Jennifer Laycock

Jennifer Laycock

Articles

AddThis Feed Button
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

There's an article over at The New York Times today written by a reporter that spent some time with the top algorithmic engineers (or "Google Fellows") at Google. It's a fascinating read that manages to share some great insight into the processes that go on behind the scenes of Google's popular search engine, and also into the improvements that the engineering team chase down each day. It won't tell you how to rank your site better, but it will confirm the idea that search engines are still working toward judging sites the way that humans judge sites.

From the article:

Google recently allowed a reporter from The New York Times to spend a day with Mr. Singhal and others in the search-quality team, observing some internal meetings and talking to several top engineers. There were many questions that Google wouldn't answer. But the engineers still explained more than they ever have before in the news media about how their search system works.

As Google constantly fine-tunes its search engine, one challenge it faces is sheer scale. It is now the most popular Web site in the world, offering its services in 112 languages, indexing tens of billions of Web pages and handling hundreds of millions of queries a day.

There were some nice juicy little tidbits in there that confirm the Google's practice of tweaking algorithms based on bad search results...

"Someone brings a query that is broken to Amit, and he treasures it and cherishes it and tries to figure out how to fix the algorithm," says Matt Cutts, one of Mr. Singhal's officemates and the head of Google's efforts to fight Web spam, the term for advertising-filled pages that somehow keep maneuvering to the top of search listings.

Some complaints involve simple flaws that need to be fixed right away. Recently, a search for "French Revolution" returned too many sites about the recent French presidential election campaign — in which candidates opined on various policy revolutions — rather than the ouster of King Louis XVI. A search-engine tweak gave more weight to pages with phrases like "French Revolution" rather than pages that simply had both words.

At other times, complaints highlight more complex problems. In 2005, Bill Brougher, a Google product manager, complained that typing the phrase "teak patio Palo Alto" didn't return a local store called the Teak Patio.

So Mr. Singhal fired up one of Google's prized and closely guarded internal programs, called Debug, which shows how its computers evaluate each query and each Web page. He discovered that Theteakpatio.com did not show up because Google's formulas were not giving enough importance to links from other sites about Palo Alto.

There's also a really nice little nugget in there that I read as addressing the so-called sandbox effect, which I've explained in the past is simply a higher barrier to entry due to the maturation of online content. (In other words, Google doesn't punish your site for being new, it just expects you to prove yourself if there are already a million other sites addressing the same topic.)

Freshness, which describes how many recently created or changed pages are included in a search result, is at the center of a constant debate in search: Is it better to provide new information or to display pages that have stood the test of time and are more likely to be of higher quality? Until now, Google has preferred pages old enough to attract others to link to them.

and

Mr. Singhal introduced the freshness problem, explaining that simply changing formulas to display more new pages results in lower-quality searches much of the time. He then unveiled his team's solution: a mathematical model that tries to determine when users want new information and when they don't. (And yes, like all Google initiatives, it had a name: QDF, for "query deserves freshness.")

and

THE QDF solution revolves around determining whether a topic is "hot." If news sites or blog posts are actively writing about a topic, the model figures that it is one for which users are more likely to want current information. The model also examines Google's own stream of billions of search queries, which Mr. Singhal believes is an even better monitor of global enthusiasm about a particular subject.

Makes perfect sense to me. As we move forward with latent semantic indexing and as search engines begin to recognize a sudden influx of new content covering the same topic, it would be feasible for a quality algorithm to recognize that NEW content is needed to fill the gap of information about whatever breaking news is driving people to conduct search queries.

Granted, this addressing things from a different angle than my more simplified explanation that the fewer sites filling a niche, the easier it is to rank (yes, I know, DUH, but you'd be surprised how few people get that concept...) and instead focuses on breaking news type content...but both aspects show that Google is not punishing new sites, it's simply exploring the best ways to integrate them with existing sites.

There's quite a bit more information in the article, so make sure you take the time to read it in its entirety.

Get Updates

weekly newsletter




Print Ads
Save money on newspaper & magazine ads.

ClickSweeper Software
Revenue-driven Bidding, Free Trial

ClickTracks Analytics
Identify search terms that convert.

RealTechNetwork Ad Sales
Specializing in all forms of rich media.



Video Cast

Sage Lewis Video

Video blogger Sage Lewis keeps you up to date with what's hot in the world of search engine marketing.



www.flickr.com

Jennifer Laycock is the Editor of Search Engine Guide, an educational web site aimed at translating the search marketing world into something that small business owners can understand. Jennifer specializes in common sense search engine marketing, viral marketing and customer outreach via social media and blogs. A former search marketing consultant and in-house trainer, Jennifer’s clients have included companies like Verizon, American Greetings and Highlights for Children. Her primary clients now are a little girl named Elnora and a little boy named Emmitt.