Click this link: Jobs This is a query made in Google.co.in (not google.com) WIkipedia article comes in the 8th position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs Unrelated to jobs., Wikipedia is more powerful than all the combined google's Hidden ranking factors it seems.,
That page is related to Jobs (Steve Jobs). Why wouldn't it rank so highly? Given all the links that page must have with "Steve Jobs" in the anchor text, it doesn't surprise me that it ranks so highly. If you get results that don't match what you want, the next step is to refine your criteria
Yep.. it returned results based on your keyword query. It doesn't differentiate between what context you were searching in.
Google (and its founders) have great respect and love for wikipedia so most of the time wikipedia links appear on SERPs and most of the time its also relevant.
it's one of the most major parts of the Google algo is the trust rank, Wiki has one of the highest trust rank on the web
because it's on wiki and mentions Jobs alot lol, that's the downfall to Googles Trust rank, Wiki is full of crap (it has some good stuff, don't get me wrong) but if someone is looking for jobs, 1/100 may be looking for Steve Jobs
Yeah thatz wat iam wondering of., For such a competitive term, that unrelated link comes in the first page, and in google global its coming in the second page! Does Google gives importance to Wiki content (trusted source) Google gives importance to Inbound links only 2 factors., out of more than 100 Factors considered by google is enough to rank for competitive terms it seems Also to be noted: Google cares for user experience a lot., THey disapprove all our ads when they see popups in the landing page (I feel that they do not want advertisers to show double ads by paying for single click and they disapprove it saying it affects user experience), but what experience will a User searching for Jobs will get when he visits the Steve jobs wikipedia page. Maybe steve jobs will give them a job at apple for Visiting his wikipage
The same thing happens when you search for 'bush'. Strangely google didn't know I was searching for articles about shrubbery, and instead gave me a whole host of pages about GWB. When there is a word with 2 meanings like this, it's impossible to determine programmatically what the searcher actually wants. That would require a mind reading algorithm. Or searchers to ask clearly for what they are searching for.
that's the Route the search engines want to take, personalised search, Cha Cha is leading the way at the mo in this, but is slow and crap Google likes links, because that makes up it's PR score, but the trust rank out weighs that...alot, so a link from Wiki is like gold which is why so many people spam Wiki nowadays
Ha ha ha…ok.. to start with as Hooper mentioned, you won’t get much ‘mind reading’ from a simple one word query like that. If a searcher merely put that in instead of say… ‘Contructions Jobs’ or ‘ Jobs online’ or whatever, they deserve the results they get. I dare say not too many folks are searching for ‘jobs’ and if all you can think to search is ‘bush’ you also deserve Dub-yah and rock bands. For LSI/Phrase based indexing (and retrieval) you need to at least have some type of phrasing built even if it is only a 2 word phrase. This is not a search quality issue… it is a SEARCHER quality issue…lol OH... and watch it with the whole 'TrustRank' folks.. that's actually a Yahoo technology.. we use 'authority' with Google....he he
that is very true Gypsy, it was a bad search by the user, however Google have attempted this, with the search term bridge for example, Google have split up the search relevant to different things. I admit, there's no point splitting up Jobs between Jobs and Steve Jobs, but the search engines still have a long way to go
ha ha ha ha... "the search engines still have a long way to go" No..once again aparently the searchers do. Walk up to the next person U see and say 'Jobs'. See what they do. It is silly and unreasonable to think that a person, never mind a SE is supposed to glean what some one wants from that. It is more customer service (explaining how to search) than a problem of the Algo..... I dare say they do a pretty darned good job if you ever read some Google patents. Damn fine job. I think you may want to read the Google patent 'Phrase-based searching in an information retrieval system' or this synopsis on Phrase Based Searching It will help U some with the indexation semantics involved in phrase based indexing and retrival. Damn interesting stuff and gives you a glimpse of what they are thinking and how they deal with problems