blog.searchenginewatch.com— I don't but this guy does. Originally, this user's list was to be called "100 Things I Hate About Google." Interesting read.
Mar 14, 2006View in Crawl 4
This is the kind of guy that would make 400 'sites' that are nothing but ads, he is an idiot, refer to my previuse post that talks about each o his 25 issues, and how they are just his own stupidity
On the counts, my point for highlighting it is that I'm sick of people poking at Google about it. Look at the link I made to Scoble. He yammers on about it. Others have done so for years, as well. They do, because the figure's not accurate. Usually, I respond to those complaints with a "this is not a unique Google thing. this is in fact a thing that search engines have had problems with back to AltaVista." In fact, I linked to that history in my point yesterday. But you know -- these critics have a point. If you're going to put out a number, it ought to bear some relation to reality. If you say there are 11 million matches, where do you get off saying that only 800 or so are non-duplicates? Where do you get off reporting MORE matches for a restricted set. The answer is wean yourself off putting out numbers that few notice but those that do use for the wrong reasons (such as to try and "prove" points based on counts, see <a class="user" href="http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=299">http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=299</a> for more on that). Alternatively, drop the counts if they really are just meaningless.I'm not saying that the counts are an issue with searching. I'm not saying I can't do an OR search or anything like that. I just picked an example that shows where the counts go up. I could have used any similar series of words. They should NOT go up. The are indeed doing an AND query. I know this is a bug. They've told me this. If you go up further in this thread, you'll see GoogleGuy commenting that he's glad I've highlighted some of this points. This is one of those points. He knows the counts shouldn't do that, but no one cares enough to fix it. Fine, then just get rid of it rather than waste space on a meaningless number that just causes critics to poke at you.In short, this has not been an issue I've been critical of until now and actually have expended a fair amount of time defending Google on. But why should I or anyone? Just fix the darn numbers, either by making them accurate or removing them. Why leave yourself open like this. I hate they leave themselves open like this.
Remember folks, if it were up to Danny, the first 5000 pages of search results would be paid results, aka... crap ads. We goto google to find info, find sites, etc.. not to see your damned ads. Seriusly what is wrong with this guy? He is supposedly a respected and credited person in the search engine biz, but all I hear are complaints, that really end up being him not understanding how to use the service.Hey Danny, I pose this one to you, If you are so god like about search engines.... where is yours? seriusly, if you know so much about them you should be able to make one, or at bare minimum hire a programmer or 10 to do it for you.
In <a class="user" href="http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2811">http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2811</a> about OR searches, that seems to have been fixed. I can't reproduce there results anyway and i actually get the correct results.And for the query's with and without AND, you don't seem to realize that there is a difference. Only explanation i can think of why google are saying that its not. Is that without the and you probably get better results and 99.99% of the cases they are exactly the same. however in some cases as you show there is clearly a difference as the numbers of hits is difference and if you look past the first page you will see that you have a completely different subset also.
Thanks, dog. Several people who know Digg have passed along the same to me privately. Don't worry. I ain't sweatin' it. It's actually been kind of fun to read the comments, plus I try to to prejudge a community. Besides, how often do I get to have a conversation where someone pokes fun at my name as not being grown up enough. The irony in that point alone is worth spending a little time here.
I cannot believe this whole thread went on this long! Danny Sullivan is "the man" when talking about search marketing, and has been it for soooo many years already. I'm sure all the people bashing his article are IT people, who hate dealing with all the requests that the marketing department has for them, and have never heard of Search Engine Watch, Search Engine Strategies, etc, etc.The fact that matrix and others keeps asking Danny to create his own search engine fully explains how clueless they are about who Danny is and what he has done for the search community. Danny, keep on writing articles, keep moving this industry forward, we (SEOs, SEMs, etc) truly appreciate it!!!
As someone on the inside of this industry, speaking to all of these Danny haters who are on the outside - seriously, RTFM guys If you'd read the article and researched Danny's background you'd realize that you're committing the search world equivalent of calling Linus Torvalds a script kiddie. The trolling is misinformed, naive, and it does a great job of disqualifying anything meaningful you might have to say on the topic. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it....movie quote...movie quote...say something witty here....blah blah blah....pfffffttt.
"I dont have any love for google, I dont have any love for any company to be honest with you. I am just an IT guy that writes search engines" matrixxx1 - as an SEO professional myself, I would love to see your search engine(s). Can you give us all a link? "RTFM guys If you'd read the article and researched Danny's background you'd realize that you're committing the search world equivalent of calling Linus Torvalds a script kiddie."Yep pretty much./
"RTFM guys If you'd read the article and researched Danny's background you'd realize that you're committing the search world equivalent of calling Linus Torvalds a script kiddie."Yep.Interesting article Danny, keep going.Jim, SEO
I dig it. Danny, great job on the information. To the rest of the "idiots" who are using that term, it's a shame you don't know how to spell. It almost might have given you more credibility. Cheers to you Danny as well for taking their ignorant behavior so well.
johnthriceMar 14, 2006
This is the kind of guy that would make 400 'sites' that are nothing but ads, he is an idiot, refer to my previuse post that talks about each o his 25 issues, and how they are just his own stupidity
dannysullivanMar 15, 2006
On the counts, my point for highlighting it is that I'm sick of people poking at Google about it. Look at the link I made to Scoble. He yammers on about it. Others have done so for years, as well. They do, because the figure's not accurate. Usually, I respond to those complaints with a "this is not a unique Google thing. this is in fact a thing that search engines have had problems with back to AltaVista." In fact, I linked to that history in my point yesterday. But you know -- these critics have a point. If you're going to put out a number, it ought to bear some relation to reality. If you say there are 11 million matches, where do you get off saying that only 800 or so are non-duplicates? Where do you get off reporting MORE matches for a restricted set. The answer is wean yourself off putting out numbers that few notice but those that do use for the wrong reasons (such as to try and "prove" points based on counts, see <a class="user" href="http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=299">http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=299</a> for more on that). Alternatively, drop the counts if they really are just meaningless.I'm not saying that the counts are an issue with searching. I'm not saying I can't do an OR search or anything like that. I just picked an example that shows where the counts go up. I could have used any similar series of words. They should NOT go up. The are indeed doing an AND query. I know this is a bug. They've told me this. If you go up further in this thread, you'll see GoogleGuy commenting that he's glad I've highlighted some of this points. This is one of those points. He knows the counts shouldn't do that, but no one cares enough to fix it. Fine, then just get rid of it rather than waste space on a meaningless number that just causes critics to poke at you.In short, this has not been an issue I've been critical of until now and actually have expended a fair amount of time defending Google on. But why should I or anyone? Just fix the darn numbers, either by making them accurate or removing them. Why leave yourself open like this. I hate they leave themselves open like this.
Closed AccountMar 15, 2006
Remember folks, if it were up to Danny, the first 5000 pages of search results would be paid results, aka... crap ads. We goto google to find info, find sites, etc.. not to see your damned ads. Seriusly what is wrong with this guy? He is supposedly a respected and credited person in the search engine biz, but all I hear are complaints, that really end up being him not understanding how to use the service.Hey Danny, I pose this one to you, If you are so god like about search engines.... where is yours? seriusly, if you know so much about them you should be able to make one, or at bare minimum hire a programmer or 10 to do it for you.
stesunMar 15, 2006
In <a class="user" href="http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2811">http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2811</a> about OR searches, that seems to have been fixed. I can't reproduce there results anyway and i actually get the correct results.And for the query's with and without AND, you don't seem to realize that there is a difference. Only explanation i can think of why google are saying that its not. Is that without the and you probably get better results and 99.99% of the cases they are exactly the same. however in some cases as you show there is clearly a difference as the numbers of hits is difference and if you look past the first page you will see that you have a completely different subset also.
dannysullivanMar 15, 2006
Thanks, dog. Several people who know Digg have passed along the same to me privately. Don't worry. I ain't sweatin' it. It's actually been kind of fun to read the comments, plus I try to to prejudge a community. Besides, how often do I get to have a conversation where someone pokes fun at my name as not being grown up enough. The irony in that point alone is worth spending a little time here.
dplazasMar 15, 2006
I cannot believe this whole thread went on this long! Danny Sullivan is "the man" when talking about search marketing, and has been it for soooo many years already. I'm sure all the people bashing his article are IT people, who hate dealing with all the requests that the marketing department has for them, and have never heard of Search Engine Watch, Search Engine Strategies, etc, etc.The fact that matrix and others keeps asking Danny to create his own search engine fully explains how clueless they are about who Danny is and what he has done for the search community. Danny, keep on writing articles, keep moving this industry forward, we (SEOs, SEMs, etc) truly appreciate it!!!
spoffleMar 16, 2006
Interesting follow-up on this, no?<a class="user" href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-plus-plus/">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-plus-plus/</a>
marshallclarkMar 17, 2006
As someone on the inside of this industry, speaking to all of these Danny haters who are on the outside - seriously, RTFM guys If you'd read the article and researched Danny's background you'd realize that you're committing the search world equivalent of calling Linus Torvalds a script kiddie. The trolling is misinformed, naive, and it does a great job of disqualifying anything meaningful you might have to say on the topic. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it....movie quote...movie quote...say something witty here....blah blah blah....pfffffttt.
reversialMar 18, 2006
"Stop giving blogger away free".Think of it this way; A step up from livejournal, a step down from WordPress.
nickwilsdonMar 18, 2006
"I dont have any love for google, I dont have any love for any company to be honest with you. I am just an IT guy that writes search engines" matrixxx1 - as an SEO professional myself, I would love to see your search engine(s). Can you give us all a link? "RTFM guys If you'd read the article and researched Danny's background you'd realize that you're committing the search world equivalent of calling Linus Torvalds a script kiddie."Yep pretty much./
jimwMar 20, 2006
"RTFM guys If you'd read the article and researched Danny's background you'd realize that you're committing the search world equivalent of calling Linus Torvalds a script kiddie."Yep.Interesting article Danny, keep going.Jim, SEO
wtatzAug 7, 2006
I dig it. Danny, great job on the information. To the rest of the "idiots" who are using that term, it's a shame you don't know how to spell. It almost might have given you more credibility. Cheers to you Danny as well for taking their ignorant behavior so well.
gavilanSep 17, 2006
I used this post here in mine, as highlights <a class="user" href="http://googolians.blogspot.com/2006/09/25-things-danny-sullivan-hates-about.html">http://googolians.blogspot.com/2006/09/25-things-danny-sullivan-hates-about.html</a>