Google's Current Incarnation - how "cute little G" has changed

[Reno]

< moved from another location >

If this is the first time you were hit hard, then welcome to Google.

Believe me, I've had my ups & downs like everyone else when they've done an algo update. In each case I dealt with the changes and managed to keep on keeping on.

What bugs me about this latest G* incarnation is how blatantly they are pushing aside organics and quality sites in general, to direct their own visitor traffic to the paying ads. There is nothing that I or you or anyone can do to impact a change to their own webpage design, so from the start of MayDay I have joined with Brett and everyone else in saying that is a reason in-and-of-itself for the huge traffic drops we are seeing. Google has gone from being a sort of "partner" to being a sort of "competitor", and it's not a happy change because they're the bull elephant and we're the china in the room.

.....................................

[edited by: tedster at 11:14 pm (utc) on Jun 2, 2010]

[Shaddows]

Calling attention to the right perspective, fitting to the "reason of existence" of this forum, should not be regarded as sarcasm.

Agree.

graeme_p was inviting people to view the correct perspective- i.e. how is google catering to the user. I did not accuse him of sarcasm. You, however, suggested this was the wrong way to think about things, and indeed suggested his view did not belong on these boards. You did it in a sarcastic way.

While user experience is irrevocably intertwined to a webmaster's overall considerations, consisting an essential and fundamental parameter, the perspective here is how all relevant parameters combined affect the webmaster and determine his actions and reactions.

Er, right. But just to be clear, you think mentioning the user experience invalidates comments, which should be posted on "SearchEngineUserWorld"

Since, however, this argument only results in noise, while not adding anything to the specific discussion, let us now leave it to that.

No, no, no.

You do not do a drive by criticism, get called on it, then suggest the other person is introducing noise.

Besides, I think your view is CORE to this discussion. A vocal majority seems to think Mayday should be discussed in terms of webmaster traffic, devoid of the user experience. The arrogance of your position simply underlines to me the sense of entitlement on display in this thread.

[TheMadScientist]

Okay, let me ask here, because I think this is the best thread for the question...

How many people who are losing traffic can honestly claim they have actually developed something new, unique, useful?

I don't mean redoing what someone else has done in what seems to be a better way, or optimizing better, or getting more links, I mean how many people who think they have the best site and deserve the rankings have actually created something (product, idea, way of doing things) new no one else has done before?

[backdraft7]

How many people who are losing traffic can honestly claim they have actually developed something new, unique, useful?

We have a BINGO! I took a short drop, but am now coming back. I have an original content site & trademarked service. The only problem is my competitor is an IP thief who ranks right next to me, runs dup sites and yet appears to thrive. Go figure.

[heisje]

"Light! More light!" (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
"Sites! More sites!" (YoursTruly)

.

[Drag_Racer]

Question: Are search results strictly profit oriented now?

Well, in my opinion, yes. They always have been.

10 years ago, good results brought in users by the millions. This made them more profite. Now they have the users with no need to attract more because there aren't any more. So, to make more profire they are force feeding us what ever results will generate more revenue.

Case in point:
I search for 'blue wigdets' (spelling on purpose)
The returned results are for 'blue widgets' with this message below...

"Showing results for blue widgets. Search instead for blue wigdets"

A year ago I could search for 'blue wigdets' and get results for that term with a link below.

"Did you mean: blue widgets"

Anyone who believes this is to provide more accurate results to me cause i kant spel, is a fool! Many more advertisers are competing for the correct spelling and paying more for it. The funny thing about this is the fact I wanted results for the incorrct spelling. Google, you blatantly failed in your sevice.

Now, the above example is not what I was really searching for, but it proves my point. A search for 'blue wigdets' returns the wrong results just as the phrase I used. This does not seem to occure on searches with only 1 word. Yet. Though, some may already. This is just one small example of little tricks used to profit regardless of the frustration it causes.

Reading many posts in the last 2 days by the professional here at Webmaster World, I have seen the frustration of programmers who build quality sites, and which have been properly coded, only to be lost in the mess of junk served by the out of control giant. It seems blatently obvious to me that Google does not care that its users get frustrated trying to find something because they will keep clicking on things until they find it. Clicks make Google money. So they are making you click more to find what you want.

It seems that almost every web page I visit these days there is some form of code served from Google. Be it an ad, a search box, tracking code, blog entry form, or some other widget, Google is tracking me where ever I go. The thing that really blasts me is seeing an ad served by Google on some obscure web page that is completely unrelated to the page, but the ad IS related to content in my Gmail inbox.

Now is it really that so many web pages have Google stuff on it or is it the fact these are the pages Google has offered in their results? I think so. Anyone think iFrames are used for backwards compatibility these days or is it so they can get the cookie from your machine when your on a different domain? (regardless if your logged into Google or not!) Again your a fool if you think Google is not mapping your IP address, MAC address, and accout when possible, to your geographic location. I honestly believe Google has stored more data about users habits, as well as anything else they can use, than all the data they have crawled the web for. Not illegal, by you do the math.

So after searching hard, sometimes for hours, trying to find what I'm looking for and being sent to all these junk sites loaded with Google stuff, I actuall come across the quality content I was serching for. I then ask myself why Google didn't send me here in the first place since everything about the page is more accurate and on topic that the first 50 pages I looked at. Duh, I did not do my duty and click enough yet...

The funny thing is, posting this is just so I can rant about it. Google is so far over the line that it is just not possible for them to return to being a search engine. This whole point is mute until they are replaced.

[edited by: tedster at 3:14 am (utc) on Jun 11, 2010]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

[graeme_p]

It seems perfectly reasonable to correct obvious misspellings. Why would any normal user want to search for misspellings?

[TheMadScientist]

So after searching hard, sometimes for hours, trying to find what I'm looking for and being sent to all these junk sites loaded with Google stuff, I actuall come across the quality content I was serching for.

...

The funny thing is, posting this is just so I can rant about it. Google is so far over the line that it is just not possible for them to return to being a search engine. This whole point is mute until they are replaced.

It's pretty easy to do (replacing Google), in FireFox anyway...
Just click the drop down, select Manage Search Engines, delete Google.

I actually only visit Google on certain days of the week now, or if I have to and really feel uncomfortable using G for anything except rankings (results) checks or to see the end results of their BBE (Big Bing Envy). It's really odd(?) how much I dislike visiting G now that I've switched, and I honestly don't have any tougher time finding anything, or miss G a bit.

[tedster]

It seems perfectly reasonable to correct obvious misspellings.

Agreed, especially when Google lets you know what they did, and gives you the option to get results based on the string spelled exactly as you entered it.

Unfortunately, Google is also correcting some query terms that are not really misspellings, but simply words whose character strings are close to a word that is more commonly searched for. A lot of the time that's OK - but sometimes there is a fail here that can be quite frustrating.

[TheMadScientist]

Hmmmm...

More on the topic of the post than my previous one:
I think Bing does a great job of mixing the results for a correction, but I can understand correcting it too... I wonder if the 'underlying issue' is the idea they are trying to let the masses think for you rather than giving you what you searched for individually?

It's one of the thing I don't like about the 'one right answer' idea and some of the things they are doing, because the one right answer for an individual is unique and can change or remain the same... What I liked yesterday in some cases is not what I want to see again today, because I already read it (or whatever), but in other cases it's exactly what I'm looking for, and there's really no telling, because it's like trying to guess which book by which author I'm going to grab off the shelf... I don't even know half the time until I grab one.

Anyway, whatever it is, the 'one right answer' is not necessarily what other people searched for or what other people want to see it's what the individual user is looking for, individually, but it seems what they're doing works well enough, because their market share doesn't seem to be dropping.