Since the Google dreadnought steamed through, capsizing and sinking various affiliates and businesses, I still don't see any decent returns on simple search queries.
For example, when I type into the search box "pizza" + "name of my town" I get back garbage. It's directories, business aggregators, yellow pages and other scraper sites. I need to go 5 to 10 pages deep before I start seeing the actual web sites of real pizza places in my town.
Has anyone else noticed this? Is Google sick? Has its new algorithm collapsed the search function? I don't know what to make of it.
It has always been like this. So it just looks like the new algo changes didn't fix it.
Yes, Google is sick. It is vomiting up garbage.
As for the pizza query - it may depend on location. When I type in pizza and my town, about 8/10 results are accurate with sites for local pizza shops AND I get a big map with markers for 7 different pizza places.
I get nothing but legitimate pizza places - there are a lot of them around here. Oh, all except for the last result - which happens to be a review I wrote of a local pizza place :-)
The other poster didn't say WHAT the name of his town is - that very well could generate odd results. I tried with several towns/cities and got appropriate results every time.
Buncha baloney, I think.
Okay, forget I wrote this. Now when I type in "pizza" + "name of my town," I'm getting the sites of pizza places returned.
The directories, yellow pages, business aggregators and scraper spam sites have been pushed down in the rankings.
Looks like the pizza search algorithm has been fixed. YAY! Let's see if it stays fixed.
That is absolutely not accurate.
Google may or may not have failed to provide good results with Panda, but it is ludicrous to assert that they were trying to fix something that isn't broken. Internet search HAS been broken for many years - again, the results may be less than desirable but Google definitely was and is trying to fix a very real problem.
OK, so search was snapped in half. They tried to superglue it together, and it has now snapped into three pieces instead of two. How is that?
Google could have tested their algorithm in some minor world economy before rolling it out in the biggest world economy, you know, Greenland or somewhere.
I think what you are missing is that Google isn't necessarily all that unhappy with the results. I'm sure Google understands that they need more work, but if you examine the pages of the people whining at their http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/W … 33df82fd8e thread, many of them deserved being pushed down.
Of course others should have been squashed and were not. That's the problem with algorithms: they make mistakes.
Overall, I don't think it is any where near as horrible as you make out. I think your are letting your personal feelings override your judgement. That's understandable because you apparently took a big hit. If your pages didn't deserve that, I quite understand your feelings.
I've suffered Panda related damage too - not as bad as some, but I've had slippage. Still, when I go a-googling, I can't say that I have been unfairly displaced - I may not like it, but there it is.
I've said this before: Google HAS to fix search or they will die. There will be more "Pandas".
I am not judging my content in anyway, I believe that "content farms" needed a big kick up the backside, Hubpages included.
I am specifically talking about search results. I am not just a search engine gamer, I am also a searcher, just like everybody else.
As it happens, I would have done a much greater job in identifying my lower quality content, yes. I can assure you that I see no correlation between quality and non-quality in my traffic stats. My crappest stuff has stayed where it was.
I can specifically state that I have, on numerous occassions, worked my way down to the second page of Google looking for an answer to my question.... and found it on a slapped content farm.
A lot of the stuff on content farms has value. I am seeing good quality content farm content pushed down to the bottom of the first page, and forum posts and spun crap from 1998 pushed to the top.
When using Google.com of course, I haven't suffered at all using Google.co.uk, that will come soon.
I can see the positives though, the search engines are easier than ever to game with micro-sites. I am looking forward to filling up Google with the same crap as I have been for two years on Hubpages. The content farms are no longer a serious competitor to the little man, I will move in and fill the void, with stuff precisely the same quality as posted on Hubpages.
The slap is clearly manual anyway, my new content farm is thriving, most of the traffic is US, and it will stay that way until Google notices it.
I am specifically talking about search results too. I use Google many times per hour (and have been for a long, long time) and simply do not observe the horrible problems claimed.
Somehow "looking forward to filling up Google with the same crap" doesn't seem quite the right way to put that
If content is no longer important, then there is no future in net activities. Better to write ebooks.
And I tried using adwords. The cost is a joke. It is fixed or people are simply throwing their money away. It is fixed on terms that have no adwords at all, and should be worth no more than 1 cent. Instead the terms with no adwords start out at a dollar. This is a joke.
As far as I am concerned, this is an unsustainable business model on the part of Google. I tried adwords, but it is pretty much useless. I think the entire process is overrated. I read about many who are disillusioned with adwords.
The OP is correct. I actually started a thread on this a week or so ago. See: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/70803
Google is broken. Searching for information is worse now than it ever was.
I am not a full-time affiliate marketer. I am a freelance writer first. And that means that I research, research, research all day long. It has now been one month since the algo change, and my research time has almost doubled. Many, many freelance writers have switched search engines because of it.
This has nothing to do at all with where our sites rank or don't rank. Google is vomiting garbage all over the place.
Sez you. I say it is no more broken than it ever was.
Most of the complaints are from people who haven't a clue HOW to search, so of course they get bad results - and always would have.
There is nothing generically wrong with Google. Specific glitches, sure, but we have always had those.
I am quite sure that I search as much or more than anyone. I don't see "vomit" at all. This is just a witch hunt - people are angry and are looking for and finding problems they never noticed before.
Oh thanks! I never knew how to search Google. Learn something new every day.
No offense, but maybe you don't. Many of the examples of "bad results" given here and in other threads are actually examples of poor search terms and foolish expectations.
I have yet to see an example that convinces me that anything is "broken". Different, sure. But not broken.
When you input a search term, and Ok I admit I'm not good at that because if I was good I'd know what search terms to input for millions of others and would write hubs accordingly - when I input a search term I expect google to give me results using the words I used.
And by and large, they don't. They did, but they don't now. I don't mind reading what someone said on ezinearticles, or buzzle, or ehow, and if it was a medical search, give me results from medical sites.
But now, I get results from some random site that uses the keywords and nothing else. No real information till I have scrolled through to page 3.
How is that better?
The reason I won't show you a real example is because I don't want everyone knowing what I am researching.
But when I say the search results are bad, that is because they are bad, not because I 'don't know what I am doing'.
Admittedly, I only have an HNC (higher national certificate) in computing and sorry but that isn't enough, obviously, to state that Google have messed up their system.
It's not as if Google knows they have messed up though. That will have nothing to do with the fact that the roll-out hasn't happened yet.
Yes. Sez me. And a whole lot of folks who don't know anything about affiliate marketing or that such things as a Google slap or content farms even exist. I know that I'm neither angry nor on a "witch hunt." My external sites are doing just fine and were relatively untouched by this whole thing, so I'm actually pretty happy.
Yes, the content farms have been buried, and that is a very good thing for searchers. But it seems that commercial sites, rather than informative sites, have replaced them.
Agreed - My research time has increased dramatically since the Google change, for general searching and. more worryingly, for academic and technical topics. I have started using alternatives much more - time is money
I think it makes a big difference in what you are searching for. They have really cleaned up the niche my website is in, but I've completed a few searches in the last week that brought up some odd results. Maybe they aren't finished and still need to work in some areas.
I'm gonna argue this point. Not saying it wasn't broken before, but it sure is now. My own hubs completely aside - because no-one was more shocked than me when mine ranked - when I look up something on Google I want them to return relevant results.
Many aren't. I use Google for research.
I remember years ago (as an adult college returner) being told go do a search on a Google topic, and I couldn't think what to look up. I don't use the internet to look up random topics.
I use it for research when I am actually looking for something. Just today one of the top 10 results tried to send me a virus, which AVG blocked, but which when I tried to reload (for research purposes), Chrome blocked but not before telling me that I was trying a access a completely different url.
If Google was returning the best results, how the Hell did this slip through?
I do a lot of research too and they just don't have it cleaned up for sure.
Even novice users are complaining about the poor performance they are getting with G.
Bing has a fair shot to gain a lot of ground...if they can react quickly and take advantage of this opportunity.
Really ? so we're suppose to get names of restaurants and shops for poetry queries ? e.g. "phoenix haiku".
Yeah, that's exactly what I'd expect for a naive search like that. If you want poetry, add "poetry".
I'm sure you have no clue what is haiku, so yeah it is naive query. Google fan boi FTW!
I know what a haiku is. I also know that the results you get with that search are quite reasonable.
I'm not a "Google fan boy" just because I speak truth. Black and grey hat SEO corrupted the Internet and still corrupt it today. Google needs to fix that. Ignore that reality at your own peril.
That explains 'fan boi' position and also that you know nothing when it comes to searching for 'haiku'. Period.
Trying to understand google, making assumptions about what it may or may not be doing, is like looking into telescopes and discovering there is black matter in the universe, a kind of matter we can't get our human minds around, and then trying to preempt it.
The funky thing is that google thinks it's got a leg up on this discovery (relate the search for the understanding of black matter to the search for the understanding of what makes humans tick) but it doesn't. Google's as vacuously clueless as you and I. Google doesn't know what it's doing. It's hunting and pecking, trying to find an answer to pad its profits.
I wonder if NASA and Harvard and JPL and google are in cahoots about solving the puzzles of the universe. More power to them.
I'd say google's sick on a cosmic level.
I use Google as a search engine so rarely, that I can't notice a change. I use Yahoo!, and I have noticed a change in search results recently, but to some extent the change is for the good. I really disliked Bing at first, but I'm using it a bit more and more and disliking it less and less.
To my mind, Google is like the PC of search engines and Yahoo! is like the Mac: Yahoo! is clearly superior, but not as popular (yet). Just my opinion, of course.
I think Yahoo came before Google. I know it was once much more widely used than it is now. I think that "google" as a verb is now in the dictionary.
Yes, Yahoo was extremely popular at one time, but their search results were not as good as the upstart Google - that's why Google rose to the top.
Every bit true, as far as I know. And I still will say that I google something, when in fact I actually Yahoo! it.
I realize I may be wrong, but I think that when Google first started, years ago, its claim to fame was "faster" and "more" - but not necessarily better or more relevant or more geared to what the searcher is truly seeking. Correct me if I'm wrong.
But if that is correct, then it's not surprising that there would come times when people (and corporations) actually would want better results, even if they take a second or so longer to find. And so we end up with Google slaps, because Google is trying to revise itself for what the consumer actually wants.
I know the real explanation is much more technical, involved, intricate, and insightful, but that's my take on it as a layperson.
EDIT - Hi, Pcunix - I didn't post fast enough, and you've already corrected my take on things. Or maybe we mean "as good as" in different ways?
Well. I was using Yahoo before I ever used Google, and going back further than that, I even used directories, when search engines didn't really work.
Googles claim to fame were really two things, first it was simple, and secondly when you typed in:
"blue red toothed widget"
you would get back pages relevant to your search. Before google, that kind of thing didn't work so well. I remember using google and being blown away by it. The first time I typed in a random sentence from one of my sites... and saw the search results... was a revelation.
The problem is, this is essentially relevancy. search engines have been getting better at relevancy for the last decade... But no search engine has managed to crack the next problem... there has been little real progress in the last decade.
No one can say that the thing you get at 1st spot in google because it is the most relevant, is actually going to be good. That is, search engines have been unable to create an algorithm to assess truthfulness, credibility, readability and quality.
Recently, I posted one of the most revolutionary pieces of research on search engines I've read since page rank... it was an article on algorithms to determine credibility by Microsoft.
Wish I knew enough to ask a question; think I'll always be a novice, Pcunix. Sheesh! Hate it! Get lost no matter what the plot, 2uesday! Haven't found one yet that doesn't make me frustrated, or is that coming from trying to follow y'all?
Google how to make a tuna melt sandwich
Even if you think eHow is fantastic and deserves the top spot, I'm not sure why 3 very similar results from the same site should show up at the top. Especially since they're bad and there are plenty of good results out there.
They show up above quality recipe sites. AllRecipes's great version comes up as #4.
I think google algo is not working automatically in case of article directories rather than manually......some article directories are added in red list and it is manually before the automatic operation...so what ever you do with ur article it will not work if u can not compete staying in the first raw.....
And just for fun here too I searched 'is google sick' and guess where you lot are? #8
Google is obviously fine and dandy, of course it is. When I search for something (and please, no lessons in how to do so) I usually get relevant commerce websites or eHow, no matter what I search for. Exactly what I'm looking for, of course it is! I only come to the web as a user to spend, spend, spend.
Awesome. I love it when someone else's plan comes together.
A very accurate summary of eHow which I heard the other day: "All its articles basically consist of five steps telling you how to do something you know already. Example: how to open a door. 1. Stand in front of door. 2. Stretch out your arm. 3. Turn the handle/latch. 4. Errr.... 5. That's it."
Yeah. Great, isn't it :snort:
by Ronald E Franklin5 days ago
There's been a lot of discussion in the forums about fact that the Maven channels are all subdomains of the main site. The conventional wisdom is that this creates a "generalist site" format that Google hates...
by Gary Anderson4 years ago
You know, when you have people like demand media paying people to crank out thousands of articles with no blood sweat and tears, and then my traffic from US google goes down the day content farms are smacked by the...
by lrohner6 years ago
Interesting read. They're coming down hard on pages with repeated spammy wording, hacked sites and pages with copied content.The most interesting thing was now that they believe they've cleaned up individual pages...
by ishwarya_p6 years ago
I am building backlinks to my hubs, already reached 35 backlinks which are all been indexed by Google, still no SERP boost. Typically how long it will take to see effects and boost in SERP?
by Eric Dockett2 years ago
In the blog post about moving away from subdomains Paul referenced comparing HubPages to competitors several times. To me, this indicates HP has identified certain sites as typical of the kind of site HP is attempting...
by Sondra Rochelle2 years ago
Janderson posted something really important yesterday which I think everybody here needs to read http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132621#post2759379.If he is correct in his assumptions (which it appears he might...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.