|trademark / brand name vs localization|
What can we do to improve G's vision?
| 5:53 am on Aug 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
One of our sites carries a particluar brand of products that consists of 2 key words, one just happens to be a city (but can also be, as in our case, a bird) with the other (second word of the brand name) being a generic classification of product. EG, the brand name could be "CITY WIDGETS"
It also turns out that widget is a field of endeavour.
Most people (customers) find us by searching for the brand name and we would easily be found (pre April/May) in the top 3 of the results with other distributors of the product being listed in the top 5 or 6.
Now (post April/May), we're still on page 1 results, but >=5. Only the manufacturer is listed as #1 with the intervening results being CITY directories or companies in CITY that sell widgets.
Searching for the quoted "CITY WIDGETS" results in an "appropriate" listing with us in the top 3. BUT.. how many people out there actually know enough to quote two key words to get the correct result?
If you were a human and saw the two key words, you'd know they belonged together as a brand name and CITY had nothing to do with it!
Does Google recognize TM/SM? You'd also think that with all the adwords and other promo's done that they could figure it out, but somehow their localization seems to be overriding "common sense"
Is there anything we can do to improve Googles understanding, or do we just hope things improve?
| 9:36 am on Aug 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You have "Metropolis Widgets" as a trademark where there is no direct connection with Metropolis.
If I wanted to find a Widget supplier in Metropolis I would condsider G to be in error if it flooded the first page of results with references to your business.
In the final analysis the question for G to determine is what the majority of punters who may click on their ads are looking for. If it is widgets in Metropolis then they are right, if it is Metropolis Widgets (tm) then they have got it wrong.
| 4:44 pm on Aug 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The brand name was chosen by the manufacturer and we (the web site) are distributor. And, in addition to "Widgets" just being singular / plural, it can take a the root form of WIDGET as well as variety of forms. EG: ism, ist, al, als, alists.
|In the final analysis the question for G to determine is what the majority of punters who may click on their ads are looking for. If it is widgets in Metropolis then they are right, if it is Metropolis Widgets (tm) then they have got it wrong. |
That is correct, but to us (and anyone else looking at the phrase), you'd realize that the only (meaningful) choice is the later trade-marked (Metropolis Widgets). It appears that Google has (since April/May) incorrectly over-weighted the localism of a keyword pair (at least in this case).
Maybe Google needs another patent to work in trademarked words/phrases, or are they already taking that into account? (if they were, then "Metropolis Widgets" should appear higher in the rankings than they currently do.
| 6:39 pm on Aug 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe Google needs another patent to work in trademarked words/phrases |
This is a difficult area for the algo to work with, but there are several patents in play already that try to identify when a phrase is a semantic unit, such as a trademark or a joining of words that changes the collective meaning. The big challenge, as I see it, comes when not every search that Google gets intends the semantically changed meaning of the phrase.
Six phrase based indexing patents [webmasterworld.com]
Why are pages with separated words preferred over exact phrase matches [webmasterworld.com]