Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: mack
correct, their bots were consuming tons of bandwidth but not sending any traffic to a site with loads of Google page listings. Also MSN webmaster section looks like what open source kids come up with at early development stages.
MSN is not even able to send mails that look like corporate mails.
But perhaps Billy Boy is mentally back to his gararge days when there was no Google around. Someone should show and explain to him what Google has come up with since then.
Perhaps he will realize that his engeneers are not in touch with today.
1. Longtime number one Web site in Google is number six in Live.
2. Six Top 20 Web sites in Google show in Live's Top 20 in different positions.
One of my sites is present in Live's Top 20. The same site is 50+ in Google.
So far, I like Live's results. It's nice to have a second view of the Web. Sometime is tiresome to see the same ole results a la Google.
It's been 4 years since Microsoft made a $100 million investment to deliver a significant upgrade to its search services, see [microsoft.com...]
Consequently, Google has a 6-year lead.
Ballmer's 'one-trick pony' should learn other tricks pretty soon. Otherwise, it will miss the lead.
Basically, compared to Top 20 results in Google, I see the following in Live's Top 20:
1. Longtime number one Web site in Google is number six in Live.
2. A few Top 20 Web sites in Google do show in Live's Top 20 in different positions.
What I saw when I posted #:3617782 seemed awkward. For instance, I wasn't able to spot longtime number one Web site in Google within Live's top 50.
I should also mention that my current Web site in Live's Top 20 showed number 3 when I posted #:3617782 . Now is back to 10+. That's where it should be. Longtime number one Web site in Google is more relevant than mine in terms of content.
To describe what I see now in a different way, for someone used to Google search results, the current results in Live seem perhaps more appealing...
If a Web site is relevant and well built, why should it be kept in a search engine's sandbox? Of course, to make the owner pay the engine for exposure via paid results!
This is the case of a competitor of mine. Newer URL, well built, relevant content, top real estate franchise, no black hat tactics. The site is no where to be seen in Google. Surfers can access it via Live. I think that's cool.
Live search blows. We're pretty much fed up with their performance. We used to rank #1 for a 50 million search return. Now our site is completely gone. Google and yahoo have us ranked #1 among 118 million sites.
Live is definitely not so live. Microsoft needs to get their crap straight before they release it to the public.
We do not need another Google clone and it is good to see that a well built site can get ranked on LIVE without having to spend a grand or so a month on paid links to be competitive like in the Google serps.
I do have one pet peeve in that since I live outside the USA I have to use a proxy service to see the "real" .com results, but this is the same for Google and Yahoo as well as they all deliver filtered results based on your location, this can't be good for the end user in my eyes.
These are good quality site, well built with a good link profile that have been around since 96, now just gone.
So, I would say live search pretty much blows with this latest screwup that they call an update.
It looks like link quantity rules, and link quality doesn't matter. I can see websites that have nothing but 1,000s of links from article directories and spammy blogs ranking 1st to 3rd in a quite competitive niches.
What's going on?
I'm seeing a site ranking #3 and #4 for a moderately contested two-word phrase, where its only inbound links appear to be 500 site-wide banner links that appear on a partner site on the same IP. The search phrase is the anchor text on the banner ads.
The ranking site doesn't show up in the top 1,000 for the same search on Google.
This relates to different data centers in Europe too as these results are similar but different to UK and USA.
Here was my original question,
Many webmasters gave up on msn due to the low reach it has, the fact that the results have always been unusable and the lack of interaction by msn with the webmaster community.
Currently, for the first time in years it looks like real improvements are being made.
I agree that its not perfect or of the quality of Yahoo or Google but to be fair they dont have the link history or search engine experience of the other two more established players. Heck, they still cant index a number of sites, deep crawl them and still have authority sites missing from their index but this is due to resources being wasted on junk sites being serviced and included that we dont want in their index because they still struggle to know what is good from the junk. If they could channel their energy towards indexing quality the results would be better, but that being said their serps are getting better and they can still improve.
The link and site history issue is something that they cant have and no matter what shifts they make to their algo they will always have problems due to this because of the amount of spam, junk and garbage sites on the internet that they still struggle with whilst ignoring sites they should be including.
Having given this lots of thought rather than moaning about how bad they are we should help look for solutions. We need a strong alternative to google, its good for all of us.
i genuninely think that one way they could improve results in the UK is by setting up a live site directory. Charge a site an annual fee for a review. Those webmasters with quality sites would pay, the spammers and garbage wouldnt. Those in the directory would be msn verified sites they could give weight to in their live serps - this is a sure way to provide serps quality.
I know directory sites are old hat now but you cant re-invent the wheel. msn need a stable set of own trusted data to pull from and the only way to get this is by site review. In an ideal world if they hand reviewed every site and graded them they would have the best search engine results anywhere, obviously this cant be done but even if they had 10% of trusted data their results would be superb.
Its not just about reviewing and listing a specific site. If the site is known to be quality by msn and "trusted" the links to other sites from it would also likely to be good and this is more data they can use. Quality sites dont link to garbage. If the site did it could be removed at the following years review renewal.
If you think about this Yahoo have the best directory in the market and use this data in their serps. Google meanwhile dont have their own directory but have a long history of sites, they know what the original authority sites are and part of their algo imo includes a factor for links from "trusted sites" so they can rate a site better, no doubt Yahoo directory is a google trusted site!.
I wouldnt use Third party data from an independent directory like dmoz or another due to corruption risks they could suffer but a good quality own build directory, staff only verified could really help msn improve their offering imo - just a thought anyway