Google’s Search “Quality”
Many I talk to think getting listed in Google is, or should be, easy. They believe their site to be the best (many irrationally so) and think that they should just be on the top page — above the fold — if for no other reason than they desire it.
You can read any number of my articles and posts on search engines (some of the most popular listed below this post) about the reality of getting good organic rankings to effectively shatter those misconceptions. But even if you do everything right and as you should based on Google’s published criteria — you still can find yourself scratching your head as to why your site doesn’t capture desirable rankings.
Today, on the Official Google Blog, the VP of Engineering, Search Quality Udi Manber, posted about the difficulty and intricacies of Google’s efforts to provide the most relevant results and best user experience. Of course from their POV. I completely understand the challenge Google or any search site faces — as well as what they have accomplished to date and process on a minute by minute basis. It is downright amazing! But, having used search from the start, Google, IMNSHO, is not as good at making those quality determinations as they have in the past or give themselves credit for today.
Years ago, I began to loose confidence in Google’s ability to serve up the most relevant, current, quality sites for the searches I make. Yahoo! and Live Search seem to be doing a better job of helping me to find the quality reputable current sites I’m looking for. On Google, I constantly find 404s, way (way, way, way) outdated sites and experience ongoing examples of better sites not getting those coveted positions determined by Google’s bipolar “quality” algorithm.
I understand that quality is subjective. I understand the Google cannot publish the definitive guide to top rankings on their platform. So let’s get that out on the table. But I can site, as probably any experienced marketers can do the same, case after case where site rankings just make no sense — from a “quality” POV. (Maybe time to add human beings back into the process rather than relying on algorithms alone?)
Udi mentions how they need to keep certain things secret so marketers do not game the system. Understandable. But if the sites that were the most valuable, reputable and updated were able to garner decent rankings, maybe marketers wouldn’t be tempted to try and play the system. Remember, I am talking about valuable, reputable, updated “quality” sites — not just any site or page. With Google the cream doesn’t necessarily rise to the top.
This article is a must read for everyone who really has yet to embrace how Google views their role to offer the results so many think are deserved or easily attained; but many times fall short.
Introduction to Google Search Quality
At your service,
Judith
You may also enjoy:
- Google Needs an Intervention!
- Google Database Dance
- Give Google What it Wants!
- Octo-search Growing Like Gangbusters!
- The Truth About Free Search Engine Rankings
Tell Me What You Think ...
FYI: I do not approve comments from those who use keywords in lieu of their names. Not only do those comments tend to be self-serving, I prefer to make a real connection with visitors who comment on my Blog -- can't do that with keywords. Please see my comment policy for more ...
