Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    416
    Google has ended. So has the googling. For me anyways.

    Google has lost all its superiority to other mainstream search engines as far as the relevancy of search results and ranking of search results concerned. Google is no longer able to bring me the best, the most relevant results for the queries I submit.

    Try this on google:
    cheap womens maternity clothes, or cheap mens moccassins, or just about anything else that is cheap. Yet cheap is only one of thousands of major keywords that is spammed in such a way. Spammer is apparently distributing FindWhat's bidded search results, it makes a very good sense that FindWhat is profitable already and Google is Not.

    For several years, 411web ranked 1st on thousands of major keywords on google search. Who is 411web? Google's competitor. These people got millions of free clicks from Google to build their business, a web directory thaat distributes other PPC SE's search results. (I now see that Google finally got rid of them).

    If you question why 411web ranked on top of PETsMART.com for the keyword "Pets", you end up thrashing google (they were so proud of it) PageRank page ranking algo. So if you have many links pointing to your website, you are important? I am sure the Stanford boys and now sweeping their butts with that claim. This means that if a web site can screw a few thousand small, useless, worthless web sites with claims of a few penny a click payment to run an in-house affiliate program (all external links pointing directly to their URL, not to affiliate aggregators' redirect link), the web site will be ranked very high on google, hence will get a sh*tload of free traffic. Also, if somebody buys about 1000 URL's and cross link all of them (1000 URL's will cost $8950 / year + $1500 to host them on a leased server), all of the 1000 URLs will have high ranking on google and each will probably make tens of thousands a year.

    Now Stanford buys, come PageRank this!

    Google is going down and I will not tell them how to save it. The White Men is getting greedy and trying to take over the free world, when their plans fail, which is very soon, we will prevail. The arena will be open for fresh ideas to distribute web traffic and those ideas will not be funded by the White Men.

    Google is over. Over.

    -Bluesx

    --I am strongly opinionated!

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,650
    Yep, those particular search results are ghastly. This kind of thing is exactly the reason that search engines are saying they prefer not to index pages whose only intent is to send the visitor on to a different page.

    And of course, their efforts to filter for that will make life difficult for a lot of ordinary websites. Sigh ...

    Elisabeth Archambault

    [ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: buckworks.com ]

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    That is terrible.

    Unfortunately, in Google's efforts to figure some way to curb this type of outrageous abuse, they are penalizing a lot of little hardworking webmasters who really try to provide something of value (like me for instance).

    And I fear it will only get worse for us as they have to institute more and more restrictive penalty criteria.

    By the way, anybody still advertising with Findwhat - now you can see how you are throwing away your money and getting pathetic returns.

  4. #4
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    352
    Boo Hoo. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    Time to adapt or die!

    I love Google.

  5. #5
    ABW Adviser Panel Dynamoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Opposite the Slough of Despond
    Posts
    5,465
    Argh I see what you mean.

    Surely the problem with any SE is that there's always a way to get ahead by fair means or foul. Remember AltaVista's keyword density? That was a great idea until people figured out how to get to the top.

    How else do you rank a page apart from keyword density or inbound links? Alexa actually records the sites you visit and ranks them that way - maybe this is something Google should combine into the results?

  6. #6
    Full Member garystarling's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    277
    I am a Google fan - my site depends on the word 'free' in the search phrase and constantly comes up second. I tried the maternity link and came up with maternity sites, did something else appear before?

    One thing that does annoy me is criticism without suggesting a better method or sites that do it properly. In my mind at least Google are trying and it is free - so tell me who is doing better out there any why.

  7. #7
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    352
    The googlebots have evolved!

  8. #8
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    352
    Oh yeah I have to thank Yahoo for using Google.

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    641
    Google is a joke !
    If a "freebies" site can rank on the first page for "cabinet refacing supplies" , and "kitchen cabinet refacing supplies", they still have a LOT of work to do on their "relevancy" standards !

    I'm sure there are plenty of companies that "sell" those products that would like that listing, but who gets it ? Little old me with a free Rockler Woodworking Catalog to give away .

    GO FIGURE !

    I can't get any "relevant" listings for the site , so why not go for the ODD BALL search terms ? Next thing you know I'll be trying for "Easter Bunny Towels " and some other dumb things just to get any kind of traffic I can from Google


    Lisa

  10. #10
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    352
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm sure there are plenty of companies that "sell" those products that would like that listing, but who gets it ? Little old me with a free Rockler Woodworking Catalog to give away . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Exactly! That is what I am saying in this thread. Why don't you offer your services to those companies so they can get the listings?

  11. #11
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    218
    Part of the problem is that Google has under estimated the intelligence levels of most of its users. As a search engine, I love Google and can get it to bring me more relevant results than any of its competitors. But that's because I know how to use it.

    Here's an example. The right way to search for cheap women's maternity clothes on Google. First of all, you have to leave out the word "women" (is there such a thing as men's maternity clothes???). Second, if you want an adjective such as "cheap" to describe the maternity quotes, you have to search for the entire phrase by using quotes like this...

    "cheap maternity clothes"

    If you want to search for cheap men's moccasins, you have to first spell the word "moccasins" corectly. Then you also use the quotes;

    "Cheap Mens Moccasins"

    As you can see when you do that search, Google is even smart enough to tell you that you should have used the word "men's" instead of "mens".

    There is nothing wrong with Google. It's the way the general public uses the site (does anyone ever read directions anymore???).

  12. #12
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,650
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The right way to search for cheap women's maternity clothes on Google. First of all, you have to leave out the word "women" (is there such a thing as men's maternity clothes???). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, but there's such a thing as cheap women. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  13. #13
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    297
    PUBLISHER's VOICE,

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To comfort some of you who asked for a better search engine and to shut up if I don't have one,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hey PC, no one is asking you to shut up, more on that in a minute, but it would be nice if you would share with us your thoughts on a better SE since you brought the subject up [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    As for shutting up, you have posted only a few times at ABW and you always seem a mite harsh, but I have to tell you that I have learned a lot from you sence you started posting. You seem to have a lot of knowledge, I assuming based on experience and I for one appreciate all that you can or will share with us. Keep up the good fight. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    [ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: Tribune ]

    [ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: Tribune ]

  14. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    268
    are-all-of-those-url's-owned-by-the-same-person.com?

  15. #15
    Full Member tmd5's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    379
    Elizabeth wrote:
    "Yep, those particular search results are ghastly. This kind of thing is exactly the reason that search engines are saying they prefer not to index pages whose only intent is to send the visitor on to a different page.
    And of course, their efforts to filter for that will make life difficult for a lot of ordinary websites. Sigh ... "

    I wonder why search engines aren't more specific about what they want. For instance, why don't they specify "For your site to be included it must contain a minimum of say, 500/750 words of text (excluding text in links), a maximum of say 10 links per page, maximum 3 images minimum 1," and so on. That way they would set a certain basic standard of website content and design and avoid those affiliate sites I've seen which consist of one line of text/link and a banner ad, or a few lines of text, a link to a merchant and 75% of the page taken up by links to the affiliate's other 100 equally uninspiring pages, which I suspect is the sort of thing that gets affiliate sites a bad name. The searcher would then get a better quality experience with some content and links, the affiliates could market within the parameters, and everybody's needs would be satisfied.

    [ 02-28-2002: Message edited twice by: tmd5 for punctuation etc.]

    [ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: tmd5 ]

  16. #16
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    27
    Its true that Google is perhaps not as good as it once was.

    Google itself is placing less and less importance on PageRank as its becomming Spammed (still harder to spam)

    I think that Google already has a replacement in mind, the traffic data collected from the Google toolbar http://toolbar.google.com/
    high traffic = good site, and that is even harder to spam.

  17. #17
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    45
    >>I wonder why search engines aren't more specific about what they want. For instance, why don't they specify "For your site to be included it must contain a minimum of say, 500/750 words of text (excluding text in links), a maximum of say 10 links per page, maximum 3 images minimum 1," and so on.<<

    They aren't specific because:

    1) If they were specific, spammers would just find a way to push the rules to the limit. It's like kids on a playground: "The rule says 'no hitting,' it doesn't say anything about shoving.'"

    2) The "rules" (if you want to call them that) are constantly changing. And they aren't necessarily rules or guidelines per se; in most cases, they're responses to new tricks and challenges (such as companies buying hundreds of domains and crosslinking between them, using stylesheets in sneaky ways, etc.).

    3) Search engines don't want to get into the business of telling you how many words you can have on a page, how many links you can use, etc. It isn't their job to dictate Web design. To put it another way, they have to be reactive, but they don't have to be (nor should they be) proactive in matters of design and editorial content.

    Webmasters who want to avoid problems with search engines should forget about SEO techniques and focus on creating sites that have great content and are useful to readers. That's what Google keeps saying, and I suspect it's pretty good advice.

  18. #18
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    "I think that Google already has a replacement in mind, the traffic data collected from the Google toolbar http://toolbar.google.com/
    high traffic = good site, and that is even harder to spam.~Joker"

    The difficulty with "high traffic=good site" is that it would give way too much favor to sites that ALREADY have a high rank in Google, and make it VERY hard to get a relatively new site in.

    This is because those already with a high rank in the SERPs are usually going to be the ones with the most traffic...it would become a self-perpetuating circle, with few exceptions.

    Rather than using Toolbar results as the main indicator, I personally would see that data as an adjunct to other calculations.

    I DO think that somehow they are adding people's behavior into the algo already, though. Have you noticed the rise in rank of CJ's Login Page, for instance? It has 210 links-in but most of them are internals, so I don't think it's that...or that tons of people are searching for the "CJ Login Page" on Google. But SOMETHING has made it rise a lot since the redesign of CJ's site...It now has a PageRank of EIGHT! (It started at 5 or 6).

    Other sites have even more links-in than that, and better quality of links-in too, without getting a PageRank of 8. The only explanation I can think of for the extremely high rank of that boring page is that it has been given a bonus somehow. And a bunch of webmasters with the toolbar installed, pounding the page all day as they log in, just might be the source of the bonus...

  19. #19
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    256
    Only leave the Google toolbar active when you visit your own site!! (or ABW, of course) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    79
    To me it is so interesting how different engines rank you and list you. For instance, if you search "John Denver Tributes" on AOL, of all things, my site comes up #10 on the first page.
    On others it comes about 20-30 later.
    I've redone the meta and added more keyword rich text, (using the "alt" tags...we'll see if it works) and resubmitted, so I hope in a few weeks, I may show higher in a few.
    It is a very confusing "science" to say the least.
    Most of my hits still come from links on other pages it seems.
    ---Having fun learning though [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  21. #21
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    352
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think that Google already has a replacement in mind, the traffic data collected from the Google toolbar http://toolbar.google.com/
    high traffic = good site, and that is even harder to spam.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I refuse to use the google toolbar or anyones toolbar. Millions of others feel the same way I do. Ranking search results on just the toolbar would be stupid.

  22. #22
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    45
    >>Ranking search results on just the toolbar would be stupid.<<

    Google isn't abandoning PageRank (which is only one of the factors that it uses to determine SERP placement), and it isn't using the toolbar, traffic, or clickthrough rate to determine the order of search results.

    Clickthrough rate *is* being used (along with bid amounts) to determine placement of Google's AdWords Select text ads, but that has nothing to do with search placement. Here's a quote from the AdWords Select page at Google's Web site:

    "Your clickthrough rate and CPC together determine where your ads are shown, so better ads rise to the top. That means no one can lock you out of the top position."

  23. #23
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    Posts
    1,537
    The SERP's will be going to a random listing generator pretty soon. And the only sites selected will be the one who pay for a listing.

    One day you could be number 1 and the next number 69 and the next 9, the next 389 etc.

    Oh and of course they will have CPM deals at the top of each search for 3 listings for those who will pay the price.

    They will not so slowly delete non-paid listings probably four to ten listings go for each new paid listing.

    Since practically no one searches past page 10 on any keyword this will hardly be noticed by the general public.

    And of course they will not tell you that your site is no longer listed if you get the ax.

    It's the only way to do it that makes economic sense.

    There is a great opportunity RIGHT NOW, to build directory sites for various business categories but once you have the site built you need to brand it in a big way and that cost money -

    So name your poison - pick a business category e.g. 'hog farming' and get to work building your directory.

    Subscribe to the hog farm trade magazines, advertise your directory in them. Build an affiliate program and pay per click tracked as a lead. Invite as many hog related businesses to become affiliates and post your directory link on their page.

    Then pay INKTOMI for a listing.

    Now charge for people in the hog industry for listings based on CPM.

    Oh and BTW there are well over 5,000,000 people connected in someway to the hog biz just in the USA and thousands of businesses.

    Just one example - have fun.

  24. #24
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    27
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Domino:


    I refuse to use the google toolbar or anyones toolbar. Millions of others feel the same way I do. Ranking search results on just the toolbar would be stupid.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I was only speculating that Google may be or may in the furure use this data, I have no idea if they are

    The problem with all page ranking ideas is that webmasters eventually figure how to improve their ranking. SEs goal is to provide 'perfect' results, driving more searchers to their site, generating more ad revenue.

    Inwards links is harder to spam than keywords but its value is being eroded and google places less emphasis upon it than it once did.

    Hence using the toolbar data in the future would make the google result more spam proof.

    It doesn't take many people to use the toolbar to provide valuable traffic data.

  25. #25
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    709
    I personally don't have a clue what will happen next, it's just too bad there are too many who ruin the search engines. It's one thing to optimize for it, and then it's another to spam.

    Perhaps just an idea if there was a place similar to Yahoo someone human, to get your website checked, a policing of sorts. to get rid of all the redirects, major spammers etc. Then from there be allowed to spider those pages. a web-licence perhaps. And if you have a web licence and if your caught spaming your licience will loose demerits similar to a drivers lic.( sorry don't think I have licence spelt right...spelling is my poor spot) The licence would be good per site. Loose so many demerits and your licence on the site is pulled. This will then show who the bad apples are and the good ones. So for those idiots that by a domain name for every redirect, obviously wouldn't ever be allowed to spider the first time around, and if someone changes their website after licencing, then obviously competitors would spot them, and call in their licence number, and depending on the rules, either licence would be pulled or penelized, and there would be a fine to be paid to respider. This way the spiders will only have good websites to spider and none other, so then most search engines will all produce good results, if there was only licencer or course.

    The whole Search engine problem is the one's who ruin it, not affiliate sites in general, just a crappy handful compared to all that generally ruin it, making results useless.

    No machine can filter enough, or change quick enough for those guys who ruin it, this is part of the problem.

    Just some thoughts.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Featured: Is the End of Net Neutrality the End of Affiliate Marketing?
    By Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 4th, 2014, 12:52 AM
  2. It's the End ...
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 9th, 2011, 04:35 AM
  3. Is this the end of CJ?
    By Nabz in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: September 21st, 2005, 12:33 AM
  4. Dead End Google Searches
    By Snib in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 4th, 2004, 11:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •