I think this is the problem faced by every one of us. But we cannot blame the google search engine specially, because all the search engines are like this.I think "semantic web" provides better solution to the problems faced by user. Later generations may get relieved from this hedache of obtaining the required information rather than unusual information, if we strive better for the development of "Semantic web".

The last two comments are getting to the heart of the matter. My intention was not to "rag" on Google, but rather to illustrate possible Evolution areas that the Internet era can provide and that we, as a community of technology innovators, we might be missing.The last comment made a reference to "portals". They are creative ways that entrepreneurs have found to leverage what Google’s contribution to the Evolution process have been exposed in a negative way.Part of the creation of forums like this one, is point in fact to the ability of us – as an intelligent, driven community to reflect upon any phenomena (as creative and as positive as Google is – for one) and identify abnormalities that it generates that are mutations that should be identified and discouraged.

 

You were accused of 'ranting' against Google with this post, since other search engines produce similar results. I'm going to go a step farther. I think that the problem lies not with the search engines themselves, but with their exploitation by savvy but predatory entrepeneurs. However, with practice and a bit of common sense, it's not usually that hard to spot bogus search results. And there may be room for improvement in the results if some sort of filtering were applied to the search.

To me the most irritating sort of search result (other than the ones that actually harm your computer) is a so-called portal site. These are simply indexes of search results that, if the portals were excluded from the original  results. Unfortunately it is not always easy to identify portals from the initial result snippet; it is, on the other hand, almost always easy to identify them when their actual web page comes up.

I hate portals. Why should I have to go through an additional level of search results when the result could appear directly in Google? Software is available to create these portal websites and people create them hoping to get web traffic and possibly click-throughs that may enable them to siphon off a few pennies from the vendors who are trying to get customers to their sites where they are actually selling merchandise. Web hosting companies even promote use of portal software for web sites; their motivation is of course selling more web hosting. I don't blame them but I don't like the expanded access to portal software.

Often, I think, inexperienced Internet users set up a portal as their first web site, because it is so easy. They may even think they are providing some sort of service for those who go through their portal. But I ask what additional value is provided by these intermediary search sites. What do they contribute? It is not additional information. In fact it is nothing, except additional time spent finding the real results.

Google and other search engines return the results that are available. Better, or more accessible, filtering could help the end user. Elimination of portal sites from results would be a wonderful enhancement to searching, but I certainly do not suggest that portals be eliminated by any legislative approach. I'd far sooner put up with what I consider bogus results than have any additional restrictions added to the distribution of information. I believe that all information should be available to everyone, and without tracking. But that discussion is for another day.

Thanks for the friendly banter and the very professional response from you. I'm not a tech savvy guy like you and there are times i get things screwed up just to let people clarify certain issues just like you have done.

If i can understand you well, there is no need to blame searvch engines because they basically display base upon their configuration. So the onus is on the owners of the respective websites to make their website very friendly to the search engines. With this in mind, i'm a little bit confused as to what Oeded Post is dealing with.

In terms of SEM, do you see a pay-per-sale model a feasible alternative? I don't see i working because search engines would not be in a position to guarantee sales and as such such model will yield them minimal ad money.

It's good to be back on he boards and it seems i've been gone for ages taking into consideration how the site has blossom with current internet trends. 

Hi Paul,

First let me say, "Nice to see you back" kind of missed you there for a while.
Now to answer you, I would try to respond in like fashion. I don't understand your incessant hatred for Google, that you would describe my objective statement as a subjective notion of me loving Google? I nether love nor hate Google but was just positing a counter point to an article. I'm not assuming that Google is perfect nor will I waste my time trying to defend such clam.

Paul, I think I do have enough intellectual capability to know the purpose of this forum, and please next time when passing judgment on people, be careful not to make the same mistake you're castigating the other person for, 'cause it renders your point mute and irrelevant.

Search engine optimization (SEO) and search engine marketing (SEM) are two very different thing. Simply put, SEO deals with building a website that is search engine friendly. A well coded site with well planed architectural and hierarchical layout gives you a solid premise on which to build semantic web structure with high integrity, this naturally leads to higher page ranking.  While SEM deals with paying search engines for placement when spesific keywords or key-phrase are searched for. Like I said before, I hardly click on paid ads, because, most often they are irrelevant to my search.

Anyway, thanks for the callout. I guess I might have to make some time to write an article on SEO, because I can sense lot of ambiguity out there.

Hi Jerrybin,

I really don't understand your incessant love for Google that you could describe a 'friendly' post like this one as a rant. We know very well that Google is powerful, innovative and successful but that does not rule the fact that even the best needs improvement. There is room for improvement and it's the purpose of this forum to  discuss current and future trends that will make our internet experience both memorable and worthwhile.

I don't see the post as an accusation against Google but rather calling for a new model in online advertising that will make search engines optimised their current operation. Companies are employing various models like pay-per-click, pay-per-deal and pay-per-sale. The author of the post was simplying suggesting that a pay-per-sale model will force search engines to upgrade their present indexing. Whether this is technolgically possible is debatable but this is the reason we are on this site. So do you think a pay-per-sale model is the ideal model for all those involve in the process?

A New Affiliate Model

 

is a little bit like trying to count the instances of the word 'and' in a full set of encyclopedias. It will find some on a page that talks about cars, no doubt, but it may be found on pages that are not related to a car at all.

I am sure this is an extreme example, and it certainly does not represent the algorhythms which make up googles page rank system, or likely any other significant search engine for that matter.

It is certainly a good point that a newspaper ad does not always get results either. Are we to blame the loggers that cut down the trees that make the paper that the newsprint is made from?

To me that is how distinct the disparity is between buying a car, and doing research about what cars may interest me.

As a consumer I need to research quite a while before making a major purchase. I certainly don't expect to have all my answers in the top 10 google results. But if I don't, google is not to blame in my book.  

Oded,

I think Mr. Roques has a good point. Google mainly uses its "PageRank" algorithm for the search results with some text-matching techniques. But how exactly Google does it or what exactly it uses in the search algorithm is pretty much only known to Google. Ideally, the PageRank based algorithm should be "fair" but we're living in a real world where nothing is perfect, and I think Google and other search engine service providers are well aware of the search engine optimization (or SEO) issue that leaves gaps for exploitation. So, as Mr. Roques pointed out, blaming it all on Google isn't exacly right.

Also, as it seems, search results don't stay the same. I just tried search on Google for new car prices, and FreeCarQuotes.net didn't pop up in the top 20 results (at least).

I also have a few questions I would like to ask:

1./ What exactly do you mean by "the natural progress of creativity that the Internet is capable of providing"?

2./ I'm not sure I understand when you said "Google is not enabling innovation..."; How is a search engine company like Google enabling "innovation" through the search results? Are you suggesting that a product search query via Google's search engine should return results listing companies that provide relevant and innovative products or services? In that case, how would Google know which of the companies' products or services are actually innovative?

3./ And lastly, to make the case for Google's devolution effect, do you have any other examples apart from the online car buying experience?

Cheers.

hmmm, I see... This is just another rant against a successful and innovative company. Anyway, I don't know how much you know about the Google indexing algorithm... Study shows that 90% of those searching the web don't click on the top or side placed ads. Personally, 99.9% of the time I never click on the placed ads when I search.

Google, is a powerful search tool, and with that tool, I search the internet, and deside for myself what site I want to do business with, not based on Google's recommendation. I'm having a hard time see the validity of your Google  accusation.