Google search is d0m3d?

Hardware and technical stuff
#41

Stack Overflow really should put a bit more effort into SEO. SEO in general is a bit of a sleazy occupation, but there’s no call to let other people scrape your site and somehow rank higher in search results than you.

Oh, we have a whole site for that at http://webmasters.stackexchange.com and we have always done things the correct way, plus or minus 10 percent.

I have confirmation from multiple contacts at Google that they actually made some sweeping changes because of all the recent quality problems.

In other words, the problem really was Google, not us. That was kind of the entire story of http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/01/trouble-in-the-house-of-google.html

#42

To defend my own industry, no it isn’t, if it’s done “white hat” on the up and up.

#43

So you’re saying it’s no more sleazy than used car sales.

#44

Sigh, no, that isn’t what I’m saying. SEO is quite viable for businesses, as long as reasonable expectations are given. The problem a lot of folks have with SEO is lack of instant gratification. You can write content and build links and not see the results of your efforts for weeks or months. This leads a lot of people to get annoyed/pissed with SEO folks, especially folks who take advantage of that, of whom sadly there are many. That being said, SEO is very worthwhile and fulfilling when it’s done right and works as it should.

#45

I’m assuming by “a lot of folks”, you’re referring to clients. The problem normal people have with SEOs is that they’re perceived as being paid to game the system.

#46

SEOs are being paid to game the system.

#47

At its very base, I guess we are paid to game the system, if by that you mean improving a website to make the users and hopefully search engines like it more.

#48

It’s a little unnerving these days that just about any search on a specific subject will turn up Wikipedia on the first page, many times within the top five or three hits. Sure, it makes sense. Especially with how Google search works. But man, is it any wonder people more and more think that Wikipedia is a valid primary source for information or research?

#49

Wikipedia has been up on the first page of most search results for years now, and there’s been a debate as to whether it deserves it or not. On one hand, it’s a valuable, content-rich resource that the users really love (and search engines love a content-rich resource that users love), on the other hand it could also drown out more specific, relevant resources as well. I go back and forth on it myself.

#50

For just looking unimportant things up, I’d much sooner trust wikipedia than some enthusiast’s website.

One history nerd might have opinions, wikipedia does quite well at filtering those out.

#51

A study came out a few years ago that showed Wikipedia was a more accurate source of information than things like printed encyclopedias.

#52

For a while last year google had an option to filter results for “fewer shopping sites” - I found it worked pretty well for dragging actually useful pages about commecial products higher in the results list. Then in November they removed it.

I guess one of their engineers temporarily forgot that they’re in the business of selling adverts and not that of providing the best search engine experience.

#53

[citation needed]

#54

The only study I remember was the one that showed Wikipedia being slightly less accurate than encyclopedias. Or like 30% (4 errors per article instead of 3? something like that).

#55

It was a Nature study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Only available to subscribers, but you can read Encyclopedia Britannica’s rebuttal to the findings here: http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

And Nature’s defense here: http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf

I think it’s stupid to compare the two since they both have unique inherent faults. I also think people who cite either Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia as a primary source should be kicked out of school, but Wikipedia is by far the best jumping-off point for learning about something that’s ever been concocted. That people use it irresponsibly is not Wikipedia’s fault.

#56

Whoa, the TechCrunch article above had this zinger at the end. This is an app that already exists, called Layar. Looks cool enough:

But:

This could indeed be mighty damn cool. Microsoft will have to step up in response, because Bing Maps is so out of date it’s embarrassing.

#57

Trying to find a good source for firmware updates for certain mobile phones is nigh-impossible.

#58

I have confirmation from multiple contacts at Google that they actually made some sweeping changes because of all the recent quality problems.

In other words, the problem really was Google, not us. That was kind of the entire story of http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/01/trouble-in-the-house-of-google.html

Google und0med itself:

see

and

#59

excellent!

#60

What the hell is up with this “Make calls free through 2011” google ad layered over my gmail emails? I can’t close it, and I can’t read anything underneath, be it email headers, or even the emails themselves… Anyone know how to get rid of it? Ugh…

Are they fucking me over just so I’ll spread the word about their stupid fucking phone service while trying to solve the problem? Is this some scheme to get the fucking ad to trend or something as users tear their hair out? ARG. I am tech raging.