4 replies to this topic

[iamlost]

There is one Google fact that keeps popping up: Google is unable to identify 'good' results.

I was reminded of this again by the Panda/Farmer algorithm explanation:

This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites...

and Barry Schwartz's (aka rustybrick, Cre8 Mod et al) Search Engine Land article Google Disables Starring Your Favorite Search Results, 15-March-2011:

Now that Google has re-introduced a way to block sites in Google, Google has determined you no longer need to star search results from the search results page.

The first quote implies (at the very least) that high-quality sites will rank, not directly because of their high-quality but indirectly because of the removal of previously higher ranked low-quality sites.

The second quote implies (at the very least) - and yes, I know that it is Barry's quote, not a Google spokesperson - that Google prefers to collect data, not on 'what users like' but on what they do not.

When looking for weeds instead of identifying some instance of 'good' they instead attempt to identify all instances of 'bad'. As this is a much more difficult and convoluted method the fact stands out: Google (the algo) hasn't a clue what is good. Indeed, Google often needs/wants to be 'told' via canonical, nofollow, etc. how to do it's job.

So, for webdevs everywhere, a reminder: it is not as important to follow Google's guidelines (to be good) as it is to NOT be identified as some instance of algo bad.

[Michael_Martinez]

I think Google has always been able to identify good results. I just haven't always agreed with their choices, but that's more a matter of opinion than fact.

The algorithms to determine quality could have used different signals or weightings all along (and are tweaked all the time anyway), so who is to say that if I hadn't been in control of those algorithms that my opinion of "good results" wouldn't have annoyed someone else?

No system is perfect, but there have been times in the past when I've been frustrated with what I find in Google. The last few weeks, I feel like a huge burden has been lifted from my shoulders. I don't find myself digging deep into the query result pages to look for natural content as often as I had become accustomed to.

I still see some junk in the top results (and I don't just mean Wikipedia and eHow) but it seems to be only a fraction of what I used to find.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before link builders and article marketers find new ways to spam in the index but for now I'm enjoying it. I'm actually coming across sites I've never seen before in the SERPs.

[iamlost]

This latest update certainly affected many niches, but not all by any means. Which makes charting the Google that much more interesting - and frustrating. Why this and not that, why here and not there...

While I would like to agree with your statement I think Google has always been able to identify good results I can not. I believe that Google has always, from the very beginning through to now, been inferring good results by various weightings of various signals. And those inferences have always been open to abuse. So G then attempts to identify particular widespread or especially egregious abusers.

By such action being necessary G illustrates that it can not directly identify good results.

[bwelford]

It seems to me that you are both dealing with imponderables that are even less certain than Schrodingers Cat.

My own view is that Google is much more like the Sorcerer's Apprentice. All this mess of low quality websites has been created by the actions of Google over the years. Now if only the Sorcerer would return and set the world to rights. A good start would be to forget about all this link "stuff".

[tommr]

A good start would be to forget about all this link "stuff".

hear hear!