Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Google is weird.

  • Subject: Re: Google is weird.
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:33:04 +0100
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / Manchester University
  • References: <253b7$42c12200$504427df$4451@datanet.co.uk> <06d2c1lifss0op320si37040h0ps15l500@4ax.com> <2cf20$42c1424b$504427df$14254@datanet.co.uk> <d9rjoj$1ef0$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <77b99$42c1933b$504427df$7123@datanet.co.uk>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@schestowitz.com
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
Davemon wrote:

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Davemon wrote:
>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:10:07 +0100, Davemon <nospam@nowhere.no> wrote:
>>>>>Can anyone tell me why my site (http://www.nightsoil.co.uk) is at #2 in
>>>>>google? for the search: E-commerce Prototype
>> What "made Google thought it should go there" is the coincidence in
>> combining the words "E-commerce" and "prototype".
> It's no more a coincidence than the order of the words in this sentance!
> Often software is developed through prototypes, then beta versions
> before a final release, so an "Ecommerce Prototype" would relate to a
> stage of development of an Ecommerce website.
> That site does not have
>> many words in it, so the density of these words is high and the title in
>> particular hits the key words.
> That makes sence to me, thank you.
>> What is the relevance of the phrase "E-commerce prototype" anyway? I am
>> not being sarcastic, but I try to think from the point-of-view of a
>> Google user. Will someone have particular interest in so-called
>> E-commerce prototypes? Sounds a little fluffy to me.
> I understand the point you're making, but as I said before, I'm
> interested in why google ranks my site at #2 for that phrase, I'm *not*
> trying to generate traffic though that page, so it's not relevant to me
> whether it's a 'fluffy' phrase or whether people search for it or not
> (unless Google behaves differently because of that).
>> As for your later question, Google optimise (manually) the more
>> frequently searched-for phrases. They need to divide their time and
>> labour capacity to assist most of their users and weed out spammers and
>> irrelevancies where it matters the most.
> Ok, so (unlike Big Bill) you believe that Google behaves differently for
> popular search phrases then? Thats interesting. Do you have any idea
> what kind of thresholds that google have with regards search-frequency
> and manual-optimisation?

Google keep me in the dark, very much as they do with the rest of us. From
what I have heard/read, Google pay a branch of their staff $10-20 per hour
to sit and search the Web, identifying spam sites and scrapers in the
process. There is also the "Dissatisfied with the results? Tell us" feature
at the bottom and I assume it plays a role.

There were rumours that Google's placement of sites is somehow affected
(i.e. becomes more lenient) when Google AdSense sites -- affiliates that is
-- are involved. I do not believe this is so.

In any case, I imagine that common search phrases have some results
handpicked, while others are ordered naturally, as suggested by the
algorithm. I must say that I am often impressed by the 'correctness', if
one may call it that, of the impact factor taking account in the results.
Perhaps you ought to use the 'dissatisfied' widget if the results bother


Roy S. Schestowitz

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index