47 replies to this topic

[DanThies]

Didn't know where else to put this, and I figured posting it here would get me a link from Search Engine Guide sooner or later... I think it's news.

The "official" SEO Research Labs report on the Google update is online now:
Special Report: How To Prosper With The New Google (PDF, 100k)
Size is about 100K, right-click on the link above and "save as..." to save the PDF file to disk. Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 or greater is required to read it.

Warnings, disclaimers, & cetera:
This report contains my speculation about the recent Google update. I am not responsible for what you do with it. I don't have any inside information from the Googleplex. I do have friends at Stanford who wish they worked at Google. I think I am probably right, but I am willing to be wrong. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murdered President Kennedy.

[Craig B]

Great article! I really enjoyed the read.

-Craig

[ajeshnair]

Hello Mr.DanThies

Excellent article. You have covered everything!!

-Ajesh Nair

[discountdomains]

Dan,

That is one of the best documents I have read in a long time.

Thank you

Clare

[Grumpus]

I saw this this morning, but didn't get a chance to read it until just now. That's an excellent read. I disagreed with a few minor points here and there, but 98% of it is exactly what I've been trying to say for weeks now - you just have a much, much better connection between your brain and your fingertips than I. Thanks for helping me confirm and tidy up what's been rattling around in my head and thanks for giving me something to point people toward when they're looking for reassurance and understanding of what's happening to them.

G.

[marybetht]

Dan,

Thanks for sharing your article, much appreciated!

Mary Beth

[rustybrick]

Good article. Summed up everything well.

I find it interested that Google will start to use Teoma's "Subject-Specific Popularity" concept within its PageRank algo.

How sure are you about this theory?

I think it will be a wonderful thing but I am not too sure this is occuring at a global level at Google. Maybe they have a lot more work to get done for me to see it globally.

Thanks.

[Scottie]

Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murdered President Kennedy.

The Warren Commission was wrong- explain the multiple wounds! A conspiracy!

I am joking. Just joking. Not looking to debate the JFK thing...

[Grumpus]

I think it will be a wonderful thing but I am not too sure this is occuring at a global level at Google.

It's been happening on some level, actually, since around December of 2002. I haven't heard it described in the exact same way that Dan does, but I've got posts around various boards dating back this far describing the general symptoms. It's also evolved a lot since then.

G.

[DanThies]

It's been happening on some level, actually, since around December of 2002. I haven't heard it described in the exact same way that Dan does, but I've got posts around various boards dating back this far describing the general symptoms. It's also evolved a lot since then.

One of the things that isn't in the report, that we've looked into quite a bit, involves a few of the very competitive SERPs that didn't really change a lot on November 15. For example, "search engine optimization."

When you look under the hood, a lot of these SERPs underwent big changes early in 2003, and in some cases at the end of 2002. You also see that the top ranking sites are typically very well linked from within the community of related sites.

(rustybrick)
How sure are you about this theory?

I think it will be a wonderful thing but I am not too sure this is occuring at a global level at Google. Maybe they have a lot more work to get done for me to see it globally.

I'm "sure enough" to publish irresponsible speculation about it. I don't think that this has to affect all searches - some of them are going to be so specific that it's not appropriate to use a topical bias. If your query turns up a small set of results, or matches too many topics, plain old PageRank would do the job just fine.

(Scottie...)
explain the multiple wounds! A conspiracy!

I saw some really remarkable work involving that question, with a 3D model of Dealy Plaza and the Zapruder film overlaid frame by frame. You see both Connally and Kennedy flinch at exactly the same time, and you can draw a line through the wounds right up to the sniper's nest.

Just because there was only one shooter, though, that doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy. This dude walks out of the Soviet embassy in Mexico, moves to Dallas, buys a rifle, gets a job at the Texas Schoolbook Depository, and a few weeks later the President of the United States just happens to drive by in an open car. What a coincidence...

[Steve Sardell]

Hi DanO,

Excellent thesis and writing!

[Steve Sardell]

[quote name='DanThies' date='Jan 5 2004, 09:35 PM'] [/QUOTE]
This dude walks out of the Soviet embassy in Mexico, moves to Dallas, buys a rifle, gets a job at the Texas Schoolbook Depository, and a few weeks later the President of the United States just happens to drive by in an open car. What a coincidence... [/quote]
Dan0,

And you think he acted alone?????

<off topic> just my 2 quid <off topic>

[CGJ]

Thank You Dan,
CGJ

[nimlet]

Just read the article and thought it was a brill piece of work. Very easy to read and answered of lot of questions in a straight forward way.

[DanThies]

Thanks to everyone for your kind words.

Seems there is one little error - I didn't characterize Danny Sullivan's "invisible tabs" idea very well. Here's a new explanation that is (I hope) more accurate:

Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Watch has coined the term "invisible tabs" to describe how search engines might attempt to deliver search results that more closely match the searchers' intent. His idea is that search engines (like Google) have access to multiple resources (Google has Web, Images, Directory, Groups, News, Froogle, Catalogs, Books, etc.) and that these sources will make their way into the main search results over time.