Too many crap results in Google

[TheSlackers]

I'm getting really, really fed up with the big G at the moment. I mean, the rankings seem to be getting worse and worse! The whole "real time" search thing aside even the natural results are garbage. It seems if you have a keyword rich domain and an old site you're in! Seriously I'm coming across again and again awful looking sites with just a handful of crap links and no or very low PR outranking good quality, interesting sites with tons of links.


....gggrrrrr :mad:

[sirearl]

It seems if you have a keyword rich domain and an old site you're in!


:mad:

Agreed Google has lost the plot over keyword rich domains.

Earl

[thebookiesoffers]

i know what you mean mate, i should be top for poker, casino, bookies, free bets and sports betting:D

[TheSlackers]

i know what you mean mate, i should be top for poker, casino, bookies, free bets and sports betting:D

They're not that crap yet! ;)

[FireFleur]

If they notice and they probably will, the algorithm will get tweaked.

I suppose I have been noticing some older style sites pop up there, but that's all the fun of the web isn't it :)

[Ali-v-8]

probably looking at site popularity.
An older website would probably a have had more visitors than a new one.

[fisicx]

I'm coming across again and again awful looking sites with just a handful of crap links and no or very low PR outranking good quality, interesting sites with tons of links.
Maybe I'm missing the point here but since when has PR or having a ton of links been a ranking factor? (PageRank yes, PR no). Agree about the interesting content unless of course the ton of links included something dodgy and the site has been penalised in some way.

I don't personally have a problem with the search results - there might be one or two iffy affiliates but in general I get the sites I need.

[av2019]

supposedly Google are having a massive re-working of the algorithm going into 2010 so maybe thinks like this will be addressed.

[Andycal]

It's gone messy, of that there's no doubt.

Everyone went to Google because it was clean and efficient and now it's just being cluttered up with garbage. I agree, those real time twitter feeds are just filler - nobody really cares.

I speak to people who have only just realised the difference between organic and 'paid for' positions, and now they've got to suffer scrolling crap, images, video they don't want to view and all sorts of nonsense.

C'mon Google, sort it out.

[Andycal]

Maybe I'm missing the point here but since when has PR or having a ton of links been a ranking factor? (PageRank yes, PR no).

How are you differentiating PR and Page Rank? And links have been a ranking factor for a very long time - or am I missing the point?

[directmarketingadvice]

awful looking sites with just a handful of crap links and no or very low PR outranking good quality, interesting sites with tons of links.

Is there a strong correlation between a site having "tons of links" and a site being "good quality, interesting"?

I'd suggest that, in most markets, the number of external links is only really correlated with the amount of SEO that site has done.

Steve

PS I agree with comments about the real time/twitter stuff. It's poor quality.

[fisicx]

How are you differentiating PR and Page Rank? And links have been a ranking factor for a very long time - or am I missing the point?
PageRank is part of the ranking algo - always has been. PR, the bit of snot on the google toolbar is fairy dust and has no connection with your ranking.

Links are used in the generation of the PageRank score. It's not quantity that matter, it's quality. Better to have a single inbound from a respected site than 1000 from a bunch of free-for-all directories, blog comment and social bookmarks.

Also remember that the page in PageRank refers to its inventor (Larry Page) not the rank of a page.

[Andycal]

PageRank is part of the ranking algo - always has been. PR, the bit of snot on the google toolbar is fairy dust and has no connection with your ranking.

Links are used in the generation of the PageRank score. It's not quantity that matter, it's quality. Better to have a single inbound from a respected site than 1000 from a bunch of free-for-all directories, blog comment and social bookmarks.

Also remember that the page in PageRank refers to its inventor (Larry Page) not the rank of a page.

Oh, right. I was thinking of something completely different. Yeah, agree. Trouble is, customers love the idea of PR being a useful indicator. Ah well.

[quikshop]

An older website would probably a have had more visitors than a new one.

Irrelevant to serps, thought you would have known that one ;)

[fisicx]

Irrelevant to serps, thought you would have known that one ;)
Not quite true. It's in the original google patent which means it is a ranking signal - although very likely a very small one.

[TheSlackers]

Maybe I'm missing the point here but since when has PR or having a ton of links been a ranking factor? (PageRank yes, PR no). Agree about the interesting content unless of course the ton of links included something dodgy and the site has been penalised in some way.
.

Not this agian.....

Just for clarity the sites below seem to have more quality links as a number of the #1 sites have less than 20 from poor site. As for toolbar Page rank it's a quick indicator of the quality of sites, a little out of date but still. As for the "Larry Page" stuff .......well, whatever. As we all know quality of content doesn't make an ounce of difference to the serps unless it's marketed.

[quikshop]

Not quite true. It's in the original google patent which means it is a ranking signal - although very likely a very small one.

I've never seen any evidence of popularity having any effect on serps.

Google apply for patents like any other organisation to protect intellectual property but also as a spoiling tactic to prevent competitors from developing competing services.

A Google patent does not mean that a patented ranking technique is used.

[sirearl]

As we all know quality of content doesn't make an ounce of difference to the serps unless it's marketed.

Correction.

As you believe.;)

Earl

[TheSlackers]

Correction.

As you believe.;)

Earl

Shut it Earl ;)

Unless you can prove how Google can judge what is "quality" and what isn't without using links, domain trust or any other external factor.

[sirearl]

Shut it Earl ;)

Unless you can prove how Google can judge what is "quality" and what isn't without using links, domain trust or any other external factor.

Of course I can,but as a student I would not want to interfer with your studies.:p

Oh go on then ,I'm such an egotistical old git.:)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=windfarms+explained&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Earl

[TheSlackers]

Does that not just prove SHOUTING IN YOUR TITLE works? ;)

When there is no competition at least....

[Andycal]

Should we not now have a competition to see who can get another page to number one for 'Wind farms explained'??

For a laff?

Go on... let's do it ;)

[david64]

Google have made some good changes this year, but I think this is outweighed by their bad changes. There are plenty of SERPs that have been (almost) totally internationalised (as of June). Plenty of these are 100% irrelevant, but they don't seem to be showing any signs of changing.

[zookx]

I agree as a user I'm finding Google to be a little frustration - it frequently now seems to deliver the results it thinks you want rather than what you type in, even if its a phrase in quotes.

In regards to getting sites to rank well, we've followed most of the advice from Google, worked on gaining legitimate back links for a couple of our clients and have managed to get them on the the front page. Its taken a few months work and perseverance but it can be done.

[sirearl]

Does that not just prove SHOUTING IN YOUR TITLE works? ;)

When there is no competition at least....

The point was to show how little links or age a site needs if it has the right content.;)

and there are people who would die to have this ranking.:p

only the mighty wiki beats me.:rolleyes:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=MB7&q=wind+farm+installation&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Earl

[Ali-v-8]

Done it, got bored took it back down




Should we not now have a competition to see who can get another page to number one for 'Wind farms explained'??

For a laff?

Go on... let's do it ;)

[Ali-v-8]

What no round of applause :(

"wind farms explained" page one of google
Less than 10 mins
all in title 22
website would get there in 1 day
just put up a page from the forum so it aint cheating

[Andycal]

What no round of applause :(

"wind farms explained" page one of google
Less than 10 mins
all in title 22
website would get there in 1 day
just put up a page from the forum so it aint cheating

OHhhhhhhhh!!!! Now I understand the PM :)

Yep, kudos buddy. (Claps)

[webpromoterservice]

I'm getting really, really fed up with the big G at the moment. I mean, the rankings seem to be getting worse and worse! The whole "real time" search thing aside even the natural results are garbage. It seems if you have a keyword rich domain and an old site you're in! Seriously I'm coming across again and again awful looking sites with just a handful of crap links and no or very low PR outranking good quality, interesting sites with tons of links.


....gggrrrrr :mad:

there is very llittle that can be done to solve this.Its a robot and will only follow instructions that it has been given.

[TheSlackers]

What no round of applause :(

"wind farms explained" page one of google
Less than 10 mins
all in title 22
website would get there in 1 day
just put up a page from the forum so it aint cheating

Sorry Ali you've lost me there...

[TheSlackers]

The point was to show how little links or age a site needs if it has the right content.;)



So that brings me back to the keyword rich domain :rolleyes: plus, you actually have more links than the next site down