From the category archives:

Yahoo

Today is the official launch of Caffeine, a new method Google is using to index the web. Google is a little bit mum on if this is effecting the actual search ranking algorithms or if this update is designed more purely to increase the speed of updating the index.

Google’s description of Caffeine:

Our old index had several layers, some of which were refreshed at a faster rate than others; the main layer would update every couple of weeks. To refresh a layer of the old index, we would analyze the entire web, which meant there was a significant delay between when we found a page and made it available to you.

With Caffeine, we analyze the web in small portions and update our search index on a continuous basis, globally. As we find new pages, or new information on existing pages, we can add these straight to the index. That means you can find fresher information than ever before—no matter when or where it was published.

I applaud their efforts to keep content fresh and relevant. Speed of index, however, is not always useful. As a consumer, I am not concerned with Google’s ability to quickly index, say, Twitter, especially when a good portion of Twitter is simply noise. What I rely on Google for — and should be the crux of any search engine — is matching my query to relevant information.

A few years ago, search engines used to publish the size of their index. There was a race among the search engines to say they had indexed larger portions of the Web than any other search engine. There was a sub-text that a larger index was inherently better, as if they were comparing the size of their manhood. But again, the measure of a search engine is about how relevant the search results are for the consumer.

This is how Google rose to power. Back in Google’s infancy (2001), they were providing more relevant results to consumers despite the fact that their index was significantly smaller than Yahoo’s and Excite’s.

Back in October of last year, Bing announced it was indexing Twitter in real time. Again, with the sub-text that speed makes Bing better. Now Google launches Caffeine geared at indexing the web faster. I applaud these efforts, as long as they do not forget that relevancy is king.

{ 0 comments }

In February 2006, I stipulated that Google was on the verge of becoming the next Yahoo. I did not mean it as a complement. This analysis came about as I was (again) watching Yahoo’s product line fracture.

Yahoo had a strange history of creating competing products. It was either a case of one part of a large company not aware of what another part of a large company was doing, or there was no cohesive strategy from leadership. (Maybe both?) At one point Yahoo had it’s own image sharing service, only later to acquire Flickr. The services were never merged into one, single useful product. Yahoo Images (which is now a image searching engine)  limped along for awhile, then was eventually shut down. Similarly, Yahoo had MyWeb which was different than Yahoo Bookmarks, despite the fact they apparently did the same thing. Both of which were identical to Delicious, which Yahoo purchased and… you get the idea.

Along the way, Yahoo experienced lots of product drift and were usurped by Google. That we all know.  We also know that Google is a very, very smart company. So why are they repeating Yahoo’s mistakes?

Farhad Manjoo has a fantastic article on Slate.com (link: Déjà Google) pointing out that Google seems to be repeating the same folly of Yahoo. Google is spinning out products that directly compete with other products they have already created. A few highlights:

  • Newly launched Google Buzz will tell your friends where you are… duplicating Google Latitude which was launched last year
  • Orkut already offered social media online profiles, but that didn’t stop Google from launching Google Profiles
  • Google offers to save your bookmarks so they are available on any computer, but it is not-compatible with Chrome’s bookmarking feature that allows you to save your bookmarks so they are available on any computer.

Which brings me back to my original post from February 2006, Google is the Next Yahoo!, that points out that Microsoft could beat Google if Google accidentally becomes too much like Yahoo.

Looks like that is happening. OK, Microsoft it’s your move.

{ 0 comments }

Dance with Yahoo!

September 9, 2004

in Search,SEO,Yahoo

Since early August when Yahoo! confirmed they were indeed reading meta tags again, there have been a lot of questions on forums (and by clients) about what it means. Should companies that had overlooked meta tags until now, add them back on their sites?

Meta tags were never a silver bullet, or the integral way to get a site ranked well. They may have had strong favor back in ’96 or so, but it was learned very early that site owners would stuff them full of anything they could to get a better ranking.

Meta tags are like perfume. Follow me here. If you are going out on the town for a nice dinner and a show, you’ll probably get all dressed up. You’ll dust off some finer clothes, dig back into the closet for the good shoes and put one some seldom worn jewelry. And, maybe a dash of perfume.

The perfume, or cologne for a guy, isn’t what makes you looking dashing – it’s a detail to the attire. That’s what meta tags are to a site. They don’t pump up your rankings, but they round off the SEO offering, making a complete package.

Meta tags are still argued by SEO-types. Some will swear you should ignore them. I say, use them. It really doesn’t take that much time to add them to a site and they will help some. So why not round of the attire to make a nice, full SEO package?

And I know for a fact, since early August, many site owners have been reaching back into their closets and dusting off meta tags. For those of us that never ignored them, were first in line to dance with Yahoo!.

{ 0 comments }

Yahoo! Using Meta Tags

August 30, 2004

in Search,SEO,Yahoo

Jason Glick, Yahoo!’s Search Manager recently announced that Yahoo! does indeed read meta tags as part of its ranking criterion. Will this be a resurgence in meta tags? Are they needed? I always said yes.

The biggest reason people don’t use them is because Google ignores them. Not so much for spam reasons, but because they believe their spider can correctly read and rank a site without them. (Though the original reason many engines stopped using them was many webmasters were loading the meta keyword tags with false data.) Many of the major search engines skip them, but with Yahoo! now reading them, the debate of their usefulness may go up a notch.

Including meta tags in a site is a fairly minor exercise. It’s better to be safe than sorry. But the reason I do it has nothing to do with Yahoo. Let me mention one engine that uses meta tags: Aeiwi. Most people haven’t heard of it, but it’s been around a while and some people do use it. If one person uses it, finds your site (or a clients) and buys something, then it makes the time spent on meta tags worth it. But if you ignore meta tags, you may never know who you won’t reach.

{ 0 comments }