Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Link: Why Google does not qualify for searching the web anymore
Bamse:
Once again I am amazed by all that trust in own search methodes (unknown here but they seem to be naive) and in Googles ability to deliver personal satisfying answers to everyone, 24/7. May be a better question is how do you research a question? Bookmarks based on past experience etc. will be part of that. In 2011 I would have hoped such an internet veteran would be above and beyond ehow via bookmarks. I think internet/marketing moves a lot faster than most peoples minds. He can use Google with simple keyword searching of course but why act shocked result is not click, click optimal for him?
Google accepts just about every crappy site for their ad-show so that alone should be a hint they are not a phone book you look up in. Those sites are not noise but business partners and money usually rules. May be there is a battle going on at Googles house where index people are sticking tung out at ad-dep :)
Nobody seem to evaluate what Google does to help users limit noise. How much does a web history help? How much does left sidebar (mini version of advanced search page)? What about the new link at bottom of page, "Search within results"? Impact of announcing location? Timeline, Wonderwheel? I think it is pretty obvious Google knows defaults results are no more than an address bar why they make it a feature via Instant Search - now also the fresh Google Toolbar from yesterday, say goodby to the old one, now all Google Chrome FRAME ;) Hardcore research demands much more than simple word searching. Understandable why Google is very slow and conservative when making changes to the very fast google.com page but that is where critique should be focused anyway. Requires more than whining.
Another point of view is internet has ALWAYS been full of noise, crap, copy-writing crap, attempts to get on top of any list, not just Googles. There is nothing new in crying about noise. Kind of stupid really - and old in 2011 I think. I would never ever expect perfect results even when doing an advanced search. Did not do that when using Netscape on dial up either. Where does all that trust come from? I expect usable results for further research and that is what I get. How educated people can be so dumb I don't know. Or they are not but just want attention but must accept what is written! Google has not changed anything, just made it more clear how people act and through ads they indirectly encourage a certain way of shouting which is common in modern age. How they make their money.
If anyone is interested look up Jason Calacanis through thisweekin.com I am too lazy to wade through all those videos but he had a serie where people could call in and was encourged to kind of roast him, take him on. I saw one of those where a dude, also in SEO business (for big ISP company if I remember correctly), complained about Calacanis circus and said Google put a blind eye on bigger sites screweing around with adding content for no other purpose than getting attention, filling up index. His main complaint about Calacanis was the obvioius misuse of delivering "content". What Google in theory and by reading any sane SEO advise should punish they reward. Calacanis agreed to some extend but also made the point that he was recognized as SEO master no. 1. He also sort of agreed about Google having different policies towards different sites, but was more like "We all know that!!) - while not looking too unhappy with himself ;) Video is probably about 1 year old now.
Not solution but another amazing experience is when you see results pages as autoloading in 2+ columns. Suddenly you are no more victim to top 10, 20, 30 and can evaluate way better. Not thanks to Google but Firefox and Greasemonkey.
About the voting which really should be a user defined block list, the opposite of Google Custom Search but same way of thinking, look up Google Sidewiki - which has now changed in to a star/Chrome thingy (as well). They are not blind or stupid. Question is how to supply the tools in a way that does not hurt business and satisfy majority - for as much as they can bothered to use them.
Tuxman:
Another point of view is internet has ALWAYS been full of noise, crap, copy-writing crap, attempts to get on top of any list, not just Googles.-Bamse (January 08, 2011, 01:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
Early "top lists" were manually generated, so they required a certain level of worthy contents. Google's don't.
I would never ever expect perfect results even when doing an advanced search.-Bamse (January 08, 2011, 01:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
So you arranged with Google's inability to provide good search results. That is your fault, not theirs.
Not solution but another amazing experience is when you see results pages as autoloading in 2+ columns. Suddenly you are no more victim to top 10, 20, 30 and can evaluate way better. -Bamse (January 08, 2011, 01:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
You still are, but it takes less time.
Bamse:
I don't accept any other definition of worthyness than my own. I expect crap regardless of "manual" claims.
And by saying I don't expect perfect results I mean it in the way your link guy seem to do. You never go in click, click mode regardless of your efforts. You evaluate! Using year old available filtering tricks, read Google Search Help, just make it more efficient and less annoying. If bookmarks (may be gigantic history of browser should be added as a bookmark type of feature) are used you can go been there, don that - I know what works and not, go away! What awareness is all about. If you ask to be a victim you will be eaten.
The fantastic trick with columns and other gadgets like preview/favicons is not only measurable but also a constant reminder that task is bigger than what Google and its fanboys (aware or not) demand it to be. There is more value in scanning 150+ hits than just having looked at more than top whatever.
JavaJones:
Has anyone actually done any serious, rigorous, side-by-side tests of the various up and coming search engines against Google and Bing? I've seen a Bing vs. Google "showdown" before, but that was mostly a draw, unsurprisingly. And since I like Google's UI better, it wins. I'd love to see how DuckDuckGo, Yippy, and the rest do in actual testing, with specific keywords common across all tested engines, and qualitative as well as quantitative results analysis. I suspect quite frankly that the appeal of DuckDuckGo and Yippy is not so much that they are hands-down better than Google, but that they are *not* Google, and the very fact that they're smaller makes one feel better about using them. For my part, with admittedly brief tests, I have not seen significant differences between them, much less significant advantage for Yippy or DDG.
- Oshyan
Bamse:
That is like testing the weather. Too many parameters involved and besides one thing SEO dudes agree on is they change all the time. Probably also the case for Bing results. Have seen a couple of extensions for Firefox giving you a side by side result page.
People don't complain about Google not indexing enough, which would be a REAL disaster, but about spam/SEO. In some cases that seem to go against what they declare in guides on how-to set up a website, do SEO. Google allow and encourage all legit tricks but should punish those who ignore. That is the complaint. Not sure if crying about high ranking for about.com type of sites qualifies, more like a personal preference - may be not understanding how your search methods are hopeless? Webhistory should take care of that over time. If not logged in enjoy generic results ;)
I do use Webhistory and it sure does help or rather knows what I have been clicking on for the last 4 years. Now they have a link at bottom of search page "View Customizations" to get to generic results. This should be on top or in left sidebar so there are never any doubt what is active.
Anyway, just noticed Search Engine Blacklist for Chrome. Would be better if one could attach blacklist to Google Account though, Google should provide this.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version