Dear Google: Crappy Results Like This Don’t Give The Impression You Care About Search

google-g-logo-96x100The debate about what should — and shouldn’t — show in a Google search result for “santorum” has been well-documented, at this point. But I’d like to use this now famous search to illustrate something else: how it appears Google is taking its eye off the ball of being a search engine.

Searching For Santorum: A New Surprise

I did a search for santorum a few minutes ago, and this is what I got:

See the YouTube link showing up there? It helps illustrate all that I think many people are feeling is wrong with Google right now. It’s a pretty bad result, and it’s also something getting there probably because Google’s not catching some potential old-school search engine spamming.

Universal Search Picked This?

The video result is showing up as part of Google Universal Search. That’s a system that blends content from Google’s various “vertical” or specialized search engines into its regular search results. It’s only supposed to inject this type of specialized content if it’s deemed especially relevant to the search topic.

Certainly, you can imagine that there’s video content relevant to a search on “santorum” from across the web. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report alone have over ten different Santorum comedy clips that might all be relevant.

Beyond comedy, there are news reports from across the entire web. The same search at Bing gives some examples of this, of how video content from Bing Video, as well as Fox News and CNN is inserted into its own search results for “santorum,” as you can see here:

Out of 20,000 potential matches on YouTube, out of 21 million potential video matches across the web, what does Google’s supposedly sophisticated Universal Search algorithm pick out to display as the top video content to be shown within the top search results?

A cartoon created by a company pitching its SEO software on YouTube as a way for Santorum to solve his Google problem. Wow.

You Couldn’t Have Picked….

That’s the most relevant thing that Google can show? I think most people would agree it’s not. I mean seriously, it’s better than these?

  • Any of the Colbert Report or Daily Show clips
  • Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum arguing with a student on gay marriage
  • Dan Savage explaining how his campaign against Rick Santorum ultimately caused searches on Google and Bing to show a definition as “santorum” being related to anal sex

You Couldn’t Have Caught A 65% Like Ratio?

It’s embarrassing for Google to be doing this. And it’s worse when you look at the views the video has received: only about 2,000, at this point. That’s nothing compared to some of the other clips relevant to santorum, if you’re considering views to be one possible ranking factor. How does this video get such a boost?

Well, there’s another clue when you look at the number of likes the video has received: about 1,300, at this point. That means about 65% of people who viewed the video also liked it, a ratio that is hugely out of proportion to what you normally see.

For example, the classic Honey Badger video — which is hilarious — has a like ratio of 0.5%. How about the classic Double Rainbow video? Hey, 0.5% again. The Bedroom Intruder song? A tiny bit better, 0.6%.

Either this SEO tool video is something like 130x more likeable than any of these other videos or something abnormal is happening — something that you’d think Google’s spam detection systems would have flagged.

Can I Haz My Relevancy Back?

In this particular example, the poor relevancy isn’t caused by any of the ongoing Google+ification of Google. This result is what anyone would see, even if they are logged out of Google. It’s not caused by Search Plus Your World or anything like that.

But Google has spent so much time and energy shoving Google+ into seemingly every nook and cranny that it can find that this type of relevancy screw-up feels like another bit of evidence that Google’s original core mission, delivering awesome search results, is being forgotten.

Related Articles

Related Topics: Channel: Video | Google: SEO | Google: Web Search | Google: YouTube & Video | Stats: Relevancy | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://www.AccessFirefox.org Ken Saunders

    I haven’t been following you for long, and I understand that you don’t endorse one particular product over another, and, I’ve read that you primarily use Google for search, but, would you, or even can you say that there’s another search provider doing it better than Google? You used Bing as an example in this article of how things should be.

    I’m a long time fan and user of Google, but my faith and confidence in them has deteriorated over the past couple of years. Main reason for search though is the relevancy issue. I’ve tried Bing several times actually hoping that I’d like it, but so far, it just hasn’t grabbed me.

  • http://www.leverinteractive.com Mike Hanson

    I think you’re overreacting to an obvious spam tactic. Some SEO used a known topical query to game the system and drive a result to page one. I understand your point, but the very fact that a person knew how to arrive at page one for something less than relevant shows that the engine is still only a machine delivering results based on data. Data that can be manipulated. The fact is for a query as simple as “Santorum”, the engine is displaying the most optimized results for a query as broad as that. Any SEO knows how drive rank on broad keywords like that through video optimization.
    What kind of result were you looking for? Why didn’t you use a longer query that would have delivered relevant, recent results? Or use the more tools function to limit the time period of results? You’ve probably written articles on how few people view results below the fold, so how many people will actually see that link?

  • Chas

    My question is how much cash did the SEO software company use to lube up Google’s Adword campaign?

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Mike, the kind of result I was looking for was pretty well described — that if Google was going to decide that a video result should be injected into its web listings, that video result be something fairly relevant, not some crappy video that looks like it has been like spammed into ranking.

    You don’t blame the searcher who is looking for something like “santorum” for that — what were they looking for. Chances are, they were either looking for information about the candidate Santorum or to see about the alternative definition of his name.

    They probably weren’t expecting that Google, which is all about telling people not to spam, telling the world it’s all about relevancy, to let something like this through.

    But perhaps I expect too much. I mean, it’s not like Bing’s far less mature search engine managed to stop this thing from happening.

    Oh, yeah, Bing did.

  • http://www.christhehunk.com Christopher Jackson

    Honestly I completely disagree. They are showing EXACTLY the results that are a larger part of the mainstream conversation. More people are laughing at the “Santorum, Santorum” conundrum than are interested in his political views. It’s not about what’s subjectively important as a society. If people want to see raunchy definitions when they search for the word Santorum on Google (which they do), then Google’s job is to deliver it.

  • http://drooltsunami.com Mike Stahl

    I saw a similar thing while searching today and could not believe that what seemed to be a legit result pointed to a video on youtube that had nothing but a video ad with a domain name. It’s evident that spammers have a new method, but google should get this crap out.

  • Chas

    @Christopher Jackson~ you missed the point entirely, even with the bold red arrow pointing to it.-
    Danny was pointing out the SEO software spam, not other well-trod fecal discussions.

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/101219368312754899343/about Robert

    2.2 million results and 1 jerk manipulated the system to get ahead and you blame Google. I think this is nothing more than a cheap shot at Google.

  • Sara Tenenbaum

    Maybe they are trying to figure out which of their apps are important right now? Like most IT venture companies they keep on trying to see what market will be most profitable. And maybe just maybe we should be using the standard media channels to find the information we are looking for.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Robert, if ranking to the top of YouTube results means just getting a ton of likes, then Google’s seriously failing not to detect that. It’s not 2002. It’s 2012.

    Moreover, Google made an incredible large deal out of its universal search algorithm only injecting vertical search results when they are supposed to be as relevant or more so than any web search results they are replacing.

    That means in this case, Google decided this video was the ninth best thing out of the entire internet it could show for a search on “santorum,” a set of search results that has had a huge amount of discussion on already — and on the evening of yet another debate, when people will be searching on that topic.

    It’s a failure, pure and simple. It’s a failure several times over: of failing to have better relevancy on YouTube, of YouTube dominating all the possible videos that could be selected by Google Video; of Universal Search deciding out of all those Google Videos, this should be the one that gets picked.

  • http://havejeet.blogspot.com jeet

    I am disagree too, and blown out of proportion – look at the relevance of other results – on target and most likely hitting to your subjective search.

    Jeet

  • http://manasdeeps.blogspot.com manasdeep

    Dear Danny,

    I truly appreciate your concern and applaud your efforts to bring out the possible weakness of algorithm of Google. I sincerely hope Google guys will take notice and take swift action in this regard.

    But at the same time, I would like to say that you may have used quite “strong” words in your post. Calling it a result of “failure” and “crappy” search algorithm design will cause anger and knee-jerk backlash thrown back to your genuine concern you want to portray in this post.

    Perhaps, editing “Crappy” at your post title can smooth things out a bit. Good luck with that.. :) :)

    Manas

  • smallp

    Being in the UK I’m not personally interested in the politics of Rich Santorum’s campaign, but have been intrigued with the search issues. Out of interest I just tried “santorum” on DuckDuckGo and got an entirely political, clean (no mention of the other meaning, although there is a link I can click if I want further meanings of the word), relevant, interesting and timely set of results. The results page is also fresh, simple and a joy to look at. I’m finding myself using it more and more.

    How can Google let video results like that through? I agree completely with Danny. This IS a crappy result, and it IS a failure. We have loved and trusted Google for years now, and we expect it to do better than this. If we search for “santorum”, show us relevant political news videos, or don’t show us videos at all. Either that, or we will all head off to the dark side and buy some crowd-sourced “likes” on our YouTube videos and play the same game.

  • Jeff Wolfers

    Manas / Danny:

    What we’re seeing is the MG Siegler’ization of tech reporting. If we’re not f’ing or s’ing or failing we don’t attract enough readers. I really object to such black and white characterizations used in tech reporting these days. It’s childish and counter productive…. which is too bad, because Danny’s observation here is spot on. Too bad it’s masked in emotive language.

    Jeff

  • Bob

    Calling it crappy is being kind. The video had “SEO” in the title with 65% Likes! How obviously blatant does the gaming have to be?

  • http://paxtongeller.posterous.com/ Paxton Geller

    Okay, the video has the ‘keyword’ in places. It has a huge number of likes. Of course, I agree with Danny that it should have triggered an alarm for Google. But then, I look at the stats of that video and most of the traffic seems to be from the appropriate region and, shall I say, the appropriate age group of audience. Of course, I’m not a bot.

    But hey, that video had been embedded in Rick Santorum’s official site (and has generated some views too)? Aren’t we accusing Google too much?

  • http://revaxmedia.com R.M.

    Report it and they will deal with it, #simples .

  • http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/ Mike Cane

    The most recent change to Google has made it especially bad. Now it won’t show results from blog posts I did back in 2007 despite me using keyword from those posts and my own name in quotes so I’d be sure to get those posts — as I used to in the past!

    Google has been removed from my bookmark bar in Firefox and is now my search engine of last result. I’ll use Bing, DuckDuckGo, Blekko, anything else before Google.

    And before this change, Google was deteriorating badly, with too many spam results from SEO jacking. It’s just become useless now.

  • http://aardling.com Stijn Vogels

    Similar SERP quality problems have been appear for my own personal brand name. I see a lot of spam from sites that claim to offer traffic insights. Not just a few, but literally several pages of them. I have already filed a complaint about this with Google, but received negative feedback. Apparently automated pages of that type are not considered spam, while I myself don’t see any value at all in that junk.

  • http://www.pagezero.com Andrew Goodman

    Danny, sensible points indeed. As a user of certain Google services I feel like Google is slipping up on basic relevance and functionality. Though this may seem like a self-indulgent field to some… recently I have gotten back to using the Google Finance research tools and I *really* like some of it. When Google Finance came out of the gate it blew others out of the water, and the UI is generally still a lot more intuitive. So where do they slip up? The basic news feed! Much if not most of the breaking news on a stock is simply not coming up, yet spammy “scraped” alerts (exactly the type of thing that is so transparently thin that it launched Panda) of 1-2 sentences from low quality sites come up. There were a dozen good quality stories pointing to Goldman Sachs downgrading Corning, for example (you would have to go looking for *something* because the stock went way down at the open). None of these showed up on the Google Finance feed. Useless. With such a popular product and such an important feature within it, call me crazy but I expect more than just some casual coding support, I expect more dedicated effort from a company that has 40,000 employees, including more curation of sources, and probably just smarter algorithms.

    Could it be that part of the problem is that once again, they’re not willing to make deals with data providers, want to prove they can do it all on their own? It’s nice that they’re billionaires and all, but so is Michael Bloomberg and his company figured out how to solve such problems to provide meaningful news updates. You would think that Google could master such a simple, straightforward job.

  • James Doman

    I would argue that you’re getting a video result like that because Google thinks you’re interested in SEO, there are lots of articles related to “santorum seo” (887k) and therefore it may think SEO is a relevant related phrase to “santorum”.

  • http://www.umamitravel.com U.T.

    I´ve done the search for “Santorum” and this post rank over the crappy videop already :D

  • http://www.vinberdon.com/ Vincent B. Donadio

    Don’t forget, Google now tracks everything you do across all of their platforms (whether you’re logged in or not).. I noticed once I was searching for a CRM software for my uncle’s business. An hour later, I went on Yelp to look up a restaurant he was talking about, and ALL of the Google Ads were about CRM software.

    You use Google a lot. You probably search for SEO stuff constantly, considering you write for a website called “searchengineland.com,” so Google probably threw that in because 1) you search for SEO stuff all the time, 2) you probably even have your own posts and videos about SEO related to your account/cookies, and 3) that video that had your search term in it was about SEO and had a high “like” ratio.

    NO videos show up for me on Google Universal search for “Santorum” because I’ve never searched for his name before, and I’m at work, and do not search for many things that don’t relate to XML or Digital Publishing, neither of which, I’m sure, have anything to do with Santorum.

  • http://www.threepoli.com T.P.

    @sengineland – @DuckDuckGo has the right idea, it’s scary how much of the Internet we do not see because upstream algorithms prune results based on our Gmail, search history, cookies – you name it.

  • Tyler Johnson

    Danny, I thought you were an SEO expert. Isn’t this just an example of really great back end SEO work (spamming if you will) for the link to the video, actually just proving the quality of the product that the video is trying to promote? Did you even watch SENuke’s video?

    The video doesn’t show up in Bing? That’s shocking (sarcastic) for several reasons:

    1) YouTube is a Google product. I’m no expert here, but I’d be surprised if Microsoft wasn’t downgrading Google owned links.

    2) Is it possible that Bing’s crawlers haven’t yet reached all the SEO spam for the video? It’s only been live 3 weeks, and am sure the links that SENuke has created for it are not on popular, regularly crawled sites like CNN, Hulu, CBS News, and Fox News (where ALL of the highest ranked Bing Santorum videos are from).

    3) Did you watch SENuke’s demo video? They are only concerned about Google and their bots finding all of their backlinking. IF this is because Google is the easiest to exploit (which might be true given my next point) then your article has a valid point there. I suspect it’s more because Google holds so much search market share compared to the others, and it’s thus not worth the extra programming into their product.

    4) Google is the only company that cringes when they’re told they have to filter their ‘natural’ results based on public image or government control (China). They want to show what their bots tell them is the most relevant information to their users based on an insane number of factors, most of which it appears SENuke has figured out (backlinking volume and source quality a major one) There’s no doubt your little article here has actually helped strengthen this video in its results.

    5) Come to think of it, do you have equity in SENuke? Did SENuke spam your website, and you didn’t really write this article or the comments that follow?

    Is it not possible that SENuke just has a product that has figured out the best way to exploit Google’s latest ranking algorithms? Shouldn’t the biggest issue around this result be, instead of how did Google fail (if they even did), how did SENuke succeed? How long will their SEO spamming actually hold a strong page rank for your web page? Does it hurt your page’s ranking in the long run, if and when Google realizes they’ve been spammed? I have a website that could benefit from this, but I’d be concerned about negative long term effects of using that product…

  • petervdzee

    Well, Google even forgets to write a page title for its own keyword tool. That sais enough ;)

  • http://reinvent.com Rob Woods

    Danny,

    In addition to the likes/views ratio one metric to watch is links to the YouTube page. A common tactic is to drive tons of crappy links to the page on YouTube where the video is hosted. Paid links, anything really. Google isn’t going to penalize itself because of paid links, your site is safe because you are linking to it, you’re linking to YouTube, and I’ve seen this tactic drive a video into the video results in the main serps. I’m not sure if the URL has existed long enough on YouTube for the common link crawlers to have picked up links to it yet, but that may well be what’s happening here, It seems to be a bit of a loophole in the system. Point tons of links at the YouTube page, that makes it appear in universal search, which then drives page views and completes the circle of making the video rank well. I suspect it’s a combination of spam likes and spam links.

  • http://www.lead411.com tomblue

    Danny, I don’t normally post links to my own profiles, but I was writing a post on the exact same thing last night and my results are far worse than yours. It looks as if SPYW is going to make it soooo easy to game the Google SERPs….

    https://plus.google.com/100044368488235152825/posts/DrCFKzgo3dZ

  • http://RelentlesslyCreative.com Monica Rix Paxson

    Only a human can decide what’s “relevant” since what’s relevant to one person will be very different for the next. So at best, Google offers an approximation. However, as to the “froth” definition, that was a big BIG story, has been for years (thank you Dan Savage) and the glitter bomb? Wow, that too has been very popular too recently. This isn’t Google’s fault. It is that a huge segment of the population likes to make fun of Rick Santorum doing exactly that. That isn’t spamming. It’s political commentary in the form of popular humor. If you are going to attack gays, you can expect to be laughed at. And I think the current rankings tell you a great deal that is relevant about the esteem with which this candidate is held by many people.

  • FMJohnson

    I think James and Vincent have the right explanation.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Paxton, that video doesn’t appear to have ever been embedded in Rick Santorum’s site. Given how much he hates that other search results for him showing up on Google, I can imagine why he would ever do that.

    Jeet, it wasn’t a “subjective” search. I ws signed out, in incognito mode. Google had no idea who I was or my past search history.

    James, Vincent, same thing – Google didn’t have any search history on me for this query.

    Tyler, use, it appears to be the work of getting a ton of likes for your YouTube video. That’s problem number one – Google’s spam detection should have caught that.

    Second problem – why doesn’t Bing have it? Actually, Bing does have it. It just doesn’t rank it well, and probably because Bing has better relevancy on video search, which would include not being fooled by a bunch of potentially fake links or likes.

    And no, I don’t have any equity in this product. I hadn’t heard about it before coming across the video in my search results. And yes, a big issue is how did the succeed doing what appears to be the things that Google says shouldn’t work. I thought I made that among my points. Sorry if you didn’t perceive that.

    Manas, I used “crappy” deliberately. It’s a crappy result. It’s a threefold crappy result where anyone who really understands how Google works, or says it’s supposed to work, would have a three fold jaw-dropping experience to see this happen.

    You don’t roll out Universal Search with grandiose statements like this:

    “And while that Britney Spears mockup was the start of Google’s universal search vision, it was instantly obvious that this would be one of the biggest architectural, ranking, and interface challenges we would face at Google. Over several years, with the help of more than 100 people, we’ve built the infrastructure, search algorithms, and presentation mechanisms to provide what we see as just the first step in the evolution toward universal search. ”

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/universal-search-best-answer-is-still.html

    And instead make Universal Search four years later devolve into some type of YouTube popularity contest.

    Jeff, as with Manas, the language is used deliberately, because this is hardly the first time I’ve encountered this type of situation.

    Earlier this month:
    http://searchengineland.com/2011-year-google-bing-took-away-from-seos-publishers-106311

    It’s a poor argument. Despite withholding link data, it’s painfully easy to demonstrate how sites can gain good rankings in Google for competitive terms such as “SEO” itself by simply dropping links into forums, onto client pages or into blog templates.

    Two weeks ago, I’m noting that YouTube seems to dominate:
    http://searchengineland.com/to-understand-google-favoritism-think-youtube-107857

    “Yes, it can seem like YouTube is favored by Google (especially more and more) in Google’s search results, but much of that is down to YouTube simply having so much content. It drowns out other things, sometimes rightfully so.”

    This month, Google rolled out a new algorithm designed to penalize pages with too many ads above the fold. Good. But this type of thing, which is hardly uncommon, shows that it’s painfully easy still for people to just spam themselves into Google’s search results doing things that aren’t that difficult to detect.

    And that isn’t even new:
    http://searchengineland.com/blekko-launches-spam-clock-to-keep-pressure-on-google-60634

    I’ve repeatedly, over the years, warned that no one really knows whether Google’s results have gotten better or worse. Again from the link above:

    I don’t know that Google’s relevancy has actually decreased. Nor does anyone above who has posted articles recently. We have feelings about this, but these feelings don’t take into account a number of other factors

    But what I am saying in this article is that when you get a stunningly bad result, as is the case here, that lend to the anecdotal views that some are forming that Google doesn’t care about search quality. I know they do. But the outward appearance is that they don’t, that thinks like Google+ are far more important. So they need to work even harder on search to prevent that type of impressions from happening.

  • bpbaker20

    After reading the title I thought this post was going to be about something completely different…did anyone actually click on the first Google result? You can thank Reddit for that…

  • http://www.joe-mangum.com Joe Mangum

    Looks like this post now ranks on the first page of Google for “Santorum.” Hope you don’t mind my saying this but I think it kind of proves your point right?

  • http://www.tylerherrick.com Tyler Herrick

    I don’t see the same SERP that you are Danny. In Incognito, I see:
    spreadingsantorum.com as the first result
    Wikipedia
    Wikipedia
    News (WSJ blog, CNN, WSJ)
    ricksantorum.com
    Washington Post
    santorumexposed.com
    santorums.org
    Mother Jones
    Urban Dictionary
    Fox News

    The reason I posted so many is to illustrate the authority and relevancy of these results. I never saw the video that you saw, however if you had a second incognito window open when you did your search you could be skewing your results based on the cookies from the first incognito window (IF it’s left open). I see the results being primarily based on factual news sites. The top result has 14k +1′s and I’m sure a high CTR. I see nothing in these results that would cause me to believe Google’s results to be “crappy.” Just because it may not necessarily be relevant to each searcher doesn’t mean that it isn’t relevant to the query at hand. Aren’t the issues you’re talking about, with “too broad” of search results be solved by refining the results so it’s relevant to each searcher? I.E., Search Plus Your World.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Tyler, you’re doing the search 24 hours later. It started changing for some people a few hours after I wrote the initial story. That’s to be expected.

    Among other things, I know that Google saw the story. Potentially (I don’t know this part), they started changing the algorithm to try and improve things. If you go to the second page for a search on either “santorum” or “rick santorum,” you may see the video has now moved to there.

    It wasn’t a case of me having two different windows open or anything like that. I’m not exactly new to investigating this type of stuff. I checked several times, completely closing incognito mode when doing it each time. I also check on a separate machine.

    The results in general are fine, though Rick Santorum would disagree. It’s the video result that I was referring to as being crappy. Perhaps if I’d said “a crappy result like this” rather than the plural, you’d feel better about this. But because I’ve documented some other crappy results in the past that Google has done, I’ve consider this as part of that.

    And yes, the video result that was being shown in the top 10 of all the possible things that Google could show for a search on “santorum” was pretty crappy. I believe the vast majority of those searching on that topic would agree with this.

  • http://www.isavesmart.com N.N.

    Hi,
    I know. All Google cares about is Youtube. I see Youtube results all the time. Even though it has nothing to do with relevancy of the search. Youtube is their baby. Just put Youtube in your meta tags and you will show up in search.

  • http://smart-keywords.com A.W.

    while this instance is an example of the reason people black hat in areas they can gain traction – I agree that Google has dropped the ball a bit – recent attention to the Google drug problem – the ads they ran – shows there may be more to this eye off the prize – or is it?

    Google is about making money – you go through 8-9 plus interviews for hiring – maybe they are looking for the morally pliable.

    Larry and Sergey should have enough in their matresses to live well even if the company were to hit a wall – be it competitors (unlikely) or government (coming eventuall)

    but lets be honest – we start companies to make money – like the Google duo we are not altruistic – with each incident G steps out from under the warn glow of user love to the reality of business

    wait till the brain wave studies come more to light

  • http://www.visionefx.net Rick Vidallon

    Google seems to do a much better job for search results at the local level. For example, when I search by ‘search phase + city Google page results are 90% accurate whereas same search on Bing gives me a mash-up of cities and unrelated websites.

    I do think that Danny is being a bit critical of Google here. I would have to believe that the perfect search algorithm lies somewhere between laptop quantum computers and the unearthing of Jimmy Hoffa.

    When I conduct general non-local searches by region or national I liken those Google results to the weather we have here in Virginia Beach, VA. — All us local folks’ always say; ‘If you don’t like the weather here, just wait till tomorrow; it will change. ~ So goes Google.

  • http://antoniegeerts.com Antonie Geerts

    Hi Danny,

    Don’t you think the reason you got that search result was due to the Personalization Google does ? Since you most likely search for SEO related items it blends those interests with normal searches as well.

  • Alan Nudi

    The new Google Privacy Policy taking place on March 1st will probably solve this.

  • http://twitter.com/sccleanse SpringCleanCleanse

    Amen to this post – Google search results are, still, aggravating.  Personally, I’m tired of Google thinking that everything I need to know is in the all-mighty (sarcasm) wikipedia.  Often when searching I have to look 4-5 pages deep for something more relevant than what is given on the 1st page.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide