Archive for February, 2011

Google Lied about Manually Changes

The Lie was told here by Udi Manber, and repeated by Matt Cutts. And I quote:

At Google we do not manually change results. For example, if we find for a particular query that result No. 4 should be result No. 1, we do not have the capability to manually change it. We made that decision not to put that capability in the algorithm—we have to go and actually change the algorithm.

Contrast that with the story from 2 days ago from the official Google Blog:

We created about 100 “synthetic queries”—queries that you would never expect a user to type, such as [hiybbprqag]. As a one-time experiment, for each synthetic query we inserted as Google’s top result a unique (real) webpage which had nothing to do with the query. Below is an example:

There is no way to reconcile those two statements. If Google sees someone at number 4 that they want at number 1, they can remove the number 4 result with their manual spam filter, and then manually insert it to number 1.

This is not nitpicking: they have the capability and they have used it. They have used it more than for legality or for spam, they used it at the very least for their recent PR stunt.

This is on par with “Read My Lips, No new Taxes”

They lied. They were caught.

Do not trust Matt Cutts.

Do not trust Udi Manber.

DO NOT TRUST GOOGLE.

They are bold face liars.

They can and do manually change their search results. They can and do manually put whoever they want at number one: regardless of what they have said in the past.

Clicksteam For Dummies: How The Ranking Factor Works

Since the majority of people can’t seem to figure out how clickstream data could be used as a Search Engine Ranking Factor, without even scraping the actual page, I’ll give you a hint.

Actually, a pop quiz. Here’s what you know:
User 1 Visits:
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=gyhwesaa
Then immediately visits:
http://www.amazon.com/JL421-Badonkadonk-Land-Cruiser-Tank/product-reviews/B00067F1CE/

Later User 2 visits
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=gyhwesaa&x=15&y=19

Then immediately visits:
http://www.amazon.com/JL421-Badonkadonk-Land-Cruiser-Tank/product-reviews/B00067F1CE/

Later user 3 visits
http://www.redtube.com/mostrelevant?search=gyhwesaa
Then immediately visits:
http://www.amazon.com/JL421-Badonkadonk-Land-Cruiser-Tank/product-reviews/B00067F1CE/

Later user 4 visits
http://www.implantinfo.com/photocenter/visitors/vis_search_comment.aspx?HasComments=y&Comments=gyhwesaa

Then immediately visits:
http://www.amazon.com/JL421-Badonkadonk-Land-Cruiser-Tank/product-reviews/B00067F1CE/

Later user 5 visits
http://www.myspace.com/search/People?q=gyhwesaa
Then immediately visits:
http://www.amazon.com/JL421-Badonkadonk-Land-Cruiser-Tank/product-reviews/B00067F1CE/

Later, you have a user use your search engine and types in gyhwesaa.

Your 20 billion page index of pages does not include the word gyhwesaa anywhere. None of your other signals reveal anything about the phrase.

What do you give the user as a top result?

Bing is Just Better

Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen the hypocrisy coming out of Google reaching new all time highs. The mud slinging out of the Google camp is a signal:

Google is running scared.

Bing has gotten better. A lot better: and Google has gone from ignoring Bing to character assassination.

The latest hoopla goes like this “Waaaah, Bing is copying our search results!” When we dig deeper, we find that, no, Bing is not copying Google results, they are tracking user searching behavior. But hold on, doesn’t Google’s Privacy policy say (and I quote):

“Some of our services, including Google Toolbar and Google Web Accelerator, send the uniform resource locators (“URLs”) of web pages that you request to Google. When you use these services, Google will receive and store the URL sent by the web sites you visit, including any personal information inserted into those URLs by the web site operator. Some Google services (such as Google Toolbar) enable you to opt-in or opt-out of sending URLs to Google, while for others (such as Google Web Accelerator) the sending of URLs to Google is intrinsic to the service””

So Google Does EXACTLY THE SAME THING and throws mud at Bing for doing it? . . . AGAIN? The part that’s even worse is that people who are suppose to be “Search Engine Journalists” can’t even get the story right, because they’re too busy sucking Google cock and just blindly reprint everything fed to them.

The Fact is that Bing has gotten better. It’s a viable competitor and it’s taking market share from Google in the US. This year will be a repeat: Bing will shave off at least another 3 points of US Marketshare: at the expense of Google.

Google is scared. They call Bing’s Results “a Cheap imitation”, but the fact is that Bing is now consistently delivering better results. For all queries? No, not yet. But for your average, non power user, Bing delivers.

If you haven’t used it in a while, head back over to Bing. Use it for a week as your first Go To search engine. It’s much better than you thought.