SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 151
  1. #76
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tke71709
    Looking at your site you seem to have just proved that Google is doing a better job than all of the above search engines.

    Why should that site (which has no content and would be completely useless to a searcher) appear anywhere near the first page of the SERPS.

    Google's job is not to help you brand your business its to help people find webpage that contain the terms that they are searching for. Your page doesn't help the searcher and thus should not be ranked highly. Therefore google is doing its job well.

    A slap on the wrist to the other search engines for listing it so high!

    I disagree completely ... take for example I want to find info on say Adobe, I type that into google and all of a sudden I'm bombarded with sponsored links to Adobe software, when I actually wanted to got the Adobe home page. Like adobe acrobat reader is listed above adobe's home page. In this instance I am searching for specific information, not a product - and the best place to get that is via the companies website. This is the same about the site I designed. I have contact info on the site ... thou not really much other content, so why should google prevent people easily being able to contact me - instead they have to sift through many pages of results to get some contact info - it doesnt make sense!

    Surely google should weight some terms on the site more heavily than others - that I gather - but that doesnt explain why 9 results above the official site of draperstown commercials there is something totally unrelated.

    Why should that site (which has no content and would be completely useless to a searcher) appear anywhere near the first page of the SERPS.
    You'll find that the listing 9 places above companyname in the google search results is even more useless!!!
    Last edited by ronanmagee; Oct 13, 2005 at 02:41.

  2. #77
    SitePoint Evangelist ghurtado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Wixom, Michigan
    Posts
    591
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting how whenever someone comes out to say that "google doesn't work" it always stems from their inability to "trick" the search engine into ranking their sites higher than others. Google works for ME, the USER of the search engine, I always find what I am looking for because I know how to use it. The fact that your site ranks behind 10,000 other sites doesnt make a bit of a difference to me, because in that first page is always what I am looking for. Do you really think that in order for google to "work" it should "work" as you and every other webmaster expect it to work? Google was not designed for you as a webmaster, or for you as a marketer, thats what you have the paid advertisement for, so go use that, I'm sure you will find that working just fine. Google works today for the user, for whom it needs to do its job, and will continue to work just as well for a very long time. What doesnt work for you, will NEVER work for those sites that are listed after the first page. I bet you that if you had a top 10 site you wouldnt be complaining about Googles accuracy.

    By your standard Google would only work if it pleased every website marketer out there, and just how do you propose to return 10,000 or more "number one" results to keep ALL website owners happy???
    Garcia

  3. #78
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghurtado
    Google works today for the user, for whom it needs to do its job, and will continue to work just as well for a very long time.
    It only works if it provides relevant information ... if you have to go searching through 6 + pages to find what your looking for, say a home page of a company then it fails in its job, especially if other search engines provide the same information higher up search results.

    Google is good for searching for information where the scope of the topic is vast, thou try getting specific searches to work - or at least provide relevant info with the least amount of user searching/browsing results it fails.

  4. #79
    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)
    Ronanmagge, let's take a look at your logic: How often do you think a person would use Google or any other search engine to find a company's homepage? People are not looking for homepages when they turn to search engines but for information that might be contained on a homepage. What makes you think people use Google to find your company? How would anybody know your company exists?
    Also, you are referrencing Adobe as well as your company when it comes to Google's relevancy. Wouldn't you agree that there might a slight difference between the popularity of the brand name adobe and your company? ghurtado is right - Google works the user - million times every day. It might not work for a person who wants to promote their website which contains a telephone number of a start-up. I think, the Yellow Pages are a much more appropriate medium for you to achieve your purpose.
    Or you can try the following: Start adding informative content to your site on a regular basis and see how your ranking in Google improves. Again, you have to give people an incentive why they should find your site. Feed them with information and they will start finding you.

  5. #80
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by english-test.net
    Ronanmagge, let's take a look at your logic: How often do you think a person would use Google or any other search engine to find a company's homepage? People are not looking for homepages when they turn to search engines but for information that might be contained on a homepage. What makes you think people use Google to find your company? How would anybody know your company exists?
    Also, you are referrencing Adobe as well as your company when it comes to Google's relevancy. Wouldn't you agree that there might a slight difference between the popularity of the brand name adobe and your company? ghurtado is right - Google works the user - million times every day. It might not work for a person who wants to promote their website which contains a telephone number of a start-up. I think, the Yellow Pages are a much more appropriate medium for you to achieve your purpose.
    Or you can try the following: Start adding informative content to your site on a regular basis and see how your ranking in Google improves. Again, you have to give people an incentive why they should find your site. Feed them with information and they will start finding you.
    How often do you think a person would use Google or any other search engine to find a company's homepage?
    You'd be surprised, not everyone knows the driect url to a website. I've seen people searching for easyjet via google, which will take them to easyjets home page, the only place that I am aware off where you can purchase flights online for their air line.

    What makes you think people use Google to find your company?
    Looking at my log files for keyword searches shows me that there are people looking for my company name in google.

    Yes adobe is much larger than our company, i'm not disputing that ... but with reference to my post I was searching for KW:Adobe not KW:Adobe Acrobat Reader. Type the KW:Adobe into yahoo and see what happens, the fist rank is adobe.com, as it should be.

    Or you can try the following: Start adding informative content to your site on a regular basis and see how your ranking in Google improves.
    Like I said before the site is only in test phase, but my point is that although it is in test phase, why does all the other search engines rate my site higher even thou they feed off the same content - the test content?

  6. #81
    SitePoint Zealot wrkalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting discussion. Here is a phrase the I rank #1 in Yahoo and MSN, see if you can find me on Google. I should add that that I don't expect to be on the first page in google for this phrase as I haven't optimized much for google. The results are interesting though...

    Phrase: kitchen carts

  7. #82
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by english-test.net
    How often do you think a person would use Google or any other search engine to find a company's homepage?
    If they are anything like me, a lot.

    With larger companies it helps because it saves me the trouble of guessing... is it company-name.com, product-name.com, company-name-usa.com, etc. For smaller companies, how else am I going to find their address? When the search engine works well, searching is faster and more convenient than copying an address off a business card.

    I generally find businesses quickly with Google though I've had several instances where it was tricky to find a medical center's website despite that business's website being fairly well-developed.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  8. #83
    Employed Again Viflux's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London, On.
    Posts
    1,127
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Regarding the Adobe issue...

    The VAST majority of people that would search for "Adobe" ARE looking for Acrobat. All the people on my floor refer to Acrobat simply as Adobe. It's the only Adobe product we use, and the only Adobe product most of them know.

    Therefore, I think Google is doing it's job for that search term at least.

    Remember, each person is looking for something slightly different, even though they use the same search term. What my co-workers expect to find when searching for Adobe and what you would expect to find may be different. Google does it's best to cater to the majority of users.

  9. #84
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Viflux
    Regarding the Adobe issue...

    The VAST majority of people that would search for "Adobe" ARE looking for Acrobat. All the people on my floor refer to Acrobat simply as Adobe. It's the only Adobe product we use, and the only Adobe product most of them know.

    Therefore, I think Google is doing it's job for that search term at least.
    The VAST majority of people that would search for "Adobe" ARE looking for Acrobat
    I think that is a bit of a generalisation, yet I see where you are comming from. If you worked in a design house you'd see adobe photoshop shouting about, adobe elements, In design etc.

    Major products are here

    If I'm looking for these products or info on these products I would type Adobe Photoshop however if I'm looking for info on Adobe, maybe say share info, stocks market prospects, company background etc

  10. #85
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    567
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ronanmagee
    I agree - I think that google does a crap job when sites that may have relevant content do not have back links ....

    heres an example (not trying for hits btw)

    I am developing a website at the min ... its called Draperstown Commercials - link is here

    Now, if you search google for Draperstown Commercails, you'd expect it to come near the top, as the URL to the site is draperstowncommercials.com

    Not so ... it only appears on the 6th page ?!?!
    Obviously the escort site that shows up 3rd or 4th is far more relevant than commercial vehicles or whatever tripe you're selling.

    Get real, man! The priorities are fine: sex, beer, money.



    =Austin

  11. #86
    SitePoint Zealot spybreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yahoo often does a much better job of finding stuff I'm searching for, as a user. Hence I agree to the statement "Google is broken". Of course, one has to acknowledge that, since Google is the biggest and most popular search engine, it's also the one that's being most targeted at by spammers.

    But the "Adobe" example shows it. I can understand Viflux argument, but, tell me, why do I see the japanese Adobe site on the first results page? Or the Adobe accessibility portal? That doesn't make sense. You'd think you'd find Photoshop on the first page.

  12. #87
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    866
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghurtado
    Google works for ME, the USER of the search engine, I always find what I am looking for because I know how to use it.
    You only say that because you don't know what you are missing. I just started using MSN and I was blown away by the fact that I was getting SERPs I have never seen before for searches I have conducted extensively for years on Google. Good sites are getting lost in Google.

  13. #88
    SitePoint Enthusiast BigSlick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bottom line is sites will be better off when other search engines gain some strength and popularity, and put pressure on google

    Google is off into other things (Google TV, Google Maps, etc), MSN is off doing tv ads for theyre new and improved search engine

    That should wake google up a bit

  14. #89
    SitePoint Evangelist ghurtado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Wixom, Michigan
    Posts
    591
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ronanmagee
    if you have to go searching through 6 + pages to find what your looking for, say a home page of a company then it fails in its job
    I've never, not once, had to turn further than about the 3rd page of results in google looking for something, and very seldom do I have to look further than the first 5 results on the first page, and I use google on a daily basis, I would say, maybe 50 or 60 searches a day?

    What I have noted with a lot of people is the lack of specificity when making a search, which is of course, bound to give you more broad results. I have a very efficient search strategy, and I am always able to find what I am looking for straight away, so it always works for me. I can't imagine I am the only one that knows how to use google to find the most relevant results, so perhaps the issue here is one of training the user to make more specific queries and knowing in advance what keywords will yield the results closer to what you want.

    Give me one example of a search term that gave you poor results, and I will give you one example on how to improve your searching strategy.
    Garcia

  15. #90
    SitePoint Addict myrdhrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    More relevant and more of it.
    I'd have to say that more relevant is in the eye of the person searching, not the person publishing the information. so there are as many way's of defining relevant as they are people, moments and purposes to search for information.
    Jean-Marc (aka Myrdhrin)
    M2i3 - blog - Protect your privacy with Zliki

  16. #91
    Non-Member Musicbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    india
    Posts
    1,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i always use yahoo and sometimes google for accurate search results.

    Both works well for me.

  17. #92
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Question: Do search engines ever use clicks from their website to determine relevance? If everyone is selecting a site from the 8th page, then shouldn't that site "bubble up" to the top. Of course it wouldn't take long before people start clicking on their own links.

    On a different note, most of my hits come from MSN since the switchover.

  18. #93
    Unauthorized Web Theologian emmzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    738
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personal, non-scientific observation: Google still works well for me. Usually I find what I'm looking for within the first 5 results. Rarely have I ever had the experience of searching and saying "Woah what are these sites doing here?" Hardly ever in fact. Of course, I've been using the web for quite awhile and am probably better than most about choosing my search terms when searching for stuff.

  19. #94
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Austin_Hastings
    Obviously the escort site that shows up 3rd or 4th is far more relevant than commercial vehicles or whatever tripe you're selling.

    Get real, man! The priorities are fine: sex, beer, money.



    =Austin
    Cheers Austin, my point exactly

  20. #95
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghurtado
    I've never, not once, had to turn further than about the 3rd page of results in google looking for something, and very seldom do I have to look further than the first 5 results on the first page, and I use google on a daily basis, I would say, maybe 50 or 60 searches a day?

    What I have noted with a lot of people is the lack of specificity when making a search, which is of course, bound to give you more broad results. I have a very efficient search strategy, and I am always able to find what I am looking for straight away, so it always works for me. I can't imagine I am the only one that knows how to use google to find the most relevant results, so perhaps the issue here is one of training the user to make more specific queries and knowing in advance what keywords will yield the results closer to what you want.

    Give me one example of a search term that gave you poor results, and I will give you one example on how to improve your searching strategy.

    I agree with you completely, search string optomisation is very important, however if you go to yahoo with out any search string optomisation you'll find better results. Why should I have to optomise what I'm looking for - surely its up to google to optomise the results for me, and provide me with the best information given the restricted knowledge I have of the topic - otherwise, why else would I be searching?

  21. #96
    The Prince burkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    744
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think Google is doing all the stuff, penalization, sandbox, irrelevant ranking for the sake of one thing:

    Trying to shift webmasters focus from SEO to building a better content like Ampilian said. In fact the things that Ampilian emphasized is just Google's goal :
    "Stop bugging with SEO, cloaking, cheating and just build your content as if no Google exists!"
    If we all, webmasters, quit putting the Google in first place and focus on content building, Google would be 100% perfect in delivering results.
    Google being not perfect or broken is the result not the reason! We should first question the reason, which, IMO, us !
    think about it .

  22. #97
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ampalian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Cotswolds, England
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that is fair comment. Let's us do our job and Google do theirs.

  23. #98
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampalian
    I think that is fair comment. Let's us do our job and Google do theirs.
    Fair comment too but what about those that do our job correctly, that create relevant content and optomise the site for google. In return for this you'd expect google to reward you, like say for a direct search on your company then you'd at least be with in the top ten. In this respect for all your hard work google isnt going their job.

    My gripe is that although you can do all this optomisation, create all this content etc google still manages to fall behind other search engines in providing relevant content.

    I'm not comparing how good google is at scanning your website, looking for key words etc, I'm comparing it with other search engines that have to work with the same content, work with the same key words and use the same optomised page.

    I find that for all the work you do for google it doenst reward you as well.

    Again I refer to web host freaks on google and yahoo, which one provides a more accurate result based on a simple search webhostfreaks?

  24. #99
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,350
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    ronan, you're doing it so consistently that it can't be a typo -- the word is optimization, not optomization (with an ess instead of a zed if you prefer)

    we have to keep coming back to the crux of the matter -- what you as the site author consider relevant may not be what a search engine considers relevant

    how do you define relevant? we've all learned by now that it is not the number of times a keyword is repeated in the META tags, is it

    so what is relevance?
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  25. #100
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    belfast
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937
    ronan, you're doing it so consistently that it can't be a typo -- the word is optimization, not optomization (with an ess instead of a zed if you prefer)

    we have to keep coming back to the crux of the matter -- what you as the site author consider relevant may not be what a search engine considers relevant

    how do you define relevant? we've all learned by now that it is not the number of times a keyword is repeated in the META tags, is it

    so what is relevance?
    haha, leave my spelling out of this!!!

    Thats a very good post ... its what is relevant ... it's up to the search engine to provide 'relevant' results, therefore I would think that the search engine should be 'optimised' (hehe) to pick up things other that word density. In this respect that blows out any argument that says 'content is always king'.

    What should be said here is 'relevant content is king'.

    How do we define relevant content ... I think that there should be some form of hierarchial structure. So of instance, you could split the web page up into different areas, the head, meta tags, body, footer etc. Each of these could be given a different weighting, so the header could be weighted 2, body 10, footer 5.

    Now any keywords found in the header would also have to be found in the body, but weighted differently.

    e.g.

    Search word football ...

    Found in header 3 times on site A, and 6 times on site B.

    Header score for A = 6, and B = 12

    Found in Body 300 times on site A, and 100 times on site B.

    Body score for A = 3000, and B = 1000

    Now divide the body score / header score

    Final score A = 500
    Final score B = 83

    A should be rated above B in the search results.

    The lower the number of words in the body for that keyword the less relevant it is.

    Exceptions could be like the name of a company, address, telephone number etc and they could be worked into the equation as well,and weighted differently.

    Of course this is very simplified, and I'm sure some one can pick flaws in it (dividing by zero etc) but if it was implemented and thought out some more it might help produce 'relevant' information?

    You might also have to get a good footer score, meaning that words must appear in the bottom half of the page as well, spreading the 'relevant' data out over the page, trying to improve the quality of the result returned.

    I'm no search guru nor do I pretend to be one but I'm just thinking of other ideas about doing bits to improve the information returned to people.

    Any one - what ya think - any other ideas for relevant content?


    P.S. Dictionary any one


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
  •