Forum Moderators: mack
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 10:21 pm (utc) on Dec. 3, 2004]
Take it easy, just because one set of serps comes back crappy doesn't mean they all do.
Google and Yahoo are equally as bad if not worse depending on your query.
So don't tell me to take it easy. :-)
I am with you 100%. In my sector the new msn search results are far superior to Google. Yahoo's results are far superior to Google's IMHO as well. My personal sites are not in first place or for that matter even 1st or 2nd page serps but I am at least found on the 3rd page of results. Google is a POS IMHO and is continually getting worse. You can't change all the PRO Googler's here from knocking on MSN's new search as they have probably all optimized for Google for far too long and didn't concentrate on the other engines. All I can say is I am very pleased even as it stands right now with the new MSN search. Results are relevant and spam sites are not diluting the results in my sector. I keep hearing that keyword in domain is a bad thing...Why is it? I for one have keywords in my domain name and I of course sell those items that are in my domain name extensively so should I be penalized because I have a keyword rich domain? I think not!
Currently Google is having trouble giving me the company website when I search for company-product-specs.
Can't give it to me in the top 10, that's a failure too. Gives maybe 20-30 sites referencing those specs, but not a single one with them, since the manufactorer site is the only site with them, dugh.
I still haven't sat down for a day to use beta.msn exclusively, mainly because it is a beta product, with limited functionality. But it looks pretty good, the results have been pretty stable to be honest, it's just barely possible they are closer to going live than they admit.
However, it looks pretty good to me. I'm guessing those who like it are doing well in it. Which isn't a bad thing, maybe they deserve to do well? I can't say I've found the bad serps complained of in searches. However, I can say this, I have been getting more and more spammy scraper type sites in google for focused technical sites. Junk that is. So I guess google sucks too. They all suck in one way or the other, I can live with it.
Maybe Google has applied one too many filters over the last months? I don't expect to see msn beta go live anytime soon, mainly because I expect a lot of problems scaling Windows server to that level, same as happened when they switched hotmail to windows. Never was the same either.
I keep hearing that keyword in domain is a bad thing...Why is it?
It's not bad it's just bad to rank a site solely on it's domain name because it's stacked with keywords.
The main thing MSN Beta needs to get up to speed with is its favoring of keyword domains and also it's failing to recognize the same company/website which has been split with multiple domains.
For example, one of my sites competes with a company that has 6 out of 10 listings in the top 10 for a 2 million result key phrase! This problem obviously warrants further algo work.
Just because it is fresher, does not make it better. MSN still needs to get a grip on authoritve sites and rank accordingly. If they can do this in combination with their freshness and still keep out spam, then they will have a great search engine.
If the authority sites aren't at or near the top all of the time the results aren't doing their job... but where does that leave new sites? I guess they have to earn their way up the tree like the authority sites did, if you want to rank well in the organic SERP's it takes time and patience, a quick fix may get you there in a hurry but you won't be there long if you haven't done the hard work first and earned your place the hard way.........that is doing your job well for a year or more, backlinks, good content etc
Are all authority sites good and do they all deserve to be up at top for tons of money keywords? No way. Most valuable information I want to find are in fact NOT authority sites, so why is it so important to rank them on the first page for tons of big keywords?
Smaller sites that have better and relevant information do not rank in google for money words. Ok, fine, but a year later, after tons of work was put into their sites, they STILL are not ranking because they do not have the authority, or tons of links. Is that fair? Because they did not dish a certain amount of money to build links? Thats what it all comes down to really...links. There is NO natural way to build 40,000+ links. Do not even dispute that. The only way to get that high is by paying for them...either by hiring someone, or several employees to work on this. Links are SUPPOSED to be natural though right? The authority sites have ways to obtain tens of thousands of links, the smaller sites do it the honest way, and get crushed in the process.
So why do some people get all agitated when some of us say we rank well in MSN beta, and not in Google. Of course we are not going to like Google, why would we if it doesn't rank us? We do honest work and it doesn't pay off. However our honest work pays off with MSN beta, and it is this fact that makes us tend to like that search engine better. And you know very well that if you weren't ranking well in Google you probably would have a few words to say about it as well, especially if you did honest work, and offer a high quality site. I for sure have a high quality site for musicians, and it will never rank in Google at this rate. You can't blame me for disliking Google.
There is NO natural way to build 40,000+ links.
I understand what your saying but does webmasterworld have someone building links? I looked on beta for links and it was around 60,000.
Apart from that I agree with you but its all down to whats relative and thats what the search engines are trying. Things like local search, sites from the uk rank better in uk search all making it more relative.
Ray
Yes, by definition.
"and do they all deserve to be up at top for tons of money keywords?"
Of course. It's unbelievable that anyone would seriously dispute this. Search results should serve up sites that know what the hell they are talking about in regards to a query.
There is a difference though, that for example Google can't get, between generic authority (say an article on cnet) and niche authority (say an article by the foremost authority in a field on her large niche website). It is a search engines job to not rank the generic authority, since it has no topical algo positives, but should rank the foremost niche authority at or near the top (unless the site is hopelessly, aggressively anti-SEOed).
It is a search engines job to not rank the generic authority,
have to disagree here. The search engines job is to provide a spectrum of results that include both the niche authority and the generic authority who by definition will have accurate/trustworthy information otherwise how are you defining generic authority?
Are all authority sites good and do they all deserve to be up at top for tons of money keywords? No way. Most valuable information I want to find are in fact NOT authority sites,
we are talking numbers here. To be an authority is to have a higher likelihood of having the information you want. Thats what makes them an authority. Yes you may find smaller sites with better information but fewer of the smal sites are likely to have it. The whole point of authority sites is that others in the field are making them the center of the hub or top of the hill, however you want to put it. This makes more likley to be relevant and have the best information.
Alot of authority sites are good (Microsoft, CNN, Intel, etc) however they shouldn't necessarily defeat ALL new websites for every single money keyword, which is happening. They outrank new websites for any keyword just because they are authority and thats garbage. CNN should not outrank me for ANY keywords I bid for...I am not a news site, and they are not a music site. Period. But of course it outranks me. So does ebay, amazon. These are very good authority sites, I have no problem with them, but there are many times where I type in my keyword or keyphrase, which is not that competitive by the way, and they will be on the first, second, or third page just because they are authority sites and they may have the keyword mentioned once or twice by users, etc. And where am I who deserves to at least be in the top 1000? I am nowhere because the authority sites are hogging up the space.
Isn't google supposed to recognize this though? They are supposed to pick up themes, and obviously thats not the case. I have a feeling MSN beta really can pick up themes, which is why alot of us are doing well. I am doing well with all my music related keyphrases, and its because I have an honest website for musicians, and its heavily themed.
I was just wondering if the search beta is being seen by everyone
The search preview, not format, but msn serps, are being seen by no one (or almost no one) except at the preview address. If msn.com showed those serps live, we would be seeing a HUGE difference in referalls/leads based on positions across dozens of industries.
In terms of result quality, I still feel msn is a bit behind, but I must say that the speed in which they have reached this point is impressive. IMO, they would have a far better product if they waited another 3-6 months, but I am not so sure it matters too much to them.
AS far as authority and niche authority - all the SE's, google included seem to be getting away from niche authority. MSN seems to be the furthest behind, partially because of Y! directory influence on their own serps (H=1 type manipulation). But google is moving further and further away from displaying the juiciest most info packed sites...
Even though anchor text is the most manipulated aspect of Search, IMO, it is still at the core of returning really relevant results and, IMO, msn needs to turn up the juice a bit in this area....
That all being said, we are doing just ok in the new msn overall. Seems that our big sites aren't scoring well for interior pages at all. For money terms, sometimes we are there, sometimes not at all.
At SES in Chicago, MSN repeatedly claimed they were launching in beginning to mid January. We will see.
</off topic>
