| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 ) > > |
|
MSN Algo update
MSN goes live now! |
vitaplease
#:1533409
| 11:19 am on June 28, 2005 (utc 0) |
Receptional: | ...but from a user perspective (which is how an engine needs to see it) Geotargeting as standard makes real sense I think |
| I agree, but as an opt-in If I use: http://search.msn.co.uk and do a search for: "university research on cancer" the first 20 results are all UK sites.. if I do the same in: http://www.google.co.uk I get a mix of UK, US and CA sites, with the opt-in of "pages from the UK" I think the latter makes more sense for the user.
|
Garya
#:1533410
| 6:09 pm on June 28, 2005 (utc 0) |
I noticed if you search using 4 words instead of 2 or 3 you get great results. Maybe they should put that in bold red letters on the top of there page. Just checked some more searches today, and they have gotten worse with more unrelevant sites and dupes.
|
wordy
#:1533411
| 6:54 pm on June 28, 2005 (utc 0) |
It seems MSN has forgotten that ANYBODY can purchase a .co.uk domain and this sort of algo tweak will have a greater effect on their UK database. It would be interesting to hear what members think of other non-UK regional MSN SERPS.
|
steveb
#:1533412
| 7:51 pm on June 28, 2005 (utc 0) |
"but from a user perspective (which is how an engine needs to see it) Geotargeting as standard makes real sense I think - if it can better results to the user consistently." It makes no sense from a user perspective, and the sooner people get that into their heads, the sooner the challenges of dealing with an engine that chooses to serve up results based on a criteria other than quality can be addressed. Currently quality of results is an afterthought at MSN, something in the backseat while behind the wheel is the lithium-addicted driver of "where a server is located". This is not just aggressively anti-user, it could even be prima facie evidence that MSN shouldn't be called an Internet "search engine". It doesn't "search". It doesn't look beyond a restricted pool. In a way it is like AOL. You aren't on the Internet. In MSN's case, you are restricted to what MSN decides the Internet is for you. That's offensive big-brotherish, but more of concern here is it contributes to results that would embarrass a child, let alone a megabillion corporation. If they weren't inept at figuring out what sites qualify as as a "uk" one for example, then having a radio button to restrict searches would make some sense, but as it is their flat out horrible location discernment would make even that a joke.
|
notsosmart
#:1533413
| 10:01 pm on June 28, 2005 (utc 0) |
Delurking to add my two cents: I've had a real hard time with MSN over the past year. Really, really hard time. I've been doing this forever, use only white hat techniques on very spider-friendly pages, yet since MSN Search launched as a separate engine, I haven't been able to get past #40. Until now. For one EXTREMELY competitive term for which index.html ranks in the top ten on Google I am now in the top ten on MSN. Seemingly overnight. Hurray! Internal pages are not performing as well, but I've seen improvement across the board, just not quite as dramatic. At the very least, they're now all in the index, most at #5 or higher for specific 2-3 word phrases. And to those who complain about the quality of the serps: I am talking about a high-quality-content driven site. So some kudos to MSN along with all the whining. (Though I do not envy those who find themselves pushed out by scrapers and link spammers and other such miscreants).
|
BillyS
#:1533414
| 2:45 am on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
Glad to hear of your success notsosmart.
|
66sore
#:1533415
| 3:48 am on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
Notwithstanding that my yahoo and google page one results are nowhere to be found on msn, what I see on page one of msn is junk. Bill Gates may have billions of dollars, but he still can't seem to buy any useful talent. Steve Jobs will always be the smarter one:-)
|
oldpro
#:1533416
| 12:34 pm on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
Gates needs to hire Trump or Steinbrener to clean house over in the search dept.
|
newwebster
#:1533417
| 1:13 pm on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
What I do not understand is how a page can go from ranking 6 on page 1 for a search phrase and then be placed on page 3 when the page gets a fresh tag when nothing has changed on the page? All of the other sites/pages on the 1st and 2nd page results do not have fresh tags. Fresh tags seem to have an oppisite effect if you are already ranking well which does not make sense to me.
|
TheET
#:1533418
| 2:56 pm on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
newwebster I have seen this happen today with one of my sites, but put it down to changes I made on-page. Did you make any changes to the site you are talking about?
|
petehall
#:1533419
| 3:37 pm on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
This really needs sorting as major UK hosted, industry leading .com websites are nowhere to be found. Surely excluding UK hosted .com domains can't be a satisfactory way of implementing geo-targeted results for the UK.
|
newwebster
#:1533420
| 4:17 pm on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
| Did you make any changes to the site you are talking about? |
| I added one internal Javascript link from the home page from the last cache of 6/14 to the current 6/28. This can not be the reason I would drop in rank 28 places. This is the same behavior they were doing in the last algo to several other sites as well as mine in my nich. Only in the last algo after the first two weeks at ranking in the top five for my major keywords I dropped to page 3 and stayed threre for about 3 months then droped to page 5 and 6 until this update. Other sites would drop to page 2 and 3 but recover to page 1 within a couple of weeks. I am just hoping that the freshness of the cache has not allowed the page process through the algo fully yet. So either I will come back to the first page or I have lost rank like the first time. They should call this yo yo ranking -either yo in or yo out-
|
wordy
#:1533421
| 8:08 pm on June 29, 2005 (utc 0) |
Its quite depressing to see a new SE spend £gazillions on development and £millions on advertising making such an elementary error. Day by day the UK database is filling up with .co.uk domain spam. I-wish-msn-would-re-consider-geo-targeting.com
|
CathyM
#:1533422
| 4:47 am on June 30, 2005 (utc 0) |
When did MSN start showing meta keywords as part of the search results? I am seeing either description followed by keywords or keywords followed by description depending on what order they occur in the html.
|
ramachandra
#:1533423
| 3:11 pm on June 30, 2005 (utc 0) |
Today I see some favourable changes in SERPs for my kw.
|
prairiedweller
#:1533424
| 3:22 pm on June 30, 2005 (utc 0) |
I have also noticed a major slip on msn. Msn used to love me...went from #1 to #31. They now seem to appreciate spammy sites. Sites now listed on the first page for my most targeted keyword are keyword stuffed and repetetive. I am sitting put and waiting it out. Surely this has to be a joke.
|
s_clay
#:1533425
| 5:42 pm on June 30, 2005 (utc 0) |
I've also noticed meta keyword's used for the description on MSN. My meta keywords are not spammy, but do not read well as a natural description for my site. I just took a look at my keyword tag (something I haven't paid much attention to for a while). I will shorten it to just a very few select words.
|
wordy
#:1533426
| 9:24 pm on June 30, 2005 (utc 0) |
ramachandra, Is your site a .com or country domain?
|
SuddenlySara
#:1533427
| 2:24 am on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
some of you say, "I dropped from #1 down to #38" or whatever. i wouldn't worry much if that type of shuffle is happening. just keep building your site and do some related partnering. i'm sure there's some techs at msnnnn working on spam filters right now? they're pretty new still for sure.
|
ramachandra
#:1533428
| 6:19 am on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
Hi Wordy My site is .com.
|
andy_boyd
#:1533429
| 11:25 am on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
I've just noticed a big drop in MSN for one of my sites, going from 6th to 49th overnight for my main 2-word phrase. We have also dropped for other 3-word and 4-word phrases. This is a very clean site with all-white seo, clean title / meta tags and lots of content already indexed. It had been doing very well until yesterday. If I can recall this happened some time last month, then the MSN SERPs changed and we were listed top 10 again. Do you guys think this is just some tinkering?
|
larryhatch
#:1533430
| 11:32 am on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
Andy: If other engines remind me of a roller coaster, MSN is more like a roulette wheel. -Larry
|
andy_boyd
#:1533431
| 1:33 pm on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
Nice analogy Larry :) I hope that things with MSN do settle down ... I guess the best thing to do is take SuddenlySara's advice and knuckle down to some more hard work with an eye to the mid / long term.
|
RichTC
#:1533432
| 4:53 pm on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
I dont use the MSN search engine at all now. The results are so far off its a standing joke. Sticking to Google and if im still struggling for what i want will use Yahoo. Cant see any point in using MSN now the results are messed up. Im just amazed that they cant see how bad the results are themselves. They even think they have improved the search! - Amazing.
|
Garya
#:1533433
| 7:39 pm on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
Did a real estate search on MSN #2 was dolphin tours, go figure, back to google, yahoo as backup.
|
Shurik
#:1533434
| 8:45 pm on July 1, 2005 (utc 0) |
To those of you who bash MSN. I’m a professional software developer and I don’t use google any more out of principal. I use MSN on daily basis and very pleased with the results especially in the commercial sector. I also run a web server located in New York for a small New York based business. I could not ask for a better blessing them MSN geo targeting as it brings local customers to my store. Thank you MSN for give a real chance to small guys like me weather you do it intentionally or not. I don’t see any junk or scraper sites in my sector anymore. I guess Neural Net is learning fast! I'm very pleased with the results.
|
onlineshrine
#:1533435
| 12:13 am on July 2, 2005 (utc 0) |
I think MSN Search and Google are equal at this point. Yahoo lags FAR behind both.
|
nzmatt
#:1533436
| 1:23 am on July 2, 2005 (utc 0) |
Yeh, Some of this MSN bashing is going a little far. Overall it is a very useful engine and it shows great recent sites/content.
|
Garya
#:1533437
| 5:01 pm on July 2, 2005 (utc 0) |
Msn getter worse today, now they are listing the same sites twice or three times on the first page, also seems to find duplicate sites and site them together. I did one search and on the first page i got this results. a. #3,5 sites are the same site different domains. #4,#8 are the same site same domain name. #6,7 are doorway 1 page sites to #6and 7. How can you say msn is equal to Google, they are not even equal to my search engine. I give them a 1 out of 10.
|
steveb
#:1533438
| 9:23 pm on July 2, 2005 (utc 0) |
Jeez they couldn't stand to go a few days with improved results. Today's changes are more of the same laughably embarrassing crap they have been doing since their inception. There is hardly any pretense even to value anuthing except blog links and keyword domain or subdomain. Pathetic.
|
vincentg
#:1533439
| 3:32 pm on July 3, 2005 (utc 0) |
Well my site dropped to almost nada from them since they now starting using IE search. It's all MSN now and Inktomi is gone. And it's all bad. Vin
|
| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 ) > > |