| 7:28 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree, also am aware of the project you mention - part of the "getting everyone online" drive, can't be bad!
| 3:39 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Bro I don't know what you been searching for but it couldn't have been a very targeted keyword as I have to totally disagree with your statement. Spam city from my viewpoint that covers lawyers, jobs, health searches in general
| 3:50 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|MAJOR UK govenment product to introduce a national search engine facility |
Sure this isn't an April Fool joke?
| 5:43 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Man serps are serps. Yahoo or msn or the G. It is debateable what is good and what is not.
| 6:00 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Is it an April fool?
Sorry, wish it was!. Watch this space.
Its in its testing phase (which they are testing via various funded organisations at an obscene rate of pay per hour (but when its someone elses money, who cares)and it will be launched sometime in September (but based on how long the Dome, Wembley et al took, it could be the year never) and the launch will be met with zillions of pounds worth of National marketing, TV etc etc to get brand awarness all at the tax payers expence!.
Its a kind of Directory come Search engine that you can select to enlarge if you need to see the text/layout larger and it provides other usefull links to councils / dole offices and the like, oh and it provides a free email service as well etc - Just what we need!
The Government Officer in charge of this project will no doubt get a knighthood. Lets face it its a stoke of pure brilliance if you ask me.
Oh and well worth the expense i say!
| 9:36 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
RichTC - I've no doubt that the government is wasting bucket-loads of our cash, but setting up a UK state-funded search engine just doesn't have the ring of truth somehow - even for the present bunch of lunatics.
I guess we'll see...
| 11:38 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Tony has a vision to get all of the UK on the net. The facility provides larger text, free email and is a directory guide service with search that provides own content with fall back search powered by Yahoo.
Also, the facility has three different language options so that it can also be used by ethnic groups within the UK also.
The facility is still in test mode and some of the service in various stages can be seen tested from time to time on the net. The testing of sections of this project should be completed by mid September. Once the program is complete the marketing of it is going to roll out.
I have sent you a sticky mail with a URL to more information. Perhaps when you read it you will be good enough to confirm im not making this up. As hard as it is to believe!
| 7:08 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I stand corrected, RichTC.
What you're talking about is a project funded by the UK Department for Education and Skills which is intended to assist access to the internet for those with low educational or internet skills, and those with disabilities that currently discourage them from using the net - eg. the blind, the very old, etc.
Wholly worthy, I'd say, and certainly worth my tax ££, but not quite the "national search engine facility" that you mentioned...
But I'm certainly sorry to have doubted you.
| 9:52 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I find pages just randomly vanish into thin air on certain phrases!
No spam just normal optimisation techniques like sensible page titles and single h1/h2 tags. Weird.
(mainly home pages)
| 9:55 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, Yahoo is miles ahead of Google IMO at the moment - mainly due to the number of bugs in Google more than anything else.
By the time this search service is launched it might all turn around again though.
| 2:38 pm on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How come no-one has effectively blown the whistle on Google? The Emperor has no clothes.
Surely this is some kind of South Sea bubble which has to burst. At some point Google's investors must realise that they've bought into a pig in a poke.
For our chosen keywords We are 6 on MSN 65 on yahoo, and I have trawled through 50 pages of google and we are nowhere.
We get more traffic through MSN for free than through Adwords at any budget.
| 11:12 pm on Apr 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|For our chosen keywords We are 6 on MSN 65 on yahoo, and I have trawled through 50 pages of google and we are nowhere. |
it is not the measure of SERPs quality.
anyway, I still find G results pretty cool for non-commercial terms. It is also cool if I want to download stuff.
for shopping G shows more and more big guys which is not as cool as earlier, when they showed specialized websites doing best stuff in their niche.
| 7:58 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This thread has to be a joke right?
The mere idea of Yahoo serps being anything other than junk is laughable.
Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, but come on.
| 10:01 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|This thread has to be a joke right? |
The mere idea of Yahoo serps being anything other than junk is laughable.
Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, but come on.
For my search strings, the first two pages of results for every phrase, with few exceptions, are littered with sub-domain spam and site that redirect to affiliate links.
| 11:13 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In the minds of searchers the measure of quality is not that a search engine deliver "complete" results, but that it deliver the results that satisfy the searcher (relevance). "People don't want choices, they want what they want (1)."
As marketers we all believe that our products are the best (as we should) and we try to get as much visibility as possible. Our complaint against Yahoo! (or whomever) is that the index is not complete if it does not include our listing (completeness).
The "best" search engine will have to satisfy both criteria to some degree. Personally I find that Yahoo! and Google are both very relevant for well formed queries. No engine is as good at understanding natural language queries as I'd like. The trick is to predict the kinds of queries customers will use and then to make our sites into the kind of sites that the engines will equate with that query.
(1) Some smart person wrote this, but for the life of me I can't remember who it was. And yes, I tried querying both Y! and G but they turned up nothing.
| 2:08 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes I agree, but 80%+ of the sites on the first page for the home and garden category I monitor are "directory" based sites or the same sites with multiple listings. And the ones with multiple listings donít even offer a product, they link to other sites that do. And these are for terms of one to three words, nothing weird.
So, I fail to see how this is beneficial for the user in any situation.
As many have said before, Yahoo needs to get off their behinds and have a good ole fashioned serps shake up.
Don't they have search engineers working there anymore? Cause judging by the results we are seeing over the last year they must all be on sabbaticals. :-)
| 3:08 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
and it provides a free email service
A government sponsored email service? Aw..! Echelon not sharing the sweeties any more? There must have been a fall out.
| 8:38 pm on Apr 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|How come no-one has effectively blown the whistle on Google? The Emperor has no clothes. |
Actually, there have been several studies that show both Y! and Ask have better relevance than G. However, the man and woman on the street don't read studies to decide what search engine to use -- they use what they're used to and comfortable with, which is G. Also, a slight difference in relevance on the most popular queries probably doesn't result in a great loss of information to the user.
| 12:15 am on Apr 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
SERPS Results are very relevent and in the sectors our team watch they are next to the best on the net.
Now we dont know if its to do with Hand editing, Yahoo directory or if its just a dam good algo but what ever the case Yahoo have moved their search up a gear and im advocating that our clients use Yahoo (not google) for search.
Some of our own sites and our clients sites rank well in Yahoo and some of them dont, so I dont have a bias due to one site ranking or not, but overall I cant see how the current results could be improved any. Almost any serarch you do will return relevent results - Great Job done Yahoo!
I think the problem here is that if a webmasters site doesnt rank in Yahoo the engine gets the blame when often the problem is down to the webmasters own site design.
Also, some webmasters think that because a site ranks in Google it should in Yahoo, MSN, ASK and everywhere else when the reality is that they all use different methods for ranking and as Googles search results are currently unstable, in constant flux and offer continual changing results to the end user, Google is hardly the bench mark anymore.
| 2:55 am on Apr 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As I mentioned in another thread, I just looked up a not uncommon three-word phrase, and nearly all of Yahoo's top 10 search results were the same AP story.
I also see multiple listings for the same site in the top 10 results for other phrases (including competitive phrases for which there's no shortage of useful pages).
I'm not impressed.
| 9:02 am on Apr 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now that I think about it, I use Google when I need to find more pages (read that "include junk").
My site is in a very competitive category and listing at 7 on Yahoo! and 5 on MSN.... and nowhere in Google!
| 6:10 pm on Apr 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I love yahoo for mainstream commercial search. Especially for products that come from brick and mortar businesses. Small to medium sized companies.
I think MSN is equally as good. Google is nauseating.
But Google is the best for academia searches.
And I have wanted to know this for some time....EFV..do you work for google? You seem to be their biggest cheerleader in the forums.
| 12:14 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have started noting better search results a few months ago and they seems to be improving month to month
| 1:07 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's very difficult to say that Yahoo has the best results.
Results are different in Europe compared to USA.
It seems to me that the new algo is only in USA...
| 1:32 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In my area they are so bad as to be embarrassing!
There is little to no spam in my area so there is no real excuse.
They are almost random, incredibly bad.
No wonder nobody in this sector uses them for search
| 10:22 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just have to weigh in - in an unbiased test using Yahoo and Google.
Google ranks the official source for the widgets I'm looking for at 5.
Yahoo pops the official source right up there at #1. That's just good hand editing obviously - but let's look deeper on the first page of results.
Google - 10 of 10 results I could purchase from with more navigation. 6 of 10 seem to drop me closer to the golden widgets I'm looking for.
Yahoo - 10 of 10 results I could purchase from with more navigation. 4 of the results are used up on 2 different sites - that is 2 listings for the official source site and 2 listings for a reseller. 6 of 10 seem to drop me closer to the golden widgets as well.
So I like Yahoo! for dropping me at the official source for Golden Widgets, but I highly doubt I could credit that to their stellar algorithm.
I don't like how Yahoo! uses 4 of the top 10 listings to navigate me to 2 sites. 1 site should get 1 listing for golden widgets. That flaw alone should back the argument that Google is working harder on relevance.
Google is not guessing that I may be interested in the widgets index page or the golden widgets page. They make the call and seem to display 10 different URLs for me to continue my search for the perfect golden widget at the best possible price.
Google wins today, but by no means would I say Yahoo had horrible results, as some here would paint them to display.
| 3:20 am on May 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo still has a lot of problems.
It returns a "Page not Found" for a very popular search term as rank #1 or #2.
| 3:27 am on May 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Doesn't return a page not found to me for that search.
| 10:18 am on May 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
an unbiased personal opinion:
when I need relevant SE results for my personal use, i.e. for webmaster work as well as private matters, and have precious little time to waste searching, I definitely start with Y - and scarcely ever need I to revert to G, only to find then very disappointing results.
this, from a personal experience.
you may call this statement "unbiased" in view of the fact that overall, for our sites, we get more traffic from G than from Y, and our bias, income-wise, is in favour of G.
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |