| 6:56 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The problem I see with google, at least in my location / industry, is that most of the results are half irrelevant with maybe 5 good sites in the top 10 results. All i see is isps and newspapers that have a link or two to local widgetA sites that should be in the index for sure but they are not. All irrelevant sites have AdSense and very minimal text. I live in a small town with a very competitive industry selling WidgetA. There are about 60 individuals who sell WidgetA, all have websites that are indexed fine by yahoo and msn. As for google, 5 irrelevant in the top 10 and 5 WidgetA websites.
Therefore, I agree with heisje 100%. When looking at yahoo and msn I see everybody on the first 7-8 pages with some irrelevancies but I see everybody who is selling WidgetA.
| 10:47 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have to agree with legallyblind & heisje.
Sometimes Google with throw up a gem that nobody else has...
but these days I find Yahoo, Ask & Msn return, not great, but mostly relevant serps, where Google serps generally look like 'pin the tail on the donkey'.
They need to get their act together quick before somebody notices.
[edited by: tedster at 11:20 pm (utc) on May 12, 2006]
| 11:37 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Why would anyone want to read the register or any other online magazine when they can get the news right here on Webmaster World? |
Most people don't know about WW and other related forums. However, they learn about them via publications such as The Register.
| 12:12 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know I'm not supposed to believe the PR on the toolbar, but... for some reason my "shopping_cart.php" page has the highest PR of any page in my site. When I view the cache, I simply see, "your cart is empty." Why would this page have the highest PR? Is Big Daddy enabling Google to identify ecommerce sites so they can jerk the SERPS around forcing site owners into Ad Words? Sorry for my cynicism, but I've worked in Silicon Valley, for A-List companies, and can tell you that company loyalty gets very twisted when people think they can get rich.
| 12:19 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sergey denied the problem with big daddy at google "press day", said pretty much that webmasters have a problem with counting. You'll have to go to google press and watch the thing if you want to, pretty boring stuff.
Learn how to count will ya!?
| 12:58 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They can deny all they want. The fact is that Google's results currently are very well balanced to produce the most income from PPC and that is why the majority of relevant sites are either panelized for not following some rules that we are not given or sandboxed.
Few years ago Google's result was as perfect as anyone would imagine. Every business was listed When looking for Town + WidgetA. Since the IPO they are not and almost everyone who dropped has been doing aggressive PPC campaigns at $7+ a click. I managed about 10 accounts with a total of $23,000 / month.
That is the kind of counting you all unknowing webmasters should learn :)
| 5:58 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> Sergey denied the problem with big daddy at google "press day", said pretty much that webmasters have a problem with counting.
I spent a few hours watching the Web cast (thanks TypicalSurfer). I thought it interesting how Sergey said that other people call what's going on "Big Daddy" but that he doesn't - he referred to it as an update. So is that all this is - an update? If so, where did the label "Big Daddy" come from for this? Who used it first?
| 10:41 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Aren't we sometimes guilty of forgetting that Google are a pretty young company, and probably just out of their depth. Much of their efforts over the last few years having been geared towards coping with the attention they get from the media. And the media love them.
The articles mentioned on this thread may be old hat to anyone who has sat and watched Big Daddy, but it is maybe the beginning of a more balanced approach in the media to reporting Google?
Most articles I see in the press about Google rave about their pointless BETA products, desktop search and the like. Although nobody uses them they are the ideal hook for an article for a journalist pressed for time. Since many of the widgets are an attempt to hijack some already existing market, like chat or calendars, it is an instant story - Google challenges Microsofts chat software dominance etc etc
Anyone in the know is aware it's all crap. But it is effective marketing, the press equivalent of putting your link in guestbooks if you ask me.
It also serves to move attention away from the areas Google based its success on, namely their technical superiority. This no longer holds as it once did. With $Billions at stake, and a ruthless (if gullible) Wall Street observing closely, it ain't looking good. Peer beyond the hype and they're just another newish company trying to find a way forward and doing a very average job of it.
In reality the public users of Google don't care about Big Daddy or other technical details, but some sections of the press have begun to look at areas where users do care. The most obvious being search consistency. If sites are bouncing around, as they seem to be in some cases, this is noticeable to users. And it is this that will cause them problems.
Googles success is not based on technical superiority, it is based on people being told they are technically superior. If that mantra changes either in favor of another search engine like MSN, or people just get fed up, then Google are in trouble.
In short Google are playing a media game, something that has worked well for them in the past. But you don't stay flavor of the month forever.
| 1:03 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A media game that caters to investors.
| 2:35 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One of my site went to "home page only" recently. I think it was due to duplicate penalty. But if the site have texts from other sites it doesn't mean it is worthless. Search engines themself - Google, Yahoo show to us texts from other sources - arranged in appropriate way.
So why "a priori" Google think that using text from other sources is not intesting for the visitors?
I also was pleasently suprised that for some searches I tried Yahoo get better SERPs than Google. I must admit that I tried Yahoo due to recent drop of my site in Google, but I had positive expirience and it seems I will start to use Yahoo more.
| 2:44 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<<I spent a few hours watching the Web cast (thanks TypicalSurfer). I thought it interesting how Sergey said that other people call what's going on "Big Daddy" but that he doesn't - he referred to it as an update. So is that all this is - an update? If so, where did the label "Big Daddy" come from for this? Who used it first?>>
WebmasterWorld has so far had the privilege of Google update naming. I expect this is because of its deep reach into the webmaster community and respect the site has earned.
| 2:49 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The crazy aspect of all this is that it has been Google that has been largely responsible for the current state of the Internet. When the most successful search engine tells everyone that links are important, then everyone tries to generate as many links as possible. That means creating as many web pages as possible. So the lemmings all charge forward spewing as many auto-generated web pages as they can.
Google suddenly wakes up and shouts after the charging herd, "Wait, wait, it's quality that counts not quantity." Unfortunately the lemmings have found that Google will pay them money for Adsense ads provided they can get clicks. So the quality message is drowned out by the sound of cash registers.
Now we have Google, the modern Hercules, faced with the mammoth task of cleaning out the Augean stables they have helped to create. There's a delicious irony in all this.
| 3:55 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> WebmasterWorld has so far had the privilege of Google update naming.
So then it was somebody here at Webmaster World that labeled the update "Big Daddy?" If so, who?
| 4:07 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"So then it was somebody here at Webmaster World that labeled the update "Big Daddy?" If so, who? "
Actually if I remember right...WW didn't get to name this one - Google did since this wasn't the "average" update. I could be wrong.
| 4:36 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Right -- BigDaddy was nicknamed inside Google itself, and probably early on in the project. As Matt Cutts explained on his blog, Big Daddy is not an update but a new infrastructure. This is why they felt the right to use their internally chosen name.
Matt acknowledged WebmasterWorld's tradition of naming the updates and did not intend to usurp our heritage here. Big Daddy is not an "update", even though the new infrastructure has generated significant changes to the SERPs. I think this is because Big Daddy allows Google to execute features that were already in the algorithm but could not be applied widely or universally because of hardware and connectivity limitations.
| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 45 ( 1  ) |