homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.168.96
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

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?

 

Haecceity




msg:722994
 11:01 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

We have already covered the fact that there is no effective means of comparing results from the search engines, mainly because the results are subjective.

This is simply untrue. Subjective factors can be measured in marketing, and it's done all the time. Give 1000 people coke and pepsi and ask them which they prefer. Preference is subjective. It's also measurable.

Haecceity




msg:722995
 11:03 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

well, one who finds the metric would simply set up their own search engine. if one can decide which SE is the best, they know how all of them work.

Completely illogical. If you have a metric to measure whether more people prefer coke or pepsi, that tells you how many people prefer coke or pepsi. It doesn't give you the recipe for either of those beverages. Same with search engines.

soapystar




msg:722996
 11:54 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

i like the coke comparison because you can also influence what someone THINKS they prefer by suggesting which brand they are trying.....

Haecceity




msg:722997
 12:11 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good point, Soapystar. If you were going to measure the satisfaction of users with regard to various search engines, you'd get more useful information if you put the results through a neutral GUI so that people didn't know which engine they were using. Otherwise some would think "Google=good" while others would think the opposite.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:722998
 12:48 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

This is simply untrue. Subjective factors can be measured in marketing, and it's done all the time. Give 1000 people coke and pepsi and ask them which they prefer. Preference is subjective. It's also measurable.

This is most certainly not "untrue" but perhaps you misunderstood me. You are correct that subjective factors can be measured in marketing but this involves market research. There would be no problem if all that was involved was a SE user poll and this would work to an extent. But, and it's a very big BUT, search engines are not a simple product like Coke or Pepsi so it is not quite so simple.

I was actually referring to the difficulties involved in employing a more scientific approach. It is easy to quantify opinion but more difficult to automate this. For example, if I personally decide that I am going to do a scientific comparison of the three major SEs then any scoring would be based on my opinion. This would be highly subjective.

There are no real measures of SE quality available. Believe me, I have looked.

soapystar




msg:722999
 1:36 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

the important thing about webmaster opinions on the serps is that they are uniquely able to tell which sites are missing..and which sites may look clean but are wrapping other peoples content or such like...its webmasters who can actually look at a serps and say yes this is better or this is worse....which is the whole point of this thread...

is the google serps currently better or worse overall for bugs and relvancy than before bd?

personally for me its worse......

europeforvisitors




msg:723000
 3:04 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

the important thing about webmaster opinions on the serps is that they are uniquely able to tell which sites are missing..and which sites may look clean but are wrapping other peoples content or such like...its webmasters who can actually look at a serps and say yes this is better or this is worse....which is the whole point of this thread...

better = "I'm ranking higher"

worse = "I'm ranking lower" (often accompanied by "Google is corrupting its search results to sell more AdWords and put Webmasters out of business")

cleanup




msg:723001
 3:21 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

EFV = "Google can do no wrong...ever...whatever." :)

I still use Google. But all the time there are and continue to be critical bugs that Google cannot or will not fix then there will continue to be threads will the subjct matter of this one. Anything else is just denial. IMO

soapystar




msg:723002
 3:25 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

edit

soapystar




msg:723003
 3:32 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

better = "I'm ranking higher"

worse = "I'm ranking lower" (often accompanied by "Google is corrupting its search results to sell more AdWords and put Webmasters out of business")

EFV
I hope you are not inferring thats the meaning of my post. Of course anyone actually reading my post will see thats not the case. I only point this out since you already have misrepresented one of my previous posts.

If your hopefully making a general point then its hard to see how you can take the occasional comment along those lines and ignore the many that express a considered opinion. You need to start balancing some of your posts to give the impression they are also considered opinions.

The Contractor




msg:723004
 3:37 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

better = "I'm ranking higher"

worse = "I'm ranking lower" (often accompanied by "Google is corrupting its search results to sell more AdWords and put Webmasters out of business")

That is true in 99% of the cases, but I can say with all honesty this is not how I "vote".

It seems like forever since I saw so many "Coming Soon" and actual "Page Not Found" in the serps and ranking well. I am guessing that Google is letting expired domains back into the serps as long as they are "live". It's also my guess that their crawling has been minimized in some way or at least put on the back burner as far as consuming resources.
Why webmasters (I can't stand that term) are allowing their 404 pages to be indexed is beyond me ...hehe ...especially when their custom 404 pages do not include navigation (why not a noindex, follow meta tag with navigation). What confounds me even more is why Google would rank 404 pages that simply states "page not found" or similar (besides backlinks to a page that doesn't exist). Have they really thrown out all content on a page as irrelevant?

I have also noticed they are dropping caches of pages that have been around (and cached) for months across all DC's, yet ranking/showing caches of pages that haven't been around in literally a couple years. My guess is there is a problem somewhere as I can't imagine this being done purposely. Their index is a mess in my opinion.

mattg3




msg:723005
 4:03 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

better = "I'm ranking higher"

worse = "I'm ranking lower" (often accompanied by "Google is corrupting its search results to sell more AdWords and put Webmasters out of business")

Hmm, denying everybody a valuable opinion that has a critical eye towards Google is overemotional. The reality will likely be that personal opinion is obviously swayed by ones own empirical situation. Likely also yours or mine.

But whatever the personal experiences, it is highly likely that any government that would constantly globally redesign the infrastructure around the main shopping district would be under much more scrutiny than Google, even if their intention would be to reroute crime.

Maybe business is faster these days, but higher frequencies in updates make business predictions now so unsure that it starts to become pointless again to use the net as anything else then a wee lookout if there is a cure for ingrown toenails.

europeforvisitors




msg:723006
 4:42 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

The reality will likely be that personal opinion is obviously swayed by ones own empirical situation. Likely also yours or mine.

Precisely, which is why Webmasters aren't uniquely qualified to judge the state of the index. Librarians and professional researchers would have a more objective view.

mattg3




msg:723007
 5:13 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Precisely, which is why Webmasters aren't uniquely qualified to judge the state of the index. Librarians and professional researchers would have a more objective view.

There are still some objective facts:

1.) More frequent updates now with BD everflux
2.) Missing pages
3.) Variable traffic patterns
4.) Google adding more and more competition with several content areas, travel, evergreen content etc etc.

this results in a very insecure and unpredictable infrastructure for any business, regardless if yours is up or down in the moment.

europeforvisitors




msg:723008
 5:51 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

1.) More frequent updates now with BD everflux

Hasn't the everflux been going on for quite a while now? For the terms that I watch, it doesn't seem any worse now than it did months ago.

2.) Missing pages

Nothing new about that.

3.) Variable traffic patterns

Do you mean variation in the number of referrals from Google? If so, that hasn't been my experience, at least since I fixed my www-vs-non-www problem with a 301 redirect last year. And several other members have commented on how nothing has changed with BD from their point of view. (That doesn't mean things haven't changed for some site owners; it just means that specific experiences don't always support generalizations.)

4.) Google adding more and more competition with several content areas, travel, evergreen content etc etc.

I have a travel site, and I think Google Travel will be more of a competitor to Yahoo Travel, MSN Travel, Expedia, Travelocity, etc. than to niche travel sites like mine. But that's a topic for another thread:

[webmasterworld.com...]

mattg3




msg:723009
 6:11 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi I read your travel site (I am from Europe) and I can remember your comments about the competition and travel and in depth etc. I am sure that G might not be able to compete with all pages/sites.

Nevertheless with this book scanning that both G and Y have on and of in planning. In case they opt for a in depth travel guide they buy from someone, I wouldn't be so sure.

In my sector it is pretty pointless to try to compete with both the book scanning project and google scholar and G's love with wikipedia.

There is a small niche I can operate in (communication is G's weak point), but that's about it.

ulysee




msg:723010
 6:30 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

I see people who aren't being objective about Google serps on both sides of the coin.

I made an objective post at the begining of this thread then later on I talked about my own "self interest".

People should say if they are talking about their sites or about being "Joe sufer" who searches for other things that isn't of his or her own niche.

The Contractor




msg:723011
 6:40 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Call me "Joe" - my comments have nothing to do with any specific niche.

edited:BTW I see in different Google threads people are noticing the same that I stated about caching problems etc. Take a look at [webmasterworld.com...]
msg #:18
yep suffering from the same problem pages not getting indexed, pages that have PR not showing as cached its all acting very odd right now

Googles index is a mess right now, whether people don't go outside their niche to see it or others are in denial that Google can be a mess at times (not by plan). I don't usually post to Google threads except I noticed there was a problem. Again, has nothing to do with any particular niche or my own sites.

[edited by: The_Contractor at 6:52 pm (utc) on April 21, 2006]

europeforvisitors




msg:723012
 6:47 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

People should say if they are talking about their sites or about being "Joe sufer" who searches for other things that isn't of his or her own niche.

I've been doing quite a bit of Google searching outside my niche lately. For the most part I've encountered adequate results--not perfect, but better than what I was seeing a year or two ago, when pages with boilerplate content were likely to rank higher in SERPs than it does now. (I do think Google needs to be more aggressive in policing duplicate content; when I'm looking for a notebook review, why would I want to see the same CNet review listed twice on the first page of the SERPs at cnet.com and zdnet.com?)

soapystar




msg:723013
 6:48 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

The Contractor

ditto

idolw




msg:723014
 6:53 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

this results in a very insecure and unpredictable infrastructure for any business, regardless if yours is up or down in the moment

but this is google's business. and it is apparently profitable if they keep on doing this.

these guys made their dream come true. the entire world is helping them to improve and paying them even if they do badly :-)

Remember that google search engine is not world's heritage or owned by the world. it belongs to google inc. and it was designed and built to make money for google inc.

idolw




msg:723015
 6:59 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

(I do think Google needs to be more aggressive in policing duplicate content; when I'm looking for a notebook review, why would I want to see the same CNet review listed twice on the first page of the SERPs at cnet.com and zdnet.com?)

EFV, the problem here is that these duplicate reviews are just a tiny part of the content the bot sees on the page.
look at the zillion of internal links on these pages and all the stuff around these 50 duplicate words.

I guess they have problems with that, too.

europeforvisitors




msg:723016
 7:14 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Googles index is a mess right now, whether people don't go outside their niche to see it or others are in denial that Google can be a mess at times (not by plan).

None of us can see "the index." We can see only a tiny part of the index as it's presented to us for a given search at a given point of time.

So the "index" that you're looking at may be a mess, while the "index" that I was looking at a moment ago (outside my niche, by the way) was the best that I've seen in a long time.

The Contractor




msg:723017
 7:42 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

So the "index" that you're looking at may be a mess, while the "index" that I was looking at a moment ago (outside my niche, by the way) was the best that I've seen in a long time.

Well I have checked several of the datacenters ...so I don't think it's only what I'm seeing. If two of the same reviews on the same page of serps is a problem in your eyes, how can you ignore all the other problems.

Ok here is a test, you complained about duplicate content being a problem.
How about doing a search for allinurl 404.htm, .html, .php, .shtml or other type of error pages like 403.htm, 500.htm etc

Or do a search for allintitle:not found or allintitle: 403 Access Denied

Yes, you see some pages that actually discuss the subject, but the rest are error pages - why list all these error pages? Let alone ranking "coming soon" and page not found (404 pages).

This isn't the real problem and it's up to them if they want to clog up their index and boost the index size with pages like this, but there is a definite problem with their index when they are showing pages/caches in their search results that haven't been around in years. If they were as on the ball as you like to credit them for, why would they clog up their index with maybe millions of error pages?

Now, I don't need people to agree with me EFV, but you have to be about the only person I know that has said they are showing the best results "in a long time". I guess it depends what a long time is and I may be a bit nostalgic here believing they actually showed better results a few years back.

edited: I think I figured out what their problem is with their index showing pages in the serps that haven't been around in literally 18-24 months. It's really not a problem, they are trying to take away business from archive.org... brilliant Google, simply brilliant...hehe

steveb




msg:723018
 8:43 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

"There are no real measures of SE quality available."

Of course their are. I don't know why people want to make this some "beauty is in the eys of the beholder" type of philospohical gobbledygook. Google has its own search guidelines. When high ranking sites don't meet the criteria of the engines own guidelines, or violate the text of their spam report pages, this is an objective measure of the engine's quality. You can hide or pretend all you want, but some measures do exist, and basically almost all of us know that.

Whether brett tabke or danny sullivan should be the subject of some site returned for a specific niche term is splitting hairs where there may not be an obvious answer, but when the first result is a redirect, and the second result is hijacking, and the third result is a misidentified canonical page, and the fourth result is "BLOG PAGE REMOVED", and the fifth result a page that was removed from the Internet eighteen months ago... if the engines say these are bad, then the quality of the results is in fact bad, not something immeasurable.

europeforvisitors




msg:723019
 8:45 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Contractor, it's easy to find examples of bad SERPs in Google, just as it's easy to find examples of good SERPs. But that's always been true. A few years ago, a user couldn't conduct any kind of travel search without encountering a zillion boilerplate affiliate pages. Today, much of the affiliate clutter is gone, but we see too many made-for-AdSense sites with thousands (millions?) of computer-generated, keyword-driven pages. And obviously, there have been problems with canonicals and supplementals and error pages or what have you. But that doesn't mean "the index" is a mess; it simply means that results for certain but not all searches are a mess (which isn't anything new in Google, or in Yahoo or MSN for that matter).

Also--as others, including Matt Cutts, have suggested--Big Daddy is a new infrastructure, and the results of that new infrastructure are a work in progress. What you see today isn't likely to be what you'll see a month or a year from now. So, even if "the index" were "a mess" right now, one could easily say "So what? Google is obviously less concerned with short-term issues than with laying the groundwork for improved results over the long term."

The Contractor




msg:723020
 9:17 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

But that doesn't mean "the index" is a mess; it simply means that results for certain but not all searches are a mess (which isn't anything new in Google, or in Yahoo or MSN for that matter).

Also--as others, including Matt Cutts, have suggested--Big Daddy is a new infrastructure, and the results of that new infrastructure are a work in progress. What you see today isn't likely to be what you'll see a month or a year from now. So, even if "the index" were "a mess" right now, one could easily say "So what? Google is obviously less concerned with short-term issues than with laying the groundwork for improved results over the long term."

See, that's where we disagree. If they are including literally millions of pages that are no longer available or even entire sites - it affects all search results and all sites/pages that are around and up to date. Nothing personal EVF, but sometimes you have to drop the pom poms down to your side and call it how it is. Yes, their index is a mess, and yes it affects all searches whether you see it or not - especially if they rank these pages/sites within the 1st few pages. I personally do not have anything against Google, they pay me quite a bit of money, but they only do that because it benefits them. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just don't lose sight of that fact. When they take several steps backwards than what you have come to expect (constant flux), I'll say so.

I'm not here to debate "quality", I'm here to state they have a problem with their index if you look around a bit and also read other threads of people losing thousands of pages in the index at the same time people are having 1000's of "dead" pages resurrected in the serps.

I think they have turned the knob so far towards the "age" side when they are ranking sites - they are digging up the internet graveyard.

Haecceity




msg:723021
 9:39 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeDubbleU:
You are correct that subjective factors can be measured in marketing but this involves market research. There would be no problem if all that was involved was a SE user poll and this would work to an extent. But, and it's a very big BUT, search engines are not a simple product like Coke or Pepsi so it is not quite so simple.

There's no difference in principle. An important thing in evaluating search engines is user satisfaction. Sure, it's more complicated because testing a number of search engines is not as simple as tasting a number of soft drinks, but there's no reason why this can't be done, and I'm sure it is. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Google, Yahoo, etc, use focus groups or controlled studies to evaluate comparitive results. They'd be crazy not to.

I was actually referring to the difficulties involved in employing a more scientific approach.

So you assume that market research is of necessaity unscientific? That's interesting.

It is easy to quantify opinion but more difficult to automate this. For example, if I personally decide that I am going to do a scientific comparison of the three major SEs then any scoring would be based on my opinion. This would be highly subjective.

Quantifying opinion would be objective. Scoring systems could also be objective. You could set up a series of random data that you want to find on the web (Q1: What's Tony Blair's birthday), enter a relevant search query into a number of engines ("Tony Blair birthday") and see whether the top three results in each search engine give you the data you're searching for. There's nothing unobjective about that, espeically if the experiment is run blind so that you don't know which search engine is being used at any given time.

There are no real measures of SE quality available. Believe me, I have looked.

You looked and didn't find something, ergo it doesn't exist. Interesting.

g1smd




msg:723022
 9:57 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> On 216.239.57.99 (or your fave DC), search for "webmasterworld" <<

I visited the #10 result, and the #11 result also showed as having been "visited" too. Hmmmmm.

g1smd




msg:723023
 10:51 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> I have also noticed they are dropping caches of pages that have been around (and cached) for months across all DC's, yet ranking/showing caches of pages that haven't been around in literally a couple years. <<

Investigate which of those results are tagged as "Supplemental Results". This problem has been around for about two years already, and I thought that it would have been fixed a very long time ago...

europeforvisitors




msg:723024
 11:19 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nothing personal EVF, but sometimes you have to drop the pom poms down to your side and call it how it is.

What "pom poms"? I'd be the last person to say that Google's SERPs are perfect. But I'm also objective enough to recognize that some SERPs are adequate (or even pretty good) even if others aren't--and that generalizations like "the index is a mess" are subjective in the same way that "the economy is a mess" or "the Internet is a mess" are subjective.

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