Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Message Too Old, No Replies

Five years of updates - but have results really improved?



10:22 pm on Feb 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

With all this going on, I have to ask a philosophical question: From all the famous or infamous algo changes over the years, the ups and downs, is Google really any better then it was in 2001 or 2002?

Did all these updates make a damn bit of difference in how well people find what they are looking for? Is there any improvement at all? Can we look back with hindsight and say - Google is better then it was and these algo changes and DC's made a big difference?

I really don't think we can. In fact, Google's latest algo preference has changed it's boolean search from ALL words to ANY words from "authority" sites ranking higher then pages that are actually more relevant.

I don't have an axe to grind against Google, and I don't have an anti-Google agenda to progandize - but I have slowly, not very noticable, been relying more and more on vertical search engines. And when I do use Google, I have to go the advanced search function and set up lots of paraments that I never had to use before.

From the monthly Google dances, to Florida to Brandy - and so on, the intended goal was never met, Google engineers are overpaid on a lost cause and "invented" work, and the future of search does not lay in bipolar manic depressant algorthym changes.

In the final analysis, this route that GOogle has sold itself on is a waste of time, and the Big Corporation is infested with a case of Group Think not seen since the Bay of Pigs Disaster, or the Iran Hostage Rescue fiasco.

Google is the best, the very best, at selling their brand name - which fools people into thinking they have gotten better at what they do over the last 5 years by these "Updates."

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and now 2006. If you look at the big picture instead of your own selfish considerations of how your site did during a given year, everything has changed - but nothing has really changed.

What was it all for? It's like an unpopular war that goes on and on and on and years later, the common folk (not the politicians or generals) ask themselves - what the hell was it all for? What good did we do?

The future, IMO, likes in vertical search engines with specialized topics, semantic text indexing, taxonomy and a much small DB of 100 million pages from hand - picked websites. Vertical search engines can offer specialized searches better then the big boys do, and can decentralize the power away from the Super Corporations who assure us they know what is best for us.

I apologize for rambling here, but I have been putting together these loose thoughts on the state of search affairs from a different perspective - and don't have all my thoughts elequently written or or thought through. This is a theory that's a work in progress.

Thanks for reading, feel free to blog my insane ramblings.



4:01 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

I agree and have been quite impressed lately with the Beta version of Mindset that Yahoo have put together - Sales vs Research slider function allows the user to weight their search in favour of their prefered outcome. [mindset.research.yahoo.com...]

Something as intuitive as this, with more search preference criteria would be a great way to filter out certain types of results.


9:08 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

Google ended January with a 41.4 percent share of the U.S. search engine market, up from 40 percent in December, according to comScore Media Metrix. Yahoo Inc.'s share declined to 28.7 percent in January, dipping from 29.5 percent December, while Microsoft Corp.'s MSN held a 13.7 percent share, dropping from 24.3 percent in the prior month.

Those numbers are so far from reality I may as well say Teoma has a 30% market share. It's more like google 70, yahoo 20 and msn 7 - the others share the scraps...Heck, Yahoo's cfo just sited they had a 20% market share, doubt they would play it DOWN :)


9:26 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

You cannot believe any market share reports. It is too easy to lie with statistics.

A lot of these reports count market share by page impressions instead of submitted queries. Thus anybody with their home page as yahoo or msn will count towards their market share. Even if a surfer uses another search engine.

Also some count unique visitors which is hardly relevant for market share. Google users are generally more seasoned internet users and I would guarantee that on average they make more searches than other search engines.

You can only believe what your site statistics tell you. From the 30 odd sites I manage, all have the similar trend of approximately 70% G.


9:33 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

<<Then the sites will have to be manually reviewed>>

DMOZ is already there, just needs to be ramped up to deal with more volume quicker. (please dont turn this into a DMOZ rant)


9:39 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member

<<DMOZ is already there, just needs to be ramped up to deal with more volume quicker. (please dont turn this into a DMOZ rant) >>
I do think DMOZ consistently delivers excellent results, it's just too darn slow getting new sites indexed. I think most categories don't even have an editor.
It seems to me somewhere in the middle of MSNs hyper-active robot, and manual checking there should be an answer.


9:59 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

DMOZ- It's all volunteers and run on almost no budget.
If you want a manual check on sites this is the vehicle to use, just pump some money into it and watch it hum. There are some great people in there.
Now back on topic..............


10:27 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

<<Then the sites will have to be manually reviewed>>

You says they aren't already....


10:47 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

No, I don't think they are better, but as others have offered, without all the constant changes spamers would own the SERPs entirely (as opposed to just partially as it is today).


8:03 am on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

On the subject of manual reviewing, which i think is the ONLY way to come close to guaranteeing quality results, something like the Wikipedia hierarchy may lend itself to providing "authority" pointers at the very least.
This 69 message thread spans 3 pages: 69

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month