SEF
Search Engine Forums
Helping to make the Web - Since 1998
 |
| . | ||||||||||
| Forums | Index | Active Topics | New Topics | My Topics | Search | My Profile | Register | Inbox | Rules & TOS | |
| . | ||||||||||
Email this thread to a friend
| 1 2 3 Next Page >> | Previous Topic Next Topic |
| Member | Message |
|
sofree Joined: Jul 29, 2004
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 10/15/2004 01:44 am
Anyone who has used the MSN Preview will know that long term Google is doomed as market leader. MSN search is so clean, SEO's will love it, all of my sites rank page 1 and 2 on MSN and theresults are more relevant. They have somehow managed to filter out crappy shopping sites and all the search results you get are for independent websites not directories etc. Very clever. Google is full of shopping/review sites. MSN have content and repeat users (hotmal, messenger, isp), which google doesn't. not to mention being microsoft. |
 | |
|
thejenn Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 10/15/2004 09:38 am
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'll refute you point by point. 
Matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. Granted, Microsoft has proven time and time again that they can launch an inferior product (re: Internet Explorer, Windows OS) and beat a proven competitor (re: Netscape, Macintosh). That doesn't mean that they will always have the same results. Many within the industry have pointed out obvious problems with MSN's search engine and feel that it's quite far from being able to perform at the level of Google. Only the release of the final product will give us true insight into where things stand.
*chuckle* That's your judgement on why MSN is clean and relevant? Because YOUR sites rank the best? No offense, but that's not the most unbiased line of reasoning you could have used. IMHO, a search engine that is LOVED by SEOs is one that is easily manipulated and therefore, unlikely to deliver the most relevant results in the long term. Being loved by SEOs and being loved by searchers are two entirely different matters...and when it comes down to what defines a succesful engine, I can promise you that the engines care far more about what the searchers think than they do about what the SEOs think.
Again, it all depends on your perspective. What if someone WANTS to find results for a place to buy online? IF they can't find it on MSN, they aren't going to be impressed with MSN. Google is full of shopping/review sites because people use them and they are popular. The Internet is not just about opinion and information sites, it's also about e-commerce. Any search engine that ignores either segement will do poorly among users.
Gmail, Google News, Google Groups, an outstanding toolbar, a new desktop search bar, an excellent shopping search engine, Google Alerts, the list goes on. Google has content and repeat users the same as MSN does. Have you not noticed Google making a concentrated effort to provide new ways to reach users?
Ok....that one, I can't argue with. When you've got all the money in the world and control what goes on the hard drive of 90% of new computers, it does tend to give you a *slight* advantage. 
I think it will be interesting to see what happens, but I think anyone that chooses to declare a "winner" at this stage of the game is fooling themselves.
|
| |
|
Dugger Joined: Nov 19, 1999
# Posts: 200
|
Posted: 10/15/2004 03:36 pm
There are always folks who disagree on what is relevent and what is not but the fact that Google does not allow new sites to rank for competitive keywords means it has an old and stale index. Sooner or later that will catch up to them if MSN is any good at all. The younger generation love MSN for messenger, hotmail, etc. and already use the search. It would not be hard for a whole new generation of seachers to grow up never using Google if MSN Search is at all relevent. |
| |
|
mteasdal Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 374
|
Posted: 10/15/2004 08:29 pm
Another opinion... No company has gone head to head with Microsoft and won. I don't think Google will be that one. Microsoft is going full out in this area right now. Their dev bots visits deeper and more often than Google bot. They visit so much some webmasters are blocking them and waiting for their new search engine to go into production. What is good about Google is that they went public so I think it will be too hard to do their easy buy like they are know for in the past. I look forward to solid compition in this area because right now it is all GOoogle |
| |
|
yellowwing Moderator
Joined: May 21, 2002
# Posts: 2524
|
Posted: 10/16/2004 03:00 am
Search engines are not designed for SEO types. They are for the general public seeking information. Google has mastered delivering search results, and is now leading the expansion into more information markets. Personally, I prefer Google search based on the snippets included in the returned search results. That is more useful to the user than the Meta Description blurb that MSN delivers. As far as SEO, ranking on both are still based on the basic principals and methodologies. |
| |
|
unreviewed Joined: Dec 07, 2000
# Posts: 6776
|
Posted: 10/16/2004 12:04 pm
>>right now it is all GOoogle Remember what it was like with Yahoo showing Google results? They still had control over Yahoo when Google brought down Florida on us last Christmas. What a nightmare that was. |
| |
|
mteasdal Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 374
|
Posted: 10/16/2004 05:19 pm
I am still living that Florida nightmare! *SMILE* Google will have another BIGGER and better nightmare for all of us before it is done. lol |
| |
|
galway Joined: Apr 26, 2004
# Posts: 300
|
Posted: 10/18/2004 09:29 am
I agree with sofree, Googles rise to fame was largely due to fast delivery of relevant info in an age when Alta Vista and Lycos etc were all full of animated ads and slow load times etc. The popularity was driven by the popular support of SEO individuals and companies and in the end without that support the bandwagon would not have rolled like it did. Google became the 'peoples engine' relevancy and speed was king, this has now changed, even my son no longer uses Google for his homework, neither do his friends, he just cannot get past all the internal directories etc that Google now lists as free search results. Who for example wants to search for info and be presented with directories which then need to be searched again. That is just one of many examples of how Google no longer delivers. Their drive for commercialism has been at the expense of many of the things that led to their choice as No1 search engine. I have used the beta MSN, it is quick and at the moment its relevant, far more so than Google for many areas, I have tested it for some hours and compared the results. Here is how myself and my colleagues see it. If MSN stay fast and relevant, (if they look at addressing the feedback that comes in from all the people trying it, for example if that covers the shopping topic then they will ensure they cater for it) then it will slowly be the demise of Google. Most machines despatch with MSN as the default search, people currently change this because the search facility is not Google. As sure as the grass is green this will change, people using the default will be happy with what is delivered and they will not so readily change it, those who are getting fed up with Google will also have a viable alternative, the marketing power of Microsoft will count further. It is going to be a combination of this grass roots and popular change that will count in the end, not overnight but then Alta Vista didn't lose its popularity overnight. I think this change will be good, it will stop the monopoly that allows dictatorial behaviour and the final nail will be Googles commercialism, they will be seen in the same light as MSN so even the ideological vote will be lost. I think that the moderator above is blind to Google criticism and is also naive to imagine that copying much of what MSN has been doing for so long will ensure Google taps into some new market. The naive factor is also relevant with respect to the Google toolbar, huge numbers of people only use the toolbar for PR and backlinks etc, if there is no need to do this for Google then goodbye to the toolbar, maybe to be replaced with one that interfaces with IM and all the other MSN stuff. The disenchantment that is felt by tens of thousands of companies and individuals that were forced into Googles ppc to boost company value will be the catalyst to change, when these people are getting enough traffic from MSN then watch the Adwords fall in line with the number of searches. Google have left themselves wide open for the might of MSN and I believe that at last we may get some real competition. |
| |
|
thejenn Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 10/18/2004 01:48 pm
galway, you put forth some very good logic and reasoning in the first half of your post. You make many good points that I completely agree with. However, I do disagree with many of the points from the end of your post...
Here's the problem. If MSN "stops" the monopoly that Google has, how long will it be before the Google monopoly is simply replaced by the MSN monopoly? Will we really be better off at that point? It's doubtful. I am very much hoping that MSN puts forward a valient search engine effort and delivers a strong alternative to Google, much the way Yahoo! has done. I'd love to see three players battling it out long-term. There is room for more than one search engine on the Internet and I think having three (even four or more) good, solid engines that are stable and profitable can only help the industry.
Upon what do you base this "fact?" Your own conversations with other webmasters? Your conversations with general internet users, or a study that you might be able to cite for us? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly curious. I know many people who have the Google toolbar and simply use it as a shortcut for search. I would use it whether it displayed PR or not. I believe (though I have no basis for this belief other than my own, personal opinion) that many people would continue to use the Google Toolbar simply because it serves as a nice shortcut to search. If you have access to studies that show otherwise, I'd love it if you'd share them.
And what if Google adds IM capabilities, direct access to Gmail and other features? You are assuming the toolbar will stay stagnant. I have no doubt they will continue to update it to compete with anything Microsoft or Yahoo! will offer.
This is where I believe your logic fails. Think about this...let's say that Newsweek magazine suddenly changes their advertising policies and makes it more expensive for companies to run ads. Do you honestly think that the readers are going to suddenly stop reading Newsweek? It's doubtful. They do not know, nor care, what goes on in the advertising side of the business. They simply care whether or not they find the stories interesting and worth reading. On the same level, search engines target the searchers, not the businesses. Even if the businesses that are unhappy about having to use PPC decide to abandon Google in favor of MSN, they aren't going to run Google out of business. Google will still have a large search audience which will make it attractive enough that the next round of business owners will pony up their marketing dollars. Assuming that Google will fail because advertisers don't like them is faulty logic. Advertisers will follow buyers no matter where they are. It's just the way the business works.
This, I can completely agree with. I think (and hope) we're going to see a great challenge to Google from MSN and Yahoo!. I think we're going to reenter the glory days of search when users had multiple options and several players were genuinely in the game. As I said above, IMO, this can only help the industry. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I think Google is unbeatable, or that I WANT Google to be unbeatable. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy in some of the arguments given to "prove" that Google is destined to fail. I think those comments are made based on wishes and not on actual logic or proof. |
| |
|
galway Joined: Apr 26, 2004
# Posts: 300
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 01:49 am
My logic is based on research, my company has over three hundred clients and a huge percentage now use ppc in Google to supplement their web traffic. This was not a free choice but driven by the slump in listings and the disenchantment is because they know this was planned and executed by Google to boost their value for the IPO. In the industry I have spoken with many marketing companies that have the same view and many are able to draw their info from far larger client bases than mine. The point is this, if (and I say if) MSN gains popularity and the traffic levels grow steadily these people will look at the feasibility of ending Adwords and go back to standard listings, thus starts a trend and it is just one more avenue that Google may loose support. I agree that there will be businesses to fill the places but gradually competition will fall. If you look at the history of search engines there have always been empires that are born, rise to fame and then dwindle. I doubt Google will go the way of its predecessors but the balance of power may shift enough to give real headaches to those responsible for dividends etc. If the share price falls and becomes unstable then its demise may come from another avenue. Commercial organisations can also live and die through shareholder confidence. This is what I find potentially a far more unpredictable life for Google. As for the toolbar then of course Google will try and cut into a very established market that is governed by MSN and will the advent of the new search facility I think that the functionality that Google is trying to establish is already present and I still believe (from the feedback from large numbers of clients and other peoples clients) that a huge number of people have the Google toolbar purely to measure PR and backlinks etc and if the need to do this diminishes then so will the toolbar. Anyway I have to say that your response was quite well balanced which I find refreshing. I guess our theories will be qualified in the coming 12 months. |
| |
|
sofree Joined: Jul 29, 2004
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 02:56 am
I am of the opinion that relevance is key. Many people tell me when they search on Google the stuff they get is of no or little relevance, and it's an experience I share. The MSN preview seems to have more clean relevant results. But maybe after a few years it will end up irrelevant like Google is now and vice versa. We could see each major engine have 2 or 3 year peaks. It's also dependant on how MSN markets its search offline. If they go for a big campaign Google will have had it, because they can't afford to advertise as much as Microsoft. With a big enough offline campaign people will switch to MSN and if they find it better they'll stay. |
| |
|
thejenn Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 08:35 am
Turning into an interesting conversation...
I will still argue that asking marketers and business owners that advertise on Google what their thoughts are is not accurate research for whether or not Google will flourish in the long run. For every advertiser using Google, there has to be a dozen or more "average joe's" using it to search. I do agree that Google's results seem to be lacking a bit in the relevancy department compared to what they once were. That said, I think they still offer the best results...where that will go in time remains to be seen. I think the absolute best point that galway has made when it comes to the potential downfall of Google is the need to please shareholders. Google has a history of being able to take wide steps and make brave moves because they didn't have to worry about the accountability to shareholders. That's changed now and could potentially be damaging to innovation in the long run. I will stand by my logic that the absolute top priority of any search engine must be comprehensive, quality results. Without those, you will not attract users. Without users, you cannot attract advertisers and premium advertising dollars. What do you think about the potential impact if the rumors of Google working on their own browser is true? Could Google introduce a browser that would compete with IE? If so, does this give them a leg up in fighting the search engine wars? After all, they would have a new platform for running content based ads, they would have a default Google interface for searching, and quite a few other benefits. Could change up the situation... |
| |
|
sofree Joined: Jul 29, 2004
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 08:41 am
Competition commissions would most probably allow Google to show ads within a Google browser, though there could be some privacy issues. MSN would not be allowed to bundle this in with IE it would have to be downloaded. What could Google browser do that IE can't? |
| |
|
thejenn Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 08:45 am
Primary response: It doesn't matter. IE was an inferior product to the original Netscape and it still ended up winning out. It's inferior to Opera and Mozilla, but it still reigns supreme. It's not so much about what browser is BEST as what one manages to win the popularity war. That said, there are some obvious security flaws with IE that would lead many to happily abandon it in favor of another browser. Sure, by that logic they could currently go to Opera or Mozilla, but Google has a brand that naturally attracts people to at least check things out. If it easily integrates with gmail and other Google options it may prove popular. I'm not saying it will work, or even that Google is working on one, but I think it could throw an interesting wrench into the entire scenario. |
| |
|
galway Joined: Apr 26, 2004
# Posts: 300
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 10:10 am
You have a good point Jenn, If google could produce the browser then they have a position to offer competition, the problem is that Netscape was also in that position and a proven winner in quality but that was and will never be enough. Microsoft have such power but also the tool that is used throughout so many aspects of peoples lives, from computer gaming to being a fundamental part of nearly every home computer operating system and so much more through industry itself. Even if it is better how would the message reach the masses whose lives are based on routine and habit, combine this with Microsoft marketing power then Microsoft have a huge advantage. Could Google directors justify to its shareholders the massive funding needed to match the marketing by Microsoft, in all countries around the world, who would be brave enough to risk the failure of such a campaign. Not me if I were there
The security issues with IE are well documented and some of these will be diminished with the implementation of IP6 although that is some way off still. It will be a time for stout hearts in the Google boardroom thats for sure, but as with any release you will always gain a certain market share the dilemma will be what level of market share will be worth the spend of company (shareholders) money. |
| |
|
thejenn Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 11:47 am
Agreed. Google would have to overcome some impressive hurdles to be able to successfully compete with IE on the browser front. But then, I would have thought they'd have a hard time competing with the already existing Yahoo! mail and Hotmail accounts when they launched gMail. The buzz factor of being associated with Google and the 1 Gig of space were unique ways of pushing the product. I'm not sure what Google could offer on a similar level, but I think the gMail example demonstrates the creativity that Google has used in the past to draw traffic and to build user loyalty. Here's something to consider. Sure, Google is tops right now and it's far easier to fall from a perch than to climb up on it, but they did have to make that initial climb. Google went from a virtually unknown company to one that out-performed veterans like Google and Alta Vista and that ultimately contributed to the demise of many other once popular engines. (Bye, bye Excite, Lycos and others) In other words, Google didn't start out on top, they earned their way there. That doesn't mean that Microsoft cant' do the same thing or that Microsoft doesn't already have a significant advantage. Like Yahoo!, Microsoft will be launching a new search engine while already having a solid third of the search market. Most people who search at Microsoft right now probably have on idea that they are getting Yahoo! provided results. They probably don't really care either. That means that Microsoft doesn't have to start at the bottom like Google did, they simply have to build up from what's already a fairly level playing field and see if they can top Google. Again, I think that assuming that either side will "win" is silly, but it can be interesting to speculate on the possibilities. If we (meaning the industry) are lucky, we will see three solid players emerge from this field. |
| |
|
alzo Joined: Aug 06, 2004
# Posts: 56
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 11:33 pm
I've question for everyone. Where is this beta site. If you go to http://www.imagine-msn.com/search/en-us/ if you search for something it will return regual MSN search, which still seems like getting info from the old inktomi---the results are almost identical as Yahoo! search. Thanks. |
| |
|
alzo Joined: Aug 06, 2004
# Posts: 56
|
Posted: 10/19/2004 11:58 pm
Never mind guys. I found the link. What I did notice, for any particular search term that I used, it shows a lot more pages than Google and Yahoo! Also, it shows more links than both sites too. Results we will still need to see, but at a glance it does seem more relevant results than Google. |
| |
|
mdvaden Joined: Mar 07, 2004
# Posts: 119
|
Posted: 10/20/2004 12:19 am
Google's advantage over Microsoft will be from the user end. Microsoft has irritated the public with techical difficuties in certain windows applications, not to mention the vulnerability of Internet Explorer. On the other hand, few people have had backlash or problems from searching using Google. That will have an effect on the average person's choices in the future. |
| |
|
flyingrose Moderator
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 10/20/2004 12:43 am
Worrying that Google is a monopoly and hoping that MSN will take away their market share is just plain scary...remember what the M in MSN stands for. What the Google tool bar is best used for is searching on the site you're already on to find what you're looking for faster. You can change the tool bar configuration so the "search site" function shows all the time. IMHO it should default to that configuration. You could also use the Yahoo tool bar instead. Whether user, business or advertiser we're all better off with several strong competitors and NO monopolies at all. |
| |
Who's Online?
There are 179 guests and 1 members in the forums right now.
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
| 1 2 3 Next Page >> | Previous Topic Next Topic |
Switch to Advanced Editor and ... Create a New Topic or Reply to this Thread |
Related Forum Topics
- Google organic results changed (In: Google)
- How to incorporate "Ad Recall" feature in Google A (In: Google)
- sub menu in google (In: Google)
- Google/Yahoo Partnership (In: Google)
- when Google banns the site? (In: Google)
© 1995 - 2006 · iWeb, Inc · DBA JimWorld Productions