"Far from being able to steal market-share from Google, the reality will be that it will be only if Google fails to produce good search results that another firm will even have a ghost of a chance of succeeding."
I think that is the reality! Submitting my website to google, seeing how the process works and how arbitrary Google's 'secret algorithm' is and how terrible the search results are, I am now going to stop using Google for my searches. Furthermore I'm going to tell as many of my aquaintences as possible how completely crud it is. I have been shocked to find out that Google is just another example of how free market capitalism is all about self-promotion, hype and branding rather than good quality services. This has been a very disappointing experience. And who knows, I might even stop the Googlebot indexing my websites just for the hell of it; certainly, it wouldn't make any damn difference to the idiotic search results my potential users are getting returned!
> "Far from being able to steal market-share from Google, the reality > will be that it will be only if Google fails to produce good search > results that another firm will even have a ghost of a chance of > succeeding."
> I think that is the reality! Submitting my website to google, seeing > how the process works and how arbitrary Google's 'secret algorithm' is > and how terrible the search results are, I am now going to stop using > Google for my searches. Furthermore I'm going to tell as many of my > aquaintences as possible how completely crud it is. I have been > shocked to find out that Google is just another example of how free > market capitalism is all about self-promotion, hype and branding > rather than good quality services. This has been a very disappointing > experience. And who knows, I might even stop the Googlebot indexing my > websites just for the hell of it; certainly, it wouldn't make any damn > difference to the idiotic search results my potential users are > getting returned!
Funny that ... if Google so bad, then how come its marketshare is increasing at the expense of other search engines?
Messages in newsgroups and forums, just like your one have been made for years, ever since Google started ,... and gues what - Google keeps on getting bigger!!!
> Funny that ... if Google so bad, then how come its marketshare is > increasing at the expense of other search engines?
I thought I just explained that? Why do people buy 200$ sneakers, when 70$ sneakers are just as good quality? Beause they've got some stupid trademark logo on the side which has been marketed to be 'cool', 'fashionable', 'the best', 'popular', etc. and endorsed by famous people who know nothing about sneakers, but know everything about receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for a day's 'work'. Does that mean the sneakers are better? No.
For the last three years I've used Google for my searches and just accepted that the results I was getting were the best, simply because I've been told that Google is the best. Now I realise it wasn't happy users telling me this, it was through marketing, advertising and self- promotion.
So I submit my site (which is a school website), and once indexed, start to play around with some very specific search strings which should return the school. The results were very surprising, and illustrate to me how bad Google is. Other search engines consistently get it right, not only returning good, sensible results, but also paying attention to meta tags and laying out the entry nicely and clearly.
Google doesn't display the meta title, it displays the actual page title. Um, no I want the meta title; that's what the meta tag is for! The page title is for HUMANS. The other search engines use the meta tag ok! And my 'description' meta tag? Also ignored by Google, but printed by the others. Instead, all I get is a 'snippet' which seems to be taken from random parts of the page, for instance, nav menu text or part of the footer. The best I can hope for is the first sentence of the content. Does that mean I have to make my first sentence a description of the page?? Come on!
And check this out. Before my current site, the last IT tech had a some crappy wysiwyg site up hosted by a telephone company. Months ago, as I couldn't delete the account, I deleted the content and the meta tags. It has since been indexed again, but is STILL returned in the search results and sometimes appears BEFORE the current website even though there is not bloody content on it! The other search engines dropped this site straight away. So for Google users I've had to go back in and add a hyperlink to the new site. Think about that: a site with no content or meta tags (or proper domain) being returned higher in the search results for my school name!! This alone tells me that Google's indexing and algorithms completely suck!
Apart from that, in Google it is far easier for businesses to be listed before you in the results compared to the other search engines. Google either just assumes that you are on the Net to buy something, or gives ranking preference to sites that sell stuff.
Thanks for the offer of help, but I really don't need it. I know what I'm doing, and it works well in the other search engines. There are so many posts in this group where the web designers are saying 'I don't know where I've gone wrong'. I'd put this to them: if your site is being returned in the other search engines ok, what makes you think that you're doing something wrong? Have Google brainwashed us so well that we can't see that they are not as good as they promote themselves to be? There's so many posts on here where web designers are being told to 'jump through hoops' to get their sites returned well. But none of that is necessary with the other search engines, so it must make you wonder...
> Thanks for the offer of help, but I really don't need it. I know what > I'm doing
Its pretty obvious from your post you don't
> So I submit my site
Why did you submit it? - its never necessary. I have not submitted a new site for years and they all rank well.
> Google doesn't display the meta title, it displays the actual page > title.
Yes it does.
> The page title is for HUMANS.
Google are providing results for humans!!! duh?
>all I get is a 'snippet' which seems > to be taken from random parts of the page, \
Yes it does and it became the biggest search engine with a growing market share by doing just that!
/....need I go on some more?
Please explain why Google should do every thing the same as other search engines? They are a different company to other search engines. They use a different ranking algorithm to other search engines. Google choose to do things they way the do, because they find it provides the best results for the user, The user has voted with their feet and Google is taking market share from other search engines.
Wiki founder Jimmy Wales talks about creating the concept of an open source search engine - why do we need two Dmoz's!. The ideology on paper has good intent however like communism in reality it's a flawed concept due to the ease of a few to corrupt the whole system.
Jimmy Wales also said 'Wikipedia should not be used by college students to conduct serious research, and if students continue to believe in the objectivity of Wikipedia, they only have themselves to blame.' At last a final admission that some Wiki editors have for too long distorted and warped knowledge for their own commercial benefit. It has recently tried to make amends by using the nofollow attribute on all its links - I wonder if they will do the same for the new Dmoz clone.
Antifreeze said .. 'Apart from that, in Google it is far easier for businesses to be listed before you in the results compared to the other search engines. Google either just assumes that you are on the Net to buy something, or gives ranking preference to sites that sell stuff.'
I think if you research the subject deeper you will find its the complete opposite. In any event why don't you use Google Scholar.
> Wiki founder Jimmy Wales talks about creating the concept of an open > source search engine - why do we need two Dmoz's!. The ideology on > paper has good intent however like communism in reality it's a flawed > concept due to the ease of a few to corrupt the whole system.
> Jimmy Wales also said 'Wikipedia should not be used by college > students to conduct serious research, and if students continue to > believe in the objectivity of Wikipedia, they only have themselves to > blame.' > At last a final admission that some Wiki editors have for too long > distorted and warped knowledge for their own commercial benefit. It > has recently tried to make amends by using the nofollow attribute on > all its links - I wonder if they will do the same for the new Dmoz > clone.
> Antifreeze said .. 'Apart from that, in Google it is far easier for > businesses to be listed before you in the results compared to the > other search engines. Google either just assumes that you are on the > Net to buy something, or gives ranking preference to sites that sell > stuff.'
> I think if you research the subject deeper you will find its the > complete opposite. In any event why don't you use Google Scholar.
Dear Antifreeze, my website, http://congregational.faithweb.com is also well indexed by Yahoo and MSN, but Google has not indexed the home page and has everything in supplemental except for the April '05 newsletter. BUT I registered (free) with Google local and that has saved my bacon. I really think that when someone searches the web for Congregational Church of Austin Texas, we should come up in the regular search results but who am I to judge?
> At the end of every complaint is a disappointed webmaster, thanks for > sharing can I get your URL? :)
> On Feb 7, 6:44 am, silverstall wrote:
> > Wiki founder Jimmy Wales talks about creating the concept of an open > > source search engine - why do we need two Dmoz's!. The ideology on > > paper has good intent however like communism in reality it's a flawed > > concept due to the ease of a few to corrupt the whole system.
> > Jimmy Wales also said 'Wikipedia should not be used by college > > students to conduct serious research, and if students continue to > > believe in the objectivity of Wikipedia, they only have themselves to > > blame.' > > At last a final admission that some Wiki editors have for too long > > distorted and warped knowledge for their own commercial benefit. It > > has recently tried to make amends by using the nofollow attribute on > > all its links - I wonder if they will do the same for the new Dmoz > > clone.
> > Antifreeze said .. 'Apart from that, in Google it is far easier for > > businesses to be listed before you in the results compared to the > > other search engines. Google either just assumes that you are on the > > Net to buy something, or gives ranking preference to sites that sell > > stuff.'
> > I think if you research the subject deeper you will find its the > > complete opposite. In any event why don't you use Google Scholar.
I can't believe that I posted a huge response to the above three defendents of Google today, but which has not been published. I got the message that it had been posted sucessfully so I guess it is just another aspect of Google which doesn't work properly! Or maybe I was censored? It took me a long time to write the response, and a really cannot be bothered doing it all again, so for me the discussion is over because of that. I'm not going to waste any more of my time.
Anyway, yes Sara. I think we may represent many hundreds, or thousands (or hundreds of thousands?) of people who can input the name of our businesses into the other search engines and be listed at the top with no difficulties, but who have to play stupid games with Google, signing up for this and that, putting such and such into our website and taking certain things out so that we don't offend 'the bot', and still not even get sensible search results.
