Today, i was searching about a problem in Google .. it took more than 20 minute of searching with different keywords/keyphrases to get the required result. To me clearly there is something wrong going on with Google's algo .. it was more accurate in 2006 than its now. Though still i think its better than Yahoo!/Live but i would vote for decreasing quality of search result pages. Are you experiencing same?
I say middle of 2006 google search results on some keywords are no good at all. I see alot of sites that are gone for over 6 months or more. I see alot of forums and posts from 2 3 or 4 years ago. They are just simple posts and not anything good for search terms. I have said this since last update. They made big mistake and some terms are useless in google search.
I agree. Trying to find anything useful is really difficult now. But still it's more favourable that MSN Live (it horrible) and Yahoo (site is too cluttered) and off putting
I guess it depends what your looking for. I have seen some pretty screwed results for commercial related terms. Luckily most of the information based searches that I do don't seem to have been tremendously affected. The fact that Wiki is upthere on most of these queries helps. The biggest issue that I have at the moment is the slow response of google to the Spam reports.
i agree and i dont agree . for some keywords , i find the most related results so easy but but sometimes G results become terrible
I voted for "No significant change" mainly because I always had to use advanced google filters for best results. And it is normal that searches become more difficult nowadays when junk websites are continuously increasing in number, and most of them end up indexed by the search engines. So I would not call it just a google problem..
i agree with this i believe yahoo and google has changed their algo according to the wikipedia . i hate this
I believe that they have indeed. But isn't it all about relevancy and getting quality results for your queries? In my book Wiki quite simply outclasses everyone else 90% in terms of quality of the content itself, so it deserves to have a special treatment.
It is largely just a search engine problem. You mainly find these sorts of sites through search engines, rather than in good directories or social bookmarking searches. They wouldn't even exist without algo weaknesses. I haven't seen a significant change in the quality of search results. But they are very poor when you compare them with almost any results that have a higher degree of human input in the ranking.
Always include your search string within quotation marks and you will notise a better quality of results... I can't blame the engine, it's just too much rubbish to deal with.
Sometime it helps but not always when you are searching about any complex query. its true and more to add to it is rubbish seo thing which has spread like plague. Now a professor's site cannot rank well on the topic if he is unaware of seo while a pupil's site can rank well if he knows about fish called seo.
I voted for --it is improving. I think Google bots are always evolving and changing with time so that no SEO guy ( is there really any for Google who can gurantee ? --I doubt) can predict/manipulate the results of Google and rob unsuspecting but naive webmasters of some $$$ which are useless spending. Ranking in Google is all hard work and democratic. But Google still keeps the basic fabric of its SERPs standard --- Content is the King --backlinks are the queen and PR is the Prince/Princess (whatever). It is really hard work to rank on Google --one has to get good amount of links from related sites --then write and update quality contents which most webmasters feel un-necessary. But that hor G works. Put quality ontents --build sufficient links --get a decent PR --and googlebots will always find your site ahead of others. Simple --unlike MSN/Yahoo which depend more on ON-PAGE optimization of coding --layout --set-up etc. etc. G is still the best.