---- Big brands do not have the upper hand - Matt Cutts
diberry - 5:01 pm on Apr 5, 2013 (gmt 0)
I'm saying they are committed to search results that serve the greater majority of regular users, rather than those of us who may have more specialized interests.
Either we're not communicating, or you're saying that Google INTENDS to give me irrelevant results when it knows I'm searching for niche information. I can't believe you'd argue that (it smacks of conspiracy theory), so...
Maybe we can clarify this with a madeup, not-real-search example. Let's imagine I'm having constant elbow infections, and my doctor's only solution is to keep medicating them because she can't find an underlying reason why they keep happening. I pick up a free magazine from outside the hippie health food store, and it talks about "wacky elbow infection syndrome", a controversial new disorder that medical science isn't acknowledging the existence of yet, and it sounds just like what I have! So then I Google "wacky elbow infection syndrome". My top results are likely to be several completely irrelevant articles from Mayo et al. On page 4 I finally find independent sites and forums where sufferers and alternative practitioners are talking about "wacky elbow infection syndrome." Nothing like that phrase occurred on the established medical sites at the top of the SERPs.
So for which reason are you arguing this happens?
--Because Google is committed to boosting "brand" sites even when it's clear they have nothing to offer a particular searcher, and the searcher will be disappointed? --Because the algo isn't perfect, and sometimes the factors within it don't quite hit the right balance? --Because Google is dedicated to forcing everyone to think mainstream, and is punishing the naughty open-minded searcher by burying the naughty alternative thoughts on page 4?