Traffick: Search Engine Enlightenment

Those well versed in the search game can easily chronicle how the act of social linking gave way to the link economy. When Google gave quality links value, the game was all about how to get them. Can't get favorable external mentions? Swap links. Google discounting reciprocal linking? Join up in a large, elaborate interlinking scheme that passes PageRank to members. Oh, but you knew Google would get wise to that too, didn't you? And that they would introduce Other Ranking Factors and spam tests to try to get the real good stuff to bubble back up to the top again?

Now, word's out that Yelp management won't take such schemes lying down when it comes to local business owners banding together to write positive reviews in order to boost each others' reputations and rankings in category listings. The business owners protest; Yelp sticks to its guns. Is it Orwellian? Consumer friendly? Or should anyone get their shorts in a knot about a few glowing reviews of the local pull-taffy-and-bubble-tea emporium? I mean, who doesn't like taffy?

Well, maybe it's a bit of both. Google's practices and philosophy are very similar. To paraphrase: "We reserve the right to torch your rankings if we suspect any shenanigans. Sorry."

It all boils down to the fact that neither Google nor Yelp ratings are literally "correct." Both are open to interpretation and game-playing. However, in a more comprehensive sense, businesses can develop strong reputations by being visible on these properties, and they can do so without cheating. For now, the publishers' attempt to stem cheating will be tinged with arbitrariness. Some howls of protest might be legit. Longer term, these sites will allow for deeper probing into claims: peers will be able to find peers and get a better sense of what's real.

Make no mistake about it, though: relevancy rankings, and business ratings and reviews, are serious business. Consumers depend on them. Businesses with strong ratings often deserve them. It would be a huge shame if the Googles and Yelps of the world were forced to give into scaremongering about their imperfect technology; perhaps left to plaster For Entertainment Value Only across their pages, like some cheap carnival psychic.

In case you missed it: National Taffy Day

Labels: local search, relevance, reviews, search engine relevancy

Posted by Andrew Goodman
| | Permalink

Monday, May 14, 2007

Picked up that little hack from TheGrokDotCom, to show Google SERP's with no ads.

It can't be news to Google that the ads have to be more relevant to some users than the adjacent organic results, at least some of the time, or Google's main cash cow is kaput.

Luckily for them, they've been thinking about it a long time.

Would I rather see something like:

or...

At the very least, it's not a slam dunk either way.

You get the feeling Google has thought a fair bit about the relative attractiveness of the organic and paid listings on commercially-oriented queries.

Users, not me, not Google, have to agree, or they'd be out of business. But Google can do plenty to gently tip the balance towards the ads, to ensure that Jakob Nielsen's "box blindness" scenario (now four years old!) doesn't sink the company. Part of that is how do you regulate and display the ads. But surely another side of it has to do with assessing the attractiveness of how the organic SERP's are displayed: placements, usefulness of text snippets, and yep, even what counts as "relevancy." In the most generous interpretation, Google has it neatly bifurcated so more commercially-oriented searchers get what they need, while informational searchers also get theirs.

Labels: search engine advertising, search engine relevancy, usability

Posted by Andrew Goodman
| | Permalink

Friday, April 13, 2007

Teoma and even Direct Hit before that were always sentimental favorites in the race for relevancy. Good to hear they're revamping both technologies for inclusion in a new algorithm code-named Edison.

It's always been the way to build a better search engine company. Build a better search engine.

Labels: ask.com, direct hit, edison, search engine relevancy

Posted by Andrew Goodman
| | Permalink