I seriously doubt Google will remain top search engine for long. The silly statements and actions coming from their engineers trying to fight spam are just laughable, out of this world. Those guys have no common sense. All their anti-spam and algo. development teams should be fired as well as M.C. They have ran out of ideas and the bad guys are winning. Google is trying now to grab a river with their hand creating devastation all over with that stupid Panda algo. What kind of a moron thinks a piece of code can differentiate original content from duplications all over? Of course you are going to kill 90% of the web! The web is made of duplications!

The ole Google of the early 2000s is gone. They are not a search engine anymore. A search engine indexes and delivers content matching search queries. What we have right now is a cesspool of self serving results. Either that or some local result you never asked for.

Page taking charge won’t make G any better. It is way too late. The fat, greedy boys will always have a say and the ole CEO screwed up that company so bad nobody trusts it anymore.

Advice to Google:

1. Stop trying to fight a minority of spammers! Search results were just fine; excepting your self-serving results! The complaints you are acting upon come from spammers themselves and site owners not getting good rankings, NOT THE REGULAR USERS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR 95% OF YOUR USER BASE GOD DAMN IT! These users: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ

2. Get rid of Google Local, Maps, etc. at the top of the search results.

3. Stop delivering “local results” unless specifically asked!

4. Quit implementing these big Tsunami updates. Do it slowly.

Google better get their act together soon. Facebook is getting into search. They are doing their own No-Fly Zone over Google. They say they are not targeting the chief, but you don’t believe that, do you…

Our editorial travel-planning site, Europeforvisitors.com, also got hit by the Panda Update after nearly a decade of Google love, with a 35% drop in U.S. Google referrals. Our top pre-Panda pages are still our top pages; they’re just getting about a third less U.S. less traffic because their positions have been usurped by weaker pages from large corporate sites. For example, we used to rank #2 in the U.S. for “Venice travel,” but we’re now #7–despite the fact that we have what is arguably the Web’s most extensive and up-to-date travel-planning site for Venice, Italy.

I’m guessing that Google’s new algorithm is assigning too much weight to total site traffic (which would tend to reward large general-interest sites like Fodors.com and TripAdvisor) and/or too much weight to what might be termed “corporate authority” (which would help to explain why sites like Amazon, Sears, and WalMart reportedly are profiting from Panda).

One quibble with your post: The Google Webmaster Central forum thread that you cited wasn’t meant to be a discussion; it was meant to be a place where owners of affected high-quality sites could post their URLs for Google’s engineers to review. Unfortunately, that thread has become filled with rants that have made the thread less useful as a repository for reports of “false positives.” I don’t blame Google’s employees for not participating in that thread; any replies would just add to the clutter.

The following is the exact copy of a message I sent to Mr. Segal of the NY Times earlier this afternoon and it contains both a link to a blog post by a highly regarded web hosting company owner and findings of my own research while trying to learn why other lesser or no content sites outrank our 12 year old all white hat content site.

Dear Mr. Segal, it was your article in February that brought JC Penney’s gaming of google to the attention of the world, for which I congratulate you.

However, Google, in it’s ongoing effort to maintain stock holder credibility introduced a “new”, one year in the making algorithm on February 24th which was “supposed” to address the millions of junk pages full of fluff that are created to capitalize on google’s very own adsense program (ads they pay publishers to display for which the publisher gets paid when someone clicks on them).

In that “new” and improved algorithm they affected thousands of long term, highly regarded websites and gave little or no recourse to the web site owners who have put years and in my case over a decade into their sites.

Two things I want to bring to your attention in this email. The first is a recent post to the main blog of a web hosting service that has had thousands of their dedicated web site owners suffer at the hand of google. Ken Evoy is a highly respected and long time contributor to the Internet community and I think his post is worthy of a few minutes of our time – http://blog.sitesell.com/sitesell/2011/03/itas-dont-be-evil.html

The second thing is what I have found in researching not only the 90% loss of revenue we have experienced since February 24th and our site is about 12 years old.

My research, although not scientific in nature, but about 20 different URL’s went into it uncovered that Google now seems to be relying more on the directory listings of Dmoz.com and Yahoo.com “Directory” for the top results than their much touted ‘new algorithm”.

In about 18 of 20 searches for various keyword phrases I discovered that the top results ALL have at least one Dmoz.com directory listing and in about 50% of the cases they also have a Yahoo Directory listing or listings.

It would seem that while Google was pinging on Bing in the national press about a month or so ago, they could not come up with anything more original for their own TOP results than to depend upon whether a website has a listing in Dmoz.com and/or Yahoo’s Directory.

I do not have the time or resources to expend on further research but having found a 90% correlation on just 20 mostly unrelated searches tells me that there is definitely more emphasis being placed on an outside source for top search results in Google than they are placing on their own much adorned as the best of the best algorithm.

At this point I would have to say no. But I’m keeping an open mind to it.

There has been a great change in the SERPs and it has really improved.

I don’t mind Google putting one or two MFA sites or duplicate results because we find these duplicate results on other SEs too. MFA sites altogether can’t be useless. Haven’t we happened to get to a site (bearing the topic of our interest)unknowingly. Have Google obtained every users view? I simply do not understand why Google reacted on some people’s view who may have really be dissatisfied with Google because their site is not showing up for a particular keyword. There are many people who do not have the complete knowledge to use google. General users are not search specialists.

I think though not sure ( not sure because I lack evidence to prove what I think)that the fair that search result issue has been raised by the competitors, spammers and all of those who envy Google’s revenue.

Now, there is no meaning in envying anyone’s revenue. Google is the first search engine. Until Google was launched we never knew what search is and would have never been. Well, its true that we should be done with the old things but Google is not an old stuff, it has been involving since then. Google did not make any remarkable achievement in last few years, expect Chrome and Android, because it devoted its time in useless and non-sensible works like reacting to useless comments and views.

A majority of Google users have no complains against it.

What a brand is???
Anything that is popular. Do you think people want brands to be displayed in search results??? If anybody knows the brand, he or she will simply insert the brand name in search box and I am cent per cent sure that Google shows the brands website at the top.

And if body inserts a question, it is natural that Google will drive it to a site where either the whole answer is there or a few keywords present in the query are there, it may or may not be what you might be looking for. Don’t people type out wrong questions??? And yes of it, Google shows the site most visited at the top as it simply indicative an user inclination. Because many people have visited the site for a particular keyword Google naturally thinks that users are satisfied with the site and displays its result at the top.

It is just like if 10 of your friends like a particular spot to shop and I know about it then I would expect you to drop in the shop, even if you may or may not love shopping there.

I completely find Google to be fair.