On The Ongoing Relevance Of Google Search Relevancy

Google Sucks All The Way To The Bank!” declared SEO Consultant Jill Whalen in her recent blog post:

It was done gradually over many years, but Google now provides organic search results that often look relevant on the surface, but either lead to made-for-AdSense content pages or somewhat sketchy companies who are great at article spinning and comment spamming.

Matt Cutts even admitted at a recent conference that Google web spam resources had been moved away from his team.  While I doubt Matt himself was happy about this, those whose bright idea it was are likely laughing all the way to the bank.

Later in the article, Jill Whalen wonders if Google has gone too far in ignoring relevance issues with its core search results:

Since their poor results are being talked about with more fervor outside of the search marketing industry, it’s possible that they have indeed crossed the line. Numerous mainstream publications and highly regarded bloggers have taken notice and written about the putrid results. While Google is used to negative press, the current wave of stories hits them at their core — or at least what most people believe to be their core — their search results.

Even though today Google is technically just an advertising platform that happens to offer Internet search, they built their reputation on providing superior results. Because fixing what’s broken in the current algorithm can’t be very difficult for the brilliant minds that work at Google (Hint: ignore all anchor text links in blog comments, for one thing), we can only assume that they don’t want to fix them — at least not yet.

Google made its mark by providing relevant results really fast. This excellence is what killed AltaVista and all the search engines of the day, and also effectively stifled search engine innovation from outside Google till date.

Google continues to thrive despite these issues with their core search product.  Google doesn’t seem to be losing searchers readily, and their commanding marketshare remains in tact.  Even Bing with all its marketing muscle, some thoughtful innovations and the Yahoo search deal, hasn’t been able to wean off too many searchers away from Google. Why?

One reason for this is what I call the Google seduction.  In short, people are hooked on Google through years of familiarity, and even if there were legitimate alternative search engines that people can use for different needs, Google is their starting point on the Web and they can’t make the habit change, at least not readily.

Another reason is that Google continues to introduce some innovations with organic search results. An example is this continuous push for the best top result or two, which has further brought to us “instant search results” (aka Google Instant).  It is awesome to get results in milliseconds as you type a query, but all that simply makes Google addicts like me get further addicted to it, and masks the real cost of Google searches, as we put up with poor results for our more involved or serious searches or commercially relevant searches.

Search guru Danny Sullivan wrote about this a few months ago in a post titled: How the “Focus on First” helps hide Google relevancy problems. Danny gives very specific examples of how Google’s results aren’t always relevant.  But Danny points out how Google is saved by he calls their “Focus on First”:

At its press conference, Google emphasized how people would move their eyes from what they entered into the search box to the first result that was listed, using that first result in a way to effectively judge if all the results they might get matched their query. Google’s really just got to make that first result hum, for most people, most of the time. If results 2-10 are so-so, it’s not a mission critical matter.

It shouldn’t be that way, however. We ought to get 10 solid results on the first page. That’s what I expect from Google. But maybe I expect too much. Maybe good is good enough, especially given how people search.

So, is this what we’ve come to with organic Web search results?  A good first hit, and then whatever else on the first page!  And we are to believe that this is how the vast majority of the world searches and satisfying them with a good first hit is enough!  Wow!  Unbelievable!

I have no doubt that Google’s relevance with organic search results will improve yet again, given the rise in negative commentary about it in influential pockets of the Internet.  However, the pertinent question to ask is this: Why would an advertising giant care more about relevance of organic search results any more than absolutely necessary to keep their revenue proposition in tact?  Or, asked another way, is search relevance ever likely to be as relevant as ad relevance to Google?

Personally, it is my belief that relevance in search is ultimately for the individual searcher to judge, and while it is important for a good search engine to deliver a strong set of relevant results from the get go, the Web has gotten complex enough that people will be better served by having a better set of tools to help them find and curate what they need.

What do you think?

At Zakta, my startup, we have developed a new search engine called SearchTeam that lets people search the Web together with others they trust. Our approach to improved search relevance is to deliver a suite of tools that enables people to find, collaborate and curate information they need from the Web easily.  Stay tuned for more information about SearchTeam here, and at the official SearchTeam blog.

The Google seduction – Are instant search results blinding you to the real cost of your searches?

I’ll admit it.  I’m hooked on Google!

To start with, back in 1999, I was impressed with the speedy and mostly relevant search results delivered by Google.  I got mesmerized by their growing coverage, the advanced tools, and mostly by their simple, uncluttered, spartan interface that never changed in years.  I got lazier and hooked even more when Google started suggesting queries I could use – now I don’t even type my query fully often, and pick from the query suggestions list instead.  My addiction to Google has only gotten worse with Google Instant, where I get results as I type (granted, that this thing works well some times, and is downright irritating at other times when it slows down my typing of the query).  There are these delightful situations where I type in the name of a company, and I get the company’s web site, address, phone number and a map, ready for use – exactly what I needed.  Examples like this abound.  In all, these are ingredients of the Google seduction!  Masterfully crafted tools and features that keep me hooked and coming back for more.

You know what I mean!  It’s highly likely, from seeing market share stats, that you, like me, are hooked on Google too!

If you’ve seen the previous posts here, you might have noticed that I’m an entrepreneur, and my team has created an alternative search engine that will be released to the market soon.  Why am I admitting to being seduced by and hooked on Google?  Because it is true, and it is a reality I expect to encounter again and again in releasing our brand new search engine to market soon.

As productive and as satisfying my searches like these are on Google, there are different types of searches I do often which are downright frustrating and painful.

Example 1:

Shopping for a laptop computerTake for instance the time when I wanted to find a good laptop suitable for use by son who was heading to college (this past summer).  I was buying a laptop after a 2 year gap, so I had to find out what laptop technologies were out there, research specific features of interest to us, find reviews of models, find deals etc. – the whole effort lasted many hours. During this time, I used Google out of habit, and had to wade through tons of irrelevant and commercially hijacked results.  It wasn’t easy keeping things together that I found interesting along the way, and it certainly wasn’t easy to share findings readily with my son.  And in parallel, my son did some searches and we couldn’t easily get in synch with our efforts.  Irrelevant results, lot of time spent in sifting through results, no easy way to save what was useful, no easy way to share, no easy way to find things together, and no easy way to pause the searching process and continue from where I left off.

Example 2:

Finding a hypoallergenic natural sunblock or sunscreenHere’s another example … recently I had to research hypoallergenic sun screen / sun block solutions because my family had developed an allergy to something in traditional sun screen products.  I recall spending over 8 hours, Googling over and over across dozens of different queries, pouring over pages and pages of results, sifting through the gunk to isolate useful nuggets.  Since I had to do this across multiple sessions, often I had to repeat my searches and sift through the same results, often irrelevant, over and over again.  Post-it notes, clippings in a Word document, patchy email notes sent to other family members about this — this was my toolset for collecting, sharing and collaborating.  I did find 2-3 products finally, but it wasn’t easy.  And I’m an above-average searcher myself!

Example 3:

Planning a reunion in central FloridaIn late 2009, my extended family decided to have a family reunion in Florida.  In that context, we had to search for travel options, accommodations for 16 people, attractions, food/eating choices and ideas and a whole lot more.  Of course, I Googled over and over and over across many days doggedly, used emails to collect information and share with other family members across the country, and eventually we did have a great reunion in the Orlando area.  But, Googling offered little support in accomplishing this whole task!

If you think these searches are outliers, think to your own experiences of researching to purchase a gadget, an appliance or any big ticket item.  Think about the time you started researching places for a vacation with family or friends.  Or when you had to find more about a disease or medical condition and treatment options for a dear one.  Or the time when you had to find a supplier for a product / service at work.  The list is quite large, of searches like these, where the search itself is a process, and not something that yields an answer with a single query and the desired result on page-1.  Whether these searches emerge from our need as a consumer, or as a student, or as a business professional, the problem is the same!  The instant gratification that seduced me and you into using Google, and has us addicted to it, doesn’t do a darned thing to help here.

I don’t know how to say it, except quite bluntly – Google isn’t designed for searches like these, at least not today! Neither are other mainstream search engines.

The irrelevant results, coming from the search result pages that have been hijacked for queries with a commercial intent, make it worse.  Check out Paul Kedrosky’s post: Dishwashers, and How Google Eats Its Own Tail, Alan Patrick’s post: On the increasing uselessness of Google and Jeff Atwood’s post: Trouble in the House of Google for more examples where Googling isn’t helping as it might have some time ago. The subject of declining relevance in search results is a separate topic that I’ll write more about later.

These searches are expensive in terms of time – your and my precious time lost in googling over and over.  And yet, each one of us goes back to Google every so often for a need like this, and go through the same time wasting process over and over again!

So, when you factor in these sorts of searches that you do, what is the real cost of your searches in all?

Seduced by the tools of instant gratification, I personally believe we have been enslaved into using Google (and same could be said for regular Bing or Yahoo or Ask or AOL users too) even when it is not the right tool for the job.  “If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”, the saying goes, and it seems that the vast majority of searchers are using the Google hammer all the time, even when it is clearly not the right tool for the job. The cost of doing so?  I don’t have concrete numbers to share yet, but I think it is safe to say that there’s a HUGE collective productivity loss from using the wrong tool for a searching job like this!

What is your opinion on this matter?

My startup, Zakta, is set to launch SearchTeam, the world’s first real-time collaborative search engine soon.  By combining tools to search, collaborate and curate into a single integrated solution, we hope to provide a useful search tool for finding information like this individually, or together with friends, family members, colleagues or other trusted people. I’ll share more information about this in the coming days and weeks.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.