| 5:59 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google works great for things that aren't for sale. When I'm looking for info on something I might want to buy, I don't search for the product but for a certain retail store I know sells it. If I was looking for car info I wouldn't do a search for the car but for a publication's website that would have car reviews. To find a local car dealer I'd use the Yellow Pages (the ones made from trees).
| 6:15 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes. I personally think it is awful and wish people would try to produce something of value. I know I couldn't look at myself in the mirror every morning unless I knew I was making the web world a more useful place.
To that end, I have a money-making suggestion that I wish Google et al. would take up. Or, some entrepreneur who gets the official sanction of Google et al. could also do it.
The idea is to have some e-commerce seal of approval that would guarantee higher ranking in the SERPs. Merchants would pay to get reviewed periodically and they would have to meet certain criteria to get approved for the seal. Among those criteria would be that the merchant is actually selling real things and is not an affiliate.
The same could be done with content sites, with ratings given based on how user-oriented the site is. Sure, ads would be allowed, but they couldn't be the only apparent purpose of the page.
Obviously to be truly useful, the search engines would have to agree to participate in such an endeavor to make the web a "safer place".
| 7:23 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I never used to notice it that much before when I searched for things. But lately, every time I search for services, a product, or store, the first page or two are always filled with junk.
It's frustrating, not only when you're trying to locate something, but when you're trying to get your page up there. I know I have actual value in mine, but mine won't rank. Ugh!
| 11:18 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think diamondgrl is on to something. There should be a way to give quality sites higher credentials.
Something that makes the internet great, and in some ways not so great is the low cost of entry. For $8.95 a domain you can create as many ugly low quality sites as you want. This allows "spammers" to work the SERPS to their advantage.
If it cost $100 to register a domain and launch a site you would probably see less spam and more focus on quality.
| 11:39 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If it cost $100 to register a domain and launch a site you would probably see less spam and more focus on quality. |
ROTFL! Do you really think the people who produce those pages would be stopped by $100.
Beyond that, there is nothing like elitism is there? Let's make it expensive so all those "common" people can't participate. Ew, yucky, who wants badly designed pages on the internet? Those FrontPage people have to go.
The people who produce those pages are not stupid, untaleted nor cash-strapped. Perhaps, if the search engines did a better job of weeding the spam pages out, they wouldn't exist.
| 12:32 am on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree you don't want to make it difficult to register a domain or get onto the internet. That should be as cheap as the market will allow. And the search engines would not charge a fee to be indexed (or at least the market should dictate it). Money, or lack of it, is not the determinant of whether sites are reasonable. In fact, many search engine spammers make a lot of money and would pay any amount for entry.
Instead, I am simply advocating that an additional certification process allow Google et al. to add a weighting factor for sites that have met some minimum competency test. Of course, the SEs would do this for free on their own if they saw that they could get more users (and hence ad revenue) from cleaning up their listings more. But I doubt that's an effective business model. Hence my suggestion for paid certification.
| 12:42 am on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is good and there is bad. There are alg's setup to try to keep out the bad stuff which ends up being in there anyways because they meet the automated requirements. And anything non-automated wont work well as there is too much data and too little time. So SE's change their algs to circumvent the people who Reverse engineered what they found prior was working.
| 3:40 am on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The search engine that brings up the most relevant results will win the next search engine war. Don't think that relevant results isn't a priority for *every* search engine. Think you have a great idea, patent it ;)
| 11:47 pm on Nov 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just my .02, but I hardly ever use Google any more, I find that 90% of the time the results from Ixquick are more relevant. I like the way their algo eliminates the duplicates and ranks the results. Sure, there is the occasional bad result, but I hardly ever need to go beyond the first page of results.
| 6:21 am on Nov 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with ShootinBlanks
Try some other search services. G-results are not what they used to be...(and I don't think they were "all that" ...ever.. anyway)
Anyone else have any ideas for other search engines that seem to produce good results these days?
| 7:07 am on Nov 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If we could get Al to re-invent the internet, this time with the benefit of hindsight, this 'problem' could go away. But, Al didn't invent anything, and all we can do at this point is go forward.
I'm very happy that I have an aff-page up near the top of 5mil results. The page provides exactly what the search requested. With any luck it will eventually provide me with a check, too. If you want to see what the N.Y.T. has to say about it, scroll down one more link in the results ;)
| 2:07 pm on Nov 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You really can't fault a guy/gal for trying to make an extra buck or two.
When you think about it, the fault really lies on the stores with the affiliate programs.. :)
Affiliate programs were originally conceived to drive additional traffic from non-conventional sources, not search engines.
But the affiliates quickly realized they could generate income by ranking better in the SE's than the company running the affiliate program..
I think we'll see a fall out over the next couple of years, with major retailers terminating their affiliate programs. Why give up a percentage to an affiliate, when you don't have to?
Companies like Best Buy for example, have the resources, and domain popularity to simply not offer an affiliate program, and rank well for the majority of their products.
| 2:48 pm on Nov 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I find it troublesome and at times offensive to be snowed under with Florists in x,y; gay bars in x,y; hotels in x,y; real estate agents in x,y and you can well imagine the rest.
I like looking up little places that don't have any of the above, and am looking for that obscure entity called 'content'. Call me a weirdo.
I call anything that prevents this is a blessing, be it Google; AV (formerly); Gigablast or whatever.
That is the key. The rest are barnacles when I am surfing for fun, like most people do.