| 1:00 pm on Aug 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Nothing technical will help get shut of google. B and Y have enough technical to please the masses (consumers) - more than enough.
Its not about that - its about consumers using something else they like en mass.
The population is a massive shoal of fish and they will swim together to the next big thing. B and Y unfortunately cannot ever be the next big thing - but the shoal can split and thats really what we (site owners) need.
In a forum teaming with siteowners webmasters marketers etc I am surely not the only one who can see the big picture?
| 2:54 pm on Aug 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|In a forum teaming with siteowners webmasters marketers etc I am surely not the only one who can see the big picture? |
Getting millions of webmasters to remove good paying g search boxes from their websites is not going to be an easy task. Not to mention getting millions of average Joe surfers to remove the spybars from their browsers.
So whether we like it or not, the "splitting" bit is unfortunately easier said then done. This cancer is way too deep and will continue its phenomenal branching, uninterpreted.
| 3:29 pm on Aug 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This forum indeed has hundreds if not thousands of posts with concern about Google's dominance, so Mt Fewkes et. al. you are definitely "preaching to the choir" about that.
On this particular topic of the elimination of Google's host crowding filter for certain query terms, I think it's important to note that it IS only certain very limited query terms.
I can certainly see how the average person entering a brand search like [IBM] would be well served by more than 2 results from the IBM website. And on that particular search, even Big Blue doesn't get all the results, not even #3 (Wikipedia) or #4 (Yahoo! Finance).
| 8:05 pm on Aug 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don’t understand the rationale of filling as many as 7 to 8 spots with same domain listings even if google “thinks” it’s a navigational query. Why not give the user the choice?
I had noticed something similar on a vertical file search engine ( findthatfile . com ), but there they show it as an option to the user ( “show all” from this domain )
Apparently, the real purpose seems to be sucking more webmasters into adwords as noted by few others.
| 8:43 pm on Aug 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I can certainly see how the average person entering a brand search like [IBM] would be well served by more than 2 results from the IBM website. And on that particular search, even Big Blue doesn't get all the results, not even #3 (Wikipedia) or #4 (Yahoo! Finance). |
Probably a slow roll-out operation or A/B test, then. When I searched for "ibm", I got the following organic results:
| 5:18 am on Aug 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Why not give the user the choice? |
Or at the very least, put all those additional same-site pages into a layer that would not open unless someone clicked a link that said something like "Show more from this site". That keeps 10 links on each results page, with the potential for a hundred more if the user wanted to see them all.
| 12:39 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Wow. Just compared Bing search for apple to Google search. Much prefer Bing here - don't think I've ever said that before. Google, you shot yourself in the foot.
On the other hand, I'm sure all of the mega corps that purchase tons of Adwords ads are thrilled that Google is giving a little back...
| 6:59 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This thing is stupid. If users wanted to search for results from a single domain, Google should just provide the "More results from ..." link for them to click. The more technical users will be using the "site:" command anyway. Why force them to look at link after link from the same website?
Google is once again telling users what they *should* want, instead of leaving it up to the user themselves. This is hugely disrespectful to users, especially those that have been using Google for years.
| 2:50 pm on Sep 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This this is more than stupid. I see one site (a major brand) and between listings and sitelinks, they have 5 links going to the same page, and another one with 4 listing with sitelinks going to the same page. The domain has the first 8 results. Its an insult.
| 8:50 pm on Sep 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|This thing is and no longer a search engine, its a ppc money making machine and the sooner we realize it the better. |
Now that you have realised it, what are you going to do ?
| 10:04 pm on Sep 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Just FYI: I noticed this type of search result about one month ago with the query "San Francisco plastic surgery."
| 10:13 pm on Sep 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
More than two results from the same domain? That surprises me. For that particular query, if any test showed up at all, I would have expected to see this: Google Tests Local Search with NO Organic Results [webmasterworld.com]
Were all the URLs that shared the same domain from a chain of plastic surgery clinics or something like that?
| 1:47 am on Sep 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
tedster -- for the SF plastic surgery result, I am seeing one domain at the top with eight bullets under it (four each in two columns). The bullets list pages on the doctor's site -- "contact us," "labiaplasty," etc.
Under that doc, I see local search results and then organic search under the local.
For "San Francisco plastic surgeon," I don't see anything unusual.
I just did a search for "Los Angeles Unified School District" and got a similar multi-result listing for LAUSD with regular organic search results underneath.
| 3:58 am on Sep 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|...one domain at the top with eight bullets under it... |
Those are called Sitelinks, and I can see how you can assume that's what we've been talking about. Sitelinks are extra category links that appear under some top listings in Google. They can be either two columns with bullets, as you describe, or they can be mini "inline" Sitelinks... several links in a line.
See this discussion for more on those....
Sitelinks Information - a reference thread
What we're talking about in this thread are full column width listings of three or four lines, including basically a hyperlinked title, a description or "snippets", and a url.
Previously, Google had limited the number of such listings to two per domain, unless you used the site: operator to list many pages in a site.
Recently, Google decided that if you include a domain or company name in combination with a keyword in a search, you are signaling strongly enough that you want to see listings from a particular domain that Google is showing more than two results per domain, in some cases many more... and occasionally eight.
I've routinely used this syntax as a quick way of bringing up a keyword search in combination with a company, and Google's new approach doesn't seem unreasonable. If I were a retailer selling Apple iPods, though, I'd definitely be upset, because apple.com is now dominating the page, and since Wikipedia and Amazon and cnet take up the remaining spaces, other iPod vendors are getting shuffled off to page two, at best.
Google's about to change the default number of results on a page, probably to 20, but that still puts Apple up top for most of the results. That's what the discussion is about.
| 2:01 pm on Sep 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Recently, Google decided that if you include a domain or company name in combination with a keyword in a search, you are signaling strongly enough that you want to see listings from a particular domain that Google is showing more than two results per domain, |
I haven't been following this topic, but I just tried this.
But after reading it, I just now did a couple of searchs for (mydomainname (with no .tld)) and a two-keyword word term.
(mydomainname) kw1 kw2
First 7 results one search and first 6 on another. Full listings,
link, cache, similar
| 11:46 pm on Oct 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
For one of our clients who occupies a very specific niche in computer hardware, I am seeing him occupy the first five listings in the 1st page of SERPs. 5 individual listings, 5 different URLs on the same site.
Specifically on 4 word terms
This new behavior for me- is anyone else seeing this?
| 11:53 pm on Oct 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Is there any way that the query term involved might be considered navigational in its intent?
| 2:48 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I can confirm this with a specific search displays from my domain displays EIGHT (8), that's right EIGHT (8), results from my domain alone. |
I had nine. The 10th was another site, but my content. DMCA raised.
| 3:17 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
it was just a regular query,
4 words and it is occurring every day now
i can PM you examples if you want to look
| 3:21 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
So it does sound like the original set of triggers for this kind of SERP is being loosened up.
| 3:23 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
to clarify without specifics:
they are usually BRAND MODEL SIZE SUBJECT
| 3:28 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|So it does sound like the original set of triggers for this kind of SERP is being loosened up. |
What do you mean by that? is it more widespread with some new triggers?
| 3:40 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
when it first started, the query terms needed to show navigational intention. This report says the query terms are not navigational and still there are five URLs from the the same site.
The only way that might be navigational intent is if the domain is a keyword domain that uses the brand name.
| 3:53 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
the domain is not a keyword (fully)
it is a two word domain (together, no dashes)
one word is the product, COMPUTER HARDWARE RELATED
so it usually goes like this
BRAND MODEL SIZE PRODUCT
| 4:11 am on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm actually seeing quite a bit of this where one site gets the top 3 or 4 listings.
All I can do is shake my head at what Google has become.
| 1:02 pm on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm starting to see this for general terms and while it's bad in the short-term, it makes me optimistic about the future.
Why? Because it means that Google are not far from the complacent state it's competitors were in when they arrived and shook up the market and that sooner or later something is going to come along and do it to them.
If you take a look at a typical user's setup on a widescreen display, they have IE with a couple of toolbars installed and with this move, a typical set of results may have 3 sponsored links at the top followed by several results from the same domain - you have to go below the fold to see any more!
I seem to remember something similar in the late 90s.
Google don't trust the advertisers, they certainly don't listen to webmasters and seem to regard the users as complete idiots who have to be told what they want. Their corporate culture is so strong that they just don't listen to anyone else. When they get some serious competition, they won't be able to respond.
Make no mistake, the beancounters are firmly in charge of search and are going to milk this for the shareholders for as long as they can. I'm guessing that most of the talent at Google are off developing other products - many of which are great, but don't seem to be generating important revenue streams.
| 1:39 pm on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Make no mistake, the beancounters are firmly in charge of search and are going to milk this for the shareholders for as long as they can. |
Totally agree. If they don't re-position their accountants/MBA's to a lower rung on the ladder, and move the top engineers & interface designers to the top, there will be serious trouble in paradise, and we'll see it sooner rather than later.
| 1:38 am on Dec 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
i find this too!
almost every serp i monitor first 3-4 results now are from same domain. this is a huge loss by other site in that serp.
google cutting off 30-40% of many informational website imo and now it offers less variety to users in serps: pretty bad change
| 2:23 am on Dec 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Have you been able to come up with any numbers for how much traffic this is costing your site?
| 10:08 am on Dec 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 10:48 am on Dec 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Looks like Google has killed search serendipity. People use search engines to explore the web but Google, in its very finite wisdom, has turned Google into a phone directory.
| This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 63 ( 1  3 ) > > |