Corrupt Google search results...

[Andilinks]

I do not make or sell Catalog Management Systems, but I do have an interest in them at the moment.

I did a Google search on "Catalog Management System" with caps and quotes.

The ten "Sponsored Links" that appeared on the page were all really dead-on from their descriptions and were in fact "Catalog Management Systems," exactly what I was looking for.

The unsponsored links on the other hand, right on down the page were marginally about Catalog Management Systems, but not direct hits, and in fact the top listing is a review of Indian Web Development firm that was difficult to locate through the links given by Google. When I finally did locate the Soft Solvers site they look like a fine firm but are not really strong in the area of Catalog Management Systems as their main business.

Perhaps this is not corruption, perhaps it is just a mistake. uummm... mistakes are just a lesser form of corruption, aren't they?

This post should confirm that I definitely am not affiliated with Google, though I still defend Gmail as safe.

I'd like to invite others to add examples like this. If none appear I will be relieved that it's just one dumb mistake on Google's part and not a real rotting from within (which is what it appears to be.)

Andi

[cbp]

I did the same search and could not really see a problem with the results - on Yahoo they were pretty much the same as Google with only minor differnces in the top 20 or so. I could see no Indian Web Development firm there.

You don't have the problem mentioned here:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=18379

CBP

[Andilinks]

Soft Solvers is the Indian Web Development firm I refer to...

Teoma results are quite different, and I can only attribute your satisfaction with the Google result to your lack of expeience in this field or any need for results.

Andi

[cbp]

I can only attribute your satisfaction with the Google result to your lack of expeience in this field or any need for results

I won't take the bait...

BUT, I still see nothing wrong with Google's results - they all appear relevant to the search term. Yahoo's are very much the same as Google's...

You are right, I am not familiar with Catelogue Management Systems - but I know enough to see that all the search results are relevant to that term.

CBP

[cbp]

Your reply and mine were posted at the same time.

Something odd going on - the results that you are seeing are not even close to the results that I am seeing.

CBP

[cbp]

The results I am seeing have no sponsored ad - just one Adword and the top organic results are:

Catalog management systems: a wide range to choose fromCatalog management systems: a wide range to choose from CATALOG AGE STAFF Catalog Age, Mar 1, 1999. ...
catalogagemag.com/ar/marketing_catalog_management_systems/ - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

Directory & Shopping GUIDE: CATALOG MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSDirectory & Shopping GUIDE: CATALOG MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Curt Barry Catalog Age, May 1, 2000. ...
catalogagemag.com/ar/marketing_directory_shopping_guide/ - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from catalogagemag.com ]

U of MN Extension - Product Catalog: Management Systems and Ground ...Product Catalog Fact Sheet Information, Title: Management Systems and Ground Water Atrazine Concentrations (MSEA fact sheet series). Producer/Author: Giebink, B. ...
http://www.extension.umn.edu/units/d...tml?item=06581 - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

InternetRetailer.com - Resource Guide... Catalog Management Systems. Choose another category: Affiliate Marketing Programs. ...
http://www.internetretailer.com/reso....asp?catID=194 - 28k - 23 Apr 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

InternetRetailer.com - Resource Guide... Choose another category: Affiliate Marketing Programs. ...
http://www.internetretailer.com/reso....asp?catID=224 - 31k - 23 Apr 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.internetretailer.com ]

e-Catalog and Product Content Management Systems and Processes... content management solutions, which collectively include products positioned as product content management systems, e-Catalog management systems, and supplier ...
www.capv.com/Store/publications/pub00015.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

T-Systems and Poet offer electronic catalog management "NetCatalog ...... Small and medium business in particular either are unable or do not want to invest in catalog management systems of their own, so new models for software usage ...
www.x-solutions.poet.com/eu/newsevents/ Pressemeldungen/2002/20020313.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages


CBP

[Andilinks]

Well, I am glad I posted the screen shot, that saved a lot of back and forth...

Hmmm... why would we be getting such different results for the same search?

I do have the Google Toolbar installed on IE which probably does change my profile.

Searching from the Firefox browser however produces only a slightly different result but nothing like what you got (those top results of yours are 4-5 years old, not what I would like anyway).

I didn't say the unsponsored results were not relevant, just that they were of a substantially lower quality than the paid links. That would be an out and out corruption of the search which is what my complaint is...

I do dozens of searches daily, sometimes hundreds. I mostly use the Copernic Search Agent when not using Google. But I can say confidently that I do enough searching to be a good judge of the result, particularly in areas familiar to me.

I am unhappy with this Google result, and I think the fact that I have been defending Google's Gmail effort as I have lends some credibility in that I have been a big fan of Google for a long time.

But as firms approach an IPO sometimes weird things do happen, and this is an IPO of some mammoth proportions, maybe they are trying to goose the ad revenues now.

Andi

[trsiyengar]

Oh, it seems cpb and andilink posted at a time simultaneously, unaware of each others presense!

If you install a Google Seach Bar into your browser, then the format and results are slightly variying from that one you would have got on direct hit to Google SE. Secondly, the Google Search Engine results are varying from place to place or to state on Linguistic channel that are available locally in every part. I do not see the same Seach results of Google's Language Search Bar. Furthermore, for same coin of word search, Google SE gives different results at different time; The famous Google Dance!

I saw the results are perfectly okay with the same number of entries (!), when I searched "catalog Management System"

Namasthe Everyone,
TRS Iyengar

[Dave Hawley]

This is one of the BIG problems all SE face. Good results are always in the eye of the searcher.

As the saying goes You can't please all of the people all of the time......

and I can only attribute your satisfaction with the Google result to your lack of expeience in this field

IMO, most people searching for something do have a "lack of expeience" in the field of the term they search for. This is often why they are searching. So, what is "quality" to a user "experienced" in the term searched for, is often not of "quality" to the inexperienced on the search term and of course vice versa.

[Andilinks]

Well Dave, I started this thread because there is a lurid contrast, not just a subjective difference.

All the paid links nailed it and all the regular search items wasted my time.

Coincidence? I think not.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

All the paid links nailed it and all the regular search items wasted my time.

The keyword here is my. As to whether the difference are a "lurid contrast" or a "sunbjective difference" is also in the eyes of the searcher.

Coincidence? I think not.

I take it by saying "I think not", you are suggesting Google is doing this intentionally to get more clicks on paid Ads? I simply do not subscribe to that theory. Google is just too business savvy to try such a cheap trick. I often find the paid ads more helpful (for me) than the free results. However, one cannot think of only ones self when it comes to quality and relavency.

[Andilinks]

The keyword here is my. As to whether the difference are a "lurid contrast" or a "sunbjective difference" is also in the eyes of the searcher.

You may dismiss my informed opinion this way. It does not reflect well on your reasoning power but then that's just my opinion which you are sure to dismiss.

Google is just too business savvy to try such a cheap trick.

One would hope. But huge one-time events like an impending IPO can provide a powerful incentive for cheap tricks that change the numbers.

I like Google, I would not make such an accusation if the evidence did not seem clear (even lurid) to me.

Andi

[JayDrake]

Okay, my search results look similar to what Andilinks sees, but I don't see this as 'wrong'. I took some time and went to the paid links, looked around at their sites and found that none of them particularly emphasized the phrase 'Catalog Management System'. The organic results, on the other hand, had several iterations of the phrase in the body of their pages including some emphasized versions of the phrase with header tags, etc.

I certainly would not consider it to be Google's fault that the search phrase is not found within the sponsored links sites or that the sites found through the organic search do emphasize the phrase. Rather, Google appears to do what I would expect it to, looking for those sites which seem to strongly represent the phrase searched for based on their textual content.

It might be of interest to check back links on each of these sites and see what the link text is that points to them and what sort of link popularity the sites each have.

[Dave Hawley]

Andilinks, no need to take offence. I'm not dismissing what you see. I'm simply pointing out, as I keep saying, that the quality of the SERP's (on just about any search) is at the discretion of the searcher.

The only dismissing was done by yourself in reply to cbp with your statement;

I can only attribute your satisfaction with the Google result to your lack of expeience in this field or any need for results

As JayDrake has pointed out, these results seem to fit the criteria (as we know it) to be on page 1.

One would hope. But huge one-time events like an impending IPO can provide a powerful incentive for cheap tricks that change the numbers.

This statement (and hundreds like it) has been used for over a year now. It's becoming rather stale. It's another case of say enough things often enough and some will become true.

I like Google, I would not make such an accusation if the evidence did not seem clear (even lurid) to me.

That statement contradictions itself. Tell me why you would like a company if they are doing as you accuse them of?

Offer some good proof by all means, but it's silly to find one result (from billions) you don't expect and then base such an accusation off it.

I find this post very much out of character with your other posts. One in particular when you said, in a sarcastic reply to Google being "simply about links"

Being President is simply about votes
etc
etc

Making the accusation you have is more than simply finding a few results you don't expect. By doing do you are simply slinging mud in hope some will stick.

[Andilinks]

you are simply slinging mud in hope some will stick.

Not true, it pains me to see results like this from a company that I have long admired and felt was one of the most honorable among a field of mediocrity and greed. I show concern and emotion it is because I truly care about what Google means to the www and in fact our civilization.

Google is of course changing, as it has from the beginning. I would love to be proven wrong, and no matter what contradictory forces are at work within that company (as they are in all companies) there is the hope that all will work out well in the end. As companies grow larger it is very typical for them to change in many ways and often the visible changes reflect the policies of different factions within them.

I don't want to hang the entire premise of a corruption of the Google algorithm by sponsored results on this one example. You will please reread my original post to find that I said I hope there are no other examples forthcoming. So far there have been none, and I find that encouraging.

A close dissection of the results of this particular search will not move this discussion forward. As I've stated elsewhere, I do many, many searches--not as an seo with an axe to grind, but as a searcher trying to make sense of the wild array of things presented to me by the engines. As with any operation done repeatedly and habitually a feeling can develop which goes beyond careful analysis and reaches into the area of a sense for the material. I sense a change for the worse.

Going public has often been the beginning of the end of creativity for young companies. The executives and employees get wildly rich and lose their focus. Their creative energies shift from making an excellent product to making the best use of new capital. Everyone’s job description changes. You have been hearing this for a year now and rather than getting stale it actually becomes more intense as the time approaches.

We seldom in the public see this quite this way because seldom is a companies’ product so intimately connected with our lives and often our livelihoods.

The advent of the first really big IPO since the Mar. 2000 collapse happening within the glare of all these forums, weblogs, etc. is totally unprecedented. These detailed world-wide public discussions of a search algorithm are totally unprecedented. I think we live in the most exciting time yet, and it continues to get better.

Andilinks, no need to take offence. I'm not dismissing what you see. I'm simply pointing out, as I keep saying...

Yes Dave, as you keep saying, which is dismissive and offensive. I heard you the first time.

This is an extremely complex discussion. The integrity of the Google algorithm and search results are being tested severely by the pressures of the market. That is what this is about.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

I would love to be proven wrong

You have to prove yourself right first. Without proof you are simply slinging mud.


Andi, would you like it if a user went to your site, saw something they didn't agree with (no proof) and then publicly accused you of desception and prifiting from the desception?

Yes Dave, as you keep saying, which is dismissive and offensive. I heard you the first time.

Why on earth are my comments about quality in the eye of the beholder "dismissive and offensive"? More mud slinging.

[Andilinks]

I give up Dave, I accept that calling me a mud slinger is the best argument you have to offer.

You have to prove yourself right first. Without proof you are simply slinging mud.

No Dave I presented an unproven hypothesis.

Why on earth are my comments about quality in the eye of the beholder "dismissive and offensive"?

The first time you said it was not offensive, just dismissive. Your repeating it as an answer to my rebuttal was dismissive and offensive. Though I would not have characterized it that way had you not said "no need to take offence." My using that as a point of departure was perhaps an unnecessary escalation. I regret taking it to that level and was not personally offended.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

I give up Dave, I accept that calling me a mud slinger is the best argument you have to offer.

No Andi it is not my argumnet and you know it. I accused you of mud slinging as that is what you are doing. Let's call a spade a spade. I find it ironic that you take offense to this and yet have no hesitations in publicly slurring the name of a business (stating they are corrupt) with next to nothing to offer as your argument.

Andi, there are quite a few questions I have asked you which you have chosen to ignore. The lack of response speaks quite loud.

No Dave I presented an unproven hypothesis.

Exactly why it is up to you to offer proof, not vice versa.

It irks me when users plant a seed of doubt of another business without offering any proof. Call it what you like but it is simply mud slinging. IMO though, all the mud is on you.[/quote]

[Andilinks]

It irks me when users plant a seed of doubt of another business without offering any proof.

I think a naive trust is foolish and that one should have a natural doubt, so I suppose I shall forever irk you Dave.

You say I should not express doubt without proof--I think that is foolish.

I express my doubts with sincerity and a hope that I am wrong. If you still call that mudslinging I can only say that I disagree. Either you didn't read all that I wrote with understanding or you think I'm devious. If that's what you think then there's no hope for a dialog here Dave, let's drop this.

I would like to hear from others on this though if anyone else has anything to say.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

I think a naive trust is foolish and that one should have a natural doubt

Yes, but when "natural doubt" is turned into public accusations without proof you become the "fool".


I don't intend to debate any further until you answer all the unanswered questions I have asked you. It's becoming clear you have no intention of doing so as you are selective in which ones you do answer. There is only one conclusion I can draw from that.

BTW, no idea what the word "trust" has to do with anything. I would also put money on it that Google are not corrupt and doing as you have accused them of.[/quote]

[JayDrake]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

Not true, it pains me to see results like this from a company that I have long admired and felt was one of the most honorable among a field of mediocrity and greed. I show concern and emotion it is because I truly care about what Google means to the www and in fact our civilization.

Andilinks,

I've yet to hear how the results are not what would be expected. The organic results shown look like they are entirely valid based on the common understanding of Google's spidering engine. The site shown have good textual presentation of the search term you input. The paid sites do not.

Originally Posted by Andilinks

A close dissection of the results of this particular search will not move this discussion forward. As I've stated elsewhere, I do many, many searches--not as an seo with an axe to grind, but as a searcher trying to make sense of the wild array of things presented to me by the engines. As with any operation done repeatedly and habitually a feeling can develop which goes beyond careful analysis and reaches into the area of a sense for the material. I sense a change for the worse.

The discussion cannot move forward because the premise of your belief that these results are corrupt is simply wrong. That you did not see the results that were of value to you in the organic search has everything to do with the fact that those who had the information you needed have not presented themselves in the way that would be required for Google to rank them highly for the very specific search phrase you entered. By asking for "Catalog Management Systems" including caps and quotes, you have told Google that you only want those pages which include that exact term which immediately negates most (4/5 that I stopped to check) of the paid links as they do not include that term anywhere in the visible body of the page they link to. Glancing at them, it would likely have given you better results have searched for CMS or perhaps catalog management or even both, leaving it a little 'fuzzy' instead of being so rigid in your choice of search.

I reiterate that your search results are in no way corrupt. They are exactly as one who understands just the very basic workings of Google would expect to see. The fact that the organic search results were not what you were looking for has everything to do with a combination of your choice in search phrases and an apparent lack of consideration for that phrase by the companies who have web sites which fit your needs.

[Andilinks]

Yes, but when "natural doubt" is turned into public accusations without proof you become the "fool".

I publicly expressed doubt about the integrity of the search, yes. I don't think this is foolish, you are welcome to your opinion.

Seldom is any company entirely corrupt, and likewise it is rare that any company is totally free of corruption. What I said is hardly a condemnation, you do not read me carefully and have entirely ignored my mitigating statements.

...until you answer all the unanswered questions I have asked you.

I don't have the time or inclination to answer every question that you pose, I address those that I think important. I've re-read your posts and don't know what you are talking about. Please re-ask what you think the most important and I shall address it, but implying that I am being intentionally evasive is wrong.

Andi

[Andilinks]

Originally Posted by JayDrake

...I reiterate that your search results are in no way corrupt. They are exactly as one who understands just the very basic workings of Google would expect to see. The fact that the organic search results were not what you were looking for has everything to do with a combination of your choice in search phrases and an apparent lack of consideration for that phrase by the companies who have web sites which fit your needs.

Thank you Jay, I accept and appreciate your thoughtful analysis. I will be doing more research in this area today and if I have anything to add I shall certainly do so. Since this is indeed my area of inquiry now I certainly will be matching your analysis in the coming hours and days and I will be reporting my results here.

My earlier impression remains as it was though. The content of the searched pages is less relevant to my point than the actual listings given on the Google result page. The descriptions in the Sponsored Results are nailing my search and those in the organic are quite unappealing from the standpoint of one doing such a search. The effect of this is that the searcher is much more inclined to click on the paid links. I find it hard to believe that this is unintentional. The fact that the Sponsored Links are allowed a fuzzier part of the algorithm and can nail the search, while the organic are not is my point exactly. This is a corruption of the search function, or at the very least a corruption of the original spirit of the Google search. I understand their need to pad the bottom line, I've addressed this.

For the benefit of anyone pursuing this, the acronym "CMS" is more often used for "Content Management System" a broader category of which Catalog Management Systems are a part.

I have unfortnately been busy defending my right to express doubt, I will continue this later.

Andi

[JayDrake]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

The fact that the Sponsored Links are allowed a fuzzier part of the algorithm and can nail the search, while the organic are not is my point exactly. This is a corruption of the search function, or at the very least a corruption of the original spirit of the Google search. I understand their need to pad the bottom line, I've addressed this.

Nah... That's not corruption at all. These are different paradigms. The paid results are those who are paying for specific query strings and have nothing at all to do with organic searching. They nail it because they know what terms people use to find them and they pay for those terms, in this case "Catalog Management System". The organic search tries to find good results, but is limited to making comparisons of text strings rather than comprehending what a page is about as we can.

In comparing the results of paid vs. organic listings you are really looking at apples and oranges. If Google looked only at keyword tags on web pages and determined from that alone which results were relevant to your search that would work approximately the way that the paid results do. On the other hand, key phrases such as yours would just generate an unwieldy list with no more weight given to what you are looking for than would be given to some adult site which thought it would take a gamble at attracting visitors by using irrelevant keywords. In the case of paid inclusion, companies are less not inclined to put forward capital on search terms that do not apply to them, so the paid listings are 'filtered' in this way.

[Andilinks]

This is then perhaps a search equivalent of the operation of economic laws. Those businesses that are willing to pay to be seen are more likely to get the advantage of a better search.

If apples have a higher margin of profit than oranges they will be more prominently displayed.

It is in a way corruption because it allows vendors to pay for exposure in a venue that is supposed to be based on the value of (genuine) incoming links. The Google method of separating the paid listing from the organic gives the impression of integrity while actually allowing the paid listings better exposure by using a different alorithm for them, particularly on the first search page.

This is the business model that Google uses. Is Google a library or a bazaar? Libraries catalog commercial products and bazaars are a natural arena for commercial information.

If what I'm experiencing in my searches is not corruption it comes very close. Must I "Tivo out" the ads on my search page? Should I pay attention to the ads and take advantage of the information rendered by those unwilling to pay SEO's (for whatever reason) to arrive on page one but pay Google directly instead?

The distinction is subtle but very real. I am not an academic purist or a Marxist in my view of search, I very much want the market to work here. Maybe that is my point though, Google is not a search engine but simply a playing out of the various market forces applied by SEO's and by its own business model. If that means that for any given search term the paid listings get an advantage then it is corruption.

Andi

[trsiyengar]

Andilinks wrote:

The distinction is subtle but very real. I am not an academic purist or a Marxist in my view of search, I very much want the market to work here. Maybe that is my point though, Google is not a search engine but simply a playing out of the various market forces applied by SEO's and by its own business model. If that means that for any given search term the paid listings get an advantage then it is corruption.

Hi Andi, when you are searching for any particular key word or phrase, do you really look and view only the sponsored list? Won't you just look what it is available in the listing? Okay let it be.

In any Biz. if money does'nt involve a role, then it is not a biz. of worth! Now, Google themselves declared somewhere, they are not running Charity! Moreover, one must be satisfied, that the links provided for the Search words are just properly in place. Sponsored links or free listing, good number of entries are available only with Google! There is second to none, as yet. You must admit this.

You like Google because it is numero uno! You like Google because it is where the entries are higher in numbers! You like Google because it returns you with with near perfect search results! Still why you hate it!!

When money plays a role in every nook and corner of every biz. why one should single out Google!? Either you like it or leave it, I don't find any logic in your two way statements.

BTW, Leninism, Marxism and communism are now almost vanished & out of the earthly topics! :)

[Andilinks]

BTW, Leninism, Marxism and communism are now almost vanished & out of the earthly topics! :)

Certainly in India that is true, and I'm very happy for that. But the last bastion of these lunacies seems to be the elite American Universities. Go figure.

I don't find any logic in your two way statements.

There is plenty. Keeping the distiction plain between paid and non-paid results is the crux of it. The corruption I speak about is only a slight blurring of that line. But for the aggregate of searches it translates into huge differences for both the searchers and the searched.

Andi

[JayDrake]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

It is in a way corruption because it allows vendors to pay for exposure in a venue that is supposed to be based on the value of (genuine) incoming links. The Google method of separating the paid listing from the organic gives the impression of integrity while actually allowing the paid listings better exposure by using a different alorithm for them, particularly on the first search page.

No. They cannot pay for exposure in a venue that is supposed to be based on the value of incoming links as you say. Rather there are two distinctly seperate venues when you do a search on Google. The prominent results are those which come from Google's organic search. The appropriately labeled sponsor links come from paid listings. These are distinctly different searches each based on completely different data structures.

The initial suggestion of corruption which you brought up was that the organic search results were less relevant (to you) than those which showed in the sponsored links. The suggestion there is that Google has, in some way, sabotaged their organic results in order to give greater value to those who pay for sponsored links. Such is not the case and now we spiral downward into nebulous personal ideals that having sponsored links at all is corrupt in and of itself, changing the intent of Google to provide solid results to it's visitors at no cost to either the searcher or those who are listed.

Originally Posted by Andilinks

If what I'm experiencing in my searches is not corruption it comes very close. Must I "Tivo out" the ads on my search page? Should I pay attention to the ads and take advantage of the information rendered by those unwilling to pay SEO's (for whatever reason) to arrive on page one but pay Google directly instead?

You still have not shown anything that is 'corrupt' nor really defined what you mean by corrupt. Are you speaking of corruption in a technical sense or in a moral sense? From a technical standpoint, I feel I have rather concisely shown that the data you receive based on your search is appropriate. A combination of your search and those who market what you seek is at fault, not Google. In a moral sense you are simply wrong. Google gives you exactly what it says it will. It does not seek to mislead you, nor is it shown anywhere that it purposefully impedes one form of search to benefit the other.

To specifically answer your questions, I don't see any reason at all to block the sponsored links. They are available to you should they be of benefit and you may ignore them if they are not. If the advertisement applies to you and the organic search does not, by all means click through. That the organic search does not apply is not corruption on the part of Google. SEO is not something you have to pay for. SEO should be a way of life for any web developer. It is a matter of doing the right thing.

Originally Posted by Andilinks

The distinction is subtle but very real. I am not an academic purist or a Marxist in my view of search, I very much want the market to work here. Maybe that is my point though, Google is not a search engine but simply a playing out of the various market forces applied by SEO's and by its own business model. If that means that for any given search term the paid listings get an advantage then it is corruption.

How is Google not a search engine?

Other than not having paid listings at all, how would you think this supposed issue could be solved? You have said yourself that having paid inclusion through the sponsored links is not what disturbs you. Rather, your initial distress was that the paid inclusion was better targeted than the organic search. There are clear reasons for this and none of them have anything to do with Google not doing everything it can to provide excellent search results.

[imagolfer]

Re: cbp

I'm becoming convinced the cbp MUST work for google.

Read my post of a few minutes ago stating,

"Google is manipulating search results in favor of Adwords"

I have many pictures proving my claim. View all of them for yourself and see if you will still defend google. Test all the entries for yourself.

cbp, you spent alot of time trying to dismiss Andilinks post.

See if you can test my post and still defend Google.

If you can, I'm sure that they will give you a raise!

Michael

[JayDrake]

Originally Posted by imagolfer

cbp, you spent alot of time trying to dismiss Andilinks post.

See if you can test my post and still defend Google.

If you can, I'm sure that they will give you a raise!

Michael

Hi Michael, I'm not CBP nor do I work for Google, but I've spent plenty of time responding to Andilinks' posts as well and would be pleased to take a peek at your post and either agree or disagree with what you see if you would be so kind as to pass along a link to that post.

[Andilinks]

How is Google not a search engine?

Of course it is a search engine in all the ways that search engines are defined, but the effect is what I said, simply a playing out of all the market influences, the machinations of the SEO's and Google's own business model. My saying that it is not a search engine is an ironic metaphor highlighting what it has become. Now you are denying figures of speech to make a point, that is a more pedestrian ploy than I thought you would use.

They cannot pay for exposure in a venue that is supposed to be based on the value of incoming links as you say. Rather there are two distinctly seperate venues when you do a search on Google.

Actually that is the very point I was making, the paid links (on target) are on page one. The unpaid links on the first page are less relevant. You don't have to agree with me that this is evidence of corruption, and obviously you don't. Fine.

Like Dave, you choose to ignore my mitigating qualifications and find fault in minor details and perceived equivocations which I now must redefine. My biggest problem with this argument is that unlike you, I wish I were wrong. I don't want Google to be corrupt and perhaps that's why I'm holding it to a higher standard. It is also why I am growing weary of discussing this with true believers.

I can express my opinion though that as a long-time high-volume user I sense a degredation in many aspects of the Google search because of recent changes in the paid links. I do not have to prove this as though it were some mathematical theorem, which is what you ask, knowing of course that such proof is impossible no matter the truth or the facts.

This argument, like Google itself, is a black box and will not yield proofs. This is all tied up in expectations and perception.

I don't have to prove my point and neither do you have to refute it. But I can tell that it is important to you that you make it appear as though you have. You have not, you have simply made long-winded assertions to that effect.

Andi

[Andilinks]

Other than not having paid listings at all, how would you think this supposed issue could be solved?

If I had that answer fully of course, I would be busy planning for my own IPO...

I think the Google ideal was upheld for a very long time and has only very recently degraded.

My remedy to put it in WinXP terms, would be to find a suitable "restore point" for the Google system from several months back, restore and reboot.

Andi

[JayDrake]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

Of course it is a search engine in all the ways that search engines are defined, but the effect is what I said, simply a playing out of all the market influences, the machinations of the SEO's and Google's own business model. My saying that it is not a search engine is an ironic metaphor highlighting what it has become. Now you are denying figures of speech to make a point, that is a more pedestrian ploy than I thought you would use.

Actually, my question was not a ploy. If you make a statement in an discussion as this that is, in and of itself, very clear you should expect it to be seen as such. That 'Google is not a search engine' was meant as a figure of speech is only confusing on several levels. Perhaps you should stick with communicating what you mean concisely rather than poetically. Your 'problem' is not art, it is technical. Your solution is the same.

Originally Posted by Andilinks

Actually that is the very point I was making, the paid links (on target) are on page one. The unpaid links on the first page are less relevant. You don't have to agree with me that this is evidence of corruption, and obviously you don't. Fine.

Again, this has nothing to do with Google being corrupt in any sense of the word. The results that you get in the organic search is technically more relevant than what you get in the paid search for the terms you input when you initiated the search. Nowhere in the pages that are in the paid search, with very few exceptions, is the phrase you requested found. In the organic search this phrase is found repeatedly in those results which are uncovered. For your search phrase, not to be confused with what you want to find, the organic results are more relevant. These are facts. (No poetry required.)

Originally Posted by Andilinks

Like Dave, you choose to ignore my mitigating qualifications and find fault in minor details and perceived equivocations which I now must redefine. My biggest problem with this argument is that unlike you, I wish I were wrong. I don't want Google to be corrupt and perhaps that's why I'm holding it to a higher standard. It is also why I am growing weary of discussing this with true believers.

Please do define, as concisely as possible, what it is that you think is corrupt with these results. I personally could care less what you want of Google. That is entirely irrelevant just as is what any of us want. What is relevant is how Google works, both in paid and unpaid listings, which I have repeatedly explained but you only appear to ignore because you cannot seem to come to accept that you are simply wrong and Google is doing exactly as it should with the search phrase given to it and the data available to it that the web developers of all those pages which relate to "Catalog Management System" and those who paid to be listed for that specific term have to offer.

Originally Posted by Andilinks

I can express my opinion though that as a long-time high-volume user I sense a degredation in many aspects of the Google search because of recent changes in the paid links. I do not have to prove this as though it were some mathematical theorem, which is what you ask, knowing of course that such proof is impossible no matter the truth or the facts.

This argument, like Google itself, is a black box and will not yield proofs. This is all tied up in expectations and perception.

I don't have to prove my point and neither do you have to refute it. But I can tell that it is important to you that you make it appear as though you have. You have not, you have simply made long-winded assertions to that effect.

Andi

I needn't refute you any more than I need refute those who believe that our governments (headed by alien invaders from the stars) have implanted neurochips into all of us which literally force all of us to love Google. That you have had a bad experience with a single search which, in the first place, was entirely narrow in scope only and that you then turned to wildly accuse Google of some nebulous corruption only shows you as an alarmist. I am entirely confident in my 'long-winded assertions' and only offer my rebuttal for the sake of those who might be even more easily concerned for nothing.

One thing you say is true. Google is a 'black box', the inner workings of which we cannot see. The difference, however, between your posts and mine is that I apply solid logic based on clear facts to the situation where you apply theory based upon perceptions and feeling.

[JayDrake]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

I think the Google ideal was upheld for a very long time and has only very recently degraded.

My remedy to put it in WinXP terms, would be to find a suitable "restore point" for the Google system from several months back, restore and reboot.

This actually is progress. The major difficulty I have with your statements is that you suggest that Google is intentionally manipulating their organic results to favor their paid results. This is highly unlikely because our friends at Google are intelligent and realize that without good organic search, people will not go to their site and if people will not go to their site, businesses will not pay to advertise there.

That said, your mention of restoring from a couple months back is somewhat reasonable as Google surely has made and will continue to make changes in how it ranks pages. This is the never ending effort to achieve perfect results sets that cannot be tampered with in any way.

That the links you liked came up when you searched in the paid area rather than the organic does not suggest degredation for reasons I have stated. Google found sites that properly matched what you looked for and had no way of knowing anything more than you told it. Based on your assertion that you are, in essence, a power Google user, you should be able to appreciate that the search you initiated was not one that would have rendered the results that you appreciated in the paid links, having been shown why they do not fit the criteria you requested.

Bluntly, your search was flawed.

[JayDrake]

Going all the way back to your earlier post with screenshot, your results gave 5 sites in the sponsored links area which were:

www.apsiva.com
www.comergent.com
www.pindarsystems.com
www.pindar.com
www.ordermotion.com
www.babelfishsystem.com

A quick bit of research shows first that none of these rank high for "Catalog Management System".

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read what you say to suggest because some or all of these are really what you were looking for, and none of them rank high in the organic searches, Google is corrupting it's organic based search results to favor paid listings.

My question is this, what is it about these pages/sites that make you think any of them should be ranked highly for your very specific search? I am entirely certain that anyone who has successfully worked in Search Engine Optimization either full time or as a part of working with their own web site would be quick to point out that none of these even comes close.

Not a single one of them includes the phrase you are looking for. One includes the phrase 'catalog management software' and when I do a search for that phrase, rather than your initial search phrase, I find it within the top ten results. These companies know their search phrases, which is why they are there in the paid links where they belong. What they don't know is good web design practice, specifically from a SEO standpoint. This is certainly common and entirely pleasing to me as a web developer and simultaneously hated when I am searching the web.

Your 'irrelevant' results are entirely relevant. 110%. They are, textually, exactly what you are searching for. The only way to provide results that better match what you want, versus what you asked for, is to have results hand edited/categorized which isn't plausible, or to create a more advanced, 'cognitive' engine which can take what you say and figure out what you mean. This would be like my telling you that I want "a tea". Depending on where you live I could expect varying results. When I lived in Canada I would receive a fairly standard cup of hot water with a tea bag. Now living in Mississippi I am brought a large glass filled with ice and sweetened (prior to cooling!) tea. In New Orleans, Louisiana I would be brought similar, only unsweetened. These are the automated responses to my query.

In some cases, you might be asked 'sweet or unsweet?' or 'iced or hot?' In fact, if you confuse Google well enough, it will ask if you meant something else. (Try searching for "Catalog Management Systme") In this case, however, the level of recognition is based on spell check style string comparison and not relationships between one and the other which might allow Google to make a few suggestions of similar search phrases that are related.

What you are expecting of Google here is simply unreasonable.

[Andilinks]

This is from my first, original post.

I'd like to invite others to add examples like this. If none appear I will be relieved that it's just one dumb mistake on Google's part and not a real rotting from within (which is what it appears to be.)

None seem to have appeared. However I have received some rather maniacal polemic responses accusing me of being an alarmist, a mudslinger, comparing me to UFO kooks and bludgeoning me with "facts" which can't be proven any more than what I said can be proven or disproved.

I still think the results appear corrupt, whether or not they actually are cannot be proven from this vantage point.

I didn't SAY Google was corrupt in this first post, merely that it appeared so. I have said several times since that I hope it's not true.

I frankly have better things to do than to try to prove something that I never claimed in the first place.

Jay, get a grip and go do something more productive. Your attacks are getting too personal and far-fetched (while somewhat disguised by civility and cogent arguments) for me to consider this a friendly debate.

Andi

[cbp]

Re: cbp
I'm becoming convinced the cbp MUST work for google.
Read my post of a few minutes ago stating,
"Google is manipulating search results in favor of Adwords"
I have many pictures proving my claim. View all of them for yourself and see if you will still defend google. Test all the entries for yourself.

Just come across this silly post - I have responded to you in another thread.

Perhaps you can share with everyone your proof I work for Google - I hope it better than the proof you provided in that other thread.

cbp, you spent alot of time trying to dismiss Andilinks post.

Andilinks and I have our agreements and disagrements (eg DMOZ) - if you actually took the time to read what happened at the start of this thread, our disagreement/dismissiveness was based on us seeing a different set of results on Google - ie a misunderstanding that was quickly cleared up when Andilinks posted the screenshot. So from this you deduce that I worked for Google!!!! - no wonder you jumped to the wrong conclusion in the other thread if this is how you work.

See if you can test my post and still defend Google.

That was easy ...

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

Andi, your posts here are so out of character with many of your other posts. While my opinion only, I find your other posts logical and well thought through. It's becoming patently clear here that you have zero to back-up your claim and are pretty much making things up as you go along.

Comes a time to put up or shut-up and your time has long passed. To keep calling black white is only proving you have backed yourself into a corner. You are now becoming like a fish out of water. That is, you don't care where the next flip or flop takes you, all you know is you don't like where you are are at present.

You say you are going to do some more research on this matter and post your findings. This should have been done first, not last! Your whole (so called) argument is based on 1 single search and is ludicrous.

[JayDrake]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

None seem to have appeared. However I have received some rather maniacal polemic responses accusing me of being an alarmist, a mudslinger, comparing me to UFO kooks and bludgeoning me with "facts" which can't be proven any more than what I said can be proven or disproved.

First, I will apologize specifically for the comparison to UFO kooks. This was a failed attempt at lightening my thoughts on your concerns.

For bludgeoning you with facts, there are some well defined ways in which google deals with what you enter into your search which one can, as I am sure you have, find more information on from Google themselves. They want you to know how best to use their search functions so that you are more likely to find what you are looking for. As far as the other side of optimizing web sites to achieve high placement in Google, there are a good number of proven methods which have both worked for many who frequent these forums and have been passed around freely by most, tried and proven time and again both through results and in some cases scientific method. Armed with both knowledge of how to search with Google and a number of proven ways to improve a web site to please Google, not to mention knowledge of how paid inclusion works as it is laid out by Google, it is entirely possible to look at the sites you see in both the organic and the paid listings and see why they do not match. Knowing that there is some uncertainty in some elements allows for some expectation of variance in results, but even with an expectation of variance, what I have said holds as fact, or if you prefer, highly probable to the point that one would be a fool not to invest in it.

[Andilinks]

I never made a strong assertion here. But the mania of the responses from Dave and Jay are way out of proportion and makes me wonder about their motivations.

Dave, you are particularly delusional when you tell me that nothing should be posted without having been researched and proven.

Postings here are not a submittal of a scientific paper, this is a discussion. Or at least it should be, I think I'm mostly being attacked because I dared to suggest that Google may not be pure as the driven snow.

Companies need to be watched carefully, especially companies with great power and influence. A company approaching a one-time event like an IPO is especially susceptible. No human beings are immune to corruption and the temptations at the Gooleplex are at a fever-pitch right now.

And while my particular example may not prove anything, it is exactly the sort of thing I would continually watch for as a compromise of the search function.

Google has been very wise in keeping its search function as its primary attraction, but once that becomes compromised they have very little to fall back upon.

Andi

edit: corrected grammar error (one that was quoted below!)

[trsiyengar]

Andilink wrote:

Postings here not a submittal of a scientific paper, this is a discussion. Or at least it should be, I think I'm mostly being attacked because I dared to suggest that Google may not be pure as the driven snow.

You're right Andi, I agree. The postings here are meant to get the different views of each person, nevertheless one's own experience on a particular subject; Let the discussions be in a way pleasantly exchanging of views.

Andilink's fruther quote:

Google has been very wise in keeping its search function as its primary attraction, but once that becomes compromised they have very little to fall back upon.

No one can deny, any corporate, once achieving the top slot, try to rule the earth; by default, they are Numero Uno, they steal the show; by hook or crook, they want to be on the top, never allowing their competitors to even near the second position. And Google is not an exception. It's called Big Biz.! And further they diversify, spread their wings in different field, to keep everything under their own control; Yeh, Corporate Culture?

But you cannot dismiss them as of now, till a viable and strong one takes over the Number One position; as of now, it is only a distant dream. If anyone tries to achieve the top position, either Google will "buy" them, or make them to merge; if not, then use the money power to sink them altogether!

[imagolfer]

I have a prediction for you:

The big engine will derail for many reasons. If the IPO goes through everyone will lose value in their stocks, just as do most IPO's purchased do. Only the stockholders selling at IPO time will profit.
This will make google less desirable.
The current stock holders that sell and profit can turn around and buy back google stock for a fraction of what they sold theirs for.

There will be a big merge take place, and Yahoo will be #1 within 18 months.

Bill Gates will be involved.

If not a good prediction, at least a good imagination, so please don't start attacking me like they are on my post about google manipulating search results.

imagolfer/Michael

[Andilinks]

If not a good prediction, at least a good imagination,

I grant you that.

The current stock holders that sell and profit can turn around and buy back google stock for a fraction of what they sold theirs for.

I think there will be an initial spike but it will settle to a reasonable level quickly. There's still a lot of wiggle room in "quickly" and "reasonable."

Yahoo will be #1 within 18 months.

Way out on a limb here, I wouldn't take that bet without very good odds. One of those things in the "anything is possible" category.

Bill Gates will be involved.

Like predicting the sunrise.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

Andi, If I have said anything that has offended you I sincerly apologise. My intention is NOT to offend but to try and see some sort of reason and logic for your post.

Dave, you are particularly delusional when you tell me that nothing should be posted without having been researched and proven.

No Andi, that is delusion on your part. I never said any such thing. My argument is that IF one is to plant the seed of doubt and make serious aligations (corruption) about a business one should be able back-up that claim in some way. You came here with 1 single example (which to most others is highly dubious) and continue to defend it. You offer nothing new after lots of posts and STILL offer nothing new. Believe me Andi, that is often viewed as slinging mud in hope that some will stick.

Postings here are not a submittal of a scientific paper, this is a discussion. Or at least it should be, I think I'm mostly being attacked because I dared to suggest that Google may not be pure as the driven snow.

"attacked"?? Very poetic on your part Andi. If you see what some (myself included) have said as being "attacked", surely you must see your post(s) as an attack on Google? Somehow though I don't think you will admit that.

I think it is time you offered something new in light of your vehement defence of your intitial post. If not, at least try to understand that what you see does not mean Google is corupt. Many have now told and explained to you the reason why the results are the way they are. They also state they see NO problem with results.

Pop over toimagolfer/Michael post and *just maybe* you will see how you are portraying yourself here.