Friday, August 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Webmaster Level: AllToday we’ve launched a change to our ranking algorithm that will make it much easier for users to find a large number of results from a single site. For queries that indicate a strong user interest in a particular domain, like [exhibitions at amnh], we’ll now show more results from the relevant site:
Prior to today’s change, only two results from www.amnh.org would have appeared for this query. Now, we determine that the user is likely interested in the Museum of Natural History’s website, so seven results from the amnh.org domain appear. Since the user is looking for exhibitions at the museum, it’s far more likely that they’ll find what they’re looking for, faster. The last few results for this query are from other sites, preserving some diversity in the results.
We’re always reassessing our ranking and user interface, making hundreds of changes each year. We expect today’s improvement will help users find deeper results from a single site, while still providing diversity on the results page.
132 comments:
Thats awesome,
and I hope you can provide more tips to get it fast.
great!
it was kindda tiresome not having this function!
Thanks Google!
Thats really great...and its nice to get tweets about great new stuff
I dont think its very useful. it will eat up my time by having to click on subsequent pages, for if i wanted more results from a single site, i could always do "more from site" command.
What if you were looking for reviews of exhibitions from a 3rd party?
If I'm a local restaurant reviewer, is my review going to show up below the restaurants menu page, contact page, home page, blog and locations page?
I think this tweak may have it's faults. If I wanted more museum exhibits I would click on the NHM site and check out exhibitions there. Google is not a site nav, it helps me find sites and then use their navs to explore. The 7 results are likely not a complete list anyway, meaning I'd have to click through for that info anyway!
I don’t think it’s very practical. Users don’t want to check the same site over and over again.
One page results with ONLY 10 results is not a good place to put 7 from the same site…
I agree with Charlie, these changes seem too intense. They have the potential to take out relevant information a searcher might not have know existed, for instance.
Today the links under the main listing (for those that are strongly related to the search) are or should be enough. The site and homepage should be structured and designed friendly enough to let me find what I'm looking for on the site.
Lastly, I can't help but to imagine the SERPs being populated by pages unintentionally optimized for the search term.
...then again, these are all first impressions. I hope I'm wrong. But I can see lots of people not liking this.
How about an operator to return results for that domain exclusively? The equivalent of site:domain
exhibitions at just amnh
OR
exhibitions at only amnh
Thanks google it's about time. It's a bad day to be an affiliate comparison shopping engine
Agreed with the people who said this could get to be a problem in a hurry. I know how to navigate around a website. I don't need a page of results from the very same site. I want to know what else is out there - and this change makes me have to work harder to find the best information.
This is a horrible feature.. Major retailers that sell "branded" products will be pushed off the page, giving users fewer options.
Bing is going to steal a tremendous amount of market share because of this.
i dont like it... the idea of search something is get many diferent results to be able to compare and choose what we think is best... now i have to got to 2 or 3 page
I'm very curious to know whether the part of your algorithm that's responsible for these single domain-heavy results is also responsible for what looks to me like a systematic flaw, namely, serving results based almost entirely on the domain and little else.
If you google “wordpress seattle” or “wordpress websites seattle”, you’ll see results are dominated by subdomains of wordpress.com. These are not sites ABOUT WordPress. The only reason these sites are in the SERPs is that they are on the wordpress.com domain. In other words, they are not just biased towards the WordPress domain, they are polluted by irrelevant results on the WordPress domain.
I was 2nd on the page for my search term - now I'm 9th, underneath 8 pages from my competitor.
yeah, a real nice start to my weekend.
That's amazing news! Thanks Google for this update!
@30something:
can you place here a simple example of your query what you talking about?.. I think you just a good fabricator :)
Great Update,Guys..
Sorry but I am unable to find this change yet!
@devaka.ru
I've posted in the webmaster help forum, with a screenshot. Competitor has first position, with site links, then 8 other pages listed knocking me down from 2nd to 9th. Very bad update.
another useful tool..
thanks for sharing..
Can't see anything good in this update.. (( It's not useful! Now you have to check more pages from Google search to find the site which you really need! Very bad update as for me!
nothing good... you are only populating the search results with pages from same site. rather you should display more relevant links in sitelinks section and give users more diversity in search results.
Awesome!
Thanks Goog!
I am not happy with this changing.. It not going to add any value to users... What if I have to look for new sites and google is showing same site again and gain on front page ? Is it good ?
Maybe it has something to do with AdWords impressions. I don't know. Either way I don't like this new feature.
This is great, been looking into this before.
I don't see a problem. If you broaden your search - natural history museum new england - like a real searcher the nyc museum doesn't have any advantage (if ny is in new england.)
This is a bad feature.I am not happy with this changing.Many users don’t want to check the same site over and over again.
I prefer the operator "site:" searching :-)
I am still waiting for the Google engineering team to separate out directories from single source websites, much the same way you set cats. for (( Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more ▼ ))
If you think about it DIRECTORIES belong in a seaparate cat. much the same way 'Reference' books are catlogued at the library. This would really help to clean up 'Ces Pool Results'.
This is obviously an anti-spam move instead of a pro-relevant-results move. If so, it's a bad solution and questionably proper all around, all things considered.
Thanks for this infos, this help us, webmasters, understand more about google ranking and have new policy in producing contents ;))
Not liking this at all.
After a lot of hard work, one of my sites was 3rd in the SERP's for a major keyword, which contained the word wiki.
Now it's been relegated down to ninth place, after a load of results from Wikipedia.
Thats nice.it will filter out some unwanted results and make search more valuable.But hope they dont give results on just domain name having that perticular text but with exact phrase.
I do not see the benefits of this feature. I don't think it helps the searchers nor the website owners. Besides, this will only promote monopoly with one website occupying two-thirds of Google's first page. More like a hassle to both consumers and marketers.
So if someone promotes an affiliate product , then the Main product will get in the first page. So no use of SEO :(
I like the change. It seems to offer a good middle ground between a Internet-wide search where the results may not be focused enough and the "site:" operator where the results might be a little too focused.
Of course, it doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment. In trying to replicate the exampe a search for "exhibitions amnh" returns the exact number of hits (477k) as "exhibitions at amnh". Searching "exhibitions site:amnh.org" returns 5,760 hits.
There is a lot of nuance involved in the phrasing of a question. For example a search for "amnh exhibitions" returns 123,000 hits which seems more focused that "exhibitions amnh" and this is what I would expect.
At any rate. More options = good, IMO. Especially for those willing to spend the time to consider what they are asking Google (the search engine) to provide.
Wow. I mangled my comment a little bit. Apologies.
Addendum: I have to say that I *guess* it's working after all. Except that all of my searches with the exception of the one using the "site:" operator return 7 hits from amnh.org on the first page.
So I'm confused. (Not surprising.) :)
Definitely need a united layout for website within the same domains. One who is much less space consuming, so we still got the diversity of other domain.
Agreed with the people finding issues...
I can navigate through the website and find from the domain tabs
Same domain results on the first page.. oops..
This is something which gives favor to high ranking websites. This will discourage the low ranking players and meaning of "Googled" is also got changed...
its great but no one used to search same site again and again for more results until he aware there is something interesting in that site.
that more is page is only for 1st domain means it use only for them. for every first domain site almost all search quires we may found site links what necessary for the more results for those pages
This update may be useful for some users but I don't think that most of the users would like to visit same site again & again on same page. I think the previous algo of 2 links was good because there is option "More results from Domain.com" which gives a choice for user that if they want then only visit but here it is by default.
It's quite an improvement! Great job!
The information is very good. This is an improvement for Google's Webmaster.
Excellent development which will enhance the users search results.
yes,thats awesome, and hope do more info fast to sharing.
How will this effect impression / search query data in Webmaster tools? Will multiple showings for one domain count as 1 impression? How will average position be calculated?
This will show favours to sites that are dominant on position 1-3. I still would prefer having results on diff. sites - options matter.
This change will really benefit companies that has enough money to market their brand in offline channels. This will make it really difficult to gear more budgets to online advertising.
It seems that Google is shooting themselves on the foot.
I cant understand, I have a travel related site who is providing cheap flights tickets world wide and we are focusing from London, UK. My targeted keywords are Cheap Flights to India, Cheap Flights to Delhi, Cheap Flights to Mumbai, Cheap Flights to Trivandrum, Cheap Flights to Bangalore, Cheap Flights to Goa and Cheap Flights to Chennai and i have been working from last 6 months but still no improvements on these keywords. Can you suggest me or informed me what i do for better ranking.
Thanks & Regards:
Robert Moore
http://www.samtravel.co.uk
That's really cool. I have a site about web hosting and virtual servers, EvergreenServers.ro whitch really needs this kind of visibility.
Is this some kind of April Fool's joke? Wait, it's August. This feature will be quickly exploited by those pesky internet marketers to dominate Google search results. It will destroy the open competition that makes Google so awesome. The one who purchases the most backlinks to their inner pages wins.
I think the change in the algorithm is pertinent and relevant. Thank you.
Too good...
Google is beyond imagination...
Wow, this great from a reputation management persprective. It means it will be harding for badpress & or competitors to rank directly under the brand name.
Dont think it will have as people searching for the product will look for it from brand name and will land up on the official page of product website, which means affiliate selling the same product will have no advantage.
not good at all, as if i am searching for blogging platform online & i used search query as blogger for blogging then it will show result of blogger website only which points to an irrelevant information.
Let see how it works but if its gone work this way it wont be good
Sounds like a REALLY bad idea.
Almost every search has thousands and thousands of very valid results. Practically, a user will only ever see the first 10-30 (Which come mostly from heavily SEOed websites). And now, "thanks" to this feature, 7 out of the top 10 spots will all belong to a single website???
This is absurd. The problem this is supposed to solve (find stuff within a domain) is already very easy to solve with "site:" and you could make it more obvious by adding a "+" sign in front of the SERPs. The user clicks on the "+" sign and you display more results from the site. Obvious, the user won't even have to think about it.
Either way, this "problem" is NOT important enough to risk destroying whatever little democracy remains on the net.
The real issue is to provide the user with a wider exposure to relevant websites, not to narrow the user's choices to 2-3 "approved" authority sites.
I hope this "feature" will be rejected.
Does this pertain to the US version only (google.com)? Or to other versions, too - like google.de?
Thats a nice stuff. It will help to get better rankings for site in the niche markets.
This change is awful!
My own mother called me yesterday to ask if she was "searching right".
When I search for something, I want diverse results.
If I want to explore one domain, I can use the "site:" command or a link that says "more from xyz.com".
Google has taken a 10 year leap backwards, I hope they roll this stupid change back.
Or lose market share to Bing.
This is silly. If they want to see these results, they should go directly to that domain. Show some variety.
Neato!
Interesting. May need to monitor the CTR and impressions.
IT's certainly not the best news for affiliates / price comparison sites. Read more on what the update means for your business and search engine optimisation strategy
http://blog.pod1.com/online-marketing/seo-online-marketing/google-shows-more-results-from-same-one-domain-algorithm-change/
What a waste. I mean seriously? I already have a hard time of searching through "authority" sites being spammed on the first page.
For example I search for christian dior shoes. I get tons of results of from sites like christiandior.com, eluxury.com. etc... That is something I do not want. I want to be able to wade through stuff that says the same exact things and same exact prices
I wonder why everyone is arguing about less diversity in search results. It is clear that 7-8 pages from a single domain will only be shown if the user types in a domain.
This is not applicable if a user types just a keyword, so basically instead of diluting search result quality, this move will actually enhance it. I think this is a good move by Google.
This is weird. Why should google have to mimic the navigation system of another site? Like for these exhibitions: there could be hundreds of choices, even at one source.
I think that just showing the starting point (main page) is just fine.
@ Customer Services (Avenues Consult)
Hurrah! Exactly my thoughts. You will only be served these results if that is what you 'ordered' - or at least as closely as Google can determine. So many have disregarded the all important statement "For queries that indicate a strong user interest in a particular domain". If you ask for results about a particular domain, surely the best service you can be offered by Google is ... a collection of results about a particular domain ...?
I think this update definitely has pluses and minuses. It makes SEO experts and webmasters work harder/smarter so that they can get their results higher in the SERPS. Which automatically means that their page that ranks in #1 HAS to be more relevant if they're doing SEO correctly. Great move for Google to keep relevancy and get rid of spam. At the same time, it also makes it harder for marketers or small site owners to rank even though their site may be much more relevant than whoever is ranking at #1. Not everyone has the money to shell out for AdWords...which may be another reason why Google has implemented this change....but they may actually lose money because of it. It places the top dog authority sites on the top of the SERPS in most cases, which means that they get more money, and Google get's paid more as well. Not so great. You might as well do what Ask or Yahoo does by pasting up paid ads on the whole front page of the SERPS... I think this whole idea is to benefit the advertisers. It kinda sucks.
Oh yeah... and I think others are right...why should Google mimic the navigation of another site? Isn't that what the site links are for? You already have a feature that allows for site navigation. Why add more. You have operaters as well. You don't need to do it automatically. If someone wanted to look within just one site, they would check out the sitemap just on that site or something. If they're search savvy, they would use the site: operator. Sure, a lot of people may use this feature and many don't even know about it, but instead of mimicing navigation of a site...why not just offer a little search top box on the query page or something. Say something like: "Did you know that you can type "site:" to look within just this domain?". All kinds of programs have this type of feature...a help feature. You can add it to Google so that people know how to use your engine BETTER and are smarter and more informated about how to use the engine as opposed to "telling" them what they need to do?
I believe Google should have a combo of a directory and Search Option so that the person searching for an information should be able to categories his search better. I know we cannot make google into a directory but then google can start suggesting categories and keywords rather then only keywords. That should be the right combo for the exact search reducing fight between many subcategories of business trying to reach the first page for a same generic keyword. Ask me and I can say with 100% surety that there will be many who can create a much better logical search engine but then in reality whatever we may do now the time will never come when a new google can be created. There will no another Yahoo which will nail its own coffin.
I think site links are enough in serving the purpose of providing relevant pages from a single website.
Searchers who look for more options (out of their query) will need to check subsequent pages to do so.
Older & established websites will benefit from this update. But how are the new websites that may contain fresher info get a fair share?
I don't like it, Usually I want a diverse results, not 7 of the same page, If I wanted that I could use more of that site.
Now you have to change page or use bing for a more diverse results and faster surfing.
To date I don't see any changes when I enter a single keyword to the search engine. But, when I enter a clause such as my blog title "passionate about blogging", there are about 7 pages linking back to my blog at the first page. Previously, there was only 2 or 3.
I agree with what most people said about this not being good. If I am searching for something so specific that it is likely that only one site will have it then I just want to know that site and will click on the first result then once I get tio the site navigate from there. If it is not that specific then I dont want to see so many results from the one site.
Really an useful info for the users!Thanks Google!Always Google rocks! "Buddie if i beat you even Google can't search you" This is by our super star in ROBO
See Google's PRIDE
Well, we will have to wait and see the effect it takes on the search results as long as it does come out with lots of junk.
Wait and see...
very nice for big portals or websites with many pages.
Did Google ask *users* about this? It doesn't appear so. My vote sides with the many who feel this would make Google cumbersome for users trying to find the results they're actually looking for.
The "more results at [domain]" design was elegant and easy. Personally, I've only done that twice in all the years I've been using Google search. This suggests that maybe user convenience is not at the heart of this tweak at all. Take a poll! How many of us have used the "more results" link, and how often?
As other commenters noted, page ranking for anything but the top 3 will be damaged. Will Google then expect businesses to use Google ads to regain exposure they might otherwise have had in search results?
So who is this change meant to serve? It only serves the top ranking websites, and I can see opportunities for money to pass under the table on that one. This, coming on the tide of the Verizon/Google fiasco, begins to smudge Google as conniving and avaricious.
That is not the feeling I've had about Google in the past. I'd hate to see a forward-thinking, groundbreaking company ruin its reputation through shortsightedness and poor understanding of the needs and desires of its users, and through an increasingly warped view of the nature of the Internet, of why and how it exploded into such a fundamental yet diverse public tool, the very environment that made Google possible in the first place.
*Users are Google's universe.*
Without us, it doesn't matter who might rank how high in search results. Google has to keep people searching, and for that to happen, people have to continue liking the experience.
Whatever google do the scammers will surely follow. Its so obvious. The www, a defacto virtual territory, and not anyone's property and certainly not google's, is filling up with adverts at their behest. We need positive links to genuine sites of real interest. Google are now simply creating indexes this time round - of sites linking to sites, linking to more sites. Why? Only money. The www needs to become free of adverts because otherwise that will be, and is becoming, the only reason a great number of the most visible sites exist. A little content - oh, and a blog - and a mass of adverts. The www is about linking - its a network but is becoming choked up yet again by this greedy need.
Its time to sort this one out, perhaps through a better open architecture search engine which puts genuine information before commercial gain. It would so help if the world's most successful search engine wasn't part of the scam.
Great update :) this will give users more direct access to the specific information which they are searching for on popular websites. Keep it up!
It's bad feature.A smart user can always use site operator and a naive user will get all results from same site,Naive user would be stuck with single site results.Bad move by Google.
I think it's a bad move too. when some one type a brand name like "Sony". How can Google be sure, the user wants to surf on sony.com ?
Maybe this user wants some information about the brand (not commercial information), maybe he wants to buy brand's product.
This trend in search filtration, while seemingly well intended is having the negative effect of favoring large corporations with lots of money.
It seeps into the partisan world of politics as well....I am in California, and when I type in "Jerry Brown" (candidate for governor) to Google's first search result is a smear page paid for by his opponent meg Whitman. I know google is a business, but if they want their Motto "don't be evil" to have any truth behind it, they need to weigh the money behind heavily funded sites, and what people are actually searching for. I think its BS that a search for Jerry brown first pulls up a political attack page, and that the actual stuff I am looking for is secondary. Hey google- quit being so evil.
Not sure what the motivation was behind this idea. People expect Google as a search engine needs to provide diversity and options.
Pushing retailers to the second page, killing their business by doing so, making them pay more for PPC to still get listed on the first page.
How about you simply keep the inlinks feature? That seemed to do a pretty good job. Or at least cap the results for the same website to 2 or 3 top results?
Having the 1st page dominated for 80% by a single website is not what I'd consider fair play.
I might as well go straight to Apple.com and skip visiting Google all together, if I know that all the results will be the same site anyway.
Great.. Thanks for this info.
this is good we can see a real site that have goods
I'm not sure that this is a good update,when i'm looking for somethings, i want see different sites. Probabily is a way to up grade the web site's content...
thank you for all about
this is my blog for google. http://www.official-google.blogspot.com
I like it. this very interest topic to share. thanks
2 questions:
1. Will the sitelinks disappear? Mine have...
2. Will the clustered results only come from the same subdomain? Mine do... I used to have different subdomains in my sitelinks...
I just wish you would not return a competitors site beneath mine when I look up my URL. Really we are not at all alike, but there they are-right next to my site on a URL lookup.
I think there is far too much manipulating of search results, that I have to go to page 2 and 3 to avoid the corporate ads and wikipedia. If I want wikipedia I will search for it, but it appears everywhere and its not so good to begin with. Since Feb/10- my sites' traffic has been reduced by 75 percent by all the changes, and that is really all about manipulating search results. It has produced negative results for site owners and it still is not fixed.
Hey thats awesome......Google is after all King...and ruler of Internet world
I'd say that this is a huge step in the wrong direction for Google. The change started to show just yesterday for Swedish searches, and mainly for governmental agencies and really large public and privately held customers.
I can understand it for phrases as the one you used in the above example, but when one searches for a governmental agency or a state monopoly, there is a democracy problem when critical voices (as in blogs and critical websites) are stashed away on the second page since the first page in SERPs are occupied solely with the agencies/companies own results.
Wonderful, except my site is gone just like that. I have done anything wrong and checked every available option. I only updated text and put it on the bottom of the page then found out Google doesn't read pictures, so I changed it back. No response from Google to help me. 3 years of day and night work. Matt Cutts Hello? my ranking and traffic were increasing so well. sad now I am losing thousands everyday and have to resort to serious measures.
Google should revert back this feature. It hurts small business. We work hard to get on first page of Google. With this feature,I see my competition taking half of the page and I am out to no where.
Remove this feature, Remove this feature,
Google should revert back this feature. It hurts small business. We work hard to get on first page of Google. With this feature,I see my competition taking half of the page and I am out to no where.
Remove this feature, Remove this feature,
Bad, bad, bad, another bad move from the new Google (insert MSFT circa 2000 in here)
So who is this good for?
The users?
- No. Because site links took care of this and 90% NEVER go past the homepage, so therefore they get no diversity of content
The websites?
- No. Because if you are a strong enough brand to get this type of placement you are a big business or one with money therefore removing what made Google great, being a truly democratic place for anyone to get their placements and become successful.
The internet?
- Hardly. Now reducing site visits to these main authority sites therefore eliminating the exposure of lesser known sites.
Then Who?
The new *improved* Google under Eric Schmidt. As if making more money than god was not enough, NOW small and mid businesses who could never hope to have the money or branding to compete with this type of result will have to do what.. Say it with me now... BUY ADS!
Yep! Do no evil is no more. The goal of Google of course was to always make money, but they were kind to the smaller guys. No more.
Hello everyone - meet NEW Google. The big powerhouse, who is only concerned with its bottom line.
Yay for another useless change for anyone, but you. Welcome everyone else to self-serving, we don't care about users Google. It's the dawning of the new age.
Signed a former Google Evangelist!
Wasn't this a feature Google did away with several years ago. Why is Google bringing it back?
I quite like this - but it does make the results pretty strange sometimes.
IS this something that happens under the hood, or can I alter my source code to trigger these kinds of results?
I think it's a great feature, but there's not much information on how to use it.
Thanks,
Rick
It would be better if the results from one site are indented, like before
I think it's more user friendly to have all links from the same domain grouped together. I really don't see anything positive about this new feature.
Used Google extensively for reasearching since '96. This has got to be the most annoying feature yet.
Wish I could disable it like the instant feature.
I'm not being resistant to change, it's just very frustrating and especially so, when doing alot of searches, when a domain you know you're not interested in takes up half the results. A hindrance rather than helpful.
I really like the added options on the left side for refining search but on the whole I'm just not finding Google results as good as they once were and It's changes like this that prompt me to try out and bookmark other search engines more often instead of being as exclusive to Google as I once was.
The internet is a big place and growing faster than ever, and I don't think Google is including enough of it because the same domains are just repeated over and over even when you go deeper into your search. Not that Google doesn't do a good job, but In the past I thought Google results were more targeted to my keywords. Now, unsatisfactorily, I find myself thinking many times after searching a topic thoroughly, "Is that all?"
@schachin
I agree with pretty much everything that you wrote.
It's a pickle for site owners :/
I have not read all the comments so this may be redundant but, from a searcher point of view this is a horrible way to do it. If I want information on a product let say a toaster, what good is it to me to have 5 results from the manufacturer's spin on how good their product is then 5 pages from amazon trying to sell me a toaster with only the thinnest spin from people trying to sell it. I now have to go to page 2 or 3 to find some impartial reviews.
It will help the large corporations but not the user.
Sorry Google this time you are not looking out for users interest. Get rid of the spammy sites but don't decide for readers what they are looking for. It feels like you want to control people more than offer some help. People are not stupid it's time to let them use their brains. But cleaning up the web would be a good thing.
When searching for a certain topic, I don't want the results coming from the same site's numerous pages. (all from the same person)That's a monopoly and not good business sense. If I wanted something like that I'd live in a country with dictator.
I hate this equally as much as I hate instant search. The example of amnh.org is one thing, but I'm getting this on generic searches, lots of generic searches! It's very frustrating.
I don't see why this change was necessary since there already was/is the link 'show more results from ...' below each result and larger sites also already have a bunch of sitelinks (and these in fact already more or less take up 2nd place in the results).
Moreover I think there is a serious flaw in how Google determines whether or not a site gets multiple results. I own a website ranking among the top 5 domains for a 2 word keyphrase but am losing traffic to a competitor since recently. After looking at the results the reason is obvious. Apart from the first place and sitelinks the competitor is now also taking up 2nd and 3rd place in the results. And why? Because their domain name happens to be an exact match for the keyphrase? So what, they now 'own' this keyphrase?? These are just 2 regular words in my language, it's not a brand or other kind of name. I really don't get this.
Apart from all of this I don't understand why Google doesn't continuously rotate the results. What I mean with this is continuously swap 1st and 2nd ranking domains, 2nd and 3rd ranking domains, etc. For 90% of all search phrases there isn't really much difference between the first couple of results. However the site ranking first - just because they happen to score the slightest bit higher due to some variable in the great Google algorithm - gets twice as much traffic compared to the 2nd result, and so on. I though a sort of rotation would have been implemented by now after introducing more personalized results but no matter what PC/IP I use I always see the same top 5 results for practically any search phrase.
I believe that that this is detrimental to search results.
I searched 5 topics this morning and ehow.com displayed the top 4-5 results for them all yet they were genetic searches.
But the it displayed another site with 5 results and then another with 4 results (I set google to display 100 results).
So the top 10-12 results were dominated by 3 sites. As you can guess I could not find what I was looking for after 4 different queries.
I my opinion this is a very very bad move for google but I bet live and yahoo are loving it as more and more people start using a different search provider.
My vote: thumb down.
I like this, it does help you navigate to your destination quicker. The only problem from a sales or web developer is that people wont see what you are intending them to see on your sites. They wont click through an extra page you might want someone to in order to pick up another sale.
Google is not really a search engine anymore. More like a mommy telling you what you MUST look at. Humans want diversity.
We have for a number of years owned much of the front page for a unique keyword. When a Page Rank 6 owner decided to also target our keyword and then sell the leads off when we are a real deal keyword company Goggle allowed them to take over much off the front page. Today they advertise they are that keyword and sell the consumers names off. A real operator for that keyword is kicked onto page 2. Would it not be best that the consumer wants to deal with real operators and not directories that are basicially SEO operators with a good page rank but know nothing about our business. Google allowing this have forced us OFFLINE where we have no option but to market our Name and have to avoid the keyword branding as the SEO operator without our expertise just sells to others that are smaller operators who have copied our original concept. Google need to promote on the front page real operators. Our only option online now is to buy a Page Rank 7 web site and then use that to get onto front page again But Who Can Afford To DO That. We even used an SEO Company and they agreed the Directory is too strong. Someone who is not even knowlegable in our area is stronger and can now control front page by modifying our text so today they own front page selling consumers names. They even asked if we wanted to buy names from them. People have finally got around and abuse their Google Page Rank to own an industry when they have no knowledge. We have now gone offline advertising as we cannot afford a Page Rank 7 site to out do the Page Rank SEO operator who has taken over a Keyword we created and they now own it. Thank you Google we thought you would have looked after us but Directory services seems to be YOUR NO 1 taking over the front pages and not real operators. This company in Australia has taken over our front page and has used their Page Rank strength to take over many other areas and they are not experts in any of them yet they Rank No 1 and they are not interested in the consumers reply as they just sell the name off and they not being experts ONLY SELL TO the company good or bad who PAYS them the most for a name. Google has the power to FIX this otherwise we are better off buying a page rank 7 site and also selling the names off but that is not what we want to be. We are a true to the consumer operator when they search our keyword but consumers cannot find us now. This Page Rank site based on Google maps now coming into play are even advertising street addresses which are VACANT blocks of land and Google does nothing but help promote them as the No 1 for the consumer. The internet should be focused on real operators having front page for a keyword otherwise SMART directory operators who have destroyed our online business will make the internet TOXIC and a waste of time looking at anything on the front page. We have offices in every state of Australia and this SEO Page Rank 6 owner has our front page covered and they dont even have an office addresss.
Thanks Google on behalf of the Page Rank 6 owner who has no address who has taken full front page ownership of a page keyword we had for 2 years.
We have for a number of years owned much of the front page for a unique keyword. When a Page Rank 6 owner decided to also target our keyword and then sell the leads off when we are a real deal keyword company Goggle allowed them to take over much off the front page. Today they advertise they are that keyword and sell the consumers names off. A real operator for that keyword is kicked onto page 2. Would it not be best that the consumer wants to deal with real operators and not directories that are basicially SEO operators with a good page rank but know nothing about our business. Google allowing this have forced us OFFLINE where we have no option but to market our Name and have to avoid the keyword branding as the SEO operator without our expertise just sells to others that are smaller operators who have copied our original concept. Google need to promote on the front page real operators. Our only option online now is to buy a Page Rank 7 web site and then use that to get onto front page again But Who Can Afford To DO That. We even used an SEO Company and they agreed the Directory is too strong. Someone who is not even knowlegable in our area is stronger and can now control front page by modifying our text so today they own front page selling consumers names. They even asked if we wanted to buy names from them. People have finally got around and abuse their Google Page Rank to own an industry when they have no knowledge. We have now gone offline advertising as we cannot afford a Page Rank 7 site to out do the Page Rank SEO operator who has taken over a Keyword we created and they now own it. Thank you Google we thought you would have looked after us but Directory services seems to be YOUR NO 1 taking over the front pages and not real operators. This company in Australia has taken over our front page and has used their Page Rank strength to take over many other areas and they are not experts in any of them yet they Rank No 1 and they are not interested in the consumers reply as they just sell the name off and they not being experts ONLY SELL TO the company good or bad who PAYS them the most for a name. Google has the power to FIX this otherwise we are better off buying a page rank 7 site and also selling the names off but that is not what we want to be. We are a true to the consumer operator when they search our keyword but consumers cannot find us now. This Page Rank site based on Google maps now coming into play are even advertising street addresses which are VACANT blocks of land and Google does nothing but help promote them as the No 1 for the consumer. The internet should be focused on real operators having front page for a keyword otherwise SMART directory operators who have destroyed our online business will make the internet TOXIC and a waste of time looking at anything on the front page. We have offices in every state of Australia and this SEO Page Rank 6 owner has our front page covered and they dont even have an office addresss.
Thanks Google on behalf of the Page Rank 6 owner who has no address who has taken full front page ownership of a page keyword we had for 2 years.
You are KILLING small business. First page is getting manipulated and occupied by bigger player without providing additional content. If somebody is interested to a particular domain they can go and visit the site. This feature is HORRIBLE to say the least.
This last tweak has cut our traffic big time.
we use to have at times a dozen page one results and many 1 positions. No more. We are down to one first page as of this writing. It's been a good 12 years though!
My small business has also seen takings drop 43% since this was implemented in August. It really needs improvement to stop the big names dominating 9 out of 10 front page listings.
Please, please limit this kind of display...get those algo wizards back to work. Too many pages are showing for generic search terms from sites that just happen to include the phrase in the domain name. This is the least important factor in actual relevance (spoken as an on-page SEO guy), yet it's allowing bad sites to dominate the search results. This is AWFUL, or else it's evil...scaring site owners into using PPC to stay visible.
Again, there is a serious flaw in the algorithm here allowing redundant urls. For several search phrases (that aren't even brand names or related!) the site ranking 1st also has a bunch of sitelinks below it, which are then ALSO duplicated at positions 3-5 as separate results. Yes, that's duplicate listings of exactly the same urls for search phrases consisting of regular words, not brand or product names.
Sorry to say (yes, again) but this change literally sets back organic results about 5-10 years. I cannot comprehend it's still here let alone with these kind of flaws in it. Utterly frustrating..
And I wonder if Google even checks the impact of these kind of changes on a broad spectrum of search phrases in other languages than English?
I would be glad to provide example search phrases for the comments stated above.
So so so sorry to see this. It looks like a drawback in search usability to me.
And it gets even worse... litle sites will become smaller and big sites will get even BIGGER.
Sorry Google... your going the wrong way...
wow this is really bad. :( My site went down because of this :(...It's not a fair advertisement. Google trying to get more money from any business to use theirs ad words. You guys are just killing fair organic search competition.
How much I love google search, I really have to join those complaining about the multiple results from one domain.
One of the great things of google is the fact that the results are uncluttered by layout and the amount of good hits on page one. Even the google ads are displayed in a way that make them very useful.
I find these double, or more, results from one domain, do really clutter up the result. And that's not good.
This seems more like a tactic to get other website owners to invest in Adwords in order to compete with the top site which has 4 listings.
The index results should provide the user with a number of relevant sites - isn't this purpose of Search Engines?
It's not good for Google users and not good for competing business that depend on search engine traffic.
A real shame to see Google shift their focus more towards Adword revenue rather than creating fair and equal search results (something Google were the best at). Perhaps, the shareholders are demanding greater profits?
Input web host in google search and godaddy comes top page after page, it is not limited to 7 results either goes on past 11,12 and more. This new system will kill internet competition, I'm thinking about changing search engines as I wanted to start my own webasite but now how will i make the 1st 1/2/33 pages????
This is creating a monopoly which in the UK is illegal for astarters.
I am trying to find how to remove a link from those "more from" links, because it is a closed exhibition and now irrelevant for us to have it there. Is there any way I can do that? Do I have to unreference the closed exhibition's website to make it disappear, and then hope that it won't get put in again?
I am finding that my top 10 results come from only 3 domains in many searches - This is a feature I would ALWAYS want to turn off. I would like an option to have no more than one return from a single domain counting on the domain's setup to navigate me IF this is an interesting result
very nice information and useful for blogger community, i really like it.
The idea of showing multiple results from same site is not good. If you display 7 results out of 10 from same site then just think where other site results will go mostly on the second page. Instead of showing multiple results of same site without knowing the user interest, it is better to give an option below each result for user to list more results from same site. This will not hamper the search position of other sites.
I do not know if it is me or there is a setting in Google search but now I cannot see the option of "show more results from the domain" and neither the similar pages option.
Am I missing something here?
Thanks in advance.
Post a Comment