| 11:53 pm on Jun 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Perfect! Showing #11 for me. According to Google "The Panda update was supposed to lower the ranking of lower or poorer quality sites."
| 11:59 pm on Jun 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
oh! very interesting
| 12:09 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Now I'm a very happy chappy! Not that they will get any pain from it!
| 1:12 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Wow, they guessed it right this time
| 1:17 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
not to rain on anyones parade here, but why would google rank themselves for search engine? If you go to google and do a search, you already know google is an option, so why should it appear as a result?
Google has become much more than a search engine, it has become the replacement word for the word search. Nobody says search for it anymore, they say "google it". This is the exact reason why msn moved to bing rather than msn/live.com. "bing it" sounds better than live it or msn it.
| 1:54 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Actually, my kids don't say 'google it'. They say 'search it up on the internet'. I've found that curious.
| 2:18 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
But Google does appear as a result, its not the most relevant option according to their own algorithm.. Given search is their bread and butter I would have expected them to rank a little higher for it.
| 2:20 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
That's what she said.
| 2:48 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
google doesnt appear as a result for me. result 11 is a google chrome help page.
| 2:52 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
All the other sites' blurbs-- including wikipedia and ask.com-- contain the actual word "engine", so google is fudging it by listing themselves at all. ("This term occurs only in pages that link to this site", I guess.) Where the word is located on the respective search engines' real pages that real humans get if they click on the link is a bit of a mystery. But I'm sure google can explain it.
Edit: Dogpile lists bing first. And vice versa.
| 8:54 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
not much point ranking yourself for "search engine" when people are searching for it on your own search engine. the searcher is obviously looking for ANOTHER search engine, so it kinda makes sense.
| 9:28 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
so it makes sense to show dogpile and not the ones many would expect, is it what you are saying?
| 9:41 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I hadn't realised dogpile was still in existence and trying it out what a load of poopoo, Google actually looked reasonable!
| 9:59 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Any search engine that lists dogpile as the top search engine obviously has a broken algorithm.
| 10:19 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Any search engine that lists dogpile as the top search engine obviously has a broken algorithm. |
Using that logic Bing, Yahoo and Google all have broken algorithms.
You may want to take a moment and ask yourself why does this matter?
If you are just spending time complaining or laughing at Google then you are not improving your personal situation or rankings. If you are trying to better understand the serps and reverse engineer them so you can make smarter and more profitable decisions I would suggest you look at other keywords that are better for analyzing.
| 11:09 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Oh dear, someone with a hangover this morning? :-)
| 11:50 am on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Wow, I have proof that Google is actually right on this one.
My company did an experiment (back in May) with teachers and they rated the top 10 results of (G, Bing, Dogpile, Blekko, and Ask).
Dogpile came in first over 5 different groups and 5 separate experiments.
I would post the link to our results, so you can see the data, but I think it's against WebmasterWorld terms.
| 1:53 pm on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Oh dear, someone with a hangover this morning? :-) |
I couldn't have put it better myself <G>
The day we can't have a laugh as well as be serious is the day I'm going to head for the next world. And I am NOT ready for that yet, by any stretch.