Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Also, I have found myself using it when I need to locate a business in particular, I use live.com.
For example, I was looking for #name# modeling agency in Brisbane. Google returns results on and sites with high pr, and some relevance to the terms, without actually showing the site itself.
Live.com, returned the site at No.1, further inspection showed they were likely both sandboxed, and penalized, though for what I could not see, nothing intentionally bad as far as I could tell... though they did have some issues, duplicate description tags, accidental overoptimisation and they had few incoming links.
Point is, I am a full time SEO, and now find myself using live.com to find businesses(though I don't use it for information searches) instead of Google. I think with many users now installing Vista, and getting live as the default search engine, ... that many people are going to start using Live.com, that would not have.
Once they also see(as in my case) that it is better than google for finding a particular company(no sandbox, seemingly no penalties applying to a business name) I would also expect many of them to keep using it.
My traffic across the board (200+ sites) has swung by 9% to live in the last 2 months. Anyone else seeing live taking up a greater % of their traffic?
Has Google ever been able to really venture outside of it's core business?
Sure. Search was Google's core business when the company was founded in 1998. Advertising didn't arrive until 1999, and the Google AdWords PPC program wasn't launched until October, 2000.
