Giving Up on GOOGLE

[Fingers]

I am not interested, no more will I try to place a site with a search engine that

1 Provides very poor results.

2 Has NO logic to follow at all in trying to SEO for it. I Defy anyone to deny this or prove me wrong.

Unless google go back to the good old days I believe their day of domination is over. Lets face it the writing is on the wall for google charging money for top ranking. This is simple business sense and one that the share holders will want. People invest in shares for one thing only Making MONEY and even more money and if its not forth coming then that's the end of that. How can a Search Engine make money? By Selling the only thing it has TOP SEARCH POSITIONS.... Why else has google changed to the point that it don't matter about page content nor relevancy?

[matthew98]

If you will recall software used to be mostly freeware until a company called microsoft began adding copyright and licences, now this is the norm.

You can hardly blaim a company for cashing in what the public want.

I have yet to find a true free site anyway, all lure you in with free ads and then try and sell you something, far better you know you will pay before you start.

The great thing is that it is not the customer who is paying but the company, rejoice in this little bit of reverse payment, I am sure it will not last!!

[cbp]

For all the keywords that I follow, the Google search results are very relevant - I just do not see what you are seeing. Yahoo's are better on some and not on others - but thats relevance based on what I am looking for. Another person using the same keyword may see something different in the same search results.

Can you give us an eg of what search word you are seeing such poor results?

CBP

[calebtheredwood]

Up until some recent success with Google, My philosophy was... "When it comes to Google, I'd rather be lucky than good".

Keep your head up and understand your keyword competitiveness. Some words are just more difficult and take time to achieve great results.

[Mel]

Google is a search engine which responds well to those who understand it and use all the tools at their disposal.

If you post your sites URL there are many knowledgable individuals here who are willing to help you.

[Dave Hawley]

Unless google go back to the good old days

Would that be the days when you were ranked where you wanted.

It's no use getting mad and shooting yourself in the foot. Google is, likely to be for some time, the #1 used SE. Like it or not.

People have been saying Google will fall since day one. Say enough things often enough and some will come true.

BTW. Where does one go to buy "TOP SEARCH POSITIONS" on Google?

[HardCoded]

Dear Fingers.

It's still the number one search engine. Even if it was the 25% search engine or even the 10% search engine, you'd till b wise to play the game.
But it's the 75% search engine. Don't be too daft.

[Fingers]

Thanks for all your replies

you'd till b wise to play the game.

As far as I can see there is no game to play as far as google goes, incoming links are KING.

This is something that can only happin over time if the site is of real interest to the public.

My point is perhaps that one can get extreamly hungup on this SEO thing. When in reality so long as the site has been designed well with basic SEO in mind and has interesting original matterial time is better spent moving on to the next web project, for me personaly anyhow.

One can only do so much before ones head shoots up ones arse. This has happind to me over the last 3 mth trying to make sence of the new Google engine.
[/quote]

[cbp]

This is something that can only happin over time if the site is of real interest to the public.

Which is exactly why links are king - so the sites that are of real interest to the public rank better (unfortunatly this has been corrupted by reciprocal link exchanges and purchasing links for PR, so sites rank higher than they naturally would)

CBP

[imvain2]

The one idea I always try to convey to webmasters and our clients, is patience.

When you start looking everyday for your site in Google, you will get mad and start wondering why your site isn't coming up.

So I partly agree with one of your statements, and that is after you build a website and do a GOOD SEO on it, move on to the next project. So your mind will be busy and not worrying everyday about your rankings. Then revisit the original website, check your stats and see which keywords your website is being found by.

[ADAM Web Design]

Personally, I think Fingers is right on this issue. Google's results seem to be getting less and less relevant these days. The best way to demonstrate this is not by comparing the "relevancy" of results to itself, but by comparing the "relevancy" vs. other search engines.

Camera 1:

http://ca.search.msn.com/results.asp...nto+web+design

Camera 2:

http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search/ca...nto+web+design

Camera 3 (by the way, has anyone noticed how Altavista seems to be getting a lot better lately)?

http://www.altavista.com/web/results...gn&kgs=1&kls=0

Camera 4:

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=...&_sb_lang=pref

Camera 5:

http://search.lycos.ca/default.asp?l...nto+web+design

Camera 6:

http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?qu...rovKey=Inktomi

As you can all see, the site that's listed either #1 or #2 in all of these engines is...well, mine. (Go Adam...it's your birthday...Go Adam...it's your birthday).

I do realize that all of these are drawn from the Inktomi database; however, the results are all different, thus implying they all have slightly different algorithm but still very similar. This makes sense, since this would suggest that those who have taken the time to SEO their sites properly get rewarded for their time and effort (and I've put in a great deal of effort on this.)

Now...let's look at Google:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Toront...=Google+Search

Will you still need me...will you still feed me...when I'm ranked #64?

I used to be #2 in this phrase for a long time. Then Florida came along...down out of the top 500. Next, we had Austin. I thought Google had corrected itself. Now, we have Brandy...a step backward.

Above that #64, I will concede that most of those companies are actually web design companies; however, at least half a dozen of those pages are thoroughly useless and unrelated, with a clear and obvious attempt made by the owners of these sites to manipulate the engines. Attaboy Google. You let the spammers through. No one will object. Really.

I do realize that this is only one example, but given enough time, I could come up with at least a dozen more just like it, if not more exaggerated.

The other thing that bothers me is that Google (although in this case, they're far from the only engine guilty of this) doesn't factor out IBLs to web design and hosting websites from websites which the designers were commissioned to do or the hosts were paid to host. To a certain extent, I cna understand why, since many designers and hosts do things for free and as such, should be allowed to place a hyperlink on free sites' pages for their trouble. However, these people represent a very small minority, and it would be more fair to all concerned just to eliminate the "Powered By" and "Site Design By" and other stuff like that altogether.

This doesn't even take into account the ways in which people have found to manipulate it. "Miserable failure" and "out-of-touch executives" come to mind.

This is why I stopped using Google to do searches a long time ago, and have made All the Web my default engine. But on the other hand, I still do make efforts to optimize for it (including an imminent redesign of my own site to help with said goal).

In other words, the best thing to do is perform the paradoxical activities of optimizing for Google (and other engines of course) while not using Google ourselves.

[cbp]

Now...let's look at Google:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Toront...=Google+Search
Will you still need me...will you still feed me...when I'm ranked #64?

But if I wanted to find a web site designer in Toronto, there are plenty for me to choose from in the first 10 - does that not make the results relevant? Are you basing your conclusion that Google is less relevant because your site is not in the top 10. As a searcher the results look really relevant to me.

The other thing that bothers me is that Google (although in this case, they're far from the only engine guilty of this) doesn't factor out IBLs to web design and hosting websites from websites which the designers were commissioned to do or the hosts were paid to host.

How do you know they don't? I think Google are doing a better job at doing this than other search engines.

CBP

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by cbp

But if I wanted to find a web site designer in Toronto, there are plenty for me to choose from in the first 10 - does that not make the results relevant? Are you basing your conclusion that Google is less relevant because your site is not in the top 10. As a searcher the results look really relevant to me.

How do you know they don't? I think Google are doing a better job at doing this than other search engines.

CBP

I'm not basing my conclusion strictly on that fact. There are actual designers in the top 10. I wouldn't mind if I wasn't if the results above me were not manipulated. Buuuuuuut...they are.

Camera 1 (which corresponds with Result 1):

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid...ehost%2Ecom%2F

Camera 2:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&...Fwww.abacus.ca

Oh damn, are they looking guilty.

Camera 3 corresponds with Camera 1 and is shot from pretty much the same angle with the same lens, so...guilty!


Camera 4:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&...om&btnG=Search

Guilty.

You want me to keep going? Because I could come up with countless more examples.

Again...I wouldn't mind being ranked underneath someone who conducted business in an ethical manner and didn't sacrifice client positioning in favour of their own. If I'm ranked below people like that, then so be it. That means I have to be more competitive.

But this is clearly a case where the sites above are manipulating Google for their own self-interests, and Google's letting them. If I did that with all of my clients' sites, I'd be right up there too. But I won't, because it is not the right thing to do.

So, while the results appear on the surface to be "relevant", the user is being manipulated by a web designer or in some cases a web host who is actually being paid to do it.

[Dave Hawley]

Adam, are you basing all this on, if Google shows a page as a backlink, they are using it (the link) to boost the page being linked to? If so, I have never seen (despite much hollow shouting otheriwse) evidence. In fact, any evidence suggests the opposite, i.e http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=20911

[edhan]

Based on the logger install in my sites, Google & yahoo search are still the top search engine to find my sites. It is getting more competitive to get your site listed in Top 10 with common keywords but then it is still the best method getting your site being viewed by visitors.

I am one of those who will use Google to search for products that I want to purchase and I did. You will need to fine tune your site to get at least Top 100.

Edward

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

Adam, are you basing all this on, if Google shows a page as a backlink, they are using it (the link) to boost the page being linked to? If so, I have never seen (despite much hollow shouting otheriwse) evidence. In fact, any evidence suggests the opposite, i.e http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=20911

Assuming I'm interpreting this question correctly, yes I am.

Google's own PageRank and explanation suggests that every backlink provdes an increase of some variety. They do neglect to mention that link farms and other pages of similar useless content (in theory) are not positively factored and my serve to be a negative factor, but that's another story.

For those who don't know (and since I don't know who does or who doesn't, I provide this to everyone), the original PageRank formula (which may have been altered slightly but likely still remains the same):

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))

Where A represents a specific page's total PageRank, d represents a damping factor (widely believed to be .85), Tn represents each page containing a link to Page A, and C represents the total number of distinct outbound links on T1).

The unique aspect of this formula is that each backlink, provided the PR of the referring page is greater than 0, will provide something.

Can the PageRank of the referring page be equal to 0? Yes, in two cases:

1) if d=1 and the referring page has no inbound links of its own, since (1-1) + 1(0) = 0. This would be highly unlikely, since d represents a damping factor; with d=1, no damping factor is applied to the backlinks themselves.

2) If the page/site/domain has been specifically flagged by Google for whatever reason, more than likely spam reasons.

Since the widely believed damping factor is 0.85, I'm going to use it:

PR (Page with no inbound links) = (1 - 0.85) * 0.85 (0) = 0.15 + 0 = 0.15 .

So that means that every backlink gained would be worth at least the following:

PR increase (each backlink) >= 0.85 (0.15/C (T1). >= 0.1275/C(T1) .

It may be slight, but in nearly all cases there's some benefit to a backlink. That's the whole basic principle behind the PageRank system, and it does make sense: more backlinks = more pages "voting" for other pages, in theory. Therefore, every outbound link on a webpage with any PR whatsoever will create a positive ripple effect among its externally-linked pages.

THis is why the issue of backlinks becomes so important. Every backlink does have an effect on the PR calculation, however slight. And in the cases of quite a few of the backlinks received by my competitors in this example, the value of the backlink is more than slight. If I were to adopt the same tactic (which I won't because I'm not going to sacrifice my clients for my own gain), then I'd probably be just as highly ranked as my competitors are. But I'm not.

This doesn't even take into account that Google only lists a sample of backlinks, and generally only the really good ones. These guys amy have 1000, 10000, even 100,000 IBLs factoring into the equation, and even if they only add a little bit at a time, it adds up. It's like a beach; 90% of a beach is little tiny insignificant grains of sand, mixed in with some big rocks and trees and seagull droppings and other stuff. Each one of those little grains of sand is nothing; you add them all up together though, and what have you got? A beach.

It's the same principle. These guys have built their private beaches off of the backs of their own customers. Wrong, wrong, 100% wrong, and there's nothing anyone can say to change my mind on this.

[sfowler]

I understand the logic behind the value of links on the one hand, they are a vote of confidence from another website. On the other hand, if this information is so important to my product or whatever, why am I not adding it myself? I do have a few links of this type, true, but when I get around to writing up on the topic myself, half of them are going to disappear again.

[Duncan Pollock]

Fingers: I can't help thinking there's a point that, with all due respect, you're failing to recognize. Indeed, I'm tempted to suggest you could do worse than remember the saying: "The fault lies with us, because we are underlings."
What I'm trying to say is that instead of blaming Google for putting you at position #64, shouldn't you be looking at what your competitors are doing that puts them on the first page instead? I'm not a sophisticated web designer and I don't pretend to see the difference between how their sites and yours are organized, but there's gotta be something that they're doing that you're failing to do. If nothing else -- although this is generally not considered the reason for high positioning -- their PR is higher than yours. Why? What have they done that you haven't done to earn PR 5, 6, 7 as opposed to your PR4? (Probably it's links, but I have difficulty in accepting your opinion that they've done some spamming to get them.) Furthermore, my quick impression is that the look of their home pages is, at the least, easier on the eye than yours -- better colour, clearer text, more of an all round Unique Selling Proposition than you seeem to present.
In effect, if Google is, as it were, saying you don't deserve to be among the first ten or twenty results, then accept the verdict and do something about it rather than simply bewailing the fact. In other words, let me remind you of another saying: "Don't shoot the messenger!"

Duncan

[Dave Hawley]

Google's own PageRank and explanation suggests that every backlink provdes an increase of some variety.

I don't read it that way. As shown in the Forum Signature thread, and the fact that Link Farms, FFI links, GuestBook links and any self-serving links etc, I would say it doesn't.

Remember, Google have many millions invested in PageRank. They are simply NOT going to have it as open source. It's in their best interest to ensure Webmaster only know so much.

They do neglect to mention that link farms and other pages of similar useless content (in theory) are not positively factored and my serve to be a negative factor, but that's another story.

IMO, what they don't mention is more important than what they do mention. Also, IMO, it is very likey not "to be another story"

Personally, I do no take anything I read (especially about Google) on face value. There are just too many conspiracies, fallacies and myths.

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by Duncan Pollock

Fingers: I can't help thinking there's a point that, with all due respect, you're failing to recognize. Indeed, I'm tempted to suggest you could do worse than remember the saying: "The fault lies with us, because we are underlings."

First of all, I'm not Fingers. Not that I have a problem with the guy, since I don't know him. I just happen to agree with him. Just to set things straight.

As far as the quote goes, I've never accepted the theory that one person being ranked below another in a hierarchial structure cannot offer opinions and suggestions for improvement to enhance said hierarchial structure. As a business owner, I am always willing to accept when my guys tell me when I'm doing something wrong, as long as they can back it up. A good opinion can come from anyone at any time, regardless of age, race, creed, religion, intellectual capacity, or any other factor. Life is an orchestra; in order to appreciate it, we must open our ears to all of its sounds.

Originally Posted by Duncan Pollock

What I'm trying to say is that instead of blaming Google for putting you at position #64, shouldn't you be looking at what your competitors are doing that puts them on the first page instead? I'm not a sophisticated web designer and I don't pretend to see the difference between how their sites and yours are organized, but there's gotta be something that they're doing that you're failing to do. If nothing else -- although this is generally not considered the reason for high positioning -- their PR is higher than yours. Why? What have they done that you haven't done to earn PR 5, 6, 7 as opposed to your PR4? (Probably it's links, but I have difficulty in accepting your opinion that they've done some spamming to get them.) Furthermore, my quick impression is that the look of their home pages is, at the least, easier on the eye than yours -- better colour, clearer text, more of an all round Unique Selling Proposition than you seeem to present.
In effect, if Google is, as it were, saying you don't deserve to be among the first ten or twenty results, then accept the verdict and do something about it rather than simply bewailing the fact. In other words, let me remind you of another saying: "Don't shoot the messenger!"

Duncan

The one part of this that I will agree on is that my site does need some aesthetic tweaking. This is something that is being done and will appear within a week or two. This was done back in late 2002 and I never quite could get it the way I wanted it to look. I am more of a programmer and developer than a designer by trade, although I've picked up a fair amount in the past 6-8 months.

As far as the rest of this goes, if you had gone to the links that I had posted listing the backlinks Google has as samples, you would have seen what I'm talking about.

Let's take one of them:

http://www.reasonforhope.com/books/booksearch.asp

Down at the bottom, it says "Designed and hosted by Elehost Web Design Inc." Inbound link? Yup. On a page they were paid to design? Based on this site, I'd say it's pretty likely. Does it increase their PageRank? Yup.

Here's another one:

http://www.teamcosportswear.com/

Same scenario. The design company gets inbound traffic at the expense of its own client, which they were commissioned to work for.

There are thousands of these examples of this out there, most of which are having a direct impact on my ranking with Google, and Google's letting them all slide. Major gaping hole in the algo, and there is absolutely no justification anyone can come up with that will establish otherwise.

So yes, I will complain about this, and I have every right to do so. Not only because is this a blatant manipulation of a search engine, but it hurts their customers both directly and indirectly by taking away from their own PageRanks, which in turn affects their results. Even though the impact on the individual customers is slight, it still reflects on the fact that the companies listed there do not always look out for the best interest of their customers as they should. Does that affect the relevancy of the results? Absolutely.

Again, I wouldn't harp on being down where I am if the results above me were achieved ethically and not off the backs of the customers for whom designs were created. I would also have no problem accepting my ranking were it relatively similar across other engines, and were i not #1 or #2 on the exact same key phrase in five engines that use five different algorithms. I would accept that I have to be more competitive if this were the case. (Side note: as a hypercompetitive prick at the best of times, this isn't an issue for me anyway.)

Google has done what Altavista did about 6-7 years ago: they have taken something that was fine and have proceeded to destroy it completely. Fingers was right in this from the beginning; Google's broken, and they need to get it fixed.

And for those of you who still think otherwise:

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid...e+i90+ringtone

Click on at least 5 of those results, and see if you're actually able to download a free I90 ringtone. I couldn't figure it out. Oh, and for those of you with selective vision, just ignore the excessive link text, the mirrored pages, religious SLDs, and lack of any other useful content on the pages. They don't matter, now do they kids?

Dave: I would agree that there are a great deal of fallacies and myths about Google. I also wouldn't expect them to have it as "open source" per se. I can even see why one wouldn't take everything Google says at face value; I know I don't.

But by the same token, a lot of the things that they've done lately based on comparisons vs. other engines indicate that they're sliding backward. But on the other hand, does this bother me? Not especially. All this means is that eventually, myself and my clients will get the same, if not more, quality search engine results from the other engines as they stay the same or improve their overall relevancy thanks to the newly-recreated semi-level playing field. As stupid as it sounds, the more Google bastardizes their engine, the better off it is from a competitive standpoint as users discover other engines and other ways to find what they want. So if anything, all Google's manipulations are going to be a boon for the surfer, but not the way they think it will.

[Dave Hawley]

But by the same token, a lot of the things that they've done lately based on comparisons vs. other engines indicate that they're sliding backward.

I don't see this from my searches. Remember, there are millions of searches each day, so to isolate a few bad ones really doesn't prove much.

All I can say is this.

All reputable stat figures still show Google as the #1 choice, in fact they are increasing in popularity.

My weblogs show Google as bringing in over 75% of my free traffic. This too is increasing.

From these 2 facts, and that I find them head & shoulders above the rest, would suggest yourself and fingers and in the minority.

[ADAM Web Design]

I wasn't "isolating a few bad ones" per se; I was just using examples of searches to show that it can be manipulated without an extreme degree of difficulty.

No matter what Google does, there are still going to be ways to manipulate it. That's understandable. Their database is too large and too many people know about it not to. But by the same token, I was seeing the behaviour I posted as example on much too frequent a basis to continue using it as my own default engine.

The only times it is useful is if one is looking up a specific term for which results are limited (e.g. a Microsoft error code). The size of their database and the limited amount of information available means that they generally will provide a relevant result, simply because no one has yet begun manipulating Google's engine to take advantage of people looking for these terms. That amy well only be a matter of time too, though, the way it's going.

It's #1 right now, but within a year, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it won't be. Other engines are investing far too much time and money to make their own results as relevant as possible, and with Google in the direction it's in, there will be backlash. And if that puts me in the minority, so be it. Been there, done that, been proved right too many times to count.

[oneeye]

Google seems to cater too much to large directories (at least for my searches). I do not want to spend my time searching through the search results on a page that I clicked on searching through search results. Whew! I want to find a site not a directory. Yahoo seems to do better at the relevancy game, at least for me.

Oneeye

[Mel]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

...
Remember, Google have many millions invested in PageRank. They are simply NOT going to have it as open source. It's in their best interest to ensure Webmaster only know so much...

I see nothing whatever to support this idea. PageRank is a proprietary system owned by Stanford University and licensed to Google,and in fact Stanford will be released from the exclusivity clause in the contract in a couple of years and be free to license it to other search engines if there is a market for it.

Google have not in fact invested millions in PageRank, it was developed by Page and Brin while they were still students.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

...
Again...I wouldn't mind being ranked underneath someone who conducted business in an ethical manner and didn't sacrifice client positioning in favour of their own. If I'm ranked below people like that, then so be it. That means I have to be more competitive.

But this is clearly a case where the sites above are manipulating Google for their own self-interests, and Google's letting them. If I did that with all of my clients' sites, I'd be right up there too. But I won't, because it is not the right thing to do...

Thats your decision and your right Adam, but you may be basing your decision on misinformation.

The search engines make the rules and they don't publish a book of rules, in fact they go to obvious lengths to keep their algorithms secret (and maybe even try to steer our thinking down the wrong paths). If Google (or any other search engine for that matter) rewards a particular method or action with high rankings and does nothing to punish those who use such methods, then why should you conclude that the use of such methods is "unethical"? By whose rule book?

The entire practice of SEO is based on manipulating seach engine results to favor particular pages for certain search terms, and so long as those higher ranked pages return relevant results why should they not be used and ranked highly by the search engines? It may in fact be that such sites are more relvant in the eyes of the searchers, whose opinion is the only one that really matters IMO.

Can you honestly look at those pages which are ranked above you and say that some of them at least are not just as competent webdesigners as you? Maybe some of them are even better? Regardless, search engines IMO exist to serve searchers and if they see one site as more relevant to the searchers than another, your only recourse is to make your pages more relevant in the eyes of the search engines if you want to rank higher.

[ADAM Web Design]

A word of advice, Mel: the more you talk, the more you dig your own grave.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...e&RS=AN/google

Now, for those who don't want to lead all the legalese, it's really only the first couple of points that are relevant. Basically, what Google has patnnted is their search technology, which assigns relevancy rankings based on a scoring, or PageRank system.

A further search of the US Patent Office trademark section (a link to the form can be found here) reveals that PageRank is registered as a service mark to the Google corporation.

So not only have they patented the technology, they trademarked the word.

It's okay, though, Melanoma. Dave Hawley and I still love ya. Well...Dave might. :)

[cbp]

what Google has patnnted is their search technology

No. That patent you linked to is NOT the PageRank patent - that is a different patent.

Stanford own the patent - they have licenced its use to Google. Google own the trademark on PageRank (at least that is my understsanding)

CBP

[Mel]

What a lovely and misinformed post Adam. Service marks etc are not ownership, I suggest that you read Googles filing papers with the SEC, which are required by law to be accurate, from which this quote is taken:

Originally Posted by Google Inc.

The first version of the PageRank technology was created while Larry and Sergey attended Stanford University, which owns a patent to PageRank. We hold a perpetual license to this patent. In October 2003, we extended our exclusivity period to this patent through 2011, at which point our license is non-exclusive

The patent to which you have referred is more commonly called the LocalRank Patent and while there is no general agreement on whether or not it is in use it is not the PageRank patent.

Ps Adam if you cannot spell the three letter word Mel correctly maybe it would be best to stop trying.

[Dave Hawley]

Originally Posted by Mel

I see nothing whatever to support this idea. PageRank is a proprietary system owned by Stanford University and licensed to Google,and in fact Stanford will be released from the exclusivity clause in the contract in a couple of years and be free to license it to other search engines if there is a market for it.

Google have not in fact invested millions in PageRank, it was developed by Sergy and Brin while they were still students.

Have no idea what you are trying say here Mel. Nobody, except a select few at Google know all there is to know about PageRank as used now by Google. To say that Google have not invested millions in PageRank is toatlly wrong IMO. Sure, the orginal concept probably cost far less, but there has been MUCH water unbder the bridge since then Mel.

As usual Mel, you are calling black white without sane reason. You did it in the Forum Siganture debate and are now doing it again. Some people never learn I guess. Now, you said something about eating crow :)

[Mel]

So if I am reading your post correctly Dave you are saying one of two things:

1. Google has changed the process described as PageRank (owned by Stanford) and are now using something else but still calling it PageRank.

or

2.Google is not now using PageRank any more?

IMO they are still using PageRank (in addition to many other methods) and in fact this is one of the items mentioned in the Google SEC filing form 10-12g.

By your own reasoning Dave no one outside Google knows if they have or have not spent money on the development of PageRank, but it seems logical to me that they might spent millions on the development of search technology, but they would not likely have spent millions to modify a patent not owned by them,(and to which they may well be subject to Profit sharing). Why Google might be looking for successors to PageRank is discussed in some detail Here

In fact Google have recently patented ranking processes which would appear to be intended as successors to PageRank:

First look at the Original PageRank Patent #6,285,999

Then there is the LocalRank patent #6,725,259

Topic Sensitive Page Rank paper which was originally written by Taher H. Haveliwala who is now an employee at Google.

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by Mel

I see nothing whatever to support this idea. PageRank is a proprietary system owned by Stanford University and licensed to Google,and in fact Stanford will be released from the exclusivity clause in the contract in a couple of years and be free to license it to other search engines if there is a market for it.

Google have not in fact invested millions in PageRank, it was developed by Sergy and Brin while they were still students.

First of all, you can't even get the names right. "Sergey" and "Brin" are actually the same person.

Secondly, if they were the developers, then either/or should be listed under the US patent database for their "invention" with the assignee of the patent being Stanford University. Makes sense, right? I mean, Stanford does own this patent.

So...for the benefit of those with Flash photography...(damn, I miss when E&C said that)...

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...e-larry&d=ptxt

These are all of the patents associated with either Sergey Brin or Larry Page as the inventors. As one can see, there are no matches assigned to Stanford.

Not only that, the only thing even remotely related to search engines that I could find associated with Stanford is this (after approximately 15 different search combinations):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=(Stanford.ASNM. +AND+search.ACLM.)&OS=AN/Stanford+AND+ACLM/search&RS=(AN/Stanford+AND+ACLM/search)

I will be the first to admit that I do not understand the full scope of this, since it's late and my brain is shutting down. However, I do understand a few things about it:

1) Sergey and Larry aren't involved with it.
2) This was developed as a means to index documents based on summary mockup data (I think).
3) This was developed for healthcare professionals.
4( It appears to be designed mostly for intranets/extranets.

At any rate, this is the closest thing that could possibly be interpreted as PageRank, and even then it's doubtful. And even if it were PageRank, as Dave has stated, Google has twisted, turned, poked, prodded, punctured and manipulated it to the point where they could likely just as easily claim the resultant technology as their own.

I haven't seen the SEC filing myself, but just because Google is "reuqired" to make something accurate doesn't necessarily mean that they do. I'm required by law not to speed on the highway, and do I do that? Damn right I do. So I'm not going to offer commentary on something unseen, and I might not even believe it then.

Originally Posted by Mel

Thats your decision and your right Adam, but you may be basing your decision on misinformation.

The search engines make the rules and they don't publish a book of rules, in fact they go to obvious lengths to keep their algorithms secret (and maybe even try to steer our thinking down the wrong paths). If Google (or any other search engine for that matter) rewards a particular method or action with high rankings and does nothing to punish those who use such methods, then why should you conclude that the use of such methods is "unethical"? By whose rule book?

Why should I? Because it is. I don't have a problem with search engines keeping their algorithms secret. I don't have a problem with them not telling us everything we would need to know to make sites rank higher. I don't even necessarily have all that big an issue with them steering us down a garden path.

But the whole basic premise behind everyone's argument against forum sigs is that it's self-serving manipulation and/or possible spam. Well if that's spam, wouldn't a direct hyperlink off of a customer's site that they were commissioned to do be at least on the same level? If Google is punishing one method of self-servience as they see it, would it not be just as logical to punish a more crass and obvious one?

It doesn't matter who I am to conclude that. The only thing that really matters is the conclusion. And the conclusion is that it's still wrong. If a "self-serving forum signature" is wrong, so's this.

As far as the quality of the work that the people above me in Google put out, I would quite honestly say that the skills of myself and my team would outrank at least half of the "competition". I'm not saying this because I feel the sites we do are the best on the planet, but they do adhere to some simple fundamentals that work well for them and for my clients. I feel that some are as competent or more competent than me as designers. I feel that a few are as competent or more competent than me as developers. I feel that perhaps one or two may know the search engine game a little better than I do; I don't know everything about how the engines work internally, but even then I would doubt it simply because it's not an area most companies in Toronto even focus on. But as far as an overall package, I think that a searcher would be hard-pressed to find a company that can put it together quite like we can.

Again, I've said before that I don't think my site adequately reflects this yet from a design point of view. But it is coming, and for those of you who are interested, I will send the link via PM (just in case anyone thinks I'm being self-serving and doing this for my own interests.)

[Mel]

Hi Adam as I said that is your right but others may have different options.

The reason that you could not find the PageRank patents is possibly because you were searching for Larry Page when the correct name is Lawrence Page, but at any rate the link to it is http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6285999


I really and truly sincerely apologize for the typo on the names, it obviously should have been Page and Brin, thank you I have now corrected the mistake, though I really don't think it affects the discussion much at all.

I am not discussing the ability of you and your team as website designers, and readily concede that there are others far better equipped than I to judge those qualities, but I would not include among those the search engines, who do not judge the quality of the design but the relevancy of the page content.

This may or may not be fair in your eyes but thats the way it works. Search engines owe allegiance to searchers not webmasters, and so long as the searchers find the results acceptable they will likely continue to use the search engine, if not they may choose to vote with thier feet and move to another engine.

I totally disagree that a designer (or SEO for that matter) putting their link on a nice page they have designed is spam, deceitful or misleading. It is a service to the viewers of that page that says in effect "If you like the design of this page you can find the designers of it here" and personally I appreciate it.

Its up to you whether or not you want to be found at the top of the search results for terms like web site design, but I am certain that those who are ranking at the top are there because thier pages match the search engines relevancy alogrithims. You can join them or not as you choose.

[Dave Hawley]

First of all, you can't even get the names right. "Sergey" and "Brin" are actually the same person

LOL! That is so funny!

Mel, what I'm saying is this.

While the original idea of PageRank probably cost very little, Google implementing, running, modifying, tweeking etc of PageRank would cost millions. PageRank was (possibly still is) the very backbone of their SE and they HAVE spent many millions.

Not once did I mention any cost attached to Patents etc. These are your words not mine. However, one thing that is patently clear is your ability to admit when you are wrong.

Each and every debate with you Mel, starts and ends with you stating totally unrelated facts as if someone had said otherwise.

[Mel]

Well then Dave are you now saying that Google did not spend millions on the development of PageRank, that they actually spent the money on related things? In that case we agree and that is just what I stated.

Or are you saying that they spent millions on the "...modifying, tweeking etc of PageRank" a process that they do not own?

IMO that would not be a very business like decision.

While you may consider PageRank to be the backbone of the Google search engine, I certainly do not. PR will not get you a high ranking in Google, in fact if you do not have a page relevant to the search terms (or relevant anchor text links) you will not even be considered for rankings at all on that term.

It seems to me Dave that you may be confusing PageRank with the Google ranking alogrithm, which IMO PR is a very small portion of.

PRs most importance to Google may(IMO) be as a a public relations tool, and the "backbone" of google is not PR but the relevancy algorithms, which are a seperate and distinct process.

If I am stating "unrelated facts" Dave dont be shy, point out what is unrelated and why not, otherwise we may never have any way of knowing what you are talking about.

[Dave Hawley]

Well then Dave are you now saying that Google did not spend millions on the development of PageRank

Try all you like Mel to put words in my mouth, but it's been clearly stated twice by myself in this thread. My words were "Google have many millions invested in PageRank"

Or are you saying that they spent millions on the "...modifying, tweeking etc of PageRank" a process that they do not own?

IMO that would not be a very business like decision.

Then you know very little about business Mel. Each and every day businesses invest money in things "they do not own". Businesses that lease (NOT own) shops, fatories etc invest money in them. Businesses with cash, invest in things "they do not own". Businesses do not own the people who work for them, yet invest in them via training etc. The list goes on Mel.....

While you may consider PageRank to be the backbone of the Google search engine, I certainly do not

Yet again Mel you try to put words in my mouth. I said "PageRank was (possibly still is) the very backbone of their SE"

If I am stating "unrelated facts" Dave dont be shy, point out what is unrelated and why not, otherwise we may never have any way of knowing what you are talking about.

Been there done that Mel. It's a pointless excercise, you are too much like a politician.

I'll leave you to carry on this debate with Adam (sorry Adam). it will be intersting to see how he tolerates you :)

[jackson992]

I see two problems with this discussion:

#1. Talking about PR when it has nothing to do with rankings. I am getting better rankings overall with my PR 4 site than I am with my PR 5 site

#2. Current;y there is no way to SEO for Google. I think this was mentioned by someone who posted and I definitely agree. Right now there seems to be no rhyme or reason for the listings. Indeed, on many searches I've done I might see the keyword once on the cache of the page whereas my pages has the keyword numerous times. Yet they still for some reason I cannot possibly fathom outrank me

[Dave Hawley]

Talking about PR when it has nothing to do with rankings

"PR when it has nothing to do with rankings"? That is likley to be not true at all.

Current;y there is no way to SEO for Google. I think this was mentioned by someone who posted and I definitely agree. Right now there seems to be no rhyme or reason for the listings. Indeed, on many searches I've done I might see the keyword once on the cache of the page whereas my pages has the keyword numerous times. Yet they still for some reason I cannot possibly fathom outrank me

That again is very likley to not be true. Googles (as all SE do) uses an algo to rank sites and there is always rhyme and reason in algos. Just because we do not know the method behind it, doesn't mean there isn't any.

[Mel]

Hi Jack
Understand your frustration with trying to rank all the phrases well on a site the size of yours.

I agree that PR has a very small effect on rankings, (but there is some effect IMO) but its much more important to work on things like anchor text links.

It is possible IMO to SEO for Google, but it is a chore to keep up with the latest changes if its not your fulltime job.

[jackson992]

Hi Mel:

It is indeed my full time job LOL

I think the confusing thing for me with the Memorial Day update is I am still getting Google searches but at a rate of 1000 visitors less a day since before the update. It almsot looks to me like they are recrawling everything as strange as that sounds


I do think it needs to be discussed how import5ant page rank can be however when sites/pages with lower PR beat by a large margin pages/sites with a higher PR

[Duncan Pollock]

My apologies to Adam and fingers for getting their names transposed. How does the saying go? Call me what you will, but please spell my name correctly.
In any case, though, Adam, I think you and I simply have to agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, despite the reservations several of us have put before you.
However, to quote another saying: you can't fight City Hall. If you're convinced that Google is wrong, so be it, but accept their verdict. If you want it to change, you have to abide by their rules rather than your own.

Duncan

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by Duncan Pollock

My apologies to Adam and fingers for getting their names transposed. How does the saying go? Call me what you will, but please spell my name correctly.
In any case, though, Adam, I think you and I simply have to agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, despite the reservations several of us have put before you.
However, to quote another saying: you can't fight City Hall. If you're convinced that Google is wrong, so be it, but accept their verdict. If you want it to change, you have to abide by their rules rather than your own.

Duncan

No harm, no foul. And I can accept "agree to disagree". It's certainly a much more peaceful tack.

I just won't agree about the City Hall thing. I have a real problem with doing things just because someone else has dictated a path that makes no sense. Course, that could also be why every time a cop comes within 20 feet of me, I somehow manage to get hollered at. I've even been yelled at for being stopped at a red light. (Yeah, you read that correctly...damn Metro Toronto PD).

So as a result, I have a tendency to do and say my own thing regardless of the circumstances. If that puts me in the minority, so be it. I'm a Blue Jays fan; I listen to John Prine; I believe in things from a political viewpoint that would probably incite most people; and many other quirks you'd have to hang around with me to possibly understand. Different? Hell yeah. Turn it up. Right on.