| This 161 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 161 ( 1 2 3 4 5  ) || |
|Google seems to be getting more difficult to use for me|
| 7:12 pm on Feb 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am finding Google more and more difficult to use. I don't think Google is any worse or any better in that regard than it was a few years ago. However, I do expect more from them today than previosly.
This isn't anything new really, it's just a level of frustration setting and waiting for Google to come up with an easier way to search than they have at current. It feels like they have stopped dead in the water on search and settled for what they have.
I really didn't even know there could be a faster, more accurate way to search until using that 'other engine' with it's nifty suggestions. They cut search time by multiples and make the actual process much less of an intellectual brain teaser. Instead of figuring out the right keyword combos to get Google to generate the result I want, I could be putting that effort into viewing information I want, or getting back to work.
In alot of ways, Google today is feeling more an engine from the pre-Google days. I sure hope they have something up their sleeve.
| 5:58 am on Feb 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Outgoing links on pages not updated for over a couple years should not pass on votes/pagerank in the same way as sites currently updated. The old pages are simply clueless in their linking. They could be linked to 404s, new porn sites, or even very valuable content. It's nearly a random crapshoot.
Depends on the nature of the sites. In particular, consider those cases where the sites in question are on a very narrow topic. With the topic of my 2 sites (both are on aspects of the same topic), there are only a handful of other sites worth mentioning on the net about this topic. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that 3 years down the road I'll be linking to the same 4 sites that I am currently, as it wouldn't surprise me if another worthwhile site on this topic didn't come on the Net in the next 3 years.
| 10:33 am on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I skipped through this post and have not read the last few dozen pages. It seems that the post has become a place for people to complain about their own personal ranking issues, if anyone is still reading this, like GG, I have a suggestion that is strictly user search related.
On google news, it would help if there was a "search these results" option. I would imagine I am not alone in saying that I use google news for research and many time, search results contain so many articles that have similar keywords, that it would be a great value to be able to refine the results to narrow it down to more specific topics. I have tried searching more specifically, but then a large number of results come up that are off topic, simply because they share words with the more specific query.
I'm not complaining about the way that it works now, and I wouldn't change anything about the regular search function, I think that many people like the fact that the google home page is not much more than a search box and a customized logo occasionally. The advanced search could use a few features to help narrow things down, and suggesting similar search terms sounds fine, but please don't clutter the regular search page up with a bunch of things that most people don't want or need. After all, if google gives the right results and works fast, users are only there briefly.
| 5:57 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Would have responded before now ... but I've been very busy.
|If you can't be bothered to change a period and reupload the page ... |
Its also a very silly thing to do. If that is what is considered updating a page and keeping the SERPS fresh, then again I say Pfffffft! Coding your important pages so the date changes daily ... now that's somewhat smarter don't you think? ;)
| 6:16 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It seems that the post has become a place for people to complain about their own personal ranking issues... |
From a user's perspective there's not really that much that one can really suggest that doesn't fall into one of two categories: Interface or Results.
The Google Interface is pretty minimalistic as it is: a logo, a few links to types of searches, a text box, and a pair of buttons.
If the interface is too complicated I don't think GG is going to hear about it fron this crowd. :)
That leaves results. Frankly, at this point virtually everyone in here has some site they want to get high on the SERPs, and I'm sure GG knows that. :)
If you read through this thread, and I really suggest you do, you will find a few really good ideas, including the one you mentioned.
There have been calls for using click-through data to enhance the results by 2 or 3 people incl. myself. Requests to create a drill-down, like you and about a half dozen or so others, and some comments on cleaning up what we have now (spam, etc.) by myself and another handful of people.
While, yes, if you really want to you can consider some of those responces 'complaining'. I'd rather use 'constructive critisim'. We all respect the work the gurus put into the SE over at Google, and know that no system is perfect. We all come at this issue as webmasters / designers / etc, but try to look at it from a user's perspective.
If Google implemented only 2-3 of the ideas throughout this topic I'm sure Google would be able to reassert it's leadership role, nevermind what would happen if most of these ideas got in. (GG -- If you want to use most of the ideas please go public first -- I want add to my retirement fund and I think about 5 shares would set me for life after you announce these changes :)
Please, if you want to critisize other peoples ideas or comments, please take the time to read through the thread. I think you'll have a different appreciation of it then.
| 6:56 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
totally agree about the lower weight for older, non-updated links. it is no fun competing against pr7s who have weak content but have been around for a long time and thus have lots of incoming links - but many of them from unupdated pages that have not taken into account newer, higher quality content.
| 7:28 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That's when you as webmaster need to go out and get those links! Why degrade someone elses hard work just because you're the new kid on the block?
Age and a site built for longevity has to count for something! I totally disagree that the quality of the SERPS suffers just because an "older" site does well in the SERPS ... unless of course we are talking about news or current events! Then I can see a definite problem! :)
| 9:13 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Liane / KittyKat
I think the issue is more generically categorized as 'timely' content gone 'stale'. The problem is that detecting when you have 'timely' content is hard enough, nevermind making an algorythmic decision as to when it becomes 'stale'...
A few examples:
A NYT news 'blurb' about an upcomming concert. Timely and current but gets stale quick (after the concert).
A page for a local charitable 'walk-a-thon'. The page describes where, when etc. Clearly a 'timely' information page. But if after the event the entire page remains the same but the webmaster changes some links under it to list the donations raised, results, etc., and only changes the link names and adds a 'thank you' message... It's no longer a 'timely' page, but how can you make a determination progmatically?
And lets throw a half dozen foreign langugages into the mix just for kicks. :)
I like the concept, when there's no ambiguity, but given the hell of getting out of a PR0 penalty now, what would it take to get a PR -1 (or whatever) penalty reversed when you site 'seems timely'?
| 5:12 am on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Why degrade someone elses hard work just because you're the new kid on the block?"
LOL, on webmaster world "doing nothing for four years" becomes hard work!
| 10:57 am on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"That's when you as webmaster need to go out and get those links!"
In my view Web sites should rise or fall based on their own merits not on links from other sites, many of which have questionable value themselves.
I do not intend to add a lot of links to my pages and I pay the price for it under current algorithms. However I do quite well
by just adding more pages to make up for what I consider a penalty. Even with a low PR pages can still get a lot of hits.
I suspect lots of webmasters take this tact and it
just results in a great number of unnecessary pages on the net.
This link requirement really causes a lot of unnecessary
work and cheating on the part of some.
| 11:15 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Jackpot.... I said in a post several weeks ago that to play the Google rankings game is an EXTREMELY high maintenance operation. I invited others to estimate how many hours they put into their Google links programmes.... deafening silence.
If the manhours spent on creating (and maintaning)links is priced at truly representative rates, then it very quickly becomes evident just how expensive this free submission actually is. Adwords, PPC, PFI start to look quite attractive.
Like you, I am not willing to play this game beyond a certain point. I look forward to a return to common sense when the powers that be realize that relevance and on-page content are what the searcher is looking for.... and this farcial over-the-top linkings mania is seen for the nonsense it has become.
Ahhh... that feels better!
| 1:10 am on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As an average person surfing on the web I'm tired of seeing the same Url listed mulitple times for the same search result. There are times that the same company has 10-20 listings in a row. To me that is spamming. What I have read so far is what is best for SEO companies not what the average page developer or surfer wants.
| This 161 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 161 ( 1 2 3 4 5  ) |