homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.236.46
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 > >     
Deteriorating google Search
rajraj




msg:722874
 3:14 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

We all love google coz we thrive and survive on it (due to traffic it provides).

But as a average user, I have been searching for various queries in (my) fav search engine GOOGLE, but the results which it has been throwing up were very vague due to which I had to go through 5 to 6 pages of the serach to get the content which I really needed.

Then I switched to Yahoo, using the same keywords and the search results was pretty relevant to what I needed on the first page itself.

My question do u feel that the serach in the google is deteriorating day by day.

The above example which i gave is not for just one search, I have been noticing this since 30 to 45 days.

what do u guy think about it?

 

soapystar




msg:722934
 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?

Web_speed




msg:722935
 10:21 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Let's face it, the wheels are coming off in Google search. Not enough focus.

I tend to strongly agree with this statement. It's been going on since around mid 2005 and only getting worse since.

IMO,

1. Not enough focus
2. Page rank is dead/busted
3. MC too obsessed with Black Hat shadows

Bye bye Poogle $earch. Your SERPs look like a joke surrounded by ad$.

europeforvisitors




msg:722936
 2:51 pm 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..

Are you sure you aren't talking about Yahoo?

soapystar




msg:722937
 2:54 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

er.......yes im sure.

I said:
In Google big brand sites are now enjoying a big boost.

You dont agree?

Big brand sites are the very sites that can afford the highest bids on ppc

agree?

those sites now have less need to go to ppc.

agree?

Therefore the sites battling to make a living via ppc will be less able to bid as high and the top bids will be reduced.

over to you EFV.

legallyBlind




msg:722938
 4:16 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I agree that it is noticeable that google is somehow rewarding sites with PPC ads. It might be simply related to the fact that they are counting the PPC links as external link. Maybe it's not their intent to do so, but this is what is happening.

if you do a link: www.domain.com to a domain that uses PPCs, notice the blank space between the ":" and the first "w", you will see another set of back links that include ppc ads from google and yahoo alike.

bobmark




msg:722939
 5:53 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would agree that Google diversification/expansion into advertising and now new revenue streams may be the root cause of some problems, at least to the degree that the quality of their search results may no longer be "job 1."

This seems to have resulted - accidentally or deliberately - in some odd practices like the PPC backlink thing mentioned in the previous post. Another example is scraper sites making AdSense buys and appearing as advertising on the very sites they are stealing content from (apparently with the blessing of Google as they claim they review each site).

It will be interesting to see if this expansion will be their downfall as I think you could argue that there is little difference between Google using its near monopoly status in the search market to both promote and limit competition in PPC ads, free sites hosting, calendars, etc. and Microsoft using its defacto monopoly status in desktop software to unfairly limit competition in the browser market.

Course we all know even if a Netscape/Sun Microsystems emerges to initiate a suit, we're looking at years if not decades before anything would happen (if at all).

europeforvisitors




msg:722940
 5:55 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Soapystar, you and I are obviously looking at results for different search terms.

When I search on [specific digital camera], one of the top 10 is Nikon USA, one is Amazon (in spot #8), and the other eight are pages at respected camera-review sites that obviously aren't using PPC advertising. And only two of the top 10 results are big brand-name sites.

When I search on (major city travel], all of the top 10 are content sites, and I doubt if any of them (except possibly Fodor's) use PPC advertising. Most of those sites aren't brand-name sites, either.

When I search on [another major city X-star hotels], the top 10 results include a mixture of editorial and e-commerce results, but the page in the #1 spot--mine--definitely isn't an AdWords advertiser. Nor do I see brand-name hotel or travel advertisers in the search results for that term.

My conclusion? Some search results favor brand names, and others don't, which--in my opinion--clearly demonstrates that there's no pattern of favoring brand name sites (as there is on Yahoo) or PPC buyers.

soapystar




msg:722941
 6:31 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

EFV

yes for your chosen narrow terms what you say is true. However for commercial searches for the most part they do favour big brands. You keep bringing this back to yahoo and im not sure why. The thread is about whether google is better or worse at this point than before BD. Whether its better or worse than yahoo is another debate. Like most people here im a google fan giving my views on the current serps. Those views are valid whether google is the best search engine or not. If my wife dress too sl utty i tell her. It doesnt mean i want a divorce.

further. You seem to take my point about big brands and ppc as a critism of google. Actually if you read it again you will see i saw saying it seemed to me to be opposite to the view that google was making the changes directly to influnce advertising reveune.

gregbo




msg:722942
 8:08 pm 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.

Someone I do business with had that problem a while back. She redid her site (new content, etc.) but it was several weeks between the redesign and getting back into a competitive spot in the SERPs. OTOH, her postion in Y!'s SERPs was not much affected (#1 for some queries).

The Contractor




msg:722943
 8:33 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

The thread is about whether google is better or worse at this point than before BD.

Worse.. often it seems as if they move one step forward and two steps back with the quality of their search results. I'm seeing more and more "coming soon" pages show up and haven't took the time to research why. Number of results returned keep growing (what's the sense?) with many terms increaseing 10-fold like from 24 million to 240 millions results returned - with more crap rising to the top...

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:722944
 9:09 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Whether its better or worse than yahoo is another debate.

Absolutely, and I have never been able to understand why there is no real metric available for SE relevance. We can chew the fat in here for the next ten years but until someone comes up with a reasonable metric this is just (worthless) opinion.

Despite what the Google defenders and sycophants say there is no evidence to support any claim that the G results are in any way superior. The truth of the matter (IMHO) is that there is really nothing to split the major three SEs. They all produce relavant results for some results and poor results for others. There is no stand out search engine any longer and one thing for sure is that Google is no longer the standard bearer.

Note: There is unlikely ever to be any "evidence" because the quality of search results is 100% in the eye of the beholder.

europeforvisitors




msg:722945
 9:25 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

yes for your chosen narrow terms what you say is true. However for commercial searches for the most part they do favour big brands.

I didn't realize that digital cameras, travel, and hotels weren't commercial topics. :-)

You keep bringing this back to yahoo and im not sure why.


Maybe because posters in this thread keep comparing Google's search results to Yahoo and MSN?

Umm, have you not figured it out by now. Google makes its living from pay per click. As long as the pay per clicks are relevant to the searcher why would google care about posting your url for free?

Your fantasy isn't supported by reality: Google's organic search results are filled with pages from sites that could easily be buying PPC ads.

Despite what the Google defenders and sycophants say...

[en.wikipedia.org...]

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:722946
 9:42 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sorry?

To use your source ... "Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy".

The deduction was not rejected because of the source. It was rejected through lack of any evidence being presented or "reasons of credibility" if you like. EFV you are welcome to defend Google as you usually do. But when you do so your case would be more compelling with evidence.

My point is that there is no evidence (other than personal opinion) to suggest that any of the major SEs are better than the others. If you can prove me wrong I will stand corrected.

europeforvisitors




msg:722947
 9:57 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

My point is that there is no evidence (other than personal opinion) to suggest that any of the major SEs are better than the others. If you can prove me wrong I will stand corrected.

What's "better" will always be in the eye of the beholder, if only because different people have different criteria for what search results should include (e.g., "commercial results," "information results," or "my own pages"). But that's hardly justification for making snide remarks about "Google defenders and syncophants" when you don't share the opinions of other members.

texasville




msg:722948
 10:00 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>My point is that there is no evidence (other than personal opinion) to suggest that any of the major SEs are better than the others. If you can prove me wrong I will stand corrected. <<<<

And that is exactly why Google is the leading search engine. Although, I like to refer to it as "shaped perception".
When google first appeared it had a good algorthym and managed to eject a lot of very obvious spam techniques. From then on, it has ridden that perception into a multi billion dollar public offering and is expanding into a behemoth with it's interest varying widely. I suspect Page and Brin have not ventured into the engineering dept. in a long time.
It no longer is the cutting edge search engine. They all run neck and neck. But Google's wheels are coming off. There is nothing consistent about their actions or indexing anymore. I also suspect they are no longer being honest about what is actually going on. If Matt Cutts declared BD has ended, I find it very curious that things are happening to the degree of Florida or Bourbon. Just not to a narrow group of websites. More of a random group.
And now, being black hat or white hat is not a concern. It is happening to both groups equally.

I just wish the general public would understand that the biggest se's are so similar. I would rather that one search engine did not have so much power. Too much damage is caused to commerce when google hiccups and gets something wrong which they seem to be doing frequently now.

soapystar




msg:722949
 10:12 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Maybe because posters in this thread keep comparing Google's search results to Yahoo and MSN?

erm..so you reply to my post by answering someone elses post?
huh?

i said narrow because most of what you said in conection to your examples had nothing to do with my post. You talk about results and 'adwords advertisers' and 'ppc merchants'. I said 'big brands'. So rather than start a debate on exactly whether what you replied with was anything to do with my post i took the spirit of your post and its point. I read this as a narrow since your examples didnt mention big brands making the examples slightly by the by. EFV you simply have not correctly understood my post and mixed this with a reply to everyone else. Its hardly surpising the debate has become somewhat confused. ;)

[edited by: soapystar at 10:18 pm (utc) on April 17, 2006]

europeforvisitors




msg:722950
 10:16 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

If Matt Cutts declared BD has ended...

If I recall correctly, he stated that the rollout of the Big Daddy infrastructure had ended or that the end was in sight. But Big Daddy was never billed as an update a la Florida or Bourbon.

This might be a good time to quote Newwebmster's comment in message #47 of this thread:

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.

bobmark




msg:722951
 2:40 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>My point is that there is no evidence (other than personal opinion) to suggest that any of the major SEs are better than the others. If you can prove me wrong I will stand corrected. <<<<

And that is exactly why Google is the leading search engine. Although, I like to refer to it as "shaped perception".
When google first appeared it had a good algorthym and managed to eject a lot of very obvious spam techniques. From then on, it has ridden that perception into a multi billion dollar public offering and is expanding into a behemoth with it's interest varying widely...

I just wish the general public would understand that the biggest se's are so similar. I would rather that one search engine did not have so much power. Too much damage is caused to commerce when google hiccups and gets something wrong which they seem to be doing frequently now. <<<<

excellent points, texasville.

The problem, of course, is that even if there was an objective measure of search relevance (wonder if there would be any money in developing one?) there are a lot of other factors in popularity. There have been reasonably objective measures of product quality for the fast food industry for years - typically reported by the media - which hasn't seemed to hurt McDonalds who perenially rated poorly (apologies to them if they have improved recently - I haven't looked at the latest results). Same with the auto industry and many other sectors.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:722952
 6:38 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

But that's hardly justification for making snide remarks about "Google defenders and syncophants" when you don't share the opinions of other members.

Whatever gave you the idea that I was referring to you? ;)

In actual fact it seems that there are many more people being critical of G in this thread than is normal, which would suggest circumstantially that their results are deteriorating. I have no real axe to grind with G. My two main sites have continued to punch above their weight on Google throughout Big Daddy and they perform much better there than they do on MSN or Yahoo.

My <opinion>, and that is all that it is, is based purely on the results that I see. I still use Google almost all of the time because I never think to use anything else. When I am struggling to find what I am seeking on G and I decide to go to one of the others I can generally find it. Having said that I (like most of you in here) am not a normal searcher.

soapystar




msg:722953
 4:56 pm on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

What's "better" will always be in the eye of the beholder

I would disagree that the quality of search results cannot be quantified. There is a level at which quality becomes subjective. But there is is a clearly quantifiable level below that on which you can score results. If you search for city travel and get a Viagra site you can clearly say that is a bad result. This is a measure of relevance and not better or worse. There is also a point at which you can can say one page or site is better than another. If one page has 10 facts and another has those exact ten facts plus one other then once again while both are relevant one is clearly and not subjectively better. Just two simplified examples to demonstrate that better or worse results are measurable in a very sophisticated way. It would be a surprise if Google themselves did not have some in-house method of scoring. This is not to say that most comments in the Google forum do not fall into the subjective level rather than measurable. I'm just suggesting that i is a possibility to measure two sets of serps and say one is better or worse than the other without being subjective.

IMHO :)

RS_200_gto




msg:722954
 5:32 pm on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Is Google repeating itself again! Feb-2004 Filter or a 2006 BD-Algo?

Rajkowski put it plainly: "it seems to me that Google has implemented a quality check but for a lack of a better term it's been dubbed as a 'filter.' The main object of the 'filter' was not to filter out sites at all but to simply make sure a site was relevant. Google wanted to know if you were telling the truth that your site was really about what your backlinks and content said you were about."

[#*$!.com...]

soapystar




msg:722955
 5:48 pm on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

how can you not be about what your content says?

g1smd




msg:722956
 5:59 pm on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not the content: but what the incoming links and the on-site title and description say.

e.g. thousands of backlinks for Britney Spears, title and description to match, but when you get the body content you get served with something else....

TristanToxic




msg:722957
 10:31 pm on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've been seeing some really crappy serps since about a week in some industries I'm monitoring. Lots of cloaking/redirecting pages, spyware downloaders etc. dominating at least the first *10* result pages...
It has been I think almost 2 years ago that I even saw any in the first 5 result pages at all...
Wasn't there some sort of search quality report thingy where those things could be reported? I searched the google help but I dindn't find it anymore...

texasville




msg:722958
 1:53 am on Apr 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>>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.<<<<<<

I'm sorry, but I am not buying into this. Google reallly started going downhill with the implementation of BD and has not righted itself. Too many of the same symptoms are exhibited now as at the start of BD.
I think they have started using semantics the way Washington does.
I just know that Google is hurting. It's index is hurting. Just look at the threads here in WW and you will see more moaning and groaning than you do during most updates.
Whatever is happening is a rollling problem. It started in the sites of high return searches such as hotel and travel and has worked itself down to the low return, more obscure niches.
I used to see Google index sites fully and quickly. Not anymore. I launched a site last month. Google first indexed 5 pages of it. It now has two. Yahoo got it second and about half way has it indexed. MSN got it 9 days ago and has it fully indexed properly with all the correct descriptions. It has a sitemap. Should have been that easy for Google.
But google has real problems. It is too busy turning whole sites supplemental and deindexing whole sites.
Maybe if Yahoo would stand up one more time and claim they have the biggest index, Sergey would run downstairs and turn the dials and we would all get our pages back. I wouldn't mind all the 404's coming back. At least, the rest of my site would come back.

eyezshine




msg:722959
 4:21 am on Apr 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google's failure to comment on these problems are going to ruin them.

whiterabbit




msg:722960
 4:40 pm on Apr 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not watching too many serps, I can only comment on the fact that when I do a commercial search in Google, I do have to wade through just about every subdomain that ebay has, to get to the NEW objects that I want to buy (I'm aware of using -ebay, but I find that removes sites which mention ebay)

europeforvisitors




msg:722961
 4:48 pm on Apr 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google's failure to comment on these problems are going to ruin them.

How many Google users and advertisers read search threads at Webmaster World?

Spine




msg:722962
 5:09 pm on Apr 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've been influencing people to start using Yahoo and MSN for months now (as I have been myself), and I'm starting to hear back from them that they prefer the quality of results to Google when they compare.

Word can spread if people are motivated, as many of us are.

Time for the monopoly to start crumbling if you ask me, I'm doing what I can to chip away in my corner of the globe/net.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:722963
 5:40 pm on Apr 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

and I'm starting to hear back from them that they prefer the quality of results to Google when they compare.

As I would have expected and I don't think that this has a lot to do with the quality of the results. I have been using Google for six or seven years and when I use any of the others it does not feel right.

It's like an old pair of shoes. They may not be better than new ones but they are comfortable. I don't think I am alone in this and this is where G holds the BIG advantage.

soapystar




msg:722964
 5:45 pm on Apr 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeDubbleU

good point!

This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved