Typically, web search results don't add value to users, and since our core goal is to provide the best search results possible, we generally exclude search results from our web search index. (Not all URLs that contains things like "/results" or "/search" are search results, of course.)
> Is there any official Google statement regarding that search result on > one's own site ought to be disallowed from indexing (e.g. via > robots.txt)?
Vanessa, I'm curious because this little message sparked a couple of blog posts, and I need a little clarification. For instance, my site is a dynamic e-commerce site that uses search results to display dynamic content. After reading Matt Cutts, it seems that this is out of favor. Can you clarify a little more. Is my search result page in danger?
> Vanessa, > I'm curious because this little message sparked a couple of blog > posts, and I need a little clarification. > For instance, my site is a dynamic e-commerce site that uses search > results to display dynamic content. After reading Matt Cutts, it > seems that this is out of favor. Can you clarify a little more. Is > my search result page in danger?
Thank you for your input. My problem with this scenario is that in a typical e-commerce application, no matter what the application, php, asp, cfm, or asp.net, a website is linking to queries against a database. And this is not just e-commerce, but any dynamic site. You create a link to a category of content, which is really a link to a search result. In other words, ALL LINKS are search results, filtered to a particular category.
Now, maybe what Vanessa and Matt and others are referring to are sites using their own user generated search results to create links to user search result pages. In all honesty, I don't see this as harmful, in the sense that a website is creating relevant content to a search term, both on the site and as a indexable search result. What about tagging? Let's say I create a way for my customers to "tag" products for terms they think are relevant. Now, in technical terms, I'm creating a "search result" for tags that my customers have generated, and thus the user is actually creating new content that is relevant to a particular term. There is no way I can make a product detail page or a category search result page relevant to every single word that someone "might" use to define that set of results, but my customers can, and I don't understand why it's wrong to serve up those "tag" results to any of the SE's as relative content for a particular term.
Here's my for instance.
Let's say I'm a online shoe sales site, and I have a bunch of shoes that fall into a set or categories and grouping, i.e., Dress Shoes, Dining, Tennis Shoes, Sneakers, etc. I can't optimize for every single term that someone might use to search for specific products or product categories, otherwise I'd be keyword stuffing my pages, and they'd look dumb as well. But now, let's say I have a Black leather shoe with brass buttons and leather engraving, and my customer tags this shoe as "cool rock and roll shoes," something that I can't optimize for or something I didn't think to optimize for. Now, let's say I have a few shoes that users would tag as "cool rock and roll shoes" and I can't optimize them all for the same thing, because that would be duplicating content, but I do serve up my tags as links, so that my site can address people searching for "cool rock and roll shoes." Now I have a page that users think is relevant to a search term that might not be very competitive, but is used maybe 1000 times a month on Google. What am I doing wrong by doing that? What if with that search result I get a first page SERP? I'm not trying to spam, my content, I think, is bonafide, and the Google algo thinks that the page I'm serving up is relevant.
Doesn't the algo make this decision?
Now back to my original query. Now in the Google Webmaster Guidelines, Vanessa has added "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from search engines." How does my dynamic content NOT give value to customers, or the tagged pages that customers have created, NOT give value.
If I'm wrong in my assumptions, and Google is fine with my navigational search results, I apologize, but the statement in the guidelines is way too broad, I think. If you search for "22" couch cushion" and Google SERP's come up with a page from a site that is a SEARCH for the same thing, I'm treated to a page full of 22" couch cushions, just what I was looking for.
Lets concentrate on the binding statement in the webmaster guidelines: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769 "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from search engines" (robots meta tags and nofollow rel values possibly in combination with robots.txt will do the trick too, telling the crawler not to index particular content is important)
I don't read this as "prevent Googlebot from crawling dynamic content when this content contains links".
Lets define "search results pages" as a result set matching a query submitted in a search box. Using GET instead of POST makes the result sets linkable spider fodder, and there are many other ways to feed crawlers with SERPs.
The new rule covers scrapers, MFA sites, every META SE out there and site internal search facilities to some extent as well, but in no way directories, tagged links lists or editorial use of a search script to produce a list of links to related products or a list of products with similar properties or usages.
Well, there's a fine and vague defined borderline ("don't add much value for users"), so lets just say that a script looping a complete shop iterating all possible keyword combos to output these as GET links to the search facility on a ton of links pages created for SE crawlers not users would be abuse.
In between these extremes I'd say that common sense is a good enough criteria to judge whether editorial or navigational links to predefined search results make sense for users or not. It's Google's job to drill their algos, I just hope that'll work with as less collateral damage as possible.
Definining "auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users" is done here: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35291&q... "Another illicit practice is to place 'doorway' pages loaded with keywords on the client's site somewhere." My abuse example above falls under this definition. http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769&q... "Avoid 'doorway' pages created just for search engines." http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=40349&q... "Keep in mind that our algorithms can distinguish natural links from unnatural links ... Only natural links are useful for the indexing and ranking of your site." I do know that Google can spot artificial internal linkage, for example an unnatural high number of links to thin product pages or systematic link patterns involving machine generated hallways, doorways and similar attempts.
My take is that "don't add much value for users coming from search engines" is the core message. Again that's a question of judging intent, not a positive or negative statement with regard to particular techniques. The whole Wikipedia is autogenerated, and fully indexed. Google doesn't care how (in the sense of which technology gets used) contents get presented to the searcher, Google cares about valuable content presentations without machine generated noise (e.g. doorways and unnecessary duplication) generated for machines (crawlers). There's no need to explain the technical aspects more clearly, probably that's impossible at all. Technology is not the issue. One could produce doorway spam with vi.
I'd say that your list of rock 'n roll shoes stays "legit". Delicious/ digg/... and other sites won't suffer less or more from the new policy (which is not that new BTW) than your user tagged shoes. They offer their auto generated links lists and feeds ordered by tags and users, you offer your autogenerated links lists ordered by rock 'n roll and black leather. A searcher seeking rock 'n roll shoes should find your list of shoes with thumbs, price, description and a link to the product page on Google's SERPs. As long as you don't overload your site with static GET links to search scripts outputting shoes ordered by SKUs alphabetical or by reversed size which both make no sense for users, you're safe. If you think particular SERPs could be seen as noise, just insert a "noindex,follow" robots meta tag. Approving stored SERPs for these purposes should be a suitable procedure.
> Thank you for your input. My problem with this scenario is that in a > typical e-commerce application, no matter what the application, php, > asp, cfm, or asp.net, a website is linking to queries against a > database. And this is not just e-commerce, but any dynamic site. You > create a link to a category of content, which is really a link to a > search result. In other words, ALL LINKS are search results, filtered > to a particular category.
> Now, maybe what Vanessa and Matt and others are referring to are sites > using their own user generated search results to create links to user > search result pages. In all honesty, I don't see this as harmful, in > the sense that a website is creating relevant content to a search > term, both on the site and as a indexable search result. What about > tagging? Let's say I create a way for my customers to "tag" products > for terms they think are relevant. Now, in technical terms, I'm > creating a "search result" for tags that my customers have generated, > and thus the user is actually creating new content that is relevant to > a particular term. There is no way I can make a product detail page > or a category search result page relevant to every single word that > someone "might" use to define that set of results, but my customers > can, and I don't understand why it's wrong to serve up those "tag" > results to any of the SE's as relative content for a particular term.
> Here's my for instance.
> Let's say I'm a online shoe sales site, and I have a bunch of shoes > that fall into a set or categories and grouping, i.e., Dress Shoes, > Dining, Tennis Shoes, Sneakers, etc. I can't optimize for every > single term that someone might use to search for specific products or > product categories, otherwise I'd be keyword stuffing my pages, and > they'd look dumb as well. But now, let's say I have a Black leather > shoe with brass buttons and leather engraving, and my customer tags > this shoe as "cool rock and roll shoes," something that I can't > optimize for or something I didn't think to optimize for. Now, let's > say I have a few shoes that users would tag as "cool rock and roll > shoes" and I can't optimize them all for the same thing, because that > would be duplicating content, but I do serve up my tags as links, so > that my site can address people searching for "cool rock and roll > shoes." Now I have a page that users think is relevant to a search > term that might not be very competitive, but is used maybe 1000 times > a month on Google. What am I doing wrong by doing that? What if > with that search result I get a first page SERP? I'm not trying to > spam, my content, I think, is bonafide, and the Google algo thinks > that the page I'm serving up is relevant.
> Doesn't the algo make this decision?
> Now back to my original query. Now in the Google Webmaster > Guidelines, Vanessa has added "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of > search results pages or other auto-generated pages that don't add much > value for users coming from search engines." How does my dynamic > content NOT give value to customers, or the tagged pages that > customers have created, NOT give value.
> If I'm wrong in my assumptions, and Google is fine with my > navigational search results, I apologize, but the statement in the > guidelines is way too broad, I think. If you search for "22" couch > cushion" and Google SERP's come up with a page from a site that is a > SEARCH for the same thing, I'm treated to a page full of 22" couch > cushions, just what I was looking for.
Here's an example of said autogenerated search results, except that each search result resulted in a new subdomain, which spawned another subdomain, etc.
> Lets concentrate on the binding statement in the webmaster guidelines:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769 > "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other > auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from > search engines" > (robots meta tags and nofollow rel values possibly in combination with > robots.txt will do the trick too, telling the crawler not to index > particular content is important)
> I don't read this as "prevent Googlebot from crawling dynamic content > when this content contains links".
> Lets define "search results pages" as a result set matching a query > submitted in a search box. Using GET instead of POST makes the result > sets linkable spider fodder, and there are many other ways to feed > crawlers with SERPs.
> The new rule covers scrapers, MFA sites, every META SE out there and > site internal search facilities to some extent as well, but in no way > directories, tagged links lists or editorial use of a search script to > produce a list of links to related products or a list of products with > similar properties or usages.
> Well, there's a fine and vague defined borderline ("don't add much > value for users"), so lets just say that a script looping a complete > shop iterating all possible keyword combos to output these as GET > links to the search facility on a ton of links pages created for SE > crawlers not users would be abuse.
> In between these extremes I'd say that common sense is a good enough > criteria to judge whether editorial or navigational links to > predefined search results make sense for users or not. It's Google's > job to drill their algos, I just hope that'll work with as less > collateral damage as possible.
> Definining "auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users" > is done here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35291&q... > "Another illicit practice is to place 'doorway' pages loaded with > keywords on the client's site somewhere." My abuse example above falls > under this definition.http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769&q... > "Avoid 'doorway' pages created just for search engines."http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=40349&q... > "Keep in mind that our algorithms can distinguish natural links from > unnatural links ... Only natural links are useful for the indexing and > ranking of your site." I do know that Google can spot artificial > internal linkage, for example an unnatural high number of links to > thin product pages or systematic link patterns involving machine > generated hallways, doorways and similar attempts.
> My take is that "don't add much value for users coming from search > engines" is the core message. Again that's a question of judging > intent, not a positive or negative statement with regard to particular > techniques. The whole Wikipedia is autogenerated, and fully indexed. > Google doesn't care how (in the sense of which technology gets used) > contents get presented to the searcher, Google cares about valuable > content presentations without machine generated noise (e.g. doorways > and unnecessary duplication) generated for machines (crawlers). > There's no need to explain the technical aspects more clearly, > probably that's impossible at all. Technology is not the issue. One > could produce doorway spam with vi.
> I'd say that your list of rock 'n roll shoes stays "legit". Delicious/ > digg/... and other sites won't suffer less or more from the new policy > (which is not that new BTW) than your user tagged shoes. They offer > their auto generated links lists and feeds ordered by tags and users, > you offer your autogenerated links lists ordered by rock 'n roll and > black leather. A searcher seeking rock 'n roll shoes should find your > list of shoes with thumbs, price, description and a link to the > product page on Google's SERPs. As long as you don't overload your > site with static GET links to search scripts outputting shoes ordered > by SKUs alphabetical or by reversed size which both make no sense for > users, you're safe. If you think particular SERPs could be seen as > noise, just insert a "noindex,follow" robots meta tag. Approving > stored SERPs for these purposes should be a suitable procedure.
> Sebastian
> On Mar 13, 2:33 pm, rumblepup wrote:
> > Sebastian
> > Thank you for your input. My problem with this scenario is that in a > > typical e-commerce application, no matter what the application, php, > > asp, cfm, or asp.net, a website is linking to queries against a > > database. And this is not just e-commerce, but any dynamic site. You > > create a link to a category of content, which is really a link to a > > search result. In other words, ALL LINKS are search results, filtered > > to a particular category.
> > Now, maybe what Vanessa and Matt and others are referring to are sites > > using their own user generated search results to create links to user > > search result pages. In all honesty, I don't see this as harmful, in > > the sense that a website is creating relevant content to a search > > term, both on the site and as a indexable search result. What about > > tagging? Let's say I create a way for my customers to "tag" products > > for terms they think are relevant. Now, in technical terms, I'm > > creating a "search result" for tags that my customers have generated, > > and thus the user is actually creating new content that is relevant to > > a particular term. There is no way I can make a product detail page > > or a category search result page relevant to every single word that > > someone "might" use to define that set of results, but my customers > > can, and I don't understand why it's wrong to serve up those "tag" > > results to any of the SE's as relative content for a particular term.
> > Here's my for instance.
> > Let's say I'm a online shoe sales site, and I have a bunch of shoes > > that fall into a set or categories and grouping, i.e., Dress Shoes, > > Dining, Tennis Shoes, Sneakers, etc. I can't optimize for every > > single term that someone might use to search for specific products or > > product categories, otherwise I'd be keyword stuffing my pages, and > > they'd look dumb as well. But now, let's say I have a Black leather > > shoe with brass buttons and leather engraving, and my customer tags > > this shoe as "cool rock and roll shoes," something that I can't > > optimize for or something I didn't think to optimize for. Now, let's > > say I have a few shoes that users would tag as "cool rock and roll > > shoes" and I can't optimize them all for the same thing, because that > > would be duplicating content, but I do serve up my tags as links, so > > that my site can address people searching for "cool rock and roll > > shoes." Now I have a page that users think is relevant to a search > > term that might not be very competitive, but is used maybe 1000 times > > a month on Google. What am I doing wrong by doing that? What if > > with that search result I get a first page SERP? I'm not trying to > > spam, my content, I think, is bonafide, and the Google algo thinks > > that the page I'm serving up is relevant.
> > Doesn't the algo make this decision?
> > Now back to my original query. Now in the Google Webmaster > > Guidelines, Vanessa has added "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of > > search results pages or other auto-generated pages that don't add much > > value for users coming from search engines." How does my dynamic > > content NOT give value to customers, or the tagged pages that > > customers have created, NOT give value.
> > If I'm wrong in my assumptions, and Google is fine with my > > navigational search results, I apologize, but the statement in the > > guidelines is way too broad, I think. If you search for "22" couch > > cushion" and Google SERP's come up with a page from a site that is a > > SEARCH for the same thing, I'm treated to a page full of 22" couch > > cushions, just what I was looking for.
> Here's an example of said autogenerated search results, except that > each search result resulted in a new subdomain, which spawned another > subdomain, etc.
> The net effect was an infinitely large website built with one page on > each subdomain.
> I'd imagine that's what they are shooting after a site that's in > effect a crawler trap generating an infinite amount of pages based on > crawling.
> On Mar 13, 11:53 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Ahhh ... I see a great debate coming :)
> > Lets concentrate on the binding statement in the webmaster guidelines:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769 > > "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other > > auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from > > search engines" > > (robots meta tags and nofollow rel values possibly in combination with > > robots.txt will do the trick too, telling the crawler not to index > > particular content is important)
> > I don't read this as "prevent Googlebot from crawling dynamic content > > when this content contains links".
> > Lets define "search results pages" as a result set matching a query > > submitted in a search box. Using GET instead of POST makes the result > > sets linkable spider fodder, and there are many other ways to feed > > crawlers with SERPs.
> > The new rule covers scrapers, MFA sites, every META SE out there and > > site internal search facilities to some extent as well, but in no way > > directories, tagged links lists or editorial use of a search script to > > produce a list of links to related products or a list of products with > > similar properties or usages.
> > Well, there's a fine and vague defined borderline ("don't add much > > value for users"), so lets just say that a script looping a complete > > shop iterating all possible keyword combos to output these as GET > > links to the search facility on a ton of links pages created for SE > > crawlers not users would be abuse.
> > In between these extremes I'd say that common sense is a good enough > > criteria to judge whether editorial or navigational links to > > predefined search results make sense for users or not. It's Google's > > job to drill their algos, I just hope that'll work with as less > > collateral damage as possible.
> > Definining "auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users" > > is done here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35291&q... > > "Another illicit practice is to place 'doorway' pages loaded with > > keywords on the client's site somewhere." My abuse example above falls > > under this definition.http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769&q... > > "Avoid 'doorway' pages created just for search engines."http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=40349&q... > > "Keep in mind that our algorithms can distinguish natural links from > > unnatural links ... Only natural links are useful for the indexing and > > ranking of your site." I do know that Google can spot artificial > > internal linkage, for example an unnatural high number of links to > > thin product pages or systematic link patterns involving machine > > generated hallways, doorways and similar attempts.
> > My take is that "don't add much value for users coming from search > > engines" is the core message. Again that's a question of judging > > intent, not a positive or negative statement with regard to particular > > techniques. The whole Wikipedia is autogenerated, and fully indexed. > > Google doesn't care how (in the sense of which technology gets used) > > contents get presented to the searcher, Google cares about valuable > > content presentations without machine generated noise (e.g. doorways > > and unnecessary duplication) generated for machines (crawlers). > > There's no need to explain the technical aspects more clearly, > > probably that's impossible at all. Technology is not the issue. One > > could produce doorway spam with vi.
> > I'd say that your list of rock 'n roll shoes stays "legit". Delicious/ > > digg/... and other sites won't suffer less or more from the new policy > > (which is not that new BTW) than your user tagged shoes. They offer > > their auto generated links lists and feeds ordered by tags and users, > > you offer your autogenerated links lists ordered by rock 'n roll and > > black leather. A searcher seeking rock 'n roll shoes should find your > > list of shoes with thumbs, price, description and a link to the > > product page on Google's SERPs. As long as you don't overload your > > site with static GET links to search scripts outputting shoes ordered > > by SKUs alphabetical or by reversed size which both make no sense for > > users, you're safe. If you think particular SERPs could be seen as > > noise, just insert a "noindex,follow" robots meta tag. Approving > > stored SERPs for these purposes should be a suitable procedure.
> > Sebastian
> > On Mar 13, 2:33 pm, rumblepup wrote:
> > > Sebastian
> > > Thank you for your input. My problem with this scenario is that in a > > > typical e-commerce application, no matter what the application, php, > > > asp, cfm, or asp.net, a website is linking to queries against a > > > database. And this is not just e-commerce, but any dynamic site. You > > > create a link to a category of content, which is really a link to a > > > search result. In other words, ALL LINKS are search results, filtered > > > to a particular category.
> > > Now, maybe what Vanessa and Matt and others are referring to are sites > > > using their own user generated search results to create links to user > > > search result pages. In all honesty, I don't see this as harmful, in > > > the sense that a website is creating relevant content to a search > > > term, both on the site and as a indexable search result. What about > > > tagging? Let's say I create a way for my customers to "tag" products > > > for terms they think are relevant. Now, in technical terms, I'm > > > creating a "search result" for tags that my customers have generated, > > > and thus the user is actually creating new content that is relevant to > > > a particular term. There is no way I can make a product detail page > > > or a category search result page relevant to every single word that > > > someone "might" use to define that set of results, but my customers > > > can, and I don't understand why it's wrong to serve up those "tag" > > > results to any of the SE's as relative content for a particular term.
> > > Here's my for instance.
> > > Let's say I'm a online shoe sales site, and I have a bunch of shoes > > > that fall into a set or categories and grouping, i.e., Dress Shoes, > > > Dining, Tennis Shoes, Sneakers, etc. I can't optimize for every > > > single term that someone might use to search for specific products or > > > product categories, otherwise I'd be keyword stuffing my pages, and > > > they'd look dumb as well. But now, let's say I have a Black leather > > > shoe with brass buttons and leather engraving, and my customer tags > > > this shoe as "cool rock and roll shoes," something that I can't > > > optimize for or something I didn't think to optimize for. Now, let's > > > say I have a few shoes that users would tag as "cool rock and roll > > > shoes" and I can't optimize them all for the same thing, because that > > > would be duplicating content, but I do serve up my tags as links, so > > > that my site can address people searching for "cool rock and roll > > > shoes." Now I have a page that users think is relevant to a search > > > term that might not be very competitive, but is used maybe 1000 times > > > a month on Google. What am I doing wrong by doing that? What if > > > with that search result I get a first page SERP? I'm not trying to > > > spam, my content, I think, is bonafide, and the Google algo thinks > > > that the page I'm serving up is relevant.
> > > Doesn't the algo make this decision?
> > > Now back to my original query. Now in the Google Webmaster > > > Guidelines, Vanessa has added "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of > > > search results pages or other auto-generated pages that don't add much > > > value for users coming from search engines." How does my dynamic > > > content NOT give value to customers, or the tagged pages that > > > customers have created, NOT give value.
> > > If I'm wrong in my assumptions, and Google is fine with my > > > navigational search results, I apologize, but the statement in the > > > guidelines is way too broad, I think. If you search for "22" couch > > > cushion" and Google SERP's come up with a page from a site that is a > > > SEARCH for the same thing, I'm treated to a page full of 22" couch > > > cushions, just what I was looking for.
"I just hope that'll work with as less collateral damage as possible."
That is my hope exactly.
In this particular case, I agree with your assessment, and not arguing the case. Just got scared out of my mind, because we, and other sites, depend on this so much.
However, let me make another case here for s's and g's.
For some of these SERP's that have "search result" pages listed, I think those pages ARE relevant and helpful. I mean, for my theoretical shoes site, let's say I'm tracking the most popular terms a particular product comes under, and create a link to those search results. Now, I have a page that is a search result, but still highly relevant, because it's all about items that directly relate to the term.
For instance, searching for "fender precision bass pickguard" gives me this result
(upon further looking, this might be a page that's in danger, because fender uses search queries as navigation)
And, it's exactly what I was looking for. How is that not relevant, or helpful? I liked that result. In fact, if I had gone to the website and searched for that term, I would have gotten the same results. Why not allow it as a Google search result?
I completely agree that FLOODING the SERP's with thin result sets might not be the best thing in the world, but I don't see the harm in creating a link to a popular on site search term, that gives a result set directly related to the term, that would be a great resource for the searcher.
"Here's an example of said autogenerated search results, except that each search result resulted in a new subdomain, which spawned another subdomain, etc. "
Thanks for the heads up, I'm sure Google's Web spam team will take care of this nasty stuff asap.
As for your other example, I guess aggregating atomized information in the right context can make sense on the SERPs, well it indeed makes sense. Sure Google can gather the information itself, but searchers looking for the aggregated view don't get the expected result with simple queries. Probably that's a case we'll discuss when Google has invented more technologies to scan the searchers brain for intents of search queries. Where's the point for Google to disallow such "helpers" whilst Google Web search is not yet able to fulfill the searchers expectation? Nothing's set in stone ;)
Algo changes *are* scary from a site owner's perspective, but somewhat predictable. Often I tell clients redesign this and revamp that, get rid of the shortcuts coz that's not going to work forever ... guess what happens? It works today and nailed on particular issues I refuse to bode how long it can slip through the filters. That's human nature.
> "I just hope that'll work with as less collateral damage as possible."
> That is my hope exactly.
> In this particular case, I agree with your assessment, and not arguing > the case. Just got scared out of my mind, because we, and other > sites, depend on this so much.
> However, let me make another case here for s's and g's.
> For some of these SERP's that have "search result" pages listed, I > think those pages ARE relevant and helpful. I mean, for my > theoretical shoes site, let's say I'm tracking the most popular terms > a particular product comes under, and create a link to those search > results. Now, I have a page that is a search result, but still highly > relevant, because it's all about items that directly relate to the > term.
> For instance, searching for "fender precision bass pickguard" gives me > this result
> which is a SEARCH RESULT from the Fender website.
> (upon further looking, this might be a page that's in danger, because > fender uses search queries as navigation)
> And, it's exactly what I was looking for. How is that not relevant, > or helpful? I liked that result. In fact, if I had gone to the > website and searched for that term, I would have gotten the same > results. Why not allow it as a Google search result?
> I completely agree that FLOODING the SERP's with thin result sets > might not be the best thing in the world, but I don't see the harm in > creating a link to a popular on site search term, that gives a result > set directly related to the term, that would be a great resource for > the searcher.
> "Here's an example of said autogenerated search results, except that > each search result resulted in a new subdomain, which spawned another > subdomain, etc. "
"As for your other example, I guess aggregating atomized information in the right context can make sense on the SERPs, well it indeed makes sense. "
I think so too. And I think the technological giant that is Google might come up with a neat filter for the abusers, but I see value in an aggregated SERP site search...thing (I just don't know what to call it anymore), because it directly responds to a users search request.
Let's go back to my example. Say a web searcher does a search on Google for "cool rock and roll shoes" which is an opinion, not a fact. It's hard to categorize products or content for that, but I'm sure there are sites that might (did a search on it for c's a g's, nothing even like my response) and my user's "tagged" an item that way, but for whatever reason, say for programming acumen, I can't supply a list of tagged results, but I can supply a searchresults.aspx? tags=cool+rock+and+roll+shoes, which I'd like to, because here is all my shoes that USER's think are cool rock and roll shoes. It seams this is in danger, when all I'm trying to do is give you a page all about rock and roll shoes, i.e., relative content.
Very interested on how this plays out. Thanks for the discussion.
Think of applying properties and opinions to bare facts, what is considered "adding value for users coming from SERPs". You're still safe IMO. I'd add "rock 'n roll approved" to the product descriptions though and avoid terms like "cool" and "best of breed" in the query string of preserved SERPs ;) Apply those attributes via anchor text, preferably found in external links. Sebastian
> "As for your other example, I guess aggregating atomized information > in > the right context can make sense on the SERPs, well it indeed makes > sense. "
> I think so too. And I think the technological giant that is Google > might come up with a neat filter for the abusers, but I see value in > an aggregated SERP site search...thing (I just don't know what to call > it anymore), because it directly responds to a users search request.
> Let's go back to my example. Say a web searcher does a search on > Google for "cool rock and roll shoes" which is an opinion, not a > fact. It's hard to categorize products or content for that, but I'm > sure there are sites that might (did a search on it for c's a g's, > nothing even like my response) and my user's "tagged" an item that > way, but for whatever reason, say for programming acumen, I can't > supply a list of tagged results, but I can supply a searchresults.aspx? > tags=cool+rock+and+roll+shoes, which I'd like to, because here is all > my shoes that USER's think are cool rock and roll shoes. It seams > this is in danger, when all I'm trying to do is give you a page all > about rock and roll shoes, i.e., relative content.
> Very interested on how this plays out. Thanks for the discussion.
