Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed

Thursday, December 04, 2003

Google Results Now Start with Relevant Category

I'm not sure if this is new, but I use Google every single day, and just noticed it this morning. Do a search for anything on Google now, and you'll see a category related to your search phrase just before the results begin.

For example, search on "buy wine," and you'll see this link to the Google Directory (which is a rebranded version of the Open Directory Project, aka the ODP, aka DMOZ):

Shopping > Food > Beverages > Wine

It appears that this somewhat confirms Andrew's speculation that Google is trying to discern the type of search you are doing in order to display the most relevant results based on what it thinks you're seeking. I've performed several searches, and it seems to be pretty good at showing the proper category for my search.

This step seems to make the ODP even more important than it was before in Google's estimation, which is a paradox in a way. I've never been able to understand why Google "trusts" the ODP so much to decide which category a site belongs in. The ODP is by far the worst commercial web directory on the Web! Google's reliance on such an outdated, bloated and poorly categorized collection of links undermines their supposedly sacrosanct regard for relevancy.

The entire Google/ODP relationship is a kind of bias toward older sites that have been listed in the directory for years. I think it's unfair to newer sites that are just as relevant, and perhaps even more so because newer sites tend to have fresher content. Many of these ODP listings that enjoy great PageRank numbers are nothing but rotting links, stinking up the joint. Just try to get a new site listed in the ODP. Bet you can't!

So, while I like the category idea, if Google wants to remain the search engine with the most relevant results, it's going to have to do better than the ODP.

Posted by Cory
| | Permalink

 

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

FindWhat and Verizon

FindWhat's latest deal with Verizon to distribute paid listings is further evidence that the third-place PPC player is holding its own.

Over the past few days, I've talked with reps from a couple of other pay-per-click services who are forging ahead with new distribution agreements and seeing further growth in their advertiser base. Even with Sprinks now out of the picture, it's shaping up to be a fun 2004 for those who are tired of the two leaders in the space hogging all the attention.

Posted by Andrew
| | Permalink

 

.ppt: just say no

Speaking of Norvig, I got a kick out of his argument against the use of PowerPoint. It's funny how a little thing like that can make you world-famous, when it looks pretty insignificant on a resume full of really impressive stuff.

Anyway, with my not-nearly-so-impressive but semi-professorial background, I find myself in agreement of all those who say: I teach best in the traditional way, speaking/lecturing about the topic, perhaps speaking from a simple outline, and occasionally wandering over to the chalkboard or whiteboard to write down an important number. (Then again, "teaching" at the postsecondary level also makes the assumption that people will have done "the readings" prior to attending class, something that seemingly doesn't apply at many business conferences, trade shows, etc.)

So, although I do my best to be Captain Clip Art and Bobby Bullet Point, like many, I pretty much don't like PowerPoint.

And to see how much I don't like it, ladies and gentlemen, catch my act on Dec. 10 at the Laugh Factory in Chicago, or the following night at Ha-Ha's in Dayton.

Posted by Andrew
| | Permalink

 

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

"We're Always Trying to Improve the Index for the User": Google

The problem with rampant speculation is that it's usually at least as damaging as the behind-the-scenes shenanigans you're trying to speculate on. Recent armchair attempts to explain the master plan behind Google's recent index update, mine included, are no exception.

So, lest I be accused of being the Oliver Stone of search, after talking with Peter Norvig, Google's Director of Quality, I'd like to clarify a few things.

I've always known and believed that there was no relationship between Google's advertising program and its index results, absolutely none. After working so closely with so many advertisers, it would have been pretty obvious if we'd been getting some sort of positive "spillover" effect. Many of us weren't suggesting this sort of relationship, but it *wasn't* out of line to make the point that a significant reshuffle at this time of year does make many non-advertisers aware of the fact that they might have become too dependent on free listings. Google doesn't have to foster or maintain a relationship between the right and left-hand sides of the search results page to benefit from the fact that both sides are in constant flux.

[Disclaimer, if that's even the right word: my company benefits, too, since we help people figure out how to make their dollars go farther on the right-hand side of said page.]

Google's not unaware of this. A closing comment from spokesperson Nate Tyler seemed to contain something of a pointed message in this regard: "People need to be aware that the Google index was not designed to be a predictable way for companies to get traffic, although, of course, if you type Amazon, you're pretty sure to see Amazon.com up at the top, since that's clearly the most relevant result." Unsurprisingly, Google would rather have you as an advertiser than not, and if the threat of unstable, unpredictable index rankings for private-sector actors is enough to convince more of them to finally invest dollars in AdWords, then so be it.

One area that I did exaggerate a bit in my article, but again, not without some good reason, is the fact that Google can certainly collect information about the financial value, to Google, of certain search queries as those queries are monetized through the ad program. I might have mis-guessed as to how such data might be used -- and I certainly wouldn't want to suggest any kind of systematic relationship between ads and index -- but it's certainly the case that Google is at least *in possession of* information telling them which queries are commercial, and which aren't.

But that's neither here nor there.

According to Norvig, Google is "always making changes to its index, and it measures the quality of results before and after." One explanation for the current hue and cry, in Norvig's view, is simply that "Google went for a period of several months with no major changes, and some webmasters got complacent about their search rankings to the point where they felt deserving of them."

One point to make is that changes to the index don't always affect all queries equally. In rolling out product improvements like showing results with "stems" and "plurals," some queries are affected and others aren't.

The most recent enhancement, says Norvig, can be boiled down to "attempts to give the correct value to a page." This is what caused problems for so many sites who had managed to climb high in the results -- higher than their sites warranted -- by exploiting search optimization tactics. In short, in large part, this was in part your run-of-the-mill anti-spam re-ranking, but also, Google may have begun down the path of incorporating new cues to a site's quality or relevance to make the results that much more useful to the public.

"We used to look at just links and keywords, but now we're incorporating a lot of other stuff... looking for more and more signals and types of information on a page that attempts to determine or read a 'real meaning' or what a page is trying to provide," continued Norvig.

He acknowledged that some of my speculation, the part where I suggested that Google was making more effort to discern the "type" of information on a page (resource/discussion/information, store/affiliate, company, etc.) "was heading down the right path." Norvig even went so far as to agree that the type of thing Google "might" do would be to look for information such as "how long a company has been established, what kind of information is it showing to the site visitor, etc." It's safe to say in such a context that those traditional bastions of SEO, the hastily-assembled "microsite," would have trouble cracking a top ten listing under this type of formula. But wasn't PageRank supposed to be immune to that junk anyway? Is Google quietly admitting that they've got to layer more and more tests of quality into their algorithm because they're powerless to stop the growth of link farms and superfluous reciprocal linking?

And although I'm satisfied with Google's ongoing efforts to achieve higher quality, at this point, it looks as if the quality of listings is more predictable on non-commercial queries.

Because, after listening carefully to every possible factor that Google might take into account in judging quality and relevancy, when I type "fruit basket" into the search box, I'm still confused.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=fruit+basket

This is the top-ranked site on that query:

http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=Haru

The #2 site is no work of art, either:

http://www.geocities.com/ai_no_hyde/Fruits_Basket.html

The #4 result for "fruit basket companies" is a bit of spam that should be caught easily:

http://www.newpurple2.com/wireless.htm

One thing is clear. This won't be the last Google Dance. The next one can't come too soon for many webmasters.

Posted by Andrew
| | Permalink

 

Monday, December 01, 2003

New Traffick Article:
Prepare to be Monetized, Punk: Google Plays Sherriff with Commercially-Oriented Search Listings

By Andrew Goodman - 12/1/2003

Google recently made far-reaching changes to the way it ranks search results, and the search marketing community has been abuzz with tales of woe ever since.

Posted by Cory
| | Permalink

 

Sunday, November 30, 2003

Even eBay Has a Toolbar

What's the world coming to? It seems that everybody and their brother has a toolbar these days. While bidding on some Mark Twain memorabilia, I noticed a tiny link to the eBay Toolbar. How neat. It does exactly what you might think it would do:

"Alerts
Get notifications right on your desktop just before an auction ends -- this could be the difference between winning and losing!

Simple (yet powerful) Search
Whether you want to do a simple title search or a more extensive title & description search within a particular category, eBay Toolbar lets you do it with a single click.

Watch, Bid and Win
Track items you're watching, those you've bid on, and those you've won, all in one place."

This goofy toolbar craze is pretty fun to watch. It all started, I believe, when Yahoo released its Companion, which had shortcuts to all of Yahoo's services, and was customizable so that you could see only the buttons you wanted. Then, Google made everyone take notice of toolbars when it debuted its own add-on to Internet Explorer that allowed you to tap into Google's massive and massively popular search engine.

Since then, just about every search engine launched toolbars of their own, but the toolbar mania isn't just for search engines and portals, as evidenced by eBay's bar.

Hmm, it's the holidays, and I'm addicted to Amazon.com. I wonder if they have one? :) I sure hope not. I spend enough money there, and I'm afraid that anything that makes it even easier to shop Amazon.com would be dangerous to the pocketbook!

Posted by Cory
| | Permalink

 

View Archived Posts

 

Speaking Engagement

I am speaking at SMX Milan

Need Solid Advice?        

Google AdWords book


Andrew's book, Winning Results With Google AdWords, (McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.), is still helping tens of thousands of advertisers cut through the noise and set a solid course for campaign ROI.

And for a glowing review of the pioneering 1st ed. of the book, check out this review, by none other than Google's Matt Cutts.


Posts from 2002 to 2010


07/2002
08/2002
09/2002
10/2002
11/2002
12/2002
01/2003
02/2003
03/2003
04/2003
05/2003
06/2003
07/2003
08/2003
09/2003
10/2003
11/2003
12/2003
01/2004
02/2004
03/2004
04/2004
05/2004
06/2004
07/2004
08/2004
09/2004
10/2004
11/2004
12/2004
01/2005
02/2005
03/2005
04/2005
05/2005
06/2005
07/2005
08/2005
09/2005
10/2005
11/2005
12/2005
01/2006
02/2006
03/2006
04/2006
05/2006
06/2006
07/2006
08/2006
09/2006
10/2006
11/2006
12/2006
01/2007
02/2007
03/2007
04/2007
05/2007
06/2007
07/2007
08/2007
09/2007
10/2007
11/2007
12/2007
01/2008
02/2008
03/2008
04/2008
05/2008
06/2008
07/2008
08/2008
09/2008
10/2008
11/2008
12/2008
01/2009
02/2009
03/2009
04/2009
05/2009
06/2009
07/2009
08/2009
09/2009
10/2009
11/2009
12/2009
01/2010
02/2010
03/2010
04/2010
Traffick Blog Archive ::
June 30, 2002
July 21, 2002
July 28, 2002
August 04, 2002
August 25, 2002
September 01, 2002
September 08, 2002
September 15, 2002
September 22, 2002
September 29, 2002
October 06, 2002
October 13, 2002
October 20, 2002
October 27, 2002
November 03, 2002
November 10, 2002
November 17, 2002
November 24, 2002
December 01, 2002
December 15, 2002
December 22, 2002
December 29, 2002
January 05, 2003
January 12, 2003
January 19, 2003
January 26, 2003
February 02, 2003
February 09, 2003
February 16, 2003
February 23, 2003
March 02, 2003
March 09, 2003
March 16, 2003
March 23, 2003
March 30, 2003
April 06, 2003
April 13, 2003
April 20, 2003
April 27, 2003
May 04, 2003
May 11, 2003
May 18, 2003
May 25, 2003
June 01, 2003
June 08, 2003
June 15, 2003
June 22, 2003
June 29, 2003
July 06, 2003
July 13, 2003
July 20, 2003
July 27, 2003
August 03, 2003
August 10, 2003
August 17, 2003
August 24, 2003
August 31, 2003
September 07, 2003
September 14, 2003
September 21, 2003
September 28, 2003
October 05, 2003
October 12, 2003
October 19, 2003
October 26, 2003
November 02, 2003
November 09, 2003
November 16, 2003
November 23, 2003
November 30, 2003
December 07, 2003
December 14, 2003
December 21, 2003
December 28, 2003
January 04, 2004
January 11, 2004
January 18, 2004
January 25, 2004
February 01, 2004
February 08, 2004
February 15, 2004
February 22, 2004
February 29, 2004
March 07, 2004
March 14, 2004
March 21, 2004
March 28, 2004
April 04, 2004
April 11, 2004
April 18, 2004
April 25, 2004
May 02, 2004
May 09, 2004
May 16, 2004
May 23, 2004
May 30, 2004
June 06, 2004
June 13, 2004
June 20, 2004
June 27, 2004
July 11, 2004
July 18, 2004
July 25, 2004
August 01, 2004
August 08, 2004
August 15, 2004
August 22, 2004
August 29, 2004
September 05, 2004
September 12, 2004
September 19, 2004
September 26, 2004
October 03, 2004
October 10, 2004
October 17, 2004
October 24, 2004
October 31, 2004
November 07, 2004
November 14, 2004
November 21, 2004
November 28, 2004
December 05, 2004
December 12, 2004
December 19, 2004
January 02, 2005
January 09, 2005
January 16, 2005
January 23, 2005
January 30, 2005
February 06, 2005
February 13, 2005
February 20, 2005
February 27, 2005
March 06, 2005
March 13, 2005
March 20, 2005
March 27, 2005
April 03, 2005
April 10, 2005
April 17, 2005
April 24, 2005
May 01, 2005
May 08, 2005
May 15, 2005
May 22, 2005
May 29, 2005
June 05, 2005
June 12, 2005
June 19, 2005
June 26, 2005
July 03, 2005
July 10, 2005
July 17, 2005
July 24, 2005
July 31, 2005
August 07, 2005
August 14, 2005
August 21, 2005
August 28, 2005
September 04, 2005
September 11, 2005
September 18, 2005
September 25, 2005
October 02, 2005
October 09, 2005
October 16, 2005
October 23, 2005
October 30, 2005
November 06, 2005
November 13, 2005

 


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals

 


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013 Traffick.com. All Rights Reserved