).

IMHO (in my honest opinion) you need to only look at where Google can source its revenue to understand where the Index is going and what it will be made up of. Good content will help improve the product which in turn helps ROI. Paid inclusion whether Adwords or other products become ever increasingly important because it contributes to the bottom line (ROI). Google partners that pay for use of the google search engine will influence the product (everybody has to serve somebody -Dylan). Does Disney want the same serps as AOL probably not (different demographic). Google partners contribute to (you guessed it)ROI.

There are stages to the evolution of every major company and product. We may (I am not sure about this, because it can only be determined long after the fact) be seeing google moving into a new stage of evolution. From inception to now it was about increasing market share, now that a significant portion of the market has been captured it will be about ROI.

Where does this leave the webmaster(site)? The free ride will never completely leave because it is part of the product. Every major engine that has tried to improve its ROI quickly realized that it still had to include all the content (sites) that couldn't or wouldn't pay. For many sites, it is time to understand that clicks come from "advertising" and that is something that is normally paid for. It is a cost of doing business and affects your ROI.

 

vitaplease

WebmasterWorld Senior Member vitaplease us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 3:16 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

The better the search results - The more users/partners - The more potential adword clickers - The more profit

The motive and goal looks quite simple to me.

Nick_W

WebmasterWorld Senior Member nick_w us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 3:21 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

Nice post! Thanks for that, it's going on the 'flagged' list of 'send to whiners and moaners' ;-)

Nick

chinook

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 3:42 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thanks Nick_W.
It has been interesting to see the shift on the Internet from the very frustrating and not sustainable "everything is free" (which is a large part of the dot com crash) to the gradual acceptance of people to a pay mode.

Interestingly enough I recall reading an article not too long ago that mentioned that even the newspapers were achieving better success in getting people to subscribe to what was once free because no one would pay.

GoogleGuy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 4:58 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hmm. You appear to think that all the things Google strives for are just marketing terms. I strongly disagree, but it's your right to think of things in those terms. We both agree that Google is always trying to improve our search product. However, you appear to believe that's just so that Google can make more money/ROI. I don't feel that way, but we'll just have to disagree. :)

chinook

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 5:55 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

You appear to think that all the things Google strives for are just marketing terms.

I think they go beyond the word "just". I am quite convinced that Google has in a very good way combined social goals with business goals. I also think that Google employees can feel very good about their company and their product but that doesn't change the fact that it is a business and all the terms relating to that businesses product are also used in terms of marketing that product.

My previous example of CNN might be appropriate. Are they providing a public service? Yes. Are they a business? Yes. Is their show a product? Yes. Do they use terms to describe themselves that are seen as marketing terms? Yes
Does their business have a mandate to provide profits to their shareholders? Yes.

Although Google is not public, it is a business and it does have shareholders and it follows that the management of Google has a responsibility to provide profits to their shareholders.

You mentioned that
Google can make more money/ROI. I don't feel that way, but we'll just have to disagree. :)

I am glad to hear that you disagree but I am not sure that you have really told us why you disagree or what the non-profit motive would be (yeah I know a lot of people would think that is self evident).

percentages

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 7:54 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

chinook,

I liken Google to the early days of Apple. It is primarily a bunch of "geeks" wanting to achieve the best product, and they seem more concerned with this goal than making the highest ROI possible.

The share holders of Google seem to think they are making all the money they need today, so their thoughts seem to be more on the future and how they can continue to have the best product(s), rather than how they can milk the current one for every penny.

Numerous people have posted numerous threads on how Google could increase profitability. A PFI quick index option is very popular, but still the boys at the plex resist to take the additional cash. It is a strange company that sees numerous people begging to pay it and still ignores their desires to do so!

When, and if, Google becomes a public company things will probably change. It will probably depend upon what percentage of shares are actually available for IPO. Maybe their resistance to go public has something to do with this. Maybe once they have all their ducks in a row they will feel differently.

>Google is a business not a philanthropic search organization.

Actually Google may be some of both! It is obviously a business, but it also seems to be happy to leave money on the table if it thinks its resources are better spent on the future. Sometimes that can turn out to be a good call.

Personally I'm pleased Google isn't out for every penny it can grab. If it were, it could easily become another Look$mart and we all know how Look$mart treated its subscribers last year!

Let the folks at the plex play with their algo's all they want, if they come up with something better then we all benefit. I personally wish they would keep it in development until it is fully tested, but then I say that about almost everyone, including my beloved Microsoft!

I don't really believe Google goes out to damage sites that use SEO. Occasionally they may get damaged in the crossfire of change, but SEO's can always put them back together again and send them out to fight another day.

It appears a lot of people are currently going to take a financial hit because of the latest changes, but think of all the free advertising gained in the past.

I've never believed in "free lunches". But, I have to admit that Google is about the closest you can get to one. Inktomi is another! If anyone gets their meal ticket taken away for the next few weeks, I'm sure we can all empathize, but there is nothing stopping anyone getting it back again in the future.

>Although Google is not public, it is a business and it does have shareholders and it follows that the management of Google has a responsibility to provide profits to their shareholders.

The management of Google seem to me to be the people who are guiding Google down the road of "make a profit, but don't sell our soles, or our future to increase profit today". They are also the people who financially gain most from the profits. I think it is commendable they have taken this stance. Steady growth from Google with sustained profits and an emphasis on the best product can be a very powerful "tool" for the future, whatever their long-term goals.

Back to my initial analogy with Apple. Long-term I hope we don't see Google make the same mistakes that caused Apple to lose the market they largely initiated. But MS has already said they intend to attack, which must mean they are confident. I remember watching Steve Ballmer on TV say he would like to take 50% of the Netscape Browser market, look what happened there, and in a very short space of time!

chiyo

WebmasterWorld Senior Member chiyo us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 1:22 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

interesting posts. But just want to take issue with Percentages.. when he says..

>>A PFI quick index option is very popular, but still the boys at the plex resist to take the additional cash. It is a strange company that sees numerous people begging to pay it and still ignores their desires to do so!<<

I see why Google does not do this. Most Google searches are for information, not shopping or to buy something. In information searches some (though not all) of the "best" listings are often sites that cant or will not pay - government, education, amateur enthusiast - simply put with no revenue stream, they have n budget.

By launching a quick PFI program, the main index will be affected by more up to date commercial listings, people will see more commercial results and true info sites will be less evident, or have less recent results, or take longer to get indexed.

There is a fast PFI program, and that is Adwords. We use it all the time, and are convinced that in our area anyway, adword clickers are far more likely to buy than main index users which are usually researchers, students, info-gatherers and the like.

I agree very much that Google has to be seen as a business, not as a gov department that ta payers pay for and need to be "fair". The main SERPS is what brings the eyeballs, and from there people can click on the ads on the side where google makes a large proportion of their direct revenue.

But i think i know where GoogleGuy is coming from. Ya have to LOVE those SERPS, same as Disney muct love their mission of providing high quality, innovative family entertainment. It must stand for something, but that something must make you a profit.

Looking at it this way, the last thing Google is nterested in hearing is commercial webmasters complaining that because their sites are downgraded in the SERPS the product is no good. I am sure Google does their research in user experiences, they dont need a supplier to tell them, though they may listen. But the only thing that matters is are the SERPS compelling enough to bring back those millions a day, who will then also maybe click on ads, which means people will advertise, which means google makes money (as well as licensing the product to thers).

After all, how valid is the "research" done by a few webmasters who have a vested interest (ive checked my pet phrases and a few more and google looks pretty bad!) compared to the objective research google does on the perception of the quality of their index from millions of users - read smiley faces, comments from partners, click tracking, usage patterns and their own "logs", to name just a few, apart from any research they do that im sure they do but dont need to tell us! (usability tests? surveys, etc etc)

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 1:48 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Back to my initial analogy with Apple. Long-term I hope we don't see Google make the same mistakes that caused Apple to lose the market they largely initiated.

Bad analogy. Biggest problem Apple had was that the business community thought of IBM when they thought computers. There was an old business saying when it came to computers "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Apple was relatively unfamiliar to corporate America. When IBM came out with the PC, it was guaranteed to dominate. And, Bill Gates got to be the richest man on Earth for swiping the idea of the GUI from Apple, which admittedly stole it from Xerox, because Windows ran on IBM boxes.

The problem Google faces is that there is no brand loyalty with SEs that IBM developed. Nobody gets fired if they use Alltheweb. Anyone remember the days Altavista dominated for search, and Excite was also popular? Searchers will switch quickly if they think somebody does it better than Google. Google is stumbling a bit at the moment, and if their competion starts to do better than Google...

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 2:01 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chiyo wrote:

Most Google searches are for information, not shopping or to buy something. In information searches some (though not all) of the "best" listings are often sites that cant or will not pay - government, education, amateur enthusiast - simply put with no revenue stream, they have n budget.

Even for-profit editorial sites may not be able to justify PFI on a large scale. Take a guidebook site like Lonely Planet or Time Out: The revenue from any individual page is likely to be small (or non-existent), and the chances that somebody reading a Web page on museums or gelato parlors in Florence will order the book version of LONELY PLANET ITALY or TIME OUT: FLORENCE is likely to be quite small. A major newspaper or other editorial site that earns significant advertising revenues may have more reason to try PFI, but only for "evergreen" content that's likely to generate enough ad views to cover the cost of inclusion.

chinook

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 2:51 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Percentages said
I liken Google to the early days of Apple. It is primarily a bunch of "geeks" wanting to achieve the best product, and they seem more concerned with this goal than making the highest ROI possible.

The share holders of Google seem to think they are making all the money they need today, so their thoughts seem to be more on the future and how they can continue to have the best product(s), rather than how they can milk the current one for every penny.

It think that it has been proven in the last two to three years that Internet businesses that go for short term results tend to take spectacular falls. Just because Google is being very forward looking and performing a long term strategy doesn't mean they are a bunch of geeks who aren't interested in profits. Rather I would like to believe they transcend being technology leaders and are indeed also savvy business people with definite purpose and goals (including ROI).

Reading through all the posts over the last few weeks and so many people mystified by potential changes, it is much clearer and easier to understand from a business perspective. That doesn't mean that there aren't other perspectives.

ROI is not some evil thing, it funds new research and development of new products. It guarantees the future viability of a company. Would you still buy a GM or Ford or other car if their makers were not intending to profit? It would be a risky proposition.

History is littered with better products that lost out to better business. ( I can remember beta tapes supposedly being superior to VHS, Going way back CPM86, way better than dos 1.1,etc)

BigDave

WebmasterWorld Senior Member bigdave us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 4:05 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

I liken Google to the early days of Apple. It is primarily a bunch of "geeks" wanting to achieve the best product, and they seem more concerned with this goal than making the highest ROI possible.

While I agree in general with what chinook has said, I think the above statement says more about the reality inside the plex, even to the highest levels, than many realize.

The best hackers, programmers, engineers, theorists and academic types care more about getting things right than they do about money. Marketing and business majors never have and never will understand this about geeks.

Sure it's nice to make money, but the "best" are the best for a reason, they care about the quality of what they are doing.

If it was just a money thing, Google would have a much higher turnover (what turnover) than it has. And from the sound of their hiring process, they are doing a good job of getting people who think more about search than money in there.

As long as those geeks control most of the stock, I expect that ROI will remain a lower priority than quality of search to the company. And I really hope that they are able to maintain control of the company *if* they ever go public. And yes, there really are some very good options to going public.

Where the ROI argument holds up is when dealing with other companies and their expectations from Google. I do not think it represents the culture inside Google.

mosley700

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 4:15 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hmm. You appear to think that all the things Google strives for are just marketing terms. I strongly disagree, but it's your right to think of things in those terms. We both agree that Google is always trying to improve our search product. However, you appear to believe that's just so that Google can make more money/ROI. I don't feel that way, but we'll just have to disagree. :)

In many businesses, the prima facia goal it to make money. However, most truly great businesses srtive to be the best and assume that the monsy would come naturally. In my former life as a contractor, we stived to put together the best quality homes - we could have done it faster and made more money, but our goal was to be the best, I feel that Google is doing the same thing: Be the best, and the money will come naturally.

percentages

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 4:47 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

chiyo, A PFI option probably wouldn't mean commercial sites outranked informational sites, it would simply mean those sites that paid for inclusion in the index would appear somewhere much faster. Given Google's algo they may and probably would appear at the bottom of the SERP's, at least for everything but their own company name. Ranking high is a completely separate issue, but the issue of getting indexed at all would be out of the way for a fee. How many posts do we see saying "how long will it be before I get indexed?", paying $50 to say tomorrow would do away with all that, and $50 to a business is peanuts. There are lots of companies out there that can't be found in Google, even for their own unique company name, simply because they don't know how to get indexed in the first place. Do people search for a company by its name in Google...yup, and lots of them! These folks want to be in and want to pay to be in. The benefit of just being found using your own company name is huge to many of them.

rfgdxm1, the analogy with Apple was meant purely as a "cultural" one. The reasons why the OS product failed to become the standard are numerous, agreed IBM won out on the hardware side for reasons you stated, but how did MS win on the software side when Apple had the best OS? Maybe because the best product doesn't always win, Xerox with the Star didn't maximize on it, Apple failed to convince IBM or the compats that sprung up, MS played the best strategy.....the rest is history. Google has the best SE today....but will MS repeat history? They have done it to Apple, Netscape, WEBTV (wash my mouth out)....who is next?

chinook, if you saw my "geeks" term as derogatory to Google employees I doubt they would agree. I think they like to be seen as a bunch of fun loving "mad scientists" who are having a good time making the best product and sufficient money at the same time. Some of us may think that "sufficient money" may be an understatement and insufficient when you have to go to war with someone like MS....time will tell how that plays out. Historically the creative folks haven't done very well when matched against the commercial strategists, but there is always a first time.....maybe?

GoogleGuy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 5:27 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ah, here's the thread with the calmer members. Feels like old times. :)

chinook, I think I have a better understanding of what you're saying now--we agree more than I realized. :) Thanks for the excellent follow-up posts. I think that one of the key things Google did is that we decided early on to align our values with the long-term interests of our users. A clean, usable site probably helped as much as our technology. :)

I think the part where we differed is on pay-for-inclusion. We've never done it because we thought it was better for users not to bring money into our editorial results; there's the danger that you create an incentive not to crawl as well so that webmasters have to pay to get crawled. In the worst case, I could imagine PFI damping down the innovation for a search engine on crawling types of urls (e.g. dynamic urls). I think Google's stance on PFI would probably be that if it improves things for users, we'd consider it. But historically we've pursued other things that we knew (without any reservations) would improve quality.

Anyway, this is a fun thread. Thanks for bringing it up, chinook! :)

percentages

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 5:46 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy as always your insight is appreciated. But, on the PFI subject I understand how it might distract the team from other things, but look at how many companies simply want to be indexed for their own domain name or company name.

Right now I can pick up a magazine, take a URL from an advertisement, type the URL into Google and get zero results. This is not in the users interests IMHO. Okay, I hear you say what the heck are they doing typing the URL into Google and not into the address bar......but we both know a huge number of people do that. So PFI simply overcomes that problem.

If you want to change Google so it looks up the domain name for existance at seach time, even better, no PFI needed. But PFI would also probably solve the company name issue and kill two birds with one stone.

None of this has anything to do with SEO, it is purely making the current industry standard SE more usable for its users.

chiyo

WebmasterWorld Senior Member chiyo us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 6:40 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi percentages. Just a small point. I didnt say that PFI would affect ranking but how it would affect the index in other ways - i.e. paid for results would be "fresher", and as GG says it presents a temptation for Google to treat their paid for listings better in that they may crawl other URL's less.

After all crawling is not a limitless resource. Europe also brought up a good point too. Information sites tend to have thousands of pages, commercial sites tend to vary a lot, but when they do have thousands of pages its usually of the one product per page type. I can see what Europe means when you look at it from a ROI veiwpoint.

Ya only have to review the discussions on Ink/Position Tech PFI to see that, whether ink "favoured" paid for listings or not, there was a great deal of suspicion that they did. Plus i would venture to guess that ink's far better SERPS of later might (and its a big guess) be due to putting more of their efforts into listing non-PFI listings.

As a user, I would probably like to see the latest travellers story or objective review or travel alert published on one of the thousands of Lonely Planet pages, than some hotels latest offer. When i go to google if im looking for info i look at the main index and want to see objective non-commercial info; when im looking to buy i find adwords serps much more useful. Adwords SERPS seem to be far more relevant and also paradoxically, have less bad spam.

When i click on an Adwords URL i am usually given fast directions on how to buy, rather than have to wade through masses of ancient or copied content in bewteen that was put there just to get good kewrods so people can find the page in regular SERPS! After all the adwords buyer knows im a serious buyer, not some poor sod who found their page and needs serious pitching and selling as im really looking for information. Im generally someone who has already decided to buy in the category. They dont have to convince me to buy - just to buy them as opposed to others.

What i dont really want is to have both SERPS to be a hodgepodge of ads and info.

I agree that the main SE index should turn up the homepage for a business when searching for company name, either first or near the top, which Google does pretty well. So its important that commercial sites should be in there, but to me the emphasis should be on information about that company or business, not necesarilly their latest spin or offer published in print media!

I still think that the best place for latest offer buy me stuff is in Adwords. Apart from the reasons i gave, Adwords is perfectly set up for it - your listing can be on the Adwords sERPS in 5 minutes, and you can be up the top, with the right payment and keywords, in a day or two if not earlier. You can then pull the ad in munutes when the topical offer expires, or change the wording when the offer changes.

percentages

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 8:50 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

>I agree that the main SE index should turn up the homepage for a business when searching for company name, either first or near the top, which Google does pretty well.

chiyo, if this was true I would have no complaint. But it is simply not true. A huge number of businesses do not show for their own names, or URLs, Google has only indexed a tiny percentage of the web. PFI would allow it to include much more. I have one client that gets over 4,000 Google unique visitors per month on searches for its own domain name, if it were not indexed that would cost it a huge amount of money. I am also contacted by a large number of potential clients who tell me they want to be indexed, if only for their domain and company name. I tell them it will take 2 to 3 months.....generally they buy....but a few wonder why it takes so long!

PFI is stopping many commercial entities from being indexed. If they contact me I link them to one of my existing sites and eventually (2+ months) they get included. If they want SEO services I do more, but adding PFI would simplify this process, it may actually cost me money, but that would be a small price to pay!

JasonIR

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 10:27 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

PFI is stopping many commercial entities from being indexed.

How is the lack of PFI services on Google preventing any site from being indexed? By not utilizing a PFI system, Google allows any and all sites to be indexed. Sure, it may take longer, but it is something that you and your clients will just have to deal with. File this away under "Facts of Life".

Also, if businesses aren't coming up in the SERPs for their own business names, then they simply need to optimize their sites better.

PFI is not the answer.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 1:27 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Why would Google want to help commercial sites get listed faster than other sites? That might be good for the listed businesses and their SEOs, but how would it benefit users?

To use an example, let's say I'm a user and I'm searching for information on "root canals." What's more likely to interest me: A consumer article about root canals at the American Dental Association or a university's dental school, or a sales pitch from Dr. Ed's 60-Minute Root Canal Clinic? And if Google is quicker to index the latter than the former just because Dr. Ed paid for his site's inclusion, doesn't that compromise the quality and credibility of Google as a search engine?

chinook

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 2:08 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm searching for information on "root canals." What's more likely to interest me: A consumer article about root canals at the American Dental Association or a university's dental school, or a sales pitch from Dr. Ed's 60-Minute Root Canal Clinic? And if Google is quicker to index the latter than the former just because Dr. Ed paid for his site's inclusion, doesn't that compromise the quality and credibility of Google as a search engine?

Probably not, my thought is that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so is the holy grail of relevance in the eye of the beholder.

GG mentioned earlier an alignment of search with the "users" long term. This means (to me anyways) that the product must evolve into multiple products that serve that particular type of user. I don't see how you can assure quality with a one size fits all approach (one database for all searches). Rather the mass of data crawled ends up being raw material that is then filterable into multiple channels (multiple products).

The interesting question is how the SE will determine which channel to serve up?

Imagine trying to optimize your site in a multi-channel search universe

mumbles

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 4:52 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

How much money would google make if it charged $1.00 per page per year for listings. Seems like it would be a lot of money and everyone could afford the fee. Then again I guess it could cause a paperwork nightmare that would drive up the cost.

BigDave

WebmasterWorld Senior Member bigdave us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 5:15 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google has PFI, it is called the yahoo directory.

The yahoo directory is a perfect example of what is wrong with PFI. There are complaints about DMOZ taking a long time to list sites, if you are not PFI, yahoo takes forever or longer. It has become a money maker for them, they even want non-commercial sites to pay them the $300

PFI is an image problem to the users. It puts your results into a totally different perspective than if you did not have PFI. As soon as someone gets bad search results, PFI will be immediately blamed.

Why can't a site that wants to spend money on PFI put a little more effort into getting their site linked into the web structure. Magazine ads have at least a 3 month lead time. You should be able to get listed in google in three months.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 12:27 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

GG mentioned earlier an alignment of search with the "users" long term. This means (to me anyways) that the product must evolve into multiple products that serve that particular type of user. I don't see how you can assure quality with a one size fits all approach (one database for all searches). Rather the mass of data crawled ends up being raw material that is then filterable into multiple channels (multiple products).

I think that makes a lot of sense. One approach would be to enhance the existing "one database for all searches" index with tabs or radio buttons that would filter the results according to:

"I want general information on..."

"I want to shop for..."

"I want news about..."

Or whatever.

chinook

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 12:42 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

That is already happening to a certain extent with images, directory, news, froogle. We also have seen an evolution towards country specific results (local culture filter). It would be really cool to see a sound mixer style of controls that let you adjust the sensitivity of various filters.
bank 1<----> weight country specific more
bank 2<----> less or more commercial
bank 3<----> weight fresher results heavier
bank 4<----> more or less text heavy pages
bank 5<----> more emphasis on first word of phrase
bank 6<----> more emphasis on second word of phrase
bank 7<----> more emphasis on third word.....

etc.(possibilities are almost endless)
of course a cookie would remember your last setting
A lot of this is already implemented in various Advanced search settings.

chinook

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 4:49 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

GG mentioned (in another thread) about which threads are interesting (this being one) and posts from senior members. What makes this thread different is that it is not "my site did this.... what can be wrong"

;)

GoogleGuy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 13200 posted 4:15 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

chinook, well it is a very thoughtful thread. :)

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved