|Another fallacy. G traffic is no more free than a deer which I have to spend hours hunting down |
You are confusing "free" with "no cost"
Google, Linux, DMOZ, Microsoft security patches, viruses, etc are all free -- you are not charged money to access them.
But they are not no cost -- there are implications for choosing or using them.
It's a crucial distinction if you wish to flourish in the online world.
When a particular player in a market gets too big issues may arise. This will be especially so when that player stops listening to its constituency. Google has 2 classes of users: searchers and webmasters/advertisers. Google was brought to prominence when both classes of users went head-over-heels for its search product. One would be deluding oneself if one were to argue that both searchers and webmasters are still just as satisfied with Google search product as they were 4 years ago. Google stopped listening to their constituency and I get a clear feeling that THEY SIMPLY DO NOT CARE.
|Zero discussion of how to work around it (until Rosalind's lucid post, that is), zero discussion about what WE can do. Just a bunch of bellyaching about what Google should or should not be doing. |
A made a very reasonable suggestion on what to do but apparently it is against the TOS of this website, but just because it is against the TOS of this website doesn't make it a non-viable solution. You are correct, there is nothing one website or webmaster can really do but remove themselves from google.
<Google took something that existed before it did (the internet) and created a search engine that took creative advantage of it. Now we must do the same: take something that exists (the way Google chooses on any given day to run it's business) and try to take creative advantage of it. This has always been the game and will continue to be the game ....>
I like what I read :)
I have made few attempts to drive discussion in the direction of ceative thinking for solutions and ways to adopt. However it seems that the majority wish to wait..see and do nothing.
Please read few of my posts to see for yourself.
Hey if some other search engine emerges with 'less gadgets' and takes over a big slice of the search market, we will all be optimizing for that one and google will be secondary.
or if a higher paying 'text link ads' comes on the market and adsense is treating me bad I can rip adsense out and replace it with the new one.
who knows maybe in a few months we will be 'optimizing for google facts'
we go where the traffic is and where the money is, simple as that.
<Hey if some other search engine emerges with 'less gadgets' and takes over a big slice of the search market, we will all be optimizing for that one and google will be secondary.>
Good morning Reid
Just testing SEO for the new Google. In a nutshell; diluting the traditional SEO variables.
Guess what happened?
I can see a boost in traffic from Yahoo and MSN as a "side effect" :)
Lots of good ideas here, one that made me smile was msg #:44, because that was my first thought on seeing this new "answer feature."
It's true that we'll take our traffic where we can get it. But I am seeing a high percentage of poorly targeted traffic from G lately which doesn't benefit me or the searcher. Luckily, I get so little traffic from G these days that it's not a bandwidth problem. BTW, it is possible to survive (and then some) with very little G traffic.
We all know that due to its popularity, the way G interprets the web tends to change the web itself. If 1) G introduces a feature that looks cool but doesn't really work right in that it often provides off topic or incorrect results and 2) publishers try to rank well within this malfunctioning feature, then what will those publishers' pages look like and will they have any real value to the human who performed the search?
Think about that. If I optimize a page for an algorithm that I know prefers wrong answers...
Although the quality of regular SERPs have been in decline lately, they still beat the pants off this "feature." I would be happy to optimize for this feature if I had more confidence in it. I don't think they can provide quality results if they pull from multiple, unvetted sources. Providing answers from an inhouse source would ensure quality, but then we couldn't compete for the slot, could we?
By offering a factual snippet from a web site as an answer to a specific question, G risks its reputation on the accurracy of the answer in a way that it doesn't in delivery of the regular SERPs.
With a return of regular SERPs, G presents you with a set of links to documents with some outward signs of overall quality and pertinence to the subject in question. It is up to the searcher to properly use the information G has offered. But when G unequivocally states that Thatcher is the PM, then the burden of the error is entirely on G.
Do you think Tony Blair uses Yahoo?
I really think this feature has some potential, but the negative thing I see right now is, that Google is beeing too minimalistic here...
if you saw that presentation at the washington university: "Rolling hash" can be a niche question of a C++ coder or an information request of a drug abuser... why does google take one and leave the other out.
There should be something like a table on top with the statement, that there are at least 4 possible answers to this question and that google took one by their algo...
if you tell people just half of the truth it is as wrong as telling people a complete lie.
Googles policy of minimalistic, and then hopefully fast layout and information presenting has reach the limit of functionality. Yes things must be easy, but not by any means!
My 2 cents,
Somebody said a little while back in this thread that you can opt-out of google. And without getting into the other implications of this i'd ask:
Why should I opt-out. Surely I should have to opt-in in the first place... I should have to set my robots.txt and meta data in the html head to "allow", rather than google etc assume I want to be listed unless I specifically say I don't want them to...
Its really a excellent thing google has introduced...it will be of great help but the question is whether they will be able to display the correct result or the current result. Right now what i have seen that for few questions the results they are showing were very old and some of them are not at all correct. They really need to check this out and try to fix the problem.
|Its really a excellent thing google has introduced... |
Its been done before and Googles attempt seems pretty mediocre to me, some of the fact results are just down right bad.
I remember something similar to this a while back, created by MIT.
They have the
"START Natural Language Question Answering System"
(i'd post the url but ...)
It's basically an AI project that answers the correct answers to questions such as
"Who is XXXXX?"
"Which is the largest country?"
|...it will be of great help but the question is whether they will be able to display the correct result or the current result. |
Doesn't seem like it so far. As a searcher, I have a topic, and I'm usually looking for more information for that topic. Even if I have a specific question I'm trying to find an answer for, I like it to be surrounded with more information. (umm... much like what you find on a website.)
Even if I think they give me the right answer, they just stuck something else in my way before I can get to the search results. Even that is enough to make me not like the feature as a user.
When google returns a result at the top of *their* page that I know is incorrect, it is google who loses credibility... not the "According to" url.
The problem with Google is the serps with the current answers are all stuck in the sandbox. Check back in 6 months or 9 or....
Ok. Quality aside .. if this feature is here to stay, how does one get into that list of sites where they pull the information from?
Id say clear history folder
turn on google toolbar and go surfing on your own website for a while (to fill the history folder with internal links)
then with the toolbar still on, go do some google searches for your main keywords.
Google facts SEO complete.
>> The dollar-a-year chief executive is usually brought in to save companies in almost terminal decline.
I guess I don't see the hoopla with all this. First, it's just a stolen idea that has been around for years. Nothing surprising to see Google stealing something from someone else. I mean isn't their whole business model based on stealing (PPC from Overture, content from Webmasters)?
As for hurting webmasters, I don't see it yet. First, the majority of these searches are not going to yeild much in terms of good traffic. I'd also guess to say that none of these are competitive commercial terms.
Lastly, it's just another half done feature by Google. It semi-works, like most of Google's new features, and will probably never evolve into a polished, completed product. Let's be honest, outside of their search, what "new feature" has Google really been succesful at adding to their site.
|what "new feature" has Google really been succesful at adding to their site. |
ok better yet, if you type in "who is the pope" and look at images then you should find a good laugh
I did a search today for "How to repair a leaky widget." The results were a network of spam, above the fold. The adwords were also irrevelent. (But any newbie user wouldn't have known that) I checked out a couple of the top returns and got disgusted and clicked out.
Then I typed in my local widget repair store in town. Google return zero results.
So, then guess what, I actually had to locate my phone book in the closet.
Was google any help to me today" No, not at all.
my post was off-topic
|Craven de Kere|
A recent query of mine about night shifts returned a google answer about Steven King's book "Night Surf".
There was nothing in my query to make the serving of that answer seem any less retarted.
"The dollar-a-year chief executive is usually brought in to save companies in almost terminal decline."
The reason they're taking a $1 is because they don't need to and it looks good, as far as press goes. They plan on selling $ billions in stock this year, don't they? Let's not kid ourselves.
| This 85 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 85 ( 1 2  ) |