What I think Google should do. What do you think?

[sleidia]

Hi everyone.

Another useless post, not a rant this time, but an idea of mine that Google will never think of ... I guess.

And I would like to have your opinions about that idea.

We know that, most of the time, not appearing in Google results is the same as not being seen at all. And we also know that Google competitors will hardly manage to catch up in a foreseeable future. And finally, we know that users won't easily quit Google search even if there was a nice contender in sight.

So, this made me think of one thing Google should do in order to :
- ease the pain on webmasters
- improve the quality of their service for its users
... alltogether.

For this to become possible, I firmly believe that Google should propose more than one almighty algorithm so that :
- websites that don't appear with one algorithm might appear on another one.
- users could refine their search with different algorithms on the same service.

For example, I imagine an extra algorithm that would target only commercial websites, another one targeted to knowledge bases, another one for websites that have almost no content (ie: Flash games), and so on...

What do you think?

[BenFox]

They kind-of already do.

They use QDF (query deserves freshness), QDD (Query deserves diversity - that does exist right? I'm not making it up) and they've even got a special festive algo for Christmas.

On top of that there's the option for users to search locally, by recency of updates, for images, for video, for news, for academic documents, for blogs, in real time and for news.

What's more if you're an advanced user you can even make more complicated demands of Google which don't technically change the alogrithm but can drastically affect the SERPs. For exmaple ["keyword" amazing inurl:awesome -mycompetitor].

[sleidia]

Thanks Ben but that's too far away from what I'm talking about.

Things like QDD and QDF are not controlled by users themselves. It's something Google operates in the background depending on the query.

As for query parameters, only super-power-users use them. Not the average user, which is the huge majority.

I'm talking about a simple "click on a single button option" that would help people search within a type of website. You don't want to dive into how-to and tutorials when you search for a purely commercial solution for example. And you don't want to go through companies websites when you need only knowledge.

I think that that kind of control would bring a lot to both users and webmasters.

[Shaddows]

No chance. If you dont grasp operators, you wont want to choose algos. How many people even know what an algo is?

And why would G want to disrupt the "we are the definitive web" image by suggesting there might be alternative ways of sifting information. I mean, if another Google algo could give me better results, might not the Bing algo do EVEN BETTER.

[sleidia]

Shaddows :

The thing is to let user choose what kind of websites they want to search from. They don't have to know what an algorithm is. I really don't see any problem with that.
It would be as simple as clicking an option from these:
1. search within commercial websites
2. search within knowledge driven websites
3. search within mostly visual websites
And each of those could be summarized with an icon that anyone could understand with the blink of an eye.

Sorry but I don't get your last point either.
It's not a better alternative outside Google. It would remain inside Google's main search page.

[DanAbbamont]

On top of that there's the option for users to search locally, by recency of updates, for images, for video, for news, for academic documents, for blogs, in real time and for news.

It's my impression that they decide to include these in the results based on user data anyway.

[londrum]

if you search for an ambiguous term like "cameras" on Bing they seperate the SERPS into chunks, with different headlines for all the most likely meanings.

that is probably the best way of doing it. because the user doesnt have to do anything extra.

[DanAbbamont]

It's a little shuffled around, but it's exactly what Google does.

[bing.com...]

[google.com...]

[Shaddows]

Sorry but I don't get your last point either.

Basically, if Google itself can offer a different SE which might better meet my needs, I might think maybe other SEs might be better too.

Also, we are an ecom. We also provide truly a LOT of information. In fact, our USP is the amount of knowledge we have on board- available onsite and over the phone. We pick up loads of conversions from knowledge seekers.

Then there are affiliates. Kind of just info, but monetised by selling leads.

Anyway, Google offers product search from the Left Hand menu, and organics is pretty dominated by info and AV. I really think its a tiny minority who would use this- and they would be better served by learning to use the tools already available.

Finally, I don't think Google is actually accurate enough in their profiling to 100% serve different "types" of site. Too many edge-cases and too much potential for embarrasment if they got it wrong.

[deadsea]

Google should start penalizing sites that don't have external links to other high quality sites. Right now webmasters have little incentive to feed the link graph with high quality data.

Matt Cutts recently talked about sites getting smarter about when to use nofollow and when not to based on reputation of the user on the site. Webmasters aren't going to spend time making that the case unless they are given incentives to do so.

[StoutFiles]

If Google should do anything, they should have their bot detect when a website immediately tries to install spamware upon visiting and remove that site from both the search and image index.

Is that too much to ask? I can stand a crappy site that would likely need a human check to be penalized, but sites installing software need to go NOW.

[sleidia]

Shadows :

I'm sorry but your argumentation is deeply flawed for this very simple reason : Google has already shaped the web during the recent years. Your ecommerce provides a lot of information because Google told you to do so in the first place. If the "content is everything" mantra didn't exist, you'd probably never have bothered inserting that much information into your site.

As for the part that I didn't understand, sorry but it seems to be based on a misunderstanding on your side. You wrote "if Google itself can offer a different SE" which isn't what I'm talking about. It wouldn't be a "different SE". It would be the same SE but with added features.

To the others who wrote that Google already does that with news, products, pictures, video, etc. :

I think you have great difficulties making the difference between :
1. separating content types (which Google does)
2. separating websites types (which Google doesn't)

To illustrate this, Google Shopping shows a list of products but not a list of e-commerce websites.

Let's say you search "Peugot cars".
With my idea you could :
- search only on e-commerce sites (if you want to buy a car)
- search only on knowledge sites (if you want to know more about these cars)
- search only on corporate sites (if you want to know about companies related to Peugeot cars)
- search only on visual sites (if you want to find galleries or games dedicated to these cars)

The benefit for the users : less junk to go through
The benefit for the webmasters : less junk between his site and the first result.

After reading you all, I understand one worrying thing : not only Google shapes the Internet but it also shapes the minds of webmasters who then lose their openmindness.

[indyank]

Irrespective of what we all think, google seem to be successful in making everyone believe that they have done something substantial to improve quality and people have to fix the quality issues to see improvements.

[BenFox]

Am I imagining it or was there a "more shops" and a "less shops" option at one point?

[TheMadScientist]

What I think Google should do. What do you think?

I think they should rank my sites number one and if you happen to compete in one of the niches I do, then you can have number two, that's fine with me ... lol

[Shaddows]

ecommerce provides a lot of information because Google told you to do so in the first place

No it doesnt, its because (and I know people struggle with this) WE BUILT IT FOR USERS.

We sell reasonably complicated products. People need information. We provide it.

If the "content is everything" mantra didn't exist, you'd probably never have bothered inserting that much information into your site

You sound like someone who likes taking shortcuts. We're not like that. We're a multi-million pound business, we do the work that is required in order to maximise our income- with an eye on the medium term.

As for the part that I didn't understand, sorry but it seems to be based on a misunderstanding on your side. You wrote "if Google itself can offer a different SE" which isn't what I'm talking about. It wouldn't be a "different SE". It would be the same SE but with added features.

Not according to your orignal post.
"websites that don't appear with one algorithm might appear on another one"
Implies more than one place to appear on.

Further, the user experience would be "this is the product search, this is the knowledge search". Making people aware that there are different ways of approaching a search introduces the idea that there is not "one definitive search". At which point, they might consider other search engines.

If you disagree, thats fine. But it is a cogent argument. The concept of choice encourages people to choose.

I think you have great difficulties making the difference between :
1. separating content types (which Google does)
2. separating websites types (which Google doesn't)

Websites publish content. Doing one does the other. Unless, of course, some websites have mixed content. Wait, they do... so how are you going to decide which goes where?

Let's say you search "Peugot cars".
With my idea you could :
- search only on e-commerce sites (if you want to buy a car)
- search only on knowledge sites (if you want to know more about these cars)
- search only on corporate sites (if you want to know about companies related to Peugeot cars)
- search only on visual sites (if you want to find galleries or games dedicated to these cars)

What if a site has lots of information, some nice embedded pictures, and also a "buy" button?

After reading you all, I understand one worrying thing : not only Google shapes the Internet but it also shapes the minds of webmasters who then lose their openmindness.

After reading your post, I understand one worrying thing. People think they have great ideas, and are close minded to any critical analysis that contradicts them

[Leosghost]

Am I imagining it or was there a "more shops" and a "less shops" option at one point?

You are possibly thinking of one of the MS search betas from 2004 ? ..referenced in amongst other places an article [searchenginewatch.com...]
and subject of much discussion here ..

Worked quite well ..fell into oblivion ..between two thrown chairs ;-)

<Sorry> my mistake, the simple gui commercial / info slider one was from Yahoo in 2005 ..was called "mindset" ..was slider based ..cool ;-) but discontinued </Sorry>

and also, was the subject of much discussion here ..

[deadsea]

Google should stop using pagerank as a major factor for shopping related keywords. Anybody that has tried to build links to a website that is selling product can tell you what a difficult proposition that is. The commercial web is dominated by paid links right now.

Customer service, not links should be the currency of the commercial web. Positive reviews of your business should power your search engine position. You should be able to submit evidence of positive customer experience to Google. Show google the number of customers you serve, run customer satisfaction surveys through Google. Compete on price and user experience, not on link building.

[sleidia]

We sell reasonably complicated products. People need information. We provide it

Good on you. You're lucky enough to have a business model that fits perfectly with Google's views.

But you're not alone on the Internet. Others have different business models that don't rely on content like you do.

"websites that don't appear with one algorithm might appear on another one"
Implies more than one place to appear on.

I admit my english is far from being perfect. I meant : many algorithms on one single place.

Unless, of course, some websites have mixed content. Wait, they do... so how are you going to decide which goes where?

Then sites with mixed content will continue to appear as usual in the search results with my proposed options left unchecked.

[McMohan]

sleidia, I hear you.

How about, introducing SafeSearch to main SERPs? In the first go, you don't get what you wanted and you relax the algo filter to moderate and more pages will pop-up. Further relax the filter to "Allow all" and all the filtered-out pages will pop-up.

_{Further: I run a directory. When I add sub-categories under a category, I often have the dilemma of minimizing the number of sub-categories to be added, yet covering all the possible websites under the category. When you add filters by verticals, either the number of verticals will be too many or you can't cover all the user needs.}