__/ [www.1-script.com] on Friday 04 November 2005 15:31 \__
> Hello everyone,
>
> Looking at messages from last couple weeks, I see no sign of relief from
> the churn that the latest update (why "Jagger", anyways?) ...
WebMasterWorld. Must be some Jag fanatic or something...
> ... causes. Couple
> weeks into the update, and the message to the public is still "sit tight"
> (borrowing from Bill's line) for couple more weeks.
At first I thought you were referring to Gates and the never-ending delays of
the Vista/Longhorn release date (London).
A message that came from Cutts which said that Jagger is entering stage 3
(out of 3) rather soon. I think you are swept into that state of paranoia,
which you mustn't.
> So, would it be too far-fetched to assume that the churn in SERPS is in
> fact a permanent feature that the last update brought to the industry?
> After all, why does Google need to give all the traffic to the first 10
> links that have something to do with the keyword someone's looking for?
If these are the most desired links, why change them? Bear in mind that if
somebody proceeds to page 2 and follows a link, Google knows it. It
definitely has some tracking mechanism in place. Consequently, when such a
link gets followed, that link can be 'promoted' to page 1.
SERP's evolve according to demand. Breaking the progressively-acquired
knowledge, which has been built for year, would be damaging. Jugding by
SEPR's that I keep track of (other sites), there are irrational
prioritisations. You can sometimes tell when a link drops although it is by
far the most relevant and not just due to IBL's.
> Granted, they are considered the most relevant AT THE MOMENT, but with
> Google having 2 billion + combinations of parameters they use to devise
> relevancy, it is bound to swing, and swing violently as new sites (and
> more importantly, new pages on old sites that don?t get Sandbox?ed) are
> entered into the Grand Index.
>
> So, maybe the permanently churning SERPs are here to stay? Think of it
> from Google?s prospective: no more vicious webmasters checking on SERPs
> every hour on hundreds of keywords/phrases because you can?t know a SERP
> as it always fluctuates? I cannot imagine how much traffic this would have
> saved.
That traffic is very affordable. Don't compare the load which crawling
servers or indexing machines bear with Web pages that are delivered to
users. The 'pull' is probably far more laborious than the 'push'.
> No, seriously, if Google increases the number of sites that receive
> traffic from the first page (since few people care about going past the
> first page of SERPs), would it not be a stimulus for more sites to develop
> better pages as oppose to only 10 that got to the top often times
> employing questionable or outright spammy techniques?
That seems to make sense, yet I suspect that Google do not care how many
Webmasters they please. Their aim is to give the most relevant results using
whatever data is available. That company seems to have lost its heart when
the investors took over.
> I also think that Google has already enough power to use something
> similar to the SERP churn technique I dreamed up above to steer
> development of the Web world very much the same way a government would
> affect a county?s well-being by employing macro-economics techniques like
> setting interest rates or currency exchange rates.
Interesting thought...
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymous posters are more frequently disregarded
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:50pm up 1 day 11:48, 4 users, load average: 0.35, 0.31, 0.23
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
