Forum Moderators: open
I find this frustrating. It seems that Yahoo places greater weight on actual content, whereas Google is completely fixated on the number of incoming links. In these days of link building fatigue, new high quality sites are penalized by G for not having the critical mass of incoming. Meanwhile G shows old dinosaur sites with Korean War vintage content on its first page of results simply because they have 1500+ incoming links.
On my key word Google is still showing a site on its first page which has been dead for over a year now.
Anyone else find this to be true?
I'm not. Since the beginning of the year, I use G, Y, DP, and T for all of my important searches. G's results
are consistently the poorest.
You need to look at terms, not totals, and compare traffic results on those terms where you have remained in the same top position.
And no, I don't see anything similar. Google traffic is up to 84% and yahoo/msn are still running under 10%. But Google has a lot more of my pages than MSN, and I rank slightly better in google than yahoo.
The one really significant trend that I am seeing has nothing to do with search engines. Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox usage is up almost 100% since the beginning of the year.
For several competitive two KW terms we rank 26 of the top 30 results...it's ridiculous, we've even been trying to remove them without success. Three web sites were running neck and neck at the top purely with simple redirects to the main site.
These have now been removed however Google did not have a problem recognising them as redirects therefore did not spider them.
Another thing we've noticed is that Yahoo.com does not seem to like UK servers as much as US based servers!
We're going to experiment soon with some sites on US servers to see what happens.
Since the beginning of the year, I use G, Y, DP, and T for all of my important searches. G's results
are consistently the poorest.
I will agree that in some areas the other engines do better than google. But the problem with those engines is the small size of their index. Yahoo is the only one that even comes close to google, but yahoo has a definite preference for commercial searches.
I do a lot of my searches on some pretty obscure subjects, and Teoma just does not have a large enough pool of pages to draw from. Google wins hands down in these areas, so google remains my default search engine, as it remains for the vast majority of those on the internet.
I have to agree with Jambo_ME...I find our results in Yahoo.co.uk extremely embarrassing!Have you tried MSN's new search (beta). Same thing. I had 14-15 top results. I used their feedback to thank them (and point out that wouldn't get them very far in the real world).
Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox usage is up almost 100% since the beginning of the year.I'm proud to be one of those that made the switch.:)
As for Google, I think they need to trade in some phD's for some MBA's.
As for Google, I think they need to trade in some phD's for some MBA's.
Hopefully the IPO will advance this theory :-)
Which is obvious proof that good content had nothing to do with it. Bots can't tell the difference between "Hillary climbed Everest" and "Everest climbed Hillary".
