Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.20.75.63

Forum Moderators: mack

Message Too Old, No Replies

Optimizing for Microsoft Search

     
11:53 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 16, 2004
posts:5
votes: 0


It's clear that Microsoft won't tell us anything about their algo. It's also sure that on this stage we only have some ideas which it's quite difficult to proof.

I really think that the first step would be to put all this information together.

Let's see how fast we can be...

12:29 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Mar 8, 2002
posts:2897
votes: 0


Hi there rpnsoft and welcome to WebmasterWorld. Thanks for joining us.

You first... ;)

Dixon.

1:27 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 16, 2004
posts:5
votes: 0


When you start with a new problem the first phase would be to read what all others said about that topic.
This is what I tried to do and I suppose I'm not the only one.

However the most active topic is the one where we offer feedback to the ms-team even if most of the visitors of this forum would like to read a topic like this one (my opinion).

Try to search in MSN for:
"Optimizing for Microsoft Search".
At the time when I write this message you'll find no result.
Let's see how fast MSN index our topic.

The MSN doesn't provide a pagerank tool like google does. But could be the "Updated recently" slide bar which will help us to make some test pages and see the results quick enough to move this topic forward.

2:32 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 16, 2004
posts:5
votes: 0


According to:
[blogs.msdn.com...]

"One factor our Beta uses in ranking pages is the text of links that point to a page. If many links to a site contain a certain word or phrase, that site will rank highly in a query for that word or phrase."

2:57 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 19, 2003
posts:859
votes: 3


Popularity is a new ingenious factor, so gather all of your friends and spend a few months clicking on your links :-)

I wonder how they decide how popular a site is... it almost makes me wonder if they are buying data from a third party.

What a great system, and anyone who doesn't like the idea can chose to view less popular sites only!

At last we have some choice about the results that we see. The user is now making decisions rather than the search engine doing all the work. Brilliant!

3:01 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 1, 2002
posts:1834
votes: 0


But what is "popularity"?

I do not see that it is how often a site is visited.

G purportedly uses "link popularity", or how often a site is linked to. Isn't it more likely that this is what M$ is using?

WBF

3:25 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 16, 2004
posts:5
votes: 0


This is what they mean by Popularity: (just click 'Learn more' in the Search Builder->Results ranking view)

"To add emphasis to sites by the number of other sites that link to them, move the middle slider up."

4:04 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 19, 2003
posts:859
votes: 3


This is what they mean by Popularity: (just click 'Learn more' in the Search Builder->Results ranking view)
"To add emphasis to sites by the number of other sites that link to them, move the middle slider up."

You're quite correct, please accept my apologies! I made an assumption about this which I should not have done.

I still think its great giving people the option.

Something msndude might want to know; the description of how these sliders work are incorrect. 1 and 3 should be swapped:

1)To modify your search to add emphasis to sites that have been recently added to the search index, move the first slider up.
3)To put the most emphasis on the match between your exact search words and your results, move the third slider up. This will de-emphasize the two other rankings as search parameters.

Unless it is my sliders that are mixed up and not the description :-)

11:52 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 2, 2002
posts:274
votes: 0


"the text of links that point to a page"

Internal link text seems to be a key ingredient by the looks of the new MSN search--at least from my view.

12:08 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 16, 2004
posts:5
votes: 0


Searching now in MSN for "Optimizing for Microsoft Search" returns already our thread. Seems that in max. 48 hours the page it's full indexed.

Google doesn't know our page yet...

1:15 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 23, 2003
posts:77
votes: 0


Google doesn't know our page yet...

and thats NOT the beta search! The result points to Receptionals profile.

Its really nice to see relevant, up-to-date results in a search engine isn't it, hang on, this is the MS forum, not the G forum.

Are MS teaching us the true meaning of duality? love/hate

Tony

1:25 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2002
posts:1167
votes: 0


> Google doesn't know our page yet...

Oddly enough, yeah, G knows
Using the four word thread title, G just delivered
two results: a link to this thread and a link to the active post list
7:20 am Daylight Savings Time, Central USA time zone

4:28 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 23, 2003
posts:77
votes: 0


Ah yes, there it is, limping in in second place, ah well better late than never I suppose ;)
6:56 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2002
posts:1945
votes: 0


sure..works fine for non-optimised phrases.....pretty primitive for anything else....
8:20 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 11, 2004
posts:582
votes: 0


I noticed that when you search with : widget {popl=0} {frsh=0} {mtch=100} the results that pop-up are the ones containing the widget keyword in the title and url. Conclusion, match characteristics are MOST influenced by url and title.

Another thing; keyword spamming at the bottom of pages seem to be fine for MSN (for now though, I am not sure how much longer that will be)

8:20 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 11, 2004
posts:582
votes: 0


Also, we need someone to write a msn ranking web utility, that would help a lot.
10:08 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 5, 2004
posts:470
votes: 0


The new MSN search seems to weight meta titles, domain name, and on-page content very highly. Inbound links don't seem to function at all the way they do in Google.
10:30 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 19, 2003
posts:859
votes: 3


The new MSN search seems to weight meta titles, domain name, and on-page content very highly. Inbound links don't seem to function at all the way they do in Google.

This is not what I am seeing.

Volumes of inbound links have a huge effect on current rankings.

1:39 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 31, 2003
posts:536
votes: 0


Also, we need someone to write a msn ranking web utility, that would help a lot.

Amen, brother. Testify

3:20 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2002
posts:1945
votes: 0


>>>Volumes of inbound links have a huge effect on current rankings.

it just the sorting of value for those links is not on a par with google which is why authority sites arent doing well....seems sheer weight in numbers of identical links from anywhere is all it takes....

10:13 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 22, 2002
posts:1749
votes: 0


I agree with soapystar. Search for a non-English word, and many top-10s will be dominated by English pages having one occurence of the keyword, buried deep down in the text.

Also, IMHO <title> seems almost irrelevant, and certainly much less important than in G.

11:43 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 6, 2002
posts:702
votes: 0


in non competitive key words I have the impression that on page factors have a higher weighting in the new beta msn search than in google.

several sites results confirm this for me.

10:19 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 14, 2003
posts:79
votes: 0


Hey u all...

Just one thing:
I really hope the new msnbot to have as much bugs as most win* products do...

1:27 am on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 13, 2003
posts:442
votes: 0


The location of the server seems to be weighted in.

Compare your keywords between
beta.search.msn.com
beta.search.msn.co.uk
beta.search.msn.se

A server physically located in Sweden doesn't stand a chance on the first two (with a two-word English phrase), but ranks #2 for the same phrase on .se

For Swedish phrases servers located in Spain and UK ranks better on the UK site, while the server located in Sweden ranks well on .COM...

Also, I find quite a few tracker links (affiliate links routed via a click counter) in the serps. This is of course nice for well SEOed affiliate sites, but maybe not for merchants with aff programs.

12:22 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 3, 2004
posts:333
votes: 0


Nikke,

I agree, this appears to be the opposite of how google works. In my experience, on google, a website hosted in Spain, about Spain ranks higher than one hosted in France, about Spain.

MSN seems to use the location of the searcher to determine relevance. A website hosted in France, about Spain will ranking higher for searchers in France than a website hosted in Spain.

12:27 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 1, 2002
posts:1580
votes: 0


Ohhhhh Gooooodm

There is si much danger in the speculation.

Sit bacjj, relax, and eait fot the dreams.


Ready? or not!

1:39 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member from US 

10+ Year Member

joined:June 24, 2003
posts:139
votes: 0


i know, form my personal site, that msn is definitely liking text links pointing to my site, my site does very well for the keywords that are in the text links. i have even added a few pages to my site in the last couple weeks, and i didnt add meta tags to those pages yet, and they are in the top 2 pages of msn's beta index for some competative keywords. looks like it likes links pointing to index as apposed to subpages. seeing no links point the the new subpage i created, yet excellent placement.
2:28 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 30, 2003
posts:625
votes: 0


my 5 main sites all return at #1 for my keywords so I am over the moon, however..

I have mentioned this a couple of times, I am not seeing a lot of sites showing that should do (presumably they have not submitted and are awaiting a natural crawl)

I think until they include a lot more sites nothing can be considered conclusive
Regards
Rod

11:12 am on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Mar 8, 2002
posts:2897
votes: 0


presumably they have not submitted and are awaiting a natural crawl

I doubt that many sites of note have not been crawled by now by MSNbot. So they just must be badly optimised for the new engine.

Just be happy Phantom if you are beating the big boys, and hope it will continue.

I am in the UK so it doesn't work with me yet, but I would seriously consider creating pages which are geo-trageted in nature to all zip codes in which you operate if you want to get serious. That "near me" button will potential become a massive discriminator.

11:54 am on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 30, 2004
posts:1148
votes: 0


That "near me" button will potential become a massive discriminator.

where is that button now? I seem to have lost it be seen it before...?

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32