Words in search string not present on the page = irrelevant result?

[Spica]

This topic has come up here and there in other threads, but it's not clear to me what other people think. So, let me simply ask:

1) As a user, do you expect to find all of the words in your query present at least once on the result page? (Personally, I do. It's up to me to broaden my search if I want to.)

2) Since this is clearly not true with Google, my next question is: why? Is that a feature that makes Google a better or worse search engine?

[Stefan]

It seemed to me that I used to find all the query words in Google on the page but I'm noticing that this isn't the case now. I'm not sure if things have changed or whether I've just started noticing it.

Imho, all the words shoud be there, not just in anchor text or whatever (perfect recipe for cheating, really).

[netguy]

Spica... That's one of G's problems relying too much on links, and sometimes completely ignoring what is on the page. Take a quick search for God in Google, and you'll see what I mean.

[Receptional Andy]

However, do a search for pure inktomi search and you will see the benefit of Google's incoming link reliance. It finds the page I am clearly looking for, even though they do not use the word Inktomi on the page.

[jimbeetle]

This has always been a 'feature' of Google. Incoming link text is given such weight that *no* search terms have to appear on the page to rank highly in the SERPs.

>>Is that a feature that makes Google a better or worse search engine?

Think it's a mixed bag here. In a perfect world the more incoming links with relevant link text marks the site as an authority. In the real world this can easily be manipulated. G appears to be taking some steps to weed out possible non-relevant links -- guest books, blogs, etc.

I kind of think this is a very important period for G to get its results back on track and make the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button as relevant as it once was.

[jk3210]

1) No

2) If you searched for "new summer movies" and the number 1 result was a site that listed:

"Coming this summer"
June: movie 1, 2, 3, etc...
July: movie 1, 2, 3, etc...
August: movie 1, 2, 3, etc...

I wouldn't say that result wasn't relevant because it didn't contain "new summer movies."

[annej]

Of course we expect to find the words on the page. I think what is happening is we are getting old information (perhaps as old as Feb) and sometimes the page has changed since then. I was reseaching something yesterday and the snippets in the serps included the topic I was looking for so it had to be old as the current page doesn't mention the specific topic.

I think until Google gets their new system sorted out it will be this way.

[Receptional Andy]

>>Of course we expect to find the words on the page. I think what is happening is we are getting old information

Another example. Have a look on Google for 'search engine'. Next to none of the top results have both the words on the page (e.g. Google!) but they are undoubtedly the best matches for this search.

Not all search results need to have the word on the page, but it is striking a balance between off and on-page factors that is at the core of Google's relevancy.

[Spica]

>>Have a look on Google for 'search engine'. Next to none of the top results have both the words on the page (e.g. Google!) but they are undoubtedly the best matches for this search.<<

Receptional Andy:

I am not sure that the top results in that case are the best matches (trying to guess why anybody would search for that). Are Google Groups relevant to search engines?

Let's use another example. What if someone searches for 'best search engine'? In that case, I would expect to find pages that discuss which is the best search engine. Instead, Google imposes at the top their (the most voted for) answer: Google!

It's a dangerous slope. Next, you'll search for blue widgets and get page after page of stuff exclusively about red widgets, just because these are much more popular. Yuk! Minimally, if most users are satisfied with such SERPs, give me a button to click on for the option: search for web pages that contain these terms.

[ciml]

It's a balance spica, like other things to do with search.

You don't want domainX to come top for every search because it's the most important, but if BigWidgets.com make the best red widgets then it's good if Google can list them top with or without the word red in the page due to anchor text.

I like Andy's examples; the original favourite example was Bill Clinton. www.whitehouse.gov would come top at the time even though the US President's name wasn't on that page, so it was a good match. It still comes top, which isn't quite such a good match but overall the feature has been a useful part of Google's relevancy.

I think it's only us Webmasters who care about whether wordX is on a page ranking for a particular search. Most searchers just want to answer questions, find cheap holidays or whatever.

[Receptional Andy]

>>Most searchers just want to answer questions

Exactly. So if I type 'best search engine' I want the best search engine to be returned, (based on the 'opinion' of the engine I'm using) just as when I type 'tallest tree' I want to find the tallest tree.

>>Google imposes at the top their (the most voted for) answer

I don't really agree with the use of 'imposed' there. Google didn't make all the links that say they are the best - their users did, and that's who they make results for. I think it should be said that however easy it is to manipulate results with linking, it is far easier to manipulate on-page factors.

>>It's a dangerous slope

If results are deteriorating as a result of incoming links, then this is because of webmasters and not because of Google. Although that said, perhaps Google will need to adjust the balance in order to combat this.

>>trying to guess why anybody would search for that

According to Overture (unreliable as it may be) there were just under 900,000 searches for search engine last month :)