Google's approach might result in more data for research?
I don't like Real Time search.
Real Time Search = Gossip Search.
I did a search for Barack Obama on Google and get a tweet where someone tells me its great to live in Oslo because where else do you see Madonna, Lady Gaga and Barack Obama.
What the ...?
Where can I opt out of this madness?
On every search engine I can do search in images only, videos only, shopping results only, news only - and when I wanted to search websites only I used to go on the main page. Now there is no "website search only" anymore.
Everywhere I look the SERPS turn into giant garbage dumps where the search engines pour out all the garbage they have collected from various sources.
I can understand that everyone wants a piece of each cake: image search, twitter, myspace, news... there is so much you can search. But is it really necessary to display all the results on one page?
[edited by: jecasc at 9:26 am (utc) on Dec. 11, 2009]
|Everywhere I look the SERPS turn into giant garbage dumps |
But web 2.0 is the future, man.
lol, nice one, callivert. ;)
I simply can't understand the fad that is Twitter. The fact that Google is including Twitter in it's main search results is just astounding.
In my view, with the inclusion of micro-blogging in search results, the quality of Google's web search product has deteriorated drastically.
Real time search by Yahoo would be great if they actually would index websites to begin with. How many websites I run across on Yahoo only have the index page and nothing else spidered.
Its a fad thats been around for 3 1/2 years, I would get used to it if I were you. I personally only signed up to it recently.
If you cant beat em, join em!
|In my view, with the inclusion of micro-blogging in search results, the quality of Google's web search product has deteriorated drastically. |
I wonder if GG will have a separate search catagory. Maybe it will be:
"Images Videos Maps Mindless-Garbage News .."
|Its a fad thats been around for 3 1/2 years, I would get used to it if I were you. I personally only signed up to it recently. |
I do not have anything against twitter. It has its uses. But including tweets into the SERPS?
So when I search for "Tiger Woods" I can see results like: "OMFG. What's the diff btween tiger woods & santa? Santa stops at 3 ho's. LOL!"
O tempora o mores!
I like to imagine Web 2.0 as the first scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey. We discover the monolith (Twitter, Facebook, etc) and then start jumping around shrieking all at once.
However, in this example we devolve as opposed to the movie.
I'm not a fan of Real time search. It just looks like a ton of noise on the page. I did a search for Tiger Woods yesterday just to see what this looked like. It seriously looks like garbage on the page. Just a ton of noise and gossip from Twitter.
There's an idea!
these sites should be blocked from SERPs not ADDED!
nothing of value or knowledge come from these sites!
web 2.0 - the dumbing down of the internet.
My experience thus far of Google including Twitter has been positive. The 'tweets' included were only those that had a url embedded, and Google had expanded any short.url to show me both the page title and the full link. I didn't get any of the 'dumb tweets', and those that had no click through url were automatically excluded, so it was all very highly targetted to the searches I was doing and provided me with a list of relevant, up to date new links to dig into for the latest content on the topic. So positive so far, but we'll see. I can see its spam potential though, although I would hope Google contain that.
Edit - not yet encountered the Yahoo! version.
Admitting that they failed and twitter /facebook are better? Or just supplementing them
|The fact that Google is including Twitter in it's main search results is just astounding. |
Don't be too astounded mate .. I'm of the opinion that this is what search engines do when they've exhausted all other more productive areas of search.
Why settle for the best, when you can settle for the rest?
Listing social networking comments about how many times you've washed the car park in a week, IMO, is an epic fail on Google.
(made up search) Results 1 - 10 of about 9,825,520 from donuts in 12345 Zip
Google serves : "Just had 3 donuts. No wonder my butt getting bigger. hahahaha."
How does that help me?
I agree with Frontpage on Yahoo, they are #@^&$%^%#$%^$%*&^%$$! One mistake 10 years ago and hardly anyone gets back in (maybe a non profit might.) Now sites have 10 times as much spam, /link issues but harder to spot than in 1990's.
So I don't lose any sleep over their problems.
I was served by a micro-blogging (Twitter) search results box or surface (not too sure how to best describe this) on one of my Google searches a couple of days ago.
First, I completely agree, this is a tremendous failure from G, as these tweets can not in any way contain valuable content.
But Bing did it, and you can never fall behind in the web business.
And tonight another idea struck me: MFAS? are Google SERPS becoming MFAS? Basically, this 'twitter result box' is a complete SERPS real-estate waste; they take the room of about 2-3 webpage results. But they're garbage. What do you do when there is too much garbage on the page? You click the (paid-for) sponsored link.
Anyways, G should take a stance against this 'web 2.0' craziness and remove these tweets from the SERPS.
But on the technical side, the tweets in the SERPS was amazing, because they were actually being updated 'live' with a little scroll bar available to look at the slowly down-moving tweets. Pretty fancy AJAX, and pretty fancy real-time tweets indexing.
I don't know what to say about this... I think a comment from one of my forum members today, sums thing up perfectly...
|any way i can get all this twitter $#ite out of my google searches? |
I think yahoo is quite prepared. I submitted a nice website to Google and Bing last week, still not index, yet Yahoo somehow already found it and indexed within hours.
I think yahoo is quite prepared.