homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 174.129.80.166
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 274 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 274 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 > >     
More eBay, Amazon, Dealtime, Epinions, etc. in Results
Side Effects of Improved Dynamic Spidering?
Slud




msg:73168
 3:21 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

For a lot of the words I track, I've noticed a marked increase in the number of meta shopping sites: eBay, Amazon, Dealtime, Epinions, CNET Shopper, Buy.com and even Google Answers in the results.

Is this a side-effect of improved dynamic spidering, or have the web developers for the sites wised-up (en masse)?

Random forum posts and PDF's sometimes show up in the top 10 for words that are pricey at overture ($5+).

My hope is that this is just a temporary situation before the full update occurs.

 

AAnnAArchy




msg:73288
 10:10 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Want to check out a search decimated by Amazon, Epinions and various other shopping and/or foreign sites - espresso machine. There's one site that definitely deserves to be there and one site on page 2 that with its content should be number one. None of the sites are mine, I just love espresso. :)

I guess I can look on the bright side, there aren't any pdf files.

<ETA - the results came up differently on my partner's computer when I went into the other room. Slightly better, I might add>

lk125




msg:73289
 10:20 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey GG, you asked for more pdf doc examples so I sent you three more. One of the examples only had one pdf, but it was in the top spot and for that particularly competitive search phrase, it probably should not have been there.

You might also notice a certain theme. The first 2 were in my field, but the three today are not, even though the theme is similar. I can also send more so just let me know.

Sharper




msg:73290
 11:09 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

[Warning, nothing in this post is to be taken as directed at a specific individual or as anything more meaningful than a simple "lighten up on the complaints" suggestion!]

At the risk of being contrary...

...I think the Google search results are fine, including all the references to Amazon, PDF's, etc... In fact, I'd call them much better over the last few weeks. Of course, I have sites that are doing _better_ now since more pages are in the Google database. That only leaves 95% of the static .html pages in my sites currently unindexed by Google. That's actually a big improvement. Of course, they are newer sites, so I still have hope for the future.

See, isn't that bias pretty obvious? Now look at your own.

I don't see anyone complaining that the results aren't ever about what was searched for, just that the top results don't reflect how "they" would order them. It also sounds like many of the complaints are a bit biased, since they have sites they'd like to see in the top results.

Sure, I'd love to have all my sites come up #1 for every search, after all, they're the "best" right? Come on guys, the people in this forum are a VERY small and slanted towards webmasters sample of the "real people" who use Google.

So what if Amazon or an affiliate or bob's uncle now shows in the top of the search results for your keywords? Maybe they're just playing the Google game better. Maybe people don't think the "same" results for the same searches all the time is best and they like some swapping around as new content gets indexed. I suppose lobbying Googleguy to try to get things changed so that your keyword competitors get thrown out of the index is one way to play the Google game, but somehow I think there are thousands of other webmasters out there who would be hoping you fail if they knew what your requests would do to their traffic.

In summary, if you are a user it's really easy to type "-amazon" or "-book" if you weren't looking for that. Normal users refine searches all the time.

Image if you searched for potter? I haven't actually tried it, but I bet you'll get a lot more books than pottery sites. There is a good reason for that, it's because more people are interested in providing content or finding content on a book about a "potter" than about making stuff with clay and fire. Real people who search for stuff just take another second and find what they "really" wanted if it's not the most popular topic in the results. Face it, there is a lot of books about just about every subject imaginable, so it's likely that book results are gonna be on-topic for most stuff.

On a related note, Amazon has recently (last couple of months) made it a lot easier for their affiliates to display their content and link to them. That reality is going to be reflected in the search results. "Tweaking" google to punish them just because other people with sites on the same topics don't like them is unlikely to ever happen.

If a site is obviously "cheating" with doorways or hidden text, or whatever, then file a spam report, but it sounds like people are more complaining that some other poor webmaster has all of a sudden gotten more of their content into the results and pushed theirs out. Go spend your time making more and better content, it's more useful than complaining about search engine rankings you're never going to control anyway.

lk125




msg:73291
 11:59 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

"It also sounds like many of the complaints are a bit biased, since they have sites they'd like to see in the top results."

That's why I chose 2 searches that pertained to me, and 3 that did not. And when you have a search with almost 3 millions results and one result in the top 10 is page not found, 1 has the the search phrase and NOTHING ELSE and one has some type of java, does not let you click back to Google and has no mention of the search phrase on the page, then you have a problem. Not to mention the other pdfs on the page that barely apply to the search phrase.

I still do very well in Google b/c I have a broad diversified site with lots of content, but there is still a problem with some search results whether they pertain to my site or not. No its not everywhere, but there is some type of specialized problem.

AAnnAArchy




msg:73292
 12:26 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't be as bothered if I wasn't getting lots of results for co.uk or co.kr or .ie sites. I wouldn't care if I was searching in Google.co.uk or Google.co.kr or Google.ie (wherever that is), but I'm searching for sites which work for me, as a user, not necessarily as a webmaster.

Net_Wizard




msg:73293
 12:38 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

In summary, if you are a user it's really easy to type "-amazon" or "-book" if you weren't looking for that. Normal users refine searches all the time.

Really? I have yet to see that query format in my logs, I wrote my own log analyzer not once(okay maybe once in a blue moon) have I seen regular surfer using that format either from referrals or internal search.

Maybe my type of users are just not into advance search format. Anybody notice this search format as a prominent type of query in your logs?

Personally, I don't use '-' in my searches.

So what if Amazon or an affiliate or bob's uncle now shows in the top of the search results for your keywords?

I think you are missing the point :) What if every query there's 4-5 Amazon listing, several ebay, epinions, all in the top results, dominated by these 3 giant corporate sites? I suppose you can always filter it out with '-site:amazon.com -site:ebay.com -site:epinions.com', everytime

Since I'm lazy typing all that 'everytime', I suppose I'll do my searching elsewhere then, right? :)

Go spend your time making more and better content, it's more useful than complaining about search engine rankings you're never going to control anyway.

Where did I hear a similar concept before? Ahh...Google mantra...I suppose product catalogs or price comparison are now considered as 'better content'.

Allergic




msg:73294
 12:56 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Shaper : You should try the examples we are giving here in this thread.

I'm make educational SEO for my clients AND by indirectly for everybody using a search engine. I tell them, put original content. Give users a lot of informations. Give them information about the producers of your products. Not happy with your position? Add history about the creation of thoses products. Etc.

One of them have more than 1000 *differents* pages on is line of products and when you saw a site with 4 pages coming up before, I get mad for them AND for the users of Google.

In summary, if you are a user it's really easy to type "-amazon" or "-book" if you weren't looking for that. Normal users refine searches all the time.

98% of the users of Google will never use the minus sign to get rid of some results. Even 15% did not make the difference by sponsored links vs normal results ;-)

When I type a query in a search engine I want to go directly on a page who got thoses words AND NOT having to drill down and make 2-3 clicks to find what I want or find page that was automaticaly generated by software.

I want also finding in the same site the more possible kind of products and informations about it.

Do you really think Amazon have 4,320 books and products on "web database applications" or 363,000 *differents* pages [google.com] about underwear?

When I saw a search results page generated automaticaly by software of Amazon before them I also be tempt to tell them to do the same. It is very easy with a database. But this will not serve users and it is against my ethic.

Napoleon




msg:73295
 7:35 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> I think the Google search results are fine.. <<

There's always going to be a tiny minority on any issue who think that crap is good, or who don't really understand what the thread is actually about, or who just want to cause an argument.

>> Go spend your time making more and better content... <<

And who also think that they can post in a thread telling everyone to shut up. If you don't like the thread matey, don't read it, and better still, don't post to it.

Back to the serious issue, I think we can only hope that Google do spend the time checking this out, because if they do, they will surely address it.

Putting it another way, if an independent QA department came to Google afresh and did a thorough review of the SERPS, I am pretty certain the first improvement they would suggest would be to cut out the amazon/ebay/etc stuff.

The depressing aspect of this, even if it is fixed tomorrow, is that it has appeared in the first place. It makes me wonder about QA at Google - how they actually test and check changes. This is a big one and a big deterioration, and it is difficult to see how it could have been missed, even with a cursory check. But it is there.

Is there a QA area at the plex GoogleGuy? Are they independent of the engineers or the people who introduce changes like this. I'd certainly be looking at that if was in charge.

Let's hope, for everyone's sake (especially Google and the searching public) that it is fixed pronto, and that Google create procedures to ensure no repetition.

Some_Bloke




msg:73296
 8:25 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi everyone,

This is rather OT (I tried to start a new thread but it was blocked)

Does anyone have any idea why I am getting different results from the SERPS when I use IE rather than Netscape?

Netscape is actually returning more results.

Dave.

soapystar




msg:73297
 8:43 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

napolean i'm getting fed up saying this but.....i agree totally again....!...i dont have to bother posting cause you keep posting my comments!

seekanddestroy




msg:73298
 8:58 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yup Napoleon, this is a biggy, and I too find it difficult to see how Googleplex doesn't see it coming - they must beta an algo on a 'mini-web', dunno, think they are having problems at Googleplex essentially caused by switching to the new rolling system, I think they may need to call in pest control to remove the offending bug!

steveb




msg:73299
 10:26 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

"I too find it difficult to see how Googleplex doesn't see it coming"

Now be honest, how many people here saw this coming? We have had months of posts about (for brevity's sake) "long" URLs. Google Guy has posted about how they were getting better at crawling these "long" URLs. Well, given that we knew this was coming, it really shouldn't be a surprise to see it when it is here.

At the same time we have seen that pagerank means not very much (although some stuff I see tonight makes me think we just got a dose injected). So these long URLs, that have little or no pagerank, but many, many anchor text links leading to them are now showing well in some serps. Why would any of us be surprised? This has been the apparent plan for awhile: get better at long urls; rely on anchor text; put a positive value on "fresh".

Google may be falling into a similar problem area that FAST fell into a year ago -- a large index poorly ranked sucks. I said it before, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And its not that they shouldn't index all this stuff. It's just that they shouldn't rank it well. If all these long URL pages had a PR1, and PR mattered for something, there would not be a problem. I don't see the amazon or pdf pages in the areas I look at most closely, but I do see problems that I can guess grow from a similar root.

Quality not quantity should be the goal, both in terms of the index, and in terms of stuff like links. Right now Google is too far over on the quantity side of the road. But, despite some flaws now, they are doing HUGELY better than six weeks ago.

I'm optimistic that the update of pagerank will be followed by an update of the Directory which will be followed by a sensible shakeup of the index to devalue a lot of these no-PR, long, fresh, low-quality sites.

James_Dale




msg:73300
 10:40 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

In my highly competitive area (where *ahem* sites attempt to achieve the status '#1 in the business of being #1' if you get my drift), I see the following results:

#1 an internal page of pure text, 3 H1 headings, no images (at all, not even a background image), about 200 words, NO backlinks, no other pages on the web that mention this page.

#2 an internal page, about 200 words, no images other than 3 missing images containing "keyword keyword keyword' alt text (the same alt txt for each missing image) - NO backlinks or 'pages that contain the term'.

#3 Homepage, well-known established company

#4 Internal page with NO backlinks or 'pages that contain the term', live+cached copy shows 'page has been temporarily removed)!

#5 internal page with NO backlinks or 'pages that contain the term', live+cached copy shows 'page no longer exists on our server'!

#6 homepage, established company

#7 internal page, apalling design, simply an H1 with about 200 words of text underneath. Utter tosh. Again, NO backlinks or 'pages that contain the term'.

#8 Homepage, established company.

#9 Internal news page (well known site), once again NO backlinks, no 'pages that contain the term'. Hmmm.

#10 internal page of well known site. Couldn't find any anchor text with search term but many backlinks.

Don't know what to make of these results, but I'm certainly not impressed. Ideas?

Yidaki




msg:73301
 1:08 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Back to the original observation that Slud mentioned with his #1 msg:

I just checked several searches for very different keywords and phrases. In fact, it seems that Google did what they announced a few months ago: they improved a lot the crawling of dynamic sites. Because of this there are amazon etc. links within the top results of many searches. However, not only these commercial, dynamic sites are listed now but also other dynamic sites - Libraries, Universities, Research Projects ... all in all sites that have been out of google until recently.

Imho, google reached their goal to offer more content that has been unavailable in the past due to their structure / dnyamically created database content.

All these database driven sites are just normal sites like any other site - except they are much bigger than most other sites and have lot more content than others (no matter if commercial or not). So it's perfectly normal (and in many cases really appreciated) that they are now listed at google.

Imho, people are whining now because there are new competing pages out there that "steal" their old established positions. As google gets better in crawling, the index will grow and the competing pages will get more. Not Google's fault - better, it's even Google's intention. Perfectly legit in my eyes and appreciated by Joe Surfer 'cause there will be new and more results to choose from.

Yep, it will change the shape of the results. So what? React but don't complain.

The opposite of what people say is true, imho: Google is not corrupted but has improved.

The fact that people moan about amazon and other commercial sites is either because they are competing with their own commercial sites or because they don't have any other dynamically created sites, like Libraries, Universities etc. within their own targeted results and therefor just concenrate on seeing the "commercial content competitors" as their enemy intentonally brought into the competition by Google.

Google is doing buzz with listing amazon? My own dynamically created sites get listed better and better as well and i swear, Google doesn't receive any affliate money from me! Think about that! You might see my own sites competing with yours one day just because google starts to crawl and list them.

And amazon, dealtime & co. have absolutely nothing to do with a corrupted index, error pages, pages that doesn't contain the search term, pages that have no backlinks etc.!

btw: if a site's listed allhtough it says "This site no longer exists on this server" it's not Google's fault. As long as the page returns a 200 status code it will stay at least until the next upate. The more established a site is the longer it might take until it gets removed. Would you like to have your site removed immediately just because your isp was to dumb to keep the server responding correctly?

Might be good idea to start granting others what we think we deserve for ourself!

vincevincevince




msg:73302
 1:33 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

What we are seeing here is that Google is doing a great job at giving useful results, however a few webmasters here want those results to include their sites.

I can honestly say that .pdf makes up a large proportion of the useful information I find on the internet - they tend to be well written, contain good references, and back up what they say.

If I search for something and I get a .pdf which gives me the information I wanted, I'm very much a satisfied surfer.

If I want to learn about something and Google sends me to a great book in Amazon which looks like just what I need, I may well buy it and again I'll be a highly satisfied surfer.

I wish people would not criticise Google because the SERPS don't look like what they personaly want potential clients to see. The only reason .pdf or amazon are wrong to be included high in the results is if the pages are not relevant. And note that they most often are highly relevant.

anallawalla




msg:73303
 1:47 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

I agree that Amazon has suddenly taken over the SERPs and think it is unlikely to be an accident. Unless you are in the book trade, this should not affect your potential visitors other than to annoy them.

It seems that Google needs to offer additional filtered searches just as they have them for the US Govt, Microsoft, etc. e.g.

Google Business Services
Google Books
Google Shopping
Google Travel
Google Entertainment
Google Jobs
etc - based on typical Yahoo-like categories.

and leave the current mish-mash as Google Classic.

It would be a better user experience.

- Ash

lk125




msg:73304
 2:05 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

"I can honestly say that .pdf makes up a large proportion of the useful information I find on the internet - they tend to be well written, contain good references, and back up what they say."

I have quite a few pdfs on my site, and some of them rank quite well for specialized topics. But if it is a wider searched topic, and it pertains to the subject I have in a pdf, I take the time to convert that pdf into an html page b/c I care about the userís experience. It is simply easier to view a pdf in html. That is why Google gives the option to convert, but I like to remove that step from the customerís experience.

What Iím simply saying is that when you have web sites (mine and competitors) that have hundreds of sites linked to them and have consistently ranked in the top 10 for the last couple of years, and they are suddenly being pushed back by pdfs and docs that have no links to the them and little relevant content then you have a problem. As I mentioned it is not everywhere, but it does pertain to certain areas. And Google is huge so I would expect this. It might just be a minor tweak for Google, but it can be major for me, and I wouldnít be doing my job if I didnít raise the issue.

Net_Wizard




msg:73305
 2:29 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Let's make this perfectly clear...

It's not about whining because Amazon, Ebay, and Dealtime are in the top results

IT'S BECAUSE...

It's about whining because Amazon, Ebay, and Dealtime have ***MULTIPLE*** listings...5 Amazon out of 10 is way beyond considered reasonable result
---------------

To those who think that we are just a bunch of whiners. I say you are lucky that your area or topic is not touched by those 'vendors'(according to GG).

But, let's be honest...'How would you feel if there are 4-5 Amazon listings on top of the serp for your area? Would you consider that fair?

Also...Do you see any small web sites that HAS MULTIPLE LISTING in the serp?

Also...If content is king, do you consider price comparison as content?

---------------

One last thing...This is not about MY SITE NOT RANKING WELL...THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY SITE NOT IN #1...THIS IS ABOUT SEARCH QUALITY ACROSS THE BOARD

It doesn't matter to me if your site or some ecommerce database generated pages is ranking above mine as long as EVERYBODY follows the same rule and THAT RULE IS APPLIED EQUALLY regardless if you have a few pages or millions of pages, regardless if it's a one man operation or a multi-million dollar operation.

This become a concern when that same rule is ignored to favor a few.

Yidaki




msg:73306
 2:52 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Do you see any small web sites that HAS MULTIPLE LISTING in the serp?

Nope, except a second intended results. I didn't see any example of a third or more result. Could you sticky me example queries, please? It might be a bug then really ...

>If content is king, do you consider price comparison as content?

Sorry, yes i consider.

btw: bold and all Caps doesn't convince me more than arguments and examples. :)

Net_Wizard




msg:73307
 4:27 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Do you see any small web sites that HAS MULTIPLE LISTING in the serp?
Nope, except a second intended results. I didn't see any example of a third or more result. Could you sticky me example queries, please? It might be a bug then really ...

No need to sticky you because that's exactly the point..there's none except Amazon is getting away with it. What's up with that?

>If content is king, do you consider price comparison as content?

Sorry, yes i consider.

Sorry, I disagree. If Google is turning into a book search engine why do I need them? I might as well go to Amazon and search from there. If Google is turning into a price comparison search engine then why do I need them. I might as well go to epinions and search from there.

In fact it's way much better to do my searching for books at Amazon or price comparison at Epinion than doing the same search at Google. Why would I need Google then?

On the same token. If price comparison is now considered content, I suppose Google should also index search results of AV, Fast, MSN, etc.. since strictly speaking they are also considered as content, right?

btw: bold and all Caps doesn't convince me more than arguments and examples. :)

I totally agree with you :) However, there are a few ones in here that think that this is all about 'my ranking, my position' type of complain when if they have taken the time to read the entire thread and investigate the examples posted here that this is all about 'quality of search result'.

Cheers

lk125




msg:73308
 4:52 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey Net Wizard just fyi, I actually noticed the Amazon thing in my area a few weeks back, although it wasn't as prevalent as it seems to be for you. Then those listings went away, and they were replaced by many more pdfs and docs. Note: However, I have seen the Amazon examples in other searches I've done recently

Like I've said previously it's not affecting me across the board, actually for only a couple of search phrases, but those results have become inundated with pdfs and docs. Iím also able to find examples outside of my target area, but that I still research in, pretty easily. They all seem to work on a theme, and hence my theory that I think this is some sort of specialized problem. Note: For these phrases it has gotten progressively worse over the last few days.

Napoleon




msg:73309
 5:53 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> Imho, people are whining now because there are new competing pages out there that "steal" their old established positions <<

As soon as anyone makes a negative comment about Google, you get pathetic comments like that, basically trying to get us to shut up.

It isn't 'whining'.... it's a valid observation by many people that amazon/etc are now strangling the content in many areas. Frankly I find this sort of low intellect criticism to be insulting and contrary to the spirit of this board.

Fair competition isn't a worry at all. It isn't hard to rehash a web site into countless PDFs (for example) and stick them in all sorts of places. In fact there are processes to do this automatically, and yes, I am looking to do so if the current status quo remains. I'm hoping it won't be necessary, but if it is fair enough... Google's problem not mine.

The fact remains that a bi-product of last weekends change has been that the SERPS are verging on useless in many areas. That's a widespread finding, like it or not.

It's now been communicated to Google, like or not.

Whether they act upon it is their decision, but rest assured, whenever there is a major problem like this with the SERPS, I and others will feel free to discuss it, regardless of what the sycophants may think. Again. like it or not.

Yidaki




msg:73310
 6:20 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Frankly I find this sort of low intellect criticism to be insulting and contrary to the spirit of this board.

Uhm, thanks - never thought that my bad english ever could be seen as intellect criticism. Don't know why you flame, Napoleon - didn't include you in my rant about whiner's. ;)

Fortunately i received one sticky (1) with a example that shows that at least these results are not what i'd expect from google. However, even if it looks like a *bug* it's just the same as what we deserve for us - everybody. A co.uk listing together with a .com listing of amazon on the same results page? Well, a good seo would say: uhm, dublicates are no good, let's change it. However, EVERY site that runs different tld's could be listed twice (happened). So complaining about amazon duplicates is like complaining about Joe's or Jane's site that gets a dup listing - complaining about such is a nono, if i remember correctly.

However, i fully stay with my previous post and when you carefully read the posts within this thread, you'll find a lot of whiner's who join the complaints about a corrupted google index in the hopes of improving their own online living. didn't name anybody, so no need to rant about me, ok!?

Don't get me wrong: i don't want to shut up everybody! I just want to shut up the noise that makes it impossible to follow valuable analyzes!

btw: GoogleGuy, did ya look at my last spam report and the one before? if ya need more examples, sticky me, dude! <added>flagged as a joke to avoid misunderstandings</added>

>sycophants
wow, what's that? Would you mind to educate me, please!? :)

Forgive me if i sound harsh today. It's hot here today - in all means ...

Napoleon




msg:73311
 6:39 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

My prime problem with the Google results Yidaki isn't the .com and .co.uk and .de, etc appearing for Amazon... this is just one manifestation. It is the whole package here that is problematic.

Amazon is appearing absolutely everywere. As are some other similar types of mega site. For some searches you get the combination of Amazon+ebay+Dealtime+PDF+... squeezing out all the true content sites.

That is a disasterous user experience whichever way you look at it.

Some of the examples we have seen quoted for Amazon appearance (not picking on them - just an example) are ludicrous. They must have every keyword under the sun on a page somewhere - conseqently, with their PR and stature, thay are appearing for them.

If Google values quality, it has to address this. At the end of the day, virtually everyone knows what Amazon is and will go there if they really want to. They don't need Google to throw it in their faces on every other search. Unless of course they have been paid, as hinted by people above. That's also what much of the wider public will think when they spot the the volume.

>sycophants

Look it up in the dictionary. I doubt you'll like it. But there are far too many of them on this board.

Kackle




msg:73312
 6:49 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

www.google.com:
site:www.amazon.com amazon 5,980,000 results

www-cw.google.com:
site:www.amazon.com amazon 6,130,000

www2.google.com:
site:www.amazon.com amazon 6,470,000

I don't call this a "deep crawl" of amazon.com. I call this a back-door deal between Google and Amazon.

Yidaki




msg:73313
 6:52 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>At the end of the day, virtually everyone knows what Amazon is and will
>go there if they really want to. They don't need Google to throw it in their
>faces on every other search.

You don't suggest penalizing or downgrading amazon, or? You really think Google receives money for this? Really? Am i a *phant if i'd doubt that?

>elephants
>Look it up in the dictionary

Did it - sounds really ugly.

>there are far too many of them on this board.

Uhm, really? Don't think so. Wouldn't be my place then.

>I don't call this a "deep crawl" of amazon.com.
>I call this a back-door deal between Google and Amazon.

I give up. Good night fellows!

GoogleGuy




msg:73314
 7:03 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Kackle: "I don't call this a "deep crawl" of amazon.com. I call this a back-door deal between Google and Amazon.

Yidaki: "I give up."

Hear hear. Once Kackle starts talking about the secret backdoor deals, etc. etc., I know that yet another thread is drifting into conspiracy-land. ;)

Napoleon




msg:73315
 7:05 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> I don't call this a "deep crawl" of amazon.com. I call this a back-door deal between Google and Amazon. <<

I don't know.... but:

a) Despite GoogleGuy's initial scepticism, I find it difficult to believe that Google would add 6 million pages from a site as high profile as Amazon without even knowing about it.

b) The sheer presence of Amazon in the SERPS is now staggering. Surely they must have noticed?

c) The financial benefit to Amazon will be equally staggering. Amazon will know that, and Google will know it as well.

Given all this, financial exchange from Amazon to Google for this 'glitch' must be considered a possibility. Heck... if I could buy the presence Amazon now has I certainly would!

I think the next week or so will tell us much. If Amazon continue to clog the results now that the issue is more in the open, more people will start to believe the worst. If they clean them up and improve the quality of the SERPS so that Amazon appears where it intuitively should (books, etc), then it will have demonstrably been a terrible lack of QA. Time will tell.

Net_Wizard




msg:73316
 7:05 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

However, EVERY site that runs different tld's could be listed twice (happened). So complaining about amazon duplicates is like complaining about Joe's or Jane's site that gets a dup listing - complaining about such is a nono, if i remember correctly.

Oh, that seems to be good news :) Doest it mean then that it's okay to register my domain for .co.uk, .com.de, .com.ch, etc.. and have my site duplicated in all these tld's?

On a second thought, I don't think that won't work, I have a similar situation although unintentional.

I own a .net and later the owner of similar named domain for the .com have given it up and I registered it for fear that somebody might take it since the .net is getting popular in my niche.

I then moved all my forums, articles, and news to the .com and have my .net purely as ecommerce. Base on your theory, Google should have treated this as separate tld since 'not' a single page was duplicated. So by all means, these are two separate sites.

Guess what?...Google knows that these 2 sites are owned by a single entity...the effect? The .com site doesn't show as backlink to the .net site and vice versa.

Some may argue that because of the cross linking between the 2 sites, Google ignore each site when computing for backlinks.

If this is an established rule, I'm not complaining. My question is...why is this rule 'not applied' to Amazon or even the duplicate filter?

Surely Amazon is cross linking all their properties and since it's database driven, I won't be surprise that there's a lot of duplicated pages especially at the .co.uk site.

[edited by: Net_Wizard at 7:09 pm (utc) on Aug. 10, 2003]

Yidaki




msg:73317
 7:07 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>I give up. Good night fellows!
>Hear hear. Once Kackle starts talking about the secret backdoor deals

G'morning, slept well everbody!? ;)

Kackle




msg:73318
 7:20 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Once Kackle starts talking about the secret backdoor deals, etc. etc., I know that yet another thread is drifting into conspiracy-land. ;)

Once GoogleGuy starts "almost denying" something, I know I'm on the right track.

Alltheweb shows 2,641,648 pages from www.amazon.com, and Inktomi shows 3,138,672 pages from www.amazon.com.

From the Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2003, p. A6 (sorry, I don't have a link; this is from my newsprint copy). The next to last paragraph of this WSJ story reads,

"Like eBay, Amazon has chosen to work with Google. Amazon recently began letting users do Google searches directly through the Amazon site. If looking for something Amazon doesn't sell, such as concert tickets, people can click on links provided by Google to other merchants. So 'at this point we see Google as a very valuable partner,' an Amazon spokeswoman says."

This 274 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 274 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved