I couldn't help but shake my head a little bit when Matt Cutts claimed there wasn't a relevancy problem with the new Google results in BD when he was interviewed by Danny Sulivan.

Under my main search phrase- which is a travel industry phrase- results are showing up for half-burried links pages that just happen to have one link leaving a site that is relevant to the query. Other than that the site and the page are completely irrelevant to the query.

Matt, please tell me to my face that that's not a relevancy issue.

It would be at least a little more comforting if Google were to admit that they have some glitches at present and that they are working on it.

But instead they smile and claim everything is just peachy with relevancy.

So what are you saying? You don't think Matt Cutts gave you the whole story? Hmmm. Mighty powerful accusation....lol :)

I wasn't trying to asign motives. I'm just pointing out that the statement:
"We do not see a relevancy issue" certainly doesn't seem to apply to the searches I am doing. Google might feel good about their Web-wide SERPs, but in my field there are definitely some relevancy issues that I wasn't seeing pre-BigDaddy.

Also, I am certainly not the only one complaining about spammy and irrlevant results. So my question for Matt would be- are all these people delusional? Or is there something to what they are saying?

Many of the people complaining about relevancy are seasoned pro's- not newbies.

Do a search for many phrases using Google now and you will get many results in the top 20 results that have nothing to do with what you are searching for. This wasn't a problem last year at this time so there is definitely something messed up with Google's new algorithm whether they want to admit it or not.

Under my main search phrase- which is a travel industry phrase
Now there is a really good, unbiased opinion ;)

I liken this to what I am (right now and here) dubbing the Ammon Johns Measure (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=36864&view=findpost&p=181462):
You know, I sometimes think that one of the after-shock measurements is the simplest: The more whining there is on forums, the more spam has been hit. The less posts by professional SEOs about it, the busier they are with genuine clients, and thus the more genuine sites might have been hit.

So the worst update for quality is the one few complain about. The best is the one that causes the most bitching.

Were you trying to be clever? I missed your point when you quoted my original post. Care to share?

Now there is a really good, unbiased opinion ;)

I liken this to what I am (right now and here) dubbing the Ammon Johns Measure (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=36864&view=findpost&p=181462):

my main search phraseThat isn't a very big-time indicator of an unbiased, objective evaluation. Besides, some sectors are *known* to be - let's be nice - more "aggressive" because of the nature of the heat of the competition, so they're not necessarily the best gauge for how an engine is doing overall.

Well yes, I was trying to be clever. Sorry about that hehe.

Marcia got one, but it could just as easily have been:
my main search phrase
One SERP does not an Search Engine make ;)

I have heard concerns expressed about relevancy across the board since Big Daddy.

But, regardless of that point, I never claimed that every industry was suffering from irrelevant SERPs. Just mine.

But that should still be a concern to Google.

And if this fairly mainstream example is a problem, common sense says other industry-related SERPs will be a problem as well.

Be fair, people. It's perfectly valid to point to a totally off-topic high ranking result and say that it isn't a relevant result, especially if you can include the fact that other people are saying similar things, and you are using the one that you know about as an example.

Personally, I've noticed that in the same industry, Google's results have improved somewhat since a year or two ago. But even now, the #2 result for 'uk holidays' has nothing to do with UK holidays, other than it's a UK company, and they deal with holidays, but not with UK holidays. Even that's an improvement because they used to list a BBC page at #2 that had even less to do with UK holidays - it's now at #18, so there's an improvement.

No, one result doth not not a search engine make, but many such results do.

It's perfectly valid...especially if you can include the fact that other people are saying similar things
So if we have a theory based upon one SERP and "other people complaining" that is "perfectly valid"? Wow! I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that.

And if this fairly mainstream example is a problem, common sense says other industry-related SERPs will be a problem as well.
No, common sense would not dictate that at all. You can't claim broad things from singular examples. Try these on:

My dog is 5kg,
therefore common sense tells me that all dogs are 5kg.

Or even:
All cheese I have ever eaten is yellow,
therefore common sense tells me that all cheese is yellow.

It is perfectly acceptable to hold any view at all, but when you try to justify a view, the premises and there subsequent conclusions will come under scrutiny. To choose as your only premise that there is one SERP in an industry related to you that is no good is not, IMHO, a very well justified argument.

But that isn't to say Google mightn't have a relevency issue, just that your case is rather weak :)

You're wrong on both your points my friend. If a "singular example" as you put it, is producing irrelevant results when there are many relevants sites to choose from, then that suggests something global about the algorithm.

Secondly, if broad reports suggest the same thing is going on across many industries then this goes to support the point even moreso.

Thirdly, as others have pointed out, just because one has a subjective desire to see a certain site rank highly, it does not follow that they are therefore completely unable to somewhat objectively draw conclusions about relevancy in the SERPs.

Man, step back a second, read some posts, think about what you're saying.

So if we have a theory based upon one SERP and "other people complaining" that is "perfectly valid"? Wow! I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that.Who said anything about theory? If a result isn't relevant, it isn't relevant - there's no theory.

And if different people point to different results, showing off-topic listings, then yes it is perfectly valid.

If a "singular example" as you put it, is producing irrelevant results when there are many relevants sites to choose from, then that suggests something global about the algorithm.
No, it suggests that maybe it is worth further investigation, "Only this, and nothing more." That you chose to do none (not even, say, type in one other phrase and see how that looks) is a real shame :)

Secondly, if broad reports suggest the same thing is going on across many industries then this goes to support the point even moreso.
No, it proves that lots of people complain, "This it is, and nothing more." :)

Really, if your evidence is:
1. Your one SERP.
2. Other people's one SERP (which, BTW, you added after your initial post),
that is, well, its lame!

Thirdly, as others have pointed out, just because one has a subjective desire to see a certain site rank highly, it does not follow that they are therefore completely unable to somewhat objectively draw conclusions about relevancy in the SERPs.
Ah, and here is the kicker. Let me put this in bold so it is clear: you never presented a view that was objectively formed. Instead, you wrote a post that mentioned one singular SERP.

Now, in an attempt to save a (very) poor argument, you start to rally the support of others who, for all I know, have as little evidence to support their view as you do yours. Have a read of http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1898820&page=1 and you will see how quickly poor or untrue information can spread, and I think you will forgive me my scepticism :)

One singular SERP "Merely this, and nothing more" is not evidence I find compelling. The evidence of others who are frustrated is also not something I find compelling, especially when those people are also hardly objective.

I find such arguments, in th end, very uncompelling and I believe them, quoth the raven "nevermore".

Man, step back a second, read some posts, think about what you're saying
What excellent advice! I was about to suggest exactly the same thing to you ;)

Sorry Phil missed yours:
So can you point me to these people tat point to these SERPs that are no good? Thanx.

Sorry Phil missed yours:
So can you point me to these people tat point to these SERPs that are no good? Thanx.I don't need to. If you had read what I wrote properly, you wouldn't even have asked.

Who said anything about theory?

Matt, please tell me to my face that that's not a relevancy issue.
Isn't that the theory? It may not be yours (I don't think I ever said it was, and apologise if you took it that way), but that is certainly the conclusion teh original poster drew from one SERP and (now) other people's "evidence".

But even now, the #2 result for 'uk holidays' has nothing to do with UK holidays, other than it's a UK company, and they deal with holidays, but not with UK holidays. UK holidays meaning special days set aside for celebration, or vacations? What's called taking a holiday in the UK is called going on vacation here in the States.


Even that's an improvement because they used to list a BBC page at #2 that had even less to do with UK holidays - it's now at #18, so there's an improvement.Was the BBC page referring to holidays in the UK such as Mothers Day or Christmas, or UK holidays? See, the BBC is in the UK, which is relevant, and if it happened to have been a page making mention of holidays (like New Years or Valentines Day), then it was certainly relevant with a FINDALL search.

No, one result doth not not a search engine make, but many such results do.So Phil, are you suggesting that EXACT match be used as the default search by Google rather than FINDALL, so that only pages using the exact phrase "UK holidays" will come up?

Project PHP, You seem to be pointedly missing the point. Dude- read the forums before you wax philosophic.

If multiple (please read that again - MULTIPLE) reports exist about irrelevant SERPS- across multiple genres and industries, then that broad consensus suggests an algorithmic factor is at play. After all, the same algorithm is used to score sites. That is the common denominator. Basic logic.

It is not my duty to offer you evidence to prove this. If you would merely take some time to come out of the clouds and actually read feedback about Big Daddy, you would see that what I am saying is quite common.

And as PhilC astutely pointed out, we are not discussing algorithmic "theories", we are talking about the relevance of particular results.

let me provide a concrete example for your abstract brain. Tell me how a German hotels site is relevant for a query like "Colorado cabins"? The only relevancy whatsoever lies in the fact that a buried links page on that German hotels site has one (read that: ONE) link going to a site related to Colorado cabins. Other than that, the German hotels site has no relevance to the query whatsoever.

Is that too difficult for you to understand? That is not theory. That is a common-sensical conclusion. Do you think the average surfer would consider that a relevant result?

Stop living in the abstract and realize that this entire thread has been about real-time relevancy in the SERPs- not theory.

ProjectPHP is right - the more winging the more spam got kicked.

Whether you can handle the fact this happened to you or not is another issue.

Perhaps do a little research about the Ammon Johns quote - you even have a link to have a look see for yourself (did you?). Perhaps do some research about the webmaster whinge factor post update - (Florida was a great one).

You can either accept the fact and learn what happened or whinge and go nowhere, up to you.

ProjectPHP is also right about formulating theories based on a minimal amount of searches.

Personally I use at least 5 distinctly different industries and about 10-30 different segments within these to judge what has happened. I am also lucky to have a fairly intimate knowledge of at least two of these, including who is new, who is old, what sites are owned by whom and what methods of promotion they use. Even then I draw no hard and fast conclusions, but you can always see commonalities.

Re: UK Holidays

I got a split result 'uk holidays' and 'uk bank holidays'. I couldn't see the site you were referring to Phil, nor yours (I swear I saw it the other day tho).

Marcia, regarding the holiday thingy, we refer to holidays as public holidays here in Oz, so maybe the UK does the same, can you clarify that Phil or Glengara?

Tell me how a German hotels site is relevant for a query like "Colorado cabins"?
Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. http://www.google.com/search?q=Colorado+cabins - I can't see anything but what look like adequate results there. Or is this a trick question, one upping my abstractness ;)

And as PhilC astutely pointed out, we are not discussing algorithmic "theories", we are talking about the relevance of particular results.
What is this "relevance" you speak of? Is it one result? Is the page as a whole? What is it?

I personally feel relevance relates to a page of results, and often think that people get all hot and heavy over one result when all too often the page itself is excellent. In fact, I would argue, and often do, that less "relevant" individual results can lead to a much better SERP (with the P part the keyin that FLA). Variety, IMHO, == relevance, and 10 different results, even if 8 aren't the "most relevant", is much better than 10 identical affiliate pages offerring nothing unique, but which are all "relevant".

I like your passion, I really do, but when you write:
But instead they smile and claim everything is just peachy with relevancy.
I can't help but feel that your post was the result of frustration, rather than what I would like to see: a well considered, unbiased and, yes, well researched statement.

Stop living in the abstract
I find that remark purple fish, yellow monkey ,GULUMPH on starship and gloves Focaccia ;)

After all, the same algorithm is used to score sites. That is the common denominator. Basic logic.

The sooner you learn this the better, stop beating up on other webmasters and seo's and go do some algo kicking.

let me provide a concrete example for your abstract brain. Tell me how a German hotels site is relevant for a query like "Colorado cabins"? The only relevancy whatsoever lies in the fact that a buried links page on that German hotels site has one (read that: ONE) link going to a site related to Colorado cabins. Other than that, the German hotels site has no relevance to the query whatsoever.

Mate the day you realise it's up to you to manipulate the serps will be a good day. Manipulate with links and content, not hot air.

Have you tested the serps from a remote location, how about google.com, beacuse I don't even get a german site showing at all, and if I did BIG DEAL - move on. If it has one link, why not chase a link from the same location, then get back to us. ;)

The example I gave was drawn from two separate scenarios because I did not want to name the specific example. Point being- the only difference was the location of the "cabins" query. But it was the US. And sites in Europe that are totally unrelated are ranking under than term merely because of one link on a back links page.

You spend a lot of time and energy and virtual ink debating what was a very simple point- this is not a relevant result. Any many people have reported similar irrelevant results for vastly different queries.

I think at this point you just don't want to admit it was you who jumped the gun before thinking through what was being said.

I feel like you're one of those kinds of people who wil not admit a mistake- no matter how many people point it out to you.

So, that being said, I'm not going to rent any more space in my head to answering your circular points.

Maybe next time if you have nothing constructive to say, just stay off the thread. Thanks.

Nomadic, no offence mate, but how many unrelated results exist in Google? How long has this been the case? Your observations are neither new nor productive, why not go and produce a fantastic page about 'cabins', do a press release for it and go get em!

Even if we agree you still are not ranking, or going to.

From my angle, Google are actually improving. Did you hear that?

Wilsky, yo man- back up... you're growling like a pit bull.

Do you not realize that even when Google gets many things right- they don't always get it right? That there's room for improvement?

Some very reputable SEO's have pointed out that they're frustrated because while Matt Cutts says that quality, original, relevant content, and authoritative incoming links (among other factors) are key to good SERP placement, some of the Big Daddy results do not reflect this.

Reputable SEO's are frustrated because clients are asking for black hat techniques because the WH techniques recommended by Google are not working for many sites in many industries.

Let me clarify, these are the sentiments of others. I concur with much of what I've read.

Tell me more about these reputable seo's. Have you used them for advice, do you know them?

Don't believe all you read, there are a lot of reputable seo's that have hardly posted at all re: big daddy - what does that tell you?

I certainly agree that for the most part Google's relevance is getting better. But for this particular update, there are definitely some relevancy issues that didn't exist pre-big daddy.

And by the way, so we're clear, I still have the top 2 spots for my main search queries. What I'm frustrated about is the crap that's mixed in.

I've had plenty of success in Google and make a good living with SEO- so please don't pile me in with the whiners.

I always take the approach of analysis, and fresh approach according to what I see changing. But I think many people agree that right now- we just have to wait on Google. I DO NOT think some of these relevancy issues will continue. Google will get it right. It's just frustrating in the meantime.

After all, I expect a lot of Google.

Wilsky, I'll find the quotes (from the SEO reputables) and post them when I find them. Peace in the meantime.

I hear you, but Google have a big job. There will always be holes (Good seo's exploit them) that's just how it works.

Look I am sorry the results in your sector suck, but what happens when they don't change, or worst still - get worse?

If crap can float in maybe you need some more sites to keep it out? Food for thought.

Maybe next time if you have nothing constructive to say, just stay off the thread. Thanks.
I am hearby revoking my vote for you as The Thread Decider now that the old one is clearly dead :)

Let me clarify, these are the sentiments of others. I concur with much of what I've read.
Can you provie me witha link that I can read as well, so that I can be similarly educated?

I think Wilksy's point is one to consider: is a bad SERP Google's problem, or an opportunity? If Google got it right everytime, what future is there for new sites? There need to be areas that are underdeveloped for their to be the hope of new entrants.

I also think that many SERPs benefit from addition by subtraction. If a SER Page (not a single result, but a page) loses a bunch of relevant but aweful results (scrapper sites are one such example), it has probably, in the long term at least, improved. That really isn't a relevance problem, IMHO.

In fact, that was an old spammer edict "there aren't any other relevant results, so the spam should stay".

Also, many times there will be a city in another country with the same name, Like London (Ontario and England), or Newcastle (Australia and England). A [{place} Cabin] search could conceivably result in places showing that no one expected.

"Also, many times there will be a city in another country with the same name, Like London (Ontario and England), or Newcastle (Australia and England). A [{place} Cabin] search could conceivably result in places showing that no one expected."

Hey again guys. Peace in the hood. I hear you about the above example- but in this particular incidence I am 100% sure that the issue is not one of Langley, Virginia vs. Langley, England- though I am aware that those mixups do happen.

Okay, that being said, I found an example you can look at. Try this query (it's a concrete one this time:)

<snip>

Tell me if you see what I'm seeing and if you agree about the irrelevance of this result. By the way, there are sites behind this site that are much more relevant for the ranking- so its not just an issue of "there's nothing else left to fill the space".

Anyway, have a look and share your thoughts. Shalom.

And a few spots after that the following result pulls up, again- for the same reason:

<snip>

Marcia.

Google recognises the different meanings of "holidays" in the UK, and they list pages that cover both types - both are relevant. They even insert a few of the 'special days' type apart from the normal listings. For anyone who doesn't know, in the UK we don't go on vacation in normally used language - we go on holiday. The use of "vacation" for that purpose is probably limited to North America, and isn't general in most of the English speaking world.

Was the BBC page referring to holidays in the UK such as Mothers Day or Christmas, or UK holidays. See, the BBC is in the UK, which is relevant, and if it happened to have been a page making mention of holidays (like New Years or Valentines Day), then it was certainly relevant with a FINDALL search.
Neither of those. And being in a UK site does not add to the page's relevance, Marcia. The page is about foreign holidays.

So Phil, are you suggesting that EXACT match be used as the default search by Google rather than FINDALL, so that only pages using the exact phrase "UK holidays" will come up?Not at all. What I'm saying is that the BBC page is irrelevant to UK holidays, and should never have ranked #2 or #18, as it does now, for the query - just as the current #2 should never rank anywhere in sight for that query.

On the whole Google does a pretty good job of keeping them out of that query's results. There used to be more listings for UK companies that only deal in foreign holidays.

projectphp. I don't believe anyone put forward any sort of theory in this thread, so why keep on about it? Nomadic simply said that the serps are screwed (my paraphrase). It's not a theory - it's a statement of fact as he sees it.

Wilksy. The #2 result is Thompson's, who deal in foreign holidays. The BBC page used to be there (Florida brought it up from nowhere to #2), but it's down at #18 now (3rd page because of those inserts).

there are sites behind this site that are much more relevant for the ranking- so its not just an issue of "there's nothing else left to fill the space".Relevancy is a subjective judgment, and just because someone feels a site is less relevant - in their opinion - does NOT mean it's spam.

There are many, many reasons why some sites rank higher than others but the basic reason is that they meet the requirements of the algo better than the others do.

And incidentally, there are two major areas that form the basis for rankings: relevance and importance. Gone are the days when it's all on-page or on-site factors; it's more sophisticated than that. If you see a site for which you question the relevance (in your opinion), then check into how "important" the site is and you'll usually find the answer why.

Marcia, I am very aware of the "importance" issue. Trustrank is another way of describing the same thing. Even so- there are sites that should rank better for all algorirthmic factors combined. No matter how "important" a site is, Google will not really want that site ranking for queries for which it is almost totally irrelevant. They wouldn't want that because the average user wouldn't want that result. And Google wants to please the end user.

While you might claim that relevance is subjective- and to some extent that's true, 99 out of 100 users are unlikely to find a (edit) site very relevant when they type in a search query for (edit).

The fact that the above examples - which are hypothetical - have been snipped has rendered that post completely useless.

What's the point in snipping in this case?

Nomadic, have you had a chance to look at the rest of the forum?

There are heaps of other threads, including a bunch that changed today (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/search.php?do=getdaily).

<off-topic sidebar>
>What's the point
Re-read the whole PM that was sent to you yesterday, but especially the last paragraph.
</off-topic sidebar>

Now, getting back to the topic at hand, which is relevancy in the SERPs, sometimes when there are pages that appear to be irrelevant for a particular specific search phrase, the fact that they're ranking can be traced back to specific algo factors. Like semantic issues & factors for example, and in some cases the possibility that IDF (which has been written about in published papers out there many times, going way back) may be at play, valuing some words in phrases higher than others for scoring.

In a FINDALL search what's looked for is whether all the words appear (which can be on-page or in anchor text of links to the page), but that doesn't mean that all the words in the phrase searched for carry the same amount of weight.

If Google really wanted to get rid of spam, they'd start by cleaning their own house. Take a look at their results and all you see is junk PPC ads.

Talk about IRRELEVANT... Here's just one sample of the new Google, (results for a search term I could care less about, but it's probably similar to what someone would actually type in: <edit: non-commercial search term> Now... You tell me where's all the relevancy? It starts at page 7... Oh yeah that's handy!

Yup... I'm convinced Google is in direct competition with Yahoo for the World's worst search results.

Some searches return good results, but with others it makes me think that they gave up on deep spidering and just went with popularity. Check out these honeys... They point to crap. Mainly sponsored PPC flavored crap from Ebay and similar companies. <edit>

Or even something void of PPC is still crap. Check this out: <edit>

They all look pretty OK to me!

Mod note: Please refrain from further posting of specific sites, URLs or search terms in this thread. If there are any concerns about it, please refer to the forum FAQ.
==========================

Some searches return good results, but with others it makes me think that they gave up on deep spidering and just went with popularity. Check out these honeys... They point to crap. Mainly sponsored PPC flavored crap from Ebay and similar companies.A couple of things need to be cleared up about organic results vs. PPC, since they're being blended together and really can't be. Organic, algorithmic search and PPC have nthing to do with each other, even if some companies may do both

PPC stuff has nothing to do with spidering or deep spidering for search - nothing whatsoever. If a site that does PPC also appears for regular search, there's no connection between the two factors.

An important distinction between search terms is that for phrases or words that have absolutely no commercial value because they're informational in nature and are not commercial, or for phrases that do not drive any significant amount of revenue, there won't be SEOs or companies pursuing those, and commercial sites will rarely be linked to for those. Commercial sites don't make effort to rank for those things.

It's primarily sites with a high overall authority score that will be seen, without needing to optimize for them, and while those searches may not give a given person specifics that they want, the sites ranking must have relevance to the topic or they wouldn't be there at all - there would be nothing they could rank on, no basis for ranking.

Then, for the PPC side of things, if there aren't any financial benefits to gain, there won't be any bidders for certain search terms and consequently there won't be Adwords running. No one will do exact match and pay even ten cents a day for something with zero ROI. But keep in mind that some bid with broad match to the point where they'll appear for anything with a slight hint of being related. Perfect example are PPC ads for Ebay for new and used toilet paper or recycled dog food. A bit extreme, but you get the point.

That, what's seen in PPC, has nothing at all to do with organic search. If a certain type of sites are consistently ranking for certain types of searches - then it's very obvious which factor in the algorithm is kicking in. And it's very important to study up and try to figure out what those factors are.