|I still can't rank on Google when I should be (MSN beta search confirmed this for me) |
There's one major hiccup with this speculation and that is that MSN's new search doesn't use the same algorithm to rank results as Google. So how can MSN confirm anything for you?
MSN likes your pages better - great - but that has nothing to do with Google. Just like Yahoo's algo likes different things to Google's...
First, search engines don't know your company name is your company name. To them it is just a sequence of words or a phrase. There is no algorithm-based reason to rank a page higher for its company name than any other page that contains the same words as that company name.
Second, it doesn't matter whether webmasters and SEO's love or hate a search engine. We are content providers, true, but we are not their "customers" if you consider pure-search results only; PPC has nothing to do with the rankings you describe. We may have some small influence through our recommendations to friends, family, neighbors, associates, and clients, but compared to the vast number of search users, our influence is small.
Third, this is business. If you want to be successful, "like" and "dislike" have nothing to do with anything. Do what you need to do to survive, within ethical and legal limits. If you're in the sandbox, figure out why. Take a look at the "quality" of your backlinks. Take a look at how fast those backlinks were acquired -- Were they acquired naturally, or through link-trades from sites which are known to be non-selective in who they will link to and why? Are the links on-topic? How's the link-text? How long has the domain name been around?
All these factors and many more may go into this thing that some call the sandbox. But it doesn't do any good to spend time discussing whether we "like" it or not. The time would be much better spent figuring out how to avoid it in a professional, cold, analytical manner. There are ways. Focus on "quality" and "reputation."
Just my 3 cents on the subject. Your mileage may vary.
|There's one major hiccup with this speculation and that is that MSN's new search doesn't use the same algorithm to rank results as Google. So how can MSN confirm anything for you?" |
Because Microsoft is second to God.
So...you didn't answer the question, do you have a hard time getting ranked with Google, and how do you feel about MSN as an SEO. Curious to see everyone's thoughts on this.
|There's one major hiccup with this speculation and that is that MSN's new search doesn't use the same algorithm to rank results as Google. So how can MSN confirm anything for you? |
I'm affraid I donít agree with this. It is not "speculation". It is circumstantial evidence based on thousands of threads by thousands of webmasters with thousands of experiences. Enough circumstantial evidence is every bit as compelling as it needs to be.
One cannot doubt that Google has lost relevancy by failing to provide searchers with all the results that it is aware of. It does this to bolster the Adwords reliance by new sites and Google's own bottom line. This has been the experience for most webmasters with new sites in competitive industries. Visit any webmaster forum throughout the web!
MSN Beta is not doing this (yet) and is accordingly providing much more relevant results - at least in my industry.
|It is circumstantial evidence based on thousands of threads by thousands of webmasters with thousands of experiences |
It's been out for all of a week...
We're not talking about which search engine is more relevant - the original post was to do with MSN search somehow validating a Google ranking issue. That's pure speculation (unless you just quit Google to work for MSN search).
|That's pure speculation (unless you just quit Google to work for MSN search)... - the original post was to do with MSN search somehow validating a Google ranking issue. |
Itís not a ranking issue, itís a sandbox issue.
MSN Beta ranks recent sites in their competitive results. Google does not. One does the other doesnít. To me this is what chopin is concerned with in the original post. This is confirmed by most webmasters who have fairly recent websites (as compared to their experience with their older websites).
Thatís not speculation Ė it is shared experience!
Anyway, to answer the discussion question: "What SEO now likes the MSN beta search better than Google?"
I put my vote for MSN Beta.
The reason for this is simple. For my industry, (where I am an expert on what competitor sites are out there and how good they are) MSN Beta's results are far better than Google's as far as all the major keywords and phrases are concerned. Msn provides more relevant and recent results. As for other industries and searches phrases I have no idea.
As a searcher I am already using MSN Beta to find what I need for my industry.
Im guessing the people who are saying "just get more backlinks, optimize your site better, etc" have old websites and rank decent in Google. I am looking for people who understand that I am doing everything right, but simply have a fairly new website (5 months) and am getting penalized.
|Itís not a ranking issue, itís a sandbox issue. |
MSN Beta ranks recent sites in their competitive results. Google does not. One does the other doesnít.
Im glad I have someone who understands. Your right, its not a ranking issue, I would be ranking fine if it wasn't for the sandbox, and the allin command in Google, and MSN confirms this, in my eyes at least. (dont want to go off topic and start a war about this "speculation")
All I gotta say is, if MSN continues to use its algo, I cant wait till the MSN search is launched. I will be very happy when that day comes. MSN actually awards you for doing hard work, and building links.
You are right, what is needed is forum or forum topic, on how to best rank a website, get traffic to a website, that is less than 9 months old.
It does not need to be a google how to, in my opinion that's wasted breath.
There are alot of sites in your situation, a few of my clients sites also.
I am very pleased with the new MSN beta search. I too have already started using it for any search term I want in depth results that are relevant to what I'm searching for. I used to swear up and down about using only google because it was always relevant for whatever I was searching for and now it only delivers a few relevant results and the rest is pure garbage. I have also told many people that I know about the new msn search and just today I was told be a few of them that they are now using the new msn search even though it is in a beta stage simply because they like more relevant results. All I know is if google continues to not listen to webmasters and keeps with their adword driven idea by not producing quality relevant results they will be doomed!
Maybe Google should wise up and think about what got them to where they are today?!
I am so impressed with the new MSN search that I have also put it on the front page of all of my websites for searching my site and the web.
Here is the code for adding msn beta search to your website just in case you are interested
<!--Web search from MSN-- >
<form method="get" action="http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx">
<input type="hidden" name="cp" value="CODE PAGE USED BY YOUR HTML PAGE"/>
<img src="http://beta.search.msn.com/s/affillogo.gif" border="0" alt="MSN Search"/> </a>
<input type="text" name="q" size="30"/>
<input type="submit" value="Search Web">
</td> </tr> </table>
<!--Web search from MSN-- >
I love the new MSN search beta. Gives me what I want. What more could I ask? I'll be leading the parade for people to switch to it.
I've started new sites that were quickly added to Google's results.
I don't believe in a sandbox, and I don't believe that more SEO-friendly search engine means it's the best.
|Itís not a ranking issue, itís a sandbox issue. |
MSN Beta ranks recent sites in their competitive results. Google does not. One does the other doesnít
Yes, indeed! I'm starting to wonder if MSN is better able to handle the constant influx of new sites better than Google. One assertion that seems to hold true with Google's site age filter is it benefits them financially, because new sites have to pay more to play. Could it be that MSN is the engine that is giving less biased results?
I'll like MSN better than Google as soon as I see more traffic from them than Google. :-)
Overall though I think the UK search results of interest to me are a big improvement over what Google has to offer.
I should be in favour of the Google SERPs to be honest because they do not include any of our competitors ;-)
Just searched for the one-word-keyword that brings most SE traffic to my small technical content site and find the site on these positions:
1 of 389000 in new Google today
(1 of 200000 in old Google 2 weeks ago)
3 of 190000 in Yahoo
8 of 33000 in old MSN
66 of 169000 in beta.MSN
So, actually, no, I don't like the beta.msn.
Their serp-ranking algo is ... hmm ... a bit obscure?
Backlinks seem to be of less value in MSN than with google or yahoo.
So far I like it better, it's like getting a new pair of perscription glasses.
change is good.
|do you have a hard time getting ranked with Google, and how do you feel about MSN as an SEO. |
To question #1 - no.
To question #2 - I am excited by the new MSN search engine - as it stands my "pet" serp has ranked 22 sites of the top 30 controlled by me, or owned by my clients.
MSN appears to be easy to rank for - dunno how long it is going to last - right now it looks like Altavista in 1998 -naked and unprotected.
I have no problems with Google. I rank at the top on my desired kw's.
With the present MSN search, I do not rank well.
With the beta MSN search, I'm at the top.
So, I like the new beta MSN. At this time, I like them all better than Y!
"providing much more relevant results"
This is false and goes back to the main problem. Google's results are relevant (but they mostly don't include new sites). MSN results are relevant but they are relatively poorly and inconsistently ranked (even if they include new sites). Relevance means next to nothing. A circus geek could create relevant results for any significant search term. Relevance is no measure of anything. Quality, coherent results matter. And then objectively *better* pages ranking higher than lower quality pages is what the engines have to strive for.
I could write a page on the Theory of Relativity, and so could Einstien. His should rank before mine (if only because he came back from the dead to do the HTML). The fact that my page is relevant is of miniscule consequence. Einstien's page would have far more signals of quality, and a good search engine should be able to figure that out. A search engine ranking my relevant page first is a search engine failing.
I don't know what industry you are into or what results you are looking at on Google but in my industry only 2 or 3 results of the top 10 are actually relevant. Before the Florida update they were quite relevant but ever since they have slowly got worse.
MSN beta on the other hand....The top 30 or so sites are all relevant for my industry. Whether or not its going to be good for my website or not I dunno simply because all of my competitors are right there with me now. But at least the results are relevant and the end user has more options than 2-3 sites or clicking on adwords sites.
Google has simply made those of us that would never be found in their top 30 results page either buy adwords or die! No matter how much optimization I have done I have never been found in the top 10 for key terms I target. I am not alone either obviously or thousands of us would not be bit*hing about it.
IPO, IPO, IPO.....GOOGLE! $$$$$
Why all the excitement about ranking on the MSN beta? It has been posted here already by MSN Dude that these results are very likely to be different to the final version.
"very small hotels in california"
|Why all the excitement about ranking on the MSN beta? It has been posted here already by MSN Dude that these results are very likely to be different to the final version. |
We are excited because our optimization techniques shows us if we are at least on the right track or not. With google, it is impossible to tell (for new sites). With yahoo, it takes too long to see.
|We are excited because our optimization techniques shows us if we are at least on the right track or not. With google, it is impossible to tell (for new sites). With yahoo, it takes too long to see. |
hum, surely all it shows is that for one individual search engine in beta stage your site ranks well. A different algo is a different algo, theres no such thing as validating your "techniques" because they work on one search engine. Your "techniques should be geared to your target. If you fail to hit your target then it hasnt worked. If your target is google and you dont show on google then you have failed.
|If your target is google and you dont show on google then you have failed. |
Thats a very simplistic way to look at it. Theres alot more to online promotion than just Google.
|How do the rest of you "SEO's" out there feel about the new MSN beta vs Google? And do you have a hard time trying to rank in Google as much as I do? |
I am (and Im sure many other webmasters are too) experiencing the same thing as you. My 3 week old site is no where to be found in the google search results (although ranks well in google au) but Im really happy with the results with MSN beta.
Obviously there is going to be bias towards which SE you prefer. Whichever SE you rank better in you will prefer :) You dont want to put all your eggs in the one basket and try and rank well in all the major SEs.
From what Im seeing with the new MSN its identifying backlinks alot quicker, and as you have stated new sites are doing well.
I just tried MSN beta for my favorite keyphrase (not particularly competitive) and the results are abominable.
They are very different from Google's, so I'll give them points for freshness.
From an SEO standpoint, my 1-yr old site ranks considerably better in Google than in MSN.
<<I could write a page on the Theory of Relativity, and so could Einstien. His should rank before mine (if only because he came back from the dead to do the HTML). The fact that my page is relevant is of miniscule consequence. Einstien's page would have far more signals of quality, and a good search engine should be able to figure that out. A search engine ranking my relevant page first is a search engine failing. >>
That's the whole point. Nobody would ever read Einstein's. He'd be sandboxed. lol
|Google has me ranked on the bottom of the second page for "Record Hall" |
#1 for recordhall, I'm not convinced this has anything to do with the sandbox, also looking at your site it wouldn't be obvious that your company is "Record Hall" (to a crawler that is).
As for the MSN results I think they are inconsistent.
| This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: 63 (  2 3 ) > > |