I know I’ve always been telling you about all the Google changes–sometimes I like them and sometimes I don’t. For example, I don’t like Google instant, the new change that shows search results before you’re done making a query. In fact, I’ve turned that off as I found bothersome. I am though, very interested in all of these changes and how they affect search and search results.

Recently I saw a blog post by one of the Google executives showing a new experiment where an image of the destination website shows up on Google as opposed to individuals clicking through to be able to see it. Although I think it’s a cool idea, I do wonder how it will affect web traffic and conversions.

I will keep you posted as I know more about this proposed change in Google. You can read about the current experiment here:

A court in Argentina granted an injunction filed by Argentinian Jewish organization DAIA to have Google block certain sites from its search suggestions in its Argentina search engine. The organization has deemed the sites to be anti-Semitic and offensive, and …

In a panel earlier at GMIC, Ming Guang Yong, New Business Development Manager at Google China shared the search engine’s investment criteria. In 3 quick points: – Growth stage: Fast growth companies are [...]

Related posts:

1. Tencent to Launch Android Smartphone. Google Smiles It was rumored that Tencent is set to build it’s…
2. DCM Launches $100 Million Android-focused Fund Investment firm, DCM announced the launch of A-Fund, a $100…
3. This Android Robot Dance Has 2 Million Hits on YouTube Dance, is among the most viral video content on YouTube….

Google Latitude, the search giant’s location-sharing mobile app, is launching checkin offers nationwide, giving users the ability to unloc…

You knew it was coming. I mean, you really knew this was coming, right? Google just announced that social search results (let’s call them social recommendations) were just put into high gear. If you didn’t know it was coming, well, take off the blinders.

Google’s update to its more “social” search experience…

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Google’s search quality has been a heated topic of discussion in recent weeks – mainly with regard to content farms permeating search results. It’s not only an issue with Google, but Google is by far the largest search engine, dominating the market by a landslide, so it gets the most scrutiny. 

We thought it would be fun to look at what Google’s results could be with a little work. Google does have good quality results for most queries I’ve tested. The problem is that often times they’re letting the less quality results get mixed in, or even in some case outrank the higher quality and more authoritative results. This becomes even more of an issue when you get into the kinds of queries where the ramifications are potentially more severe – things like health, legal, and financial – where bad advice can be costly. Not everything’s as simple as "how to tie a tie". 

Take a query like "how to prevent kidney stones". Look at how different Google’s results would be if it eliminated (or at least dropped the ranking of) content that has no discernible, authoritative credibility. I had to go all the way to the third page of results just for the top ten. 

Here is what Google’s results looked like for the query: 

Here is what they would look like eliminating the questionable results:

Sources for the top ten on Google as returned:

1. JustHealthTips
2. eHow
3. WebMD
4. UCSD Medical Center
5. National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse
6. Jackson Siegelbaum Gastroenterology
7. HealthAndAge.com (by The Swiss Association for Nutrition [SAN])
8. Wikipedia Entry on Kidney Stones with Section on Prevention, well sourced, citing various medical journals 9. University of Maryland Medical Center
10.FoodandLife (no apparent credibility reference or links to credible sources)

Sources for the top ten when you remove the questionable results:

1. WebMD
2. UCSD Medical Center
3. National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse
4. Jackson Siegelbaum Gastroenterology
5. HealthAndAge.com (by The Swiss Association for Nutrition (SAN))
6. Wikipedia Entry on Kidney Stones with Section on Prevention, well sourced, citing various medical journals 7. University of Maryland Medical Center
8. American Kidney Fund
9. National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse
10. CBS Moneywatch Report, Citing International Journal of Urology, Global Healing Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, A German study, Journal of Urology, an herbalist, and an herbal patient.

That last one is debatable, but the results appear a great deal more authoritative and accurate. And I’m guessing you can dig deeper and deeper and find other results that could potentially rival these ten as candidates for the best results for the query. 

It might even be useful if Google included news result blocks (universal search-style) in the first page of results for more queries, even when there isn’t breaking news. Using the same example for "how to prevent kidney stones", search Google News, and you’ll find results from last month – news stories about things like "a closer look at the treatment of kidney stones," "Pre-PNL Nitrofurantoin Benefits Some Kidney Stone Patients," and "What’s the difference between antacids?" (which references kidney stones in it).

Even if these articles aren’t breaking news anymore, they are still some of the latest articles to discuss the subject, and may prove useful to somebody searching for how to prevent kidney stones. They’re certainly fresher than many of the organic results returned. Giving at least a small sample of the latest news related to a query can’t be a bad thing. At the very least, the user has a chance to be more informed about the subject at hand. Yes, if they want news, they can search Google News directly, but in many cases (such as this one), it may not even occur to the user that there has been any news on the subject. 

Like DuckDuckGo founder Gabriel Weinberg told us in an interview, many articles like the one you’re reading provide examples, and they’re simply anecdotal. This is just one example, and there’s no question that Google does better on some queries than others, I could dig up more examples (and maybe I will in the future…I already have in the past), but they’d still just be isolated examples.

The big problem is that there are so many examples to be looked at. It’s no secret that search quality is an ongoing battle, and Google has been pretty open about the fact that it is an issue, even if they claim their results are the best they’ve ever been. They’re still talking about improving the algorithm with regard to content farms, and releasing tools designed to contribute to that.

One of Bing’s Facebook fans brings up a good point about the search market. Google is simply ingrained in so many people’s online habits, Bing’s biggest challenge is to simply keep Google users from being sucked back into the Google way. 

Have you tried to use other search engines besides Google, only to find yourself coming back? Was it for the quality of results or just out of habit? Let us know. 

Daniel WillisHow can I adjust to bing? I like the search engine just I am in the grip of google :/ I always end up using google again.18 hours ago Like 1 comment

Bing reminded everyone this week that it is still behind in some aspects of search, when it announced personalized search results based on location and history.Google has been personalizing search results based on these factors for quite some time. The announcement doe show that Bing is improving, however. 

Meanwhile, as Google’s search quality is repeatedly called into question, one of  the biggest things it has going for it is probably the fact that it is indeed a habit for so many people, because it has simply dominated the search market for so long. 

Bing has a new weapon in this battle, however. Last year, Microsoft launched Windows Phone 7. Initital sales of the devices that run this platform weren’t too mindblowing. Now, as you may have read, Microsoft has entered a strategic partnership with Nokia, which will see its phone OS being used across Nokia devices. And guess what – Bing will also be used across these devices as the default search. 

Habits are a lot easier to break when the default is the alternative. Of course, it remains to be see just how well this partnership will pay off for Microsoft. They are, after all, competing with the likes of iOS and Android, not to mention BlackBerry and webOS.  

On an interesting sidenote, Google has been making job offers to Nokia engineers.

Do you think the Nokia deal will give Bing a significant push in search market share? Comment here.

Has leading the way in search engine query volume replaced the dreaded “Sports Illustrated jinx” as the thing sports fans should fear?  If the trend Google noticed continues, perhaps there’s something new for superstitious sports fans to consider.

Super Bowl XLV is, of course, later this afternoon, just in case you’ve just crawled out of your hibernation cave, and as the world waits for either Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers to lead either the Steelers or the Packers to the championship trophy, Google’s recent trend discovery may give you pause if you’re making any last-minute Super Bowl wagers.

According the official Google blog, the team’s quarterback with the highest search volume lost the actual football game.  For instance, during the 2009 Arizona Cardinals/Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl, Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner had a higher volume of searches than Roethlisberger did.

Pittsburgh won that game, 27-23.

During last year’s New Orleans/Indianapolis Super Bowl, Colts quarterback Peyton Manning was the search volume winner.  Needless to say, the Colts did not win the game.  Instead, New Orleans won,  31-17.

Fast-forward to this year’s game and the fanbase that should be the most worried is the one that roots for the Green Bay Packers, because Aaron Rodgers is the leader in regards to search volume.

Uh-oh.

Those of you who made high-dollar bets on Rodgers and his Packers might want to reconsider, especially considering the search volume winner/Super Bowl loser trend.  Perhaps Rodgers is the man to end such a fledgling streak, but if he does not, it’s almost guaranteed the legend of the Search Volume Winner jinx will get bigger and bigger.

As it stands, I’m standing by my earlier pick:

Green Bay – 31
Pittsburgh – 27

Last week, Demand Media launched its initial public offering. Today, the company announced the closing of the IPO of 10,235,000 shares of common stock at $17.00 per share. From the release:

Demand Media sold 5,175,000 shares of common stock, and the selling stockholders sold 5,060,000 shares of common stock in the offering. Demand Media received net proceeds of approximately $77.2 million from the sale of its shares, after deducting the underwriting discount and estimated offering expenses. Demand Media intends to use the net proceeds for investments in content, international expansion, working capital, product development, sales and marketing activities, general and administrative matters and capital expenditures. Demand Media will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of shares of common stock by the selling stockholders.

After the launch, it didn’t take long for Demand Media to rack up a valuation surpassing even the New York Times, with a market cap of $1.8 billion, according to reports. 

The question still remains, however, whether Demand will be able to live up to its high valuation, with a model that greatly depends on Google, who has been talking about shifting the focus of its webspam reduction efforts to "content farms". It’s been debated whether or not "content farms" refers to sites such as those from Demand Media, and I’m not going to repeat the spiel here. If you want to see a variety of takes on the topic, read the following articles and reader comments that go with them:

The bottom line is that Google has been silent on whether or not Demand’s sites are considered content farms by their standards, though a simple Google search for the phrase "content farm" will bring you up numerous results mentioning Demand Media. 

We may see more quality content (or at least content perceived as such) coming from Demand Media in the future, as the company will reportedly seek to acquire premium content sites. They’ve already tapped celebrities (like Tyra Banks) in the past, so it would not be surprising to see more moves like that.