Forum Moderators: open
It didn't stop me from finding what I was looking for of course, but it's probably one of the most non-sequitur results I've seen.
do allinurl:glossary and it comes up number 4..
somethings broken :)
Google cache says:
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: google glossary
OK, i gonna remove the link to apple soundtrack from my pages - if you think that the anchor is that misleading. ;)
Two, I get a feeling this is a really a spam report.
Third, the keyword is "glossary". It is a non descrip defused wide open keyword that has little commercial value. Like similar words, it is a "Gray" area keyword where results are often head scratchers.
I think it is a very appropriate result. Think like a machine.
I did file a "Dissatisfied with your search results?" report, but I thought this result was such a one-off that it might help the google-fans an interesting "exception that proves the rule" type example.
Awhile ago Google was #1 for "appliance" (instead of Maytag, for example) when it advertised the Google Search Appliance on its front page (PR10 obviously).
Though there may be sound algorithmic reasons that result is there. I don't think it has much staying power.
Think like a machine
No it didn't - it belonged right there under the Google ranking system. It is proof that the concept of page rank works.
Glossary is a nondescript word. It's like some of the adjetives and adverbs that people try NOT to get ranked under.
How about the word "red". What do you think should be listed under the word red? Or the word "bright"? Althought Glossary is a known, it is a generic noun and has no real definitive category that a machine can point-blank put it in.
What all this points out, is that there are people out there running "glossary" sites, that are doing a mediocure job of seo and promotion.
Heck, you can even put it in quotes:
[google.com ]
A thesaurus [thesaurus.reference.com] gives the following synonyms of the word Glossary:
- annotation (synonyms: comment, commentary, definition, elucidation, exegesis, explanation, explication, footnote, gloss, glossary, illustration, interpretation, note, observation)
- dictionary (synonyms: concordance, cyclopedia, encyclopedia, glossary, language, lexicon, palaver, promptory, reference, terminology, vocabulary, wordbook)
- lexicon (synonyms: dictionary, glossary, terminology, thesaurus, vocabulary, word stock, wordbook, wordlist)
- nomenclature (synonyms: classification, codification, glossary, locution, phraseology, taxonomy, terminology)
- vocabulary (synonyms: cant, dictionary, glossary, jargon, lexicon, palaver, phraseology, terminology, thesaurus, word-hoard, word-stock, wordbook, words)
I second your statement that if you search for redundant words (stopwords like the famous http or the) you'll only get a pr scrored list of high pr pages. But Glossary is a real world word - no matter if it's of any commercial value or not. It's a word and imho a very usefull word if used with a additional "theme indicator words" - like Widgets Glossary or Veggies Glossary or even Google Glossary.
If i want to find the meaning of a special word i either use a dictionary of if it's a realy specialized word, i use a appropriate Glossary. If i search for Google's Glossary, i wouldn't expect Apple's Soundtrack page (allthough i appreciate seeing apple at #1 whenever it's possible;). Or do you see it just as a proof that there's no good seo'd Google Glossary out there?
I don't blame on google nor on apple but the results for Google Glossary are at least weird.
And you conspiracy guys out there: nope, google doesn't have a deal with apple! I'm sure they don't! I wish they would have ... ;)
So there is a difference of 5 PR. Why does that make [apple.com...] an appropriate result for "google glossary"? Even to a machine.
My point is, yeah something has to come up for "google glossary" even if those better results didn't exist. But better results do exist, so why does [apple.com...] deserve to be among them? Google programmed the machine to put it there so you can't blame or not blame the machine. The machine is irrelevent.
Lol: Funny serp
PR is a good measure but Google should be careful with the really high PR sites they can really screw things up. I think if you are a PR7 or higher Google should not show you above people with all the keywords in their title that were typed in. A site with blue widgets in it's title should be higher than a site with the words blue hair in it's title if blue widgets is typed in. It just make Google look stupid to do otherwise. Why do they think that is good it is never good. PR and anchor text should not always be king. I just think titles should get a little more weight in that situation.
Try this -> site:apple.com google glossary
What's Google URL doing at apple site? ;)
As of 7:57 CST the results depend on the google server:
www-ab(51) and www-va(37) show only apple.com pages while
www-ex(33) and www-cw(57) show both google.com and apple.
Coincidentally cached copy of CNN page shows
Sept 9 date on www-ex and www-cw and
Sept 11 on www-ab and www-va
Apparently, they switch fresh crawl results around this
time of the day and it takes time before the dust settles
down.
Mikhail
Then it followed by www.google.com/help/refinesearch.html
And www.google.com gets 3rd place with 380,000 backlinks.
Added:
I just did search for "yahoo" and same UsaToday legal page shows up on the third place. It is either PageRank got intelligence on its own and figured out that soon we all will live by UsaToday legal terms or there is a serious bug in the way fresh crawl results are integrated in the main index.
If you run Google Dance Tool for "site:yahoo.com yahoo" you will see USA Today legal link on top of the list for 6 datacenters and correct results for the 4 datacenters.
Those 4 datacenters have already updated results for the fresh crawl while the remaining 6 still show caches from the day before.
Apparently evening is a bad time to search on google as it, probably, updates first part of the database that handles one aspect of the searches (site: link: large searches like "www" or "yahoo"?) and only after that updates its datacenters one by one with 15-30 minutes intervals. Between those two events search results may range from incomplete and skewed to simply wrong.
Moral: Don't trust Google in the evenings!
It gets tired serving your queries all day long!
First, the apple page in question is a PR9. That alone makes it kick the butt of anyone else on the page.
Perhaps you should have also checked the PR of the "Google Glossary" page before posting that statement!
Two, I get a feeling this is a really a spam report.
Huh?
Third, the keyword is "glossary". It is a non descrip defused wide open keyword that has little commercial value. Like similar words, it is a "Gray" area keyword where results are often head scratchers.
The search wasn't "glossary" is was "Google Glossary" BIG difference. Besides this, the word "Glossary" is not anywhere on the #1 result.
I think it is a very appropriate result. Think like a machine.
LOL! I don't think Google spends millions on search technology so they can tell humans to "Think like a machine.".
Come on Brett, stop sucking up to Google :o)
Dave
