| 9:52 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
you just made my point. Being new isnt the qualification for a top spot. its content and topicality. A new site has more chance if its about something major currently in the news or curently fashionable in some way. Im not sure content on a new travel site alone would be enough. May i suggest you have promoted your site in some way in order to brinbg it to googles attention which may be more of an explanation that its content.
| 9:56 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> I know everyone will laugh but in my sector MSN produces superb, totally informative, non spammy results.
I'm not laughing. I get the MSN bot around three times as often as the Googlebot and the referrals from MSN have gone up significantly over the past six weeks or so.
| 10:39 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To tell You The truth on widget travel information I rank 4 at MSN as well as widget tourist information
As about Google I am happy as i am at the moment,an do not forget one thing G does not like
"made a new site put a million links"
that will be the death of any new site......
Google knows my site from 3 only links.
| 11:01 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
hi guys, after the last post here, I was searching my site with the keywords in Yahoo and MSN and to my surprise my site really rank well in both of them. I had never looked upon yahoo and msn for the traffic except GOOGLE, but my site fare much better in yahoo and msn.
As my site is general company info site, I have never bother to look from where my visitors were coming as I have not monetize the site nor I am looking it to do in future. But from now, I will give more emphasize to Yahoo and MSN than Big daddy alone.
| 11:08 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
someone said MSN is google 3 years ago. That's exactly right. Which means its very easy to game but can also produce good results. For the most anyone who ever spammed google in the past is ranking well in msn.
| 12:07 pm on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Being new isnt the qualification for a top spot. its content and topicality. |
The problem I find is that if you're searching for, say, a iguana grooming establishment in Anytown, Maine, because of Google's sandbox you're not going to find the new iguana grooming shop for maybe six months or more. Go to MSN and you'll find it in the #1 or #2 spot because it's the only place in Anytown, Maine, that grooms iguanas. But on Google you find nothing.
This preceise thing is happening with a business I designed a website for. They're in a relatively small town (in Maine, as it happens) and they're close to being the only business in town in their particular field. On Google, nada. On MSN, they're #2 [edit: and also #3]. I've been a fanatical Gooogle fan for years, but now I have to say they're starting to suck.
| 1:33 pm on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
that is not strictly true. If your the only shop there, or by far the most relevant you are likely to still show as long as you havent thrown yourself into the sandbox by gaining too many links too quickly.
that was pre bd of course..as things arent quite like that currently.
| 6:51 pm on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Soapystar: what I reported is what has actually happened, whether or not you think it's true.
As reported by Yahoo, the site I'm talking about has gained 29 links -- all from trustworthy sources -- since it was launched. I slightly exaggerated the situation: this organization is not quite the only game in town, but there are only a couple of alternatives.
MSN ranks the site very highly. Yahoo has it near the top of the second page (these searches are for "keyword town state" -- without quotes), and it's nowhere on Google.
A search for "businessname townname state" has the site in second and third place -- after a site in NYC that is related but doesn't even carry a link to the site I'm talking about.
A search for "Businessname" on Google puts this site at #1.
The site is utterly whitehat, and validates. The links are not dynamic. It's a poor showing from Google, whether or not this is related to the sandbox.
| 7:38 pm on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One thing to remember - although this is often also criticized - is that Google has broadened its product offering quite a bit. So for a site like this, backing up your regular optimization with Google Local [google.com] and Google Base [base.google.com] submissions might help a lot. And don't forget the Sitemaps program as well.
RIght now Google reminds me of a photographer whose lens was jarred a bit out of focus as he ran after an enticing action shot. But I do feel they still know what focus is, and that we'll see it more and more. We may not, however, have the same ability to focus them on exactly what we would prefer as webmasters.
| 7:43 pm on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i said pre bd..right now theres a lot of stuff missing..im sure sites as you describe must be among them since many old sites have the same problem...either your a big brand big knob or your nowhere...
| 8:41 pm on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
May be Google is trying to change "serach pattern/habits" of users?
1 year back when I used to search "place name" tourism with an intention to get information about tourism in that area, hotels, travel packages etc. I could see listing of many tour operators and travel agents but now out of top 30 sites majority are general informative websiites, non commercial guides, government websites...
1)Non commercial sites taking top positions
2)Users must change the serach pattern to better look for "tour packages for place name", "holidays at place name" and so on.
still there are atleast 15% sites in Top 30 which are visibly and very clearly black hat SEO. Atleast the industry and KWS I follow!
These sites are normally with copied-content-hyphenated-domian-names sites which merely helps any information rather then Junk of Links to other hub sites of same webmaster.
| 1:07 am on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Might as well start at Wikipedia. I see it at the top of many KW search results in my industry. It's boring and shows an over-reliance (IMHO) on "authority" sites, and less on general page rank/inbound links.
As a webmaster, it looks like I need to get some links inside Wikipedia.
| 1:58 am on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am still 4 places ahead on my main keyword on Wikipedia, but how long? :(
| 2:42 am on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>>>Google Local and Google Base submissions might help a lot. And don't forget the Sitemaps program as well. <<<<<<<<
Google local might work if you be in a high density area but not if you have a business in a smaller area in Texas or someplace similar. It is not unusual for customers of my client to travel 200 miles to patronize his business. But Google local really does not produce traffic.
Google base is beta and I don't think it will work any better than local or "froogle" for that matter.
All of those products are fine for internet buying but if people are doing that, they will put in some kind of location in their search anyway.
| 2:50 am on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a good example of what is really bad about Google rsults that I see every day in my logs.
I have a page optimized for (made up obviously) "Smallville Widgets."
Every day I get vistors whose search term was: "Gotham City Widgets" or "Shangri La Widgets" or "Eldorado Widgets" etc.
You name it, wherever they want widgets, they get my page top 10.
I have no idea why they click on my page in the Google results as there is nothing in the description, page name or anything else to suggest there are widgets in any of these locations on offer - only Smallville Widgets - but I can only wonder how may other destination specific widgets searchers wade through my and other totally irrelevant first page results.
| 3:25 am on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
hmmm...the area I search mostly right now is filled with auction sites, affiliates, cached shopping cart checkout pages, and scrapper sites in the top 10. Clearly a joke. Google right now is kinda like those magic 8 balls ya ask a question and shake up for your answer. You never get the same answer twice, and when ya do, it's not the answer you're hoping for. I switched to Y! a while ago. May not be the best, but it gives me what I'm looking for.
| 2:22 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
1. There is a disconnect for exact phrase matching in alot of searching. Some searches are just fine and then others are just plain whaky.
2. Content and on page factors are less important than ever for competive phrases.
3. Backlinks do not seem to matter that much. Seems like all you need is a handfull of the "right" kind of links for non sandboxed sites.
4. Site theme is dead and meaningless.
5. Word stemming is not working correctly in alot of searches.
6. Goe targeting is not always working the way it should. I have noticed that UK sites in the US are given prefrence over US based sites in alot of searches.
With all of these issues, it is fair to say that Google is not any worse than Yahoo and MSN since they both have there issues as well.
What is dissapointing is the fact that they are no longer way ahead of those engines in terms of relevency only ahead of them in terms of fighting spam. This may be the reason that they are having such a hard time with relevence since they have been spending so much time and resources with fighting spam since Jagger.
Saying Google is deteriorating overall is not fair. You really need to break it down into certain factors of what is or is not deteriorating.
I think all engines have a tough job in filtering through the junk on the internet. Each day more and more junk is being launched. For every good site there is probably 10 spam sites being launched.
Matt Cutts did indicate that there will be improvements developed in the comming months. I think that BD whas kind of like going from Windows 98 to Windows Vista only there has not been any applications launced yet to take advantage of the new infrastructure. We are basically seeing old programming running on a new backwords compatilbe oprerating system.
| 5:48 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see that in spadefuls on [126.96.36.199...] for some queries.
In fact, some of the results look more like those you might get if you had hit the "related" button somewhere, except the function had been changed to be "vaguely related".
| 6:52 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
sore66 my point exactly why Wikipedia seems to be on top of many keywords and others big site that are just boring and dont get real deep into what I was looking for, thats why I say I miss the old days when I use to get small sites with exactly what I was looking and they go deeper on a content, while this big site just say a little of what you want and always leave you hanging and bore to death :)
| 7:17 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i was just looking up a hotel. One of the top reults was..yes you guesed it..wikipedia
was the page about the hotel? NO!
it was mentioned once among a list of hotels in that city...backlinks for that page? 2..both internal!
| 7:48 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|sore66 my point exactly why Wikipedia seems to be on top of many keywords and others big site that are just boring and dont get real deep into what I was looking for, thats why I say I miss the old days when I use to get small sites with exactly what I was looking and they go deeper on a content, while this big site just say a little of what you want and always leave you hanging and bore to death :) |
exactly what i am saying. autogenerate zillion of pages with 'be first to write a review' text. be tops for virtually anything after 4 years.
keep building $hit
| 8:00 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|6. Goe targeting is not always working the way it should. I have noticed that UK sites in the US are given prefrence over US based sites in alot of searches. |
Geotargeting is not a guaranteed service. IMO, one shouldn't rely on it.
Speaking of Wikipedia, I'm actually finding it quite useful for finding information. I've started relying on it more.
| 8:49 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>>Saying Google is deteriorating overall is not fair. You really need to break it down into certain factors of what is or is not deteriorating. <<<<<
It is accurate and fair. You don't need to break down every component to know it is not working the way it used to. Analysis of breakdown is the google engineers job.
>>>>>Matt Cutts did indicate that there will be improvements developed in the comming months. I think that BD whas kind of like going from Windows 98 to Windows Vista only there has not been any applications launced yet to take advantage of the new nfrastructure.>>>>>
Big Daddy is still going on. There has been no statement that it is finished and there is so much still happening. Matt said it would be finished in mid march. We are in mid-April and no end in sight.
Let's face it, the wheels are coming off in Google search. Not enough focus.
| 9:53 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
ive long had a theory that when google is doing stuff big time behind the scenes..or just before an update...they turn the authority/trustrank scoring up way high..this has the effect of msaking whats happening to the bulk of the serps and makes sure spam doesnt take over the sserps..then when they finnish doing their stuff behind the scenes they turn it back down again to let some of the smaller niche sites take a place in the serps....
then again i believe in the loch ness monster....
| 11:18 pm on Apr 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I use Yahoo or MSN when I need local info. (Los Angeles) Unfortunately Google doest not consider "LA" as a search term so when I search for "LA widgets" I do get results only for "widgets". The results for "widgets" are way off. When I search for "Los Angeles Widgets" I do get some results related to Los Angeles but many websites with domain name including LA in stead of Los Angeles are not included. As you can imagine there is tons of local websites using the "LA" term unfortunately they are only visible to me when using Yahoo or MSN.
| 7:45 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>Big Daddy is still going on. There has been no statement that it is finished and there is so much still happening. Matt said it would be finished in mid march. We are in mid-April and no end in sight.
MC said Big Daddy has finished in his Grab a Bag answers post.
What we have not had is any statement or progress on the issues that Big Daddy is supposed to address.
| 8:04 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't think they really understand what the problems are until they try to build a new website from scratch without linking to it from one of their own websites with high PR.
Matt Cutts should try that. Build a website from scratch and try to keep it and all it's pages in google without using his "power/authority" to get links to it.
Try to do it "naturally" and see how long it takes to make money "naturally". I bet he can't do it without using his name or links from his website he owns or works for.
| 8:49 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
">>>>>Big Daddy is still going on"
yes and who knows....
The real Big Daddy will show the new Google face and index after the new PR IBL update(millions of lost pages that have been reindexed have at the moment PR0).Until then just wait and see.
| 9:29 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't quite understand the title "Deteriorating Google Search"
I only know my niche, but that has shown slow steady improvement over months and years. -Larry
| 9:31 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You will always find exactly what you are looking for if you look at the PPC ads.
PPCs will bring better income if relevant sites are demoted. I strongly disbelieve that Google cannot "SOLVE ISSUES" with top PHDs and other Engineers working for them. Issues started with IPO and now income is the # 1 thing on Google's list, hence $400+ stock price. Very nice business model I say.
| 9:49 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
excpt they are rewarding the sites most lilely to afford higher ppc...big brands are now promoted in serps..the types that before had their affiliates doing will like the big travel sites..these people no longer need to bid high as they are cleaning up in the main serps...along with the biggest affiliate sites on the net...trypadvisor and yahoo-travel....the very ones who could the bid most on ppc no longer need to...so does this fit the idea that its all for bigger ppc revenue?
| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1  3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |