Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 10
- Sphinn It!
Posted By:
theGypsy
64 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.wolf-howl.com)
Category: Google Searching
SNIP --- I’ve often chided google for trusting wikipedia so much when Wikipedia says we don’t care about accuracy or truth, just verifiability. It now looks like they’ve taken it a step further and pitched truth out the window with the dodgeball development team. Here’s a screen shot from Sunday afternoon where according to the Google SERP’s Paul Newman died in a plane crash … way to go big G …
6 Comments
Comments
You mean screw not using Google's special News search don't you?
In this particular case, all you have to do in order to get valid results from a general Google web search is to add 2008 to your search string.
You can't compare social media to news articles, it is apples to oranges. Michael Grey has a good point here, however he is missing what is going on. Also, the Digg item has pagerank, incoming links, 36 actually in the eyes of Google's social media view and we are in Websearch, not Blogsearch where this discussion belongs.
Even there the Digg item will kick you butt for a number of reasons. Google can't decide on the accuracy of a article, only go by the links it sees.
Rather than take up the space here I published a detailed article on my blog.
http://www.keywebdata.com/?p=173
Love me or hate on me, this article is 100% accurate and explains why this Digg item is ranking well.
- Chris Lang
The flames are already coming into my email so I want to explain a few things.
First of all I included the PageRank disclaimer so I did not get flamed by SEO guys for quoting pagerank.
Next, the news articles may or may not have 100s of links, it does not matter, they are new links from pages on blogs that have no links themselves.
I am certainly not attacking anyone's views, but the way the article comes off is that the Digg item should not be there.
In fact it has every reason to be, just not from an organic SEO point if view.
Actually the links we have created to the Digg article are probably driving it up Google results. That is funny in itself. As we scold Google for poor results we add to the fact that it will be displayed there for a long time to come.
When is this pony going to learn a new trick?