homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.128.25
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
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.

 

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."

Yidaki




msg:73319
 7:28 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>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?

Uhm, who said this?

>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?

How long has your site been crawled and indexed by google? My own dynamically created sites (different tld's, translated content) have been listed as dups at google after the first crawl/update. Now they're listed only once (one tld plus a intended result) - which is good enough for me, fair to the user and fair to the competitors, btw. Who says that amazon dups will still be listed next months?

>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.

Erm, he?

>From the Wall Street Journal,

That's damn ole news: Google Licenses Web Search and Sponsored Links to Amazon.com [google.com] - April 2003. It's interesting how quick and fexible you draw lines.

See, i'm not a google employee nor always satisfied with google's results. But this is getting a reall funny, wild conspiracy discussion.

CromeYellow




msg:73320
 7:34 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just to chip in, Amazon has got 3 lines on one of our 'interest SERPS' - this is a new thing. Something has changed, be it with Amazon or Google, but I for one seriously doubt any conspiracy.

But then I always do :)

Cy

GoogleGuy




msg:73321
 7:44 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sheesh. I could go into how our site crowding hasn't changed in months/years. I could talk about how for 4.5 years we've endeavored to keeping money out of our search results and preserve their editorial integrity, because users don't want to have to worry about such issues. I could talk about how historically we don't take money for inclusion precisely to avoid people wanting to ask questions such as this. I could talk about how 6M pages seems perfectly in line with having a larger index than many search engines. I could point out that the original title was claiming more results from epinions/dealtime/ebay/etc (not just from Amazon). I could point out previous conspiracy theories (e.g. Google running out of address space because docids are four bytes), and how those didn't hold water. I could talk about how silly it is when I use the word "vendor" to describe pages from commercial vendors and that Net_Wizard would half-misinterpret that to mean that "vendor" = "some secret deal with Google", and then for Kackle to take that idea and run with it.

But my hunch is that people who want to believe what they want will do so regardless. Me, I'm going to return some books to the library and get some lunch. I'm starting to think that rule #1 of conspiracy theories is "there's always another conspiracy theory waiting in the wings." This one ain't true either, but feel free to discuss it until those who want to believe it are heartily convinced. :)

Allergic




msg:73322
 7:46 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

When you see a page from thoses comparaisons sites or Amazon/Ebay/etc and they have no "similar pages" this should raise a flag to the Google Team?

Look at thoses numbers:

- Using Amazon Search on "underwear" you get 2,965 results
- Using Google "site:www.amazon.com underwear" 366,000 results

Do Google want we all making phoney pages like "search results on xyz brand", "all blue widget", "all widget between $4.99 to $5.99". It is really easy when you got a database to extract and make 100 thousands of stupids pages?

wingslevel




msg:73323
 7:47 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

I agree with cromeyellow - more amazon listings, no conspiracy.

We know that google has become better at crawling dynamic urls - have they become so good that they can parse out all of the client variable junk in the typical amazon url string?

Napoleon




msg:73324
 7:53 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

So you are perfectly happy with the returns in some areas, which are totally congested with Amazon, eBay, PDFs, etc as a result of last weekends change?

This is the bottom line GoogleGuy... the returns. They are really ugly in many cases since the sudden appearance of all this stuff. That should be the focus surely.

The last thing I want to do is give you a hard time, but this quality issue needs to be addressed for everyones benefit, including Google's. As I said above: so that Amazon (etc) appears where it intuitively should (books, etc) and NOT anywhere and everywhere.

If it isn't, it is BOUND to raise uncomfortable questions, first here, and then more widely. I think that is pretty inevitable given the sensitivities of the industry, whatever you or I think.


Net_Wizard




msg:73325
 7:56 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

:D Okay, I'll play

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

Funny you mentioned that :) because I have a similar nagging suspicion of what I found out last night but I did refrain from posting it as GG attitude demonstrate what 'others' might think about it.

So here it goes anyway...

Google Crawling Behavior of Amazon, Ebay, and Dealtime/Epinions

I compared the data center having the lowest index to the data center that's having the highest index for each site and the result is = %growth rate of indexed URL.

Amazon (.com only)
www-va 3,310,000 lowest index
www-in 3,540,000 highest index
a growth rate of 6.9%

Ebay
www-va 212,000
www-fi 227,000
a growth rate of 7.08%

Dealtime (.com only, see also Epinions)
www-sj 931,000
www-in 980,000
a growth rate of 5.26%

Epinions
www-sj 2,330,000
www-in 2,500,000
a growth rate of 7.3%

Comparing these figures against the growth rate for my site turns out that there's a huge difference but first...

1. Googlebot seems to be in my site almost daily, clearly it likes my site.
2. Site map shows all my URLs, clearly there's no reason that it can't find all my URL.
3. All my URLs are search engine friendly, clearly there's nothing to block Googlebot to crawl my URLs.

Yet, my growth rate is only 2.83% and is not even halfway through my site.

Now, this is not conclusive but it does look suspicious considering that if the crawling is based on a queue system then how come that there's a huge difference of growth rate.

I encourage you to take a look at your own site growth rate and if this turns out that majority have lower growth rate then this seems to indicate that the 'vendors' are given more crawl resources.

I do hope that this is not the case and it would be refreshing to know there are webmasters here that are experiencing high growth rate of indexed URL.

Cheers

Kackle




msg:73326
 7:56 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Why don't you talk instead about how interested in making money Google has been lately? Here's my favorite line from an article about Google in the Mercury News [bayarea.com] that is 99 percent pro-Google:

"While they dream, Brin and Page also keep their eyes on the details: They use software to tally, to the second, how much money the firm is raking in."

Take off the "do no evil" rose-colored glasses, GoogleGuy. You know what makes Google purr.

cabbie




msg:73327
 8:26 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am new to this thread and have not read the thread completely but as for multiple listings this is quite common in my industry and google will show 2 results from the same site if considered relevant.

Yidaki




msg:73328
 10:12 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ok, it's too hot at my place to get some sleep ... sorry for bumping this thread again but i can't sleep if this thread ends with conspiracy theories anyway.

I'll try to turn this discussion a bit away from the conspiracy theories:

As allready mentioned here, the ebay, amazon, dealtime, epinions etc. results are in fact side effects of google's improved crawling of dynamically created pages. A improvement of one thing on the other hand often results in problems with other things.

Simple example: beside amazon & co. i recently noticed a increase of foreign search engine result pages in google's own results. I don't want to name sites since this could start even more conspiracy theories and is absolutely unimportant anyway. Many of these foreign se results are quite as simple as google's result pages: a url using example.com/query?keyword=widgets.

At the first look i'd say these search engines are intentionally creating bunches of query result pages to cheat and to bring as much pages into google as possible. Allthough this might be true in some cases, at the second look i'd say, they gain top positions because google started to crawl pages that use?, &, = and other query parameter delimiter and lists them accordingly. Since query result pages are most of the times quite related to "the query", they gain good positions since they get treated by google like any other page. Keyword density, link texts, all is there - unintentionally highly optimized for se's - often even the title of these serps reflect the query itself (Amazon does it, even Google does this).

If ya ever had worked with parsing and weighting of html text, you may know that it's pretty impossible to identify foreign search results pages if your don't take the url and several unique patterns into account. Now, we're coming closer to the point where it's presumably getting interesting for google to listen (allthough i bet they are allready aware of this): the url (using query identifiers) together with various patterns (search results often use the same html stucture) are the only way to automatically detect foreign serp's. BUT: if you downgrade such pages you presumably downgrade also forums and other valuable dynamically created pages. Doh!

Can you imagine how hard it is to fairly differentiate and weight pages?

Conclusion is: mentioning the "problem" is ok and fair to google and its users. Starting conspiracy theories is pulled wild things by the hairs and doesn't help anybody except certain egos. Don't ya think? Imho, again, patience is the answer. ;)

ultimately: g'night, fellows ... yawn.

GoogleGuy




msg:73329
 10:38 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Take off the "do no evil" rose-colored glasses, GoogleGuy. You know what makes Google purr.

I think a lot of things make Google purr, personally. It's cool that we introduced an entirely new AdWords interface and color customization. We want to give our advertisers and publishers good tools. But I also think it's cool that we introduced a new toolbar beta with pop-up killing and automatic form-filling. I think it's cool that we introduce new services like news.google.fr, with over 500 French language sources. It's also cool that we launch new domains such as google.co.in that give more places where people can find a familiar UI. It's cool that we are offering news alerts on labs.google.com. I think it's cool that we're constantly looking for new ways to improve search, both behind the scenes and with new operators like the tilde operator (~). Making money is nice, but I also like that we're also introducing lots of helpful things that improve search. That's just my quick take though--if other people have different opinions, they're welcome to them.

Allergic




msg:73330
 12:32 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's cool, cool, cool! I never seen a so strong "cool density" on the web since 99 and early 2000 just before the Internet and Nasdaq crash!

In my point of view, you should correct the numerous bugs on algo and operators, before introducing new gadgets (it is not including the news.google.fr and google india) and loosing other users. Give us really good content pages and we will be happy.

How I can trust a ~ operator if some olds operators like filetype: and inurl: give me wrong results?
How I can trust a Google News Alert if he send me 40 times the same news without cutting doublons?

Please keep the focus on good results.

bull




msg:73331
 5:31 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey GG,
It would be still cooler to entirely remove the spam I sent you via spamreport or drop them to SERP number 20 where they belong to... ;-)

The most helpful thing is still a relevant search.

lasko




msg:73332
 6:53 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sorry Google Guy but

Two weeks ago no Amazon in my local results today

Amazon appears 3 times

Now many sites get banned for this.

I would also like to point out that its not just Amazon and E-bay but I have seen some newspaper listings appear showing stories of the local area many years back.

We now have a situation where a site so big and powerful with only 1 page related to the search now outperforms sites that have over 30 to 50 pages related to the search.

Your search engine was getting better but in the last two to four weeks something had changed.

I do hope Google does not try to pretend everything is ok or be arrogant that their results are normal.

Arrogance is the worst disease in business and can eat away at your compnay no matter what size you are or how many pages you have in your index. Alta vista comes to my mind or who else, once major players in search technology but pushed it too far.

I don't see more PDF files then normal but I do see big companies with only 1 page related to the search ranking higher then those who have a whole site dedicated to the related search.

Remember those words: Build a great site, plenty of realative content and improve your popularity.

Amazon has one book related to my area but I have over 100 pages of content.

Maybe Google has become so great they where able to crawl the pages of the books as well, wow thats got to be a theory :)

danny




msg:73333
 7:25 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

If Google is turning into a book search engine why do I need them?

So you can find my book reviews!

Amazon has a lot of book reviews, but there are usually more reviews elsewhere on the web, except perhaps for the more popular titles. (Amazon has tens of thousands of Harry Potter reviews, for example, but most of its pages for specialist academic works have none.)

Iguana




msg:73334
 8:00 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think there are 3 issues being discussed here: Amazon/Epinions etc/PDFs. Amazon is my specialist subject so I'll just look at that. Let's pretend I am a company that has a single product - a book called 'widget for idiots'. I start an affiliate program and get 60 good links (PR4+) and 600 links below PR4. I would expect to be top of the SERPS for the book title and do well in searches for widgets and idiots. Fair enough, most of us would say. The truth is that this is all Amazon is doing except of a bigger scale.

The mystery is why did it take so long for Amazon to reap the benefits of all those affiliate links? Maybe it's improved dynamic spidering and resolution of redirects. But it may also be that Amazon has worked for a year on the organisation of their site (the /tg/detail/ url routes to most products came in about 5 months ago) and they may not even have realsed what the consequences were going to be.

To me, the ideal SERPS for a book would be 10 information pages and 4 Adwords - one of which is from my local Amazon. But Google can't just tweak the algo because the whole ranking system is based on Pagerank. In a search engine based on links as votes then the super-affiliate site is king. If the SERPS are rubbish because of Amazon's dominance then maybe you need to look towards other search engines. But even if AllTheWeb seem a bit better this month it is probably because their dyanamic spidering/interpretation isn't very good.

Maybe what is missing is an algo based more on what a page is really about combined with on-theme linking so that pages from the 100 page site about a subject comes higher than a single book on Amazon. Google is already doing analysis of a page with Adsense and has Google Sets as an example of theme analysis. I would put money on Google coming up with the first useable semantic search engine (with a side bet on Microsoft just in case)

Napoleon




msg:73335
 8:08 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> But even if AllTheWeb seem a bit better this month it is probably because their dyanamic pidering/interpretation isn't very good. <<

Interesting point Iguana. I would argue on this therefore the need for balance.

Surely the objective is the best quality SERPS... NOT the biggest crawl possible?

In this case maybe Google should throttle back on the spidering to acheive it - at least until it can increase the extent of the crawl without harming the quality. Simply select the correct amount of each ingeriant to produce the best stew.


Iguana




msg:73336
 8:43 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi Napolean

I think it's not just quantity of Amazon pages crawled but the linking of affiliate redirects to an Amazon page with a good title and content in SE terms. I think in the past you used to get /amazon.com/obidos/asin/ links appearing without any title and these were the affiliate links (some of them are still there - perhaps no tg/detail/ page to link them with).

For anyone with a dynamic site or links in a directory with a /cgi/go.php?link=yoursite.com then Google's improved bot is good news. But, I agree with you Napolean, the SERPS are worse at the moment. However you can't ask Google to deliberately break their interpretation of web pages because they are they have made it work better and give a true picture of a Pageranked web. Death to Pagerank is the only thing we can begin to demand.

That's my algorhythmic interpretation - but I also give some weight to my feeling that things are just a bit broken at the moment and will sort themselves out as the continous update process is refined.

Jakpot




msg:73337
 9:48 am on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

From GoogleGuy 8/10/03:
Sheesh. I could go into how our site crowding hasn't changed in months/years. I could talk about how for 4.5 years we've endeavored to keeping money out of our search results and preserve their editorial integrity, because users don't want to have to worry about such issues. I could talk about how historically we don't take money for inclusion precisely to avoid people wanting to ask questions such as this. I could talk about how 6M pages seems perfectly in line with having a larger index than many search engines. I could point out that the original title was claiming more results from epinions/dealtime/ebay/etc (not just from Amazon). I could point out previous conspiracy theories (e.g. Google running out of address space because docids are four bytes), and how those didn't hold water. I could talk about how silly it is when I use the word "vendor" to describe pages from commercial vendors and that Net_Wizard would half-misinterpret that to mean that "vendor" = "some secret deal with Google", and then for Kackle to take that idea and run with it.
But my hunch is that people who want to believe what they want will do so regardless. Me, I'm going to return some books to the library and get some lunch. I'm starting to think that rule #1 of conspiracy theories is "there's always another conspiracy theory waiting in the wings." This one ain't true either, but feel free to discuss it until those who want to believe it are heartily convinced. :)

think a lot of things make Google purr, personally. It's cool that we introduced an entirely new AdWords interface and color customization. We want to give our advertisers and publishers good tools. But I also think it's cool that we introduced a new toolbar beta with pop-up killing and automatic form-filling. I think it's cool that we introduce new services like news.google.fr, with over 500 French language sources. It's also cool that we launch new domains such as google.co.in that give more places where people can find a familiar UI. It's cool that we are offering news alerts on labs.google.com. I think it's cool that we're constantly looking for new ways to improve search, both behind the scenes and with new operators like the tilde operator (~). Making money is nice, but I also like that we're also introducing lots of helpful things that improve search. That's just my quick take though--if other people have different opinions, they're welcome to them.

********************************************************

We would just like to know what went wrong last weekend to screw up the SERPs and if Google is going to fix the problem.
The other stuff is fine and we thank you for summarizing it.

Napoleon




msg:73338
 1:28 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> We would just like to know what went wrong last weekend to screw up the SERPs and if Google is going to fix the problem. <<

Yes. Jakpot gets straight to the point... that's the bottom line.

netguy




msg:73339
 1:56 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

The Latest Google Results Are A Joke! For a top, highly recognizable two-word phrase on page 1:

2,290,000 RESULTS

#1 and #2 (indented): .gov PDF completely unrelated to search term;

#3 Spammer with dozens of crosslinked (invisible) image maps;

#4 .gov PDF completely unrelated to search term;

#5 DealTime back page 'vaguely' related to search term

#6 and #7 (indented): BizRate MFG page 'vaguely' and not related to search term;

#8 close to search term
#9 close to search term

#10 PDF completely unrelated to search term, other than their company USES the product!

and subsequent pages are just as bad!

Forget about SEO. Do you think a user really wants to wade through all the garbage?

Serpico




msg:73340
 2:28 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

So what's the new name to be?

Amazoogle or Gamazon? ;)

ILLstyle




msg:73341
 2:52 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

> We would just like to know what went wrong last weekend to screw up the SERPs and if Google is going to fix the problem. <

I wish more people would stick to this main idea in this thread.
Rather then letting their imaginations run wild with all the what ifs and conspiracy theories.
This page was looking good, then along comes Serpico.

Kackle




msg:73342
 2:54 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Iguana says:
Death to Pagerank is the only thing we can begin to demand.

I think Iguana's analysis is a reasonable interpretation, and deserves my vote alongside the "back door deal" theory.

It has not gone unnoticed that PageRank favors the big guy. I don't know about "underwear" sales at Amazon, but for "books," Amazon is the big guy. There are millions of links from other sites to Amazon for specific books, or for Amazon in general, or even the "donate to this site" Amazon links. It makes sense that Amazon cleans up on page one for many searches having anything to do with books.

But it makes sense only in terms of PageRank. Yes, perhaps Amazon tweaked their programs to improve on-page characteristics. Perhaps they improved their site architecture to improve crawling. Maybe there was no back-door deal. It would, however, be quite a coincidence if eBay and others that have been mentioned in this thread, made similar tweaks at the same time.

It's obvious why GoogleGuy reacted as soon as the words "back-door deal" were mentioned. If you could prove a back-door deal, the FTC would be all over Google to label their Amazon results. That would mean one of two things -- Google would have to cut way back on Amazon results, or their labels would betray them.

So is it a back-door deal or is it quirky PageRank? PageRank is corporate America's dream machine because it makes the rich get richer, and trashes the little guy. If I were running the FTC, I'd be all over Google for PageRank itself. It's not fair. Google needs on-page content analysis, and they need clustering options of the sort that we see on other engines. Why doesn't Google do this? Because it's CPU-intensive, and Google would prefer spending their profits on additional schemes to sell ads. Tell Google's marketing people that you want half of their budget to improve on PageRank, and see what they say.

Why Amazon, and why now? It could be half and half. Amazon may have gotten smarter and made improvements on their end. And at the same time, I think Google is no longer calculating PageRank as laboriously and precisely as they used to. With the old-style method of PageRank calculation, which took several days for the entire web, there may have been weighting options for certain sites like Amazon that present particular problems. In the new super-fresh, PageRank almost on the fly method, these options may not be available.

One more thing. Danny, who posted above, has a very good, very successful book review site, with a PageRank of 7. I've never known him to be critical of PageRank. But if Amazon comes along and everything on his site shows up behind all that commercial drivel at Amazon, I think we can expect that Danny will take another look at the implications of PageRank. Fine.

But why is it that no one looks at the "big picture" of what PageRank is all about until someone bigger comes along and steps on them? I guess PageRank is cool as long as you have more of it than the next guy, sort of like money. That attitude is what those liberal arts core requirements were designed to fix in your brain back when you were an undergraduate. If you don't fix this kind of attitude, you end up with dramatic bubble/crash/bubble/crash cycles. Or revolutions. This planet is too overpopulated and too fragile to sustain unlimited greed. I wish Larry and Sergey had taken more philosophy courses.

Serpico




msg:73343
 3:04 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sorry ILLStyle,

It was meant to be in good humour.

I don't have an opinion on the conspiracy idea - probably nonsense.

But it is nevertheless a matter of definite fact that my #2 / #3 ranking site for 2 years is now below the bill-fold due to Amazon listings of extremely doubtful relevancy!

lk125




msg:73344
 3:38 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

GG "Ah, regular work is done for the week, so I'm settling in to read the pdf/doc reports now. I've gotten enough to go digging around--thanks for contributing those. If I uncover anything, I'll let ya know later this weekend. If I don't uncover anything, I'll try to let you know that too. :)"

Hey GG just wanted to check if you have any feedback either way on the pdf/docs issue. As we have gone into Monday, the results have actually gotten worse. On just one of those examples I sent you, we are now up 3 pdfs, 1 doc (#1) and 2 ppts in the top 10 for a 2 word search phrase with 1,740,000 results.

SeventiesMartin




msg:73345
 4:49 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

In several popular areas I'm noticing that .gov pages are starting to dominate the SERPS, and the numbers are increasing.

At this rate searchers will have a choice of buying a book or reading a government paper, and I would bet my house that not many are interested in either, not for the searches I'm looking at.

They are going to have to look further down the SERPS for what they really want, or start going elsewhere to search.

My site has been pushed from position 5 to 11 over the last few days for one of these popular searches, but I am still getting pretty much the same number of visitors from google, which to me shows that they are not finding what they want higher up in the SERPS.

lk125




msg:73346
 5:00 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

"but I am still getting pretty much the same number of visitors from google"

SeventiesMartin, good point. I'm still getting pretty much the same amount of visitors as well. But as a frequent user of Google also, I'm not finding my results quickly (in the top 10) like I used to, and I've begun to use other SEs. I wonder how long it will take for the more casual user to go elsewhere if this continues.

I know many people have often called for more competition for Google, but I for one have enjoyed mainly focusing on one SE. I didn't really think about it, but I've found myself concentrating more-and-more on other SEs in the last couple of months. That's not to say there will be a migration away from Google, but better to be prepared than sorry.

[edited by: lk125 at 5:15 pm (utc) on Aug. 11, 2003]

netguy




msg:73347
 5:08 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

SeventiesMartin, as I listed in my post above, 3 of the 10 results on page 1 were unrelated .GOV sites. That, combined with some other worthless results, show Google is having big problems with its algo changes.

This certainly isn't providing the user-experience Google was known for, nor is it the kind of results I would want if Yahoo and MSN were nipping at my heels.

Time will tell if Google is listening.

SeventiesMartin




msg:73348
 5:31 pm on Aug 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

On my popular search term mentioned above I have just moved up to 10, back on first page.

Above me:

3 .gov sites that will be of no interest to searchers for this phrase.

A Stanford university paper that might be of some value to a small minority, but not really what they will be looking for.

A .pdf which won't be of real interest

Snapping at my heals, more .gov sites and 2 Amazon book sites.

Not only will the book sites be of no interest to anyone using this phrase, but one is for a year 2000 guide, just had a look and there are more up to date versions of the same book. hmmmmm.

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.
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