|The randomized cats/keywords.|
Who is a Google Adwords Target?
| 6:30 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I´m tracking the cats and keywords affected by the randomized effect: keyword showing different, degraded, results with each reload, in what could be an apparent attempt to force us to use Adwords.
I have found a few travel, hotel and adult related randomized keywords. Who else is on the hot spot?
I’m sure many of you are suffering this too. Would you be so kind to tell us about it?
No specific keywords, please (remember the TOS), just a light, general cat/industry description.
| 6:56 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Marcos you need to focus on
Shopping and Services/...anything goes(especially holiday related)
| 7:09 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Shopping and Services/...anything goes
Well, that makes perfect sense. After all, it is just the old way to undercover unscrupulous behaviour: follow the money!
Still, Adult does not fall on that category, and some subcats may not be affected. A category breakdown would be very interesting, in order to present our case to others ;)
| 7:18 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Adult/Gambling ..etc are harder to make "disappear" from the index..there just aren't enough .edu/.org pdfs to go around..
| 7:27 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>keyword showing different, degraded, results with each reload,
That's been thoroughly explained over several threads here - more than once. There's constant movement, what with multiple data centers, fresh sites being added and/or passed over and/or changed daily and constantly updating indices. Throw in load sharing, which no one has information about because it's their tech people's business.
>>in what could be an apparent attempt to force us to use Adwords.
Sorry, but we could see different serps from the same computer within minutes if we just happen to access a different data center in a different state of update. Some are more minty-fresh than others.
We could get that very same thing happening if we were searching for kids printable coloring pages for Thanksgiving or recipes for cranberry bread - and Google won't make a dime on those.
We really can't attribute evil-hearted motivations to companies or people based on mere supposition. There's a big difference between what's apparent by means of evaluating empirical evidence and basing broad insinuations on purely subjective conjecture.
| 7:42 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think some srutiny is in order (as opposed to insinuation), if any other SE came in here making claims they would (and have) get raked heavily.
Why should an engine who claims "editorial integrity" go unchecked?
There is no evidence of legitimate editorial staff at Google.
Where is the journalism Phd? Where is the former editor of "major news organization"?. They could be the WSJ or the pennysaver...maybe we should know.
| 7:45 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>There is no evidence of legitimate editorial
>staff at Google.
Oh yes there is. Last I heard, there were over 150 "editors" working at Google.
| 8:32 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>That's been thoroughly explained over several threads here
No Marcia, not at all. It has not been “thoroughly explained”. The everflux effect is a well known effect we all know about. It means minor changes in the results, as a small real-time database gets in an out. That may slightly change the results, some sites go in and some sites go out, as a small percent of the result count changes.
That is not related with the present case.
We are following since 30/10/02 a keyword showing a correct 6.000.000 results only 25% of the time. Sometimes it has anything between 170.000 and 200.000 results, and 35% of the time it only list 142.000 sites, and the results are pure junk: the top 10 sites are sites without a domain name (only the ip), sites with "Fireworks Splice HTML" as the only text on it, and control panel sites whith a "Personalize Your Home Page" title on it.
> - more than once. There's constant movement, what with
>multiple data centers, fresh sites being added and/or
>passed over and/or changed daily and constantly
>updating indices. Throw in load sharing...
Sorry Marcia, but I think that is wishful thinking. 6.000.000 results to 140.000 results. In what is arguably one of the most competitive Spanish language keyword. Load balance? Small real-time database changes? A few fresh sites being added? Affecting only that very specific search term, no others? A 5.850.000 results difference? A sudden 4.200% increase on the indexed sites?
Sorry again Marcia, I don’t believe it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck. An Adwords type scheme competes with good, relevant, Search Engines results, as Googles´s founders recognised long time ago. The better the results, the lower the click-through and profits they get. How well is Google resolving that conflict? That is what we are questioning.
>>We really can't attribute evil-hearted motivations to companies or people based
>>on mere supposition.
We are not attributing “evil-hearted motivations”. Good old Big-Corp GREED is a much more likely “motivation”.
And, in any case, we are only looking for prove, or, to be correct, looking for more prove, no denouncing it (yet).
| 8:53 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I guess it's about time the search engines got together and made a code of good practice of how to generate unbiased results and how to inform the user when there is bias.
It would be pretty straight forward. Chinese walls between search and marketing departments (I can tell you Google doesn't have one of these), and a simple "advertisement" tag on a ppc link so granny knows for sure instead of the vague "sponsored link".
We are clearly still in the wild west days as far as best practice goes! As always self regulation is preferable to government regulation, so it's only in Google's short term interest to fiddle with the results to tweak Adwords revenues.
| 11:19 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>Last I heard, there were over 150 "editors" working at Google.<<
They probably work in the google news division. ;)