SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 151
  1. #1
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ampalian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Cotswolds, England
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Google doesn't work!! It's that simple.

    The first directive, the core business of any search engine is to deliver the most relevant results to the user.

    On that basis Google simply doesn't work. It's broken. It's kaput. It doesn't actually do "what it says on the tin".

    Why single out Google? Well you can look at that two ways. Simply because Google is the one that many webmasters put as top priority and the one that regularly gets its own dedicated forum on sites like this one or replace my references to Google with "search engines".

    Many webmasters around the world have built web sites about widgets that are bigger, better, more relevant and with more unique information than the top 10 Google results for widgets. Many have then failed to even get into the top 100 Google results. If they have done well it's taken months if not years or the have produced the world's very first ever web site dedicated to the Microbiology of Yaks Milk.

    Google doesn't work!

    So webmasters around the world invest enormous man hours and resources into making their widget site Google friendly. That's not their job! If a site is built to global standards and validates it is up to Google to find it and deliver it to searchers based upon its relevance to the search. It's not up to the webmaster to make the site Google friendly. It's up to Google to make its engine web site friendly.

    With the technology and resources available the most relevant site for a users search needn't take weeks, months and years to appear. Google may have spidered your site last night therefore it should be repositioned in the Google results this morning. It's Google's job to deliver the most relevant results to the user. If your site is it then it shouldn't take six weeks until the next Google dance for the user to get that result. The user wants the most relevant result now. That's what Google is for.

    So your site happens to be in Flash or it's built with frames. Ha! then you've no chance. Why not? The platform that you use is up to you. Google's job is to deliver the most relevant site to the user. If that is a Flash site then it's up to Google to ensure that its engine can deliver it to the user. It's not your problem. If you redesign to suit Google then you are trying to fix their broken engine.

    Backlinks, ahh, that'll sort the wheat from the chaff. Oh! No it won't. Firstly backlinks need to be relevant. So supposedly the best backlink your PR4 retail mobile phone site would be from a PR5+ retail mobile phone site. Well it's not gonna happen. Why would that site link to you? Secondly, webmasters around the world go to enormous lengths to secure inbound links. That's no basis on which to judge a sites popularity, it just tells you how much time the webmaster has on his hands to get links rather than add good content.

    Google doesn't work.

    I happen to be aware of a site that carries 3170 widgets, more widgets than most (it's not mine, it's actually a competitors site). It's number 2 in Yahoo on a search for that particular widget and deservedly so. I hold my hands up. The same site is not in the top 100 on Google. Google is not delivering.

    As for the relationship between Google and DMOZ, well that's just breathtaking. Why would anyone volunteer their time to be a DMOZ editor? Power. Little arrogant tin pot gods who think they rule the internet. Take a look at the DMOZ forum. "Please sir? has my site been reviewed yet?" "No, now go away and ask me again in 6 months time". Six months! That's an age on the web. Why would Google partly base its results on that? The user wants the most relevant result now.

    I've had an epiphany. I'm getting my life back. No more time spent trying to help Google to do do IT'S job. It's broke and I can't fix it for them. I'll concentrate on my job, my site, my customers. If Google continues to fail to deliver my site it's customers in its rightful position of relevance (be that number 1 or number 10,000) then that's up to them.

    Some will say that if I do that then I will climb Google anyway. I don't care. Google is broken.

    I am a google fan. It has been my search tool of choice for a long time. I don't know what's happened, whether their focus has turned away from their core purpose towards making more and more money or what. I do know this. If Google continues to remain unrepaired they will be opening the door to the dominance of Microsoft and the new MSN, dropping back behind Yahoo or leaving a gap for a new, young fresh engine to emerge. Maybe they'll be doing all 3!

    My site validates, it's certainly relevant, it's definitely spiderable and it's up to the engines to deliver to their users. It's no longer my problem.

    If someone reads this from Google or DMOZ will I get penalized? That's a laugh. Google is broken so is doesn't matter and if my site were to be penalized on the basis of this post then Google would be that tiny bit more broken.

    Go on Mr Gates! You've got the desktop. Looks like you can take the web now too.

    Malcolm

  2. #2
    SitePoint Zealot deregular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    152
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very well said there Ampalian.

    I dont know what else to say man, you just said it all!
    SEO Resources | SEO Software
    Web Directory < Submit your site free!

  3. #3
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nicely said Malcolm!

    However, it seems like the MSN Search looks at the number of backlinks a website has to decide where it appears in the results.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ampalian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Cotswolds, England
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    However, it seems like the MSN Search looks at the number of backlinks a website has to decide where it appears in the results.
    Yep, when all they have to do is deliver fast results to their users based on the deep spidering of actual content that is updated on their systems in much, much less than a 3 week cycle. Is that such a difficult concept?

  5. #5
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ridgecrest
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well said.... I hope msn gives google a wakeup call...

  6. #6
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anyone out there think that the method Google uses is actually the best way?

    Good to hear some other views on this...

  7. #7
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ampalian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Cotswolds, England
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anyone out there think that the method Google uses is actually the best way?
    There's time yet I know but silence speaks volumes.

    With all of brain power and resources here maybe it's time for a brand new, clean and open search engine. Hey! Site Point ain't a bad name!

  8. #8
    SitePoint Addict Synaesthesiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with some of what you've said, except for a few things:

    1. Since when do web standards have anything to do with search relevancy? A validated, standards-compliant website might be more well-coded, but the relevancy of its content could be exactly the same (or less) than that of a non-validated website. Content is what people care about, not whether or not the site they are getting their content from validates

    2. Backlinks are still a good idea. Maybe not in every single case, there is room for improvement. But I wouldn't say they are a bad idea.

    I do have to agree with a lot of what you've said, especially Google taking so long to index new/updated sites and the whole SEO race. But, isn't that the challenge with a frontier as huge as the internet? Any and all rules can be bent and/or broken, people will figure out how to get around things and capitalize on that. I don't think Google is completely to blame.
    Danielion
    Imagine a world without hypothetical scenarios...

  9. #9
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ampalian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Cotswolds, England
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1. Since when do web standards have anything to do with search relevancy? A validated, standards-compliant website might be more well-coded, but the relevancy of its content could be exactly the same (or less) than that of a non-validated website. Content is what people care about, not whether or not the site they are getting their content from validates
    My point was that in order for the internet to operate it needs some independent global standards in place just to allow spiders to access the site. Meet those and everything else should be down to content.
    Backlinks are still a good idea. Maybe not in every single case, there is room for improvement. But I wouldn't say they are a bad idea.
    In what way? I run a jewellery business. My competitors aren't going to link to me and I'm not going to link to them. So we look for lateral link partners. Wedding sites let's say. But we look for them and we forge alliances to suit the SE algorithm. That's artificial.

    The internet needn't be a challenging frontier. If you have a site that meets agreed conventional standards vs. another equal site but you have one piece of information over and above the other you should rank before it.

    Of course, if you don't you could always buy advertising.

    The net needs a new clean search engine.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Enthusiast ct_roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    amen bro!

    google is a victim of it's own success - the founding principles of google have been exploited by the burgeoning SEO industry leading in turn to those very guiding principles of relevancy and consistency becoming obselete.

    it's going to take a VERY special search engine to become "SEO proof"

    By that, I ensuring a information on the web is judged purely on it's information and not the countless methods used to bolster search engine rankings.

    Frankly, i don't think we will ever get there.

  11. #11
    SitePoint Addict Synaesthesiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    In what way? I run a jewellery business. My competitors aren't going to link to me and I'm not going to link to them. So we look for lateral link partners. Wedding sites let's say. But we look for them and we forge alliances to suit the SE algorithm. That's artificial.
    I understand where you're coming from here. But retail isn't the only use for the internet and I agree that gaining backlinks to rise to the top of the SERPs in your case is just a formality. However when it comes to information and certain types of services, backlinks are very useful in sorting relevant from non-relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    The internet needn't be a challenging frontier. If you have a site that meets agreed conventional standards vs. another equal site but you have one piece of information over and above the other you should rank before it.
    This does sound good, but how does a search engine determine the meaning of the information contained in the websites it indexes? I'm not saying that this sort of technology won't ever exist, but it's a HUGE jump from what we currently have. It sounds like what you want, is for Google to individually process and interpret every single site it indexes, and somehow logically decide which sites contain the most useful information -- not based on keyword density or backlinks, but by sheer understanding of the content itself. I just don't think computers are that smart yet...
    Danielion
    Imagine a world without hypothetical scenarios...

  12. #12
    SitePoint Addict Synaesthesiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ct_roy
    it's going to take a VERY special search engine to become "SEO proof"
    I agree whole-heartedly. I just don't think the technology for such a thing exists yet, because what you're talking about is a search engine that understands the content of the websites it indexes.

    In the meantime, we're limited by software algorithms that someone will always figure out how to get around.
    Danielion
    Imagine a world without hypothetical scenarios...

  13. #13
    SitePoint Enthusiast ct_roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Synaesthesiac
    I agree whole-heartedly. I just don't think the technology for such a thing exists yet, because what you're talking about is a search engine that understands the content of the websites it indexes.

    In the meantime, we're limited by software algorithms that someone will always figure out how to get around.
    exactly.

    one day... one day... says me getting my AI 101 notes out

  14. #14
    With More ! for your $ maxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sounds like you're pissed that your site isn't doing better in Google SERPs with content that YOU think is much better than all of the other sites.

    Google isn't broken, there are just too many people trying to get listed for highly competitive keywords.

  15. #15
    With More ! for your $ maxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    The internet needn't be a challenging frontier. If you have a site that meets agreed conventional standards vs. another equal site but you have one piece of information over and above the other you should rank before it.
    Who's to say that one piece of information makes Site A any better than Site B. The site with the better information should rank first.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    The net needs a new clean search engine.
    I think you need a reality check.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ampalian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Cotswolds, England
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not pissed. I don't care, it's Google's problem, not mine. I haven't set out to deliver the most relevant results to my my customers. It has, and it doesn't. period!

    The site with the better information should rank first. Exactly.

    I need a reality check? Where did Google come from? Do you really think that based on its current performance we'll all be "googling" in five years time?

    You need the reality check.

  17. #17
    SitePoint Addict Synaesthesiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    I'm not pissed. I don't care, it's Google's problem, not mine. I haven't set out to deliver the most relevant results to my my customers. It has, and it doesn't. period!

    The site with the better information should rank first. Exactly.

    I need a reality check? Where did Google come from? Do you really think that based on its current performance we'll all be "googling" in five years time?

    You need the reality check.
    Well, as is the case with just about everything else in the world, Google isn't perfect. However, saying that it doesn't deliver relevant results to its users is not accurate. If it didn't do so, no one would be using it

    Does it deliver the most relevant possible results 100% of the time? No. It is, after all, run largely by software and hardware that cannot logically and philosophically decipher the meaning of a webpage's content. Does that make Google a failure? No. I'd say Google's SERPs are relevant much more often that not.
    Danielion
    Imagine a world without hypothetical scenarios...

  18. #18
    With More ! for your $ maxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    I'm not pissed. I don't care, it's Google's problem, not mine. I haven't set out to deliver the most relevant results to my my customers. It has, and it doesn't. period!

    The site with the better information should rank first. Exactly.

    I need a reality check? Where did Google come from? Do you really think that based on its current performance we'll all be "googling" in five years time?

    You need the reality check.
    It sounds like your main reason for thinking google is broken is because you have a site that doesn't rank as well as another site. Is google perfect, are 100% of the sites in 100% of the top ten search results for any given keyword 100% correct 100% of the time? NO.

    More importantly, google is FREE, they don't have to answer to anyone, they don't make claims like "We provide the best search results, everytime" or "We rank sites with better information first, every time". Google doesn't have 'customers' they don't make people pay to use their search engine. That point you're trying to make doesn't hold any water, it's just idiotic.

    Google with be around in five years. Why? Because they're still the best at the search engine game, and chances are they will be. They still get the most traffic, they still have the best algorithms, and they will continue to innovate at a rate higher than their competitors.

    I'm sorry, but google isn't broken, it's just not 100% perfect all the time.

  19. #19
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Surely the job of SEO is just going to get more time consuming in future due to the way Google works i.e. getting more back links to your website.

    In that sense, would you not say Googles way of working isn't the best?

  20. #20
    Employed Again Viflux's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London, On.
    Posts
    1,127
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the point here is that in a perfect search world, the SEO industry would be non-existant.

    To rank well, your page would consist of valid markup and outstanding content. Game, set, match. There would be no concern over the number of links, since, as pointed out above, the philosophy of link counting is fundamentally invalid. There would be no keyword stuffing, there would be no abuse of <H> tags. And of course, there would be none of the illegal tactics we see these days.

    Would that it were, however.

  21. #21
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,247
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    The site with the better information should rank first.
    i'm really curious, how do you define "better"

    please don't give a long rambling answer

    see if you can distill a nice definition down into one sentence

    and let's see if you can make it objective, because "better" depends entirely on how you measure it

    so, Ampalian, any ideas?
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  22. #22
    SitePoint Zealot deregular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    152
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Viflux
    I think the point here is that in a perfect search world, the SEO industry would be non-existant.

    To rank well, your page would consist of valid markup and outstanding content. Game, set, match. There would be no concern over the number of links, since, as pointed out above, the philosophy of link counting is fundamentally invalid. There would be no keyword stuffing, there would be no abuse of <H> tags. And of course, there would be none of the illegal tactics we see these days.

    Would that it were, however.
    Thats right in a perfect world... But there will always be a handful of webmasters curious enough and smart enough to get around "ANY" type of ranking system for results and be able to manipulate serps. That in itself creates irrelevent results and breaks a search engine beyond repair, all they can do then is build hacks or workarounds to stop serp manipulation. Then it all starts again once another hole is found...
    Its a vicious circle.
    SEO Resources | SEO Software
    Web Directory < Submit your site free!

  23. #23
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ampalian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Cotswolds, England
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i'm really curious, how do you define "better"
    More relevant and more of it.

  24. #24
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,247
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    well, i understand the "more of it" part, that's just raw quantity, right?

    but how do you define "more relevant"?

    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  25. #25
    SitePoint Evangelist english-test.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany, Germany
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well,

    Thousands of people from more than 150 countries find out pages through Google every day. Most of those people are happy with what they find and if it weren't for Google they would have never come across our pages and to get the answers to many of their questions. I think it simply comes down to offering a better alternative to Google. Where is it? MSN? Not at this point and based on the experience most of us have made throught the past couple of years MSN or any other search engine won't replace Google. Just remember that anybody is free in their choice of resources. You don't like Google? Don't use it! You think Google is broken. Great. You are absolutely free to think whatever you like. As for us, we prefer sticking to the facts. And one of facts is that Google makes it possible for far more people to find our pages than MSN does. Still, this doesn't mean that Google is the better search engine. It simply means that we prefer Google because it does a better job for our users and us and there might be a few webmasters who are in the same situation. So, no need to make statements like 'Google is broken'. This not a fact. It's just your biased opinion and Google doesn't care about it.
    By the way: Isn't this subforum for people who want to share experiences on how to optimize their pages for Google? If you want to complain about Google you might as well find a more appropriate place.
    Also, you might want to re-read (or read) this message and pay attention to the first sentence:
    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76257


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •