Is Google Too "Good"?

Are you getting the results you want?

[colemanator]

Over the holidays, I was searching for a particular gift and all of my searches yielded the same 6-7 relevant sites. About 3 were from the major players in the industry and the rest were from small time sites who appeared to have decent SEO tactics in place. I went to the store and picked up a magazine about the gift, and flipped through hoping to find URLs. I found about 5-6 that turned out to be winners and that were far superior sites to a lot of the results I was getting (minus the 3 major players).

Questions. Does Google review sites in their results to determine relevancy? Are links from other sites and keyword packed pages always the best determinant sites rankings?

Ex: Looking to buy a widget

Keywords used: "buying widgets online" "widgets" "widgets for sale"

Results: Sites telling what to look for when "buying widgets" and others featuring "Guides on buying widgets"

Not many results of sites selling widgets.

Some co-workers experienced the same thing and actually reverted to some of the "Advertising Heavy" search engines to find what they were looking for.

[Dante_Maure]

Were there no adwords and sponsored listings for "widgets"?

Either way, this type of occurence is exactly why Froogle is likely to be such a hit.

When you're looking to shop, and informational sites rule the SERPs, Google's shopping engine is going to be just one click away.

[martinibuster]

Google is way on top. It's a triumph of great thinking.

Unlike Microsoft Windows OS, Google has lot's of competition, and they are constantly innovating as opposed to adding more features to an old product.

I would like to see a stronger competition. A technological arms race can only be good for the consumer, and technologically progressive.

FAST seems furthest ahead among Google's competition.

HotBot added more features onto an awkward interface. Yawn.

Inktomi... I like Ink. They're the underdog. But there's something missing that I can't put my finger on. I have a soft spot for them. They seem to have a good team.

Looksmart. I like Zeal. I like Zeal a lot. Zeal is one the most dynamic directories out there. A fabulous community to be a part of. I encourage everyone to check it out. But the paid part of the directory? 15 cents a click, whether it gets clicked or not seems a bit much.

[chiyo]

Yep, i think that is the way it is meant to be. The main google database focused on information, and commercial buying information provided through Adwords, and next year as Froogle rolls out, there as well. Searchers will modify their searching patterns. If they are looking for braodly informational or mon commercial info, look in the main index, if not look in Adwords and Froogle. (and by the way, if looking for news, look in news.google)

Its a extra step for sure, but we have known for years that one giga index cannot possibly meet the various needs of all who search. Even at a webmaster level the monthly cries of woe reinforce the growing problem that people are split of how they use a search engine (from both a searcher and webmaster perspective).

It is just not possible to please everybody, and diff algos need to be used for different subsets of data to acheive relevance, according to the motivation for the search. For example page rank and link popularity is a great way to separate the sheeps from the goats for informaton sites, but is lacking for shopping, where other alogo elemnts may be more important (price is the easiest, but needs a lot of work as we have seen - other elemnts may follow as the beta rolls out such as distribution, product categories etc).

Froggle does respresnt a major change in the way we deliver content. One thing we may notice is a reduction in the mad race for shopping sites to add content, no matter the quality, and to go reciprocal linking mad.

At present, commercial results can blank out informational results and vice versa. Starting with news, images, and shopping (Froogle) is a good strategic move, and I think would help with relevancy overall.

[colemanator]

I checked out Froogle a few days ago and have recommended it to some friends who have also found it very helpful. My only beef with Google is that sometimes better sites get overshadowed by the people who have the best SEO knowledge.

I try to stay on top of the SEO game and use a lot of the helpful knowledge given on this site, but I continually see sites ranking higher than mine. When customers visit my site, they always remark on how much better the site is then others they have found. More inventory, better look and functionality and things of that nature.

Sometimes I just wish that I could ask someone at Google:
Why is a site with 1/2 of the inventory and content of mine continually ranked higher? I think there should be a human grading system that ranks sites even if webmasters have to pay to submit their site. I know its a monumental task, but its food for thought.

[caine]

Yes and no.

I agree if a company has the inventory in stock that it advertises, then it should be ranked well, but SEO is part of SEM, or more to the point marketing, and its a skill to get a site to the top for a given kw phrase, i can't see this ever changing. However if you know that the revenue model is their why not get in contact with Google about their sponsorship program?

[Dante_Maure]

My only beef with Google is that sometimes better sites get overshadowed by the people who have the best SEO knowledge.

It's no different in the offline world. Marketing is marketing. You can have the best product or store in your industry, but if you don't know how to get the word out to potential customers, competitors with inferior products can bury you with superior marketing.

I think there should be a human grading system that ranks sites.

There is, and it's called PageRank™. Humans grade your site by deciding whether or not they link to you.

Or at least that's the idea in theory. ;)

[colemanator]

"There is, and it's called PageRank™. Humans grade your site by deciding whether or not they link to you."

They have to find you in order to determine if they want to link to you. Additionally, many major players have a number of sites that link to themselves. How can the little guy compete with that?

I have started using AdWords again and get decent clickthrough rates, but I am not familiar with the Sponsorship Program rates. I always bypass them for the results and AdWords.

[Dante_Maure]

They have to find you in order to determine if they want to link to you. Additionally, many major players have a number of sites that link to themselves. How can the little guy compete with that?

Once again, it's not much different than the offline reality of doing business... you can't expect prospects to beat a path to your door just because you open up shop.

You need to be pro-active and get the word out.

Submit to major directories, distribute press releases, network with other business owners, get involved in the communities where your ideal customers spend time.

Business is Business, online or off. As a business owner it's up to you to beat the promotion drum.

I am not familiar with the Sponsorship Program rates.

$15,000 for a 3 month campaign to even get in the door.

AdWords is definitely the way to go for the small biz owner.

[vitaplease]

colemanator,

How can the little guy compete with that?

I think that is one of the wonderful things of Google. The small guy can still compete. Check the Google update threads, all us small guys are predominantly shouting "wow, finally I'm number one" ;)

..yielded the same 6-7 relevant sites

Check MSN and very often, those 7 sites will belong to the same player...

But in general too much of anything will attract the human attention you were talking about, and Google hates having non-representive Search results.