That’s the claim of someone that emailed me yesterday.<\/p>\n
After reading his email and subsequent replies to mine, I decided to post. Any thoughts? What’s your search engine of choice, and why?
\nHere’s his original email –<\/p>\n
Dear Sir:<\/em><\/p>\n I have been reading your pages with great interest. I am no MSFT lover, but I think they could win the SE war because they I know I am right, and as bad as MSFT is, they will win because they Best regards, To which I replied…<\/p>\n Good points Clayton, but right now, MSFT has quite a long way to go. You think they really offer more relevant results? I’d like to see an That said though, they certainly have the resources to take over, but Scott <\/em><\/p>\n Then he came back with this –<\/p>\n Microsoft is a monolithic monstor that deserves to fail, but Google is Here’s an example search term, something we both probably are interested Working through the Google results, you quickly start finding pages If Google is going to be the gatekeeper of the Web, serving as an Microsoft’s high-ranked pages tend to be meaty and relevant compared to If you try some comparative searches for your personal favorite Best, And my reply –<\/p>\n Well I’m not committed to either one, so I just tried the “Moore’s Law” Google’s #1 result is Wikipedia, a free site. All 10 on Google page 1 are MSN’s # 1 result is actually Intel, a commercial site, so I’m still not Mind if I put this on my blog? Then you can feel free to add more Scott<\/em><\/p>\n And finally, his last one –<\/p>\n GOOGLE<\/em><\/p>\n Result No. 19 on page 2 is about razor blades! What kind of algorithm is that?<\/em><\/p>\n If the subject was search engines, I am sure that you, Scott, would have looked at more than the first two pages.<\/em><\/p>\n Result 20 on page 2 is about (against!) the Ten Commandments.<\/em><\/p>\n The Intel site, result No. 3, is a redirect! Do you think your site could get the No. 3 spot on a redirect? Something is wrong with Google’s algorithm.<\/em><\/p>\n MICROSOFT<\/em><\/p>\n MSN http:\/\/www.live.com\/?searchonly=true on moore’s law:<\/em><\/p>\n Number 1 is an Intel site on M.L. that, unlike Google’s Intel result, is not a redirect. Numbers 8 and 13 claim to be about M.L. but aren’t. Google has been at this game a lot longer, but I find that Microsoft Live Search has “moore” than caught up.<\/em><\/p>\n Microsoft has its monopoly, but Google has one in search and it is not justified by results. I am switching my home page from Google to Microsoft’s Live Search.<\/em><\/p>\n Best, With all that’s undoubtedly been written about Moore’s Law, you have to wonder…<\/p>\n Why DOES this page<\/a> and this page<\/a> appear on Google’s page two for “Moore’s Law”? Is it really just because the main domains (Economist.com & Slate.com) are considered highly “authoritative” by Google? (showing a Google Page Ranks of 9 & 8 respectively) That’s the claim of someone that emailed me yesterday. After reading his email and subsequent replies to mine, I decided to post. Any thoughts? What’s your search engine of choice, and why? Here’s his original email – Dear Sir: I have been reading your pages with great interest. One thing some expert on SE, like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":76,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[26,7,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-google","category-search-engines","category-seo"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nOne thing some expert on SE, like you, needs to do is to try and
\ndetermine which engine produces the most relevant results.<\/em><\/p>\n
\n*deserve* to — their results are far more relevant than Google’s for
\nmost searches.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nhave a better algorithm — once the word gets out. Google is fighting
\nthem on MSFT’s own turf, but Google is ignoring its own bread and
\nbutter. It is going to be fun to watch them self-destruct.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nClayton <\/em><\/p>\n
\nThey include too many spam pages in their index, and they seem to
\nindiscriminately rank some sites very high that are nowhere on the
\nradar of other search engines, which really makes you wonder.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nexample, if you want to point it out.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nI don’t know about their “deserving” it…If MSFT “deserves” anything,
\nthey deserve to have lost out to another company like Google, which they
\ndid over the past 5 years. It wouldn’t break my heart to see Google get dinged in
\nreturn though…
\n<\/em><\/p>\n
\nbecoming an unfair gatekeeper of the Web. Google dictates what is
\nimportant in a way that is not impartial but favors Big Business, Big
\nThis, and Big That..<\/em><\/p>\n
\nin: Moore’s Law.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nwith very little content but all of the SEO tricks, intentional or not
\non the part of the sites. And, compared to other search engines, one quickly
\nruns into sites for law firms named “Moore.” Google’s algorithm
\nfavors sites connected with important commercial sources such as CNet,
\nZiff Davis, Intel and other large organizations. These sites tend to
\ndraw lots of incoming links but often have very little content, text or
\notherwise. (However, Intel happens to be very informative.)<\/em><\/p>\n
\neditorial filter, it is very sad that they are favoring commercial
\ninterests. These interests already have enough entree to the public
\nmind, what with their huge advertising budgets and the controversial
\nconcentration of newspaper, TV station, and cable ownership.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nGoogle’s. So do Dogpile’s, but they use better sources as well as Google.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nsubjects, you might find that you will switch from Google as I am
\ndoing. (Also, for many subjects Google Images is a better starting
\npoint than regular Google.) What are relevant results is a subjective
\nevaluation, but it is worth doing for an expert like you, I think. You
\nprobably want to know who is best, not merely who best explains the
\nrelevancy of their algorithm. We humans are better than mere
\nalgorithms. It is up to us to explain why our opinions are better than
\nalgorithms and to convince others.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nClayton<\/em><\/p>\n
\nsearch. Google shows nothing but the correct Moore’s Law info on the
\nfirst 3 pages, and so does MSFT. I dug not deeper, becuae people seldom
\ndoo. If it’s not on the first page (mAYBE 2 or 3) then nobody’s going to see it anyway.<\/em><\/p>\n
\narticles, with only #10, pointing to PBS being commercial.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nquite buying your argument. That said, whoever has the most relevant
\nresults to what I really want is who I’ll use for personal searches,
\nand I’m sure Microsoft would love to see more people expressing views
\nsimilar to your own.<\/em><\/p>\n
\ncomments there, and perhaps others will as well…<\/em><\/p>\n
\nHowever, they are closer than razor blades (found on Google), as both claim to be about M.L. and one defines it.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nClayton<\/em><\/p>\n
\nSo does Clayton work for Microsoft? Even if he does, is he on to something here?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"