Traversing the "Googlearchy" 67
baloney farmer writes "How much do search engines influence the availability of information online? A new study gives some surprising results. Search engines help with popularity, but not as much as you'd think: 'Traffic increased far less than would be expected if search engines were enhancing popularity. It actually increased less than would be predicted if traffic were directly proportional to inbound links. In the end, it appears that each inbound link only increases traffic by a factor of 0.8. The results suggest that the reliance of web users on search engines is actually suppressing the impact of popularity.'"
Self-reenforcing cycle? (Score:3, Insightful)
direct (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:i can see that (Score:3, Insightful)
I do it too. What's more difficult, an extra click, or a decision on which box to type in? And there are other cases where my cursor is in the search box, so clicking to the URL box and then typing is the same as typing and then clicking the search result...
A factor of 0.8 decreases traffic (Score:3, Insightful)
How are you defining popularity? (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't mean what it sounds like... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first read this summary, I thought, "WTF?". So I read the article. And re-read the summary. And re-read the article. And I think I finally "get" it.
Let's say you run a "popular" site like the BBC news. You get a hell of a lot of traffic, and people tend to go directly to your site rather than via a link. Alternately, you get a lot of links that only a small percent of people seeing them follow.
Now compare that with an unknown site (most personal or academic webpages, for example). They get very few visitors, but most of them come from search engines.
So what does this tell us?
Almost nothing we didn't already know - Search engines DO indeed negate the impact of popularity, because popularity has little to do with relevance, while search engines generally try to maximize relevance.
This I consider a "good" thing. When searching for info on ripping a DVD using the latest copy protection scheme, I don't care if the latest pop idol calls ripping "totally not cool". I want methods, programs, and real life examples that might only have gotten a few dozen hits ever.
Re:Self-reenforcing cycle? (Score:5, Insightful)
And your evidence and study showing the researchers are wrong is... what?
Actually, if you've ever watched those 'live search' services (I.E. showing in realtime search terms users are entering), you'll see the same terms pop up again and again. Equally, for most search items - there simply are not that many (properly spelled) variants. (I.E. for the Seattle Mariners - there's pretty much only one way to type that.)
Many studies have found that the first page is what it's all about - what's on page 4 might as well not even exist. (There's a reason why SEO's exist you know.)
In essence - your claim that the researchers in TFA are wrong is based on smoke and mirrors.
Slashdot link? (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't need to "search" for popular sites (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I "search" for purchasing info, business info, etc.
I am told about "popular" sites directly... they are um, popular.
People who like this kind of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
It reminds me of the quote (not sure the origin): People who like this kind of thing will find that this is the kind of thing that they like.
You think it's bad now, imagine when Google has an AI model of what you want to find such that it tailors the search results for you alone.
Some years back, in the early 90's, I think, when there was little or no web and when advertising was done in physmail, I started to receive lots of mail about object-oriented stuff and little about other kinds of programming. "Ah, we're winning," I concluded foolishly. Later, I realized I was just pigeon-holed in a special Hell where I would never again learn about what others were doing because someone thought they had learned what I "liked".
It amazes and saddens me that a whole industry grew up around "personalized interfaces" which does not include as part of its regular practice: "ask the user what he likes". Amazon's court of last resort is to allow me to "correct" it assumptions about me by deleting records of specific purchases that are confusing its belief that I like certain things.... all substituting for an interface that just says "do you like X?" and lets me say "yes/no". And there's even some research saying they know better than I do what I want. Bleah. Personal indeed.
I'll be interested to see if this result holds up. It seems just as grim as the "personal interfaces" result. But sad or not, it does seem believable...