| 8:51 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Even my mom - who can't do much on the internet! - uses Google first, then MSN to search for stuff.
Because she knows that the results are different. If AlltheWeb would try to market themselves as a destination search engine - which before, they were purposefully NOT doing so while owned by FAST Search & Transfer, then perhaps they might have a bigger market share.
Now, though - it seems they are working to becomming more of a 'name' in their own right, and adding all sorts of cool gizmos for webmasters.
Personally, I find their advanced search to be quite good, but their lack of index size (being about a billion pages shy of Google...) makes it hard for me to use their search engine, knowing I might be missing something.
A lot of people may not use them for the same reason. Also, consider that their XML CPC program in the US is NON marked advertising, something that even the FTC said was NOT right.
I expect that to change with time, and until then, it's a major stumbling block for me to use them - knowing I might be clicking an ad, and knowing there is no way to accurately tell the difference.
| 9:17 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've noticed dramatic improvement in Alltheweb in the past two months. Before that they were hopeless, seemingly without any ability to differentiate "Chicago is in Illinois" from "Illinois Chicago in is."
Now, sites with actual content much more often outrank keyword gibberish pages, and the top 25 results generally include the most important sites for a query.
That said, still too much non-authority words-on-a-page sites, still not as good as Teoma or Google-before-this-month, but certainly in the ballpark as the current Google mess, and clearly improving.
| 9:27 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Steve, query rewrite. Was an on/off option all the time.
| 11:05 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've used ATW a lot in the past, but not on its own and usually checked the results against Yahoo. Since their redesign I've been mainly using ATW without Yahoo as well. As far as I remember there was something on the old ATW search pages that sent my pc into fits fairly often, but that doesn't happen now. I usually find exactly what I'm looking for quickly using ATW and if I compare with Google I think the ATW results are far more relevant to my searches. Certainly with recent experiences sorting out my holiday plans I couldn't find anything very useful on Google. For example I knew what I was looking for, but couldn't remember the url or exact name. Google was no help and gave me back some very strange results, ATW found what I wanted immediately.
I know the ATW index is smaller, but I also know that Google loses sites fairly often, not just ours, others that I expect to see that go AWOL for a month and then come back again in the next update. Never noticed this on ATW.
And yes, I also like ATW 'coz it puts all our sites in the top 5 for their major keywords and phrases. I don't do anything deliberate to try to get there. These sites are designed for the user not the SEs. ATW lists them well straight off, to get good listings on Google I have to add lots of non-user related optimisation efforts. But there's very little in the way of visitors from ATW (actually loads more from AV) which seems a real shame for such a good SE.
I sound like I should start a fan club...! :-)
| 2:15 am on May 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not what I meant heini. What I meant is ATW had no apparent method of detecting if the words on the page are just gibberish as opposed to thoughtful, useful content.
| 2:53 am on May 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I just did a search for some of my top keywords on ATW. The #1 SERP I found was a totally spammed out site with a title tag that read "Buy get order Blue Widgets". Most of the others were of the same ilk.
They all outranked me, so, by definition, they're spam. Seriously, I believe ATW currently has a far worse spam problem than Google.
| 9:10 pm on May 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I just did a search on 'widget history' and the last 25 or the 80 top listed are identical articles on a raffle. Each is from a different domain. Sometimes I wonder if I should try harder to rank well on ATW but then I see something link this.
| 12:08 am on May 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't usually see much spam or identical pages at all on ATW - but that's what I normally get a pile of on Google though. I think that's interesting that we must be searching on quite different subjects and getting completely different quality of results.
| 12:25 am on May 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just to test the theories above, I did one search for professsional website designer and 8 of 10 results were blatant redirects to eBay. I don't understand that and I sure did not even bother with another search. That was enough for me.
ATW still has a long way to go.
| 12:36 am on May 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Keep in mind ATW does not rely as heavily on off site criteria as Google. That can be nice for newer sites that have not had time to gain just the right links from the right pages with just the right PR.
It is nice to have both options available.
| 7:49 am on May 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Birdman, I have no way of reproducing the results you gave. You have a misspelling there, which you probably didn't have in the original query, but even with that misspelling I don't find any redirects to Ebay.
| 1:14 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Personally, I find their advanced search to be quite good, but their lack of index size (being about a billion pages shy of Google...) makes it hard for me to use their search engine, knowing I might be missing something. |
In my research I have to look up obscure phrases with expected number of results less than 100. I start with Google and then I search on ATW because I have been able to find those phrases in places Google never heard of! Actually using ATW gives me an advantage over others because they all use Google or its derivatives exclusively.
| 1:42 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>then I search on ATW because I have been able to find those phrases in places Google never heard of!
This is a real good point. Something too often unappreciated.