Google's weaknesses

John Scott · 05-21-2006, 05:03 PM

If somebody were to launch a search engine to compete with Google, what weaknesses of Google's do you think could be exploited?

I think there are a few.

First, Google is extremely porn friendly. It sort of already has a "porn search engine" image going on, and that could be emphasized to the "family friendly" market.

The other huge weakness is Google's blind willingness and eagerness to include as many pages in the index as possible. Only 2% of indexed pages need to be indexed, IMO. The other 98% are MFA crap.

BingoBalls · 05-21-2006, 05:13 PM

They have too many updates which just send the whole index into a mess. If you had a Google that didnt mess up the index during an update I think site owners would prefer it.

As a surfer I prefer to see data results of pages on the topic I am looking for and not the results from an adword campaign. What I mean is they are squeezing ads into the results such as the top position and the side bar....I like basic, plain and simple results.

If I can think of more I'll come back.

digiweb · 05-21-2006, 05:16 PM

What's MFA?

I have never seen porn on google. I think they set my filter to Amish.

John Scott · 05-21-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolineBogart

What's MFA?

Made For Adsense.

BingoBalls · 05-21-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolineBogart

What's MFA?

Made for Adsense. In other words the sites purpose is made to generate cash and not made for visitors reading pleasures.

*EDIT*

Your quick John!

John Scott · 05-21-2006, 05:22 PM

Your explanation is better.

digiweb · 05-21-2006, 05:23 PM

So the whole Celebrity Death Match AdSense vs Quality Content Google Self Destruct Movie is on at 7pm, again at 11.

digiweb · 05-21-2006, 05:25 PM

Google failings.

Not that other engines are better, but.

How about, if I've already seen the first 3 pages of wrong answers (not their fault, I think, it's a limited subject), put them in a "you clicked these already box," let me see the new ones without relying on the color-link-means-no method.

sixty6 · 05-21-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

If somebody were to launch a search engine to compete with Google, what weaknesses of Google's do you think could be exploited?

I think there are a few.

First, Google is extremely porn friendly. It sort of already has a "porn search engine" image going on, and that could be emphasized to the "family friendly" market.

The other huge weakness is Google's blind willingness and eagerness to include as many pages in the index as possible. Only 2% of indexed pages need to be indexed, IMO. The other 98% are MFA crap.

But they have the SafeSearch, which is enabled on most computers, so youngsters (unlike me

) won't accidentally encounter porn!

I remember last year or so they didn't have it and all these immature kids would gwak whenever they see porn pictures...immature teens

John Scott · 05-21-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixty6

But they have the SafeSearch, which is enabled on most computers, so youngsters (unlike me

) won't accidentally encounter porn!

Google's default search has more porn in it than Atom's hard drive.

sixty6 · 05-21-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Google's default search has more porn in it than Atom's hard drive.

Keep dreaming John (You go ATOM!!)

melo99 · 05-21-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolineBogart

What's MFA?

I have never seen porn on google. I think they set my filter to Amish.

For that matter what does IMO stand for. I'm not very big on acrynoms because I'm a bit dumb.
When I did an acrynom search it had 2 Information technology meanings, 6 military meanings, 7 science & medicine meanings, 12 organisation names, 6 business & finance terms, 4 slang & chat meanings.

I only know the crap acronym - citizens revolt against poop

But yor right about Google, they have so many repetative pages of sites.

DarrenC · 05-21-2006, 10:05 PM

I think every business or corporation has weaknesses, but I do agree with the point on MFA websites - someone over at Google should be monitoring what sites Adsense.

Google seems to do a good job at hiding alot of these sites though in my opinion compared to MSN - which does a horrible job of filtering out this useless crap.

digiweb · 05-21-2006, 10:44 PM

IMO usually means in my opinion if posted to a forum such as this

Kitchen Designer · 05-22-2006, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Google's default search has more porn in it than Atom's hard drive.

ROFLMAO!!!

JamieJelly · 05-22-2006, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The other huge weakness is Google's blind willingness and eagerness to include as many pages in the index as possible. Only 2% of indexed pages need to be indexed, IMO. The other 98% are MFA crap.

The trouble is John, that a lot of people (even technophiles) judge a search engine by its index size. Over on SPF there is a thread on the reborn search engine snap.com. I used it and thought it was ok, the results were relevant, but only 260 results for my keyword term I tried. I only check the first 5 (10 at a stretch) anyway, so 90m results is a few million too many.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was, that in this thread, people seem to be ignoring the fact the results are relevant on snap.com and focusing on the small number of results returned, referencing Google's millions for the same terms.

John Scott · 05-22-2006, 03:18 AM

Larger index often means less relevant / bad quality SERPs.

Julie · 05-22-2006, 12:15 PM

I think they could stand to improve their financial section. I know that isn't a core search related thing, but if it were better it would be something that I would use. I like to look up stocks and do market research, and theirs is kind of lacking.

I don't think a smaller index is the answer. I like having options. Lots of options. And if that means having to sort through crap, so be it. Good searchers can find what they need. Sometimes with a really weird subject, I'll find a gem 30 pages back. Other times I find just what I need on the front page.

Though I do think they could do a better job of getting rid of the "MFA" sites or just plain SPAM sites. I hate when I get something that looks great from the SERP description that's just plain crap when you actually get to that site.

BingoBalls · 05-22-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

I like having options. Lots of options. And if that means having to sort through crap, so be it. Good searchers can find what they need. Sometimes with a really weird subject, I'll find a gem 30 pages back. Other times I find just what I need on the front page.

Exactly Juile and I don’t think I could put that better myself. I’ve been using Google as my main research tool since I started in the I.T sector and it has always provided what I was looking for and as you said, usually 30 pages back – I always thought that was just me

BamaStangGuy · 05-22-2006, 07:06 PM

A good start would be to update their index.... they are still listing urls that I have 301 redirected months and months ago in their SERPS. I see this by using Google Analytics and searching for terms people use to find my site. The SERPS are still showing my old showthread.php links instead of the new seo written urls.

A even better start would to fix the mess it is in now. My rankings are not consistent from day to day