Search Engine News

If ever a hand edit was needed...

And yet, Google seems to have noticed the Cuil.com is a worthy result for its SERPs.

I think that's all the analysis needed, wouldn't you agree!?

I thought this was worth noting... Anyone that bought IBM shares 12 months ago is now ahead of anyone that bought Google shares at the same time.

Google proudly trumpets their Do No Evil motto while some webmasters proclaim that Google has turned a blind eye to the philosophy that made them the success they are today. Well, I have proof that Google really is evil. Check out yesterday's closing stock price. Can't argue with the mark of the beast, can you?

There's an incredibly informative article from the NY Times about the internal workings of Google's ranking algorithm (thanks to Rand Fishkin for bringing this article to my attention). In the article, we're told that members of the Google team are constantly asking themselves, "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, the engineers have favored pages old enough to have attracted inbound link from other sites

Martketwatch is reporting on speculation that Microsoft is interested in buying Yahoo. Not just a couple of shares, but the whole kit and caboodle. Wow! It doesn't sound like a deal is anywhere near being completed, a lot of people are believe the rumor and have run up Yahoo's stock by 14% overseas. This should be an interesting story to follow.

Some folks over at Google must have recently dusted off their SEO 101 handbooks because they decided it was time to rename Froogle (clever, but meaningless) to Google Product Search. The name change acknowledges what us SEO-types have been practicing for a long time -- use meaningful titles in favor of cute sounding ones. I wonder if they need help getting the 301 permanent redirects set up.

A short post here to mention that the April 7, 2007 edition of BusinessWeek asks the question, "Is Google Too Powerful?" The article is an interesting read, but for those looking just for the stats, here they are.

Wikia, the company behind the wildly popular Wikipedia is reportedly working on an editable search engine. Frankly, I suspect the impact to the world of search will be minimal, but could there be negative implications for Wikipedia?

Now that the Dave Pasternack thing has died down (well, I'm ready to move on even if others aren't), it looks like effects of personalized search is going to be the next hotly debated topic. Although not at all new, personalized search is only now becoming a reality in large part because Google has announced new emphasis in the area.

If I told you that I had an idea for a new search engine that would dethrone Google, you'd probably dismiss me without a second thought. But what if the idea was instead coming from the guy that created the digital voice mail system now used by half a billion people AND built the CDDB database that now feeds song info into iTunes and other music players, would you still dismiss the comment?

The NY Times is reporting on the current state of affairs with new entrants to the search industry. It would seem that start-ups are once again able to get funding from venture capitalists if there's even a small chance that they'll be able to take a piece of the pie from Google.

In the past, Google has created special borders and color schemes as an optional feature for AdSense users. It seems the AdWords team has jumped on the bandwagon and included such themes with the ads appearing in the Google search results.

Remember back when AOL was a successful player on the web? This was evident in many ways, but the one that always struck me as a particularly good example, was the mainstream media buyers' use of AOL keywords. AOL was so ubiquitous back then, that advertisers were confident enough that TV viewers would know what they meant when they said use AOL keyword XYZ to learn more.

Nothing like a catchy title to start the day, right? I didn't expect to come across commentary about Google's AdSense program on the Motley Fool site as it normal concentrates on investing-related issues. And yet, Seth Jayson is declaring that Google has killed the golden goose.

Cloaking, which is the act of showing search engines web content that is different than what you show regular web users, is generally frowned upon. If Google detects cloaking on your web site, you run the very real risk of having your site banned i.e. excluded from all search results.

Once I picked my jaw up off the ground after seeing the $100,000+ check from Google, I started to look for related information to see what happens when people generate such large sums of ad revenue.

The results of a survey conducted by S.G. Cowen and Co. reveal that the longer people have been using the Internet, the more likely it is that they will choose to use Google instead of other search engines.