Re: Google is weird.

[Davemon <nospam@nowhere.no>]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 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.

Lots of searches still come up with 'spam sites' and 'scrapers', tho'. 
Do Google advertise these jobs? Do we know they exist?

> 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.

Makes sence though, but it seems like the kind of thing someone who is 
trying to sell AdSense and Seo services would say.

> 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.

I read somewhere that a studies had been done, where top level 
librarians placed websites in order of relevance to a subject and the 
correlation to Googles results was nearly 90% or something incredibly 
high like that.

> Perhaps you ought to use the 'dissatisfied' widget if the results bother
> you.

Hmm, good point. However, Google aren't paying me to improve their 
service, so I don't think I will!

Davemon
-------