cams

live sex

live girls

live webcam

sex webcam

live jasmine

live webcams

sex web camera

online sex chat

sex chating

Business - Written by on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:53 - 7 Comments

Denis Hancock
Is Google search really that good?

I think one of the most remarkable things about the web over the last 5 years or so has been Google’s continued dominance of the search space… and how such a dominant company has emerged from a patented algortihm system called PageRank. What makes it so remarkable for me is this nibbling feeling is that Google search isn’t really that good. That’s not to say there are other search engines out there that are far superior, but rather that I just feel there should be far better search capabilities available to us by now.

To give an example of what I’m talking about, I’m a pretty big basketball fan. I also know a lot of other pretty big basketball fans. Over the years I think I’ve probably been to every basketball related news site that exists, and I have a pretty good idea of which ones seem the best, and a lot of other people seem to have similar ideas. If I was to give a short list off the top of my head, InsideHoops, HoopsHype, and RealGM are among the better daily news aggregation sites, sites like ESPN and Yahoo! remain quite strong, some blogs like True Hoop on ESPN are particularly good as well, and of course NBA.com is the primary site for the world’s dominant league. I could go into far greater detail, but you get the idea. At minimum, I think I can tell a good and popular news site from a bad one.

In turn, if I type the term “basketball news” into the Google search engine, I expect to be directed towards these type of sites in one order or another. Instead, here is what I get on the first page:

1. CBC.ca News – Basketball. I guess that because I’m searching from Canada, the basketball news site tied to our publicly subsidized (cringe) news outlet gets an extra bump… because while there is some news here, and can’t for the life of me figure out how/why it would come up #1.

2. Slam: Basketball News. Yup, I guess there definitely is a Canada bias – this one’s tied to Canoe.ca, and I can’t see any reason to rank this site anywhere near the top-100 basketball news sites out there. Not a nice site at all. On this Canada thing, note that I get defaulted to Google.ca at the start, and have the choice between searching “the web” and “pages in Canada”… and if I wanted to focus on local, I’d pick the second. I didn’t.

3. Basketball News- Pro Football Weekly. Oh we’re cooking with gas now – I’m on link THREE and I’m sent to profootballweekly.com. Key word: football. The basketball portion is trying to sell me an NBA preview magazine, and if you click on the only available link you are taken here. Note the content for 2008 is blank.

4. Google news results for basketball news. The requisite link to Google’s news stories page. I can understand this one I suppose.

5. Inside Hoops. Finally – a pretty good basketball news site! Maybe it was just bad luck near the top, and I’m going to be overwhelmed by the great basketball content to follow.

6. Broadcast-Live.com/sports/basketballnews. I’m underwhelmed. What a truly awful site. Would anyone ever go here twice? It appears to use moreover technology to pull stories from all over the web… but it’s just awful. I particularly like how if you click on the NBA standings link, or the NBA scores link, you are taken to…  nothing.

7. Douglas College Women’s Basketball News. Now I have nothing against the Douglas College Women’s Basketball team per se. In fact, I congratulate them on their 7-3 season last year, and wish them the best for the future. But #7 on the basketball news search? How? How does that happen when you are using the best search algorithm in the world? Among others, we haven’t seen ESPN, or any other major sports site for that matter, yet!

8. ESPN NBA Site. Ah, there it is. Note to ESPN NBA Editors: to improve ranking, increase coverage of Douglas College Women’s Basketball.

9. The Toronto Star. Oh Canada, our home of relatively poor basketball coverage, is now on here three times and I haven’t seen a major U.S. paper yet – and their coverage is generally much better. Note again to Google – I will take better over local every time.

10. Carleton Women’s Basketball. Uh oh- I see a rivalry brewing here between Carleton and Douglas College. Goooo, Ravens! But seriously – we’re still in the top-10 here. Two somewhat random women’s college basketball news pages?

11. Frozen Hoops. I guess us Canadians like our basketball cold, eh? Just another bad site.

So there we are – the top 11 from the world’s most powerful search engine, and I would argue an impartial analysis would indicate that maybe 2 of them SHOULD be on the front page of a basketball news search, and at LEAST five should be nowhere near the top-500 or so.

Of course you might argue this is just a quirk in the system, but I find it’s a pattern that repeats itself. I have a pretty good idea of some of the top sites I would expect in a search for “online videos“. Maybe even Google’s very own YouTube, the #3 most popular site in the world based on traffic. It shows up only in the paid ad. I have a pretty good idea of some of the top sites I would expect in a search for “pictures“. Maybe even Flickr (Share your photos. With the World), which has a global traffic rank of #33. It’s not on there, but Icanhascheezburger certainly is. In fairness, if I search “photos” Flickr does come up number one… but again, you’re telling me that the best search engine in the world can’t figure out someone searching for pictures might be interested in the top photo site?

Anyways, you get the idea. Am I the only one that just feels that there should be a far, far better search engine by now? And if one does ever come along, what would it mean to Google and it’s $135 Billion market cap?



7 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Vincent Clement
Sep 16, 2008 8:38

Sounds like you searched through Google.ca not Google.com. You get a different set of results if you search via Google.com.

zx8754
Sep 16, 2008 9:37

I agree with you that search engines should do more to improve. Recently i found different Search Engines:
http://www.dogpile.com/
http://www.spific.com/

and many more
This type of engines go one step further and require more detailed search (more clicking and typing), which might a bit complicated. Whereas with google.com you just need to type and hit the search button…but then again you have to go through countless number of pages to find what you need…

Daniel J. Pritchett
Sep 16, 2008 10:32

Google’s certainly imperfect, but I got better results when I Googled “basketball news” here in Memphis, TN: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dpritchett/2862945638/

If this weren’t a hypothetical discussion I’d really recommend you head to news.google.com and search for “Nba news” instead.

I know it’s nice when Google reads your mind and provides the best possible search result for you, but even in 2008 you get out of it what you put into it. I’ll bet Google is worth a lot less to people who don’t know how to search using advanced operators, e.g.

“nba news” -football +canada site:espn.com

Ken Leebow
Sep 16, 2008 14:02

Yes, sadly, that is the problem with the Net. And, even sadder, that’s why everyone uses Wikipedia as the defacto place to get information. It’s always one of the top items when searching. It’s way too hard to identify the nuggets. And, it’s only going to get worse. The Internet is the world’s largest garbage can and no one ever takes out the garbage.

Check out Dan Roam’s visual about the problem.
http://alltop.com/about/nuggets.php

flor
Sep 16, 2008 15:13

I know what you mean, i work at a company called HSM, try it! google HSM: High school Musical!!!! amazing! it is frustrating! This company speacializes in management events and i do a lot of research on the speakers. I have changed my strategy, first i look at time.com, cnn.com and fastcompany.com then i turn to google.
It is amazing that google has remained in our heads long enough to become a word. You are right, when the first search engines came out there was a new and better one every second. It looks like after google eveyone gave up trying to get better than them. What happened to yahoo and altavista? where did they go? how is it that they didn’t go back and figure out a way to be even better than google!

Russian Expert
Apr 28, 2009 2:58

It is a well known truth that Goog spends a lot of money on self PR. But unlike other companies that simply advertise benefits of their products, Goog positions itself as overwhelming good, a bright light from the sky for the whole world! And what do we have after a 5 year long of such PR? Most of us believe it to be good!
Their philosophy “don’t be evil” is a tale for donkeys!
As an example, they allow to advertise hundreds, thousands or million of PORNO through their AdSense engine! And the money they genrate to as they say to serve good, which by virtue is only their good, is generated from PORNO mostly!
Keep on seving them!

Wikinomics» Blog Archive » How do Yahoo! Answers get to the top of Google Search?
Jul 27, 2009 16:40

[...] What I find most perplexing about this achievement is that I often find that Google search results (as I’ve talked about before) aren’t that good – and it amazes me that someone hasn’t come up with something much [...]

Coming soon in paperback! Help rename the paperback version of Macrowikinomics and win a one-hour webinar for you and your colleagues with Don Tapscott. Ends 5:00pm ET, August 31. Learn more.

Business - Oct 5, 2010 12:00 - 0 Comments

DRM and us

More In Business


Entertainment - Aug 3, 2010 13:14 - 2 Comments

Want to see the future? Look to the games

More In Entertainment


Society - Aug 6, 2010 8:19 - 4 Comments

The Empire strikes a light

More In Society