Yahoo has won the last two rounds of the Search Engine Quality Report tests, which are fairly scientific.
*JC* that website **sucks** *&* Subscriber-Only .5 Does this mean they (the 'testers') subscribe and verify everything? - Kind of doubt it. Why would you give this score by default to subscriber only? .. this is not proper. Why would users WANT to have to subscribe to something when they could possibly not? Directory .5 wtf? again why would you give .5 to all 'directories' ? 90% of the so-called directories are crap. Again why would you flat out give this score by default accross the board. Scientific my ass. I could hammer out something better in 2 hours or less that wouldn't be so blatently un-subjective. Does this site even care to link the articles together? i liked how i had to hit 'back' and forth through my browser to apparently read a related 'series' of "articles" - I enjoyed the lack of summary left for assumption too. Furthermore this apparent 'scientific' 'research' is totally lacking in details and thoroughness. I can't believe anyone, other then the site owner himself, would try to play this off. hello-this-is-my-domain-and-good-luck-remembering-it.com (ironically, you could actually remember this easier) - btw i find spam & crappy results in like every search i ever do in google - only time i 'don't' is when i'm putting in something that i basically already know exactly where its going.