| 4:28 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Great Find :)
| 4:29 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Am I unhappy about this, you betcha! Because I am not in the top 5? PARTIALLY. I am mostly upset at the fact that all other SE known to humankind have ranked me in the top 5, but somehow "THE NEW" MSN has determined that 86 other websites are a better match and roughly 30% of them have nothing at all to do with making widgets in my state on the "new & improved" MSN. |
My site contains NO spam, tricks, cloaking, keyword loading, and consise and honest METAS. I have take years building honest links and developing content specific to my industry. So now I get to spend countless (unbillable) hours trying to accomodate ONE search engine that wants to be different.
I think you should be happy with the top five positions on other SEs. Unless your site is the brand name searched for, I would say that these top 5 positions most likely don't indicate the relevance but rather the amount of work you have put on your site. As a searcher who is looking for cheap widgets, I will be happy to get a one page site offering really cheap widgets rather than seeing a 100,000 page site that has existed for many years, building and buying links, and amount of SEO work done on them, and not offering really that cheap widgets.
If all the SEs gave the same results, then there is no need for more than one SE. Instead, different serps help non-SEOed sites by letting some of them be in the top 10.
| 6:06 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is what I receive when I try to access the search page:
MISSING CONTROL: lwhead
MISSING CONTROL: lwbody
| 7:10 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<I've found a couple searches that give an excessive number of results from the same domain.>
Ditto. Too many times.
| 1:46 am on Jul 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I see a lot of duplicates and junk sites
| 4:02 am on Jul 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I love it! I love it! I love it!
|The people saying the results are great just like where their sites are... |
| 4:00 am on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If I go to [techpreview.search.msn.com...] in FireFox, I get
MISSING CONTROL: lwhead
MISSING CONTROL: lwbody
If I go to [techpreview.search.msn.com...] in Internet Explorer, I get the MSN Search Technology Preview.
| 4:07 am on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Expect a lot of changes before this goes live - including positioning. I'm seeing a lot of obvious spammy results near the top. Don't worry about your position now and don't waste your time optimizing until it's live.
| 6:39 am on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hey few of my sites may rank great for all my keywords, but so does it on Google and Yahoo!, I did not base it on my ranking.
I really like SOME of the results, they have some great sites on there, but come on guys can't you come up with something better then they just like it because there site is ranking good? :)
| 8:07 am on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<but come on guys can't you come up with something better then they just like it because there site is ranking good? :) >
Amen. When I have some more time to spend on this, I'll take a deeper look, but right now my impression of this search engine, is: a true search engine on the level of google it is not. I think sometimes, though, our evaluation is all in the terms each of us picks for searching. More time, and more work by us will tell.
| 5:46 pm on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing lots of off-topic results in the searches I am doing. I think incoming link text needs to be given more weight in your new algo.
I am doing some searches on some business related topics, and I am seeing things related to horses in the top results.
| 5:57 pm on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I am doing some searches on some business related topics, and I am seeing things related to horses in the top results. |
Haha what keywords? I would love to find out how THAT happened.
| 6:23 pm on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hope and suspect this is in early stages as the results are pretty poor in lots of tests i have looked at within my own sectors and accross other sectors including general surfing for non commercial information
suspect algo has lots of work to go wouldn't bother to even work out algo currently as would be much to early maybe wait till launched and then only after 3 months take some guesses
| 6:34 pm on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I hope and suspect this is in early stages as the results are pretty poor in lots of tests i have looked at within my own sectors and accross other sectors including general surfing for non commercial information
Most tests I ran were for non-commercial information, and those looked pretty bad. Such as posts on minor message boards containing the search term coming up high, while definitive, popular sites on the topic were buried. I can't imagine in many cases when the search terms are highly spammed by commercial webmasters things would look better.
| 9:42 pm on Jul 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hmm I have maybe used MSN search 5 times in my life, but I have just made a few seaches on the old and on the new MSN, I must say the new results are better that what they use on MSN.com
| 7:10 am on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Tests conducted by Microsoft and others show that the mere presence of the Google logo can boost a user's rating of the search engine's relevance by as much as 10 percent when compared with situations in which the logo isn't visible -- even if the actual results are the same, said Microsoft executive Yusuf Mehdi, an MSN corporate vice president. |
"That's how strong a brand they've got," Mehdi said.
That brand, in turn, is one of the biggest obstacles Microsoft will need to overcome as it try to make inroads in the Internet search business.
| 1:06 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I read this to mean the technology preview is NOT using their new search technology. Am I on target with that?
| 8:09 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Imaster re: [seattlepi.nwsource.com...]
That was a nice find. I don't have much faith in MSN's ability to do well in the search business. They have had years to tackle the problem though I will admit in most of those years Search did not have the priority with MSN they now give it.
That article makes a strong case for Google remaining the top search engine for a long time. They were virtually unknown in 1999/2000 even though they were pretty good then. It takes time to build a reputation and a brand. Google's #1 ranking won't go away for years, unless Google does something itself to destroy its rep.
| 10:28 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I like their results.
Reported a 301 redirect problem through their feedback. It is now fixed. Yahoo is still working on it since March.
| 11:37 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
they changed their algo,
know seems to give more weight to title than before,..... my hompage fall 3 pages, but have another page on first page...
The homepage is more related, its on first page in yahoo and google
As well seems to give less importance to home pages or donīt give them more importance than inner pages.
| 3:45 am on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Tests conducted by Microsoft and others show that the mere presence of the Google logo can boost a user's rating of the search engine's relevance by as much as 10 percent when compared with situations in which the logo isn't visible... |
This may well reinforce that perception.
| 7:19 pm on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites is in a foreign language (Hebrew). When I do a search for a specific Hebrew keyword combination, the number 1 result does not contain any of the keywords, when there are sites that do contain them in the title, description, and Hx.
Maybe they are using a dictionary? If not, that means that off-site criteria is far more important than on-site...
| 7:23 pm on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Imaster, thanks for the link. :)
| 1:52 pm on Jul 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I actually like some of these results. However, one of the major problems I see (besides the annoying redundant listings) is with plurals. If I search for "green widget", a site about "green widgets" would be very appropriate, and reciprocally. So far, only Google seems to have figured that out.
| 6:50 am on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Man, i love the new msn search, it crawled my whole site, evan some pages google has never touched, keep up the good work msn, oh yea i forgot their is one small problem :) there are lots of doubles, but thats easaly fixed :)
| 6:19 am on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I did a few searchs for topics that interest me, and the results were good. It does, of course, need to group results from the same site and give less weight to keyword domains (and maybe, by extension, anchor text since that tends to favor the kw domains as well), but otherwise the results were just fine.
My own rankings were nothing unusual. Those for which the keywords weren't in the domain did unusually poorly, but it was otherwise similar to the other big guys.
| 8:26 am on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The results in my area are certainly very good for my sites. Apart from my obvious selfishness what was refreshing for me was to see sites with genuine content ranking very well.
On G most of the top sites are old grandfathered sites, some untouched for 5 years +, just there with backlinks.
I hope the algo keeps its basic 'feel' and if so looks good to me.
Whilst I am happy to have the whole first page of serps to myself and my sites they will have to go to 2 matches per site though.
| 9:24 am on Jul 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have been checking these results every few days since the URL was posted here and the results are getting better and better.
Definitely getting there.
| 1:22 pm on Jul 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I see results fluctuating too much. Sites which were in top 5 suddenly do not seem to be in top 50. Anyone noticing this?
| 2:33 pm on Jul 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yes it happened to my site for some days ago,
but is back know
| 3:07 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LOTS more of my clients stuff in techpreview today.
Various search results constantly jumping around for me.
Some good, some not but at least there is movement.
[Sure looks like they do NOT like search words repeated in title tag. Penalty for "too much" KW optimization.]
Anyone figured out algo for MSN yet?
Or are y'all just having too much fun figurin' it out to keep up this discussion?
| This 252 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 252 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  9 ) > > |