Too Many Docs & PDFs in Latest Update?

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Too Many Docs & PDFs in Latest Update?

Results for my top keyword getting too many .doc & .pdf files

onlineshrine

7:59 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Has anyone else noticed a big rise in the ranking of .pdf and .doc files in the latest google update? In the top ten results of a keyword for one of my clients I am seeing a pdf at #4, #6 and #10 and a doc at #9. Right now I am seeing this in www-ex and www-sj.

Anyone else seeing a similar rise of docs and pdfs in their keywords? Anyone else think it is lame? I want web pages when I search, not files. I guess I will have to upload some pdfs. :)

bhartzer

8:39 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

So how does one optimize a PDF file for high rankings?

Does the "Document Properties>Summary" make a difference? Is it links to the file? Can it be treated the same as an html file where keyword density and other "on the page" factors?

I know there's not a specific answer, but has anyone been successful optimizing a PDF file for high rankings?

bether2

12:31 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I also have noticed a recent increase in the .PDF and .DOC files in the google serps.

OntheEdge

3:44 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Content is king, and pdf and doc do tend to be pure content.

Napoleon

4:50 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's a real mess.

In some areas the SERPS are full of them. One search revealed only ONE normal web site in the top 10, and that was an Amazon listing!

The fact is that in 99%+ of cases normal surfers actually expect, and want, web sites. Pretty obvious... but Google seems to have forgotten.

If they are going to promote PDFs and DOCs up the SERPS like this, surely it is high time they did so under a seperate tab. If I want a PDF I would then be able to search for one, without having my normal search esperience totally cluttered.

martinibuster

5:20 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

PDF's pop up in less competitive searches. If a PDF is beating you I'd rethink your seo.

Dave_Hawley

5:24 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I too have noticed an increase in PDF and DOC files in results. I am suprised that Google would 'bump' them up as they take forever to download even with a high speed connections!

Dave

tedster

5:28 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thanks for pointing this out. I think it's got to be a temporary situation, but the minute I read your title for this thread, I knew I was seeing the same thing during my normal research -- and being frustrated by it.

bilalak

5:41 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

DOC is already optimized because so far doc files were not meant to cheat on search engines and companies put their DOCs or PDFs to give more specialized data for customers.
This is why google has indexed all those docs before companies starts to cheat with their docs.

To optimize a doc, I think the procedure is similar to an html page because after all, a doc or a pdf can be parsed as xml with default Microsoft Word CSS or default Acrobat text settings. In addition, both file types has a good set of meta tags.

Luck!

victor

5:45 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't see the problem here. Google searches the web not web pages and returns URLs of matching content.

A URL is not limited to a .htm or .html page.

A common complaint of Google and other SEs is that they don't search enough of the web -- often bypassing Flash files, for example.

onlineshrine: I want web pages when I search, not files

Use Google's Advanced search and set file formats to "Don't ... Any Format"

Dave_Hawley

5:57 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

RE: often bypassing Flash files, for example

I think that is good and they should throw PDF etc in there also. While PDF may have good content, they are a real pain to download and read. Flash is unlikley to have any good content.

Dave

Chndru

6:37 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

atleast for pdfs and docs they can put a link for opening in a new window. or atleast alerting the users that the file is not a typical webpage. at present, if a basic user clicks on a link, pdfs gonna clutter the hell outta the system and it takes awful time to load..bigger the pdfs worser! how many average users know what is pdf?

bilalak

6:47 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google give you the option to view it as html.
average users know what is PDF to an extent of 80%

Dave_Hawley

7:14 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yes but so may times I click a link only to find out after the facts it's a PDF.

RE: average users know what is PDF to an extent of 80%

Hmmm perhaps, but how amy realize they take so long to download.

Dave

wkitty42

3:43 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

all the PDFs i've seen showing up in google searches have an option to "view as HTML"... they are also rather easy to spot if one reads the whole portion of the returned search info for that url...

seems that some are too fast with their clicker finger? :)

ogletree

3:46 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have seen a rise as well. Google is just going to piss people off by doing this. PDF's are a lot of times big files that freeze your computer when you click on them.

WibbleWobble

3:58 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

A common complaint of Google and other SEs is that they don't search enough of the web -- often bypassing Flash files, for example.

A common complaint of the tech-savvy, perhaps, but I've never heard anyone simply using google (et al) complain about the size of the database, or that flash was skipped over (for good reason).

Opening up a new program to display something not only reduces system resources, but PDFs are almost always larger than HTML counterparts, and slower, and harder to use, and urgh.

werty

12:06 am on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I saw an increase as well. I posed a seperate thread which lead me here. 59 out of 100 pages were doc or pdf, and this is a VERY COMPETITIVE area.

I am wondering if they want to fill the SERPS with these to drive up the use /awareness of the adwords for the end user? Either that or it is just a flaw in the algo.

If you are interested in the search terms sticky me. 4.4million results, 3.1 million if you as -.pdf

mars9820

5:02 am on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

It is nice to read that everyone spotted the VIEW AS HTML tag from Google but this option doesn't work in many cases.

I am using an english system. And because I am in Asia and use google to search for data I will get a lot of asian language pdf. (like japanese, chinese, korean).

I HAVE TO DOWNLOAD the PDF to view this documents because it doesn't work to click VIEW AS HTML.

Well actually it does work but instead of getting chinese/Japanese/Korean characters you get questionmarks.

And please correct me but if I get a HTML file from google that looks like

? 70%?5454?

I am not going to understand this. Do you?

wkitty42

6:08 am on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

mars9820,

my apologies... i never thought about it like that... that is a tough situation... understanding that language translation is also hard enough, i can see where that option is minimally useful in many areas...

onlineshrine

1:33 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Personally, I think there should be a seperate tab or something for files other than Web pages. I think a seperation like that could be very useful. But having 50% docs and pdfs (even saw one powerpoint presentation ranked highly!) in the regular results seems like clutter to me.

onlineshrine

1:37 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think another interesting implication of this rise of .docs and .pdfs is what does this mean about PageRank? I can't imagine these files have many good external links going to them, based on what I have seen in the results for the keywords I am looking at. It seems to me it must mean that keyword density has become far more important than PageRank.

I am still new at this, so I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of my elders. :)

IITian

1:46 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

WibbleWobble>

A common complaint of the tech-savvy, perhaps, but I've never heard anyone simply using google (et al) complain about the size of the database, or that flash was skipped over (for good reason).

Agree. Inclusion of PDF/doc files in advanced search options, or placing them after the first n pages of results would be more user-friendly, in my view.

Even with fast connection I find them hard to work with, I can't imagine people with dial-up connections (over 75% of the internet users) to love them. Lot of computer service people are going to be happy perhaps.

chewy

1:48 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I see the problem plenty of times and have encountered a general increase. Haven't noticed a sharp increase lately, but then again, I'm not lookin...

Wouldn't it be nice if Google served up a dialog box when you click on a PDF that says:

you are about to download a large printable file

Click [yes]

Click [no] to go to the home page of this site...

--and click [here] if you do not wish to be reminded of this next time--

Chew

WibbleWobble

1:56 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'd prefer to see a filtered index that displays only webpages, but gives the option to expand results to include other documents. Say that if a PDF was in at number 18, it would be filtered out, but google could then display a piece of text saying "expand to include non-webpage formats" or something, like it does to offer cached and similar items.

ILLstyle

2:26 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

WibbleWobble I agree. They could make it a separate search like the image search. They really need to separate this out some how. Why do these PDFs freeze my computer? is it the size of the file. I really hate that.

mars9820

3:45 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

wkitty42 :

No need to say sorry...not your fault. But google should TEST their features before implementing.

It is nice to do a VIEW AS HTML if it really works for everyone. But click that and get a page full with dots or questionmarks is not going to help anyone.

I gave up completely on this option. Anyway...I am going to put some chinese pdf's online..will be fun to read my own documents as HTML...maybe I will still understand what I wrote...LOL