| 4:06 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've heard the same from a research librarian and a college professor -- both unsolicited opinions that came in the past week.
Of course there are many such reports here from webmasters on the same issue, but we all want to see our own projects on page one, so those reports can tend to biased. This is the first time I've heard this criticism from people who aren't web developers.
The issues seemed to start mildly mildly, with the three part "Jagger" update last fall - but then it became much more pronounced with the recent roll-out of the new Big Daddy infrastructure. The data that is currently being used seems often to be way out of date and that can mean noticeably poor results.
I would like to see Google back in top form -- but then again I also would like to see more significant traffic from the competition search engines. At any rate, your observations are certainly being echoed by others.
[edited by: tedster at 10:05 pm (utc) on April 14, 2006]
| 4:14 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I dont find any problems with Google. Google usually gives Authority sites in its first page serps. Yahoo lists all garbage new comer sites in its first page serps. If you want some new sites on google, then you should go to 5 or 6 page.
| 4:27 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I find myself searching on yahoo about 40% of the time now because I can't find what I'm looking for on Google.
Before 4-5 months back I used Google 95% of the time to find what I was looking for.
I just hope that one day Google's search results become as relevant as they were before Big Daddy and some of Jagger......
| 4:35 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
yes you get authority sites on google....but perhaps 3 out of the first ten...the rest is a mish mash...you can see there are trying to show a spectrum of sites that are cleverly related to some of the search woprtds but as a phrase they are way off..the niche sites arent there giving a very boring look to the results..the authority sites seem to be just that..big brand name sites with broad match to the search but not focussed on it...also its the same sites now for all searches...so if you search travel its trypadvisor..search books its amazon..search gernal information its wikipedia....bookmark a few of these big sites and you have 30% of the google serps in your bookmarks....
|King of all Sales|
| 4:39 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A couple of months back, I came home one day to find that my wife had switched the default on the home computer to Yahoo. The problem?
She told me that when she finds a site she wants to spend more time on, she usually doesn't bookmark it - she just remembers where she saw it. She was finding that on Google, she would return, sometimes just hours later and the site would be nowhere to be found. This was happening to her pretty much on a constant basis.
When I explained that serps change all the time on all the engines, she told me that she understands that but she expects to find what she was looking for within a page or so of where she first saw it.
At any rate, she is extremely happy with Yahoo. I think her methods are fairly typical which doesn't bode well for G.
| 5:11 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I get much better search results in Google than in Yahoo or MSN. As for the question of whether Google search is deteriorating, I'd have to say "no." Example: It wasn't that long ago that a search for a digital camera would return page after page of affiliate spam or boilerplate dealer copy. Now it's likely to return results for the manufacturer's information page and high-quality review sites.
I think it's important to remember that Google is having to aim its junk-fighting efforts at constantly moving targets, and the sheer volume of spam (such as massive keyword-driven, computer-driven sites) is growing exponentially. Considering what Google is up against, it's amazing that the search results are as good as they are.
| 5:26 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Intresting EFV - I dont really see that.
Just went to Kelkoo, a popular UK price comparison site, searched for a Digital Camera - picked one out and then ran it through the Google search - the results were pretty much the following. In the top 40 probably 5-6 results from different Kelkoo sub-domains. (I wish Google would sub-domain cluster) Some affiliates of Kelkoo of varying quality. Some boilerplate, some with review sections, some making themselves more unique (? - in G eyes perhaps) by providing a page of every single digital camera from Kelkoo. A number of other shopping comparison sites. Directory pages that list pages from the above 3.
Personally I can search with Google with little trouble as I would use techniques like -kelkoo -price -compare etc to remove results I did not want and I never have expected G to come up with the result first time around, therefore I refine my search etc, always have been happy doing it this way.
I am more worried about what Google are missing at the moment though and I think that is what is being experienced more than anything - whether this is due to over zealous filters (is a balancing act of course) or issues with crawling due to hijack/canonical and other issues may become clearer in time.
| 6:01 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|do u feel that the serach in the google is deteriorating day by day. |
No, in fact the opposite. (it's harder to rank, thats for sure!)
We tend to focus on the areas we work so our experiences will admittedly be some what skewed. However, we see Google pulling a head more and more. Yahoo has some serious ranking issues that they mask with hand editing, (lets not debate the merits of it here), in addition to the problem with the penalties, and MSN is the Google-of-3-years-ago.com
I really wish it were a tighter race, but right now technically it's looks to us like a horizon job.
Of course the person who really needs to answer this question is Joe surfer who doesn't know a thing about crawling, caching and fighting spam.
| 6:50 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For a bunch of terms I follow regularly, today the first page has 3 to 5 sites which are PDF files. While I understand the PDF file may have relavent material on it, it is in fact a document and not actually a web page. If I were looking for a document I'd have looked for that doc type. A far better result in my opinion would be to return the page that links to the PDF, to give the user the option to download it.
| 7:24 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I still think Google is putting out quite a bit better results than the other SE's. Affiliate spam seems to have been drastically reduced over the past year and I rarely come across scraper sites except on very oddball search terms.
That said, I do have one complaint about their SERPS right now. That is, the SERPS tend to be dominated by the same sites over and over and over again. Searches for products almost invariably have Amazon, Nextag, Shopping.Com and similar type of sites high in the SERPS - regardless of what you are looking for.
Maybe that is a good thing, maybe not - guess it depends on your perspective. But it does seem to makes the results a bit stale
| 7:48 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm very disappointed in Google's results these days. A trivial but typical example:
Yesterday I was looking for comparison tests on environmentally dishwasher detergents. Google thinks that if I'm looking for "dishwash*er* detergent" I must also want "dishwash*ing* detergent" which is a completely different product. Put dishwashing detergent in a dishwasher and you have a sitcom incident on your hands.
So most of the results were irrelevant right from the start. And then most of what came up was effectively ads for single products and no comparisons. I'm having this kind of problem with most of my information-based searches. Poor results.
For comparison I did the same search on Yahoo. The results were a bit better, and at least I got some relevant information on the first page, even if it was result #8.
| 7:57 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I've heard the same from a research librarian and a college professor -- both unsolicited opinions that came in the past week. |
what where they searching for? IMO google gives pretty nice results for non-commercial terms.
|I get much better search results in Google than in Yahoo or MSN. As for the question of whether Google search is deteriorating, I'd have to say "no." Example: It wasn't that long ago that a search for a digital camera would return page after page of affiliate spam or boilerplate dealer copy. Now it's likely to return results for the manufacturer's information page and high-quality review sites |
how about the tripadvisor and yahoo travel 'be the first to rate city hotels' pages ranking everywhere in your niche, EFV?
i personally hate that. it looks like it is enough to saturate your pages with the word 'review', auto-create zillion of pages and you get high position in google for anything you want within 2-4 years.
| 8:03 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've noticed it too ever since Google moved from All words or Exact Phrase to "any words" as long as they are from an "Authority Website" - totally suck. Totally irrelevant results. ONe really has to drill down or set up a lot of parameters in the advance search option.
I've switched to Jux2 myself. Getting by for now, but have wondered why the public outcry hasn't come sooner or louder (despite what Google's sycophant says).
| 8:13 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think part of the reason for the differing opinions tedster noted is that Google appears to be handling the most popular searches much worse than in the past. Niche searches are much less affected.
I do not see "authority sites" as someone claimed at the top of the SERPs: I see a mix of scrapers (mostly of the fake dirctory variety), a few perennial corporate giants (oddly selective), domains/subdomains in multiples and borderline spam.
I find Yahoo and MSN both deliver a much fairer, current, relevant keyword oriented top 10: search for Florida Widgets and you get Florida Widgets with less duplication and less spam which results in more relevant top 10 results (in which there may actually be 10 different sites).
I would attribute this to Google having created a monster with the PR system and the layer upon layer of filters they apply to try and protect it. I think it is past the point that they can predict the overall effect of any tweak and the recent trend with each change has been to make things worse, not better as the unintentional filtering of valid results leaves less and less relevant results at the top.
| 9:26 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I think part of the reason for the differing opinions tedster noted is that Google appears to be handling the most popular searches much worse than in the past. Niche searches are much less affected. |
Even if that's true (and I'm not conceding that it is), it could simply mean that Google is putting greater emphasis on delivering optimum results for "long-tail" search phrases in response to user search patterns. After all, without knowing what's in the user's mind, there's no way to deliver universally acceptable results for "widgets," "elbonia," "loans", or "sex."
| 9:39 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It just happened again, this time for a really straightforward search. I was checking the results meditation in New Hampshire and on Google the largest meditation center in the state was on the second page, despite having all the keywords in the title. Sites with very limited relevance (astrology! fortune tellers!) ranked higher.
And on Yahoo? The largest center was #1. This is sad, Google.
Honestly, I've been using Google for 99.99999% of my searches since it was launched, but I can't see any reason for not switching.
| 10:35 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Umm, those that said that google still show better results then msn in my case must be doing well still on google, but in all honesty taken the big sites away from the search, they will always be on top, I usually never go to their sites anyways their results are usually to broad, but what I miss are those little sites that had exactly what I was looking for :(, now all I get is big site which I don't like and a bunch of scrappers and others sites that have nothing to do with what I want. So yes google result are deteriating, if you feel it's not :) go ahead keep on using google and after you go to the 10 page to find what you looking for, then remember, this link :) [search.msn.com...] :)~
| 10:51 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Without a doubt you are totally correct. Even above Yahoo I think that Ask.com is starting to really shine.
| 10:57 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I run test searches about twice a month at different times a day. I test google, msn and yahoo. I run three different kinds of searches. In academia or information searches google seems to come out on top. For commercial searches msn almost always produces better and yahoo second. (I don't care what other people say about spam in there, I don't have a problem).
For service type searches yahoo seems to be better. For the past year both msn and yahoo have been more consistent, whereas google is never consistent.
I am happy with this. I would like to see the other engines to gain ground and we, as webmasters wouldn't have to tremble every time google burps.
I find the biggest cheerleaders for google usually run their ads. They don't want the hype to fall.
In my opinion google is the most capricious search engine to ever exist.
| 11:53 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I find Yahoo and MSN both deliver a much fairer, current, relevant keyword oriented top 10..."
Ironically, I'm forced to agree with bobmark on this one. Keyword phrases I watch have been gone from Google SERPs since 11APR06. Whereas, they continue to top out on Yahoo search, and show high on MSN.
Little consolation, of course, since the logs now record minimal SE referrals for these phrases.
When Google sneezes...
| 11:56 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know everyone will laugh but in my sector MSN produces superb, totally informative, non spammy results.
| 3:35 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Often when I search on Google for a fairly specific term, the serps will lead to pages on quality sites, but not with the info I'm looking for.
Then I try the search with quotes, and all the MFA scrapers come out....
| 4:26 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The truth, much to my distress, is that when I really need to find something specific OPEN directory normally provides the best results.
| 6:35 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Tell Me Your Default Google IP
Good morning Folks
Brain washed of Google Datacenters Watching, you may as well say. When people talk about specific things about Google, I usually ask; on which DC you saw that?
We all know by now that the new infrastructure is at present in the Everchanging.. Everflux mode. Different serps on different datacenters sets. And talking about DC sets, there are several of them at the moment for sure.
And to make things more complicated, our good friend Matt Inigo Cutts wrote recently on TW at Fri, 2006-03-24:
"Anyone who knows about Google knows that different data centers get different data at different times, especially during Bigdaddy."
To be objective, we should keep in mind above when talking about current quality of Google Search.
So.... how about you folks who have posted on this thread untill now start posting which default Google IP you based your observations on ;-)
Wish you all a shining day.
| 7:09 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks guys for all the reply.
After readng ur replies, I guess I was right, Google search is indeed deteriorating. And I am not giving this opinion as a webmaster but a s "average joe" who uses the Google for general search.
I m for sure switching to Yahoo for search and as a webmaster may be, will be little inclined to optimize site to suit Yahoo or MSN than to gung-ho behind Google alone.
| 7:28 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have noticed that G does not always return newly created sites in the SERPs. (These aren't my sites; these are sites created by others who've asked me why their sites aren't in Google.) I did some comparisons and found that for the same queries, Y! returned the sites in positions 1-20 but G didn't even show them in positions 1-50. Granted, this is a small sample. However, the general trend has been noted by Danny Sullivan and others.
| 8:03 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
that makes no sense to me. How does not having brand new sites in the top 50 mean search quality is deteriorating? If all new sites were in the top 50 then youd ONLY have new sites in the top 50. And why does being new qualify you for a top 50 spot?
| 9:19 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"And why does being new qualify you for a top 50 spot? "
it depends on your site's subject example my new site,rich content ,travel oriented not absolutely comercial targeting like....widgets hotels ech...(after all Joe does not interested only about the widget hotels ,he wants info about widget a, b, c , ech...).My brand new 2 months site has pages that each one has more the 2000 words of original content ,it ranks in many 2 word keywords at top ten in queries over 4,000,000.Google has no sandbox for rich content information sites and awards them with good listings.Now if you want a new site to hit top 50 in the next few months targeting widget hotels ,travel ,shopping...blabla all big money keywords.....forget it.
| 9:50 am on Apr 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am finding results variable by niche. On IT topics Google is still pretty good but a search say on "music in Elbonia" will give a list of clubs in Elbonia Street. Anything directly relevant to Elbonia will be on page 2. Both ASK and MSN will put the Elbonia sites on page 1
| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: 210 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |