Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What if Google Had to Design For Google?

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the horse-of-a-different-color dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 207

An anonymous reader writes "Web developers increasingly grow weary of having to put so much effort into designing their sites according to the whims of the Google search engine. When the most important thing is 'getting indexed' it is increasingly difficult for web site designers to offer the simple, uncluttered user experience they'd like to. Reminiscent of the famed what if Microsoft designed the iPod box here is a humorous look at what would happen to that famed, clean, uncluttered look if Google had to design for the Google Search Engine."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

i bet u liek (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998375)

penis

This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998379)

If Google were really designing for Google, they'd use CSS rather than font tags, and they'd wrap a big H1 around the Google logo (with appropriate alt and title tags). They'd also use lists for the... lists.

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (1, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | about 7 years ago | (#20998691)

with appropriate alt and title tags

alt is an attribute, and you certainly don't want title tags anywhere but in your <head> element.

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998729)

Thank you Dr. Semantic!

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 7 years ago | (#20998753)

title is also an attribute [w3.org] and that's probably the sense he meant it in, considering that it was paired with alt.

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (3, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | about 7 years ago | (#20999367)

Yes, that's definitely the sense he meant it in. I thought my irony was obvious, but I guess not.

The problem with mislabelling everything remotely related to the web as a "tag" is that it dilutes the meaning of the term to be practically useless. How is somebody who refers to everything as a "tag" supposed to distinguish between the title attribute and the <title> element type? More importantly, how is a newbie supposed to figure out in what sense it is meant when they are told to use "appropriate title tags"? This kind of stupid laziness only makes it more difficult for people to learn how to do things right and keeps people at the "copy code, bash it until it works or ask for help" stage.

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (2, Funny)

grahamd0 (1129971) | about 7 years ago | (#20999719)

And that keeps the rest of us working! Do you think I'd make any money building web sites if I went around speaking clearly and telling everyone how easy it is??

[WARNING: This preceding content may contain sarcasm. Use with caution.]

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998955)

h1 isn't the same as head, although this is a common newbie error.

I suggest some you spend some time here - School for newbies [w3school.org]

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (1)

Bogtha (906264) | about 7 years ago | (#20999263)

Thanks, but I'm not a newbie and I think you are confused. <title> tags are used to delimit a <title> element. A <title> element can only appear as a child of a <head> element. It's got nothing to do with the <h1> element type and I'm not confusing the <head> and <h1> element types.

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20999919)

I think you're the confused one. The OP talked about h1 not about head. Why did your reply mention head? It's ok, nobody's pointing fingers here. As I said, it's a common newbie error. Just to help, h1 is for big headline-style things - ya know like in newspaper. Head, well... it's the head! (Basically, don't worry about the head, you'll be using h1 (and it's siblings - h2 and h3) much more).

Here's another link to help you - HTML Beginner Tutorial [htmldog.com]

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (1)

KlomDark (6370) | about 7 years ago | (#20998969)

Give me >head<

<Ooops!>

(No hidden meanings there!) ;)

Re:This guy clearly doesn't know HTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20999149)

title is an attribute, too. In img tags. Which is what he was talking about. Moron.

Brilliant, but... (3, Informative)

gbulmash (688770) | about 7 years ago | (#20998405)

He only did the surface optimization. Missed keywords and description in the headers, didn't bold enough stuff, and didn't use H1 and H2 enough. :-)

Re:Brilliant, but... (3, Informative)

gt_mattex (1016103) | about 7 years ago | (#20998451)

Also forgot a sitemap, alt text image tags and breaking the backend down structurally so all of your *important* text is at the top.

Re:Brilliant, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20999255)

Of course, Google don't design for Google, hence they aren't even on the first page of results for a "search engine" Google search. I guess they went down the route of designing a good product without caring about what search engines want.

Re:Brilliant, but... (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | about 7 years ago | (#20999577)

For most companies the web site it just another place for customers to gather more information about the company without taking up an employee's time. There will not be any updates to the site save for the odd PR release or company milestone. Why not draw a little extra traffic by getting it ranked higher on the SEs?

Re:Brilliant, but... (5, Funny)

FinchWorld (845331) | about 7 years ago | (#20998553)

I think this [youtube.com] is closer to the truth.

Re:Brilliant, but... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | about 7 years ago | (#20998565)

I think that's kind of the point, though. The meta tags and stuff are the easy bits and don't make your site look like trash. To get ahead of all the others already using meta tags, you have to trash your site to increase your Google ranking beyond that.

I actually learned some stuff about Google ranking there... I've never tried to optimize for that (well, not in many years) so I wouldn't have thought of some of that. (Including other tips in the other reply to your post.)

Re:Brilliant, but... (1)

The13thSin (1092867) | about 7 years ago | (#20998669)

Exactly... though I can understand that the slashdot crowd is a bit disappointed... I am.

Re:Brilliant, but... (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 7 years ago | (#20998723)

I hate meta tags. If I search for a string, I want that literal string to be in the results.

Re:Brilliant, but... (3, Informative)

Jellybob (597204) | about 7 years ago | (#20999271)

In that case you'll be glad to hear that last I checked they are given almost no weight by search engines - many years of keyword stuffing in meta tags has made their content completely worthless.

Re:Brilliant, but... (1)

R_Dorothy (1096635) | about 7 years ago | (#20999801)

It may not give weight to the ranking but the snippet of text under the page title in the search results will be the contents of the meta description tag if it's present - I think this is what GP was referring to.

MeanGene (2, Insightful)

b1gk1tty (670514) | about 7 years ago | (#20998431)

Blocked! Profanity

Re:MeanGene (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about 7 years ago | (#20998877)

I'm blocked too :( Can anyone get the coral cache address?

Re:MeanGene (1)

808140 (808140) | about 7 years ago | (#20999299)

Wow, do you guys live in China?

Re:MeanGene (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 7 years ago | (#20999455)

For the Coral Cache you just append .nyud.net to the end of the domain.

E.g., "http://www.meangene.com/google/design_for_google.html" becomes "http://www.meangene.com.nyud.net/google/design_for_google.html"

I don't think you can connect to it directly using an IP address, since it uses the domain portion of the URL to figure out what page you're requesting. Although all .nyud.net sites resolve to 132.239.17.225 for me (which happens to be the node in Princeton), you can't just connect to that and get the cached page.

If you're still blocked you'll need to tunnel out to a proxy.

Re:MeanGene (1)

inca34 (954872) | about 7 years ago | (#20999903)

If you can't see the Coral Cache, just use Tor:
http://tor.eff.org/

What if... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998457)

I'd like to see someone run a logical scenario of what would happen if Jack Thopmson became the head of the RIAA tommorow, and had access to all their power and resources and their lawyer army.

The real question is... (4, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | about 7 years ago | (#20998461)

If people designed their websites to serve their users instead of GoogleBot, would it matter that their pagerank was a little lower?

Re:The real question is... (5, Interesting)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 7 years ago | (#20998489)

Would they HAVE any users if their PageRank was a little lower?

Or - if a web page is put up on a server, and nobody is there to surf it -- does it make an impression?

Re:The real question is... (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 7 years ago | (#20998933)

Would they HAVE any users if their PageRank was a little lower?
Sure. There are otherwise to get business other than free results in Google indexes. Advertising, word of mouth, etc. All designing for GoogleBot is is a way of spending money on advertising -- only, instead of paying the palce you want the advertising placed, you are paying a web designer, etc., who sells their services based on their claimed ability to get you ranked well in search results.

Re:The real question is... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 7 years ago | (#20998939)

It's really closer to a prisoners dilemma (hawk dove?) where optimizing for google is great if your the only one who does it, but if everyone does it it leads to a lot of ugly sites.

Also, google encouraged linking to there site buy having little search boxes (providing a useful service) and getting in the media. These are things that should increase page rank.

Considering if someone farts and it sound like an idea for a new "revolutionary" search engine, it will get in the media. I would propose what google would need is a PR department.

Not the prisoner's dilemma (1)

Rix (54095) | about 7 years ago | (#20999433)

The term you're looking for is "tragedy of the commons". Fortunately, Google can update it's bots to clear out the overgrazers from time to time.

Re:The real question is... (3, Interesting)

tknd (979052) | about 7 years ago | (#20999055)

There are other techniques for promoting a website other than using Google. One way is through word of mouth. For example there is no way I would have found slashdot because of a Google search. Rather, I found slashdot because I saw a friend browsing the site. Word of mouth is actually better than Google because it builds a trust relationship. For example if you go on Google expecting to buy something, how do you know that you should trust the first, second, or even third result on the page? You don't. But if a friend recommends a website to you because of their experience with it, you immediately have more trust in that website compared to some other random website.

But as geeks, let's ignore that. After all, it involves socializing and dealing with people. Eww. Give me my Google exploits.

Re:The real question is... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | about 7 years ago | (#20999709)

The irony of your response is clearly lost on you, so I'll ignore it any ask another hypothetical question instead.

Are any of the users that your site has from an artificially increased pagerank actually worth anything to you if all they do is click, see that your site is crap, and then go back to google to click the next link down?

Re:The real question is... (3, Insightful)

dryueh (531302) | about 7 years ago | (#20998499)

You mean like this [google.com] ?

Re:The real question is... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | about 7 years ago | (#20999599)

Of all 5 responses to my comment, you're the only one who "got it".

Re:The real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998581)

I've seen plenty of non-optimized sites get good google rankings.

Re:The real question is... (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | about 7 years ago | (#20998627)

If your site has any sort of commercial interests, then yes.

Re:The real question is... (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 7 years ago | (#20998647)

No, because pagerank has more to do with what sites link to you and the "buzz" you're getting on the internet. If you can get noticed without optimizing for google and you have a good site that gets linked to, your page will come up higher.

Re:The real question is... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 7 years ago | (#20998749)

That works for that minority of sites that exist for some purpose other than achieving pagerank.

Must really be bad.... (4, Funny)

magarity (164372) | about 7 years ago | (#20998487)

...my company's webfilter says I can't be shown it because the site has fallen in the "tasteless and/or gross" category.

Re:Must really be bad.... (1)

aj50 (789101) | about 7 years ago | (#20998519)

It's pretty close on the tasteless side, although it's not as bad as the MS design for the iPod.

Re:Must really be bad.... (2, Insightful)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | about 7 years ago | (#20998865)

The difference being that the MS iPod video was made by MS itself; Microsft was calling itself out in order to improve their packaging of future products (and Microsoft has indeed used simple uncluttered packaging since then). Google is way too arrogant to do anything like that.

Re:Must really be bad.... (2, Funny)

n dot l (1099033) | about 7 years ago | (#20998523)

...my company's webfilter says I can't be shown it because the site has fallen in the "tasteless and/or gross" category.
You don't happen to work for Google, do you? :)

Re:Must really be bad.... (1)

Arathon (1002016) | about 7 years ago | (#20998563)

I dunno...the final rendition of the page definitely has some NSFW (live) links on it. Just as examples, to be sure, but nevertheless, NSFW.

NSFW Links in article. (3, Informative)

RandoX (828285) | about 7 years ago | (#20998501)

FYI.

Re:NSFW Links in article. (2, Funny)

WrongMonkey (1027334) | about 7 years ago | (#20998675)

HAHA, did you actually click on the "Hillary Dildo Bushwacker" link?

Re:NSFW Links in article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998999)

HAHA, did you actually click on the "Hillary Dildo Bushwacker [bigcartel.com] " link?
For posterity.

Should read: What if Google was a useless site... (3, Insightful)

skiingyac (262641) | about 7 years ago | (#20998511)

...and had to design for Google?

Lets see... counter examples... how about searching Google for the word "shipping". What do you know, UPS and Fedex are #1 and #2, and their front pages aren't a mess of useless, Google-pleasing crap. Maybe because they are real businesses and aren't pandering some direct ship junk or get rich quick scheme.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998557)

Let's see.. how about a company that ranks search results based on how much money their receive from the respective hits...

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (5, Insightful)

Lost my low ID nick (1035980) | about 7 years ago | (#20998591)

Exactly. The only people I hear constantly bickering about Googles metrics and pagerank, are those who have sites that no one would miss if they were gone tomorrow. If you really put social networking spam links on your page to up your pagerank, you're just an attention whore. That's not bad per se in a attention economy, but don't complain if I just laugh in your face if bad bad evil google sorts your petty site to the bottom of search results for "witty blog". Create something unique, needed. Like, say, a good search engine.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (2, Insightful)

tendrousbeastie (961038) | about 7 years ago | (#20998735)

What about the millions of small businesses who have a legitimate product to sell in a competitive market? Fedex and UPS would be at the top of Google's list if their page was nothing but a white sheet with their phone number in the corner, but small company must genuinely worry about every little increase in the page ranking.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20999229)

Google, however, is not a small business, and when most people are searching for something online, they're not looking for small businesses.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

Knara (9377) | about 7 years ago | (#20999235)

The small company is probably better off paying for traditional advertising and perhaps *paying* for ad-words, rather than trying to rely on their page rank to generate business all on its own for them.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 7 years ago | (#20999237)

Again, if you offer a real service, page ranking is less important than usability of the web page.

That's because (2, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | about 7 years ago | (#20999357)

99.999% of small businesses are 100% irrelevant. That they don't show up easily on Google means it's working.

You know what does make your small business show up easily on Google, even if you're totally fucking useless? Buying a goddamn advertisement!

Problem fucking solved.

Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20999609)

What about the millions of small businesses who have a legitimate product to sell in a competitive market?

All of the big businesses simply out competed the "millions of little guys." It's a direct artifact of capitalism that whoever's on top can scream their name the loudest.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1, Insightful)

imstanny (722685) | about 7 years ago | (#20998685)

Lets see... counter examples... how about searching Google for the word "shipping". What do you know, UPS and Fedex are #1 and #2, and their front pages aren't a mess of useless, Google-pleasing crap. Maybe because they are real businesses and aren't pandering some direct ship junk or get rich quick scheme.
I think that's very presumptious of you. Traffic to a site is a major factor in determining its relevance on the Google results. An established business like Fedex would inherently have high level of traffic. A start-up business, that may very well be legitimate, and useful for users searching for it, may not get indexed appropriately or may not be displayed as a relevant hit on google's results page, unless it has a lot of text and other 'clutter' that google bots search for.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 7 years ago | (#20998739)

Traffic to a site is a major factor in determining its relevance on the Google results.
That's exactly his point. There are enough legitimate means to get people to your site and get noticed without being a google attention whore that if you can't get the traffic through other means, you don't deserve it. If you're a good shipping company, you don't need to be linked to on digg and you definitely don't need to do link farming.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

imstanny (722685) | about 7 years ago | (#20998827)

If you're a good shipping company, you don't need to be linked to on digg and you definitely don't need to do link farming.
Right. However, my point is that you can be a legitimate company but with no traffic. In which case, you would have to compensate for that lack of traffic. That's why things like advertising and sales people exist. A great product doesn't necessarily sell itself.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

skiingyac (262641) | about 7 years ago | (#20999131)

Right, so you pay for some ads. The current system also lets people play games with their content to a reasonable extent to try to get exposure for free. So who cares if someone is whining because they are too cheap to pay up to keep their pretty layout?

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 7 years ago | (#20998883)

A start-up business, that may very well be legitimate, and useful for users searching for it, may not get indexed appropriately or may not be displayed as a relevant hit on google's results page, unless it has a lot of text and other 'clutter' that google bots search for.


So, what you are saying is, that a site that is not a well-established business will have to rely on something other than free indexing by Google to get the attention it would have if it were an established. successful business in the field.

Certainly, this is true. And why shouldn't it be?

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

skiingyac (262641) | about 7 years ago | (#20998967)

A start-up business, that may very well be legitimate, and useful for users searching for it, may not get indexed appropriately or may not be displayed as a relevant hit on google's results page
So what you're saying is, a small and/or new business with little traffic won't be ranked high? And the alternative is what? Rank everyone high?

I think there are 3 real options:

1) rank by $$ paid only, you pay more, you are higher, just like the paid ads on the right side of Google. want better rankings? pay up.

2) rank by number of sites that link to you, or some metric that tries to guess how important your site is based on its content. want better rankings? convince people to link to you with little buttons and/or pay some voodoo doctor to please the GoogleBot.

3) The current system. You front the money and get exposure due to ads until your site is important enough that your don't need them anymore, and/or you play the "the link to me, I'm cool" and voodoo games.

I don't understand what the complaint with the current system is and what the proposed solution is.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

imstanny (722685) | about 7 years ago | (#20999305)

What I'm saying is your taking my quote out of context. The OP's point was that if a company is legitamite it does not need to rely on 'clutter' methods to increase its position on Google's results. Whereas, my point was to demonstrate an example of a legitamite company that would benefit from employeeing such tactics.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

n dot l (1099033) | about 7 years ago | (#20998781)

Maybe because they are real businesses and aren't pandering some direct ship junk or get rich quick scheme.
It might also be because they have enormous advertising budgets, so people will know of them and link to their site regardless of whether their web designers whore themselves out to the Google Bot or not.

The frustrating thing is that smaller, but still legitimate, companies are often forced to do dumb shit like this because the retarded Scam Inc. type pages have already claimed most of the useful keywords, and apart from lots of expensive advertising there isn't really much else you can do to compete...

Of course, no company should base its business model on maintaining a high Google page rank, but it is frustrating when you lose customers because they Google your company's name, or some closely related phrase, to see if you're legitimate and get turned off because the first thing that pops up is spam.

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | about 7 years ago | (#20998917)

Lets see... counter examples... how about searching Google for the word "shipping". What do you know, UPS and Fedex are #1 and #2, and their front pages aren't a mess of useless, Google-pleasing crap. Maybe because they are real businesses and aren't pandering some direct ship junk or get rich quick scheme.


Um, maybe because UPS and FedEx are already well-known shipping companies, whose page rank for a search on "shipping" would be high regardless of what their sites looked like? But companies that aren't already well known, and want to use Google page rank in order to *get* known, do clutter up their sites in order to please Google's search engine. Search your feelings, you *know* it to be true!

Re:Should read: What if Google was a useless site. (1)

Rashkae (59673) | about 7 years ago | (#20999667)

Google isn't about "getting you known",, google is about telling the user, (who initiated the search) which sites are already known.. If you want to get known, buy adwords like everyone else. Will probably cost you less than a consultant to come up with every changing google page optimization.

If nothing else... (4, Insightful)

Arathon (1002016) | about 7 years ago | (#20998525)

...this article(?) was helpful in explaining to me why so many sites *do* look as disgusting as all that.

It was pretty hilarious, too.

Unfortunately, this gives me one more reason to be semi-disturbed by Google's obvious dominance in the web-o-sphere... ...as evidenced by my email address, for one.

Re:If nothing else... (5, Informative)

mstahl (701501) | about 7 years ago | (#20998659)

As a web developer, I can honestly say that my arch nemesis in any workplace is always the search engine optimization "expert". I have had to do so many stupid things because of those idiots it's insanity. I've actually written a couple of Daily WTFs about SEO folk.

The truth of the matter is that if you bother to play by the rules, Google will index your site just fine and if your site is popular you will end up high in the page rankings. If you want to become more popular through your page rank, you can always buy keywords, too. It's a really simple, non-mysterious process, but people get caught up and obsess about it and start paying consultants to torment their web designers and developers for no obvious gain.

( Interestingly enough, the company that had the SEO guy who didn't know his ass from his elbow was pretty much the only business doing what they did, was a Fortune 50 company, and absolutely refused to use metadata in their web site; instead of metadata they opted for super ridiculously long URLs. )

Re:If nothing else... (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | about 7 years ago | (#20999837)

Company name plz?

For those not already familiar, The Daily WTF is known nowadays as Worse Than Failure [worsethanfailure.com] - obviously as a SFW backronym, but also as a concept in its own right. [worsethanfailure.com]

Re:If nothing else... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998719)

...this article(?) was helpful in explaining to me why so many sites *do* look as disgusting as all that.
I'm not convinced. I seem to remember that Alta Vista looked a lot worse than that before Google existed.

Re:If nothing else... (2, Interesting)

R_Dorothy (1096635) | about 7 years ago | (#20998857)

It's funny because it's true.

I have to sit through a monthly meeting with our SEO consultants reminding them why we aren't making out site look like the end product of that demo and that the technical reasons for not doing certain things haven't miraculously changed since last month.

the final product link (2, Insightful)

us7892 (655683) | about 7 years ago | (#20998529)

The last page of this dude's site.

http://www.meangene.com/google/google7.html [meangene.com]

Hey, it doesn't look half bad. I thought it would be much worse.
How about a greater level of hyperbole...

Re:the final product link (4, Funny)

MontyApollo (849862) | about 7 years ago | (#20998703)

It actually reminded me somewhat of Yahoo's page, but without all the advertising.

Re:the final product link (1)

notthe9 (800486) | about 7 years ago | (#20998843)

Yeah. Really, this was still better than most websites.

Doesn't look bad? Are you insane? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 7 years ago | (#20998847)

Compare it to the original and dare to ask WHY google beat everyone else in the market, because its design was (still is) by far the cleanest. It is simple, it is to the point, it is what people want.

The end page looks a lot like all the other search engines out there, bloated pieces of crap, and this guy didn't even include annoying ads and popup requests to signup.

No, if google had done their original search page like this, they would have been just another search engine.

Hillary dildo bushwhacker? (1)

megaditto (982598) | about 7 years ago | (#20999069)

On that last page under recent searches I am getting:

Recent Searches

waikiki vacation
al gore nobel prize
hillary dildo bushwhacker

Does it remind you of another search engine? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998589)

Now it looks like Yahoo. Perhaps Yahoo is trying really hard to remain relevant.

Re:Does it remind you of another search engine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998651)

Shit, it's still not even close to being like Yahoo.

Re:Does it remind you of another search engine? (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | about 7 years ago | (#20998667)

So you're saying that Yahoo is striving to have a good Google Pagerank...wait...it all makes sense now!

Re:Does it remind you of another search engine? (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 7 years ago | (#20999507)

If you do a search for search, [google.com] you'll find Yahoo at #11, and Google at #21.

Metasearch, Live, and MySpace take up the top 3, respectively. And quite frankly, that last page looks strikingly similar to results #1 and #2.

Someone got the Tag Beta Wrong (1)

bratwiz (635601) | about 7 years ago | (#20998601)


The tag should be "Giigle", not "Google".

Re:Someone got the Tag Beta Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20998793)

I'd mod you up but anonymous coward never gets mod points.

I have a crazy idea. (0)

TheGeneration (228855) | about 7 years ago | (#20998645)

How about every do what Google does and design for the USER. I know, crazy right? I mean, why rely on word of mouth that you have an amazing site that has lots of useful stuff on it when you can rely instead on poor UI design, and low quality content.

You could just design... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 7 years ago | (#20998657)

...a site that works for your customers.

Oh. Wait. That assumes that you have some customers.

Looks like (1)

mrCasual (1136551) | about 7 years ago | (#20998817)

Alta Vista, circa 1998, which is why I switched to Google in the first place.

Underscores is not SEO URL (3, Interesting)

sobolwolf (1084585) | about 7 years ago | (#20998869)

http://www.meangene.com/google/ [meangene.com] google_internet_search.html

Well not to be an ass, but just in case people get the wrong idea about how to do a seo url, one needs to know that:

Google sees hyphens as dividers in URLs and body text, and ignores underscores (underscore is not considered as a divider by Google). [webrankinfo.com]

Re:Underscores is not SEO URL (1)

mariushm (1022195) | about 7 years ago | (#20999293)

No longer applies. Otherwise, more than half of Wikipedia's articles would not appear on search results, and these contain _ in urls. Also, pages on my websites appear just fine in Google and some contain "_" in url..

To be Google has some privileges (1)

Pipaman (1172207) | about 7 years ago | (#20998875)

Google can set a couple of links from high PageRanked sites and get free ads.

Actually, I'm not sure that stuff would help them. (4, Insightful)

jonadab (583620) | about 7 years ago | (#20998979)

You can't believe everything SEO consultants tell you. I'm not convinced all that garbage would really significantly improve their indexing. Indeed, I tend to think some of that stuff would actively *hurt* their relevancy ranking, especially the link-farm malarke -- I mean, seriously, linkshare? That just screams, "Our site doesn't have any actual content to make it relevant, so we're swapping links with other irrelevant sites so that we can pool our irrelevance and be obscure together!"

The best way to improve your ranking is to put interesting content on your site that people will want to look at, link to, tell each other about, and so forth. (Of course, what counts as "interesting" depends heavily on your target demographic.) The second best way is to make sure the search engine can actually read and index your content (that it's not, for instance, just a bunch of images without meaningful alt attributes).

Crosslinking from one part of your site to another can help, but Google *does* do that -- their main web search links to the image search, to the video search, to the news search, and so forth. And vice versa.

looks like iGoogle (4, Interesting)

nikqu (868472) | about 7 years ago | (#20999175)

The last page [meangene.com] looks like iGoogle [google.com] to me.

Heh.. google for google. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 7 years ago | (#20999295)

So, basically, it would be Yahoo! then?

...

It seems it would be, "dogpile" [google.com] but Yahoo! [yahoo.com] isn't far down the list, and strangely is a spartan search page like Google.

Interestingly, "Google" isn't even on the first page, so I guess they're not optimizing for Google. Or they figure that if you're using Google to search for search engines, you probably already know about Google...

Digg?? (1)

KlomDark (6370) | about 7 years ago | (#20999389)

Arre youu fuckingg withh mee, Brendonn?

They already do. (5, Insightful)

Egdiroh (1086111) | about 7 years ago | (#20999483)

Google already does code for google. They're the first hit.

Seriously though, this article depresses me. The unspoken sentiment is that typical websites can't survive without google. Which implies that typical websites can't survive on word of mouth, aggregator sites, and features highlighting them on good websites. I can't think of a single site that I found through google. I use google to search large sites, go to sites with awkward URLs, or find one time use references. But apparently the good sites that can survive on word of mouth are not typical any more.

It really saddens me because it reminds me of TV. Shows that can that do well via word of mouth get canceled or messed with before the audience peeks, and many of the shows that succeed do so because they are they slightly appeal to many demographics rather then being really well received by a few. What happens when the start up costs for websites go up and you need substantial ads from the get go, will there be any new great sites, that aren't flukes.

In the end I don't think sites should be designed to optimize page rank, except for maybe online retailers that compete with other online retailers. If your site is good people will link to it and praise it and it's page rank will soar.

Newsflash: Google design is user design (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 7 years ago | (#20999509)

It's not Google that ultimately sets these awful restrictive criteria; it's the end user, who is better served by a search engine that weeds out crappy pages automatically. Reminds me a while back of companies complaining about users choosing Google more than other engines, making Google a "monopoly". It's like affirmative action gone wrong.

WTH? (3, Insightful)

MBHkewl (807459) | about 7 years ago | (#20999641)

Am I missing something here?!
What designers are you talking about that are trying to do simple pages for their users????

From what I'm seeing so far, everybody's going for Flash-based websites, with no text to search around a page, and un-indexable pages, because of the embedded crap of Flash! And if it's not Flash, it's ActiveX From Hell. And on top of that mess, they still code for IE6, breaking almost every web-standard, and knocking on the gates of Hell!

All you seem to be focusing on is linking, and that's not how indexing gets done; Meta tags, content, image titles, ALT text.

Who ever wrote that page is clearly an idiot & has no clue how to design a website with a simple look & have ANY Search Engine Bot get it indexed.

YOU FAIL!

To those griping about google indexing algorithm (3, Insightful)

blhack (921171) | about 7 years ago | (#20999643)

Google is so good because they are good at deciding what pages matter! Leave your page as it is and fill it with content. It isn't like all of the sudden *POOF* google appeared and now we all have to conform to their model. They evolved in parallel to web pages...meaning THEY ALREADY KNOW HOW TO INDEX YOUR SHIT!

Design for users, not search engines (1)

Dracos (107777) | about 7 years ago | (#20999685)

Web developers increasingly grow weary of having to put so much effort into designing their sites according to the whims of the Google search engine.

I don't, because having good content and using correct semantics does most of the search engine work for you. Google and the other searches eventually figure out how sites game them, which is why Google ignores meta tags and penalizes sites with hallway pages. Many other tricks are harder to detect, though... for now.

If Google was the king of search, and all others worked largely the same way, would we be developing two search-specific versions of every site? No, but amazingly that seems to be the case when browsers are considered.

If you're not developing sites for humans to use, you've missed the point of the internet. Search engines are little more than a flawed proxy. It's sad the they are seen primarily as pull-based yellowpages.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?