I think, if anything, this proves that Google works the way it is intended to.

Also just because hell.com does not appear higher is not a reflection of how Google is working incorrectly, but more a reflection that Hell.com needs to SEO'ed.

Google may be slipping on the customer service side, but it has always stated up front how it's engine works - maybe people are forgetting this and the tall poppy syndrome has started for them.

tiiiiimmmmmmbbbbbbeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrr;)

Posted by: JB on October 1, 2002 11:29 AM

---

 

So we would have editors manipulate search results...tell me why that's 'better' again.(?)

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on October 1, 2002 01:30 PM

---

 

Lyle is just waiting for his site to become #1 for "Usability guru" on Google. :p

Posted by: MadMan - Nielsen's guru on October 1, 2002 04:09 PM

---

 

Well, I've raised this point before. Google works on the basis of what other page writers want to link, not what users want to link. The example I was fond of citing was the term windex - - it's a broadly used consumer window cleaner, but a relatively obscure program for managing your jpeg files comes in first in the rankings. (I have also noticed, that with respect to my site, the Google machine will not bear in mind that my entire website is about quotes and quotations, nor will it utilize my meta tags - - but since the word quotations doesn't appear on most pages, I won't appear very high in a Google search on 'quotes on lying' -- but it will rank high in MSN because MSN uses my meta tags, where 'quotes' appears.)

So yes, Google is a clever algorithm, but it is not a human, and could use direction. I can see that from how it behaves on the WWW at large, and I can also see that from a corporation's Web site search (using Google), where they needed to feed Google synonyms.

Posted by: Frank on October 1, 2002 08:27 PM

---

 

Frank: Would putting your quotes in <q> tags help google to locate and rate the content better? How far do google (or other search engines) go in recognising simple structural markup?

Posted by: Timo on October 2, 2002 07:24 AM

---

 

The problem with Google is that they're very secretive about what works and what doesn't in achieving good position in search results, and they're constantly subtly changing the rules. I know that this is to try and combat site owners who are exploiting loopholes in their spider software, but it's a bugger to keep up with.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on October 2, 2002 10:18 AM

---

 

The problem with Google is that they're very secretive about what works and what doesn't in achieving good position in search results, and they're constantly subtly changing the rules. I know that this is to try and combat site owners who are exploiting loopholes in their spider software, but it's a bugger to keep up with.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on October 2, 2002 10:19 AM

---

 

Alan, I was pushing more at the idea of the semantic web, and google taking advantage of those first, tentative steps towards more structural information on the web...

Perhaps if too much responsibility is put on authors (as with meta keywords and descriptions) we will see abuses of a semantic system so bad as to bring it down?

Posted by: Timo on October 3, 2002 05:44 AM

---

 

Timo, Yes, I'd agree with you. I think Google's methodology is a product of the limitations on how we establish 'relevancy' on the web which we've been up against for the last few years. Their current approach is good if you stick with these limitations, but why not invent a new paradigm?

Posted by: Alan Fisher on October 3, 2002 07:20 AM

---

 

"I think the biggest weakness for Google may be that it is not fixing these results," said Sullivan.

Well apparently they just did.

Lyle - your 'usability guru' plan has been foiled.

Posted by: Timo on October 4, 2002 05:54 AM

---