__/ [The List Man] on Wednesday 01 February 2006 23:25 \__
> Is Google bad for pagan websites?
Are pagan Web sites bad for Google?
> We have been live on the net for nine months and have just compleated our
> first search engine assessment. Here are the results of our first
> assesement based on factual information. We decided to post this free of
> copyright so that other pagan webmasters can use it to conduct their own
> assesments on what is the best search engine for pagan or occult related
> research.
Expect pagan enthusiasts to choose paganic search engines, but not effective
search engines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Google Vs. Yahoo and MSN (The 2006 Assessment)
>
> This is a side by side comparison of how Search Engines were treating
> Esoteric Wonders as of January 23rd, 2006. Please note, that search results
> can change over time, because, search indexes are constantly changing on a
> day to day basis. We will reassess our standing on the top three rated
> search engines in January of 2007.
>
> At Yahoo: Our website appeared as the first two hits in a direct search for
> "Esoteric Wonders" which is the exact phrase of the website. Yahoo reported
> 392,000 hits on pages containing the keyword. Four hits in the first Five
> were related to my topic.
>
> At MSN: Our website appeared as the first hit which is normal for doing a
> direct search for "Esoteric Wonders." MSN reported 102,165 hits on pages
> containing the phrase "Esoteric Wonders." Five hits of the first Five were
> related to my topic. Though the search engine had the least amount of Hits,
> it provided the most relevant search results.
According to yourself? Hits are often an indication of relevance? Good search
engines have richer results and better level of relevance; thus they attract
traffic and not detract users from valuable information.
> At Google: We still do not appear in the top five hits for a direct search
> for "Esoteric Wonders." We were indexed in Google at the time of this
> search but appear very low in the results. Google reported 321,000 hits on
> pages containing the phrase "Esoteric Wonders," which is about 71,000 hits
> less than Yahoo. Only one of the top five hits were even remotely related
> to the subject of the Esoteric, and that was the hit for Madam Blavatsky.
> Google provided two links for Buddhism and Jewish Mysticism in the top
> five, however, they are only related to monotheist belief systems.
>
> The purpose of having a reliable search engine for our research.
>
> Our conclusion based on this search engine report is that Yahoo and MSN
> seem to treat our new website much more favorably than Google.
This depends on the site in question and the domain (not the technical term).
One site is too small a sample to infer any conclusions from.
> We have also
> noticed that other websites about the Esoteric dominated the top five hits
> on both Yahoo and MSN. On the other hand, at Google, nothing even came
> close to being related to the Esoteric, Mysticism, or the Occult except for
> only a hit on Madam Blavatsky. To this effect, we find that the indexes of
> both Yahoo and MSN provide for far better search results relating to our
> topic of research. Therefore, we now prefer to use Yahoo and MSN for all of
> our research and information gathering whenever it concerns the Occult or
> Esoteric.
My mom says she loves me, so I say she's the most insightful person in the
world. Choose what serves you better, not what serves your agenda or
flatters you. If you think that there is reciprocity, think again. Google,
MSN, and Yahoo could not care less which SE you favour. You will not get
more traffic, but maybe a falsified ego-boost from spotting your site at top
placements.
> To advance our research on the internet and in books as well, we need to
> utilize the most reliable online search engine as reasonably possible. A
> search engine and its ability to produce both relevant and reliable results
> is the centerpiece of obtaining and gathering quality information for our
> readers. We need a search engine that can produce results quickly. ...
In most (if not merely all) parts of the world, Google is probably the
quickest. Quickest to crawl and to deliver search results.
> ... We
> cannot miss out on websites that may be boxed away in Google's alleged
> Sandbox Program or otherwise suppressed. ...
In that case, begin to embrace sites that are filled with spam. Sandboxes (if
existent) may be controversial, but they are here to defend you from noise.
> ...We also need one that provides
> relevant hits in the first five hits to accelerate the research process and
> to avoid having to examine hundreds upon hundreds of search result pages to
> find something related to our research topic.
Exactly. Yahoo tends to have this terrible system of ranking results. If you
want quality results or need persuasion or further convicing, run some toy
queries that do not involve your site and a few related search strings.
> <deletia />
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We have taken screen shots of the search result pages as extra material for
> those who wish to reproduce this article. For more information please send
> me a private e-mail at listhunter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I am unable to post
> them here because this is not a binary newsgroup.
>
> <deletia />
Why screen shots? Treat text as text. This habit leads to poor SEO traps,
which also annoy users (and not only the blind).
With kind regards,
Roy
|
|
