Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Subscribed Links let you customize Google search to show special results from sources of your choice.Get started with our most popular Subscribed Links, or visit the Subscribed Links directory.
...
Not sure for how long it's been there, my guess it's about a few days at most, as I'm a frequent visitor to the settings page *grin*
It's nothing new, just another spin to the whole co-op stuff. Basically the recommended pages that were on the SERPs by default a year ago - and disappeared completely by summer - are back, although opt-in.
As far as I can tell.
The co-op list seems new, only has 4 categories, and contributors like Digg, Wikiwhatever, Wheather Channel, GamePro... Search Engine Watch and SE Round Table ( are SEOs testing Google? Or Google testing SEOs? )
Subscribe to see what it can do to the SERPs for the queries the co-ops register a result for. For example, SE Round Table has a reserved spot for 'link building' ...
See the co-ops here [google.com]
Click on either to see the queries targeted, and the 'subscribed link' displayed.
Then ask yourself what this is good for ( nothing in its current state ) and read the footer.
Much of the content in this directory was developed by other companies or by Google's users, not by Google. Google makes no promises or representations about its performance, quality, or content. Google doesn't charge for inclusion in this directory or accept payment for better placement.
Step by step instructions for the opt in #1 spot [google.com]
HAHAA... "Marketing people! It's never been so easy to deceive your newbie clients. Have you heard of the campaigns AdWords re-sellers used to pull in people to the program? They marketed the results as if they were paid *organic* first results in Google! Of course only on the phone, so no records would remain of the rhethoric. Imagine the same without all the fuss of becoming a reseller, using a credit card, or any non-anonymous conduct. Now, an additional tool has arrived for the black suit opportunists..."
You mustn't take this seriously.
...are SEOs testing Google? Or Google testing SEOs?
Some SEO blogs in particular were onto this virtually from day one, and were actively soliciting subscribers.
Both programs seemed to be open, but the fact that the original co-ops could be propagating results directly to the SERPs ( without users needed to subscribe to see them, ie. public results ) would have yielded a closed project, or at least close evaluation of the participants which I never saw. Heh... not that it's around anymore, soo...
...
well I don't even know what I wanted to ask anymore
Day one as in... since the co-op program started ( well over a year go ) or... since the subscribed links program started ( like a month ago or so? )
I'm talking about day one since roughly May 2006. The official Google Subscribed Links Directory wasn't listing all submissions, and undoubtedly still doesn't, but perseverance furthers... and some of the early submitters are now listed.
Then ask yourself what this is good for ( nothing in its current state ) and read the footer.
I feel that this is an ongoing Google experiment in user satisfaction. Early expert-seeded medical results were good enough that Google quickly listed them as Refinements in medical searches.
My hunch is that Google is continuing the experiment, perhaps in a different form, with these subscribed links.
Previous discussions:
Here We Go - It's Another Google Patent!
supporting editorial opinion in ranking search results
[webmasterworld.com...]
"Searches related to:" - Where are these from?
[webmasterworld.com...]
And the incentives are there to 'steer' Google in the right direction... But I'm puzzled because while it's a good idea to draw in human decision making ( and monitor the data ) it's just against the Google rhethoric, hence never given much publicity, goes live as beta, stays beta, then gets dropped 2 out of 3 times.
The ideas are surprisingly open - in many ways -considering it's Google, but... *cough* no, and EXACTLY because of this "they'll either use or not use, keep or drop editorial data collected this way, they'll either implement or filter SERPs based on contributions to make them more relevant, they'll either, not nor neither or both and XOR whether they feel like it or not" kinda possibly maybe shows me a serious issue with their conflicting ideals.
- One is to scale and automate, act and use rhethorics as if everything was done by a sinlge robot. It's actually a much more serious business decision than 'just' a technology related preference. Exaggerated example: you can't sue a math formula.
- The other is to draw in diverse but trustworthy datasets WikiPedia-style; originalting from n+1 interfaces they open towards experts who could contribute. Inch closer to 'openness', 'experts', 'communities', collecting and USING info from people without a second throught of their 'we can, we MUST do EVERYTHING with an algo' motto.
These initiatives are fine, they're even innovative. But they're not in line with their overall propaganda. I'm just afraid of the 'beta, wedontknowyet, perhapsitwillstay' limbo like lifeline. The original co-op listings have disappeared from the SERPs. I kinda remember nodding with satisfaction when I saw a travel query list 1 or 2 recommendations from LonelyPlanet for example. It's gone now. Does anyone even remember the refinement results these co-ops provided? the more: operator? For example the more:suggested_itineraries after a city name... Google still knows it's an operator. It's gone though... Type in a major city name and add this to the URL of the SERP right after q=mycity
+more:suggested_itineraries&cx=destination_guides&oi=cooptsr
Not only is it gone, it's as if it never was there. You can try querying this: site:google.com "Refined results". Perhaps it's intergrated in Universal Search, perhaps it's now included as a vertical in Web Search, and perhaps I'm reluctant to use anything that's not in line with the Google Way(tm?) because there have been programs pulled out from under my feet before. Sure they were beta ( though fully functional for years? ) and free. But not even a warning was sent out. And the only reason why I wasn't surprised was: It didn't provide enough pluses for them anymore, and was never in line with their business philosophy in the first place.
So unless they promise with a straight face and both hands on their heart, I assume that stuff that's NOT given a full scale PR make-over is kept from the general public for a reason. ( Sadly, these decisions don't belong to Google developers )
M'kay, sorry for another lengthly post... I just wanted to share a couple of observations of the battles that must be going on inside Google, between their management-backed PR department and the quality/functionality oriented developers. Perhaps the first two need to admit that it *looks good* to have more people contribute in a monitored ( but not controled ) manner.
