Forum Moderators: open
The panic is settling down, the whine of worry is receding to a steady hum in the back of my head, and several recovery plans are forming...
I lost my index page entirely, due to lazy keyword stuffing. My fault! Unfortunately, mine is a very small business: no listing = no food (let alone xmas).
I was planning on overhauling the website anyway, and I've given myself until 1/1/04 before I accept an opening with another business and abandon my own. The question now is: overhaul the index page and resubmit to Google immediately, overhaul the entire website and resubmit the whole thing in a few weeks, overhaul the website (starting with the index page of course) and wait for Googlebot. Time is most definitely a factor.
...are any of these plans likely to restore my index page to the directory before I have to throw in the towel in January?
There are also longer range options of starting over with a new website and closing the old.
Mahalo Nui Loa! (Thank you very much!)
There are 10 pages listed on page 1. One bad result out of 10 is hardly a major problem. Now if all of the top 10 were about cat breeding... You have to look at the big picture.
One bad result out of 10 is hardly a major problem
If it were number 10 and not 1 no it wouldn't be a problem. Come on you have to admit these results are bad.
Really? I beg to differ... I have sent at least 12 examples of bad search results to Google. These span several vertical markets.
There are also several other people here that can attest to very poor search results.
I question your motivations...
G once was a new species on the planet internet. A nice little species with few enemies. The old AV was a disaster at that time. Y! had been dealing with investors and forgot about it's users. ATW had not been invented.
A really nice species with real benefit for all other creatures on this planet internet. Like birds are useful because they spread the plant's seed G was helping the good webmasters to become popular as the users liked to eat from the healthy and good quality dishes G was presenting.
But after a while this nice species G developed as the rabbits in australia did. The other search engine species left had to survive in niche markets (20% of all searches). And the hungry birds had to live in a good co-operation with this more or less hugh dinosaur G as they are in need of fuel.
Once all the birds (webmasters) would spread the word that there are - or will be / or had been more species than sole G at least some users will discover that there are alternatives for searching the internet.
The dinosaurs are dead. Y! and Ink are knocking at the doors. There will be a lot to do for all us birds in the near future.
I wouldn't spend a single cent buying shares of a dinosaur treating it's customers the way G does.
Who are G's customers? All those who are paying for Ad's? All those who are spending night and day to optimize for the next 'collosal cockup'? All those who are discussing G's issues in the print media? YES! But there are the big one's as well: E-buy - Amazombie - Travel sites - ....
Most of us (or all of us) cannot beat those big dinosaurs. Whatever their future is. The small birds future is the varitey of plants and species. Spread the word! Today! And optimize for the future.
I will not longer work hard for my ex-loved rejecting me every month. All the others are awaiting my input (and are financing my business as of today)
in small print: sorry for my bad English
in bold: THANKS FOR ALL YOUR INPUT!
Perhaps a series of buttons rating the value of the results?
No. I'd just recognize immediately that #1 was bad, and choose one of the other 9 that was good. 90% relevance of a SERP ain't "bad."
>Really? I beg to differ... I have sent at least 12 examples of bad search results to Google. These span several vertical markets.
In the post you responded to of mine, I specifically mentioned the search term had to be for something non-commercial.
>I question your motivations...
I assure you, I don't work for the Google public relations department.
Perhaps a series of buttons rating the value of the results?
Could be open to abuse though!
Anyone that has ever worked on a large and complicated system knows that problems are a dime a dozen. And Google is one very large and very complicated computer system.
BTW I am not bashing Google, I am just pointing out that Google is subject to the same problems that any large system has. Why is that so hard to believe?
Anyway... I guess there is an "if" in all I have said... "if" the results are same as when I checked those markets....
No. I'd just recognize immediately that #1 was bad
Thank you for acknowledging my point. Bad Results
I question your motivations...That's not necessary. He is simply doing well for his searches. I would be happy if my site was doing well too.
With search engines, I find 10% bad results more than acceptable. Have you ever used Wisenut?
Nevermind - i found it - de germany, ch switzerland, at austria - right? too bad i can't ship to them!
[edited by: needhelp at 11:32 pm (utc) on Nov. 19, 2003]
With search engines, I find 10% bad results more than acceptable. Have you ever used Wisenut?
No, but if they only have 90% relevant results as well maybe I'll give them a go. The point I'm trying to make is that a week ago those results would have been 100% relevant without fail.
MSN is giving the better search results!
I am #2 on MSN for our targeted keyword phrase. I was #4 in Google until this update. Unfortunately, we had only been there for about a month and I see the same sites from 3 months ago in the top 5.
I guess I dont understand why Gogle is turning up results that dont even match the search. If you look up widget management software you should expect to see sites that match that query. Not sites that have "widget", "Management", and "Software" listed somewhere on the page in a random order.
likewise if you search heathrow airport parking why is there a site specific to Bristol Airport
A perfectly valid result. All the words are there, and the company offers parking at Heathrow.
At first glance it is difficult to see why the Bristol result is in front of the result below which is much more specific - unless having "H... A... P..." in the url, the title, and twice in quick succession in the text is seen as over optimization. Also immediately after the title is an url with link text "H... A... P..." which just links back to the same page called... You guessed it.
Bet this guy is complaining he lost his number 1 spot.
BTW I am not bashing Google, I am just pointing out that Google is subject to the same problems that any large system has. Why is that so hard to believe?
Interesting point, though I would have said that Google was a very small system operating on a very large database. After all, it only does one job - searching a database.
I would have thought that it's more likely that any "big" discrepancies are in the database rather than the algorithm. And this would much more readily explain why one or two people were irate while the rest of us were really quite content about the update.
Following that "thought experiment" one stage further, it implies that Google isn't broken at all, but rather that its input data (which it collects regularly) is not 100% complete. Since it collects it over and over, time is a great healer. I'd expect these anomalies will, as they so often have done in the past, gradually disappear.
DerekH
Which gets to the point of whether the results are generally bad, or it is just those who sites are not doing well are displeased? Really, the best people to rate Google quality are those who aren't webmasters. The best I could do as a test was run a bunch of random searches I knew my site wouldn't come up on, and ask myself if those looked good.
Interesting point, though I would have said that Google was a very small system operating on a very large database. After all, it only does one job - searching a database.
And Google does do a LOT more than just search a database...What about PR calculations, reverse indexing, filtering and link mapping just to name a few.
1) rfgdxm1: you are restricting your theory to non-commercial sites. Do you think people don't search on google for products or services?
2) Am i the only one seeing the top 10 for my keywords full of old sites from 6 months ago? It's not a broken index it's an old index surely?
One of our competitors changed their domain name 6 months ago, their new site is nowhere to be found but their old site is back in the top 10, Google has just fallen back on old data and are adding newer stuff back in as it's crawled by the looks of it.
I think.....
I hope.....
Oh who am i kidding, i know nothing.
:)
So... only non-commercial searches are relevant? Why would that be? Are you implying that people who spend money on the web do not care about search results? That is an interesting way of looking at Google... as an information only search engine...
It then stands to reason that Google wouldn't care about commerce sites in the Google index.... doesn't matter how they are ranked... Hmm... so it's the informational surfer who spends the money that fuels web businesses, who in turn fuel things like Adwords... Adsense.... that allow Google to be profitable... that will enable Google to go public...
Interesting...
Not looking to jump out of any windows; traffic is still good and I have no bone to pick with google because I can't pay the bills, but get real - these results are laughable.
"Tourist attractions New York" gets the same number one there so I don't think that this single example of lousy results is a good one, however search for bar stools and you get a non relevant site at one (presuming that you want to buy some) We always used to have all top ten sites relevant.
Sorry if I've been too specific but there's not enough to find my site here.
Sorry... yours must be a commercial site... doesn't matter what the serps are...
These are by far the vast majority of all searches. Which will always be the case because of the fact people have a limited amount of money to spend on e-commerce.
>It then stands to reason that Google wouldn't care about commerce sites in the Google index.... doesn't matter how they are ranked... Hmm... so it's the informational surfer who spends the money that fuels web businesses, who in turn fuel things like Adwords... Adsense.... that allow Google to be profitable... that will enable Google to go public...
Not that I am accusing Google of doing this, but the less relevant commercial SERPs are, the more likely someone is to click the Adword. The more people who click on Adwords, the more money that Google makes.
All datacenters match, the dance may be over. Problems still exist.
Update still not over.
What makes you think this?
