#FreakOut: Google's Algorithm Change

People are FREAKING out about Google's algorithm change. Looky Looky!

Per NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Google made one of the biggest changes ever to its search results this week, which immediately had a noticeable effect on many Web properties that rely on the world's biggest search engine to drive traffic to their sites.

The major tweak aims to move better quality content to the top of Google's search rankings. The changes will affect 12% Google's results, the company said in a blog post late Thursday.

"Our goal is simple: to give users the most relevant answers to their queries as quickly as possible," said Gabriel Stricker, Google spokesman. "This requires constant tuning of our algorithms, as new content -- both good and bad -- comes online all the time. Recently we've heard from our users that they want to see fewer low quality sites in our results."

Typically, Google's algorithm changes are so subtle that few people notice them. But these most recent changes could be seen immediately.

How to test the change: The IP address 64.233.179.104 displays Google search results as they would have appeared before the recent algorithm change, according to several webmasters posting to the WebmasterWorld.com forum.

Google would not confirm that IP address uses the older algorithm, but comparing searches of trending topics on google.com with searches using the special Google IP address reveals how the search engine now seems to be favoring certain content.

The changes appear to be affecting so-called "content farms" the most, which are websites that amass content based on the most-searched terms of the day. Demand Media, AOL, Mahalo and the Huffington Post have all been accused of such tactics, including a notable "story" from HuffPo about the Super Bowl that Slate.com media critic Jack Shafer called "the greatest example of SEO whoring of all time."

Tests using trending topics show Google's tweaks in action.

The current top Google result for a search of Charlie Sheen rant target "Haim Levine" is a New York Daily News page, followed by a story from gossipcop.com. The old algorithm would have featured two Huffington Post stories at the top, with the New York Daily News story not appearing appear until the second results page.

A controversial decision: Any change to Google's algorithm is a zero-sum game. Some websites win, some lose.

Comments from site operators lit up on the WebmasterWorld.com forum starting on Wednesday. Many webmasters complained that traffic to their sites dropped dramatically overnight, and others expressed concern that they can't adapt quickly enough to Google's changes to its algorithm.

"Why is it that every single time the search engine result page starts to stabilize and sales return, Google has to throw a monkey wrench in the system again?" asked commenter backdraft7. "Hey Google, this is not fun anymore - YOU'RE KILLING OUR BUSINESSES!"

"My God. I just lost 40% of my traffic from Google today," said commenter DickBaker. "Referrals from Yahoo, Bing, direct sources, and other sources are the same, but Google dropped like a rock."

There are many legitimate ways content creators optimize their sites to rise to the top of Google's results. But Google has been cracking down on what it regards as inappropriate attempts to do so: The company recently penalized Overstock.com and JC Penney in its search results after the companies were found to have set up fake websites that linked to their own, causing Google's algorithm to rank them higher.

When it comes to site content, the lines get very fuzzy. Operators like Demand Media (DMD) -- which now has a market valuation of $1.9 billion, more than the New York Times Co. is worth -- sit right on the ever-shifting boundaries.

"Sites of this type have always been controversial," said Daniel Ruby, research director at Chitika, Inc. a search advertising analytics company. "On one hand, they often do produce extremely informative, well-written articles. On the other hand, they put out countless articles on a daily basis, and some claim they exist only to generate the top result on as many keywords as possible."

Demand put out a very carefully worded response to Google's changes.

"As might be expected, a content library as diverse as ours saw some content go up and some go down in Google search results," Larry Fitzgibbon, the company's executive vice president of media and operations, wrote in a blog post. "It's impossible to speculate how these or any changes made by Google impact any online business in the long term -- but at this point in time, we haven't seen a material net impact."

So will Google's changes have a lasting effect on search quality? Perhaps. But it's an arms race: Any time the company adjusts its algorithms, those determined to beat them immediately adjust.

"Content originators make money, and Google makes money," said Whit Andrews, analyst for Gartner. "Their interests will always be in conflict, and as long as there is greed, people will try to game system."

All I have to say it's ABOUT DAMN TIME! For real, I get that it worked for businesses initially, but it cheapened their overall web presence; it was such a cop out. We're in web 2.0 now, and social media is all about the engagement because of the quality of recognition, or information they are recieving - you can't short change that. Why WOULDN'T you turn to a Twitter feed or a Facebook page if you couldn't quickly and easily google it. It's about being able to find the answer to your question in a quickly and timely fashion. PERIOD END OF SENTENCE. Way to service the end user better, google.

I am still fascinated though at how spiders crawl on tweets. I have some of the most random tweets pop up high in searches. There has to be a way to game that. Me thinks its based on RTs. Greatest time to be alive, man.

SOOOO MUUCCHHH IISSSS CHAANNGGIINNNGGG!! BAH!

#nerdsunite

Stop what you're doing right now, and go to #google ...

DUDESS!! Looky looky what Google did in celebration of Jules Verne's 183rd birthday!!

You can use the joystick on the right to change it all around and stuff ... so effin rad! What an honor!

Happy birthday el duderino!

WOW! You do not look a day over 181. Great genes! Are they Levis? (oh hardy hardy hardy)

Click here to check it out for yourself

#nerdsunite

#Google implants microchip in brain to speed up search

Okay, maybe not so much ...but check out what Google announced today ...

(per the google blog): Search as you type. It’s a simple and straightforward idea—people can get results as they type their queries. Imagining the future of search, the idea of being able to search for partial queries or provide some interactive feedback while searching has come up more than a few times. Along the way, we’ve even built quite a few demos (notably, Amit Patel in 1999 and Nikhil Bhatla in 2003). Our search-as-you-type demos were thought-provoking—fun, fast and interactive—but fundamentally flawed. Why? Because you don’t really want search-as-you-type (no one wants search results for [bike h] in the process of searching for [bike helmets]). You really want search-before-you-type—that is, you want results for the most likely search given what you have already typed.

As you can imagine, searching even before someone types isn’t easy—which is why we are so excited today to be unveiling Google Instant. Google Instant is search-before-you-type. Instant takes what you have typed already, predicts the most likely completion and streams results in real-time for those predictions—yielding a smarter and faster search that is interactive, predictive and powerful.

Here are a few of the core features in Google Instant:

• Dynamic Results - Google dynamically displays relevant search results as you type so you can quickly interact and click through to the web content you need.


• Predictions - One of the key technologies in Google Instant is that we predict the rest of your query (in light gray text) before you finish typing. See what you need? Stop typing, look down and find what you’re looking for.


• Scroll to search - Scroll through predictions and see results instantly for each as you arrow down.

Here’s a video that explains Google Instant in greater depth:

To bring Google Instant to life, we needed a host of new technologies including new caching systems, the ability to adaptively control the rate at which we show results pages and an optimization of page-rendering JavaScript to help web browsers keep up with the rest of the system. In the end, we needed to produce a system that was able to scale while searching as fast as people can type and think—all while maintaining the relevance and simplicity people expect from Google.

The user benefits of Google Instant are many—but the primary one is time saved. Our testing has shown that Google Instant saves the average searcher two to five seconds per search. That may not seem like a lot at first, but it adds up. With Google Instant, we estimate that we’ll save our users 11 hours with each passing second!

As part of our current rollout, Google Instant will become the core search experience on Google.com for Chrome, Firefox, Safari and IE 8. We’ll also be offering Google Instant to our users in France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain and the U.K. who are signed in and have Instant-capable browsers. Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll work to roll out Google Instant to all geographies and platforms.

We’re very excited about today’s announcement and hope that you are too. Give Google Instant a try and let us know what you think!

Not having to scroll, and not having to press enter?!?! I don't even go to the default google page - I have an add on in my toolbar. Will that change? This was no big news google, sorry to break it to you. Yes- it is pretty rad that you've adapted your technology to reflect more of our behavior. YAYY!! Way to think about the end user ... but um, yeah ... this does nothing for me. I was more stoked last year when you announced the integration of tweets in your search results. That was rad ... this is just sad.

WAYYYYYYY to be anti-climactic google!! Such a guy ... all talk, little action.

Tech Community Outraged over Google Sell-Out

#TalkNerdyToMeLover's @saintpepsi

I'm reposting this article because it needs to be seen. This was originally posted on http://www.savetheinternet.com/

The outrage has yet to dissipate over Google and Verizon’s pact to direct the Federal Communications Commission – an independent federal agency - to grant the companies’ Internet wish list: no Net Neutrality protections for wireless Internet and fake Net Neutrality protections for wireline Internet.

Over 300,000 people have signed a joint petition challenging Google to stand by its self-proclaimed edict, “Don’t Be Evil,” by abandoning its so-called deal with Verizon. Meanwhile bloggers, academics and non-profit organizations have all pounced on the companies after the duo announced their plan earlier this week.

But the tech and Internet start-up communities in particular have been expressing their ire at a company who has seemingly turned its back on its roots. Here’s a quick list of some of the best protests so far:

In a post called “Tech Companies, Google Sold You Out,” Stacey Higginbotham from GigaOm came out of the gate swinging:

Today’s compromise between Verizon — one of the nation’s largest ISPs (and largest wireless provider) — and Google on network neutrality is a big story, not necessarily because it’s going to change the policy discussion much, but because it marks Google selling out the tech and startup community so it can advance its own economic interests. If you weren’t aware of it by now, Google’s going to play the regulatory game for itself, not for the broader tech community.

Others in Silicon Valley had their own responses to the Google-Verizon pact, including Facebook. Spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement that the company “continues to support principles of Net Neutrality for both landline and wireless networks.” Noyes said:

Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators -- regardless of their size or wealth -- will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content and services delivered through their Internet connections.

Smaller start-up companies joined the dog pile. Brad Burnham and Fred Wilson, partners at an early stage venture capital fund, warned in a New York Times commentary that Google’s proposal could crush emerging businesses:

Between the lack of any protection on the wireless side and the qualifiers and complexity on the wireline side, young startup companies will have difficulty finding financing and building businesses of scale. If an Internet access provider discriminates against a startup directly or through its network management practices, it is unlikely the startup could afford a long and expensive process to seek redress. So this proposal favors the incumbent applications and access providers.

Journalist Matthew Lasar of Ars Technica mocked the plans corporate loopholes disguised in pretty PR speak:

The Google/Verizon manifesto claims to preserve "transparency" on the 'Net, but the only really transparent thing about the plan is that it is packed with so many loopholes, a deep packet inspection powered P2P blocker the size of an M1 Abrams tank could roll through it without disturbing a telco executive's nap.

And of course we at Free Press and the SavetheInternet.com coalition vehemently oppose the plan. The coalition issued this response:

They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they’ll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks.

It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little guy stranded on a winding dirt road.

Do you oppose it, too? Tell Google.

 Tell Jordan how much you LOOOOOVED his article!