Forum Moderators: open
Please be as critical, sarcastic or idealistic as you want ...
Firstly this search engine should insist that every site owner / manager has registered address, telephone and email contact details. It should be made clear that even though website spamming hasn't been made a crime yet, if you were caught artificially boosting your pages ... your details would be passed on to the authorities.
Secondly, All sites should be sanctioned by practised web techs. Stupid boosting such as <div> packing and overloading headings should be picked up as cheating.
Thirdly, Listings should be constantly rotated, so to make less competition for the top ten spots.
Finally, Do not list anyone offering web services, medical products and sex ... these sites should be given their own sections in the directory area. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm fed up with finding that the content I'm reading has only been created to sell me sex drugs or web site design etc...
I was looking at a new search engine the other day, called Previewseek, which has some great ideas.It is still in beta form, but looks promising.
Here is some info and screenshots of Microsofts new PPC campaign <snip>
[edited by: lawman at 9:31 am (utc) on Dec. 28, 2005]
[edit reason] No Links To Blogs Please [/edit]
Those sound more like specific complaints with your competitors that you have as a webmaster or SEO than legitimate user concerns.
I think the time has come for the internet to become properly governed. I'm fed up with spam, in all its many forms and I feel that any reasonable measures that could be made by the major search engines ... should be made.
I definately think that each website should have a responsible party added to its meta details ... even if only through a SE registration program, it would help give searchers the confidence that the page is genuine and not a hoax / scam. Rotate those pages and make it less competetive.
Also I firmly believe that the days of a top ten is coming to an end. All of these millions of mirror pages with slightly different keyword perms are just clogging up the whole searching experience with repeated junk and affiliate pages.
If we, the webmasters, refuse to clean up our act and the technology can't program us into submission ... then there's nothing left but to use legal powers to sort this mess out ... and if it means banging up a few offenders, so be it :-(
I like the search engine that you suggested. I especially like the site images beside the listing. This allows people to see if the site is unique or just a copy.
I still found a couple of simple spammers on a local web design search. They're so blatant, it drives me mad. They have their hidden keywords in a section called <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="hidden_keywords" --> ... I can't believe that the SE can't pick it up as spam.
Cheers
Col :-)
Actually I kinda like it also. I like the keyword tree on the left and also using the word java (per their example) it brings up a little box that shows the different context variation of the word such as geography, computer science and what not. Clicking on archive I get a variety of sources mainly from MSN. The results are ok but I really like the feel of this thing and what they are trying to do.
I think the time has come for the internet to become properly governed.
The internet became the success it did because it is largely ungoverned. Yeah, it has it's problems, but those problems have not kept it from growing.
If the internet were governed to any great extent, it never would have happened. It would still be DARPANET with only official military research communications happening. No one is more pro-control than the military establishment, yet they gave it freedom to grow and mutate. They knew that it would be worth more that way.
I would suggest that you start your own internet with strict governance, instead of breaking ours. Then see where it goes.
On this wild west interenet, you are allowed to create your own civilzed corner, and control it as you see fit. Hell, write your own search engine, and make your phone calls to verify the phone number of each contact for the site. Search engines aren't that hard to write.
Just don't expect the cowboys that have gotten used to their freedom to like living by your city rules just because you don't like the behaviour of the hoods on the street corner.
1) I'd provide a simple way for users to indicate whether they prefer "information" or "commercial" results in SERPs--e.g., with radio buttons or separate windows for "I want information on..." and "I want to shop for...." The resulting search results would be weighted toward information (reviews, articles, manufacturer pages, etc.) or shopping (such as dealer catalog pages, shopping pages on e-commerce sites, and affiliate pages).
2) On an advanced search or search-preferences page, I might also provide a way for users to include or exclude entire categories of content types, or to specify aggressive filtering of duplicate content. Ideally, users would have the ability to set their default preferences so that (for example) the SE would remember that John Doe prefers "information" weighting, isn't interested in forum results, and is willing to accept a smaller set of search results in return for not having to see more than one instance of an AP story or boilerplate product copy during a search.
What you said is at the top of my wish list.
Isn't it amazing that the major search engines do not play to the commercial/information divide? I don't see how a search engine can maintain "relevancy" to a particular individual by "lumping" results together. As the internet grows, and these search engines only have a limited number of results placements, showing a select few of each "type" of site is becomming less and less useful for searchers as well a site owners. I wish they could learn more about context of sites and pages and use that context to deliver results based on intent. Intent can be easily found by simply asking the visitor; do you want A type sites or B type sites? A good solution is presenting the option for standard : information : commercial (or whatever - default being standard) when someone initially does a search as well as quick links to each that is presented AFTER the search for each. So if someone does a standard search they can quickly repeat the search for more commercial/information sites by clicking the link.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the idea.
The problem is that product shopping is not the same as price shopping. Product shoppers are actually better served by mixing in informational pages like reviews and forums, than they may realize. Froogle is great for price shopping, and seeing what options are out there, but it sucks for helping you make a good decision.
Then there are the very informational pages that are on commercial sites. Some sellers are very conscientious about providing good information.
So, how do you provide this mix and still give the searcher what they really want.
As for your advanced search suggestions, I would absolutely love it! Unfortunately, advanced search features are never going to be a priority, because the overwhelming majority of users will never bother. I suspect that they only show up when an SE hacker has a personal itch that they want to scratch.
I think that if I was to request advanced search features, I would want the ability to exclude text that is in the site template. If I am searching on something about my Subaru, I don't want a page in the Toyota forum coming up just because there is a link to the Subaru forum on every page.
One thing that I am looking forward to as lexical analysis advances, having the search engine offer me the various meanings of the words to chose from. For example, if I do a search on [chile] I would like to be able to have it remove all the references to the country, and return results on the pod.
In terms of letting the searcher adjust for commercial or information Yahoo Mindset has that. I'm not sure what they use to decide what is commercial and what isn't as sometimes the results don't really fit. But at least someone is trying.
I see both of the above as something to try when I can't find what I'm looking for on Google.
That is why I suggested a "standard" search that would be a mixture (pretty much what the resutls are now). You are actually not dividing anything. You are just giving searchers the option of "sorting" preference.
This is why the search engines need to better understand context of the individual page. A page that sells something but also provides good solid usable information can land on the information side of the results but a site that sells something and only provides a large sales pitch would be seen more on the commercial side. Froogle can be used for price comparisons and whatnot. Google could do a better job of presenting Froogle as a search option.
The key is understanding context and intent.
[edited by: arubicus at 10:42 pm (utc) on Dec. 27, 2005]
I tried a search that I did this morning, and none of the results had the funny little rating bar below it, and moving my bar from commercial to research didn't change any results.
It has a long way to go.
The problem is that product shopping is not the same as price shopping. Product shoppers are actually better served by mixing in informational pages like reviews and forums, than they may realize.
Sure, and that's why the person who's researching a Widgetco digital camera during the pre-buying phase will probably choose the "information on..." option.
Note, too, that I'm in favor of weighting the results, not attempting to split them altogether (which would be a far more difficult task).
Then there are the very informational pages that are on commercial sites.
Google indexes pages, not sites. If REI has a great page on canoe construction, or if Amys-antfarm-affiliate-site.com has useful information about raising ants, then there's no reason why the REI page couldn't come up in the top 10 for "canoe construction" or Amy's page couldn't rank high for "ant husbandry."
Sure, and that's why the person who's researching a Widgetco digital camera during the pre-buying phase will probably choose the "information on..." option.
Unfortunately, I really doubt that is the case for the majority of the population.
That is the way that it should work, but most people are not that aware of their own thought processes. They just aren't aware that the first part of shopping is gathering information. When information is put in front of them while shopping, they will read it, but they don't think to go looking for it. They will compare features on the signs at Sear, but they don't think to go to the library and get a copy of Consumer Reports.
I think the distinction would be of value to information searchers and buyers, but its value to the average consumer that is shopping would be dubious at best.
I also think that it would be difficult to implement reliably as a feature in the standard search, both from an indexing perspective and from a user perspective. That doesn't mean that it isn't useful, it is, and it will show up eventually, but it will probably be limited to the advanced search.
Google indexes pages, not sites.
Oh, they certainly index both. There is no doubt in my mind that site factors are just as important as page factors when it comes to ranking.
I don't believe that for a minute when it comes to the internet. Brick and mortar stores, yes. Internet...no. With brick and mortar stores, most people (depending on how large their risk of purchase is), will not drive all over town comparing prices/features/looking at the library for information. Plus they probably won't seek out people for product reviews and discussions. They absolutely know they can go looking for information but is rather inconvenient for them to do so.
The internet is a TOTALLY different medium. People have access a HUGE variety of stores and information in a matter of seconds. They can do it in a more relaxed and casual atmosphere soaking in as much information they deem necessary to make a wise purchase. People KNOW that they can just go to a search engine and type in some words so they can access all of this. They know that there are forums and product review sites. They can chat and ask other users about their experiences with the products (not just a sales person's "expert" opinion). They can get differing opinions from many sources. Since it is more convenient for them to be able to access this information...they are more apt to do so.
[edited by: arubicus at 2:20 am (utc) on Dec. 28, 2005]
I think the distinction would be of value to information searchers and buyers, but its value to the average consumer that is shopping would be dubious at best.
I disagree, because users will learn quickly through exqerience that "I want information on..." yields one type of result and "I'm shopping for..." yields another. And if some users get nothing but e-commerce results because they always pick the "shopping" option, no harm is done as long as they're happy. (Ditto for users who always pick the "information" option and are satisfied with the results.)
I also think that it would be difficult to implement reliably as a feature in the standard search, both from an indexing perspective and from a user perspective.
It doesn't have to be perfect if the results are simply weighted toward one or the other, as opposed to being filtered.
Oh, they certainly index both [pages and sites]. There is no doubt in my mind that site factors are just as important as page factors when it comes to ranking.
Sure, they index data about sites, but pages are what get listed in SERPs. So there's no reason why, to use my earlier examples, an information page about canoe construction at REI.com or about ant husbandry at amys-antfarm-affiliate-site.com couldn't be served up as "information" even if the information appeared on an e-commerce or affiliate site.
The internet is a TOTALLY different medium. People have access a HUGE variety of stores and information in a matter of seconds. They can do it in a more relaxed and casual atmosphere soaking in as much information they deem necessary to make a wise purchase. People KNOW that they can just go to a search engine and type in some words so they can access all of this. They know that there are forums and product review sites. They can chat and ask other users about their experiences with the products (not just a sales person's "expert" opinion). They can get differing opinions from many sources. Since it is more convenient for them to be able to access this information...they are more apt to do so.
Really?
Check out some people that deal with real world searchers. Go talk to an academic librarian at your local college. They teach searching to these students that grew up with computers, they are smart enough to get into the college and have had to use computers and search engines for years in their studies. They are probably a lot more advanced than your average user.
Even with all that going for them, over half of them still suck at doing anything beyond simple searches. A huge percentage do not look below the fold or beyond the first page. Narrowing a search is a rare skill indeed.
As the webmaster of a review site, I can tell you that the majority of searches that deliver traffic to us are almost certainly searches by people that are looking to buy, not people looking for reviews.
Tack "review" or "reviews" onto almost any search and we will almost certainly rank higher in the SERPs than without those keywords. They are are certainly our most popular keywords. Even with all that, there are many keyphrases where the search without "review" delivers significantly more traffic to us.
As for asking questions in fora or partisipating on a listserv, it just doesn't happen. active participants are almost always in low single digit percentile. And if they do not know about the forum, they have to find it with a search, which they suck at.
Then there is the incredilbe disinclination to do anthing that they consider to be research. Schools turn most people off to this. If they stumble upon information they will read it, but they don't want to actually do research. It is a psycological block.
Remember, there are some people out there that are making the crappy scraper sites money by clicking on their links. You know better, and I know better, but the majority of people out there don't. Those same people are the ones that will not try and research something before making a purchase. It does not matter whether they are in the real world or on the big scary interweb.
From EFV:
I disagree, because users will learn quickly through exqerience that "I want information on..." yields one type of result and "I'm shopping for..." yields another.
But the vast majority don't learn from experience.
The ones that would benefit would be the ones that already understand how to modify their searches. It could be a significant benefit for those of us in that category, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that the average searcher would benefit.
For the average searcher those radio buttons or slide bar would go unchecked. They want to type in a word and click on the search button. They won't even see anything else on that page.
That average searcher is who the search engines put all their effort into.
For the average searcher those radio buttons or slide bar would go unchecked. They want to type in a word and click on the search button. They won't even see anything else on that page.That average searcher is who the search engines put all their effort into.
Okay, then, try this on for size:
The search engine has options for "information" and "shopping" searches, but it defaults to SERPs that give a higher weighting to "information" results. It does so for two reasons:
(1) Most searches don't involve shopping. (Piper Jaffray estimates that only 35% of searches are "commercial" in nature.)
(2) Most shoppers conduct multiple searches in the weeks that precede a purchase, so weighting the search results toward information is likely to be in the best interests of the shopper. (See Doubleclick's Search Before the Purchase [doubleclick.com] report for more on this.)
Now comes the good part for the search engine: By defaulting to an "information" weighting, the search engine also enhances its own revenues from the PPC ads on its SERPs. And it does that by delivering organic results that are more likely to be what users are looking for.
For the search engine, it's a win-win-win situation: SERPs that meet users' needs, happier users, and--as a serendipitous bonus--better ad revenues.
I like it! It is the first natural step towards SE's becoming the online version of "Try before you buy", and if they can provide adequate accurate information to the consumer ... they are likely to break down the trust barrier when it comes to the sale and thus the consumer will trust, by extension, the SE's favoured ads. It really provides a more logical progression for the shopper and a profitable way forward for the SE.
This is becoming a great forum
Does not change the fact the internet is a different medium and is treated as such by individuals.
"Even with all that going for them, over half of them still suck at doing anything beyond simple searches. A huge percentage do not look below the fold or beyond the first page. Narrowing a search is a rare skill indeed."
By your argument tells me there is a need either to further the advancement of search education to young/old alike - or - create simple SOLUTIONS coupled with an interface that help extract intent from the searcher to better match what the searcher actually WANTS while MAKING IT EASY for them to conduct better quality more relevant searches. Pretty much one of the side arguments we (EPV) and I are making.
"As the webmaster of a review site, I can tell you that the majority of searches that deliver traffic to us are almost certainly searches by people that are looking to buy, not people looking for reviews."
Rubbish argument. For one it depends on which keywords you are targeting. Second you don't know how many people actually searched for the phrase(s). Third you don't know if a site somewhere else already satisfied their need to information. Fourth you cannot know for certain the user intent. Fith your conclusion can be skewed because traffic does not come in equal numbers to each page nor does each page have equal "search market share." Sixth...I'll stop.
Offering reviews is a good way of creating the valuable link between consumer and seller, but it is still only one small step. The consumer still needs to be 'sold' the product and this is where we let ourselves down. We need to extend our experience beyond the 'look it's nice' and hope to pick up small percentage of sales. Everyone must remember Boo and how their GUI was going to allow people to 'try before they buy' ... it's never before been needed more IMHO.
Maybe google should stop working on fancy world surveys and maps and concentrate on an interface that can provide sellers this interactive storefront. An all in one, ready made shop unit with optimised selling tools ... good for the seller, good for the buyer. A kind of Froogle X 1000.
Sorry probably rambled a bit there ;-)
That does make it harder for a search engine to separate between commencial sites and informational sites.
