DeeCee - 12:34 pm on Dec 15, 2011 (gmt 0)
I agree with Swanson that Google seems to be getting worse and worse. Panda and the like was supposed to fix some of this, but surely did not.
Partly this is Google, but mostly it is caused by all the copy-sites and scammers out there, which Google was supposed to kill off with Panda, but which are still there.
I see the number of scrapers that come by my own sites,and you can just try searching for some of the titles from even this site itself. Yesterday I was looking for scammers, and tried a title from this site.
Webmasterworld did come up first, but right behind it came lots of sites like
which has nothing of value, but steals other sites content off RSS and other.
Apparently they are hooked up to the webmasterworld RSS, and is listed by Google as having the same exact topic only less than 2 hours after it was posted on webmasterworld. (They even show it with a "nofollowed" link to webmasterworld.)
As they are a combination of many stolen sites, and they would have tons of "fresh content" Google's algos think they are as interesting as webmasterworld itself, which is obviously bogus.
(Notice the name of the site domain "Cagey Media". :) )
On searching Bing:
I track the accesses from Google and Bing a lot, and while Google has a strategy of basically sucking up EVERYTHING on the net and then trying to index/prioritize it for actual search, Bing is the exact opposite. Maybe because of limitations of their infra-structure. Bing sniffs a site, and if the initial page is not on a topic that might attract advertisers, it stops there and never digs any further. Only many incoming links can change it to be more interested, unless your topic is main-stream and already "wanted" by bing searchers/advertisers. But because of the "sniff" strategy, Bing may never realize all the other pages that might have great topics.
By definition, a search engine cannot show searchers what it has never looked at to begin with. So when Bing decides to only look at 1-5 pages from a site, while Google has loaded and indexed 80,000+ pages from the same site, that tells me that unless my search topic is main-stream and advertiser related so it can make Bing money, I might as well not even look at Bing. They use front-end prioritization, while Google use back-end prioritization. Hence I would never use Bing for search, since my topics of search are rarely main-stream, advertiser related. :)
Bing in their TV adds tried to market this as them presenting more "relevant" or "targeted" results, but the basic mantra still holds: A search engine cannot present to users what it has never even looked at to begin with., so that means a lot of lower level pages with valuable content are surely missing.
So.. In Google a topic might hide in all the junk. In Bing it was never loaded and indexed to begin with.