February 2, 2011 1 Comment
“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.