Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Is Big Daddy Choking Google?
Web site operators are clamoring to understand what can best be described as an ongoing disturbance in the Google Force.
Google's search engine, once a clean, lean indexing machine, from a Webmaster's perspective has been slipping badly lately.
Starting about two months ago, site operators have complained that their Web sites have suddenly disappeared from Google's index for no reason, tantamount to disappearing from the Internet.
Therefore, I agree with heisje 100%. When looking at yahoo and msn I see everybody on the first 7-8 pages with some irrelevancies but I see everybody who is selling WidgetA.
Sometimes Google with throw up a gem that nobody else has...
but these days I find Yahoo, Ask & Msn return, not great, but mostly relevant serps, where Google serps generally look like 'pin the tail on the donkey'.
They need to get their act together quick before somebody notices.
[edited by: tedster at 11:20 pm (utc) on May 12, 2006]
Why would anyone want to read the register or any other online magazine when they can get the news right here on Webmaster World?
Most people don't know about WW and other related forums. However, they learn about them via publications such as The Register.
Learn how to count will ya!?
Few years ago Google's result was as perfect as anyone would imagine. Every business was listed When looking for Town + WidgetA. Since the IPO they are not and almost everyone who dropped has been doing aggressive PPC campaigns at $7+ a click. I managed about 10 accounts with a total of $23,000 / month.
That is the kind of counting you all unknowing webmasters should learn :)
I spent a few hours watching the Web cast (thanks TypicalSurfer). I thought it interesting how Sergey said that other people call what's going on "Big Daddy" but that he doesn't - he referred to it as an update. So is that all this is - an update? If so, where did the label "Big Daddy" come from for this? Who used it first?
The articles mentioned on this thread may be old hat to anyone who has sat and watched Big Daddy, but it is maybe the beginning of a more balanced approach in the media to reporting Google?
Most articles I see in the press about Google rave about their pointless BETA products, desktop search and the like. Although nobody uses them they are the ideal hook for an article for a journalist pressed for time. Since many of the widgets are an attempt to hijack some already existing market, like chat or calendars, it is an instant story - Google challenges Microsofts chat software dominance etc etc
Anyone in the know is aware it's all crap. But it is effective marketing, the press equivalent of putting your link in guestbooks if you ask me.
It also serves to move attention away from the areas Google based its success on, namely their technical superiority. This no longer holds as it once did. With $Billions at stake, and a ruthless (if gullible) Wall Street observing closely, it ain't looking good. Peer beyond the hype and they're just another newish company trying to find a way forward and doing a very average job of it.
In reality the public users of Google don't care about Big Daddy or other technical details, but some sections of the press have begun to look at areas where users do care. The most obvious being search consistency. If sites are bouncing around, as they seem to be in some cases, this is noticeable to users. And it is this that will cause them problems.
Googles success is not based on technical superiority, it is based on people being told they are technically superior. If that mantra changes either in favor of another search engine like MSN, or people just get fed up, then Google are in trouble.
In short Google are playing a media game, something that has worked well for them in the past. But you don't stay flavor of the month forever.
So why "a priori" Google think that using text from other sources is not intesting for the visitors?
I also was pleasently suprised that for some searches I tried Yahoo get better SERPs than Google. I must admit that I tried Yahoo due to recent drop of my site in Google, but I had positive expirience and it seems I will start to use Yahoo more.
WebmasterWorld has so far had the privilege of Google update naming. I expect this is because of its deep reach into the webmaster community and respect the site has earned.
Google suddenly wakes up and shouts after the charging herd, "Wait, wait, it's quality that counts not quantity." Unfortunately the lemmings have found that Google will pay them money for Adsense ads provided they can get clicks. So the quality message is drowned out by the sound of cash registers.
Now we have Google, the modern Hercules, faced with the mammoth task of cleaning out the Augean stables they have helped to create. There's a delicious irony in all this.
Matt acknowledged WebmasterWorld's tradition of naming the updates and did not intend to usurp our heritage here. Big Daddy is not an "update", even though the new infrastructure has generated significant changes to the SERPs. I think this is because Big Daddy allows Google to execute features that were already in the algorithm but could not be applied widely or universally because of hardware and connectivity limitations.