Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
EBay was the online winner this "Black Friday," data published on Saturday showed,[webmasterworld.com...]
Example, I find something on ebay. I *think* I want it, but want to research the exact item by part number(think server parts). Off I go to search it. Google points right back to ebay and a bunch of price comparison/MFA sites.
Sorry, can't buy it without knowing more.
Item remains unsold. No commission.
If a "small guy" with less prominence did that kind of subdomain flooding in the SERPS with multiple subdomains for the same categories and items, they'd probably end up being banned.
I include that in every search I do. Most browser search bars and search-bar plugins have the ability to add terms to every search.
This improves SERP quality 1000%.
(Actually, the full list I use is -inurl:(ebay¦dealtime¦nextag¦bizrate¦epinions) )
I have been using MSN more and more to get better results as Google is in need of some help. I believe they have overdone the algo and the results are not what they use to be.
I am also seeing in Google buying links is the way to go for better serps contray to what Matt or anybody else says I have proof but can't show it due to no links or serp results in this forum.
Brin and Schmidt say to succeed with simplicity.
A couple of goodies:
Schmidt: Google from the beginning focused on the simple search box, the simple search page
It's turning out to be TOO simple. Give us options. Give us the ability to control search. Without having to memorize obscure keywords. Give us the ability to store our preferences on your system. Not having to navigate to obsucre areas of browser or plugin setup screens to add search terms to every search we do in order to get decent results. That is insane!
While not admitting it directly, Brin aludes to Google's confusing and unsuccessful array of additional products:
Brin: We eliminated future products that would have made the complexity problem worse. We don't want to have 20 different products that work in 20 different ways. I was getting lost at our site keeping track of everything. I would rather have a smaller set of products.
As Brin and Schmidt struggle with complexity, and how they are (now) getting it right (which I don't agree with), there's one important factor they fail to mention.
What do users want?
Granted, this is not a simple problem but reading the ramblings of Mr Cutts could leads me to believe that the Oracle of search engines knows all about site ownership, footprints, business models etc.
You would have thought that it could figure out:
a/ That there only needs to be at most one result (and maybe an indent) from each large corperation.
b/ The user came to G to search and not to be sent somewhere else to do the same.
c/ A user searching on a term like "blue widgets" may be looking for info, reviews or to buy and probably doesn't want a whole load of results from either one but a bit of a mix of all.
Maybe they should just add a couple of extra search buttons
1 - "Search" - As it is now, a mix of allsorts
2 - "Service" - For services, reference, non-ecommerce
3 - "Reviews" - Comparison and review info
4 - "Shopping" - For those that want to shop
Has anyone done a 'Build a better search engine' thread yet?
There is meaning in the connecting words that search engines throw away as "noise words". They are among the nuances in language that allow us to communicate effectively when we can't see each other to devine fine shades of meaning from facial expressions and gestures.
When do search engines start understanding language? Why does nobody have this as a goal?
I see a disturbing trend in language, which seems driven by Internet conventions, and I think needlessly so. It started innocently with smiley faces, moved on to keyword-flinging, and now we "communicate" by "shouting" single words at each other.
The latter is AKA tagging. Is it entirely a coincidence that this technology shares the same terminology used by graffiti "artists" who can't even draw?
Simplicity. Yes. How about we just tell the search engine what we are looking for? In real language. Surely that is possible today.
To work, it requires the search engine to maintain state, over both short and longer periods of time.
"I'm looking for information on widgets"
"Here are the widget stores with the best prices! Lots and lots of widget stores!"
"No, I'm not looking to buy anything today. Maybe later. I'd like to learn about wigets, maybe from people who own them."
"Here are some nice sites by widget enthusiasts!"
"Those people are really into widgets! That's way over my head. I'm more interested in people's first-time experience with widgets."
"Here's a selection of "widgets for newbies" sites, along with some manufacturer's forums for their widget users."
"Thanks, that was what I was looking for!"
>>>At some point we have to move beyond flinging keywords at search engines.
Not sure if that is ever going to start dominating any time soon. Using 1,2 or 3 word queries is still very effective.
-------------
As for the ebay topic at hand. It seems to me in a tinfoil hat kind of way, that is in google's best interests to continue to allow ebay, bizrate and the rest of them dominate the serps. Forces the thousands of small players to break out the credit card and buy terms.
It is very frustrating from a user perspective. I know when I am looking at a SERP my eyes skip right past the ebay stuff.
As for the ebay topic at hand. It seems to me in a tinfoil hat kind of way, that is in google's best interests to continue to allow ebay, bizrate and the rest of them dominate the serps. Forces the thousands of small players to break out the credit card and buy terms.
Since ebay will not let sellers use google checkout (Pay Pal Competitor) would it not be great to see google boot them out of the index and start their own auction site....
I can see it now "Comming Soon - GoogleBay"
:)
I noticed some time ago that Google does not penalize spamming web analytics brands.
Would they also leave Ebay and its poor quality listings up on their SERP for a particular reason?
My answer straight out of the box would be that Google is affraid of being sued...
IMO they won't put down companies that have similar offers/products anymore because of risk of lawsuits.
So just build some product competing with Google and spam all you want :) (don't do..I'm just kidding)
