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

Re: I'm seeing split serps in Google

  • Subject: Re: I'm seeing split serps in Google
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:01:16 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <nnub12lqgallsv7q91s098vvugugmj4mtn@4ax.com> <q9oRf.6756$ng.204673@news20.bellglobal.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ canadafred ] on Tuesday 14 March 2006 00:31 \__

> "Big Bill" <kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:nnub12lqgallsv7q91s098vvugugmj4mtn@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Never saw this before, the page is split horizontally in three with a
>> variety of result in each split. Bye-bye seo for the top ten...search
>> term is genelink, (I'm trying to transfer files between PCs and I'm
>> having trouble with the installation) go see if you can see it too...

Yes, it has been the case for several months. I first noticed it when
searching for 'roy' (I was in the top 50 without any intent *grin*) and then
I thought to myself: I wonder how position holders of (formerly) positions
4-10 actually feel about this.

Something tells me that the split is sometimes used for sponsored links, not
only suggestions. I can't tell for sure. There are actually some
advertisement that are spread horizontally (Google for 'linux' for instance
and get microsoft.com).

When you first mentioned a split I though about A9.com. They use a a split
for different results type. Webcrawler  use a split to display results from
different search engines in parallel (or in tandem, jointly).

Webcrawler have made recommendations for search phrase completion as well,
since circa 2002. That's when I recommended people to move to Webcrawler,
which I had used for many years. That's a powerful feature, which for
whatever reason, other search engines did not offer at the time.

> I think it is helpful when Google suggests alternatives to what appears to
> be a spelling mistake made during a search but this type of suggestion is
> pushing it a bit.

I totally agree. The spelling corrections are definitely helpful, even if
their practical goal is correction of typos. It means that one can type in
the phrase rather sloppily and rely on yet another click, which does

> Looks like instead of asking if I am sure I was searching for "genelink" it
> decides to show "genelink usb" results anyway ( in the middle of the first
> page of results only ). This is similar to forcefeeding results for "foot
> in mouth" when a search for "foot" is requested. I have also seen these
> types of Google results before and wrote them off as a Google test. I can't
> see them providing these separated results for very long, in spite of how
> intelligent their search engine is intended to appear.

Let's just remember that Google SERP's are their own and they ought to have
no obligations to long-time 'placeholders'. Whether the suggestions are
helpful is another matter. One can maneuver such mechanisms to feed people
information they never ask for, e.g. search 'joseph', get recommendation for
'joseph stalin'.

> Being in the middle of the first SERP is a rather nice place to settle in,
> sorta' eye level on many resolutions. If they are going to start putting
> other search results there, in that prime real estate, they could be in for
> negative consequences. Natural search engines are supposed to fairly
> display results according to credibility and superiority of web sites
> dictated by a specific keyphrase search.
> This type of result is rewarding web sites that have not successfully met
> the criteria to be in the first SERP for a specific keyphrase search. How
> did those results get there? How can and how will this be exploited? What's
> next?
> Some may know that after three months of complaining, I gave in to Goggle,
> only because I am short changing web sites by being belligerent. I don't
> believe I can be ethical anymore. Google tells us how much it detests
> manipulation, yet in competitive situations I have no alternative but to
> artificially indicate importance of a web site in order to bring it into
> the first SERP. If they change the rules again and start allowing results
> that don't deserve to be on the first SERP, well, what really is the point
> anymore. What would be the point to SEO anymore?

Google's success is related to the perils associated with becoming successful
on Google (an intentionally-clumsy phrase). Google have many engineers and
employees, which in turn enables them to expand to mapping, storage,
document management (most latterly) and so forth.

Likewise, sites that have 'energy' can propagate it and conquer good
positions among search results pages. So how does one gain growth in the
first place? The issue of momentum is detrimental to industry as a whole. It
is the reason why giants like Wal-Mart continue to devour the share of
mom-and-pop stores.

My point: Google must give better chance to small sites, not presuming them
to be spam, merely for convenience (risk management). This leads to
arguments regarding prejudice in Google algorithms.

> That would be fun to explain to a client " I'm sorry we are not in the
> first SERP. We landed the 7th position, which puts us on the second page.
> We should really push for a place in positions 1 to 6 because three or four
> results are going to be inserted into the top 6 to make 10 positions. ...
> What do you mean you don't understand. No no, they have little to do with
> the primary keyphrase search. Of course they haven't a better web site than
> yours sir. Yes sir, absolutely on top of it, I am working on a solution
> right now. By the way, do you have an extra piece of rope handy?"


Best wishes, Fred.

Roy S. Schestowitz      |    make install -not war
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  5:40am  up 5 days 22:17,  7 users,  load average: 0.65, 0.48, 0.47
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

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