homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.189.108
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >     
Interviews with Josh Cohen of Google News
tedster




msg:4031292
 3:16 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Eric Enge published a solid interview with Josh Cohen, Senior Business Product Manager for Google News. The entire interview is worth the read, but one thing that jumped out for me is Cohen's description of one kind of user behavior signal - calling is "very strong".

...if you look at a user who comes in, and instead of clicking on that first link which is what they were "supposed to do," and instead let's say they click on the fourth link; that is a very strong signal about both the source that they clicked on and also the three sources above it that they didn't click on, even though they were "supposed to" click on that.

[stonetemple.com...]


 

tedster




msg:4031301
 3:40 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Danny Sullivan also published a set of interviews with Josh Cohen. This one clarifies different levels of content access that Google News will include in their index: Free, First-Click-Free, Subscription, and Preview

Josh Cohen interview [searchengineland.com]

dstiles




msg:4031913
 11:02 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

That is actually a misinterpretation of actions, in my experience. I often slip over several top entries because of factors google doesn't know about (and perhaps I'm too lazy to type in).

I also choose results based on the site domain - eg if I'm looking for a specific linux reference I'm more likely to click on a "proper" linux domain, usually relevant to my OS version, than one of the forums which I know are not very helpful despite their higher rating in the SERPS.

whitenight




msg:4031917
 11:12 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

one kind of user behavior signal - calling is "very strong".

oh brother,
are we seriously going down this route again?

Strong signal for what?!
to do what with?!

That the story is good?
That the stories above them are bad?
That their results are crap?
that the humans clicking don't know what they are looking for?

What possible inference are you making from this statement?
Cause Josh certainly doesn't clarify WHAT they do with that "signal"...

tedster




msg:4032060
 5:47 am on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Josh Cohen explains that in the interview - in fact the article goes on for several paragraphs about that particular signal.

One way Google News uses unexpectedly high clicks for the position is learning about user trust for the news source. User trust is apparently a ranking factor when many sites write about the same story.

whitenight




msg:4032065
 6:26 am on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Ok, let's play this game/theory.
Since I don't get what your point is about that comment.

Let's assume I'm an SEO that for some reason wants to spend an abnormal amount of time to rank for Google News with the following understandings:

- the algo for GNews is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the normal SERPs, ie doesn't rely on links

- any SERPS are inherently short-lived, hence the "news" part.. so 3-7 days of rankings would be great.

- again as mentioned in the interview, most of these terms are inherently un-monetizable.

A) it's a lot of researchers, editors, and other news people looking for stories.

B) of the "billion clicks" GNews sent to stories, what percentage were also un-monetizable
ie. Celebrity Gossip, Sports Scores, Political events, etc? 70%+?

- I don't already work for a conglomerate TRUSTED news source like BBC, Reuters, MSNBC, TMZ, ESPN, etc

Starting with those conditions,
Why do I care about any of what he said?

Better yet, what ACTIONABLE steps can I take to get the VERY FEW percentage clicks that are worth getting?

DO I place the words "Win a Free IPOD If You Read this Story" in every title tag?

Again, assuming I WANT to rank higher in Google News.
what do these "signals" mean to how I do SEO?

Does a BBC story compared to other sources get higher placement because of the TOTAL clicks to the domain it got from over a year? Over a month? that day?

Or is it just THAT article/page over THAT 3-7 day period when THAT article is relevant?

How does the NEWS algo weight the amount of click percentages simply because a surfer is more likely to click the #1 SERP xx% of time vs the 2nd Serp xx%-y% of the time?
So on and so forth for every iteration of the top 10?

What percentage of clicks above the norm does the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th SERP need to recieve for it to be placed 1 spot higher?
2 spots higher? 3 spots higher? etc.

Where do I start to get that information?

----------------------------------
It's non-information, tedster.
Besides the fact that it's about Gnews, and not the normal SERPs, there still isn't anything I can do with this "info".

As I said 2 years ago, the use of click-thru behavior for ranking is 3-5 years off.

After seeing Google JUST NOW starting the basic preliminary embryonic parsing of keyword datasets for normal SERPs,
I would say Goog is STILL 3-5 years off from being able incorporate click-thru behavior in any noticable manner.

And once they do have
the necessary infrastructures and computing power/space (a multi-billion dollar task in itself)
to make use of this data, they STILL need to figure out the questions above...

ie. what amount of clicks above the norm need to be weighted for a SERP to move up 1 spot, 2 spots, 10 spots?
and for what percentage of the literally infinite terms one can search for, will they apply this particular "algo" to?
(as there simply isn't enough computers in the world to run these iteration every minute of every day for every term forever)

Of course, the 7-month rollout for Caffeine is going over so smoothly I'm sure they could pull off this massive undertaking that would completely change the concept of SEs in record time. -.-

We got a singularity to prepare for, so I doubt I'll be seeing this incorporated in any manner that matters.

[edited by: whitenight at 6:59 am (utc) on Nov. 26, 2009]

tedster




msg:4032066
 6:56 am on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

If you are optimizing for Google News, then you would make one focus building a base of users who like or even prefer your site - and there's lots of approaches you could use. Or not use, of course, if your take is that this is all smoke.

whitenight




msg:4032067
 7:02 am on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

If you are optimizing for Google News, then you would make one focus building a base of users who like or even prefer your site

Cause, every business isn't doing this already?!
And every news site isn't trying to be the first to "break" any story all the time?!

You didn't even come close to answering any of my VERY BASIC questions outside of saying,
"build a website that people will come back to visit." -.-

Ok, nvm. I obviously still don't get your point.

tedster




msg:4032073
 7:34 am on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

every business isn't doing this already?!

If you KNOW that user preference for the news source itself is a ranking factor, then you will take on the job that "every business is already doing" with a different level of focus - and even fervor.

You will use more methods and approaches, even some far outside pure "news search" concepts - areas like social media marketing and reputation management. Because better News Search optimization requires the domain name itself to have marketing and brand recognition in a big way. It goes beyond optimizing "the story" - any story, any page.

Danny Sullivan's interview (second post in this thread) gets into user behavior metrics, too, but from a different angle - why Preview Only and Subscription Required articles tend not to rank well.

Of course, while publishers are free to go subscription-only within Google News, they risk having lower visibility if they do so. Cohen explained:

The reason that subscription content won't do particularly well in search results is just the user behavior. I'm not saying all information wants to be free and has to be free, but the user behavior is by and large that people don't pay for a lot of that content.

If you have subscription content, the user response to it will in effect tell the algorithm this isn't not a relevant result, I'm not clicking on this.


whitenight




msg:4032077
 7:57 am on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

You still haven't answered my question for the BASIC SEO who relies on GNews for clicks and doesn't have a entire web design and usability department that handles all the other stuff..

Sorry, need to repeat.

-------------------------------

what do these "signals" mean to how I do SEO?

Does a BBC story compared to other sources get higher placement because of the TOTAL clicks to the domain it got from over a year? Over a month? that day?

Or is it just THAT article/page over THAT 3-7 day period when THAT article is relevant?
----------------------------------

Again, assuming this "information" is NOT mainly geared to multi-national news corps that Goog is currently doing battle with -- in public and behind the scenes.

Who does this information apply to?

The aspiring news site who already has a multi-million dollar budget looking to ouster the other major news corps?

Is someone seriously spending a lot of time/money using Gnews as a major source of traffic if I'm NOT one of the above?

Again, if so, how exactly am I attracting clicks AWAY from the traditional sources, (BBC, NYT, Washington Post, Boston Herald, ESPN, TMZ, LATimes, etc) and getting them to my website using a simple title tag as my main point of introduction?!

whitenight




msg:4032091
 8:41 am on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'll speed this up, as tomorrow's a holiday and I don't have alot of time to get my point across in the round about way I originally planned.

Basic Questions I ask myself whenever I read ANY corporate "interviews"... but especially from the normally tight-lipped Goog.

"Why is Goog talking about THIS topic NOW?"
"What purpose does it serve?"
"How does this help GOOGLE first and last?"
etc..

On that note,
** "Goog is talking about this topic NOW"
as Murdoch (especially) and the other news corps and Goog are currently in an all-out BILLIONs OF DOLLARS war about
who gets to show what,
who profits from what,
and if they can reach agreement.

** "What purpose does it serve?"

It's psychological FUD announcement to all the traditional News Corp. combatants that Goog has some "secret sauce" that they use that sends traffic to those who play by Goog's rules
and
doesn't send traffic to those who don't

** "How does this help Goog?"
The same way all FUD does.

That said, these interviews aren't even meant for the general SEO populace.

And of course, the corporations, whose SEOs are generally more clueless than mom-and-pop SEO, would easily fall for the
"We use click thru analysis to rank stories"

Even if logistically this make no sense.
(see my points above)

For a measly billion clicks, Goog is somehow running the necessary 1000s of trillions of iterations to discover the best stories for one of their LEAST profitable departments?

Uh, yea, ok.
Magical Goog has jumped ahead 5 years in SE tech and no one's seen, nor heard any evidence of it outside of Goog Employee #5 saying
"we use click thru data as a 'major signal' "
Really?

Again, assuming they have this revolutionary tech up and running....
How much does this click-thru data variable [webmasterworld.com] affect the GNews algo SERPS?
5%? 10%? 50%? 100%?

Why no major "official" announcement?

If people knew they had perfected this tech, then Goog could dominate the headlines for the next year or more
and Bing, Yahoo, and Murdoch could go pound sand forever, shouldn't they?

tedster




msg:4032300
 5:52 pm on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Yes, the fact that Cohen is even doing interviews at all is related to all the Murdoch/News Corp saber rattling, I'm sure. But I'm not sure that the message is POINTED at that group, however -- I think it's more for the rest of their news publishers, and for the public at large.

Beyond that, even corporate spin needs some basis, some kernel of fact. I don't see any reason why SERP click-through data would be all that technically advanced. Google has been watching that signal for years -- whenever they use a tracking script in the SERP instead of a straight link. They take statistically significant samples and then respond to what they learn.

buckworks




msg:4032320
 6:41 pm on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Whitenight, clickthrough rates have been a significant performance factor in AdWords for years, so the assertion that other sectors within the company are using CTR as one of their metrics is highly plausible.

An SEO who wanted to get his news stories clicked on more often would do well to study some of the lessons that have been learned on the AdWords playing field.

whitenight




msg:4032446
 11:10 pm on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Guys,

If i can't get answers to my simple non-rhetorical questions, then you're simply on a highly SUPPOSABLE THEORY that for 2-3 years now, NOT ONE SEO IN THE WORLD has shown me any type of proof for.

Here are the questions yet again...

------------------

How much does this click-thru data variable affect the GNews algo SERPS?
5%? 10%? 50%? 100%?

what do these "signals" mean to how I do SEO?

(Differently?! buliding a "better, more brandable" website is business 101 and advice I could give on any subject, anywhere...not a shocking reveal into the Algo, come on...)

Does a BBC story compared to other sources get higher placement because of the TOTAL clicks to the domain it got from over a year? Over a month? that day?

Or is it just THAT article/page over THAT 3-7 day period when THAT article is relevant?

------------------------------

Surely you can give me some data?
Give me something i can TEST against and/or for.

Saying ADWORDS exists, so therefore, it's only natural that Goog is using click-thrus for any/every other aspect of their algos DOES makes sense AT FIRST GLANCE.

UNTIL when one thinks about the LOGISTICS of setting this up with other existing ALGOS, it simply fails the "common sense" tests.

BTW - The "Adwords algo" (if you want to give that name) is at best 1/100th the complexity, computation resources, coding, etc than any other "algos" AND provides the lion share of Goog's profits. Again, see my above posts of what would be needed to incorporate this "algo" into News, or Search for the enormity of the logistics for not 10-30 adverts based on 2-5 major ranking factors, but millions of pages/stories that spiders have to find on their own and "rate" in combination with 100s of other factors

Under the right conditions, we can build the highly SUPPOSABLE space elevators...
I mean, we've sent people to the moon and even sent satellites to the furthest regions of the solar system, right?

LOGISTICALLY, it's a little more complicated than the original concept would assume, isn't it?

tedster




msg:4032463
 11:49 pm on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

You can't test against click-through data, because Google's not giving that up. So take on two Google News sites that both have low name recognition. Add a well planned social media campaign to the mix for just one of those sites. See what happens to their News rankings.

It's good to be wary here. So-called social media marketing can be utter snake oil. The field is currently full of more "soft knowledge" than most online marketing, and the kool-aid is being served daily.

But there is such a thing as a technically grounded and measured approach. Especially those who have been active in the space from way back (before Twitter began tweeting) have developed repeatable methodologies and metrics.

The challenge is that precision in social media marketing requires sentiment analysis, applied over a major chunk of the online conversation - that is, mined from the greatest depth of sites that you can muster. That's not something that you can get up to speed on in just a couple of days, or even weeks.

------

This mention from the first interview above was also new to me:

There is not any a volume requirement in terms of number of articles published a day or something like that. It can certainly have an impact in the rankings, but not in terms of inclusion or not.

The number of original articles published per day can "certainly" have an impact rankings in Google News - huh? I'm not even sure why that would be a factor, but maybe it ties in with higher click-through because of name recognition.

whitenight




msg:4032472
 12:35 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

You can't test against click-through data, because Google's not giving that up

:) Hi. Yea. Kinda weird that this theory keeps coming up then. It's an unprovable unknown. Yes?

It's like, prove to me that sabertooth tigers don't exist in the third planet from Rigel.

We know there was a thing called a sabertooth tiger.
We know there's a star called Rigel.
We know that Rigel has at least 3 planets.

Gee, so logic dictates it MUST be true, right?

I use this to illustrate the LOGIC surrounding the click-thru theories.

And yet, it's still easier to SHOW some type of "preponderance of evidence" that this theory is true, yes?

I can tell you it's NOT true for regular SEARCH as I have the data across enough terms that DISPROVE IT.

have developed repeatable methodologies and metrics

ok, yea. so?

With all the big name SEOs in the world who keep data (err ok, maybe only a handful REALLY test like they should), someone should be able to give me AT THE LEAST some "provable doubt" anecdotal stories of how they saw this in action?
and
be able to show exampleS of where it 51% PROBABLE that click-thru data was affecting SERPS, News or otherwise?

Yet, I've heard the PLAUSIBILITY of it existing for 3 years now, and not even an anecdotal/observation study of it's existence....
That could be repeatable by OBSERVATION, if not, hard data

Odd, no?

-------------

So since no one wants to answer my simple questions, I'll help you out again.

Fine, click-thru data is a "major signal" for News.
I'm sure it plays less than 10% of the total News trust ranking factor and THAT factor is over a cumulative rating for "trust" of a news source.

So if the BBC domain as a WHOLE gets X% clicks over the course of a year or more FOR ALL STORIES, then it's considered "trusted" and given an appropriate "boost" when factored with OTHER trust factors when
ranking a BBC story vs HometownUSA, Newspapersite.

So what?! Really? So what?

It's a geeky/computation way to replace a human reviewer going to the site every month or so and saying,
"Hey, this site has trusted stories"

There! Happy?
I've given all the "unprovable unknown click thru" theorists ammunition for the next "logics" debate on this subject.

What can I do with this knowledge?
Who knows!
But it's fun to imagine how advanced Google is, no?

-------------------------

FOR EXAMPLE

I'm sure when the relatively new TMZ came out, it ranked nowhere with GNews algo "trust",
even though, for REAL LIVE HUMANS, it was instantly considered a trusted source.

Over the course of a few months, the thousands of other factors that showed TMZ to be a trusted source allowed their stories to rank higher for Celebrity GNews stories.
And I'm sure that site's "click-thru" metric was one way the "Gnews algo" figured out.

And TMZ as a news source could probably CARE LESS about this boost from GNews.

They are spending the always limited factors of
time and money trying to be the first to break the latest story for NEWS VALUE...
not optimizing whether GNews likes them or not.

[edited by: whitenight at 12:42 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2009]

Marcia




msg:4032473
 12:35 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

My take on that interview:

SEO = egocentricism and/or pursuit of personal motives
How Search Works = informational

As I read it, that (excellent) interview was informational, about how Google News Search works.

Moving along and by-passing extraneous argumentative rhetoric, here's some ancient history on one of the points that's been touched upon:

Howto? NBCI, Yahoo, Looksmart and Open Directory [webmasterworld.com]

Yahoo delay [webmasterworld.com]

Is it possibly a "click-thru" mechanism which yahoo has implemented which would prejudice new submissions?

Interested to hear from you all. In the past, one benefitted from a traffic spike with an initial listing.

I have watched enough to say that their is a delay as it goes thru their system.... as to the time frame and click thru part, it all depends on how competitive the area is.

If you want to see what rankings might look like without the click pop, try searching in au.yahoo.com ...I don't think any other yahoo besides the US version counts outgoing clicks (check by mouseing over the listings)

Did mouse over them and checked out the URL string with the numbers and figured it to be a popularity measurable.

NBCi? Yowsa! Use of click-through and click pop data is stone age technology, older than dirt; even back to when MSN's search used the LookSmart directory and Direct Hit was an integral part of their ranking order.

Marcia




msg:4032477
 12:54 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Glossary info on DirectHit [webmasterworld.com].

A click through counting system that counts users clicks on various search engine results. The count of clicks is then used to determine web site rankings in results pages. This system is can be manipulated quite easily.

That was put up in 2000 (or before).

whitenight




msg:4032478
 1:00 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

A click through counting system that counts users clicks on various search engine results. This system is can be manipulated quite easily

Yes, another key point I've made repeatedly in past arguments.

Which begs again, the simple question, of HOW MUCH of this factor is incorporated into the ACTUAL rankings of a story?
1%? 10%? 35%?
None?

As this "system" is completely unreliable long-term without building a completely new algo that surpasses the coding of G's SEARCH algo (not even the limited News Algo) By 10x?

Logistics....

buckworks




msg:4032482
 1:23 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Saying ADWORDS exists, so therefore, it's only natural that Goog is using click-thrus for any/every other aspect

For the record, that is not what I said.

The "Adwords algo" (if you want to give that name) is at best 1/100th the complexity

It puzzles me that someone who is so crabby about imprecision in other people's logic would be so quick to toss around invented numbers themselves.

How much does this click-thru data variable affect the GNews algo SERPS?
5%? 10%? 50%? 100%?

what do these "signals" mean to how I do SEO? (Differently?!

There's probably a name for the logical fallacy of demanding unsupportably precise numbers ...

We don't need to know exact percentages for this concept to be actionable.

The action is what a savvy web team would already be striving for: to create informative, appealing titles that will attract the clickthrough, and, more broadly, to work on developing a positive reputation for the brand in general (which will also help to attract the clickthrough).

Yep, those are 101-level issues, but a true virtuoso never sneers at the basics.

Marcia




msg:4032531
 3:41 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

There's probably a name for the logical fallacy of demanding unsupportably precise numbers ...

Fallacy of misplaced concreteness [en.wikipedia.org]

More likely an inverted version of this one:

Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) [philosophy.lander.edu]
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): The fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required.

And these:

Reification fallacy [theautonomist.com]
Treating abstractions as actual existing entities or regarding them as causally efficacious and ontologically prior and superior to their referents.

Shifting the burden of proof [theautonomist.com]:
Arguing in defense of a proposition by demanding a contrary proposition be proved rather than presenting arguments in defense of the original proposition.

Added: The link to the named anchors showed up in the Google SERP at the beginning of the description snippet preceded by "Jump to" - like in the patent tedster posted about.

[edited by: Marcia at 4:07 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2009]

whitenight




msg:4032535
 4:05 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Yep, those are 101-level issues, but a true virtuoso never sneers at the basics.

A true virtuoso, sneers at unproven claims that are made YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR which get used to FUD up the logical conclusions of SEO testing that are verifiable, testable, repeatable and effective.

There's probably a name for the logical fallacy of demanding unsupportably precise numbers ...

We don't need to know exact percentages for this concept to be actionable.


Great!
ANOTHER NON ANSWER to my simple question.
Let me clarify for those who actually have limited time and money (err wait, thats everyone)

If it's only accounts for 1% of the ranking factors (like the current thread of the 200+ variables)
WHY DO I CARE?

Can you answer me this?

If the difference between having a #3 SERP in GNews and #1 SERPS in GNEWS over a 7 day period only accounts for .0001% of my annual revenue,
WHY SHOULD I CARE?

Why should i put my LIMITED time and money (yep, again, that everyone here) into that knowledge?

Please tell me why?

(assuming it even account for that 1%)

It puzzles me that someone who is so crabby about imprecision in other people's logic would be so quick to toss around invented numbers themselves.

Are you kidding me?!

THe "adwords algo" probably isn't 1/1000th the complexity of the Search algo.

I was giving you the benefit of argument doubt with 1/100th.

Hmm 10-30 adverts strictly defined by the EXACT keywords bid upon and PRICE
vs.
up to a trillion UNDEFINED keyword terms defined by an daily changing readjustments to the algo using the aforementioned 200+ variables,
weighted by the other trillion pages and their everchanging daily adjustments.

Yea - the adwords algo is definitely as complex as the SERPS algo. -.-
Odd how everyone and their mother's SE has almost the exact same adclick tech considering how complex it is, no?

For the record, that is not what I said.

Correct, isn't what you said,
But since I only get platitudes to even simple questions of some type of CIRCUMSTANTIAL PROOF, it's what you've implied.

----------

Heck, point me to some screenshots of somebody who has even come close to testing this theory and what they did to test it...
No matter how ridiculous, and I'll listen

I can't even get THAT after 3 years of this theory being floated around like a holy grail to NOT UNDERSTANTING why one doesn't rank where they THINK they should.

OF COURSE, no one can't show me the pictures of tigers on Rigel #3, either,
"Cause our telescopes don't reach that far, silly"

Got it.

Everyone hates when they are told the personal gods they throw their chicken bones to, are the wrong gods to throw chicken bones to.

[edited by: whitenight at 4:23 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2009]

Marcia




msg:4032541
 4:20 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

difference between having a #3 SERP in GNews and #1 SERPS in GNEWS over a 7 day period

Unlike regular search, the same news search stories don't run for several (much less 7) days.

Everyone hates when they are told the personal gods they throw their chicken bones to, are the wrong gods to throw chicken bones to.

Precisely.

WHY SHOULD I CARE?

You shouldn't, not unless you're the next Ariana Huffington. So why bother to keep wasting time on that point?

-----------------------------
Moving along:

Google (or any site paying attention, for that matter) looks at the needs and intention of their visitors. The intention of someone using regular Google search isn't at all the same as a visitor using Google News search. Some folks keep a browser window open to Google News search all day, every day; what they're using it for, and how, isn't at all the same as what they use regular search for. They're two different millieus with different user profiles, intentions and purposes.

An interesting thing Google must have data on through News click-tracking and bounces is trends in political leanings, since different news sources have different slants on topics like politics.

[edited by: Marcia at 4:33 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2009]

whitenight




msg:4032546
 4:32 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Unlike regular search, the same news search stories don't run for several (much less 7) days

lol exactly my point!
do you realize how many iterations and computational resources it would take to use Adwords clickthru tech (in an EFFECTIVE, RELIABLE, NON-MANIPULATED MANNER) on something like News, let alone Search?!

You shouldn't, not unless you're the next Ariana Huffington. So why bother wasting time on that point?

lol, you should really READ my posts, instead of skimming and assuming my points.
This is was precisely the point I said earlier, (see the 1st part of my 2nd post)

Some folks keep a browser window open to Google News search all day, every day; what they're using it for isn't at all the same as what they'd use regular search for.

Again, I didn't start this thread with the assumption that clickhru data for GNEWS was something i needed pay attention to.
It was inferred, hence my issues.

It's FUD. Non-information...
to anyone BUT the next "Arianna" who is too busy trying to find ACTUAL NEWS, not caring about GNEWS clickthru rates.

You've made all my points for me, in your attempt to discredit my arguments.
Thank you.

knew i could get there in the roundabout manner ;)

Marcia




msg:4032547
 4:40 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

It's FUD. Non-information to anyone BUT the next "Arianna" who too busy trying to find ACTUAL NEWS not caring about GNEWS clickthru rates.

ACTUAL NEWS is exactly what regular, daily users of GNEWS are looking for, and in the end it's those users who clickthrough and bounce rates are important to, because those people want to read from a good mix of authoritative, reliable sources.

Very, very occasionally a bit of chaff makes its way into the wheat, and it doesn't last long because it's weeded out - and fast.

And BTW, some people go directly to Ariana's site first thing to find and read the latest ACTUAL NEWS and use the links on news stories at HuffPost to read further on topics at other sources.

Moving along from the side-tracking on that one persistent tree and going on to the forest, it's interesting how GNEWS, or any news portal, knows which are the hot stories of the day and aggregates (hopefully) the best sources for them.

[edited by: Marcia at 4:47 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2009]

whitenight




msg:4032552
 4:45 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

authoritative, reliable sources

Already addressed this in my example of TMZ

Real live human beings are able to "figure out" what's trusted or not waaay before GNews "major signal" does.

THE OP's initial inference is non-information Marcia, and you're basically agreeing with everything i'm saying,
yet still arguing with me,
cause you don't like who's saying it. =P

lol, its ok. We'll get there one day! ;)

[edited by: whitenight at 4:46 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2009]

buckworks




msg:4032553
 4:45 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Again, I didn't start this thread with the assumption that clickhru data for GNEWS was something i needed pay attention to.

You didn't start this thread at all. Tedster did.

whitenight




msg:4032555
 4:48 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

You didn't start this thread at all. Tedster did.

lol wow,
reread it carefully. yea, it's a little purposeful NLP confusion in there, but that's the point.
The inference is that clickthru data is something to spend time thinking about by tedster.

I even asked what his inference was, and hence this long drawn out nonsense to get to the point.

Marcia




msg:4032557
 4:55 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Real live human beings are able to "figure out" what's trusted or not waaay before GNews "major signal" does.

Exactly why I don't agree with you, and believe that clickthrough data is an important metric for them to use.

Regular users who sit on Google News daily don't want junk turning up; space is limited and so is people's time. Those users give Google the clickthroughs - and the bounces - so use of click-throughs is important to them, so that they get quality choices.

But one-trick ponies get repetitious, so how about stop beating that horse so we can get on with the show.

[edited by: Marcia at 5:02 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2009]

whitenight




msg:4032558
 4:57 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

lol ok marcia,
repeating myself too much is frowned upon so...
(since we're saying the same thing re-edited after the re-edits =P), you win.

Happy?

and yes i can re-edit too after the fact to make the other person look silly, my goodness.

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved