 | |
 |
| 
Does Microsoft consider the server environment a site is hosted on when applying relevancy rankings for their search results? If this were indeed true, wouldn't manipulation of this sort render their SERPs as biased and non-relevant?
Is MSN Search manipulating their search results to give more weight (relevance) to sites being hosted on IIS environments? Would you even consider using a search engine that was thought to be manipulating their results? Discuss at WebProWorld.
If the study conducted by Ivor Hewitt (which was first reported by /.) continues to yield the results his less thorough tests did, he may be on to something that could cast some doubt towards one of the more promising search engines to hit the market in some time.
The story goes like this: in an act of curiosity, Ivor began testing keywords from the Google Zeitgeist in both Google's search and MSN Search in an effort to document ranking differences. However, the conclusions he developed indicated a lot more than simple SERP variations:
 On the whole is seems that the MSN search engine is indeed placing IIS hosted sites higher in the results more frequently than other webservers. Frequently the MSN search is placing more IIS servers in the important top 10 results than Google even where result sets from a query have actually returned fewer IIS servers overall on MSN.
Which means, if you follow Ivor's logic, MSN Search may be giving preferential treatment to sites hosted on the IIS environment. Understandably, Ivor's conclusion is quite troubling and leads to a number of questions: Is MSN manipulating their search results to give higher rankings to IIS sites? If so, does this not render MSN Search as a null and void search engine?
Perhaps some other points need to be discussed before Ivor's observations get accepted as gospel.
First and foremost, many critics of Ivor's conclusions immediately noticed his range of keywords was quite limited. In response to this, Ivor administered the test again, this time using 1000 random keywords instead of the Zeitgeist. However, reactions were the same: not enough keywords were tested to formulate a strong hypothesis. Ivor is currently re-conducting his test, and this time, he's using 10000 keywords.
However, results from this latest test have not been posted.
Another point made by a number of people has to do with quality level of sites hosted on IIS environments, as opposed to those hosted on Linux or Apache environs. The general counterpoint indicated perhaps lesser quality sites, blogs, and vanity sites were being hosted on Apache/Linux, while the more optimized; search engine-friendly sites are apart of the IIS family (to which iEntry's IT Manager, Jay Fougere replied: "that's a straw man argument").
Do you think someone should tell Google and Amazon their respective vanity sites would be better off as a member of the IIS family?
Now, before everyone runs out to purchase their tinfoil hats, consider the additional points made by Ivor:
So what's going on, why the bias?
I have no idea; I doubt it's all a big conspiracy... but some possible explanations spring to mind:
Perhaps the MSN search has simply been coded by developers used to talking to IIS machines and so it just does that job better?
Perhaps the MSN spider is taking advantage of some specific IIS features to provide enhanced indexing?
However, Jay has some thoughts about Ivor's theory as well:
"I don't buy it -- HTTP is HTTP is HTTP -- there is nothing in it that even allows for indexing. I mean a site is made up of pages with links -- you write a program to crawl those pages (follow every link). There is nothing there to help or hinder IIS/Apache/Linux.
 "The protocol, HTTP, is the same for Unix/ IIS /Apache /insert favorite webserver here. However, each server environment will return a header with what it is running, if you ask it. Although, many admins tell their servers to announce themselves as servers they are not -- to confuse hackers."
Although the results from Ivor's extensive keyword test are not available, the early implications from previous tests have caused some arched eyebrows. However, it's almost silly to suggest such a thing simply because of the public relations mess MSN Search would have to handle if Ivor's data isn't coincidental. While it's true that MS has had their share of PR nightmares, one of this magnitude would be quite damaging to their credibility.
No one would use an engine suspected of manipulating their results, and the folks at MSN Search know this as well.
|
|  |  | | Articles: 17,646 | Contributing Authors: 2,536 |
| | |
|
The Google Zeitgeist (or What’s Hot And What’s Not?)
 By Mark Fleming
Ever wonder what the heck people search for on Google? Wonder no more! Google summaries it's history of search terms each week, month and year, categorized by various subjects and countries of origin.
They present this summary data on their Google Zeitgeist (Zeitgeist defined: the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era) pages.
Looking at the data provides interesting insight into the intelligence of human beings. Take, for example, 2004, a year of intense and important national and world events. Surely the top searches reflect the intellectual curiosity of Americans in these areas, right? Well, not exactly. The most popular queries from the United States for 2004 were, well, maybe a picture will say it all so much more clearly.
Embarrassingly, Britney Spears (does she ever go away?), Paris Hilton, Christina Aguilera, and the ever popular Pamela Anderson take the top four spots of 2004. But, maybe our taste in television shows will make up for this. Nope! I checked and it's The Simpsons in the number one spot, followed by Pokemon, South Park, Charmed and Spongebob.
 Read the Full Article
Is Site Match the devil?
Today's post comes from Spectur. They are asking for your opinion over whether or not Yahoo's Site Match is evil. To further prove their point about it's evil nature, Spectur points out that your site will be index if you pay the fee, but if you do not there is no guarantee that your site will ever be index.
Do you think Yahoo is wrong for asking for money to be listed? I myself don't consider this to be a bad thing, but that's only my opinion. Spectur considers this to be a little like extortion. What do you think? Tell us your thoughts at WebProWorld.
|| Rafael||
Site match - evil or not ?
By Spectur
Is it just me or does it seem that when you go to submit your site to Yahoo, there statement that your site may not get listed is right below a statement selling a assured place if you pay them seem a bit evil?
In my mind it says, we might not accept your site and it won't get listed, but if you give us money we will list any old Spam site. |
I've been thinking about mirroring a site for regional specific engines and having regional specific robots.txt's. What do you think about this...
- MrLeN
Comment
|
|
|
|
| |
View Profile
, Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509
WebProNews is the Jayde Member newsletter! You subscribed to receive this as part of your website submission to the Jayde.com search engine.