Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
how the mediocre and popular will almost always win,
Kind of interesting to see that in some ways this discussion actually demonstrates some of the issues I'm trying to bring up for discussion -- how bad content crowds out good, how the mediocre and popular will almost always win, and really, the main point: Google actions will reinforce these trends, reduce high quality expert content available on the net, and make that content harder to find when it is on the net. Despite all of Google's motto's, slogans, press releases about their purpose.
Mediocrity and popular doesn't win. Marketing wins. Marketing wins over knowledge every day.
Winning companies have a mediocre product because they spend so much money / resources on advertising, they don't have time / resources to develop a quality product.
We already see this to some extent with personalized search. So, in theory, if a user regularly clicks on content created by PhD's and others with advanced competency in the subject matter, then that user would be served more results that are similar "higher quality" in nature.
"No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
[edited by: Leosghost at 9:28 pm (utc) on May 26, 2011]
I hate to think about scientists, engineers and what nots having this negative attitude
Not much point posting about how you found a cancer cure if most of those in social media channels probably spell it canser ( I avoided "Kanser" although, from what I see of facebook and twitter, many there would not know a typo from a presidential candidate ..or would "refudiate" their error anyway ) and would only read "Canser Cure fownd" ..and then only if it came prefaced with "rumer.. Lady Gaga mite haz"..
[edited by: tedster at 4:54 am (utc) on May 29, 2011]
"There is no progress without change, but change is not necessarily progress."
I am a private person not wanting to shout my personal stuff from the roof tops but quite happy to scream about my company at every international exhibition in my trade all over the world!
...the problem is Google referencing it and giving it algo points, as a way of determining a position in the SERPs.
Social "factors" are so much more than that. Take the the Like button, for example. It's not just a vote for something. It's evidence, or social proof that this or that page is good. It's subtle but people respond.
But that is only a problem if you presuppose that google is SUPPOSED to provide "quality content" written by "experts."
How long would McBoxBurger stay in business if every time you went in to get a Caustic Meal, they actually gave you a veggie burger instead because they are healthier for you?
Or, what if for every search for Lady Gaga instead returned results for Grace Jones, Nina Hagen, and Patti Smith?
then I would say your site is attracting the wrong kind of people and you have a huge problem.
Their key success factor is better delivering the content THAT THE USER WANTS to the user.
I am the user and I want to find quality content so why is it not delivered ?
Google wants to deliver results that will appeal to the greatest number of users, which by definition must be skewed to a lower quality of information threshold.
Google wants to deliver results to the greatest number of people who - for whatever reason - will click on (1) the surrounding ads and (2) Google properties, which requires that results be skewed to less than or equal to that of the ads.
Google has always been a popularity engine, to them the social graph is a difference of degree not kind from the link graph.
[edited by: JoePublisher at 2:55 pm (utc) on May 27, 2011]