Interesting happenings at Google - Page 4

discountdomains · 11-17-2003, 07:40 AM

Hi,

I heard that Google, is switching to a more content driven algo, with a far lower weighting to backlinks. The changes are being introduced progressively.

Clare
www.discountdomainsuk.com

janeth · 11-17-2003, 07:45 AM

I'm not sure what there doing but I had about 1,800 words of text on my home page and they droped me from over 200 different key words I was ranked in the top 20 for but I still see a lot of people that have no text or key words on there home page ranked in the top ten for a lot of key words.

I think that know everyone is getting excited trying to figure it out when it may take weeks to figure out what there doing.

janeth · 11-17-2003, 08:03 AM

Hi discountdomains,

If that is true then I guess content would be king again.

Gede · 11-17-2003, 08:21 AM

Repetitive Links. hmmmmm

janeth · 11-17-2003, 08:29 AM

Repetitive Links.

That would mean links in your own site would not count anymore?

Gede · 11-17-2003, 08:46 AM

Dunno.

Anyway we will test, my new sig is a no 1 ranking. If it goes down my guess is right.

janeth · 11-17-2003, 08:53 AM

All we would have to do is check links going to our site with Google if the links still show up then they still count.

Plus if text was going to mean more then links we would still not have all the sites ranked #1 with out using the key words in the text.

It looks to me like links are be coming more important not less.

I, Brian · 11-17-2003, 09:12 AM

I most certainly would agree that competition is definitely healthy here.

burgi82 · 11-17-2003, 09:49 AM

this whole update here is really making me mad to be honest. I don't understand what is going on right now.
Yesterday, I still had one of my sites on the first page for direct tv. Today, that page is nowhere to be found in the first 40 results, but then, I have a 2nd level page of a site that I promoted less in position 16 or 17 for direct tv.
This just doesn't seem right at all, and I would love to know what's going on there right now. I just hope that this update ends soon and everything will be back to normal again.
and the worst thing right now is that their are not only relevant results being shown for direct tv, but also totally useless ones, that have nothing to do with direct tv.

Gede · 11-17-2003, 10:27 AM

Yep Mad, been out and in for certain phrases. The tendency is in (again) though.

PhilC · 11-17-2003, 10:40 AM

According to GG, there is at least one "minor" update to be added - probably tomorrow, so I'm not holding my breath that things are gonna look much different than they are now when the update is finished.

Mel · 11-17-2003, 07:33 PM

hmm....Interesting that if you search for keyword1 keyword2 you now get different results than if you search for keyword1-keyword2.

I don't seem to remember that this was true before this update

Gede · 11-17-2003, 09:25 PM

It seems that the local version of google are not touched by the latest virus.

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&ie...gle+zoeken&lr=

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&ie...gle+zoeken&lr=

**John Scott** · 11-17-2003, 09:31 PM

Google instability. It's funny that they don't test out new algo's privately before showing the world. GG is over at WMW telling people to hold off judgement until it's complete. But, people aren't going to stop searching Google in the meantime.

PhilC · 11-18-2003, 04:40 AM

If my memory is correct, GG said that seperating searchterm words with hyphens is telling Google that the phrase must be on the page - or something like that.

I just checked one searchterm:-

without hyphens = 1,730,000 results

with hyphens = 4,500 results

I, Brian · 11-18-2003, 04:46 AM

You've got that right, Mel - I can finally see big changes in that respect.

I used to dominate the key words "chronicles empire"/ "empire chronicles" - but searches for the following will bring up quite different results: "chronicles empire" "empire chronicles" "empire-chronicles" and "chronicles-empire" all return very different results.

The hyphen itself is a remarkable issue - if I simply type in "chronicles-network" I get a big list of pages linking to my "chronicles-network" sci-fi forums, that normally do not show as backlinks because they have a PR less than 4.

dpam · 11-18-2003, 07:58 AM

Hey John, with all due respect, you seem a bit harsh on these guys. Obviously you don't think they really don't test the algo's internally. It seems that when they introduce them the sheer size of the data requires that results are 'mid-air' for a while while the system updates. That is understandable given the scale at which they're operating isn't it? I would also think that in the case of work like theirs, even a reasonably large internal test might not show all the inconsistencies as running it on the billions of pages in the actual data set - so reasonable testing might not expose all the problems.

This is a complicated issue, and the more I read about Google in general in SEO forums or newsletters, the more I see the debate reduced to simplistic and often immature posturing (just like we get on CrossFire or Face the Nation :-) ) These guys are in a tough spot; a couple of college kids set out to build a reasonable list of web sites and apparently succeeded beyond everyone at the time. I'm fairly certain they did not intend to become the arbiters of who goes where in what quantities for the entire internet, yet that is what happened. So their responsibility went from producing a 'pretty good' list for surfers to being the primary economic driver for tens of thousands of businesses - the expected tolerances for those two activities are orders of magnitude apart. Surfers accept just about anything, businesses expect near perfection. So while they're clearly benefiting from these unintended consequences (adwords) they're also drowning because of it (the 'SEO' gaming of their results).

So now they have to live up to it, or they'll die. Just like anyone who hits it big young and then has trouble repeating or maintaining their success. Dylan once referred to it as having to 'do intentionally what you once did instinctively'. That is very hard - which is why most bands suck by their 3rd or 4th album (not to mention the one-hit-wonders) and it's one reason why many dominating businesses get beat anyway. (not trying to lecture, just on a roll here...).

My point is that the challenge Google faces now to maintain their lead is much more difficult than it was to take over the industry from their dorm room. Finding an algorithm that cannot be gamed, or can only be gamed with positive results is a damn tough gig when you're up against the collective brainpower of nearly everyone in the world. Plus, they're going to start drowning in these 'keyword' lawsuits and removal request as trademark holders figure out the real power of this system and they don't want to be gamed either. (I think this horrible trend is what will really kill this business, but that's another rant.) Lastly, the rampant fraud that is almost certainly pervading the adsense system will come to light, and one of their financial legs may tumble.

If I'm them, I'd IPO damn fast.

So this message started out in their defense, and I do think they make an honest try of it although there are undoubtedly some politics in it we all don't know about and some conflicting priorities that mean 'relevancy' doesn't win every debate. They may stuble and even have to back up sometimes but I'd rather see this than a screwed up result that isn't getting fixed - that only serves to escalate the 'black hat' arms race to the point where all results will be useless to everybody. It seems unfair to criticize anyone for an honest attempt to try and improve.

But along the way of making that point it became clear to me that they peaked six months or so ago, and the weight of this success is starting to drown them. Smart people figure out how to come back, so we'll see if they do or not (although I think the emergance of Yahoo/Inktomi and MSN Search within the next year is almost certainly going to take them down a few notches not matter what they do.)

For whatever that is worth....

PhilC · 11-18-2003, 08:45 AM

What I think you are saying, dpam, is that Google is a victim of its own success. I agree that they never expected to be as big as they are, or to have the power that they have. But whether they expected it or not, they've got it, and they do have the power to wipe out web-based businesses at a stroke. Because what they do affects about 85% of the searches done in the world today, in many casees, when a site's rankings vanish, the site is dead.

Because what Google does can have such devastating effects, they really should try to test changes as much as they can before rolling them out onto the web. They used to use www2 and www3 for that purpose but they didn't do it this time, and the trade (sometimes livelihood) on many websites is dead.

They have such power these days that they should be held accountable. They certainly have a moral responsibility to websites that they wouldn't have if Google was just one of a number of equally top engines - like it used to be. They may not be legally responsible, but they are definitely morally responsible.

dpam · 11-18-2003, 09:28 AM

I don't disagree that they have significant responsibility - but I don't agree that they 'owe' any site any more than a 'fair' algorithm or process, or an honest attempt at creating one. Nobody in this game is unaware that the algo is subject to change at any time - we hope it will be fair, we hope it won't knock us down (yet are happy when it bumps us up), we know we won't exactly understand it - but we knew the terms when we started playing. Their ball, their rules. Their feet should go to the fire for screw ups, and if this 'Florida' update turns out to be one then some of this heat is deserved - but a large part of my point was that the folks complaining don't help by screaming bloody murder in an inarticulate fashion or by mixing up issues that aren't a part of this update. (I'm speaking of a lot of the theatre going on over at WMW.)

Having said that, Google is clearly a bit sloppy and arrogent. There would be no harm in doing what you suggest and running at one data-center for a week or so. (Although folks who liked that result better would undoubtedly scream to speed up the distribuion...). I also think there is no reason for them playing coy with this 'black hat' stuff - just post a list of activities that will get a site banned. In this regard they promote all the 'test the limits' behaviour. They could offer a lot more transparency without exposing the algo itself or giving up proprietary info or legal indepenence (I think a lot of this is avoiding making statements they don't want one day to hear read-back in court.)

I understand your argument about their moral responsiblity to the businesses they serve. I'd argue that they have just as large a moral obligation to the business in position 245 who should be in position 4 - the sword cuts both ways.

I also think that they should get some room to do their work, and even screw up a bit, so long as they fix it. They shouldn't be reckless, and we shouldn't be unreasonable. Companies like Google get big and powerful but it is still just a bunch of people trying to do their work - they don't get proportionally smarter as their status rises, and to some degree they probably find themselves in unfamiliar territory.

They need to rise to the occasion, and so do we. I see this same situation in the affiliate world, where a million whiners complain and complain about everything under the sun, mostly in red-faced and unintelligible fashion, and in the end the valid rational complaints are washed away by the moronic flamers who it seems have personal issues far more troubling than their professional ones. Someone with a little time, talent, and the inclination could do wonders for this industry by describing the issues well and knowing how to get the press involved. There is a Business Week cover story in this, but only if the two sides of the issue are clearly marked - get 1000 significant web site operators on one side of a clear, resonable debate with Google and you've got 500 press articles in two weeks. Who's gonna step up? It's a tough gig and I don't know why anyone would really want the hassle - the tragedy of the commons I guess.

dgriesbeck · 11-18-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpam

I don't disagree that they have significant responsibility - but I don't agree that they 'owe' any site any more than a 'fair' algorithm or process, or an honest attempt at creating one. Nobody in this game is unaware that the algo is subject to change at any time - we hope it will be fair, we hope it won't knock us down (yet are happy when it bumps us up), we know we won't exactly understand it - but we knew the terms when we started playing...
I understand your argument about their moral responsiblity to the businesses they serve. I'd argue that they have just as large a moral obligation to the business in position 245 who should be in position 4 - the sword cuts both ways...

I also think that they should get some room to do their work, and even screw up a bit, so long as they fix it. They shouldn't be reckless, and we shouldn't be unreasonable...

I think that is the issue that has truly been lost in this whole mess...fairness. This isn't fair. Business isn't fair. Google is trying, as per their obligation, to be fair. If they are at least a responsible company, then they are trying to be fair. And I believe they have proven responsible thusfar. They are a business that produces a medium. We, as developers, writers, whatever we are, use this medium as a canvass to paint our business. With better or worse results than other. Remember that we are manipulating a medium. Google doesn't guarantee results. It tries to provide the world a way to search the internet for what they are looking for. I think they've realized that and are trying to make THEIR (not our) search engine better for everyone, even those who aren't looking for your corporate website, but instead maybe trying to figure out what a brown recluse looks like, but winds up finding a bunch of crap at the top of the search engine results that has nothing to do with the spider at all. (Figurative...don't go searching for "brown recluse"). Remember for a second that the web wasn't developed, AT FIRST, to be a business medium. There are scholars, mothers, grandmothers, children who also use GOOGLE, and there are web developers who are tailoring sites to them out there.

If your site dropped, I'm sorry. If your site gained, I'm sorry too, that one day it is going to drop, too. Google doesn't owe you, or the rest of the 68 billion people on this planet anything more than a medium for finding your art.

Good luck with the changes that are coming.

BTW, I've tried to follow the forum at MWM. It's too bloated. Anyone want to start a new post, please, that clearly, and simply, outlines what in the world has happened. Has google done this somewhere that we can go read. Now, that would be responsible.

Sorry for the soapbox moment...