Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Link: Why Google does not qualify for searching the web anymore

<< < (5/6) > >>

JavaJones:
I think the key is not to do much analysis on the data and to be *very up front and clear with all factors you can think of*, e.g. "tests performed on a Windows 7 x64 system with Google Chrome browser v8.1.512 between 9AM and 12PM Pacific Time in San Francisco, California with web history disabled, all cookies cleared..." etc.

Maybe the Wordpress themes thing is a good test if Google turns up crap for it. The bigger question is whether Yippy, etc. do better. If so that's a potentially compelling argument for all the "Google puts crap sites first because of ad dollars" talk. But I've yet to see any real, compelling, actual, factual evidence on any of that. Does Google benefit financially from sides with Google Ads coming up first? Yes. Does it benefit from *crap* sites with Google ads coming up first? No more so than *good* sites with Google ads coming up first! And since Google owns so much of the ad market, it's highly arguable whether there's any particular incentive for Google to actually not remove the "abusive" sites.

I think it's just a very hard problem to solve, how to get rid of the majority of the bad and keep the majority of the good. Nobody else seems to have managed much better (though people argue otherwise which is why I want to see good tests that show whether this is true or not). If that's true, if nobody else is doing any better, then it just means people hold Google to a higher standard, they expect more because they at one time revolutionized the search engine market, so theoretically they're the experts.

For my part I feel like when the next search revolution arrives, it will be as clear as it was with Google. So far Yippy, DuckDuckGo, etc. are not clear winners by any means, so I don't think they're the "messiah" we're looking for.

- Oshyan

Bamse:
Yep, but you see the problem with Google doing lots of good via malware blocking services via browsers and helping site admins in Webmaster Central/Stop Badware and then the fact they index and present content used to make block worthy sites? That is a genuine problem. This is even an area where Google has all the expertise in the world. They could block sites manually, would not take long. "Censorship" would be in new headlines if they go too far, but there is no logic in trying to protect users via browser filters, giving security advises and then allowing WP crap sites or sites with cracks, warez for that matter, more of the same. This also goes for Youtube where there are loads of videos with how-to crack, serial numbers. They probably do block a lot but priorities should change a bit perhaps.

Real calculated evil schemes are common elsewhere. A streaming site like justin.tv don't mind copyrighted content like full movies, series UNTIL someone complains - they they are taken down fast so not to get lawyers interested. Official rules of course do not accept this type of content, is illegal. Sharing ad-revenue with popular channel admins is how ends meet. The more popular=typically illgal content shown the more money you make - and so do we. That site is also a reminder why Google text-ads are adorable if some should have forgotten why they were almost praised years ago. I would not be surprised if Google have slightly different rule set for some sites but would think that has more to do with running a huge world wide business (give and take a little and mistakes do happen) than basis for how they make money ;) Lousy WP theme sites is not how they became stinking rich. Is more embarrassing for them but definitely fuels any whoop Google butt campaign.

Another test you can do is to set up a new site. Then compare between Googlebot and whatever. Unless site is set up to annoy Google I bet they will win easy. If content consist of nothingness you have contributed nothing but indexed you will be ;)

Btw. the new Google Toolbar for IE adds 5 chrome.exe processes and 1 Google Toolbar Broker process to task manager :) Seems like a big step backwards compared to old. Way less settings but now has instant search build-in! They must assume majority demands simplicity and want click click ease of use regardless of task. Personalization is of no interest if it require effort. Hopefully they have higher goals with web search or that won't be changing much from now on.

zridling:
As the web gains more spam, search becomes less and less useful, and takes too damn long. I judge a search engine not by the ordinary/common links it can find, but by the extraordinary ones. There's the google for ordinary folks, then there's the google for expert users, i.e., those who use Boolean operators to narrow or expand their search. So you can make it better. Here's the most common I've found that works like a charm:

Use quotations around specific word/term you are searching
"-" sign in front of the word you want to exclude
OR capitalized is inclusive
"~" use in front of the search word when you want to include results that contain similar words or synonyms.
( ) parentheses are a delimiting phrase search, but you can expand the search after the delimiter by adding AND/OR operators.

If I use the phonebook search, I can see a list of people and/or places that have had my phone number before me. (Or who now has my old number.)

I could go on, but here's a guided tour site based on one's level:
http://www.googleguide.com/

mouser:
Slashdot link's to an article reporting to compare google and bing objectively:
http://searchengineland.com/google-vs-bing-the-fallacy-of-the-superior-search-engine-60928

slashdot discussion of it: http://search.slashdot.org/story/11/01/13/1937210/Google-vs-Bing-mdash-a-Quasi-empirical-Study

JavaJones:
Interestingly that article is also essentially makes a statement exactly opposite of some made in this thread: "search is less painful than it used to be". Regardless of whether Bing is better than Google (which the article indicates, by a small margin), the author still seems to feel we've come a long way and not necessarily regressed a lot. Others here seem to perhaps feel differently?

Anyway, very glad to see a semi-objective comparison!

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page