The myth of Google's high relevancy

**John Scott** · 11-15-2003, 08:11 PM

I think there is a common misperception of Google being light years ahead of other SE's.

It's not true.

Do some searches on Inktomi. They have some very relevant SERP's. Much more relevant than Google for many sample searches.

**John Scott** · 11-15-2003, 08:13 PM

http://search.positiontech.com/Inkto...TechSearch.jsp

hatchet · 11-15-2003, 10:38 PM

I agree.. take the search of "home construction" - is my site the most relevant site for that term? Heck no. Maybe a site like www.builderonline.com should be the most relevant.

Leader of Men · 11-16-2003, 07:48 AM

No they dont:
http://search.positiontech.com/Inkto...486062&adult=1

I'm the top 3 for Nickelback FORUMS though
http://search.positiontech.com/Inkto...Search&adult=1

Leader of Men · 11-16-2003, 07:49 AM

Wow, maybe I'll change my homepage from google to this, I'm liking this SE... it is very relavent.

hatchet · 11-16-2003, 08:58 AM

And so it begins haha

PhilC · 11-16-2003, 09:42 AM

Something very strange...

I did a search for "pagerank" on positiontech. Google's 'tchnology' page is #1. So I clicked on it and was redirected by Google to an advertising page.

So I searched Google for the same thing, and clicked on there #1 listing (same URL), and went to the right page.

So I copied an pasted the URL into a new browser window and I got the advertising page. Oh well....

fairyjo · 11-16-2003, 11:23 AM

How is that possible?

Joanie

PhilC · 11-16-2003, 12:04 PM

Correction. The URLs are different. The Google one has the trailing slash which makes it a directory and returns the correct page. The positiontech URL leaves the trailing slash off, which it certainly shouldn't do. That makes it a filename and Google returns a 301 (moved permanently) page which sends the browser to get the advertising page. It's Inktomi's error because the same fault occurs on MSN.

**John Scott** · 11-16-2003, 08:34 PM

Just finished this -

http://www.internet-marketing-resear...-vs-google.php

hatchet · 11-16-2003, 08:46 PM

Excellent article JS.. right on the money with good backup to for proof.

Jazzee · 11-16-2003, 10:49 PM

I agree.

Excellent article, John.

I, Brian · 11-17-2003, 01:02 AM

I disagree - the article is spoiled by personal invective and simplistic generalisations.

Google has a reputation for good relevancy (not "light-years", just better than most) after years of personal recommendations from satisfied users.

Certainly Google has been changing a lot this year - but it's still an extremely useful tool. The Inktomi results are interesting - but a search engine that exists on key word URLs and meta-tags to define relevancy is much more open to abuse - which is precisely what Google has been better at filtering out.

As to the Google algo being entirely based on anchor text - this is your assumption, and not mine. I've already warned before that number of backlinks does not equal quality. Just because you cannot specifically manipulate the results using only anchor text is something that works in Google's favour as to being more relevant. Trumpeting that Inktomi is better because you can better manipulate the results is not a relevant consumer argument - and it's the consumer argument that works for Google.

PhilC · 11-17-2003, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Some recent Google drama included The Missing Index Page episode. This algo tweak caused index pages to go missing; e.g., a search for Beartooth Kawasaki would return the rather obscure "ATV Accessories" pages despite the fact that 200+ links are tell Google that www.BeartoothKawasaki.com is what they mean when they say "Beartooth Kawasaki".

...are telling Google that...?

I, Brian · 11-17-2003, 04:30 AM

Btw - John Scott - on the issue of the QWH links - so far as I can tell, WMF pages are only just being indexed by Google (relatively speaking). I'm now reading about 9,000 pages in allinurl: as opposed to 600 a few days ago, but am having trouble tracing links through the pages. In simple terms, I think this site is simply too new to have all it's info in a practical state for Google at present - so usefullness of your links on the forum template I would imagine will be limited for a couple of more weeks. They should kick in soon enough, though.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the term "quality web hosting" is dominated by a lot of "non-compliant" SEO work - so if you want a proper ranking on Google for the term maybe you'll simply have to invest far more in how you distribute your links.

You're actually possibly better SEOing first for your local market - much underrated.

**John Scott** · 11-17-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I disagree - the article is spoiled by personal invective and simplistic generalisations.

Google has a reputation for good relevancy (not "light-years", just better than most) after years of personal recommendations from satisfied users.

Certainly Google has been changing a lot this year - but it's still an extremely useful tool. The Inktomi results are interesting - but a search engine that exists on key word URLs and meta-tags to define relevancy is much more open to abuse - which is precisely what Google has been better at filtering out.

As to the Google algo being entirely based on anchor text - this is your assumption, and not mine. I've already warned before that number of backlinks does not equal quality. Just because you cannot specifically manipulate the results using only anchor text is something that works in Google's favour as to being more relevant. Trumpeting that Inktomi is better because you can better manipulate the results is not a relevant consumer argument - and it's the consumer argument that works for Google.

SERP', Brian, SERP's.

You go over to that drama queen google and do some searches. Then do searches on Ink. And compare the results here.

luchtzak · 11-17-2003, 10:05 AM

I think if they make the SE a little nicer and easier to use this can become a very popular SE too ...

I, Brian · 11-18-2003, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

SERP', Brian, SERP's.

You go over to that drama queen google and do some searches. Then do searches on Ink. And compare the results here.

Certainly I agree that Google has been acting complacent this year - and the sooner that Google has a clear rival, the better.

Whether the Inktomi SERPs are better overall - that's something I'll certainly keep an eye on, especially for their implementation at Yahoo.

Mel · 11-18-2003, 05:08 PM

There is only one way that the relevance of SERPs can be tested and that is by user feedback. John thinks Ink is better than Google, I,Brian does not.

When the majority of searchers think that Ink is better (and certainly Ink is going to get much more exposure in the next few months) then Google will have to put up or shut up. Remember a somewhat complacent search engine called AltaVista which used to be king of the hill.

At the moment, the only thing I know for sure is that the flap going on over this update is not improving the prospects for Googles IPO.

icwcorp · 11-18-2003, 11:41 PM

Alta-who? Didn't Yahoo buy them out?

One thing that MSN needs to do (besides improving it's SERPs) is establish their search engine as a "search engine" and not part of the MSN portal. It's become a secondary part of their site. I did a search for "Dj Shadow" on MSN and the actual search results didn't appear until the 14th or 15th link. That's horrible. Lots of garbage PPC links before the actual true search content is served up.

Google became a threat to MSN and Yahoo because they stayed true to their what they were. A search engine first and a business second. I understand that Google will eventually spawn into a portal. The threat of the IPO has caused Yahoo to buy Inktomi and MSN to spawn their own MSNbot. So what's going to happen? Three major companies butting heads to be your preferred Search engine. I'm hopeful for all three of them. Wash away the garbage content found in their search engines and display true content.