jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (36 posts)

OH NO! Yet Another Google Thread!

  1. lorlie6 profile image85
    lorlie6posted 6 years ago

    I may be naive, but tell me what Google actually has to gain from dissing this site?

    1. kmackey32 profile image79
      kmackey32posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe there dissing it to get people to look....lol

      1. lorlie6 profile image85
        lorlie6posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        smile

    2. profile image0
      ssaulposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have found that, when you do a search on Facebook they would return search results from Bing not Google. That's sad, especially now that Facebook has become bigger than Google.

      1. Pente profile image83
        Penteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ring Ring. I answer the phone. It's my daughter. She talks on and on. She is talking about this guy. I can't figure out who he is. I listen for clues. I still can't figure out who he is. Is it her boyfriend? Is it an ex-boyfriend? My mind is working furiously. I still can't figure out who it is. Finally, slightly embarrassed, I ask her. Her voice is slightly exasperated - "Daddy! Don't you ever check your Facebook account? That's your newest grandson!"
        I so hate Facebook.

        1. lorlie6 profile image85
          lorlie6posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh Gawd, that's perfect!

  2. EmpressFelicity profile image86
    EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago

    If the people who use Google as their preferred search engine (which is most people) are doing searches and finding that the top few results are spammy hubs (or spammy sites generally), then they're going to stop using Google and use Bing or whatever instead.  Which means less Adwords revenue for Google.  Hence Google's attempts to rework their search algorithm to give supposedly better, more relevant results for searchers.  Don't know if it's working for Google.  Sounds far too early to tell anyway.

    1. recommend1 profile image72
      recommend1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Then there is the other view from some experienced web workers - that Google has sold out to big business and if you are not a wealthy store chain you aint gonna get rated - and Amazon will advertise for itself - doom and gloom all round if this is true ??

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image86
        EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, maybe.  If it's true what other people on here are saying - that their own hubs are being pushed down the SERPs list below big stores and Amazon etc. - then perhaps Google has shot itself in the foot? 

        Speaking for myself though I can't say I've noticed that my google.com traffic has gone down all that much.  It's still far away the biggest source of traffic I get!   

        In reply to Mark, I hope that there are enough other Facebook refuseniks (like me) to make general search engines a viable option for some time to come.

        1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
          Mark Ewbieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hey I agree.  I hate Facebook.  But I watch the young people, my daughter, her friends.  It's all mobile, all networking.

      2. Sally's Trove profile image99
        Sally's Troveposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not so long ago eBay took that turn and made it financially difficult for the small seller to maintain an eBay presence, even if the small seller's product is ephemera such as antiques and collectibles.

        But I subscribe to some other views here, that the algorithm isn't nailed down yet. At this time, not only is this so-called improved search returning large retailers first, but it is also returning sites that are linking to the original content in a page position that is above the original content.

        If you want a laugh, a keyword phrase that should have put one of my spitting Hubs on the first page of returns instead put a KKK site, because one of their forum posters had linked to my Hub. I can't see that Google wants those kinds of secondary returns to overshadow original content.

    2. humagaia profile image69
      humagaiaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The adsense revenue that Google obtains from it's generic search results may be impacted but it matters not where a searcher comes from when they land on a site or article that monetizes with Adsense. If they press the ad then Google gets their cut.
      The relevance of the search results has already been adversely impacted by the existence of paid results placed before results from the URL databases.
      Google and other search engines have 'blown it' and may find that the predictions that social networking will take over where they now fail.
      All these changes, purportedly to rid the search results of irrelevant content, is all smoke and mirrors. Google is unable to determine what is or is not the most appropriate information that should be presented to a searcher for any particular search.
      Perhaps their efforts would be better served if they concentrated on determining what is actually being asked by a searcher and at the same time employ better semantic understanding to what questions a particular article or web-page gives relevant answers.
      Take for example a query such as "Google France" (I will state a vested interest here as I have written a hub on this - please do not go to the hub).
      I would expect access to Google France from Google to be the first supplied result (as it is). I do not see ANY relevance to a Picasa web return, a Youtube member called 'GoogleFrance' (I would if the search had been YOutube GoogleFrance'), a blog entry not specifically about Google France, as such) and why have they got the same entires twice on the same page for their own domains - one would be sufficient if a searcher found that one of them was what they wanted.
      This is just an example of where Google gets it wrong. I am not saying that my article has any greater merit or that it should be higher in the rankings (we all think that) but even after the changes Google is not showing the most appropriate results for what is a very simply interpreted short keyword phrase. Either the searcher is asking 'get me to Google France' or 'tell me about Google France' or 'tell me how to get to Google France' ( slight variation on the first question. Google satisfies the first query (with overkill that is not necessary) but misses the point in all other respects.
      What I am getting at is that Google is aiming at the wrong target - a generalization about the usefulness of all content from certain sites. They should be looking in-house to see how they can extract the essence of a question and what is in  the wording of a page that will answer that question.
      If they did that then ALL spam and poor content would automatically float to the top without any need for the writer to employ SEO, backlinking, white and black hats etc etc - they could concentrate on writing what searchers want to know.
      Google has created the monster by causing producers of content to try to get decent copy to the top and yet be beaten by scammers of the system Google has created.
      Forget algorithm changes, they just need to concentrate on the most important job.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image86
        EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, a few years back the only paid results you'd get from a Google search would have been on the right hand corner of the page - now they're the first four or five results at the top.

        I'd forgotten that salient fact, because I use Scroogle as my default search engine rather than Google!




        I suppose that will come eventually.  Although I expect it will never be 100% accurate.

      2. sunforged profile image72
        sunforgedposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Humagaia,

        Thats one of the most thought out opinions on search results we have seen on here smile

        Much of what you point out I would see as telling of a work in progress, as the undesirable nature of the current returns are obviously inferior.

        Im still expecting a nice big chop of the top returns in the currently effected 12% - we cant assume anything is complete until they decide to run the same changes into the rest of the country searches.

        But, you are slightly underestimating the search algo (whether it works or not *shrug* ) and the techniques behind it.


        "extracting the essence of the question" is something they very much have tried to work in ..

        (not gooogle, but search technology has been on that concept for years .. http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=624  - somewhere I have G patent saved that tries to discover (predict) navigational, transactional or informational intent via search history (personalized search?) )

        You would really enjoy digging into the google patents on search, I expect. I would enjoy your feedback or even hubs on the topic (search returns are polluted by "googles patent search" when looking for googles patents on search sad) but I have a big folder of all the ones ive found over the years


        here is a fun one:

        http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/07/27/google_search_mouse_movement_patent.png

        monitoring search relevancy via mouse tracking behavior (chrome?)

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27 … ch_tweaks/


        or almost a year ago an idea to "level the playing field" against places such as demand media

        http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/891e2946-796b … z1FDT5XzkO


        a little insight into google patents recently:
        http://www.linkbuildr.com/google-patent … -analyzed/

        a tedster interview that shines light on how professional webmasters should be thinking when evaluating their performance


        http://www.seobook.com/tedster-interview


  3. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 6 years ago

    I think it is more that Google is running scared of Facebook.  A large number of people within that site don't use Google and don't care about it.  Google's spam filled advertising heavy model is becoming less important.

    IF Google fell out of favour - what else have they got?  Their maps?  Their bean bags?

    Seriously, I don't know much about this, but I have gathered that Facebook with their social network basis have the ability to thrash Google.  Want to get some results?  How about a search that returns what your friends rate - rather than a load of spammy... etc.

    Poor Google.

    1. lorlie6 profile image85
      lorlie6posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Those bean bags will keep them afloat, yes? smile

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
        Mark Ewbieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, or maybe they could hold a garage sale with those and their table football tables.

        Where do the smart people want to work today - Google or Facebook?

        It's not Google.

    2. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I thought 2.0 sites were to combat 1.0 spam in the first place? At least with a 2.0 site you have feedback. Google is promoting sites with no feedback and probably less adsense.

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
        Mark Ewbieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I really know virtually nothing - 2.0 1.0 no idea I'm afraid.  But I do read the business sections and I watch young girls on their mobiles.  That sounds a bit dodgy I know, but it's called research thanks to my solicitor.

  4. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    If Google goes under does that mean I have to give up the 6 dollars and 58 cents they owe me?

    hmm

    1. profile image0
      Amie Warrenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They owe me $40, but don't count on ever getting your money. They are notorious for letting you reach $100, then disabling your account.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What a bunch of thieves hmm

      2. Pcunix profile image89
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Really?

        How is it that I have made ove $70,000.00 from Google?

        Your statement is absolutely false.

      3. sunforged profile image72
        sunforgedposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thats a notoriety that has never reached my ears ...the converse has met my wallet, makes it hard to sit sometimes smile

      4. Rising Caren profile image82
        Rising Carenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They are notorious for doing that.

        They're also known for payout out.

        The truth is: it's Google. It can afford to scam a few people here and there because it DOES pay a lot of people.

        Another truth: Google has a lot of people trying to do fraud click and other various traffic exchanges and it can't always keep up with them, so sometimes they do their investigations just before their first payout, hence why a lot of people get canned just as they're about or just reached $100.

  5. lorlie6 profile image85
    lorlie6posted 6 years ago

    All I know is that Bing sounds good to me.  Another thing, do they operate like Google?  Algorithms and all?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      An interesting post from one of the other threads that pointed to an article from google proving that bing scraped their algorithm (or something like that) to give identical results to a search.  I can't find the link, though.

      Bottom line is that, yes they do.  Probably the same algorithm.

      1. Sally's Trove profile image99
        Sally's Troveposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If that's so, then bing is blessedly behind this most recent algo adjustment. Yesterday, just for the heck of it, I took keyword phrases from each of six of my Hubs and entered them into both Google and bing. In every case, my Hubs were more or less where I expected them to be (based on where they had been a week ago in Google returns) in bing's returns, but much more buried in Google's.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Found it!  Here is the blog from Matt Cutts on the subject:

          http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-bing/

          From the looks of it Bing really had their hand slammed in the cookie jar.

          1. Sally's Trove profile image99
            Sally's Troveposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Good job finding the link. Now I have a headache. LOL

  6. quotations profile image91
    quotationsposted 6 years ago

    Overall, in the past few days traffic to my hubs is down about 25% from the previous 7 day average. I am not sure why that would be because I do not have spammy hubs and don't pitch any products. Perhaps the entire site has been downgraded and is no longer an authority site, in which case I expect this will have an effect on my backlinks which is what I valued most about hubpages.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I disabled my Google toolbar until they put 2.0 sites back where they belong.

  7. katiem2 profile image60
    katiem2posted 6 years ago

    Great post lorlie, lots of good information and details on the Google drama.

    smile

  8. sunforged profile image72
    sunforgedposted 6 years ago

    whatever - review occurs before first payout, how would you do it differently?


    Huma,


    found a sweet patent list:

    http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=5114#more-5114

    1. ThomasE profile image81
      ThomasEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Have you had a look at this

      http:// citeseer.ist.psu.edu/search?q=text%3A%28search+engine+algorithms %29+AND+ncites%3A[3+TO+15000]+AND+year%3A[2009+TO+2012]&submit=Search&sort=rlv

      (you will have to remove the two spaces)

  9. billyaustindillon profile image79
    billyaustindillonposted 6 years ago

    Some classic thoughts here - enjoyed the patent list Sunforged smile

 
working