Re: [LM_NET] TARGET: change in Google search results?

[Laura Pearle <lpearle@GMAIL.COM>]

Here's one response I got from someone who knows a little bit about
these things:

I do have some thoughts on the subject.  My guess is that it's a
combination of all of the items below:

1. Google doesn't publish their algorithms, but many search engines
prioritize results of their paying customers.  That, and ads, is why
the service is "free".  I'm not aware of a search engine explicitly
filtering competitors of their customers, but pushing a result lower
makes it less likely to be viewed (see item 4).  On the other hand, a
number of folks have noted that google rarely seems to find
anti-google sites in their searches (yahoo does ;-), so they appear to
be filtering at least somewhat based on business concerns.  I rate
this plausible.

2. It is known that the algorithm does count numbers of links to a
site in ranking, so that may be part of it.  Sites that aren't linked
to as heavily fall down lower in the results.  We may be seeing a
concentration of sites with a high number of links.  That would push
some of the older hits down lower in the results (again, see number
4).

3. Sites now have the ability to tell search engines that they are not
to be indexed.  This didn't use to be the case.  This is becoming more
common, particularly for sites like news and subscription services.
Telling search engines to not index you means that you now get skipped.
This results in fewer hits.  I rate this as likely part of the answer.

4. Google may well be clipping the number of responses.  Few people
look at the results beyond a few pages.  If google says it found
10,000 results, I don't generally look at them all (really, more than
100 pages is too much.  I look at the first 5 or so).  Clipping makes
sense because google is fanatic about only presenting information that
is meaningful.  They have been known to drop advertisers that pay them
money simply because not enough people clicked on their ads...and
google wants the ads to be thought of as useful by the end user...not
just clutter.  I rate this as likely part of the answer.

As for the privacy bit, you are trading your privacy in exchange for a
free service (part of the adverting based model).  The government
already has the ability and right to intercept web traffic (NSA does,
FBI has systems like carnivore, etc).  Much of this is now governed by
the enhanced CALEA act (wiretapping laws).  You should assume that
your ISP, the government, and google all have access to anything you
type.
Anyone who wants to limit this should use one of the internet
anonymizers and make sure they aren't logged into google for things
like gmail.  I use megaproxy, but there are free ones out there like
tor.

Hope this helps...


On 10/2/07, Cheryl Youse <cyouse@gmail.com> wrote:
> Last year I shared a lesson on expansion of the internet, based on the
> number of results for various Google searches in which I used the same
> search terms once a year over a period of years.  I used the lesson again
> recently and got much lower numbers for the results.  I wondered about it
> but got busy with other things and didn't follow up.  Today I got an email
> from Mary Buckley in Maine who also attempted my old lesson, also with much
> lower results in the number of searches.
>
> I went through Google's website trying to find an answer, or a contact
> person to ask with no luck.  I did find a blog dated September 2007 where
> others commented about Google no longer being objective and displaying
> results differently than in the past (I'm not sure about the reliability of
> this, considering that one poster seemed to think Google was provided for us
> by the government--but obviously others are noticing a change).  I also
> found a November 2006 story where Marissa Mayer, a VP at Google, said that
> more results slowed down response time and "Half a second delay caused a 20%
> drop in traffic. Half a second delay killed user satisfaction."  But there
> seems to be confusion over exactly what she meant.
>
>  <http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/marissa-mayer-at-web-20.html>
>
> I experimented with my preferences--no filter whatsoever, no limits, etc.
> and had no change in the number of results.
>
> Additionally, I found an article online from Netcraft dated May 2007
> stating  "The Internet has added 12.8 million web sites thus far in 2007,
> roughly on pace with growth in 2006, when the Web gained a record
> 30.9million sites."  So the internet is still rapidly growing but
> Google's
> search results are apparently shrinking.
>
>  <
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/01/may_2007_web_server_survey.html
> >
>
> Does anybody know what gives?  Is Google limiting site results to keep
> revenue up?  How are they choosing results if there is 'more internet' and
> their result numbers are not as large?
>
> --
> Cheryl Youse, MLS
> Media Specialist
> Colquitt County High School
> cyouse@gmail.com



-- 
Laura Pearle
Head Librarian
Hackley School
lpearle@gmail.com

A library is a fueling station for your mind.  -- Steve Leveen

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
  You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
  by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
 3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
 * LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
 * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
 * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://lm-net.info/
 * LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
 * LM_NET Wiki: http://lmnet.wikispaces.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------