--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:11 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Question for Rick Archer > > > > > > > > 2) the next SEVEN results, however, are all commercial sites that > are > > trying to sell you term insurance; sites such as statefarm.com, > > term4sale.com, quickquote.com, etc. It's only until we get to the > 9th > > entry (the moneyalert.com website) is there another "information" > > article about term insurance that is not trying to sell me > something. > > > > Question: are those seven results I refer to above coming up at or > near > > the top of the results because those companies are paying Google to > > favor them? In other words, not only would I as, say, a life > insurance > > company who is interested in selling term insurance pay google for > a > > sponsored ad to the right or in the shaded yellow area but I could > also > > pay them to prioritize my site as a result that would come out at > the > > beginning of the list as the seven I point out above? Is this what > I > > am seeing? > > > > No one is paying Google to be listed in the free or "organic" > results. Some > > have wondered whether Google might favor sites that also buy > advertizing, > > but that correlation has never been proven. The sites which come up > highest > > in the free listings do so because Google's algorithm detects that > those > > sites are most closely related to the search term. That > relationship is > > determined by both "on-page" criteria - the site content and the > way in > > which site pages have been optimized for various keywords - > and "off-site" > > criteria, namely, link popularity. The latter is especially > influenced by > > keyword-rich links from respected, well-established sites. There's > nothing > > wrong with commercial sites ranking well in the organic listings, > since very > > often, they offer what people are looking for. > > > > > Thanks to both Richard M. and Rick for their answers. I understand > it a lot better as a result. > > Although I'm not 100% convinced that Google isn't doing something > with the "organic" listings. There always seems to be a set of > specific sites that come up on the first page and they all seem > commercial or ones that Google knows you want to see first (e.g. > Wikipedia and/or imdb.com) and then ones that are totally useless but > transparently commercial such as linkedin.com and manta.com. These > two sites always seem to come up when I'm looking up someone's name > but they are useless sites -- at least to me -- and I can't imagine > anyone else using them. And that's why I assume that Google is being > paid to list these kinds of companies first. > > It's a pain because I always have to waste my time on the first page > and then get to the next one. > > Another thing I've noticed: it used to be that when I did a search on > my own name on Google that about half of the results were Google > groups postings. And then all of a sudden -- about 2 years ago -- > that was cleaned up overnight. So they definitely were playing with > the algorithm. >
I was just about to reply "No really Shemp - you SHOULD be 100% convinced that Google isn't doing something with the "organic" listings" when a bit of synchronicity kicked in and I got a link to this article today: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/ "Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It's a historic statement - and nobody has yet grasped its significance." It IS a huge seismic shift really. If true, (big "if" maybe) this is as big a shock to us geeks as is the collapse of the banks. Both represent the end of hubris: On the hand that the days of borrowing and boom will never end, and on the other that the computer wizards of Google can achieve near perfect "search" given a big enough server farm and a clever algorithm. "If I can operate Google, I can find anything... Google, combined with Wi-Fi, is a little bit like God. God is wireless, God is everywhere and God sees and knows everything. Throughout history, people connected to God without wires. Now, for many questions in the world, you ask Google, and increasingly, you can do it without wires, too." (NYT 2003) It may not be widely publicised - but behind the scenes Google has been waging a vicious and bloody war against "Black Hat SEO". This term refers to those very clever and inventive Search Engine Optimizer experts who are forever trying to trick Google so as to get their sites to appear high in the "organic" listings. (Rick of course is "White hat SEO"!). They are to search engines what spammers are to email. If it's indeed true that Google are planning to plug the weaknesses in the algorithm with human review, then this suggests that Google could be raising the white flag and giving in, overwhelmed by the bad guys. A great shame. (But then the evidence for this in the article seems a bit weak?) It's all going tits up isn't it? The banks, then the car industry, and now Google? Interesting times!
