Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
"We deeply care about the people who are generating high-quality content sites, which are the key to a healthy web ecosystem," Singhal said.
"Therefore any time a good site gets a lower ranking or falsely gets caught by our algorithm - and that does happen once in a while even though all of our testing shows this change was very accurate - we make a note of it and go back the next day to work harder to bring it closer to 100 percent."
"That's exactly what we are going to do, and our engineers are working as we speak building a new layer on top of this algorithm to make it even more accurate than it is," Singhal said.
Google becoming the largest 'human' directory?
after the Texas Attorney General approached the company following complaints over search rankings.
They are saying the algo was already "accurate" so how will improving it help the people that were hit hard?
[edited by: Reno at 6:23 pm (utc) on Mar 2, 2011]
It is also wrong to reinstate some sites because they made a big deal. If you want to make a change, you need to include all the websites.
Given that I criticize Google a lot, I will commend them for publicly acknowledging that they missed the mark, and publicly saying they are attempting to do something about it. But also, this incident puts in perspective (yet again) how much of the previous announcements are spin, when they talk about how pleased they are with the accuracy of their internal testing, etc etc.
I don't doubt they were happy with their internal testing. Afterall, what testing was it? Just checking to see if a few scraper sites changed rankings?
“If you do over a large range of queries, you get a very good picture of whether the new results are better than the old,” Singhal said.
But after this change, the company asked additional questions about top sites to judge their quality, including “Would you feel comfortable giving this site your credit card number?” and “Would you feel comfortable taking medical advice for your child from this site?,” according to Singh.
“The outcome was widely positive,” Singhal said. (To be clear, these surveys are used to measure changes, not to create them.)
[edited by: TheMadScientist at 7:13 pm (utc) on Mar 2, 2011]
They are saying the algo was already "accurate" so how will improving it help the people that were hit hard?They will change the algo; that's what they say. Might become better - might become worse.
If they make it more accurate seems this could even make things worse for the hit sites?
did the reconsideration request work in your case? i'm not sure i got it right
So I should publicly complain?
Given that I criticize Google a lot, I will commend them for publicly acknowledging that they missed the mark