scottsonline - 4:36 am on Dec 11, 2010 (gmt 0)
Ted is right I understand why they did it. But instead of hiring people to form a foundation of bad sites abusing the system they are trying to save a buck and do it with algorithms. Ultimately this will fail as humans aren't computers.
My intent when searching at 8am on a Sunday is different than at my desk at 2pm on Monday or at 1am after the company christmas party. It's different when my sister uses my machine when she is in for the holidays or when the IT manager uses my station at work. It's different when optimum decides to reset the ip block and give me John smiths.
Right now google is relying on personalized search. This is wrong. Provide a solid set of SERPS for any users. Customize it when possible after that.
If I type in product purple people eater and there's a site that decided to use that title return it. Instead google returns a story about a one eyed Cyclopes that likes grape juice after eating people.
It's all about the greenbacks. Hiring people that understand these searches in context costs money. Making miserable mistakes probably makes money short term in adwords until they jump the shark.
This is why all those mashup sites were doing so well. They shotgunned terms on a page and google loved it. You can do exact matches if you are amazon the rest of us get whacked.
I was shocked at the negative perception of google. People that I'd place in the middle of the knowledge ladder understand what's happening. Sadly few tonight knew bing was an alternative.
I'm convinced now google sees all of this in click data. That's where all these changes are starting. There are warning signs.