A couple of minor additions to the article for context based on what little bit I've been learning:
- About 25%-30% of Google searches each day are searches that Google has never seen before
- While 90% of bad results is just, well, bad results, there is significant room for interpretation. In the example provided, is there a reason Google should return first in a search for PageRank? If so, what is it (described technically, not emotionally)? It may be (but probably isn't) that these other PR firms are actually honestly more cited than Google is. I'm sure this isn't the case, but whenever somebody says "And the result wasn't what I liked" I try to take a careful look at what they are saying. Sometimes it's that they had an academic reason for the search that wasn't validated. Sometimes it's that their opinion of what is popular and the rest of the internet's is different. Most of the time the system is gamed, yes, but there are times in which the author is just expressing an emotional dislike of the results in good/bad terms. Search isn't something that has a "right" result. You are either generally kinda pleased with it or you aren't. (In fact, blind studies show other search engines consistently scoring higher than Google, but when the participants knew it was Google, then Google scored higher. There is a lot of room in this topic for personal opinion and stupid human tricks)
Since it's all so much based on human reactions, what could happen is that Google could fix the problem and nobody would notice. Or they might not fix the problem and everybody thinks they did. It's all about perception.
I've tried DDG and Bing, and I'm still with Google. At least for now.
> In the example provided, is there a reason Google should return first in a search for PageRank? If so, what is it (described technically, not emotionally)? It may be (but probably isn't) that these other PR firms are actually honestly more cited than Google is.
What? No one said that the ranking algorithm is implemented incorrectly when it puts these sites above Google. The example is supposed to illustrate the (obvious) fact that it isn't always the best at ordering the most relevant results for a search. Describing "relevant" technically is not easy... that's the point.
I read it in "The Art of SEO" which I just finished.
I believe it was sourced as part of a speech from a Google VP sometime in 2007 or 2008.
What's happening is that the scammers are training the users to use longer and longer search queries. It's much harder to trick a system that is working off of 6 keywords than it is a system that is only using 2. Long-tail stuff continues to get more and more important.
> training the users to use longer and longer search queries.
no, it isn't. it's a piece of cake. ... because there just is no competition. so the only thing you have to do is to create content that google sees as valuable (and a webpage that fullfills basic usage metrics requirements) ... but also the return is lower, that's were content farms come on in.
the art of SEO is one of the worst seo books ever, seo is a business, and that book is the worst book ever from oreily. 4 authors republish their outdated blogposts, stapled together in a near random way by an overwhelmed "editor".
I wrote a longer reply, but the more I write the more I realize how ignorant I am. I'm out of my depth. Beats me.
I think we can agree that if it is true that 25% of all searches are completely new to Google, it's not like they could have been gamed. Can't game a search that has never existed before. Right?
I've optimized for queries that have never happened before. A big fraction of that 25% comes from hyper-specific queries from a known pool of terms. One could optimize for, e.g.:
[size] [color] [quality] widgets
And have a page that ranked for:
Brobdingnagian Fuchsia Middling Widgets
Even if that term had never been searched. You wouldn't have to try too hard--your bespoke widget company could just list all of the types of widgets it could potentially manufacture.
A couple of minor additions to the article for context based on what little bit I've been learning:
- About 25%-30% of Google searches each day are searches that Google has never seen before
- While 90% of bad results is just, well, bad results, there is significant room for interpretation. In the example provided, is there a reason Google should return first in a search for PageRank? If so, what is it (described technically, not emotionally)? It may be (but probably isn't) that these other PR firms are actually honestly more cited than Google is. I'm sure this isn't the case, but whenever somebody says "And the result wasn't what I liked" I try to take a careful look at what they are saying. Sometimes it's that they had an academic reason for the search that wasn't validated. Sometimes it's that their opinion of what is popular and the rest of the internet's is different. Most of the time the system is gamed, yes, but there are times in which the author is just expressing an emotional dislike of the results in good/bad terms. Search isn't something that has a "right" result. You are either generally kinda pleased with it or you aren't. (In fact, blind studies show other search engines consistently scoring higher than Google, but when the participants knew it was Google, then Google scored higher. There is a lot of room in this topic for personal opinion and stupid human tricks)
Since it's all so much based on human reactions, what could happen is that Google could fix the problem and nobody would notice. Or they might not fix the problem and everybody thinks they did. It's all about perception.
I've tried DDG and Bing, and I'm still with Google. At least for now.