potentialgeek - 2:50 pm on May 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

> My best guess currently is something significant in regards to Google's geo-location of search results.

I've noticed Yahoo is now geo-locating results too and this is new, and basically since it started cooperating with Google (following the MSN saga).

Google may be having problems, though, determining geographical significance for certain keywords. In other words, some search results are best with a weight by geography; while others aren't.

In the process of ramming through a new geo algo, Google is messing it up, primitively weighting non-geo words as if there's some kind of geographical significance.

They're getting carried away. Why they can't just base results according to the geo-based google engine (google.com or google.ca or google.co.uk, etc.), I don't know.

You know that's the easiest way for the Google user to say they want geo-based results. Let the user decide, not Google. Google should not make any assumption on geography when it's not necessary or even helpful.

Google could offer to rerank results based on geography instead of thinking it's so smart. eBay, for example, lets you re-order search results by geography, i.e., closest to your zip code.

How on earth does Google think it can figure out which words and phrases in the entire dictionary and common use should be weighted by geography?

Tedster, does its geo patent shed any light on why it thinks it's so genius?

p/g