Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Has SEO ruined the web?
Innuendo:
But Google is quickly getting worse and worse.-superboyac (December 31, 2009, 04:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
Google is indeed getting worse. They are also becoming more persistent about trying to inject themselves into everything everyone does on the internet as well. This plays into my hands as I am trying to divorce myself from Google as much as possible.
They still have the best search engine, though, so a few Firefox extensions that block, obfuscate, and bamboozle Google's tracking methods are being employed aggressively over here.
I wonder what would make a search engine more effective? How could a search engine ignore all the SEO crap?
--- End quote ---
It has everything to do with the search engine algorithms. People asked the same thing before Google. Search engines were crap and everyone was up in arms as to whether it was possible to fix. Google came in with an optimized search algorithm that tamed the offending parties.
There have been attempts to do this to Google before, but they were always quick to counter with a new search engine algorithm that would further filter out the poo. Now they are either having trouble countering this new wave of attacks or they don't care. It is just a matter of time before someone finds a way to beat this new breed of search engine spam. I don't know if it will be Google or someone new, but whoever pulls it off will be the search engine king for some time to come.
superboyac:
How is it that Wikipedia doesn't get cluttered with crap and nonsense, even though all the pages are open to anyone? It's regulated by the users, and there are no ads. It's amazing that it works, but it does. Can that philosophy be applied to a search engine?-superboyac (December 31, 2009, 04:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
Wikipedia is cluttered with crap and nonsense. It's called edit wars.
Look up DMOZ.
Example URL taken from dmozsucks forum:
http://www.dmozsucks.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27
http://www.dmozsucks.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=700
-Paul Keith (December 31, 2009, 04:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not saying Wikipedia is perfect. But overall, it is amazingly successful at providing the information you need to war. If I am looking for something on Wikipedia, 9 times out of 10, I find exactly what I want. It's the other way around for google.
Bamse:
Don't forget Search Wiki as another way to move away from evil default http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=115764 Provided by Google and requiring an account. So there is also "personalized search" filtering besides the regional one I think always is active. Also why you can say SEO is dead!, even the good type. You cannot "promise" top x position anymore or there are more than one Google. New left sidebar is also there to help doing better searches. Perhaps because Google realized only few know shortcuts or use advanced search page. They show sign of being aware of problems with old default and old habits.
Of course Google can do more but those new initiatives show that end result is up to you. You can not just punch in broad keywords and expect greatness. Google would be useless if they did not have the info you need. They probably do so find it 8) They get bigger and bigger, not worse and worse.
Recently I had a little debate with a moderator on a security forum. Talking about blocking stuff, even cookies. He was naturally paranoid. So cool to block all ads and stuff. Then crappy site become great! Anyway, their site/forum show Google ads which are targeted "security" "malware" and such keywords. Also means quite a few of them leads to malware!, definitely not recommended products. My point was they have no moral, policy or concern of users and are in bed with the same forces they supposedly fight. I said it nicer though. If even aware of this Google connection (they block own content) is a pill to swallow in order to get revenue. Did not go down well but Google Ads (sister to searching) is one of those things you do not discuss 8) is like electricity you use, water you drink. No questions asked. Power of Google sticks a lot deeper than black hat SEO idiots and how close Google are to weeding them out. More about what benefits who like so many other things. "How to monetize?" is not just interesting for the bad guys.
Paul Keith:
I'm not saying Wikipedia is perfect. But overall, it is amazingly successful at providing the information you need to war. If I am looking for something on Wikipedia, 9 times out of 10, I find exactly what I want. It's the other way around for google.
-superboyac (January 01, 2010, 07:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
Nor was I.
To quote Innuendo's post:
People asked the same thing before Google. Search engines were crap and everyone was up in arms as to whether it was possible to fix. Google came in with an optimized search algorithm that tamed the offending parties.
There have been attempts to do this to Google before, but they were always quick to counter with a new search engine algorithm that would further filter out the poo. Now they are either having trouble countering this new wave of attacks or they don't care. It is just a matter of time before someone finds a way to beat this new breed of search engine spam. I don't know if it will be Google or someone new, but whoever pulls it off will be the search engine king for some time to come.
--- End quote ---
In terms of youth, Wikipedia is alot younger than Google and has a lot less responsibility.
It's the same for Google.
I'm oversimplifying, both because I don't really know the actual history and because it's more convenient to use an analogy, but before the explosion of blogs and other walled garden repositories, Google got away with SEO's model because it had less responsibility.
Search engines had to still provide relevant results but it didn't need to have wikipedia, it didn't need to be a dedicated people profile searcher, it didn't need to have separate sections for separate media.
Not because it shouldn't and it didn't want to but in terms of expectations, it didn't have to be THAT good. Even today, no one wants search engines to be the cause of having their life humilating net experiences be discovered because a search engine was too intrusive in indexing (...and yet they don't want a bad custom search engine because it provides less results)
That sort of expectations is what bred SEO.
...and for a while, it was a mutual benefit until more people were dissatisfied by the effect.
I can't predict nor describe the day Wikipedia becomes the same to you but I think there's some truth in saying that you're giving Wikipedia a pass right now because you have less expectations from it because you're still getting what you desire from it.
Maybe I'm wrong but it's common enough for most people to have confirmation bias.
In most cases, Wikipedia gets a pass because it hides behind the label of an encyclopedia instead of a general repository and so it seems like an example of a better encyclopedia. (as opposed to Encarta and others being a more flawed encyclopedia)
Eventually that will change as expectations for Wikipedia become much higher and you see people get even better at gaming at it and admin corruption becomes more exposed. (i.e. the old EssJay issue for example)
It might seem like I'm adding all these "too long; didn't read" reasons to weasel word you as a naive person who thinks Wikipedia is perfect but that's really the opposite of my opinion. I just don't know how to better communicate my point.
My intention is not so much listing some examples of Wikipedia's flaw to show you that it's not perfect but more in the sense of showing you that: just as Pre-Google Yahoo had flaws and current Google has flaws, Wikipedia has flaws and even though it works now, if you don't put the pros and cons in context, you'll end up mispredicting/misperceiving the solution on how to improve Google. (Again, I apologize if this comes off like I'm thinking you're stupid by stating a point that could be interpreted as being Capt. Obvious but this is not really my intention. I'm not saying you're wrong either or you didn't know of these issues before. I just think these things need to be brought up so that the idea of Wikipedia being a possible solution to Google can be much better represented and the answer to your topic, much better defined.)
superboyac:
Man, I just did a couple of more searches just now (not as an experiment, I was actually searching for something). Maybe 10% were somewhat useful. And I think I'm beginning to recognize which one's are SEO optimized, just by the layout and the way they are written. Such crap. Utter garbage. What's sad is that there probably is someone out there who really has something good and interesting to say, but it's lost in all the crap. Similar to my own website, I'm sure barely anyone reaches my software reviews, and I bet they are loads more helpful than whatever they find searching the web for. Oh well, such is life. I guess the one thing I am eternally grateful for in all this hoopla is the ability to go on forums and ask for help or advice on things. So, it's still word of mouth to find the best websites, but at least the "mouths" from all over the world are accessible.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version