Andem - 9:55 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0)
>> Someone, tell me I've got this all wrong.
I wish I could, but I'd be lying if I did. I'm still hoping, though perhaps foolishly, that Google might make some kind of turn around from Panda, but I don't see much happening in the way of improvement sadly.
I know everybody on this forum is crying "me, me, me", but what else can we do? I for one have been working frantically trying to find some kind of relief from this Panda (for me, 2.0) disaster and have only been concentrating on my own areas. I have no time to really research other topics right now and my entire niche has become polluted with absolute scraper-type rubbish. The odd Google search in my free time (of which little exists) proves both Google and Bing Search to be a huge let down. I'm really only finding what I need with Google Indonesia (I saw in another thread it was pre-panda for English searches).
Seriously, do we really want to have the net as a research tool to find a site which is popular because it has flashy graphics and a Twitter button? Didn't the old, though not perfect old way of finding quality content do its job at least a little bit well? Google still commands a huge amount of the search market worldwide. They didn't have to do this and IMHO, it's a big mistake.
Should we rate the usefulness of a particular piece of software because it managed to gain popularity by keyword stuffing on a site that shows up for almost every type of software-related search?
I'm seriously having my doubts on what the future of the Internet may look like in a couple of years if this continues. How can search reward the likes of eHow for scraping and then producing absolutely incomplete and incorrect garbage? How is it in anybody's interest to rank, let alone index obvious blackhat, spun/rewritten gibberish which may even still include links to the original source? I suppose I could get 10,000 twitter followers in a matter of a week using underhanded techniques and make a page or site look popular. How does that benefit anybody?
I'm sorry to say it out loud, but the PhD's at Google are not social bugs. They are not the right type of people to even try to guage what is popular or not. How can Google engineers even have the qualifications to know whether something is really popular or not? 500k 'likes' is a nice number.. but are these from people that play with virtual farm animals all day who don't know a PC from a Mac when they "like" a graphics programs? I *don't want* to have my unsaavy cousin to be able to influence search results on topics they know nothing about. Just because some idiot thinks an eHow page is useful for documenting a certain php function, doesn't mean they should dictate what Google deems useful.
The pure fact that Google is using signals from companies like Facebook (with their horrible record on privacy) or Twitter obviously looks bad after Google themselves failed at creating competing services. But these signals are to me, a huge step in the wrong direction. One third or more of the facebook 'likes' or notifications I can measure on any given day have to do with farm animals or malware exploits... Not the direction I want to see the rest of the Internet take.