Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: mack
The baby has been well and truely chucked out with the bathwater and im not convinced all these filters are doing them any good at all.
Certainly in the sectors we follow the serps are a mess, but its what i expect from msn to be honest and as they still have next to zero pull in the uk i cant say im that concerned.
It looks like if you have a basic static driven site bluewidget.com and get a few links to it that say blue widget you rank top of the tree. You can do this with a five page site, its very simple. The moment however you add any real content or have any dynamic pages or volume content you start tripping a few filters here and there and get knocked back in the serps.
Out of the sites we work on the detailed authority sites struggle to rank in msn meanwhile the low quality basic end rank superb. The only exception is .gov or uni .ac sites which for some reason rank for no matter what so i guess the filters dont apply to those.
I guess they still have a lot of fixing to do
Finally, i thought msn didnt update on a weekend on the basis they couldnt fix it if it went pear shaped - obviously this is no longer the case.
however, after looking further, deep 301'd pages are still not being indexed appropriately.
using a site query function
site:www.abc.com = 104,735 search results
whereas Google and Yahoo are boasting a million plus, using their own site: function.
Am I missing something here?
But it really is the same search engine behind both of them.
What I really meant was that at your end there must be something different that creates these different results whether it is filter or something different that generates those results. I honestly feel and I know many others have said this that brazil, singapore, arabia etc show good results, perhaps it is a filter?
Could it be, and I am wild guessing here, those results either include or exclude certain websites or get some kind of different ranking.
It cannot be geographical location because brazil gives good Asia results, Australia gives good South America results.
I am not suggesting you need to tell us but if someone could spend a short time to check what is 'behind' the different generation of results that might be of great interest. Perhaps someone could do a random sample of test queries and see what comes up.
I cannot figure out why brazil results show me far better results for Asia than the main .com
The only site not #1 is in fact the best and strongest and probably deserves to be #1 (without wanting to sound arrogant)
The others, whilst solid, deserve to be roughly in the top 3.
Incidently, the reason I find my sector telling is because there is very little spam or seo so results are more transparent and easier to read
You know what? I think many of us really do appreciate you being on here talking with us. We are a little let down by other SE companies just not communicating with us. Somtimes we just need a real face to shell out our feedback and experiences. A once great search engine used to be quite active in the forums now they are nowhere to be seen. There was a time where good constructive feedback was given now I don't see much quality feedback as there once was. Go and look at the Google thread and you can see what I mean.
Yes webmasters are confused and this may be good, but how can any webmaster provide correct quality without knowing what that expected quality is. Especially when I have seen many quality sites abiding by guidelines who have been adversly affected by many hiccups Google has been experiencing. I don't mean Google should give away their algo, but I do expect that when there are guidelines that those guidelines be honored both ways.
I guess what I am saying is that you guys are doing exaclty what used to make Google so great simply by providing a way to communicate between webmaster and SE. Giving us clarification on many of the problems we see and letting us voice our opinion to benefit MSN search as well as ourselves. It is in my opinion that you do need us webmasters on your side. We are the ones that most help you to grow as a search engine. We are the ones who will point our visitors and friends to use your search. Just as we did with google.
To simplify: We really do appreciate you just being here.
It looks like your new filters are being put to use worldwide now and bring down the results. Is this your plan?
Anyways can we just have latin america results filters put on the US and solve everyones problems. If not then I don't understand what MSN is doing?
Anyone who doubts that msns serps are dire, take it from me, i can get a couple of members of my team to knock together a 100 page site and IT WILL rank TOP of the msn serps very quickly for ANY keywords required. Its very simple to do and whilst msn claim to be reducing spam and Junk sites, in effect they have a search engine that is still in beta mode, thats full of junk and spam sites and that needs a hell of a lot of work doing with it before they can produce anything half respectable from it.
We can only hope that they learn to improve the search engine and that in a couple of years time they will have made good progress and have something reasonable to offer.
In the meantime we need to give msn feedback where they are going wrong for them to improve matters. For msn to produce a quailty search its going to take time, a lot longer than Bill Gates 6 months claim from about 9mths ago?.
A quick look at any search request in msn proves how far away they are currently from producing anything even remotely relevent to the search string request.
[edited by: RichTC at 10:33 pm (utc) on July 12, 2006]
Garya: It's not filters. I know you really want to believe this, but it's not. Each Market has its own net customized for that market. Obviously we don't test how well Japanese queries work on the Arabic net, but it's hard to believe they're really better there.
The reason we don't use the Latin American Net in the US is that *we* don't measure it as being better. If we did, we'd do exactly as you suggest. Remember that every change makes some things better and makes other things worse. The change you propose (as far as we can tell) creates more problems than it solves. It just happens to solve a few of your favorite problems.
We appreciate the fact that you and a few others have sent us specific examples that perform better on these other-market nets, and we're looking at those to try to see if we can somehow capture the benefit without breaking anything else. Please try to be patient.
Something we do care a lot about is clearing up misinformation that might lead someone to massively rearrange his/her site in hopes of better SERPS. It seems like the least we can do. That's rather different from telling you how to SEO MSN Search, of course! :-)
I'm starting to get more sticky mail here, and I'm forced to delete most pure SEO requests without any response now, but I do want to give an answer that would help a lot of people: things on your site that annoy a human being tend to annoy our our Neural Net too. I don't know how many sites I've looked at that could get themselves into the top 10 simply by making their site more human-friendly. Granted, that's not always the problem, but (at this point) it's the most common one.
Remember that we think the end-user is our customer; we're trying to build a system that returns results that please the end-user. Whatever you think of our success at this :-) we will get better and better at it over time. Make this your aim -- try to design pages that please the end-user, not just pages that make money -- and you won't go wrong.
I am a firm believer in what you just said. Many webmasters should simply view all of this as being able to exchange value that benefits all parties involved. We allow you to spider and index our content so that you may sort it all out and give your customers the best value for their search. In order for you to please your customers you must be able to sort out and display the most valuable content related to their search but you are severly limitied by the value webmasters can provide. Webmasters should always consistantly increase value to their visitors in some way thus increasing the value of their niche/industry as a whole. As search engines work to increase value through their indexing process most webmasters who create and increase value tend to rise to the top.
I notice that most webmasters treat the serps as a zero sum game perception. Yes you can look at it as if one site gets thrown out of the serps another will take it's place. But to me this is an oversimplification. It is a value game plain and simple. YOU MUST PROVIDE THE VALUE SEARCH ENGINES ARE LOOKING FOR IN ORDER TO GAIN POSITION. If a site overtakes your site in the SERPS more than like there was a value change. That site now provides a seemingly greater value in the search engine's eyes. They didn't "take" your position. They simple provide the "greater" value. Since value consistantly changes you are not denied any postion. You just must simply provide the greatest of value or create NEW value through innovation.
Looking at it as a value game will greatly change anyone's perception of the process. SEO is a way to "increase value" by aligning your site to the aspects the search engines are looking for. As search engines get smarter we will start to see more business and site owners compete on a value level rather than the SEO manipulation level, where the game should be played. Who can provide/become the site/company of greatest value.
Just thought I would toss that out there as I see search engines trying desperately to take this value direction and getting webmasters to follow. Something to keep in mind as msndude is giving this same advice almost as a fair warning.
In the end I hope msn will stay unique like they have been, and doesn't look at others too much while changing things. All the negative talking here is a bit too much. I believe it's a nice portal and if they would stop modifying their search algorithm now, it would already be better than Yahoo's.
They shouldn't hurry things but should just take it easy, do it like they want to do it, and try not to copy Google. If you try to copy something it will never be as good as the original, so I hope msn will stay original with their results and let others copy them ;-)
I think your finding is pretty interesting. I didn't know that MSN search places sooo little value on anchortext.
As a suggestion, perhaps it would be better to place (considerably) more weight on anchortext? In that case, a search for "search engine" would return MSN Search, Google and Yahoo Search and not some not-really-relevant pages.
I see 2 blog sites with very little content for that category only one page, 2 sites again with only 2 pages with content related to the search keyword, all in all there is one site that fits the keyword where the whole site is about the keyword.
Another ting today I could not seach for some keywords, it said no results as all the mill. of sites where gone, what that means I dont know.
In one of the forums you said that your sticky box was full and you had to erase some of your emails because your cannot answer all of them.
But I had raised an issue regarding to MSN News Search and you wanted me to sticky you an example. Which I did, but never heard back from you. I am wondering if you have seen my sticky?
Thank you so much.
ashot: Don't believe everything you read.
Garya: We're really not trying to go against all SEO principles. ARE there SEO principles? :-) We're interesting in pleasing our customers -- and by that we mean the ordinary computer users who use our search engine.
Erku: We have not forgotten you. Be patient just a little bit longer. :-)