It's Official: All Search Engines Suck

[RJM62]

I have a client who signed up for a service (without my knowledge) that basically proxies the entire site through some outfit named calls.net, as a subdomain of call.net.

I'm concerned about whether that will incur a copy penalty, so I've been searching using the terms:

"calls.net" copy penalty

Not one search engine I've tried has properly executed the search. Bing came closest in that at least all of the results did include "calls.net," but it included results where that terms was a suffix (for example, "something-else-calls.net").

Google, as I expected, was the least useful. Even using their so-called "Verbatim" search, and enclosing the term "calls.net" in quotes (I also tried in brackets), it still ignores the fact that "call.net" is a search term that should be used exactly as is. The only thing it seems to do is narrow the search to any results that include the words "call" and "net" in that order (but ignores punctuation, etc). Screenshot attached.

Is there a single *&^&@% search engine left that *&^&@% returns the results for the *&^&@% terms I enter, without *&^&@% trying to *&^&@% "correct" or otherwise *&^&@% interpret my input? Is there one -- JUST ONE -- that will do that simple *&^&@% thing, or have they all been *&^&@% dumbed down for the masses?

Grrrrrr.

Thanks. I feel better now.

-Rich

 

[tonycondon]

i thought you said in that other thread that you don't get stressed out

 

[RJM62]

i thought you said in that other thread that you don't get stressed out

Well, I don't. I appropriately vent on POA, and then move on.

-Rich

 

[weilke]

That was something the original Altavista was good at

 

[ChrisK]

Top hit I get is this thread.

 

[poadeleted21]

it seems google has no info for you, so it attempted something close.

I assume you wanted to see 'No results for "call.net" copy penalty'

Which is equally useless.

 

[alfadog]

Maybe part of the problem is that Google does not even know what a "copy penalty" is? Nor do I but I am not in IT.

 

[poadeleted21]

Maybe part of the problem is that Google does not even know what a "copy penalty" is? Nor do I but I am not in IT.

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66359

 

[RJM62]

it seems google has no info for you, so it attempted something close.

I assume you wanted to see 'No results for "call.net" copy penalty'

Which is equally useless.

No, Bart. It would not be useless.

'No results for "call.net" copy penalty' would tell me that there's no information available. That's not a tragedy. It's a result that tells me I can stop looking there.

The results that actually were returned, on the other hand, tell me that there are at least nine additional pages of results, but those results may or may not be what I'm looking for for because the search engine is ignoring my search terms in favor of terms that it likes better. Soo... maybe on page 46 there's something relevant. Or maybe not.

The reason I'm slightly more annoyed with Google in this instance is because Google, alone among the gang, offers something called "Verbatim Search," which most rational people would think means a Search that treats the query terms in a verbatim manner. None of the others claim to do that. Google does make that claim -- and then doesn't deliver.

-Rich

 

[poadeleted21]

No, Bart. It would not be useless.

'No results for "call.net" copy penalty' would tell me that there's no information available. That's not a tragedy. It's a result that tells me I can stop looking there.

The results that actually were returned, on the other hand, tell me that there are at least nine additional pages of results, but those results may or may not be what I'm looking for for because the search engine is ignoring my search terms in favor of terms that it likes better. Soo... maybe on page 46 there's something relevant. Or maybe not.

The reason I'm slightly more annoyed with Google in this instance is because Google, alone among the gang, offers something called "Verbatim Search," which most rational people would think means a Search that treats the query terms in a verbatim manner. None of the others claim to do that. Google does make that claim -- and then doesn't deliver.

-Rich

You're right, that verbatim tool sucks.

 

[SkyHog]

Perhaps you need to use a real query, rather than just searching "calls.net" or "calls.net copy penalty."

For example,
does calls.net have a google penalty

Actually gives you results. Why? because no one calls it a "copy penalty," they call it a "google penalty."

BTW, you will NOT find specific sites that cause the penalty, because that gives away tactics to beat it. You will, however, find explanations of what will trigger the penalty.

 

[poadeleted21]

Perhaps you need to use a real query, rather than just searching "calls.net" or "calls.net copy penalty."

For example,
does calls.net have a google penalty

Actually gives you results. Why? because no one calls it a "copy penalty," they call it a "google penalty."

BTW, you will NOT find specific sites that cause the penalty, because that gives away tactics to beat it. You will, however, find explanations of what will trigger the penalty.

calls.net doesn't seem to be a legitimate site for much... Google has almost zero info on it. They even have a robots.txt on the default page to prevent crawling.

 

[wsuffa]

You're right, that verbatim tool sucks.

Ditto.

It's as if they no longer support it. I know they dropped the + sign, don't know whether they dropped the ", too.

I think they're pushing you to use the verbatim search option, which has to be menu selected.

 

[poadeleted21]

Ditto.

It's as if they no longer support it. I know they dropped the + sign, don't know whether they dropped the ", too.

I think they're pushing you to use the verbatim search option, which has to be menu selected.

Even the verbatim menu selection doesn't search verbatim.

 

[alfadog]

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66359

OK, but the term "copy penalty" does not appear on that page. My point is that if expect search results for a very specific application of an obscure (or non-existent) turn of phrase, you will probably be disappointed.

 

[alfadog]

ps Bing "No results found for "calls.net" "copy penalty""

 

[RJM62]

Perhaps you need to use a real query, rather than just searching "calls.net" or "calls.net copy penalty."

For example,
does calls.net have a google penalty

Actually gives you results. Why? because no one calls it a "copy penalty," they call it a "google penalty."

BTW, you will NOT find specific sites that cause the penalty, because that gives away tactics to beat it. You will, however, find explanations of what will trigger the penalty.

Hi Nick,

The results of that search you suggested are attached. Would you please point out the result that's remotely relevant for me?

Thanks,

-Rich

 

[SkyHog]

Hi Nick,

The results of that search you suggested are attached. Would you please point out the result that's remotely relevant for me?

Thanks,

-Rich

Looks like you're using verbatim search, which is worthless (its 2013, man). Try it without it and you'll see the results improve considerably.

 

[RJM62]

OK, but the term "copy penalty" does not appear on that page. My point is that if expect search results for a very specific application of an obscure (or non-existent) turn of phrase, you will probably be disappointed.

My original query was based on the assumption that the words "copy" and "penalty" would appear in any post that was relevant to the question, regardless of how they phrased the penalty.

The only term that really had to be verbatim was "calls.net". The other words would just be there because it would be hard to construct a post about it without using them.

By the way, calls.net has something to do with the Yellow Pages, who use it as a proxy to track how many hits come through the YP as opposed to other sources. They replace the phone number on the proxied version for tracking purposes.

My reasons for wondering whether it will be a problem (rather than assuming it will be) are, firstly, because despite my just noticing it today, it's already been up for two months without any noticeable harmful effects; and secondly, because Google may already be familiar with the practice, and therefore not penalize it, because it's just advertising, not plagiarism, spamming, or anything rude.

That's why the Google page itself is useless in this case. I already know the general policies about copying. I need to know whether this is a special case that Google (and other search engines) are familiar with and won't penalize as such.

Of course, if Google actually had a working phone number, or an email address that someone actually checked, rather than "help forums" that Google employees seem to avoid like piles of dog poop, it would be a simple thing to ascertain. But alas, that is not the case.

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

Looks like you're using verbatim search, which is worthless (its 2013, man). Try it without it and you'll see the results improve considerably.

Okay, Nick, the results without verbatim are attached. Please point to the one that answers the question of "does calls.net have a google penalty."

Thanks,

Rich

 

[poadeleted21]

POA is the number 1 result, what's wrong with that?

 

[SkyHog]

Okay, Nick, the results without verbatim are attached. Please point to the one that answers the question of "does calls.net have a google penalty."

Thanks,

Rich

The third one will likely have the best answer you are going to find. As I said before, Google will never reveal which sites lead to penalties and which don't, so you won't find the answer you seek.

However, you can see that using a real question and not random words that fit some key words you are curious about, and ditching verbatim search, finds more relevant results.

 

[RJM62]

The third one will likely have the best answer you are going to find. As I said before, Google will never reveal which sites lead to penalties and which don't, so you won't find the answer you seek.

However, you can see that using a real question and not random words that fit some key words you are curious about, and ditching verbatim search, finds more relevant results.

I know that Google won't. They're very mysterious about things like that -- even in cases like this, where the question is an innocent one that can basically be summed up as, "Do your bots understand the difference between plagiarism/copying and a proxied site that's part of another provider's advertising efforts?"

Because I never would expect Google to answer that question (even assuming that they had some way to contact them to ask it), I searched for it. I would think someone else had that same question somewhere along the line. Apparently not, seeing as how the only posts about it that seem to be in Google's index are all in this thread.

My point, however, is not to trash Google, but rather to trash search engines in general.

Call me crazy, but I think there should be at least one search engine that just returns the results for what the user inputs -- even if the terms are misspelled or otherwise don't seem to make any sense. Maybe I am looking for a misspelling, some obscure file name, or whatever else may be confusing to them. Don't worry about that. You're a robot. You shouldn't be troubling yourself over such things. Just answer my query or tell me that you have no results. Simple.

Google's Verbatim search was good for that -- for a while. Now I can't tell exactly what it does differently other than preserve word order. That makes it almost useless.

Look, if I'm looking for general information about Ford cars, Char-Broil grills, Husqvarna chain saws (which are excellent, by the way), or something along those lines, Google and other search engines are welcome to interpret to their little robotic hearts' content. They'll probably help my search by doing so. That's fine.

But there should be some way for me to tell a search engine, "I only want the results for exactly what I am typing in this little box. You may not understand what I type, but that's okay. Just return whatever you have for my query, please. Thank you, Robot. Love, Human."

-Rich

 

[poadeleted21]

FWIW, out of curiosity, I tried but failed to find ANY information on calls.net nothing, whois registry is vague too and suggests the domain MIGHT be for sale.



The likelihood that anyone has cared enough about this highly specialized and probably moot subject to discuss it on a website is extremely small.

 

[RJM62]

calls.net doesn't seem to be a legitimate site for much... Google has almost zero info on it. They even have a robots.txt on the default page to prevent crawling.

Eureka!

Bart, you're a genius!

The proxied site is a subdomain of calls.net. If robots.txt prohibits crawling, then I would think the proxied site will never be indexed by Google to begin with.

Thanks!

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

FWIW, out of curiosity, I tried but failed to find ANY information on calls.net nothing, whois registry is vague too and suggests the domain MIGHT be for sale.



The likelihood that anyone has cared enough about this highly specialized and probably moot subject to discuss it on a website is extremely small.

The domain is used to proxy sites when users click through from the Yellow Pages. The phone number is replaced with one owned by YP, and the server stats reflect the referrals, so the advertiser knows how many calls came from the YP ads. It's perfectly legit, albeit somewhat cumbersome, in my opinion.

The point is that there's nothing shady about it; and viewed in the context of my concerns in this thread, it makes perfect sense to block it from being crawled. It prevents exactly what I was concerned about.

Of course, I feel like an idiot for not checking the robots.txt file first, but that's okay. It's not the first time I've felt like an idiot.

Rich

 

[SkyHog]

FWIW, and this is not an insult, but if you want to stick to searching 90s style, then you should probably search 90s style:

http://wt.gopherite.org/

It will search verbatim, and not try to improve your results for you.

 

[poadeleted21]

I don't have much of a problem with Google and it's ranking system etc...

I do get frustrated when I'm looking for "callz_net_fnct" and it returns results about "Calling .Net functions" especially when you say to it "come hell or high water, don't return me anything else" I would say 30% of my Google Searches I have to tell it "no really" then it still doesn't obey.

 

[poadeleted21]

FWIW, and this is not an insult, but if you want to stick to searching 90s style, then you should probably search 90s style:

http://wt.gopherite.org/

It will search verbatim, and not try to improve your results for you.

If you ever watch the show "Parks and Recreation"

an running joke is that all the residents of the town use Altavista.com

 

[RJM62]

FWIW, and this is not an insult, but if you want to stick to searching 90s style, then you should probably search 90s style:

http://wt.gopherite.org/

It will search verbatim, and not try to improve your results for you.

Gopher is more of a content library that preceded and has been largely eclipsed by the Web, not a Web search engine. And yes, I used it when it was new. But thanks for the suggestion.

I'm at a loss to understand, however, why you scoff at the idea of a search engine providing the user with a verbatim option that really is a verbatim option. I also don't understand why you prefer typing full sentences to get irrelevant results, when I can get equally irrelevant results using only a few words.

I do commend search engine companies for trying to make their products more user-friendly. But there's a thin line between "user friendly," and "dumbing down." The former makes it more useful for everyone. The latter makes it less useful for people who actually know what they're doing. It's like Microsoft "wizards" that transform a one-minute task into a 10-minute task, and often wind up getting it wrong, anyway.

Another thing I wonder about... Considering that processing verbatim queries requires less in the way of resources than what search engines do by default, I have to wonder why the search engine companies themselves are so loath to keep that option available. The only thing I can think of is that if the robot doesn't understand the search terms, then it doesn't know what kind of ads to serve, either.

Again, though, thanks for the suggestion.

-Rich

 

[SkyHog]

I'm at a loss to understand, however, why you scoff at the idea of a search engine providing the user with a verbatim option that really is a verbatim option. I also don't understand why you prefer typing full sentences to get irrelevant results, when I can get equally irrelevant results using only a few words.

-Rich

I scoff at it because it is "old-school" mentality. The reason people started searching that way was because they had to, not because its natural. If you want to find the price of a windshield for a car, try to forget the way internet searches (or computer searches in general) have worked for the last 20 years, and instead just think about how you'd find the answer. You would ask "How much does a windshield for an F150 cost." I can't imagine that you would walk up to someone in an auto parts store and say "Windshield F150."

These days, people type fast enough to not make a big difference in the amount of time to type naturally or type like a caveman (Big fire, orange!).

The other benefit, by the way, is that the more people speak naturally to search engines (and that applies to ALL search engines) the more advanced and easier and more accurate the results will be. I don't know if you've played with any of the newer phones, but you can now search without typing - just press a button and say "Where is the closest busstop?" That's amazing.

Ultimately, you're free to search how you want, but you can't complain when verbatim searches don't get you the best result because you refuse to adapt. Technology will always progress, and you can get on board, or be left behind, writing applications in COBOL and finding new compression schemes to use on ProComm to let you see the latest news faster.

Regardless, technology is not going to take a step backward to make it easier for those that shouldn't need it to be.

By the way - I relate this to a piece of my own behavior that has stayed a relic forever, and I haven't changed yet. If I want to run an application, I usually find it faster to drop into a CMD Terminal Window and run it. I type faster than I point/click. Eventually, I started using Windows+R, then tying the application (for example, when I want a calculator, it is way faster to press WIN+R type calc then enter than it is to click on Start->All Programs->Accessories->Calculator).

There will come a day where I can no longer do that. When that day comes, I will have no choice but to adapt, because I realize that I am doing it a foolish way that not many others see value in. Adapt, or be left behind.

 

[poadeleted21]

But when I'm looking for API documentation on FindAllNodesByName() I'm not looking for Gnomes named Byron.

 

[Jim_R]

In this case, I think it's likely that the problem is not that Google is mangling your search term. I think instead that it's possible Google does not even index the ".".

Google tends to disregard periods in general. For instance, did you know that periods in a Gmail address are utterly disregarded? Sign up for a gmail address of "foobar@gmail.com", then send email to "foo.bar@gmail.com", "f.oobar@gmail.com", or "f.o.o.b.a.r@gmail.com".

All of those messages will be delivered to the "foobar@gmail.com" account.

Seach terms with periods in them tend to similarly ignore the period, except that the text on either side of the period remains separate, not concatenated. So a search for "my.name" yields (nearly) identical results to a search for "my name".

I suspect that when Google parses a website into its index, certain symbols are simply filtered out and discarded. I would bet the period is one of them.

 

[gismo]

I have a vague recollection of a search engine that let you specify specific words or phrases that appear in "close proximity" i.e. not adjacent but within something like 10 words. I do recall finding that feature really useful for some searches but I don't remember what service offered that nor do I know of any that do today.