Tag: search engine results

Google Proves To Be Inconsistent By Adding Grooveshark To Their Autosuggest Blacklist

As Google’s march towards becoming the big brother who knows what’s best for their users, even if their users disagree, continues unabated, are we witnessing the company undo all the goodwill it built up over the years? Findings seem to suggest that trend, and when the company responds to why they did things like get rid of Google Reader, despite the outcry against the move, the words from Google’s representatives have a sense of aloofness, as if the will of their users doesn’t matter, and things will be just fine if we just follow their lead and use Google+.

With that in mind, Google has done something else that comes across as odd, and perhaps unwarranted, by adding the streaming music site Grooveshark to its search engine autosuggest blacklist, the same fate reserved for such sites like The Pirate Bay and Torrent Reactor.

The question is why? It certainly wasn’t because of DMCA takedown requests, something we already know is a hit-and-miss game to begin with. TorrentFreak’s report indicates as much:

The addition of Grooveshark is noteworthy because Google has received relatively few DMCA takedown requests for the Grooveshark domain. Google explained earlier that these requests are one of the factors used to determine whether a search phrase should be filtered or not.

Does that mean Grooveshark has been the victim of a massive takedown request push? Not at all. As the article points out, Grooveshark is, in fact, low on the list of DMCA complaints in relation to Google’s search results:

Total Requests: 263
Median Requests per Week: 5
URLs Requested to be Removed: 2,447
% Indexed URLs < 0.1% Median URLs per Week: 11 Most Recent Request: Jul 22, 2013 First Available Request: Feb 28, 2012

If Grooveshark is low by the standards set by other sites, why were they removed from the autosuggest feature? For comparison’s sake, Torrent Freak points out that torrent tracker site, BTloft, gets a lot more takedown requests than Grooveshark–190 median requests per week, as opposed to 5–and yet, it is still part of Google’s search suggestion:

Granted, there are some grey areas surrounding Grooveshark’s business model. They have been successful getting streaming rights from independent artists, but not so much with the mainstream labels. This, of course, stands to reason when you consider how the music industry does business with the Internet, but it is clear the owners behind the site have at least tried to get permission. That, apparently, isn’t good enough for Google, and so, Grooveshark is no longer included in the autosuggest feature when you start typing similarly spelled words, and it appears as if Google won’t be giving us a legitimate reason why, either.

July 23, 2013
Does Microsoft Ignore Bing’s Results?

Earlier this week, Google released their annual Transparency Report, which, among other things, focuses on the multitude of search engine result takedown requests they receive. Among the information contained within, there’s a list of the entities issuing these requests. The far and away leader of this group is a company called Marketly, and if you look at their list of requests, you’ll see that Microsoft is an important client of theirs.

Considering Microsoft’s massive size, it makes sense for them to outsource this kind of work. Going after infringement via search engine results is surely a tedious job, the kind such delegation was made for. That’s all fine and good. The rub, however, comes when a takedown request is issued to Google, but the same result remains in the Bing search index.

Mind you, Google heeded the request and removed the search result in question.

With that in mind, when the company issuing the takedown request still has the result in its own search index, it comes off as negligent, incompetent, or hypocritical. The question is, which one applies to Microsoft Bing? The reason this question comes up is due to a discovery made by TechDirt, which finds the following takedown request for an Xbox game called DiRT 2 from a site called TorrentRoom.com. The URL in question is as follows:

http://www.torrentroom.com/torrent/3664273-DiRT-2-XBOX-360-RF.html

When a search is conducted in each engine, you’ll find the link has been removed from Google–the Chilling Effects report indicating as much–but, as of this post, it still remains in Bing:

As TechDirt points out, Google has taken criticism for how quickly it responds to takedown requests. Whether that’s valid or not, at least Google responds to such obvious copyright infringement in their search results. Perhaps Microsoft should turn Marketly loose on Bing’s search results as well.

Or maybe Marketly could point this out to their clients, allowing Microsoft to remove the very result it’s asking Google to remove. Whatever the case, if you’re going to ask other search engines to get rid of content that infringes on your brand, perhaps you should check to make sure your search results are up to par, as well.

May 25, 2012
Reddit Ensures Rick Santorum’s Google Rankings Remain

By now, you’ve probably heard about Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum and his dealings with Google. The issue had to with a particularly unsavory definition that was applied to the candiate’s last name when an Internet search was conducted, something Josh covered extensively here.

Now, thanks to some Reddit users who refuse to let Santorum escape without a steady reminder of the alternative definition of his last name, it appears as if Santorum’s “Google problem” won’t be going away anytime soon.

Remember the Google bombs of old? You know, the nigritude ultramarine contest, John Kerry’s waffles fun, and George Bush’s miserable failure results? Well, some Reddit members are ensuring the alternate definition for “Santorum” applies to queries for the last name by itself and for searches using his first and last name. The strategy, just in case you forgot, was explained perfectly in the Reddit comments:

A public notice regarding Santorum.

Not completely sure how it works, but evidently if you link Santorum with the web site http://spreadingsantorum.com/ then that tends to keep Santorum name properly associated with the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

Something about Google bots picking up Santorum’s name each time Santorum is mentioned and linked online like that.

So to review, when you link Santorum with the web site http://spreadingsantorum.com/ then that tends to keep Santorum’s name properly associated with the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

Evidently this happens every time Santorum’s name is mentioned and linked online, so please be careful when you do mention Santorum’s name, and especially when you may associate Santorum with the web site http://spreadingsantorum.com/ and then further reference Santorum with the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this notice about Santorum.

This comment is followed by a number of troll-like comments that link the “Rick Santorum” name to the SpreadingSantorum.com website, with the goal of having the alternate definition rank highly for both the “Santorum” and the “Rick Santorum” search queries.

And their efforts seem to be working.

As of Josh’s writing, the site promoting the alternate definition that has the Senator up in arms — The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex — was ranked third when the term “Rick Santorum” was queried. Today, SpreadingSantorum.com has moved up to the second position.

So, considering Reddit’s efforts, does this mean it’s still Google’s problem or does Santorum need to hire some SEO experts for his campaign?

January 5, 2012
Concerning Bing’s More-Accurate-Than-Google Search Results

It’s pretty clear that Experian Hitwise has a comfortable familiarity with Tom Smykowski’s “Jump to Conclusions” mat, at least in regards to comparing search result accuracy with Google and Bing. It’s either that or perhaps the “online competitive intelligence service” needs another lesson in correlation and causation.

Do you think Bing has better search results than Google? Tell us what you think.

In a recent report discussing Bing’s improved market share — something the tech journalism sector is going wild about, but if I’m not mistaken, 68 percent is far greater than 27.4 — Experian Hitwise made the bold statement that, because Bing users click search engine results 81.54 percent of the time, compared to 65.58 percent for Google users, Bing’s results are more accurate than Google’s.

WebProNewsWho has better results: Bing or Google?3 hours ago 2 likes 11 comments

Experian Hitwise found that Bing’s market share rose from 10.60% in December to 12.81% in January. As we pointed out in a previous post, Bing didn’t simply steal users away from its partner Yahoo, either.

Of course, considering the spat between Google and Bing, and Bing’s use of at least a small percentage of Google’s search engine results, it adds more skepticism to Hitwise’s claim.

As many of you know, the principle idea in “correlation does not equal causation” is one thing does not necessarily cause another, or in the case of Google and Bing’s search result accuracy, one piece of data (more Bing users click the results) does not make bold conclusions true (Bing’s results are more accurate).

Image courtesy

Taken at face value, it’s easy to conclude Bing’s results are 16 percent more accurate, but then, when you consider so many more people are using Google to conduct Internet searches, the margin for non-clicks for any number of reasons — incorrect spelling, refining the original search query — is a lot larger than Bing’s.

Furthermore, what is the average experience level of Bing users? If Bing users are comprised predominantly of “Internet noobs,” for lack of a better term, would they not be more inclined to click the first result they saw, even if it was relevant or not? If Google’s users are “more experienced,” would they not be more selective about which results they clicked?

And if that’s the case, doesn’t that mean the overall quality of search results — across the board, not just with Google — need to be improved?

As for Google’s results being less accurate than Bing’s, before making such a claim, much more research is needed: an extensive, side-to-side comparison of multiple queries, not just reliance on how frequently the results were clicked. Another obvious aspect to consider is the user’s experience level. An Internet veteran will not click everything they see; whereas an Internet novice using Bing because they liked their witty “search overload” commercials is not as selective.

In regards to Hitwise’s conclusion, as told via Internet chat lingo, the following statement comes to mind: More clicks != better quality of results.

You need more data to make such a profound conclusion.

Agree? Disagree? Let us know in the comments.

February 12, 2011