PDA

View Full Version : Could someone explain Google Places.



Spider
04-03-2011, 03:39 PM
I have begun to see a section on the first results page on G oogle for several items that seem to be "Place" pages. They seem to do nothing to improve the search results and push the natural results lower down, and off, the first page.

What are place pages? what are they supposed to provide a searcher? Where is the benefit here?

Harold Mansfield
04-03-2011, 03:58 PM
Google places is a location based service that shows businesses in your area, additional information, with reviews from other users. It's sort of a combination between Yelp and Foursquare.
It's actually very helpful to businesses and considering how many people search on mobile devices, and how many cars access local results it can actually pretty handy.

I've actually found it useful when looking for restaurants in an area of town that I'm not familiar with. Also being that I live in a tourist town, I can see how it would be useful to travelers.

Spider
04-03-2011, 09:21 PM
I see. So it is an extension to, and an improvement(?) on, the local theme that G oogle is pushing, is that right?

It is quite useless and probably counterproductive for those people who do not want local results, then. I have my computer set to not personalize results and to not seek local results, because I am interested in the most relevant sites based on the search words and phrases only, not on the location of the site or business.

Eg. I searched for Business Coach and received the local information (address, maps, etc.) for four business coaches, one in Sacramento, CA, one in Tallahassee, FL, one in Rancho Santa Fe, CA, and one in Pacifica, CA. Seeing as I am in Houston, TX, for my non-location specific search, the results are pretty useless, if they are not the most relevant results for the term regardless of location.

I had to chuckle though - G gave me a link that would direct me for "More results near United States »" -- Er, where is that, NEAR the United States? Canada? Mexico?

What a sorry excuse for a search engine Google is turning into!

Thanks for your reply, Harold.

vangogh
04-03-2011, 09:33 PM
Google Places is really just a renamed and improved Google local. They've been showing those map locations for years and recently renamed it Google Places along with redoing the page of the business. They don't appear all the time. They should appear for searches more of a local nature. Why Places appears when searching for business coach I don't know. Perhaps the majority of people searching for business coach usually click on local results.

I think you have your location set as United States, which is why you see near United States. If you set your location to Houston you shouldn't see results for other locations.

You may not like these local results, but many people do, especially when they're searching for something where they want local results. For example if people are searching for things like pizza, furniture, or bowling, the odds are they want something local. I don't think it's a case of google turning into a sorry excuse for a search engine as much as you not liking the direction their search results are going. Google is trying to present results that the majority will find useful. Like you I often don't want the same results as the majority so I learn how to search in a way more likely to give me the results I want.

Harold Mansfield
04-03-2011, 09:49 PM
I have my location set to United States and I just don't see all of the local results that Frederick keeps saying that he is seeing. I don't see maps. I don't see local businesses.
When I want local results I just add my city to the search query. Otherwise, Google is the same search engine for me that it has always been.

I agree that Google is just as accurate as it has always been and I have no problem finding what I'm looking for.

It is a fact that more mobile devices are accessing the web than ever before and that number is only growing with each year. Last years mobile use grew by over 100%. Between hand held devices, cars, and GPS units Google would be stupid not to adjust to the way it's users need to use the product. But that doesn't mean you need to use it that way on your desktop or laptop. As far as I'm concerned nothing there has changed.

I don't think Google is turning into a crap search engine, it's just that the web world continues to develop and change and move forward.

Spider
04-03-2011, 11:29 PM
...Why Places appears when searching for business coach I don't know. Perhaps the majority of people searching for business coach usually click on local results...Well, I imagne they would if -as we have supposed before - a vast majority of people do not adjust their SE settings and Google are delivering local results unasked-for. I mean, most people won't be getting anything but local results, so what else could they click on?!

Harold Mansfield
04-03-2011, 11:34 PM
I mean, most people won't be getting anything but local results, so what else could they click on?!
That's not true. Most people don't have an aversion to just creating an account so that they can adjust their settings.
A lot of people know how to personalize their computer and web experience now.

The mere fact that Firefox is now the number one used browser, and not the one that comes with the computer (IE) is a testament to that.

Spider
04-03-2011, 11:49 PM
I do not agree that Google is as accurate as it was - not by a long chalk. If different people get different results for the same search terms, something is not accurate. Okay, when their search is set up for personalised and local, then they will be different - as they should be - but if you, in Las Vegas, set up for not personalzed and for location "United States", search for a particular search term, then I, in Houston, also not personalized and location "United States," should get the same results, or one of us (or both) is not accurate.

I really don't care, as far as searching is concerned because I don't use Google for my own searches. But I recognize that most people do and the only reason I search on Google is to keep tabs on where my sites are placing. But if everyone is getting a different set of results it's impossible to figure out how one's site is doing - Is it going up? Is it going down? We have no way of knowing, anymore. And I can't use some other search engine, because their results won't tell me what's going on with Google, and I need to know that because most peole use Google.

It's a continuous loop and it makes my head hurt!

Harold Mansfield
04-04-2011, 12:34 AM
It shouldn't make your head hurt. You don't need to fire up Google to know how your sites are doing. You can just look at your stats. If you aren't getting much traffic from Google then you probably need to do more SEO. SEO is continuous anyway. You don't do one or 2 things and then wait and see.

I've searched my sites from various computers and I generally get the same results. It's common to get varying results from day to day because there's more information everyday. Just becasue you show up one way in a search today doesn't mean that the world comes to a halt and no one else puts up any other information or tries to rank for that spot. It's always going to change. That has nothing to do with Google specifically...that's just the nature of the web.

If people are continuously adding information in your niche and doing continuous SEO, of course your position is going to change. It always has.

So let me answer your next question:
Q: "Then why do some sites always place the same?"
A: Because they have better content, better SEO, have been around longer...or any number of reasons that put their sites in a better position than yours. They are doing something better than you are.

As a static site you are always going to be at a disadvantage over other sites in your niche that provide new information regularly as well as many other factors.

I think part of your misunderstanding is that you are relying on one way to get SE traffic and most of us get traffic in many different ways from search engines.
For instance, from search engines, I get traffic from Google images, Bing images, general keyword search terms and searches for any one of 1000 articles that are on the site that have information people are looking for. So basically I have thousands of possibilities for SE traffic, before we even get to traffic from links and RSS feeds.

On another site it's mostly targeted keyword searches, a few from articles and blog posts, searches for my name and links.
Obviously much different from the other one.
They rise and fall based on the search and the day, but overall they stay visible because they have many possibilities to be so.

Think of it this way..How many different pages do you have optimized with differing keywords and descriptions that can draw in possible search engine traffic? On a static website, that's directly related to the mount of pages the site has. That's it.

On a CMS or website with a blog, that's directly related to how many articles AND the amount of pages. So where as a statics site in my niche that has 10 pages, has 10 possibilities. My site has over 700 possibilities and grows everyday. That's the easiest way to outrank someone. Continuous new content on the subject.

On today's web, if you aren't adding new content and others are, you will never outrank them unless you are a master SEO. Now multiply that by how many sites are out there in your niche that are trying to rank.
Why do you think the web has swayed to using CMS's? Because of the strong SEO benefits.

Spider
04-04-2011, 08:33 AM
Harold, I accept all that. but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to small variations. I am talking about large differences between two different people searching for the same term.

A short while ago, during a similar discussion, VG (in Denver, CO) searched for Business coach. I searched for business coach from Houston, TX. Both of us were unpersonalized and both of us had United States as our location. I was very pleased that I was appearing #3 or so. VG's result was #40-something. One or both of those results is inaccurate.

Yesterday, I was still at #3 of the natural resullts. This morning, my search, on the same computer, shows my site at #48. That's on one computer. The same search term, the same setup, the same Google, but a different computer only inches away from the first computer, has me at #2. Reload, to make sure this isn't an electronic burp on the internet - no, same result.

This is what you call accuracy? This level of consistency is one of the reasons I gave up on Google several years ago - and it is not improving as time goes by.

Spider
04-04-2011, 08:48 AM
Coming back to the topic - Places. I wonder why G haven't realised that people searching on mobile devices search for different things than they do on their desktop. No-one searching on a desktop PC is going to be searching mostly for pizza parlors, restaurants, shops, bars, parking garages. No-one will search mostly for brain surgeons, global warming data, articles and suggestions on how to grow their business, on a cellphone. These are two entirely different demands - wouldn't they need two entirely different search algorithms?

Aren't the millions of brilliant engineers at G aware of this, and doing something about it?

Wouldn't it make sense to have the possibility of selecting "PC" or "Mobile" to filter one's search?

vangogh
04-04-2011, 11:26 AM
Frederick you have to keep in mind that Google is trying to present results that the majority of people are going to like. They collect data on what people click on and how they modify searches and then tailor their results to make searching a better experience for most people.

Take something like the search for pizza. Common sense would suggest that most anyone typing pizza into a search engine whether on their phone or computer is looking for places in their area to get pizza. Not all, but most. If we look back a few years, before all the local results were present, Google could have easily discovered people only clicked on results that looked to be local or more likely after typing pizza, they quickly tried a new search for "pizza (insert town here)" Seeing that Google decided to save them the second query and present more local results.

You're searching Google as someone looking for information about his website. Google isn't looking to present results specifically for you or any other site owner to see how their site is doing. They're looking to present the best results for the most people. Most people have shown an indication they want those local results shown prominently, which is why you see them.


No-one searching on a desktop PC is going to be searching mostly for pizza parlors, restaurants, shops, bars, parking garages.

Why? Personally if I wanted pizza and didn't know where to go, I'd search my computer before leaving the house. You're offering an opinion based on what you would do. Google is making decisions based on what their millions of users actually do. However your statement here is completely wrong. It's not about what most people search for on their desktop. It's about what results they want for those times when they do search for one of those terms.

I know you think that everyone everywhere should see the exact same results for the same query. The reality is everyone everywhere doesn't want to see the same results. The reality is also that there is no single result that's every going to be the best result for all. You and I might type the exact same query, but be looking for entirely different things or think completely different pages are the best response to our query.

Search engines have this near impossible task of trying to understand our intention based on a few words. If someone types "bass" into a search engine are they looking for guitars or fish? If someone types "football" are they looking for the game with a goalkeeper or a quarterback? The only way Google can come up with a reasonable answer for either is to know more about you personally. That's what all this personalization is about. If they know you live in the US then you're probably more interested in the game with quarterbacks. If you're in the UK you probably want the game with a goalkeeper. If you live in Houston, TX and type business coach you probably want to see business coaches in the Houston area.

That's probably, not absolutely. Google or any other search engine is never going to know exactly what each individual wants, especially if you're not willing to let them know more about you.

Harold Mansfield
04-04-2011, 12:35 PM
Harold, I accept all that. but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to small variations. I am talking about large differences between two different people searching for the same term.

A short while ago, during a similar discussion, VG (in Denver, CO) searched for Business coach. I searched for business coach from Houston, TX. Both of us were unpersonalized and both of us had United States as our location. I was very pleased that I was appearing #3 or so. VG's result was #40-something. One or both of those results is inaccurate.

Yesterday, I was still at #3 of the natural resullts. This morning, my search, on the same computer, shows my site at #48. That's on one computer. The same search term, the same setup, the same Google, but a different computer only inches away from the first computer, has me at #2. Reload, to make sure this isn't an electronic burp on the internet - no, same result.
This is what you call accuracy? This level of consistency is one of the reasons I gave up on Google several years ago - and it is not improving as time goes by.

I can't answer that any better than VG. I get results based on what it seems my preferences are. No mater how I search, certain "large" sites will always come up first. Given that most people who speak English above a 5th grade level don't just do one word searches, I think the results are pretty good. They are never going to be perfect for everyone. Nothing is. But the great thing about a search engine like Google is that you can refine your search in many ways to get exactly what you are looking for.

You seem to be saying that people are forced into getting certain results and that is very far from the case. You aren't stuck with anything.
If you search for "One legged LLama farms in the mid-west" that's exactly what you are going to get if there is a website or article about it.


Coming back to the topic - Places. I wonder why G haven't realised that people searching on mobile devices search for different things than they do on their desktop. No-one searching on a desktop PC is going to be searching mostly for pizza parlors, restaurants, shops, bars, parking garages. No-one will search mostly for brain surgeons, global warming data, articles and suggestions on how to grow their business, on a cellphone. These are two entirely different demands - wouldn't they need two entirely different search algorithms?

Aren't the millions of brilliant engineers at G aware of this, and doing something about it?

Wouldn't it make sense to have the possibility of selecting "PC" or "Mobile" to filter one's search?

They do have a mobile version and your browser can determine if you are using a mobile device. The way I use Google on my phone is not the same way I use it on my desktop. They aren't even set up the same. Many mobile browsers such as GPS units and cars have specific functions programmed so you probably won't search for the New York Times, but you will want to know the closest movie theater, restaurant or dry cleaner.

Spider
04-04-2011, 10:40 PM
Frederick you have to keep in mind that Google is trying to present results that the majority of people are going to like. They collect data on what people click on and how they modify searches and then tailor their results to make searching a better experience for most people....VG, You seem to be arguing a case for not having different filters for mobile searches and desktop searches. I don't understand why. It seems to me, letting people choose mobile or desktop makes a whole lot more sense - for the reasons you stated - than personalised and non-personalised, but some people will like the presonalized results and that's fine. But why would Google not offer another search choice if they have, as you suggest - found that many people want local results and many do not?

Spider
04-04-2011, 10:51 PM
...They do have a mobile version and your browser can determine if you are using a mobile device. The way I use Google on my phone is not the same way I use it on my desktop. They aren't even set up the same. Many mobile browsers such as GPS units and cars have specific functions programmed so you probably won't search for the New York Times, but you will want to know the closest movie theater, restaurant or dry cleaner.Ah, well. That's good. So why does everyone keep throwing pizza in my face whenever a discussion about the difficulty of getting non-local results come up? I've heard more discussion about who wants pizza and who doesn't on this forum than I have ever heard from any single group of people!

vangogh
04-04-2011, 10:58 PM
I'm not arguing that at all. I have no idea where you're getting that from. As far as Google offering people a choice between desktop and mobile search why would they need to. It's trivial for them to detect the device being used. They already do know the difference. For fun I just searched for pizza on both my laptop and iPhone. On the phone the Google Places results were moved higher up on the page appearing above the organic search results. Google could tell I was on a phone and figured I would more likely want those local results so it showed them to me first.

On the computer I get a couple of non Places results first.

If what you're suggesting is people choose mobile or desktop not based on device, but based on the search then the query itself is usually enough to do that for most people. Google's whole deal is automation. They want to be able to automatically figure out what works best for most people and then serve those results to the most people. It's not going to be perfect for everyone. They don't always give me the results I want either. I'm savvy enough to be come up with a new query. Overall both Google and Bing do a really good job find search results. I'm still impressed they can near instantly return a bunch of web pages that might be what I'm looking for.

Harold Mansfield
04-04-2011, 11:31 PM
I don't get it.
I get local results when I ask for them. When I don't search for them I don't get them.
My mobile browser is set differently than my desktop browser and I use Google on both. Some mobile devices don't need a "mobile" setting because the display everything normally.

I don't understand why Frederick is having such a hard time getting the results he wants.

Capitalist
04-06-2011, 04:33 PM
Spider, you're really going to have it bad when you encounter social results. I have accounts at Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare, among many others. All of these are tied to my Google account. If I search for "ice cream" - hey, at least it isn't pizza - I might get a result that says "Joe's Ice Cream Parlor", and under it, "Jimmy Jones checked in at this local via Foursquare", or "Diane Holbrock shared this link on Twitter". You only see those things if you're socially tied to those people, to boot.

Google is changing the whole concept of the search engine, and doing it smoothly enough that most people don't realize it yet. It's becoming more important who *you* are and who your connections are, and less important what your specific search terms are.

For what it's worth, I find that seaches using boolean syntax almost never show these specialized results - they seem to fall back on the base Index.

Spider
04-06-2011, 06:03 PM
...Google is changing the whole concept of the search engine, and doing it smoothly enough that most people don't realize it yet. It's becoming more important who *you* are and who your connections are, and less important what your specific search terms are...That's hilarious! IOW - To hell with what *you* want, we will give you what *we* think you should be searching for!

Yes, I think Harold has been trying to tell me that for a long time.

I think that's why G was kicked out of China, actually - the communist government didn't like anyone muscling in on their monopoly of telling the Chinese people what to do. They weren't going to tolerate a capitalist upstart trying to do the same to *their* people.

Harold Mansfield
04-06-2011, 06:18 PM
That's hilarious! IOW - To hell with what *you* want, we will give you what *we* think you should be searching for!


You aren't too far off on that one. I fought it for a while, but I ended up just figuring out how to make it what I wanted it to be based on what little control I have over it. The bottom line is Google is a business, not a utility. They aren't obliged to provide anything for anyone.
It doesn't have to be handicap accessible. It doesn't have to be fair. It doesn't have to provide equal opportunity to the small guy. They aren't obligated or regulated to do anything regarding how they run their search algorithms.

If they piss off 10% of the people and still retain 90%, those are pretty good numbers for a business and their stock will still trade at $572 a share ( good lord that's high).

Spider
04-07-2011, 12:15 AM
...The bottom line is Google is a business, not a utility. They aren't obliged to provide anything for anyone.
It doesn't have to be handicap accessible. It doesn't have to be fair. It doesn't have to provide equal opportunity to the small guy. They aren't obligated or regulated to do anything regarding how they run their search algorithms...For now! That's how the telephone companies started out - and the railroads - and the stock markets - and the pony express. When they got so big and the public so dependent on them, the government turned them into utilities and made them provide the service to all that they pretended to provide. I'll give it 5 years before search engines start coming under Governmental scrutiny and a few beyond that before they are regulated as the utilities they have already become.


...If they piss off 10% of the people and still retain 90%, those are pretty good numbers for a business and their stock will still trade at $572 a share ( good lord that's high).Actually, the stock is not nearly as high as it could be. Google has a P/E (price to earning ratio) of 21. HP has a P/E of 22, Microstrategy has a P/E of 35, even Verizon has a P/E of 42. True, IBM have a P/E of 14, and Apple have a P/E of 18 but considering the world these guys are living in, Google is not nearly as expensive as it might appear.

Harold Mansfield
04-07-2011, 12:33 AM
For now! That's how the telephone companies started out - and the railroads - and the stock markets - and the pony express. When they got so big and the public so dependent on them, the government turned them into utilities and made them provide the service to all that they pretended to provide. I'll give it 5 years before search engines start coming under Governmental scrutiny and a few beyond that before they are regulated as the utilities they have already become.


I could actually see that. Recent investigations into anti trust, and privacy issues by the U.S. Gov on Google and on mobile applications seems to be an attempt to stop the wild wild west lawlessness that most of the internet still operates under. The sharing of information seems to be under scrutiny, even when expressed in terms of service.
It will be interesting to see where it leads.

I wasn't around for the phone company changes, but thanks for sharing your memories of the time :) *rimshot*

Spider
04-07-2011, 08:22 AM
Didn't I tell you of when I was a pony express rider? Ah, those were the days! Galloping across the prairie, wind in your face! We could get mail from Houston to Chicago in about six days - about as long as it take today!!!!


Talking of sharing information - I had recently decided to register with Bing to gain access to their webmaster tools. You have to have (download?) something called Starlight (or some such name) and agree to their Privacy policy. Have you ever read one of these? I decided I would read this one.

It is long. By about halfway through I had started skim-reading, it was so long. And it didn't need to be so long - they could have said the whole thing in one sentence - "We will protect your privacy as long and until we don't."

Capitalist
04-07-2011, 10:05 AM
I don't think regulation will have nearly the impact on the web as it has had in the "real world". For one, there is nothing stopping me from starting up another site, offering the same service, without the regulation. If the law wants involved, then we'll take it offshore. If they block it, then we'll undermine the DNS system and start using alt-roots.

While my name pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing, there is also a large, vocal contingent of Anarchists in the tech community. The net may change drastically for the majority of people, but the interested will always have free access to information.

Spider
04-07-2011, 11:04 AM
Do you suppose interested authorities are ignorant to the dirty tricks that might be applied to avoid regulation and have some dirty tricks of their own with which to retaliate? Denial of Service attacks can work both ways, and so can everything else.

I don't know what undermining the DNS system entails nor what alt-roots are, but I wouldn't mind betting the boys at the FBI, CIA, MI6 and Mossad know and already have countermeasures in place. The rail barons and the steel barons of the past all thought they could outwit the authorities of the day. The tricks bankers are getting up to today will be checked eventually.

I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of this IT battle, capitalist or non-capitalist.

Harold Mansfield
04-07-2011, 11:19 AM
If the government wants to start regulating large search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing, there is nothing they can do about it if they want to do business here. These are publicly traded companies on the NYSE. It's doubtful that they will go rogue over a few privacy issues.

Harold Mansfield
04-07-2011, 11:22 AM
Talking of sharing information - I had recently decided to register with Bing to gain access to their webmaster tools. You have to have (download?) something called Starlight (or some such name) and agree to their Privacy policy. Have you ever read one of these? I decided I would read this one.

It is long. By about halfway through I had started skim-reading, it was so long. And it didn't need to be so long - they could have said the whole thing in one sentence - "We will protect your privacy as long and until we don't."

Maybe David can comment on this part, but I've always believed that it was intentional to discourage the average person from reading it, But by posting them they can say that you were informed.

Business Attorney
04-07-2011, 02:44 PM
While it is popular to suppose that lawyers draft lengthy legal documents to discourage people from reading them, I think that is rarely, if ever, the case. Lawyers, from the first day of law school, are trained to spot issues. Once you have identified an issue, the tendency is to draft a specific provision to dispose of that issue, no matter how remote the chance of the issue actually arising. No lawyer wants to be the one whose client asks "Why didn't we cover that in our document? That's what we are paying you for!" The result is that documents get longer and longer. A new decision is handed down - add a new provision. A new statute? Add a new provision. Google requires a specific provision for AdSense publishers? Bring it on! The result is often a hodgepodge of redundant and sometimes even conflicting provisions that are difficult to read, even for a lawyer.

As for regulation, the search engines and most other companies that have worldwide activities face much greater regulation outside the U.S. than they do here. The EU and countries within the EU have collectively and individually adopted rules on privacy of personal information (even such commonly known information as residential addresses) that are much more restrictive than anything even most privacy advocates in the U.S. push for. So the big search engines are already dealing with many of these issues, just not here in the U.S.

Capitalist
04-07-2011, 07:12 PM
Do you suppose interested authorities are ignorant to the dirty tricks that might be applied to avoid regulation and have some dirty tricks of their own with which to retaliate? Denial of Service attacks can work both ways, and so can everything else.

I don't know what undermining the DNS system entails nor what alt-roots are, but I wouldn't mind betting the boys at the FBI, CIA, MI6 and Mossad know and already have countermeasures in place. The rail barons and the steel barons of the past all thought they could outwit the authorities of the day. The tricks bankers are getting up to today will be checked eventually.

I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of this IT battle, capitalist or non-capitalist.

The internet is designed to be independent of centralized authority, and to allow ad-hoc networking to take place. Governmental authority doesn't extend here - they don't have the technical power to stop it - no one does.

Want proof? Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org).

Capitalist
04-07-2011, 07:12 PM
If the government wants to start regulating large search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing, there is nothing they can do about it if they want to do business here. These are publicly traded companies on the NYSE. It's doubtful that they will go rogue over a few privacy issues.

Absolutely correct. They can't and won't shut down the product though - only the outlet.

Harold Mansfield
04-11-2011, 02:58 PM
Absolutely correct. They can't and won't shut down the product though - only the outlet.

You keep forgetting that the top 3 SE's are American companies, headquartered on U.S. soil. Which means they are bound by U.S. laws. The Government can do anything they want if they deem that they are practicing unfairly, illegally, or not in the best interest of Americans.

Anthony
04-30-2011, 06:46 AM
Google places is the Google search result feature in which it shows local results at the top of the search engine results. There are many thing which appear here like local company name, phone number, services and other information. This Google places help people who are searching into the local areas like restaurant, Pub Hotel and other things.

bmarcus
05-24-2011, 02:14 PM
I generally start my SEO project making sure the Google Places account is set up properly and completed. This ALWAYS gives a nice jump start to the increase my clients get. Google places is specific to the locality of the searcher, since over 20% of all searches are for something local, this is a must to have, but done properly.

vangogh
05-24-2011, 02:18 PM
Yeah, I think anyone who has a physical location needs to set a Places page and the equivalent page at other search engines. Even if you don't have a physical location it makes sense to have the page, though you will need to give some kind of address.

As more people are surfing on phones and other mobile devices it's only going to become more important too. In fact anyone with a physical location needs to start thinking about mobile in general and making sure their website works well on mobile devices.

Spider
05-24-2011, 10:06 PM
I do wish they'd get their "Places" thing to work properly though (whatever properly might mean) - it certainly doesn't seem very accurate at the moment. I have no use for local searches so I have set up my location on G as "United States" (I also have 'personalization' turned off.) Nevertheless, search results are generally accompanied by Places information for companies in California. (I am in Houston, TX.)

Bing is no better. They have me located in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and I have tried numerous times to change it to "United States" no avail. Neither will give me the general, unlocated, non-personalized results I want.

So, I continue to use Ixquick, not a very satisfactory option. I think I will have to take a look at Yahoo! and see if they are any better.

vangogh
05-24-2011, 10:49 PM
Local isn't going to give you accurate local results if Google doesn't know where you are. If you've set your location with Google to United States why would you expect Google to deliver search results for Houston? I'm pretty sure California is part of the United States so it is local to you given how you've set your location. You can't say Places isn't working properly. If you want local results set your location back to Houston.

I have no idea why Bing won't let you change settings. That seems weird. Maybe there's a cookie set that keeps overriding your changes. I'm assuming you tried this, but just in case you didn't you can set your location by clicking preferences in the upper right. I've never changed location, but I have changed other things and the changes stick until I clear cookies on my computer. While I was in there I noticed my location was a little off so I changed it to Boulder. So far it's stuck, but it's only been a couple of minutes.

Yahoo is serving results from Bing now. You shouldn't see any difference.

Well I figured I would check that. I searched pizza in both Bing and Yahoo. The results are similar though not quite the same.

Spider
05-24-2011, 11:04 PM
Local isn't going to give you accurate local results if Google doesn't know where you are. If you've set your location with Google to United States why would you expect Google to deliver search results for Houston? I'm pretty sure California is part of the United States so it is local to you given how you've set your location. You can't say Places isn't working properly. If you want local results set your location back to Houston...I don't want local results. That's why I am set to 'United States' - meaning, all the US, not any local part of it. Yet they give me non-local local results, anyway.


...I have no idea why Bing won't let you change settings. That seems weird. Maybe there's a cookie set that keeps overriding your changes. I'm assuming you tried this, but just in case you didn't you can set your location by clicking preferences in the upper right. I've never changed location, but I have changed other things and the changes stick until I clear cookies on my computer. While I was in there I noticed my location was a little off so I changed it to Boulder. So far it's stuck, but it's only been a couple of minutes...Bing will change and hold other settings but not the location "United States" nor US or any other variation I can think off. It will let me live in Houston, but forces me to accept local somewhere.. And I have been located in - and get local results for - Altoona, PA after seach cookie cleanouts.


...Yahoo is serving results from Bing now. You shouldn't see any difference.
Well I figured I would check that. I searched pizza in both Bing and Yahoo. The results are similar though not quite the same.Ah well! I'll remember that if I'm ever in Boulder looking for pizza! :)

vangogh
05-25-2011, 01:03 AM
Oh sorry. My bad. You would rather not see any local results (unless you specifically ask for them). Is that right?

Unfortunately I think you're out of luck then. However you might be happy to know you aren't the only person who wants to see more global results. Check this thread from Google Help (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Web%20Search/thread?tid=288324ab4a65dc74&hl=en). If I didn't know better I might think you started the thread. :) They really should allow us to turn the local stuff off. They can set local as the default, but give us a way to turn it off.

For whatever reason the search engines have decided local is the way to go. They claim to be smart enough to tell the difference between a local and non-local query, but we both know they aren't. I also wish they would just let me search for what I want instead of trying to guess what they think I mean.

I haven't been all that crazy about the changes Google has made over the years. Some changes like the ability to pick a time frame results I really like, but most of the changes I don't care for. I'm guessing you'll agree, but I think Google now fills up the first page of results with so many things I don't want that I have to spend more time searching through the results.

I see what you mean about Bing. I thought you wanted to change it to something local like Houston. How they decided you're in Altoona I have no idea. I would have thought they could read your IP and even if they didn't get you in Houston they would have located you someplace nearby.

I may have good news for you. I checked Ask.com and they don't seem to have a clue where I am. I asked for more pizza and for hardware stores and I'm not seeing any local results. To get local results I had to actually type in my location.

Spider
05-25-2011, 09:56 AM
As you say, VG, it is so easy to type a city name into the search window along with the other search terms, that built-in local search is pointless. And typing it in oneself, one can be far more accurate as to requirements, even locating down to a street name or intersection. It wouldn't take but one sentence alongside the search window as explanation. I really cannot understand why they would want to spend the time rewriting the system code/algorithm when a simple text addition would provide a far superior result.

As to ignoring the first page, I have been doing that for years. Being on the first page of search results does not, and never has told you about the quality of the page - only that they have better seo. The need to get on the first page is because the people one wants to reach do not think about that. When I search I don't really judge the usefulness of a website by it's results positioning. Very often the best pages (ie the one's that serve me best) are written by someone who knows more about what I'm searching for and less about seo - and that's fine by me. You might have to sift through more crud after page 5 but that's where you find superior information, too.

vangogh
05-25-2011, 10:52 AM
I don't think it's pointless. Easy as it is it wouldn't surprise me if many people don't think to type their location. I don't have a problem with Google having local on by default, but I do think they should provide an option to turn it off.

Don't forget to try Ask. They didn't seem to use location in their search results. Might be what you're looking for.

Spider
05-25-2011, 12:11 PM
I use Ask.com frequently when I have a question to ask (which I think is their Raison d'etre.) I'll try them for ordinary searches and see how they do. Thanks.


Easy as it is it wouldn't surprise me if many people don't think to type their location.That's why I proposed a sentence of explanation. That would have saved all the work the SEs have had to do to come up with an inferior product.

Spider
05-25-2011, 12:25 PM
Just read the Google help discussion you linked - Darn! I wish I had written that! In fact, I could have written every one of the replies, too!

vangogh
05-25-2011, 01:32 PM
When I read the Google thread I had to read it twice to make sure it wasn't you who started it. :)

I'm not sure an explanation would be the right approach. Good design shouldn't need explanation. I think you see local results is because search engines have collected data showing that most people are looking for local results. Since most people want local the default is to show local. They should provide a way to opt out of local results though. I can't imagine that's a difficult thing to do. Where I think they go wrong is trying to decide for you if your query is meant to be local or global. That's fine as a default, but give us the option to set it either way.

Spider
05-25-2011, 05:14 PM
I really can't inagine that there are more searchers for pizza and hardware stores than there are serious researchers who need worldwide results. And the people who are travelling internationally being unable to access search in their own country, or in the next country on their itinerary, is ridiculous. And that poor woman who was studying/researching in the USA for a USA exam who could not continue here dissertation research from Australia because all she could get now was Australian search results.

If anyone reads the discussion to which VG linked, be sure to read the replies - you can't imagine all the various situations that mandatory local search is screwing up peoples' lives!

vangogh
05-25-2011, 06:25 PM
I didn't say there are more searchers for pizza and hardware stores. I said search engines have determined most people are looking for local results. At least for certain queries.


serious researchers who need worldwide results

Have you met the average person? Most people are not using search engines for serious research. You might be and I might be, but most people are more likely to be searching for directions to a local store or where to find the best pizza. Again I agree there should be a way to turn off local results, but I'd bet the current set up works for more people than it doesn't.

greenoak
05-26-2011, 04:36 PM
its serious research if you are trying to find out directions to green oak!!!!...
and like a customer said a while back...i cyber shopped you first...im just kind of amazed at the new place phones have...yesterday a girl was in the store and sent pictures by phone to her sister and in an hour the sister called us with her creditcard for 1100$$$$..for our nicest harvest table and 2 chair benches...
my phone is several yrs old and i dont really even carry it unless im away from home or the store...i gave our second iphone when dh wanted a new one to my number 1 grandson...he loves it...for angry birds ....etc etc...