Google’s Fresh Results: Irrelevancy In Action

    April 30, 2012
    Chris Crum
    Comments are off for this post.

Google continues to place a certain emphasis on the freshness of search results. Even with its latest monthly list of algorithm changes (which reminds me, another one should be coming out any day now), Google had five different changes related to freshness.

Do you think Google’s increased emphasis on freshness has made results better? Let us know what you think in the comments.

I’ve hinted at it several times while writing about Google, but I’ve never come out and written an article specifically about this. Google’s emphasis on freshness is often burying the more relevant results. While I run into this problem fairly often, I ran into it while I was working on my last article, so I decided to go ahead and point out an example of what I’m talking about.

WebProNews puts out a lot of content. I put out a fair amount myself, and sometimes I simply find it easiest to go to Google to search for past articles I know we’ve written, when I want to reference something we’ve talked about in the past. When I do this, I’ll usually search for “webpronews” and a few keywords I know are are relevant to the article I’m looking for. Sometimes Google will give me exactly what I need immediately. Sometimes, however, freshness is getting in the way, and this example proves that.

In this case, I was looking for the article I wrote back in August called “Does Google Need Twitter?” So I searched, “webpronews, does google need twitter”. I can’t imagine what else could be more relevant to that query than that article. According to Google (and this is with or without Search Plus Your World turned on, mind you), two more recent stories I wrote about the Penguin update (both from today) were more relevant to that search.

Fresh isn't always more relevant

The only mention of Twitter in either of the two articles ranking above the one I was actually looking for, comes in the author bio sections, where it says to follow me on Twitter. I’m not sure what signals Google was looking at to determine that these results would be relevant to me for that query, but clearly freshness was given too much weight.

This is just one example, of course, but I see this all the time. I’ve seen others mention it here and there as well. We had a comment from Matt, on a past article, for example, who said:

“I find that recency is often given more credence than relevancy. Sometimes the content I’m looking for is older. Not all of the best content on the web happened in the last week.” Exactly! I thought it was just me. Freshness over relevancy was driving me nuts, I started using Bing it was getting so bad. Turns out Bing is actually pretty awesome.

Google may be looking to compensate for its lack of realtime Twitter data, which it lost as the result of a deal between the two companies expiring last year (in fact, that’s what “Does Google Need Twitter” was about).

We get it. Google can index new, fresh content. That’s good. I wouldn’t have it any other way. However, when Google had realtime search, it came in the form of a little box in the results, much like other universal search results appear – like when you get results from Google News. The latest tweet wasn’t presented as the top, most relevant result, just because it was indexed a minute ago.

Realtime search was Google’s best example of freshness, in my opinion, and that went away with the Twitter deal, although Google has hinted that it could return, with Google+ and other data. I don’t think it would work as well without Twitter though. But this is one important area of search where Google isn’t cutting it anymore. If you want the latest, up-to-the-second info or commentary on something, where are you going? Google or Twitter?

Interestingly enough, the fact that Twitter is better in this case, gives Google one line of defense against antitrust accusations. There is competition. In fact, verticals like this, with efforts from different companies (including Twitter) that have the potential to chip away at various pieces of Google dominance, may just be Google’s biggest weakness. I’ve had a conversation with one Googler, which leads me to believe the company tends to agree.

We saw how Google was falling short in the area of realtime search, in particular, when Muammar Gaddafi died.

Google continues to make changes to its algorithm every day, and a focus on quality, both with the Panda update and the Penguin update is good, even if these updates may not be entirely perfect. It’s also good to have content that’s as fresh as possible, so I also don’t want to say that Google’s focus on improving freshness is bad either, but I do feel that Google may be giving a little too much weight to this signal in its ranking process, just as it may be giving a little too much weight to social signals for some types of queries.

Either way, it clearly pays to keep putting out fresh content.

Have you noticed relevancy being sacrificed for freshness in Google results? Let us know in the comments.

Image: The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air (via)

  • http://ofinteresttome.com Matt

    Yes! Exactly. Google’s obsession with freshness is the number one reason I have switched to using Bing as my primary search engine.

    While I still like Google, and think it’s a great search engine, the overwhelming number of “fresh” results that had hardly any relevance to my search was really starting to bother me.

  • http://www.LAokay.com Steve G

    I think freshness should be a user setting. I mean Google does have date options you can set, so why the hell get in the way of my searching by default? If they only backed off on the auto stuff and just let people choose it as an option the search results would be better for all, and if they weren’t, well then it means that user needs to tweak the options settings instead of blaming Google. When Google first announced they were going to make search more personalized, I had thoughts of more options, and instead I found myself trapped in some bot guessing game of when and where to throw up personalized searches based on what Google thinks I like. How come I can’t tell Google what I actually like. I mean if it asked me, I’d be more than happy to tell it. See, Google never needed to spy on me, it just needed to ask me.

    • http://filmmovienew.com/ mbwani

      that is what i was thinking about……

  • http://www.webpronews.com/author/chris-crum Chris Crum

    Pretty good point on the date options.

    • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

      A semi-transparent but override-able solution could be using one’s search history to determine what level of freshness one usually selects among the results returned, providing an over-ride when desired/required.

      Maybe? Only the Goog knows if that is feasible or not.

      Doing something like that could possibly lead one into an information-rut as the use of search history has been known to exhibit in the past but it seems most of those issues have more or less been resolved. Maybe there is hope?

    • http://www.LAokay.com Steve G

      Yeah, why doesn’t my date setting I picked determine if I want freshness or not? Why not a freshness button so I don’t have to set a date if I don’t want a range, but want the most recent stuff first? I mean news searching is a given that by default it should be the most recent stuff first, of which you can change if you are looking for other stuff. I also hate how you have to use Chrome to make your search settings default. I mean I’m logged into Google most of the day, why not allow my search settings to be my default settings regardless of what browser I’m using? This is why Google is looked upon as a gatekeeper than a gateway.

  • http://www.hub-uk.com David Jenkins

    I don’t particularly want freshness in my search results. I want the best results about the particular subject.

    It worries me with my own site. For example I have a page entitled “How to make batter” (I run a cooking and recipes site) which does well if I search using http://www.google.com or http://www.google.co.uk. So where’s the problem? Well this was published about 10 years ago so it is hardly fresh and if Google is going to obsess about freshness am I likely to lose my search position (on the basis that my page is a quality one). It is just not practical to keep publishing something on the same subject each year for freshness.

    How many times could you write a fresh, meaningful page about “How to make batter”?

  • http://www.reynoldspest.com Brian Reynolds

    I have noticed it quite a bit over the past week. I am disappointed as a user with some of the results that are turning up. I am seeing articles appearing that are not relevant, and in many cases loaded with duplicate content. This algorithm needs major tweaking in my opinion.

  • http://www.makebeats.org Paul

    The answer is yes! Now that doesn’t mean it won’t even out overtime. The relevancy of results are really highly skewed in the affiliate marketing arena, the bastard step child of internet marketing, since many affiliate marketers have to scramble to keep their websites at or near the top.

    Many of these marketers put out quality content, but had to rely on gray hat methods to keep their nose above the competition.

    The results of this latest Google update was to wipe out all of the top search result leaving the ruble of websites whose owners had given up on or neglected for years.

    The wasteland in Google’s results in this area is amazing. Still one must weed the garden before planting the vegatables…so to speak.


  • http://www.stevegillman.com Steve Gillman

    That’s one of the many problems with their algorithm, but the one that is more nefarious is that they are actively penalizing sites for some types of incoming links, which means they are now consciously saying “We will not give you the most relevant result if it happens to be a site that has off-site factors we don’t approve of–even thought that could not in any way affect your onsite experience.” For more on this glaring flaw, see this post:


    • sj

      Excellent article. Google’s search results just keep getting worse and Steve’s is spot on!

  • http://wredlich.com Warren Redlich

    Google is constantly tweaking to see what works best. From time to time they go down the wrong path, but the process they follow does seem to be making results. Patience is important.

  • R

    “Google may be looking to compensate for its lack of realtime Twitter data, which it lost as the result of a deal between the two companies expiring last year (in fact, that’s what “Does Google Need Twitter” was about)”

    This makes me laugh, Twitter data as useful information that I really want to see when I am searching? 120 characters of Hollywood entertainer’s comments.

  • http://lovezack.blogspot.com Zeke

    I think freshness is important, as long as you dont cheat. Some blogs have the keywords trending, yet lack any content. My blog http://lovezack.blogspot.com has fresh content, and also has relevant content that people want to read about.

    Thanks for the tips.

  • http://continuousinksupplysystem.com.au Mirali

    I have too many problem with google form 20/Apr , before my website was in first page and in Australian was in first .. but know I don’t know where is it!!!!:(

  • http://continuousinksupplysystem.com.au Mirali

    I have too many problem with google form 20/Apr , before my website was in first page and in Australian was in first .. but know I don’t know where is it!!!!:(

  • Collins

    Sometimes “freshness” isn’t the best practice. Example–Windows. Constant updates to new/”improved” stuff, and they’re all buggy as a wormed apple.
    No pun intended to Apple.

  • http://www.NexusMagicStore.com Magic Store

    Nexus Magic suffers during Googles algorithmic dance

    I just read this article and I have been noticing my online magic stores traffic, and business go thru a roller coaster of ups and downs the last couple of months. The tide of google has been stressing me out lately, it seems that my business rides heavily on Googles algorithms adjustments. I am all about White Hat SEO but it order for google to combat black hat tactics we all suffer in some ways. I have noticed in the search results that certain recently posted blog articles have been showing up more in the SERPS. QUESTION: Do you think that if updating your old article and republishing, it would show as a more recent result? Curious…

  • http://www.sundresses.net John B

    I am not sure what put me out of business. Perhaps it was freshness, perhaps it was a combination of factors, but this last update sunk me.

    Whatever it was, when you search for the apparel I used to sell, for example sundresses at sundresses.net, you get large companies clogging the results. If this is what makes good or relevant search results, you can have them.

    It was a good run, good for the 11 years it lasted. Like many small companies, I guess I just lacked the manpower and money to not get squashed. Good links, good content, good images are not enough, to survive you need these things in industrial quantites.

  • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

    Nice article Chris! You pose a very interesting question!

    Maybe the questions should be, when should freshness be a factor and how should one be able to control it in within one’s searches?

    One can see on the left side of search results the following:
    # Any time
    # Past hour
    # Past 24 hours
    # Past week
    # Past month
    # Past year
    # Custom range…

    But, I haven’t found it that intuitive to use, let alone know that it is even there.

    It seems to me now that it is not so much an issue of their engine or algorithm but instead, possibly a user interface issue.

    How the UI could be modified to more intuitively and easily return the level of freshness that one is looking for, I’ve no clue but if Google were to focus on that issue, I think the capabilities of the new level of freshness would be much more appreciated.

    All that said, in the work I do, partly involving bugs found in new OS and application releases, finding a problem and/or solution from the latest and greatest is much preferred over seeing results for versions three or four back.

    Long story short, I love the new algorithm but the UI needs a bit of work.

  • Carol

    There are pros and cons. As an SEO person sometimes the old standby content rich sites were never moving down in the listings to allow for a more up-to-date analysis of the same topic. In that way it is good. But then you have the visitor bureau sites where the information really never changes except for the calendar and is just as relevant now as it was yesterday. Your example falls somewhere in the area of Google is just plain wrong. I have found in the last couple weeks it does not take as long to get listed high on Google if you are doing things correctly. It took at least 3 weeks or longer to get listed on the front page organically in the past. Now it is down by at least a week to 2 weeks. That I do not mind. Google’s bottom line in all these adjustments is of course, how to make more money.

  • http://www.howtoranknumberoneongoogle.com Dan

    In the early years of ranking, it was as basic as the following formula:

    A site with many reference points (Backlinks) = Popularity
    So more backlinks = More Popularity.
    More popularity= More credibility, therefore a higher ranking is given.

    That was pretty basic stuff at the time, and of course, easily manipulated.

    These days it comes down to good and relevant content. That means relevant links, both internal and pointing to your site.
    And of course it also means unique and relevant articles on your site.

    Most of all the Google updates these days are based around the search engine being able to crawl and verify as much of this as possible.

    The first Panda update showed us this, after some of the internets largest sites like ehow, etc. had their rankings bumped down as many as 30 or more positions, where they were being out ranked by sites a 50th the size and only a fraction of the backlinks.

    I just see this trend continuing on.

  • http://www.workathometruth.com Paul

    There are definitely strange results going on right now, but it’s hard to say what will happen when/if Google dials the Penguin down. I’m seeing pages ranking in the number one position that only have the keyword mentioned once or twice in the middle of the text and aren’t the main thrust of the the post/article at all.

    In the mean time, I’m sure many people are thrilled that Google now believes that a data entry scam such as DataEntryCompany-com is a terrific, relevant result for “home business” – now coming in at #7 in. 😉

  • http://bungeebones.com Robert

    The other day I was using Google to find an open source drip email campaign software. I entered open source drip email campaign software in the Google search window and it brought back 1.3 million results. Out of those 1.3 million results there was just ONE that was a match.

    Can’t get much more irrelevant thjan that.

  • yen

    Well, I had to switch to Bing to find some results I needed. Now Google search results are full of crappy, irrelevant websites and I could not find the info I needed.

  • Myra Saunders

    As someone who spends between 5-7 hours per day researching, I’m delighted with the changes over the last year.Almost all of my frustrations with my search results have been addressed. I have a few new ones but given the overall improvement, I’m hopeful that these will eventually be addressed as well.

  • http://charliesaidthat.com/digital/ Charliesaidthat

    Have been finding the results becoming a real mixmatch recently.

    Interesting times ahead as they press Ctrl+Z

  • http://www.factory51.com Steve

    The results are spot on.
    Freshness should prevail especially in SEO news! – who wants to be implementing changes from 8-9 months ago.

    Also, I’m surprised you didn’t specify the exact phrase correctly… considering you knew exactly what you were looking for. :)
    I believe the correct search would be:
    webpronews “does google need twitter

    • IMBack?

      Should you really have to use quotes in this case? C’mon lets be reasonable. The third ranked listing is obviously the most relevant page to the search without quotes.

  • http://cprhowto.com Robert

    This is like DuckDuckGo’s don’t bubble idea….


  • http://www.dbi-tech.com rod

    Paul Saffo, a number of years ago, appropriately coined the phrase “It is not content but context that will matter most …
    The scarce resource will not be stuff, but point of view”. Marrying content (aka Google) with existing real-time keyword summarization / keyphrase extraction technology (aka something like Extractor http://bit.ly/JLSC19) makes it possible today to deliver relevant, contextually accurate search results.

  • http://www.captaincyberzone.com Cap’ n Cyberzone

    Google’s “fresh results” doesn’t bode well for sites offering content like an encyclopedia, dictionary … the Bible …

  • IMBack?

    Is that a joke? “… keep putting out fresh content” Why, so its old in a week and thus “non relevant” to Google and disappears overnight? Works for a news site I guess. Lets just start a new search engine (I know, a tall order) and put G in its place. Bing and Google are old news. We need something that is how Google used to be. A site that doesn’t look at affiliate marketers as less-thans and competitors to their own services (as evidenced by their comments regarding affiliate promotion and the always present “doorway page” BS they spout plus of course Adwords policies). As if every affiliate site out there is just one crappy page. I mean they pretty much WARN people NOT to use affiliate programs. If that doesnt show they are simply motivated by whatever they deem a threat to their bottom line I dont know what is. Trust? There should be a Google doodle next to this in the dictionary. Of course its a trust and its goal is to own the internet and do it under the guise of making the world a better place. Is that evil? I don’t know, is trying to corner the internet under false pretense to make the rich even richer? You tell me. But how can you possibly succeed in the long run when you shun affiliate marketers? The same marketers that made you those billions when you USED to be able to advertise affiliate pages on Adwords. The same marketers that make the internet go round, that create the demand and markets you so graciously swoop into. Great “user experience” in G’s terms equals viewing their pages and websites that they specifically approve of. If not, then you MUST be having a bad user experience and those bad guys MUST be tricking you into it! Good thing I got into this industry when I did, I would not want to be a newbie just starting out right now.

  • http://evrn.net/ Howard Crane

    Google is now a JOKE. At least to the people who know enough about this industry to watch what they’re doing.

    They’re really dicing with death here, risking sheer redundancy.

    I never liked Facebook, I never joined it, but a piece of my mind way back there is hoping that they smash Google to pieces or at least give them enough of a shock to CUT OUT THE SHIT.

    Thanks for this article.

  • http://www.top10googleresults.com Philip L. Franckel, Esq.

    Freshness definitely does not mean relevant. A better method would be for Google to add a Freshness tab alongside the News tab. The News tab is useful because I don’t usually want to find news in my search results but sometimes I do. When I want to find news, I can click on the News tab.

    Another major annoyance is getting local search results when Google thinks I’m looking for something local. I wish they would stop doing that and just add a Local tab right next to the News and Freshness tabs!

    The Google brand used to stand for the best (relevant) search results. Google is screwing up their brand by trying to figure out what users are thinking instead of concentrating on just getting rid of the garbage.

  • steve

    absolutely! we r bounced around like yo-yo’s being told we need to do this, that and everything else. it keeps you plugged in, that’s all it’s meant to do! We have gone full circle, the problem is the circle keeps getting bigger.

  • steve

    someone needs to give cutts a slap!

  • http://www.shopsaskatchewan.com James

    This is just Silly, Frustrating and Inefficient.
    Being ‘fresh’ costs time and money and a plumber is still a plumber at the end of the day.
    My clients don’t want to have to pay for an unnecessary ‘freshness updates’ just to maintain their ‘findability’.
    You’d think with all that smouldering ‘brain power’ in the Google offices, they’d be able to creat an algorythm that can differenciate what might require ‘freshness’ and what doesn’t.
    Movie listings require freshness… A funeral home doesn’t.

  • http://www.computerhowtoguide.com Peter Lee

    Hey Google, I want the best search results! Freshness isn’t always the answer!

  • http://BuyCampingStove,com Bill Nolan

    Google has set itself up as the king of the hill, and it does not matter what you think or want. They are stamping us small businesses into the ground. I was given 7 days to update product identifiers. I was working on it and they have put restrictions on my account because I did not have the product UPC for every product. Do you think the rating of your article mattered to the King! No, they have set up rules and regulations and we have to meet them without question. Do not try to reach Google. They are unreachable. They have set up a wall and made themselves impregnable. We are just peons and are not allowed to question. We can take our question to the forum. But that is not Google. Of course, someone is looking, but no one from Google will answer your question. I am considering going to the State AG and asking for a ruling on their 7 day restriction and subsequent penalty. What chance do you have over just printed word.
    Sorry for the negative answer, but I am angry at Google.

  • http://ipadiphongames.com tanquilin

    Apple iPad MC705LL/A (16GB, Wi-Fi, Black) NEWEST MODEL (Personal Computers).
    I am secure the new iPad at our local Apple store as ours wasn’t too busy but I also have to spend time with a review model beforehand. I shell take you hands-on with the new model plus I like to share my experience from my past two years of iPad ownership altogether especially for those who have not yet had an iPad to call their own. I shell also reveal a treasure trove of info on how you can legitimately download tons of quality apps and games for free. This is in hope of making this the most helpful iPad review on You.
    I have organized information by section with headings to make it more helpful for those just looking for specific info. For example, see the heading “Downloading Apps and Games” for the info on obtaining free apps and games.
    First, let’s quickly cover what’s new and what each means for you.
    Retina Display is twice the resolution of the iPad 2 at 2048 x 1536 pixels (264px/in).
    5 megapixel rear-facing camera is for take photos with over 8x higher resolution and quality than the iPad 2 but still no flash. Dual-core 1GHz A5X processor with quad-core graphics is better multitasking and flawless high-res graphics performance.
    4G LTE capable is with faster mobile connections on AT&T and Verizon when in 4G-LTE-covered network area.
    Please consider the now-cheaper iPad 2. Here is a quick recap of what was new last year:
    Dual-core 1GHz A5 Processor is better multitasking with 9-times faster graphics.
    3-Axis Gyroscope is allowed for higher precision and more motion gestures.
    Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound pass-through is with Apple Digital AV Adapter.
    Rear-facing camera is supported 960 x 720 sized photos (0.6 megapixels), plus 720p HD videos.
    Front-facing VGA-quality camera with VGA-quality is a resolution of 640 x 480 (0.3 megapixels).
    Verizon 3G model now available is no longer limited to just AT&T for the WiFi+3G model.
    Thinner, lighter and smoother with contoured back is felt more comfortable in your hands.
    The iPad 2 brings a lot more new features to the iPad lineup but the 3rd generation iPad still brings us some welcome new features. First, it suports the new A5X processor. It is not really that much better than the iPad 2’s and it is not technically a quad-core processor. The CPU itself remains dual-core but the graphics processor built-into the CPU chip can compute 4 streams of graphics information thus making the graphics aspect of the A5X processor quad-core. There was no noticeable improvement in performance over the iPad 2 except maybe behind the scenes where it handles 4x more pixels. Everything on the new iPad runs just as smooth as it always has which is as to be expected from Apple but I imagine the new processor has particularly been used to speed up image processing for the new 5 megapixel camera. It makes photography just about as snappy as it is on the iPhone 4S which I own as well. 4G support was also a nice surprise that had been rumored.
    However, it did not exactly pan-out including an SD card slot for photos and file storage nor the possibility of a smaller more manageable 7″ iPad model but I’m still holding out hope for one in the future. Thankfully, the price stays the same for these new models but that is as to be expected. As a boon for those who don’t really plan to use the new high-res camera nor need the Retina display or 4G speed. The iPad 2 is going to stick around for a while longer with a new lower price for those in the market.

  • http://ipadiphongames.com tanquilin

    Freshness must support By Fairness with true fact and not mislead the readers. Cheers!

  • http://www.MountainYahoos.com Greg

    It is silly to believe that a search on historical events or people would require the latest news. Analysis of content should be the prime indicator. Most of Wikipedia’s content is not timely but is still authoritative on many subjects of science or fact. My own ski and snowboard site, MountainYahoos.com, is seasonal with few updates in summer or fall. Should I get hammered in the search results when winter comes because there were so few updates during the off season? Indicators of authoritative facts vs current news should determine if recent changes should be an indicator. If update and refresh rates are an indicator then content mills and SEO gamers win. The process of generating top content is a long arduous task to research the facts and develop the thesis and should not be judged the same as breaking news.

  • http://www.development-catalyst.com/ Raphnexx

    I have also felt the penguin update.I have written some of my views in my blog.It’s here:

    The Hassle of Google’s Penguin Algorithm

  • http://www.freedomfromdebt.eu Steve

    Imperfect science in an imperfect world. There’s so much new content coming online every day I don’t see how any search engine can keep the results all that accurate or pertinent.

  • http://www.guapamania.com/ Daniel

    Google seem to try to deliver the most useless results. Remember: Google is a SEARCH engine, NOT a find engine. So if you like to search, google is very useful. If you prefer to find, you have to go other ways…

  • http://www.flailingmonkey.com Mike Ratcliffe

    I have been getting more and more frustrated with Googles results. It seems that they try to gather information about your interests etc. and the results of your search are targeted at those interests.

    This sounds like a good idea, but ironically means that the search results that I receive are different from the results that you would receive. It also returns many irrelevant results. I would much rather do without this “intelligence” but that is apparently not an option.

  • Angela Cockburn

    I constantly use the net to research historical material. If I am researching a historical figure, I don’t need up-to-date material, I need authorative material.

  • http://www.HGPublishing.com Peter J. Francis

    I have noticed a huge decline in traffic to my website. Primarily I sell editing services, and I don’t know why I should be constantly updating my pages when the service remains the same. In addition, I have pages offering free grammar help, and the rules of grammar just don’t change on the same pace as the web does. The focus for my website is my editing, not in generating traffic for ad revenue, and therefore I don’t have time to be constantly updating my website. I think the emphasis on freshness hurts those of us who have websites to advertise products or services that are relatively static.

  • http://woodprojectplans.be2do.net ozra

    Yes it wouls seem tha Google is just a great big pile of doggie – doo. Some idiot employed there has decided how and what people search and voila we have a mess.

    Obviously someone who has zero idea of how things actually work; perhaps said person should seek Government employment – they also are blundering around in the dark.

  • http://queencitywebhosting.com J.T.

    Nice idea but I’m in the industrial arena. Prices are not posted on any sites and the product never changes. So I’d have to make up some irrelevant content which the site owner would certainly frown upon. That makes as much sense as someone liking your picture and facts about a sheet of stainless steel plate so much the they hurry and link to the site. Sure.

  • Ayako

    All these articles are mainly from the webmasters point of view. Let me share what I feel from the user point of view:

    1) 5 years back what I wanted to find, I used to search on Google, then refine mey search and search again or basically searching the search results and used to get it.

    2) 3 years back what I wanted to find, I used to search on Google, then refine mey search and search again or basically searching the search results and used to get it.

    Well the stories continues and the same is the status today but to be honest, what Google was there is not today. It is becoming more a pain.

    If any one wants, I can come up with reasons/examples to back my point that today’s Google is more a pain than a solution to searches. I have not seen so many irrelevant results or one site taking half of the first page with many pages coming up at the top slots from the same site. And ths has been happening since past few days/weeks. Is Google so stupid to ignore the fact that for the best results, a user would still filter the results or search the results to what she/he wants?

    To me Google is becoming a nonsense recently.

  • http://www.seonorthamerica.com Tom Aikins

    I think Google better come up with some way to keep its results from being populated by junk as it is now. I do searches and find plenty of crap on the first page that has little to do with what I’m looking for. Their algorithm is outdated (even though they supposedly continually update it) and based on factors that have no bearing on the relevance of results. Since when does the number of links to a page guarantee relevance or accuracy? They’ve been able to maintain this facade of invincibility for years now but I see chinks in the armor everywhere.

  • http://bongotronics.com Corky Swanson

    I just dropped a fresh one. Check it out.

  • http://blogsnewsreviews.com/2011/the-great-swiss-army-knife-debate-best-swiss-army-knife-tinker-swiss-army-knife-which-swiss-army-knife-is-best-biggest-swiss-army-knife Astro Gremlin

    Freshness seems like a poor sole indicator of interestingness.

  • Nick G.

    I took a hit and lost about 50% of my Google traffic. I still rank high for a longer tail keyword phrase, but I went from page 1 to page 4 for a 3 word keyword phrase.

    It seems like Google has started ranking the big sites towards the top again, sites like eHow and Wikihow. My site has much more helpful and relevant info about the keywords I ranked for, but I am not eHow or Wikihow.

    The Wikihow page that ranks above mine also has 3 Google ads before the content begins on the page! And one Google ad is very misleading, making it seem like part of the article and makes it look like you need to click the ad link to continue the article on Wikihow!

    I have also noticed a lot from other searches that Google really doesn’t care if there are misleading ads over the content. Didn’t they make a big upadte about not ranking sites that have ads above the fold?? Apparently, they didn’t and rank those pages higher now.

    Even a site like dictionary.reference.com ranks well if you search a word and “definition”. There are ads surrounding the word and definition on that site, which can be confusing to a casual reader.

    It seems like Google really doesn’t care about search relevancy, as long as they can rank well known sites that display ads before the content and make people click the ads, then they will be fine.

    Unfortuneatly for Google, when people figure this out and see that Google is only about ad clicks, hopefully people will use a better search engine, such as Bing.

  • http://www.balisilverjewellry.com Sabastian yakar

    In my opinion I don’t believe a bit at all.
    I optimize my web pages regularly, at the same time I check my competitors as well. My competitors has no H1 tag, content old as 12 years. SEO score way lower than mine. Also he did not make any changes last 10 yrs. But he beats the rest of it. Not to mention he doesn’t have much back links much as I have. But I can not beat him in the Google ranking at all. Is that explains my WHY? question?
    I wish someone can figure the formula how Google ranks the web site.

  • http://queencitywebhosting.com J.T.

    The concept might be great but it’s just not practical to try to keep putting new content on an industry site where the information is stable and not likely to change

  • http://www.newenergycom.com Jim Coon

    I think Google needs to have a separate box for its freshness listing. I really think it is missing the boat, but then so is twitter. Twitter search tends to be incredibly limited because of its focus on “exact phrase”. Twitter needs a more contextual dimension to its search and Google needs to find a way to stop blocking relevancy with its freshness attempts.

  • http://www.focalpointrenovations.com Daniel Batal

    Great article. I’ve been discussing with some of my SEO friends whether they thought Google could ever be hit with an antitrust suit. They all look at me as if it’s an impossibility until I remind them about the United States vs. Microsoft. Your the first person to ever mention a potential strategic defense. Well done!

    P.S. Typo in the 4th paragraph “I’ll usually search for “webpronews” and a few keywords I know are are relevant” ….. lose one of those “are’s”


  • http://www.tabletpcfind.com/ Milton Olave

    The search results in English language I like, I think it has improved, but in Spanish is a disaster.

  • http://www.virtualizationpractice.com Michael

    I think it depends on the query. Some searches are only performed because people want the most up-to-date results. Others are done to find trusted information that doesn’t need to change.

  • http://handdryerindia.com pelister

    How about this for freshness, I am a small vendor selling shoes…

    Will Google place me in search result if I write articles everyday like

    1. How to throw shoe on Matt…
    2. how to stitch google logo in your shoes..
    3. How to stamp someone from google with new shoes…

    My site will provide fresh content everyday… how about that…