Google, Yahoo Holes
So, what are they? Well, Black holes are at the center of every known galaxy and are like the eye of a storm. Their center seems calm and undisturbed, but at the edges of the eye, huge forces of nature are being exerted, ripping everything it contacts to shreds. Black holes are immense gravitational wells from which nothing can escape, or at least that's the theory, amended in part by Dr. Hawking a few weeks ago.
Google might like to be thought of as a 'black hole of Internet search engines,' consuming all the information that falls within their gravitational reach. The difference being, the information does escape and the web is not really ripped apart at the seams. Oh well, so much for that analogy.
But there really are holes in Google, Yahoo! and all other search engines that have nothing to do with the forces of nature. These holes have serious implications for the quality of search engine results, and therefore require the attention of your optimization efforts.
We shall begin the analysis with Google - The current technology leader in the search engine field. When a user visits the Google search engine and runs a search, they often enter in complete phrases. This tendency is likely to become more common as text to speech comes to reality. How Google treats these phrases demonstrates a fault within their algorithms, and a hole in the accuracy of their search results. When you include a common word in a phrase within the Google search box, it gives you the following message above the search results:
"for" is a very common word and was not included in your search." [details]
If you click for details, you get the following explanation:
"Google ignores common words and characters such as "where" and "how", as well as certain single digits and single letters, because they tend to slow down your search without improving the results. Google will indicate if a common word has been excluded by displaying details on the results page below the search box. If a common word is essential to getting the results you want, you can include it by putting a "+" sign in front of it. (Be sure to include a space before the "+" sign.)"
But, here's where Google falls down. Visit Google right now. Open up 4 windows and in each window's search box type the following queries:
Hotels New York
Hotels in New York
Hotels for New York
Hotels about New York
The words in' for' and about' all get the standard, "This is a very common word and was not included in your search," message. Yet all four display entirely different results?
What is Google doing? I considered the possibility that I was pulling results from different data centers, so I ensured this was not the case. I then tried a variation on this search query, using the term "search engine optimization X hotels" the 'X'' representing a blank space, or one of the words, in' for' or about. In this test, only where the X' represented a blank space did I get varying results. Still, by rights they ought to have all been identical.
It occurred to me that perhaps Google was using different algorithms when it identified a place name in the search query by trying to understand the context of the query. That would be a logical move. I'm very familiar with software that comprehends the context of textual content. Could it be that Google is trying to apply some contextual filtering to their results? I then proceeded to try a garbage search. A search phrase with common words which really have no direct relevance, and therefore words which would never appear together logically:
"room hotel tapestry highway lagoon"
Interestingly, Google had 1720 entries which matched this query, and the results varied depending on which of the X terms I inserted between any two of the words. Search results also varied if I moved the placement of the ignored word within the query. But is this context? A further test would be required. I put together 3 queries using the same terms, but with a common or ignored word inserted as follows:
Filing tax return(s)
Filing a tax return(s)
Filing of tax return(s)
In this case, I tried singular and pluralized searches, to ensure that poor grammar was not affecting the results. Results varied for each search. That's not to say they were all entirely different, just that they varied. I tried a few other searches and received similar results. Most importantly, the results I received were all equally contextually correct, which was a relief.
Some people have written to news groups and discussion boards that when Google comes across an 'ignore' word, it substitutes a wild card. However, if that were true, the various ignore words, would all return the same results and this is not the case. Therefore, it can be surmised that Google does not in fact ignore words at all! It is more likely that Google is using some measure of context algorithm. This is logical. The technology exists and Google is known to have bought a UK firm last year which was developing such a technology. Our own firm uses software which uses contextual analysis in its algorithms.
Taking the analysis a step further, which other engines seem to have a grasp on context? Obviously, the places to look first were Google's competitors: Yahoo! Microsoft, and AskJeeves.
Askjeeves sprang immediately to mind, as it had originated the concept of "phrase a question" type searching, thus it should logically have some context filtering in place. In fact, when I ran the 'tax return' query through the engine, I still receives varying results. Very different results than Google, I might add. When multiple 'ignore' words were added to a query, results did not vary, which may indicate very limited filtering.
I then tried an alternate query. "diapers for baby" and "diapers on baby" This should logically return different results. One recommending diapers, and one about how to put them on, or keep them on or how they should look, etc. Surprisingly, I received identical results to my queries. Context was not being properly filtered by the very search engine which first introduced the concept! I tried the same search on Google. While results were jumbled a bit, the top web sites were the same for both queries, just in varying order. With over 550,000 results to choose from, this would indicate Google too, has a long way to go to fulfilling the promise of contextually correct responses.
Next, I turned my attention to Yahoo! I was somewhat surprised to discover that Yahoo! does not seem to have -any- filtering in place. Results did not vary at all for the test searches run when the "ignore" words were inserted or removed. Yahoo! also did not identify these terms as being ignore terms in their results, but the fact that results were unchanged when the terms were added or deleted would indicate that they were omitted and Yahoo! does not have the necessary algorithms to allow it to comprehend the context of a search query.
Is context an area where Yahoo! seriously lags behind Google and others? If true, this points to a widening gap between the search engines in the future. Google is already positioning for speech to text devices, can intonation be far behind? Yahoo! has not demonstrated any evidence of making strides in either of these areas.
Lastly I looked at the new Microsoft engine. No contextual filtering in place. Since this search engine is still in beta, I cannot in all fairness comment on it being behind in a race where we have not yet seen the final product. Still, it's something to keep in mind for the future.
Implications for SEO
The implication of contextual search on how your web site performs in the search engines is immense. It means that the nuances of how people search have to be better taken into account by all SEO firms.
In our firm we recognized that as the world moved to speech to text and as the web grew in size, context would be the next big differentiator in search results. This means that context is already recognized and taken into account both by our technicians and our technology when analyzing a web site, and optimizing it for search engines.
Working to improve your web site's performance in the search engines now requires a comprehension of how people are actually phrasing search queries and using that knowledge to properly position the content on your site, to account for the idioms used by your target audience.
Ensure that you are using phrases in the way you hear people asking questions. Ensure you cover all the bases and get all possible variations. Get outside help if you need it, but don't miss out on your opportunity to take advantage of the Black Holes out there.
I hope this helped
Imran Hashmi
Web Designer / SEO Consultant
http://www.seo-professional.co.uk
http://www.visionstudio.co.uk
Google might like to be thought of as a 'black hole of Internet search engines,' consuming all the information that falls within their gravitational reach. The difference being, the information does escape and the web is not really ripped apart at the seams. Oh well, so much for that analogy.
But there really are holes in Google, Yahoo! and all other search engines that have nothing to do with the forces of nature. These holes have serious implications for the quality of search engine results, and therefore require the attention of your optimization efforts.
We shall begin the analysis with Google - The current technology leader in the search engine field. When a user visits the Google search engine and runs a search, they often enter in complete phrases. This tendency is likely to become more common as text to speech comes to reality. How Google treats these phrases demonstrates a fault within their algorithms, and a hole in the accuracy of their search results. When you include a common word in a phrase within the Google search box, it gives you the following message above the search results:
"for" is a very common word and was not included in your search." [details]
If you click for details, you get the following explanation:
"Google ignores common words and characters such as "where" and "how", as well as certain single digits and single letters, because they tend to slow down your search without improving the results. Google will indicate if a common word has been excluded by displaying details on the results page below the search box. If a common word is essential to getting the results you want, you can include it by putting a "+" sign in front of it. (Be sure to include a space before the "+" sign.)"
But, here's where Google falls down. Visit Google right now. Open up 4 windows and in each window's search box type the following queries:
Hotels New York
Hotels in New York
Hotels for New York
Hotels about New York
The words in' for' and about' all get the standard, "This is a very common word and was not included in your search," message. Yet all four display entirely different results?
What is Google doing? I considered the possibility that I was pulling results from different data centers, so I ensured this was not the case. I then tried a variation on this search query, using the term "search engine optimization X hotels" the 'X'' representing a blank space, or one of the words, in' for' or about. In this test, only where the X' represented a blank space did I get varying results. Still, by rights they ought to have all been identical.
It occurred to me that perhaps Google was using different algorithms when it identified a place name in the search query by trying to understand the context of the query. That would be a logical move. I'm very familiar with software that comprehends the context of textual content. Could it be that Google is trying to apply some contextual filtering to their results? I then proceeded to try a garbage search. A search phrase with common words which really have no direct relevance, and therefore words which would never appear together logically:
"room hotel tapestry highway lagoon"
Interestingly, Google had 1720 entries which matched this query, and the results varied depending on which of the X terms I inserted between any two of the words. Search results also varied if I moved the placement of the ignored word within the query. But is this context? A further test would be required. I put together 3 queries using the same terms, but with a common or ignored word inserted as follows:
Filing tax return(s)
Filing a tax return(s)
Filing of tax return(s)
In this case, I tried singular and pluralized searches, to ensure that poor grammar was not affecting the results. Results varied for each search. That's not to say they were all entirely different, just that they varied. I tried a few other searches and received similar results. Most importantly, the results I received were all equally contextually correct, which was a relief.
Some people have written to news groups and discussion boards that when Google comes across an 'ignore' word, it substitutes a wild card. However, if that were true, the various ignore words, would all return the same results and this is not the case. Therefore, it can be surmised that Google does not in fact ignore words at all! It is more likely that Google is using some measure of context algorithm. This is logical. The technology exists and Google is known to have bought a UK firm last year which was developing such a technology. Our own firm uses software which uses contextual analysis in its algorithms.
Taking the analysis a step further, which other engines seem to have a grasp on context? Obviously, the places to look first were Google's competitors: Yahoo! Microsoft, and AskJeeves.
Askjeeves sprang immediately to mind, as it had originated the concept of "phrase a question" type searching, thus it should logically have some context filtering in place. In fact, when I ran the 'tax return' query through the engine, I still receives varying results. Very different results than Google, I might add. When multiple 'ignore' words were added to a query, results did not vary, which may indicate very limited filtering.
I then tried an alternate query. "diapers for baby" and "diapers on baby" This should logically return different results. One recommending diapers, and one about how to put them on, or keep them on or how they should look, etc. Surprisingly, I received identical results to my queries. Context was not being properly filtered by the very search engine which first introduced the concept! I tried the same search on Google. While results were jumbled a bit, the top web sites were the same for both queries, just in varying order. With over 550,000 results to choose from, this would indicate Google too, has a long way to go to fulfilling the promise of contextually correct responses.
Next, I turned my attention to Yahoo! I was somewhat surprised to discover that Yahoo! does not seem to have -any- filtering in place. Results did not vary at all for the test searches run when the "ignore" words were inserted or removed. Yahoo! also did not identify these terms as being ignore terms in their results, but the fact that results were unchanged when the terms were added or deleted would indicate that they were omitted and Yahoo! does not have the necessary algorithms to allow it to comprehend the context of a search query.
Is context an area where Yahoo! seriously lags behind Google and others? If true, this points to a widening gap between the search engines in the future. Google is already positioning for speech to text devices, can intonation be far behind? Yahoo! has not demonstrated any evidence of making strides in either of these areas.
Lastly I looked at the new Microsoft engine. No contextual filtering in place. Since this search engine is still in beta, I cannot in all fairness comment on it being behind in a race where we have not yet seen the final product. Still, it's something to keep in mind for the future.
Implications for SEO
The implication of contextual search on how your web site performs in the search engines is immense. It means that the nuances of how people search have to be better taken into account by all SEO firms.
In our firm we recognized that as the world moved to speech to text and as the web grew in size, context would be the next big differentiator in search results. This means that context is already recognized and taken into account both by our technicians and our technology when analyzing a web site, and optimizing it for search engines.
Working to improve your web site's performance in the search engines now requires a comprehension of how people are actually phrasing search queries and using that knowledge to properly position the content on your site, to account for the idioms used by your target audience.
Ensure that you are using phrases in the way you hear people asking questions. Ensure you cover all the bases and get all possible variations. Get outside help if you need it, but don't miss out on your opportunity to take advantage of the Black Holes out there.
I hope this helped
Imran Hashmi
Web Designer / SEO Consultant
http://www.seo-professional.co.uk
http://www.visionstudio.co.uk
posted by Ian Hash ( ) at 3:52 AM
2 Comments:
There appears to be a proble concerning "black holes". The following may be of interest to you.
Our very own (Earth’s) Black Hole
D. Ertle
Since the beginning of mankind’s existence there has been an intellectual quest to find the reason for the “why” of the many forces operating about and within us. This propensity to know the reason why physical forces act as they do, of course, has its rewards. When mankind is able to control his environment he lives in, it establishes a world of relative safety and comfort.
In the beginning of mankind’s existence life was composed of physical everyday needs to be met. When there was time for reflection upon the reason for the “why” of hot, cold, wind, rain, life and death, then someone, somewhere, seeking to relate question to answer, came to reasoning the why of all things falling downward. Whoever it was that first contemplated this thought and what that person’s conclusion was, unfortunately, was not recorded in their diary and passed down to posterity. Likely the contemplation was that of a passing nature due to there being more pressing matters at the moment, and the realization that the knowledge would be of no value to them anyway.
Thousands of years later and things have changed. We are not hunting in protective groups, killing animals and fighting against some natural force of nature for our everyday existence. Presently we have ample time to consider many abstract physical forces, and now the “why” of these abstract questions mean a lot to us. We have learned to use the most basic forces in nature in a focused manner to bring about a radical change for our good and for the subjugation of our often stormy, erratic physical world. Instead of thinking of gravity in a passing manner, every day of the year there are thousands of people considering this force that pulls objects downward. Their observations fill volume after volume as to what it does, but with no definitive answer as to why it exists at all. Of observation and conclusions as to its existence there is a multitude of answers, but of a final solution as to why this force exists at all there are none. Presented herein is an answer as to why this force forms.
First, and foremost, we realize that the force of gravity performs work. This obvious fact is observed as a person climbs stairs or seeks to lift a large object, and then the actual work performed by all hydroelectric plants is the result of the force of gravity. The fact that gravitational attraction does perform work means that it must have an energy source. It is impossible for any manner of work to be performed apart from an energy source. The concept relating to the function of work is expressed as (w=fd). Work is equal to the force that moves mass times the distance it moves. (Our distance value here is that of a decreasing gravitational field as one moves away from the core point of our planet). The reason for emphasizing the work concept is that an energy source must be found for the existence of the force of gravity if this universal equation is to remain in effect. If an energy source is not found for this force then the equation is not part of physical law, and the force of gravity is being created in all matter at all times in the entire universe. Of course, a continual creation of gravity would invalidate the first law of thermodynamics – “energy is neither created nor destroyed.” Either there is an energy source or there is a continual creation.
The answer as to what that energy source might be is found in internal heat energy within our planet. If there is no heat energy within a mass, then that mass cannot propagate a gravitational field. This is true if that mass were to be the size of our sun. – no heat, no gravity.
Sir Isaac Newton worked the gravity principle out correctly, stating that this force was to be determined center of mass outward. This was obvious (although one must admit that the obvious seen obviously is often not recognized for what it is) in that our planet is a sphere and this force is existent all about it. The problem here is that the answer tells the “how” of gravity but not the “why” of it and this is what we began our inquiry with – why this force forms.
Sir Isaac Newton then surmised that all particles attracted other particles in our universe. In this he was mistaken. There exists an energy variable within matter, and that variable is the heat energy contained within a mass. So, for a gravitational equation to be complete (the “why” of it) the value of “Q squared” would have to be determined for each mass. The value of “Q” here represents the heat energy within a mass. To understand the compounding effect this form of energy has upon surrounding mass we shall consider gravitational acceleration within our planet outward from its core point.
Were we to be standing at near sea level on our planet’s surface, we would be accelerating downward toward its core point at nearly twenty-two miles an hour. The further we were to travel downward the greater this relative speed (force) would become (the greater the amount of energy a hydroelectric plant could generate in each second). This is evidenced physically in the “Gutenberg discontinuity” at the 2,160 mile location from earth’s core point where mass density jumps form 6 to 9 grams per cubic centimeter. At his location secondary waves no longer penetrate and seismographs can no longer detect any mass movement. Mass at this location has begun to lose its outer electron tension and so it collapses into a closer shell where there is greater resistance to being compressed. The following are acceleration values for mass located at different positions outward from the core point of our planet:
1,500 miles from the core point of our planet mass would be accelerating downward at nearly 152 miles an hour. (Remembering that it is but the resistance of the mass below that keeps the mass above from actually, instantly accelerating to this speed within one second, for in physical actuality the mass is accelerating at that speed, just as you are actually accelerating at 22 mph at sea level, which is why you are kept where you are).
100 miles away from the core point acceleration would become 34,470 miles an hour.
10 miles away from the core point acceleration would become 957 MILES PER SECOND or 3,445,200 miles an hour.
Then at 0.717 miles from the core point of our planet mass in this location IS accelerating at 186,258 MILES PER SECOND. This speed is about 25 miles per second less than that of the speed of light. Were a mass to move just a fraction closer than this distance, to say 0.716 miles from the core point of our planet, then its downward acceleration would become 186,779 miles per second. The attractive force acting on the mass would cause it to accelerate to a speed greater than that of the speed of light in one second.
At this point a dilemma arises. What happens inward, beyond the 0.717 mile location within the core point of our planet? There are three options: The first option would be that there exists a new form of matter. This mass would have the ability to remain related to us at present while also remaining atomically accelerated to a speed far beyond that of the speed of light
The second option would be that matter as we know it, within the core of our planet, as that of our sun, is non-existent. At near the 400 mile location from the core point of our sun its mass would be accelerating atomically to a speed greater than that of the speed of light also, just as it does at the 0.716 distance within earth, so mass could not exist within that location either. This would mean that instead of there being an iron-nickel core, as projected exists within the core of our planet, there would be but lines of gravitational waves passing through that one and one-half mile location. And the hypothetical, hydrogen to helium furnace heating our sun’s core would change to that of a mass contraction furnace, which heat energy would further maintain the mass contraction. Remember that the sun must expend 665 pounds of matter in form of gravitational waves every second in order to keep the planets in place, and our planet expends 0.00444 kg. per second in order to keep us where we are. This gravity thing ain’t free.
The third possibility is that there is a mass that has formed within the core point area of our sun and planet having an alias of “Black hole”. It might sound sort of convenient to have a black hole with which our planet, due to necessity, would surround rather than empty space but, then, what would limit such a black hole size? Why would it not gobble up the surrounding mass of the sun and planets it was in the center of, and why would it not restrict the sun and earth’s rotation, and mess up our orbital movement? After all, such a black hole would be in position to exert the greatest breaking action possible on any solar body.
The obvious conclusion is that there is a distance within the center of all large solar bodies where mass cannot exist. Within this area there does exist “mass” but not in form as we think of it. It is in form of gravitational waves, which in turn are a form of mass (this E also equals m; m=E/c2). Then we can see why c2=E/m, c2 is a form of energy also – is it not? It is the most basic of all. This in turn is also able to be converted into mass and exist as waves of velocity instead of dimensional mass or electromagnetic energy.
Either there is an energy source forming the force of gravity (WORK), and gravity is the effect of that energy, or there is a continual creation of this force in all matter at all times. This is the “why” of gravity whether we like it or not.
Hi, great blog! Let's talk Marketing and PR. Please feel free to visit my blog too at
, RushPRnews Daily Gazette, Open-Call for Writers.
My website is** RushPRnews press release services, distribution and free web posting** . Cordially, Anne Laszlo-Howard
Post a Comment
<< Home