MSN is on the move again!

[frobn]

I'm pleased with MSN, at least for today, since I'm (at least temporarily) #1 for "real estate"...

As for the comments about Google, and their attempts to simulate "natural" search" -- I applaud Google's efforts.

I harp on this subject a lot, I know, but sites should only link to sites that they think would benefit their visitors. Linking to and from sites, solely for the purpose of building link popularity, and not really expecting anyone to use those links -- that does not benefit the web visitor. It benefits the web site owner.

Every link on our site -- I hope gets used. That's why I created the site.

Google's efforts may be noble but their noble efforts do not result in natural or relevant search. Their concept of using links as votes, brilliant in its day, is based on behavior. Once it became known that links were valued highly by Google, webmasters and SEOs changed the very behavior responsible (in Google's eyes) for natural and relevant search results. If only a few people were engaging in linking behavior it would not matter much but when the vast majority of top ranking sites, especially commercial sites, are on top because of their behavioral change brought about to influence the search it spoiled Google's quest for "natural" and relevant search results. In effect the dependent variable "the search result" has become an independent variable. In science this is considered "dirtying or confounding the results. No matter how noble google's efforts continue to be in adjusting for SEO and webmaster behavior they can not succeed. At best they are practicing pseudo-science. Yahoo appears to be imitating Google so they do not understand the google dilemma but MSN may see it and is avoiding the dilemma by focusing on content, site structure and variables other than linking. I have seen analysis in other forums of MSN recent moves that point in this direction. I am not against Google and I am not saying that linking is bad, I am against pseudo-science though.

[Homesurfer]

The filters are intended to limit the effects of unnatural linking with the purpose of "spamming" the search engine. And overuse of keywords. And cloaking. And duplicate content. And so on and so on...

Search strictly by content has been tried in the past. It sucked. You need a way to validate results, and links is how you do it. But some links are designed solely to manipulate search results, and Google's filters attempt to combat those efforts..

Sure, they don't have it right yet. You suggest they give up. I suggest they keep trying to make it better.

[frobn]

The filters are intended to limit the effects of unnatural linking with the purpose of "spamming" the search engine. And overuse of keywords. And cloaking. And duplicate content. And so on and so on...

Search strictly by content has been tried in the past. It sucked. You need a way to validate results, and links is how you do it. But some links are designed solely to manipulate search results, and Google's filters attempt to combat those efforts..

Sure, they don't have it right yet. You suggest they give up. I suggest they keep trying to make it better.

We are not as far apart as you may think. We are talking about two related but different aspects of Search. My criticism is not about content related issues, like spam and cloaking. I would hope that all SEs take measures to find and eliminate such things. I am criticising Google over their "link" obsession to the detriment of content. Their concept that external links are an indirect measurement of a site's content is flawed and at best pseudo-science. Why? SEOs do not have to improve content to improve their link related SE ratings. Tweaking alogos for age and "how obtained," or the numerous other points they have patented is not going to improve the search results to any great degree, it will just change SEO behavior.

You make an interesting observation that content related search did not work in the past as it created "content spam." Let me make a similar observation that linking behavior has created "link spam." Because neither has worked in the past does not mean neither will not work in the future. Google has elected to put their efforts on improving link behavior. The problem Google faces is that SEOs work to improve their linking strategies in ways that have nothing to do with content. When SEs value relevant content SEOs will focus on content. One is natural behavior the other is contrived behavior.

I don't suggest anyone give up. Search results will improve as technology improves to evaluate relevant content. As I said in an earlier post there are indications that MSN search is on a content technology path. You may not agree that this is the best path.