| 5:02 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My main complaint is how small keyword rich domains still appear from nowhere with good rankings. It strikes me that too much importance is given to the keywords in domains.
New companies are buying 100 domains and these micro sites dominate. Content and links in do not seem to matter anymore.
| 5:10 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think the rest of the year is going to roll on, if we are ready for it or not.
Anyways, speaking from a purely selfish point of view, I would not mind seeing the google catalogs incorperated into the general search query. and instead of saying 'DOC' or 'PDF' or 'HTML' it would say 'Catalog' next to the listings.
I was fairly impressed with the google catalogs.
| 5:11 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I for one can't wait to see what Google does next. Just when you think Searching can't get any better something new comes along. GEO-local search would be neat! Or maybe Google Phone.
| 5:17 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
keep up the good work...keep at least one search engine that is there for the searcher
the only thing I would like to see is controllable bias...I used to love to be able to use Infoseek to get an academic bias, Lycos for a populist bias etc...now it's Google or FAST for a search and all the rest if I want to look at who has a big advertising budget
I'd love to be able to use scientific.google popular.google cult.google lowbandwidthsite.google
| 5:28 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
hey, how about a reverse rank site? That is, pages that are page rank 1 would instead be the very last, and vica versa.
Probably useless, but its a neat idea.
| 5:43 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Customized Search Engine Results Pages.
| 5:47 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Get one lid, a hammer, some nails, and finally put Inktomi (and us) out of their misery. And I agree totally with Mhes in point 2 - tweak that algo' to get rid of these fly-by-night, use-and-throwaway domains. Why not really use punter feedback/voting a great deal more - I'm getting an increasing number of appearances from stumbleupon.com in my logs, and that sort of voting based on user impressions has to be more valued, surely?
Other than that, just don't drop the ball when the IPO comes along. Mat
| 5:48 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hahahaha Weblamer. Good idea!!!
GoogleGuy, you folks deserve all the credit available for creating a great product, and keeping it honest. You in particular deserve kudos for working with the webmaster and SEO community.
I think Google should fix its PR0 penalty problem. We are aware that sites that have been assigned the penalty can recover, sort of. As you know, often the index page suffers lower PR for some reason, with interior pages very frequently at PR0. Google seems to not respond to webmaster pleas for attention to such matters.
To not fully remove a penalty is unfair.
For instance, your 14-year-old kid messed up and you grounded her. The years have rolled by, and she's still grounded at 17 for some long ago offense. Would you treat your kid that way? Well of course not. Then why treat a webmaster that way? When a penalty is no longer applicable, it should be completely removed.
| 5:54 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
PR is still way too easy to influence. I see similar domains from the same company inflating ranking through excessive cross linking, even with 10X10 invisible gifs. I would still like to see an algorithm that rewards quality content rather than inbound links. Algo is way too easy to spam for those willing to cross the line, IMO.
| 5:57 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Google could become a little more (or should I say even more) international or less English/US oriented. I know your "Google Interface in Your Language" is unsurpassed, but:
1. The click possibility on search query words leads to the definition at Dictionary.com but nowhere for non-English words. (this should not be so difficult?)
2. Search for GM and you get presented the option of stock quotes (from Yahoo).
Also available for non in the USA listed companies?
3. Search for "2400 Bayshore Parkway ca 94043" and you get a nice Yahoo map presented. Search for "18 Soho Square London W1D 3QL" and saddly the British Google office feels discriminated.
4. Nice tool in beta, Glossary search, but search for "chercher" in the Glossary and the Serendipity corner is returned. Are there too few sites containing a "Glossaire"?
5. Your news search is Good, but contains too few local newspapers. Do like Fast and offer search with a language option including many local newspapers, even from tiny countries like the Netherlands.
6. Your language tools offers a little less than Altavista Babelfish Translation (they have Korean, Chinese and Japanes) and while your busy please add Dutch for me :).
7. I could be wrong here, but if I place an adword Select for the word "computer" only for Belgium, am I not competing with the same prices as someone placing it for the USA?
Just my 2 Eurocents from an avid Google fan..
| 5:57 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
how about bothering to follow up spam/cheat complaints instead of pretending you take any notice of the spam url!....cause one day google will be a spam engine instead of a search engine if you dont!
| 5:59 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's not very important, but it 's the reason why I don't use your Directory to search, but go to the source and use dmoz instead.
You only list one category at the top of your SERPs as opposed to dmoz that will list several. I find that having a few categories to choose from is more helpful.
~ I've never replied to you before GoogleGuy, so I would like to take a second to thank you and the rest of the gang over there for making my life easier by providing such a fine search engine. ~
| 6:04 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Googleguy - there is just one thing Google needs to improve on... Replying to E-mails!! Especially mine :D
Beachboy pretty much sums it up with the 0 rank question, so my other one is this:
When I search on Google for "how do I smile" (for example) it accepts the how do I part of the search query, even though it's a common search term, because the search term is surrounded by quotes.
But trying the same thing on Google Groups just doesn't work - it never allows you to do this. That's a pain! ;)
| 6:05 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with at least two other posters. What difference does the domain name make in appropriateness of the search results? It is too easy for large companies with lots of money to set up a few hundred domains with various keywords and thereby cut into the smaller, perhaps higher quality, sites with tons of inbound links. If I call my site inchworm dot com and I specialize in a special kind of shoelace, why should the company that buys 100 names with "shoelace" in it get all the hits? Especially if shoelaces is simply an afterthought on their part?
And if this message goes all the way to Santa, how about either a mechanism to view results of searches by Pagerank and while Santa is at it, what about a toolbar that tells greater numbers of shades of PR, like 1 - 100?
| 6:16 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I will just say be carefull with changes because I realy think Google does a good job now and maybe to many changes will ruin it all.
Never get paid listings please that is a real pain at Altavista.
As long a small company still have a chance on Google everything is fine.
all the best
| 6:17 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
MHes and taxpod,
I agree, if this is what you mean as posted here [webmasterworld.com]:
|Good old-fahioned www.keyphrase-in-url.com (with "-" separating the words) where keyphrase-in-url equals your site and ideally company name. |
At least for Google this is foolishly enough still important.
Many directories or webmasters only allow the site name in the link.
(think of DMOZ/ODP).
Hopefully google will discount this ranking effect sooner or later by:
if "search query" equals "site name", discount normal ranking boosting effect of "search querry" equals or forms part of "anchor text".
|2. Many directories (not only ODP) have a policy of putting the site's name (equalling url-index name) in the link. |
So if your url is: www.reciprocal-linking.com and your site's name (and main title) is "Reciprocal linking corp." you will find "Reciprocal linking corp" in the anchortext.
Check around in Google for a medium competitive "search phrase", look up those that have e.g. ODP listings (easiest to check) and you will see www.search-phrase.com benefiting often from this construction.
| 6:23 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
1. I'm with Eric and Chris_R. Some kind of personalised or category results would be great. Which "java" am I searching for? For regional searches, imagine that the rank source was 1 for pages with UK domain or IP, and 0 for others. Then iterate PageRank for a while and you'd get the link graph of the Web, from a UK perspective. As well as including good UK content on .com domains and US IPs, it would rank based on UK centric importance, rather than just a filter on a Web-wide importance. It would be good to see the same for other topics, based on a basic word search or ODP categories (as in "Topic Sensitive PageRank).
2. If you use the user feedback then things will be good. "People who liked the pages you like also like these pages..." would be great; the Toolbar must have a large enough user base by now?
| 6:31 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You have the power, data, and brains. You know you can do it. We know you are working on it. Let see you put AMZN to shame.
| 6:42 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh, and I know some people will hit me for this, but - I would LOVE a My Google option so I could bookmark sites, have a bit of news on the frontpage etc. I know - shoot me.
| 6:42 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
For the google.com domain, I would like to see the default preferences for searching be set to English instead of any language. Two search results for our industry return foreign pages in the top ten.
This might get some flack....but how about a PR boost for Sponsored Links? We have been showing up very well in your search results for some time but merely wanted to pay "Google" back for all the traffic and recently signed up for a Sponsored Listing. If it was a PR boost, I'm sure more businesses would jump on the bandwagon.
| 6:45 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I want google to develop a world-wide brain-scanning device. That way all i have to do is THINK about what i want, and google will preform the perfect search for me.
And if the webpage I want does not exist, google will then spider the brains of all the people on earth and create a webpage on-the-fly using 'BML', also known as 'Brain Markup Language'.
| 7:37 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I would not mind seeing the google catalogs incorperated into the general search query |
Wow that would be great!
| 7:38 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I WANT GOOGLE
| 7:40 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|What sort of things do you want to see Google doing next? And are you ready for the rest of the year?;) |
Good grief Googleguy,
"next"? Wow, so this means the next update already includes all our 98 proposed improvements posted here [webmasterworld.com].:)
"finish your main course before dessert", my father used to tell me, but I don't care, give me both soonest..
| 7:41 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> What sort of things do you want to see Google doing next? <<
a) I know what I DON'T want Google to do... another PR0 type onslaught!
b) Ignore those who are complaining about keywords in domain names. I actually don't think Google takes much notice of this factor anyhow, but when I do a site, for maybe a small company, I always try to make the domain name nice to read.
This is NOTHING whatsoever to do with ranking. It is everything to do with 'easy on the eye'. Or in domain terms easyonethewye or easy-on-the-eye.
See the point? Nothing to do with ranking, but a hell of a lot easier for Joe Public to see what the site is about.
Why some people complain about this I just don't know. It's a great way of spelling out to everyone what the site is about. It's the natural flow... so don't bat against it.
c) Yes come on... leaving PR0 (or PR-less-than-normal) in place for a site that has long been cleaned up is out of order.
d) What about sticking PDFs and other doc types in a separate tab? OK, I lobbied for this last time you asked, but I think people know when they search whether they want a doc or a web site.
On certain searches the mixture is horrible.
e) Yes, have an option to customize the front page of Google. Not by default, but at least the opportunity to add news, and all sorts of other stuff. If it was done correctly (ie: optional) it would help Google compete with certain portals without losing its own strengths.
f) Be careful with those ads... not a millimetre of further intrusion
g) Yes, you have a winning algo. Too much change could tip things against you. Let it flow naturally and don't be overzealous in changes. Remember, you didn't get to #1 because your algo was weak! Generally, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.
h) Get the BBC (which you source) to create a domain name for their search... not hide it 30 pages deep!
Overall.... you've had agreat half year... keep it going with the flow and don't upset too many applecarts on the way.
And thanks for continuing to post here.
| 7:47 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Google do a mind read search already....
here's the serps for your request
| 7:55 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I hope you won't mind if I just request something in my own self-interest (rather than a brilliant idea to improve Google for all mankind). Since the overwhelming victory of Internet Explorer in the browser wars, I am now getting a lot of sites using <IFRAME> to link to my pages. I would love to think that Google counted these links.
| 8:04 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with the others. Remove PR 0 for sites that no longer deserve it.
Before I knew what was bad and what was good, I submitted the first site I ever created to guestbooks and LinkTopics. Even though I dropped the links to LinkTopics over a year ago, the PR 0 still remains. So since GoogleGuy says it's who you link to which causes penalties, obviously Google has a memory of who I used to link to. That's not right. The site has quality content and many links from high PR sites, yet people can't find it with Google. I lose, and so do the Google searchers who may be looking for my content.
| 8:05 pm on Jul 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree, a keyword domain can be good on the eye and effective. But why should it rank well just because of that? And don't tell me it doesn't...I'm sure plenty of us have tried it and know it works. I have a site covering loads of topics related to a theme. All the topics are thus second level pages. It is hard for them to compete against 50 small sites all with that topic title in the domain and the topic keywords splashed all over the index page.
If you have a domain that is an honest business name, perhaps pre the internet, you are penalised. Big companies can afford loads of small keyword domain sites and so "Money buys ranking"
There are loads of examples of serps populated with keyword domains with little content and few links in (sometimes only one). Take "London" for example.... big competition.... top ten position? easy....put "london" in the title, domain and a "london" link in and your there.
People who can afford to do this for all the major cities win... "money makes money", and "quality" is bankrupt.
| This 179 message thread spans 6 pages: 179 (  2 3 4 5 6 ) > > |