You're obviously a BIG fan of Google (and maybe an investor too?) so it's probably not worth discussing this any more, but this is my last attempt at this discussion (Well, probably not ) Anyway, all I am trying to say is that if Google (or any other provider) is providing any information, it becomes their responsibility to ensure that they provide up to date info. Like newspapers, for example ...... their websites provide a "free service" and nobody forces users to log onto that particular website for their news, but when people do, they EXPECT to get up to date and correct information. Ex: A newspaper can't stop updating their World News page and claim that "Nobody's forcing you to read the world news ...... and the rest of the news is still current". Imagine that! Finally, if you haven't noticed ..... Google is forcing me (and other webmasters) to keep a close eye on PR b'cos of the way Google updates it's SERPs. If they had a simpler and more conventional system ..... similar to Yahoo (say), I wouldn't even be here on this forum ....... as I would have long achieved #1 and #2 rankings for all keywords ........ In fact, that would have made me jobless
And also would make Google less relevant because it can be easily manipulated. For the sake of relevancy, it wouldn't be a bad idea for Google to disable the link and inanchor functions as well as not show PageRank publicly.
Fan, yes. Investor, no. I'm a fan of good products or services. I think Google is a great search engine -- I rarely, very rarely, find a need to use any other search engine. And as DP implied above, anything Google does that foils manipulation by SEOs is fine by me.
Interesting statements coming from someone who is obviously very much into SEO. And I also find your comments on your forum interesting as well...mentioning "garbage backlinks", "not yet been fixed", etc. (http://www.bandofgonzos.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1153). Ah well, to each his own, as they say. That's the great thing about the world - we all get to have our own opinions.
I'm not against SEO - just unfair "SEO" practices. There's nothing wrong with trying to make your pages as search engine friendly as possible. There is something wrong with trying to exploit characteristics of specific search engines to gain unfair advantage. And it's pretty clear to me that some, perhaps many, perhaps most, of the Google adjustments are aimed at foiling such practices. As for the referenced thread, I suggest you read it more carefully and in its entirety: the "garbage backlinks" and "not yet fixed" quotes are referring to something very specific that occurred during the June adjustment. The post quoted is dated August 29. However, I do believe that the adjustments discussed in that thread are not yet finished so that there are still a few anomalies (as discussed in that thread) arising out of this transition -- that doesn't mean Google is broken -- it just means that, as always, it is evolving. Always has. Always will.
As to providing consistent, relevant results I would have to agree that Google is broken. Take local or regional searches for example. Type in city + keyword and more often than not the top SERP's are directory and links pages that connect to your originally intended results. In many cases, the overall content of these pages is not relevant to your original search. If you study further, you will see that many of these pages do not get their top results from backlinks or on page optimization. Many of these sites are authority/hub sites - even if their primary content is well outside your intended search parameter. Web surfers end up jumping through hoops to get to the information that they were searching for. But these surfers don't consider Google is broken. The word "Google" is now part of our everyday lexicon and these surfers use Google without even thinking or questioning. The folks at the Googleplex must love this - they didn't even have to drop millions of dollars in radio and TV advertising to achieve brand awareness (Do you Yahoo?). The most obvious part of Google being broken is how easily the linking strategy can be manipulated (i.e. "miserable failure"). Web developers and SEO types with access to thousands of pages can usually obtain decent results without a ton of effort. It may not happen with the next update, but I would bet that is all about to change within the next 12-18 months. The relevance of inbound links will play the predominant role in better SERP's through linking strategies. And not just the anchor text, but also the overall content of the site with the outbound link. Sites with irrelevant links won't be penalized, they just won't receive any benefits in the SERP's (although these site owners will be screaming that they were penalized). The naysayers will quickly jump all over this and point out that this would be unfair to "legitimate" paid links and banners. But the fact is, web marketers will be forced to use the same target marketing strategies as print media if they want to see ROI (you don't see ads for bubble gum in Guns and Ammo). And while everyone is crying about the new algo update being unfair, Google's unspoken response will be, "So what?" Can you think of a better way to drive more people to Adwords and Adsense? The Google guys aren't bumpkins - now that they are a public company they have an obligation to drive revenues and profits for their shareholders. Start preparing now - SEO for Google will be a whole lot different in the future.
There is a difference between broken and flawed. As much as I believe google has some real issues (It may be broken), It is futile and irrelevant to keep going on about that damn Toolbar. To say that because the toolbar is no longer displaying PR, that the G engine MUST be broken, is rediculous. I can't think of anything more shortsighted. Google doesn't want you to SEO, so why on on earth should it provide with tools in order to do it? I have no doubt that we will soon see a PR update. I also have no doubt that we will see some fairly drastic changes in the way google is ranking sites, as jebby said, the recent "panic spidering" from the part of Google, may well go to show that they are now looking at slightly different factors in terms of what ranks a site best. To be honest. I don't know whether it is broken or not - but it sure is flawed and full of strange "features" ad minstrel so rightly put it. Also, to assume that Minstrel must be a G shareholder, just because his views on this matter don't agree with yours 100%, is well. Stupid. It's like having a discussion with anthony about the SP2 update...
First of all - welcome to the forums Golf guy! - second - yes good point you have there - google was built from what i can tell on word of mouth - which is to my eyes the best form of advertising - -one that indicates something really does what it claims to do and does it very well - why else would everyone use and recommend it. Google has earned it's crown this way - and people may blindy use it without giving other engines a second thought - but as soon as companies like Microsoft start throwing they're cards on the table (and as the general public become more web savvy and learn there is more to the web than what comes packaged with AOL ) people will eventually wake up and start to decide for themselves who provides the most relevant resuts. However this said i still find the majority of what i want virtually straight away in Google (although i do mainly search for informational stuff) - perhaps this is due to googles bias for .edu sites and the like, perhaps people optmise for info sites less - so the results are more "natural" - i don't know i always thought the relevance (beyond anchor) did play a part - at the very least (altough i suspect more) in the form of links from authority sites on particular subjects. - but yes i agree that this will be become a major part of the algo and also the overall theme of the linking site (not just page)will probably come into play - As for not weighting irrelevant links -i think all links should count - just given different weights - as there would proabably be some things you wouldn't consider to be connected to each other that probably are. - but i suppose something has to be done to curb the link marketeers
Sorry guys I have been out and then in bed whilst this one was getting up and running Welcome HHI Golf Guy - nice post for the first one This is so correct and brings up the whole point of "objectivity" against "subjectivity". Objective: Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience. Moodily introspective. Existing only in the mind; illusory First - SEs work on the basis of being automatons and "theoretically" are not touched by human hands so therefore return what they see. But therein lies the conundrum as the original mechanics were/are set by humans and are limited by the design of the algo and the physical hardware and therefore "tainted". To be objective you have to be able to "count/see" a specific situation/result and quantify it, which a SE should be able to do. To be subjective you don't and a SE can't do this. Google had, at the beginning, a tight algo that allowed information to be presented logically..but that logic can be interpreted by humans and therefore it can be manipulated which then required the intervention of humans to manipulate back and hence you get subjectivity. So why is Google broken? Because it is now giving subjective results. As an example take HHI Golf Guy's example but it goes further than that as Compar pointed out about the big experiment and in my own world Ski France [keyword and region] the first sites are directories that do not even list their own content but merely serve up pages that link out to the very sites that Google should have presented as relevant in the first place....and more when I complain to Google that they do nothing Google leaves them be ....subjectivity
sebasic, if you were talking about me when you said "To say that because the toolbar is no longer displaying PR, that the G engine MUST be broken, is rediculous. ", then you misunderstood everything I said. I NEVER said that because the toolbar is broken, then the G engine MUST be broken. What I said was that I don't know if Google is broken or not, however, if one or more pieces of a system is broken, then it makes it difficult to trust in the rest of the system. The thread then later evolved into me having to defend the statement that the toolbar is indeed broken. I have since given up the debate, but just wanted to make sure my end of the debate was not misquoted.
Whatever happened to "don't fix it if it ain't broken". Why would they be contemplating a major change, as so many are speculating, if it is so wonderful now. Come on guys it isn't working like anybody would want. In my parlance that's "broken".
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The issue is not one of philosophy or thinking, it is of consistency. A test of any "system" is can it, or does it, produce consistent results. If it cannot, or does not, produce consistent results it is not working correctly. Ergo it is broken!
Devious SEO practices. What product or service do you know that isn't always looking to improve? In the case of search engine technology, staying ahead of the competition and the above-noted "deviouis SEO practices" is one of the reasons to be "contemplating change"... It's working fine for me.
Agreed... I was just pointing out that "it isn't working like anybody would want" isn't entirely true.
Well apparently it isn't working the way they want it to, or they wouldn't be contemplating "major changes". All they would be doing is some minor fine tuning. Maybe Google agrees with me that it is broken. I can't believe, Shawn, that you are trying to tell me they pass any reasonable consistency test. Unless their design criteria is based on chaos theory the system isn't working. If any of your programs gave unexplained random results wouldn't you consider it broken? Why are you defending them, when your own tools give ample evidence of this inconsistency every day?