..and here's why. I have a site on a domain that IS the search term, let's just say it's "flubber" The site is on the domain "flubber".com, and all the articles are about "Flubber". It has "flubber" videos, "flubber" interviews, and it sells "Flubber" collectibles. The site is called "flubber", and all the keywords and tags are "flubber". I have articles out there about "flubber" that link to it. Directory listings, and articles on other blogs about "flubber" linking back to the site. No one else has a "flubber" site. There is not one, anywhere. I have the only one, and I own the domain. Then how in the world when you search for "Flubber" is the site number 3 to a You Tube Video (1), and a Brief Explanation on Wikipedia ? How is that possible ? The other 2 links barely have anything close to what I have put together, (and I am still building) and the You Tube is just one Video ! Google is full of it, and they know it.
How old is your site? How many backlinks does it have and how many does wikipedia have to that post? Youtube ranking higher than yours is ok.As people say 'if you can't write well put it on Youtube'. And no wonder Google acquired Youtube.
I actually have several sites that fit this description, ranging from months old to 3 years old, and still can't outrank a You Tube Video and Wikipedia. Of course on Yahoo and MSN they rank 1 .
Youtube is google's baby, so they feed it well. They make lot of advertising money on youtube, so why would these smart businessmen rank you number 1?
Then they should stop claiming to return the most relevant search results for a better user experience.
Sometimes when you search for a word that is not existing or not in dictionary, google will just give suggestions of possible word you might be looking... so as in giving results, google will show what they have and accordingly the older (which might be have good reputation) will be shown..
Yeah dude, sometimes you can't beat youtube no matter how much SEO you do. Google also knows Wikipedia is a non-profit org with always useful, relevant info. Your best bet is to give it some time.
Youtube and Wikipedia are two of the most loved by Google with high PR. It's not a shame if you lose to them.
Hello... Video links seem to be stronger then other sites links which could be the reason. laterz malcolm
Welcome to the real world. The more people realize Google search results suck, the better (But the real problem is there's no good alternative so far).
I cant agree with that as the sites "domain name and content" should dictate that and not a site that is "authority" or has "1 article or video" about "flubber" that dont sell flubber products and or more content about flubber. again this is just my thoughts... thx malcolm
You can't beat you tube video. Because google's latest algorithm now gives more importance to videos, some months back google gave much importance to social networking sites. Who knows? May be they even will give importance to picture next month...
Google picks up old craigslist ads and puts them up top in the search results along with all the youtubes. And here's just one crazy example of another typical type of search screw-up: If I search for "classic rock and roll", I come up with rock and roll lubrication on the first Google page. It's a website selling cans of car lube oil that has the words "rock and roll" on the label!
I've said it several times before, and I've no doubt I'll say it again. Google should put pressue on wikipedia to nofollow internal links, becuase as things stand, it gets to the top of serps on the strength of it's internal links alone. And it does not deserve to be there for the majority of terms that it is, and it's once it's up there, it's next to impossible to budge.
You can't be an authority on everything. As far as selling products. That is what the internet is. Selling products, or ads. It's no different from radio, and Television.
setting aside the usual number of "we will defend Google no matter how bad they can be" apologist replies, lets look at the reality of this matter. Once upone a time there were lots of next to useless search engines. You put in your search term and back came a mass of unrelated material - very frustrating. Then along came Google and it was an obvious hit because we could all identify that the results returned to us were actually related to what we were looking for. But Google back then is a different beast to Google now. Now, they are a massive company needing to make massive returns to support their massive share price and also to support the exceptionally generous employment conditions that exist for their staff. They are now driven to make more and more money, more and more desperately. I, too, have noticed that the relevance of the Google search returns are slipping and my gut feeling is that other search engines, like Yahoo, are actually bringing up far more relevant results. One problem for Googles is the need to support its own purchases, like Youtube, so you get Youtube videos coming in at high positions that really shouldnt be there. Wikipedia also seems to hog the top positions, even when the resulting page offers very little. Maybe Google will buy them soon? If I test my sites on Google and Yahoo, I nearly always get higher placings on Yahoo. If I am in the top half a dozen for a search on Google, I will invariably be top 1 or 2 on Yahoo. ( I used to be higher on Google when it functioned without "editing") When I investigate the Google entries above me I see glaring inconsistencies with the sites content and the declared way of getting high rankings. I have regularly seen sites rank highly that have very few links to them, very little content, do not seem to have the right keywords, dont have the search term in the domain name or title, yet come up trumps in Google. I think this is going to be the biggest challenge facing Google. Obviously they need to continue to generate a massive income - but in the process they are killing the search relevance of their major weapon, their search engine. If they keep this up, Google search will slowly begin to slide and with it their reveneus. After all, it is Google search which we all identify with and which keeps them on top of the ladder. see ya ET
how is babby formed how girl get pragnent Kidding aside, I too am annoyed with videos results, if that's what I wanted, i'd search for videos. But more often then not, wikipedia's pages are better than the other result for a quick view of a subject. At least you can be sure it's not crammed with ads, the content is not pseudo-promotional and the web site is well organized. Hum no. The internet was there before the ads and the products, and some people actually liked it better that way. I'm not one of them but you couldn't be more wrong that this is what the internet is all about.
Well Said. Here, Here! That is what it is today. Make no bones about it, any new medium is developed to it's fullest intent because marketers know the benefit to advertise products to people. Information, and Entertainment are not free just because of some good, peace loving socialists, one world mentality that "Internet Purists" keep wanting to hold on to. It's a marketing medium, just like all the others. Wikipedia may be structured differently, but if you look at the supporting and informational links, they all go to sites where someone is selling a book, or a product. Universities do it as marketing to show authority and therefore boost admissions There are very few informational sites, if any (maybe Government sites), where someone is not looking to benefit financially.