Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
I can say that based on the searches I have done as a consumer, I like this index more than the old one. When I put in a city I get SERPs that have information about the city, not ten thousand affiliate sites waiting to send you to the exact same site. I just got done doing quite a bit of x-mas shopping and guess what, I found what I was looking for without having to go to page two of the SERPs.
I realize this place is full of the SEOs who’s #1 (if not only) concern is their own sites ranking highly and in most people opinion on here their site is always the most relevant site for whatever keyword you are looking up. But, what reasons other than “my site was optimized for Google and ranked #1 for a year but now it’s not ranked THIS IS GOING TO RUIN MY BUSINESS!” are there for the condemnations of this new index?
Unfortunately, my target audience, with tons of disposable income, couldn't repeat the minus operator if I showed them several times in person. My pop's a master Aeronautical Engineer and an avid Googler, and he thinks I'm David Copperfield when I show him these tricks.
I'm opting-in to AdWords and newspaper ads for the money terms--no choice until my behind-the-curve hubs become hubs.
Wrong. The well-informed searchers will use Google, and tell the computer clueless to use it because they realize even if they don't know how to use advanced search options, Google still returns adequate results. For years I've told the computer clueless around me to use Google for just that reason. And, because of people like me, Google will make *more* money. Google makes money off of Adwords. These computer clueless folks will use Google because the geeks told them to and don't know any better; and if they want to buy Google will not fail them because of those relevant Adwords. Geeks like me who find the Adwords inadequate will just use the advance search options to find what we want.
You need to realize that for most people a computer is just an appliance. I long ago realized this. Most people *don't want to learn about computers.* The just want someone to tell them how to effectively use it as an appliance for their needs.
You need to be a more effective teacher then. I teach the computer clueless 2 advanced search options. The first is using quotes. I tell them to do that when they want a specific phrase. Like a film title, song lyric they are trying to find the artist who did it, etc. I then tell them about the - operator, and to only use it when they get a SERP with multiple kinds of content, and to use that to eliminate the crud. I also teach that when the first SERP comes up unsatisfatory, refine by using more search words that are make it more specific. For example, if "Civil War" is used to find out about the US Civil War, and they get a SERP about many different civil wars throughout the world, add "US."
>I'm opting-in to AdWords and newspaper ads for the money terms--no choice until my behind-the-curve hubs become hubs.
But now Google is in such a dominant position, it has some responsibility to the industry not to make such massive and arbitrary changes without warning - especially in the prime shopping season.
No, it doesn't. It's responsibilites are to normal searchers. You want Google to owe you a "responsibility", get them to sign a contract.
All this whining is petty and futile.
The well-informed searchers will use Google, and tell the computer clueless to use it because they realize even if they don't know how to use advanced search options, Google still returns adequate results. For years I've told the computer clueless around me to use Google for just that reason.
In other threads you were stating that google was even more relevant than before and the next greatest thing since sliced bread, but here you are admitting that the results of "non advanced searches" are merely "adequate" perhaps.
Now I am hearing a changed tone from you, and an admission that Google is forcing users to do more work for the same high quality search results (people must now use advanced searches to get the former high quality results, and they will get only "adequate" results from "regular" searches).
Thank you for finally seeing that point;)
Futhermore, most people on the Internet fall into the category of 'computer clueless' (as you like to call them) and they are not techies like yourself. This is true because most people are busy with careers, family, and other things and they will NEVER take an active interest in learning the details of computers or advanced searches, no matter how easy it is to learn these things. You are ignoring human psychology.
In fact, even most "computer literate" people don't understand the simple idea of "screen resolution", even though that's a ridiculously simple concept.
In fact, one person I know (who is considered to be the "household computer expert" of her family) could not tell me what screen resolution she uses, and she did not even know what a pixel was.
Yet, she is a grad of a better than average university and is successful in her profession, and uses search engines in simple fashion and has no clue what an advanced search is (just like many people who are not obssessed with using advanced google searches).
...And the "average person" out there using Google is not even as computer literate as this woman, so your idea that all clueless people are somehow going to be educated on Google's advanced search features is ludicrous (because who is going to teach them exactly?)
Web site owners are going to teach them?
Uhhh, well, people use search engines to find web sites in the first place and not the other way around;)
They are going to learn from Google's simple instructions about using "advanced search options" on their main page?
Uhh, well, if people aren't reading through those explanations by now then what makes you think they suddenly will begin doing that overnight?
Oh, and your theory that clueless searchers will get so fed up with Google's results that they will take it upon themselves to "learn" these new advanced search techniques on their own is also ludicrous, because when people get fed up with something they simply seek out easier options (e.g. search engines that don't require additional commands to be typed in).
People and shoppers are lazy in general, it's been that way for 50 years and won't change anytime soon.
In fact, most people like to fight over every parking space in a parking lot just to save themselves 10 feet of extra walking time while walking to and from the mall. Shoppers could choose to park in the back of the parking lot without having to fight for a spot in juvenile fashion, but they will instead "fight like their lives depended on it" just to find that perfect parking space which will save them an extra few seconds of walking.
It's not logical but it's simply human nature, most people are lazy in everything (outside of their jobs) and they want to save every second possible, and the idea that clueless searchers (almost everybody on google) are suddenly going to take an active interest in learning Google's advanced search options is just not reality.
If that were true, these searchers would have done it already;)
Most people don't even realize that there are advanced search options available, even though Google does list those options in plain sight for everybody to see that doesn't matter because people are not seeing them. If you coach your clueless friends so they learn this stuff then that's great for them, but to suggest that everybody in the country (and around the world) will do this shows that you have a strange bias which doesn't reflect the average person out there.
You can say that such lazy people don't deserve to use google and therefore they deserve "bad results" if you want to claim that. However, that still doesn't change the fact that Google wants and needs these millions of people regardless of whether or not they are lazy (and regardless of whether their thinking is logical).
Why do people drive thru at fast food places if they are not lazy? Everything in society is becoming more automated and more time-saving, everything is about 'simpler' and "quicker" (with less hassle) and searching on the Internet is no different.
You are trying to suggest that things are about to start working in reverse where people and shoppers have to spend more time learning things to get what they want, but it's not going to happen. Everything in soceity is getting simpler, not the other way around. Google will learn this, give it time.
[edited by: Brenda_J at 4:45 am (utc) on Nov. 29, 2003]
>>> The sites in the top 10 were optimised to keep all of these pseudo directories and affiliate gateway pages out. Consumers who used our critical keyword searches were presented with direct links to some of the most appropriate web sites for what they were searching for.
I've been trying to make this point for a *long* time. Google only ever seemed to have succesfully combated the issue of spam because it ranked at least 20 relevant - yes SEO'd - sites above the spam, hence nobody every got deep enough into the results to notice the spam.
Now G have got a chip on their shoulder about SEO'd sites and tackled it - too harshly IMO - they have left themselves exposed belly up.
So what if some SEO's make some money in the process through affiliate programs or directly from clients. I see SEO's as actually being responsible for the quality of Googles results (they are the engine). What Google needs to realise is that Google needs SEO's more than the other way round.
SEO's will always optimise for the biggest engine be it Google, ATW, AV.
I could not have put it any better. :)
>Now I am hearing a changed tone from you, and an admission that Google is forcing users to do more work for the same high quality search results (people must now use advanced searches to get the former high quality results, and they will get only "adequate" results from "regular" searches).
No. For these people Google was adequate before, and is still adeqaute now. SERPs seem better to me now than ever. However, for the computer clueless, these are the folks who rather than refine a search will keep clicking to the next page until they find a relevant site. And, note that commercial searches invariably have relevant results on page 1 no matter what: the Adwords.
>> ...And the "average person" out there using Google is not even as computer literate as this woman, so your idea that all clueless people are somehow going to be educated on Google's advanced search features is ludicrous (because who is going to teach them exactly?)
Seek out the geeks. C'mon. Using "" and the - operators is rocket science? People who understand that much are all kinds of easy to find. Those who don't seek them out likely just are satisfied with Google.
[edited by: rfgdxm1 at 5:38 am (utc) on Nov. 29, 2003]
What exactly is right or wrong with Google? It looks just fine from this consumer and information seeker's view.
"Just fine" is okay for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but I expect Google to rise above "just fine" and to reach into the realm of "greatness";)
In fact, I hereby DEMAND this of Google;)
Not true. Using the real estate example, some city searches return results almost identical to pre-florida results, while other city searches now return directories, newspapers and wunderground, with the closest agent site 5 pages back.
>In fact, on most searches, they are serving up better results. Ranting about how random google is doesn't help you improve your position at all.
Again using the real estate example, some 'city real estate' searches havent changed much, if any, while others return several completely irrelevant results. The fact that a portion is good ignores the fact that a portion is bad.
>Seek out the geeks. C'mon. Using "" and the - operators is rocket science? People who understand that much are all kinds of easy to find. Those who don't seek them out likely just are satisfied with Google.
What an unbelievable statement! Please, someone notify rfgdxm1 and let him know that a newbie with no experience with the average internet user has hijacked his WebmasterWorld nick.
and if that doesn't work, will you tell your Dad?
You should not be so dependant on Google, if you are so important, compete with them and produce a better search engine yourself, then you will discover how hard it is to make everybody happy and get it right 100% of the time.
If this was so catastrophic for you, then your business was flawed and you only have yourself to blame.
What's wrong with google?
Google employed filters that don't work correctly. It really is that simple, and readily and scientifically demonstrable.
This wasn't something done to discourage SEO... In fact, it's going to have the exact opposite effect.
I successfully reverse engineered the filters associated with the market for one of the service websites I run. That means by the next update, I'll be back in the #1/2 search result positions for the key terms that this particular website deserves to rank highly in. Furthermore, I optimized it both ways, in case Google solves it filtering problems.
In this case, it was easy to do, as 89 of the top 100 websites dissapeared, and were replaced by either irrelevant search results, spam, or directories... All but TWO, that is... Two websites just happened to be targeting non-filtered key term combinations, and slid through, rising to the top of the SERPS. By studying how these two websites accidently avoided the filters, it was very easy to see exactly what was happening -- in this case.
Furthermore, I solidified two future contracts by a panicked webmaster. I had just redone a site architecture, it had just been indexed with vastly improved rankings, a day before the Florida hurricane hit. However, by identifying which word combinations were being filtered, understanding a bit about how, and which weren't, then making applicable adjustments, we were able to triple inbound google traffic by nailing top SERPS for strong secondary key terms-- even three or four filtered terms. The other two websites for this site owner dropped off of the board completely.
There is/was nothing wrong with any of these websites. They were not penalized for spam, they simply got sucked down the wrong drain. None of them were replaced by rich and wonderous informational websites.
In fact, with the client afformentioned, by studying who was eliminated and who wasn't, I have a clear idea of how to address the effected key terms as well, in the event that Google unwisely does not fix these disasters... I've opted to wait and see, since I simply can't believe that this will last.
It's the SEO's: The new ones, the advanced ones, the good ones, the poor ones, and especially the spamming ones, who are qualified to address just these types of situations, insofar as they are capable of being addressed.
If the new filters hold, it's not going to be fun AT ALL to successfully dodge the icy bullets for competitive terms. I'm planning three strategies to do so, which include ideas such as content rewrites, subdomain contingencies, throwing the main domain away ( I can't really ask a business to change their name ), and a bunch of content writing, and a couple of ideas that I haven't yet tested but should work just fine.
I'm sure spammers are WAY ahead of me, as I don't usually focus on 'tricks' but solid website architecture and content.
Sorry, no information is available for the URL Missingsite.com
If the URL is valid, try visiting that web page by clicking on the following link: Missingsite.com
Find web pages that contain the term "Missingsite.com"
It seems all the survivors I have tried will show a listing.....it seems like some of the missing sites no matter how many pages indexed get this message? I do see that the addition of -abcde to the missingsite.com search will bring the sites back.
To all those espousing the GREAT IMPROVEMENT IN THE GOOGLE SERPS - please fill me in how this magnificent search engine can not even find a search for wackyserps.com ....oh I forgot I to use the advanced search features -fkng -bs
[edited by: LateNight at 10:32 am (utc) on Nov. 29, 2003]
He says what you have to do is this, get here early before 6am, make sure you clean yourself up a bit and smile. Don't forget make sure you smile. Then not only will you get to the front of the line but also you will get a big helping.
So you follow the instructions and sure enough you get to the front of the line and you get a big helping. So every day you get there early, clean yourself up and smile and you are happy.
Then one day the guy handing out the food says "You lot who got here before 6 can wipe that smile off your faces becasue you're not getting any food today". So you hang around talking to the other early smiling people ( actually they've lost their smiles now) discussing how you might get back in line. The next day the same thing happens, and the next, and the next...
Then you work it out. Next day you pretend to be a bit grumpy, don't bother cleaning yourself up arrive late and push someone else out of the line. The guy handing out the food doesn't recognise you so he gives you some food. The next day you push in a bit nearer the front and get a bit more food. Pretty soon you are at the front of the line again, you're a bit grumpier and more agressive but you are getting fed.
Brett Tabke told me how to get to the front of the Google line in his excellent article which forms part of the FAQs of this board. I did much of what he says there and got to the front of the line. Now I'm looking for someone to help me get grumpy and agressive so I can get back in line.
Some markets dont seem hit hard, but in my random tests of my local areas, ALL individual AGENTS were removed. I am not saying this is necessarily a problem, but for the first time in 5 years, Google let me down and I had to use another engine.. :(
There is at this moment only one sure way to parade your wares on the net, which is to get your site listed in all the sites that *do* appear at the top (i.e. in my busness, a bunch of shopping malls and link collections), or, as I believe it is called at Webmasterworld, Spray n' Pray.
I have resorted to the latter because it is the only way I can continue to trade in this space, until people go elsewhere to view the wares.
Google owes nobody a living, but it should be remembered that they did not become No. 1 search engine for nothing - the quality of the sites that were hitting the top must have had something to do with it, or people would have gone elsewhere to look a long time ago.