I think most people who use Google expect to do a little digging. I think the results you’re given require you to refine your search, and as a Google user, you’re used to that. You’ve come to expect that.

Andy Beal at Marketing Pilgrim says, “Google offers more opportunities right upfront to refine the search by time, type of result, even result loca tions. Because of this, I’d bet many people take a second or third try at finding exactly what they want before they start clicking through.” That makes sense. I also think without the options, google users would be more apt to refining their search anyway.

I believe Google’s results are more detailed in nature and require your queries to be more specific as well. I feel like I get broader, safer results out of Bing. Thats what theyre going for per their marketing, but it feels a little “Fisher Price” to me. Not my style. Maybe Bing users are more casual.

Google and Bing have segregated the search audience. Like democrat and republican, NFL and MLB, or beer and wine, the two parties are different, and will continue to be shaped by the structure of the engine to some degree. It’s interesting, really, just how big a role search engines play, and what we can tell about people who use them. It’s not just an information retrieval system, but an extension of your brain. Much like a car.

Post from: Bill Sebald's Greenlane SEO 2.0 Blog

The Difference Between Google And Bing Users

I’m thrilled.  I always said it wouldn’t make sense for search engines – who value editorial linking – to not value tweets.  Yeah, there’s a lot of spam, but that holds true for the regular web.  Why turn away good links because of the bad?

Well, they don’t.

Search Engine Land (well, Danny Sullivan) posted this great article today.  ”Both Google and Bing tell me that who you are as a person on Twitter can impact how well a page does in regular web search. Authoritative people on Twitter lend their authority to pages they tweet.”

I always encouraged people to tweet for link love.  Yeah, yeah… I know the links from Twitter are nofollowed, but not always by the tons of Tweet aggregated services; nor are they often nofollowed by the publishers who use your links in their own blog posts.  Now, as it turns out, since Google and Bing get their tweets (and links) straight from Twitter’s feed, the nofollow value isn’t transferred.  In reality they do have some – not a lot – of PR influence.

But aside from PageRank, which is very much less than what it was years ago, I’m happy to see the authority signal continue it’s growth in Google and Bing – this time in the form of something like a “SocialRank” or “HumanRank” or “AuthorRank” score.  Why not just TrustRank?

To quote my colleague Ian, who I ultimately subverted into my way of thinking one beer-fueled night on my soapbox, “Too much of the link graph is in social (and therefore nofollowed) to be ignored.”  Well put, sir.

Post from: Bill Sebald's Greenlane SEO 2.0 Blog

If You’re a Good Tweeter, You’re Helping Pages Rank in Natural Search

Last week at a friend’s party, a drunkard mumbled, “Twitter is for idiots.  Nobody cares what you’re doing!”  Well, I don’t get offended that easily.  But I wasn’t about to bother explaining – he clearly enjoyed his obstinance.  But what I could have told him is Twitter is only what you make of it.  It’s a connecting tool between friends (like a status update on Facebook), or a news aggregator (follow those who post nothing but up to the minute news).  Maybe it’s an entertainment tool?  I know I like to follow people that make me laugh every day.  Maybe it’s a customer service tool (@ComcastCares).  I practically IM my coworkers with DMs using ChromeBird.

Granted, the 24 billion searches are probably from Twitter power users, of which I am one.   I routinely search for content and links via Twitter.  I think Twitter is one of the most useful social properties on the web, hands down.  You get used to the 120 (oops – 140… thanks Jack… I was asleep at the wheel there) characters, I promise.  Besides, we all have short attention spans anyway.

Are you a power user too?  Follow me @bill_sebald

Update:
So the word now is that these searches are inflated.  Apparently sporadic API calls from all the apps (like my ChromeBird) that ping the search command are included in this announced total.  Well, yeah… technically that’s a search, but really Twitter?  A little deceptive to put the number out there without that caveat.  You still have an incredible achievement to be proud of.

Related: Small Business SEO Services

Post from: Bill Sebald's Greenlane SEO 2.0 Blog

The Second Largest Search Engine Is Twitter (and you still don’t get it?)

If you didn’t hear, Bing and Yahoo have merged to a degree. Bing search will begin powering Yahoo.com’s search function. This merge also includes paid search (which is the real monetary motivator for this merger). The transition timelines are now out there.

Apparently it should be done between August and September.

Read more at Search Engine Roundtable.

Post from: Bill Sebald's Greenlane SEO 2.0 Blog

Yahoo Now Testing Bing Search Results

A meta-search engine is a search engine that sends user requests to several other search engines and/or databases and aggregates the results into …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_search_engine

Check Out Surfwax – Meta Search Engine

Post from: Bill Sebald's Greenlane SEO 2.0 Blog

Surfwax – A Meta Engine You Might Like

Yahoo and MSN are very concerned about the future of their properties, despite aggressive roadmap announcements. They’re prime targets for a Cuil-type overtaking.  Google may rule, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I break their mindshare (or mind control? Hmm…) more often in the future.  I’ll happily switch to non-traditional search engines or platform engines – that is, if I find them effective. Unique results speak for themselves.

Here’s a few engines I found – few of which I use (I admit).  But maybe the next winner comes from this list.  What do you think? Shopping, meta, social, and vertical engines abound…

· AOL

· AURA!

· blinkx

· boing

· bookmach.com

· BOXXET

· ChaCha

· ClipBlast!

· Clusty

· collarity

· CometQ

· CONGOO

· Cuil

· del.icio.us

· Digg

· digg labs swarm

· Ditto

· dumbfind

· exalead

· factbites

· fazzle

· Feedster

· FindSounds

· Gigablast

· GoDefy

· goshme

· GoYams

· Grokker

· IceRocket

· KartOO

· Like

· LiveDeal

· liveplasma

· Local.com

· lurpo

· Me.dium

· mnemomap

· Mojeek

· Mooter

· nayio

· Octora

· OiHoi Search

· Pagebull

· PlanetSearch

· pluggd

· PODZINGER

· Previewseek

· Pronto.com

· QTsearch

· Quintura

· Releton

· retrevo gamma

· riya

· SearchMe

· SearchTheWeb2

· sidekiq

· Simply Google

· Singing FISH

· Slideshow

· Slifter

· soople

· Speegle

· Sphider

· SPURL.net

· S R C H R

· SurfWax

· Swoogle

· TagJag!

· thefind.com

· Trexy

· turboscout

· UJIKO

· url.com

· VMGO.com

· Web 2.0

· Webaroo

· WEBBRAIN

· What to RENT?

· whonu?

· WIKIO

· WiseNut

· Yahoo! MINDSET

· Yelp

· yoople

· yubnub

· YuFind

· ZABASEARCH

· zapmeta

· Zippy

· ZUULA

What would you add?

Post from: Bill Sebald's Greenlane SEO 2.0 Blog

Search Engines You Never Knew Existed

Wow. A lot of things happened since this post.  First, I’m no longer married.  And second, Cuil is dead.  Finally went off line at some point in September or October 2010.  I didn’t even notice.

—

My wife IM’d me today and says, “did you hear about the new Google?”.  Seriously.  So Cuil is making the rounds in a big way today, with a flare gun.  I’ve been finding posts on mainstream sites like CNN, and even MSN (Pulitzer would be proud!), it’s one hell of a launch when the headline is Ex-Googlers launch Cuil.  With a 120 billion page index out of the gate,  Cuil (pronounced ‘cool’) is really risking something with this huge grand scale ‘first impression’.  So far, it doesn’t look like the gamble is paying off in the search blogosphere.  Reviews have been poor to lukewarm (my favorite so far being over at Search Engine Land).

I found some bugs.  Not sure if it was due to an influx of new traffic, but a lot of searches didn’t resolve around 11:30am (eastern).  The “About Cuil” link didn’t work, either, but is restored now.

Also, for having more indexed pages than Google, I found it very thin in variety.  In a blended search world, I appreciate this engines layout, but it really does lack media blending.  Pages that seemed to rank well for their ‘relevancy’, as is the selling-point of this engine, didn’t seem to be all that relevant. I do very much like the Explore By Category feature, and look forward to that improving (it was my favorite feature of the SearchMe.com engine, but I’m not sure Cuil is quite as diverse here).

In searching for “Bill Sebald”, I found some pretty unrelated things – some seemed to be tied in through links, but not all.   One listing on the front page pulled up Bill Slawski’s Twitter page.  I’m honored to be mistaken for Bill Slawski (though he may not like it), but this is not giving me the warm and fuzzies about the reliability of this engine.

Cuil stumbles out of the gate, but looks like a potentially strong finisher in a race that has stalled in the last year.  I’m rooting for it. Not sure yet how much human power is in here.  I think there has to be a decent amount of hand-work, which I like.  The ‘user privacy’ angle is pretty impressive, though I wonder how they’re going to monetize this.  I hope they can find a way, so they can improve quickly. And by quickly, I mean this week.

Here are some more screens:

Suggestion functionality is standard.

Explore By Category Can Give Some Options For Savvy Searchers.

Update -

So the Cuil bashing got pretty nasty.  And rightfully so, unfortunately.  But sometimes bad press can be better than no press, and turning this puppy around quicker than a Puff Daddy shooting scandal is always a possibility.  I like this post called Lessons From The Great Cuil Failure.  Some great analysis here!  And I definitley agree – excuses are not a great way to smother this fire.

Post from: Bill Sebald's Greenlane SEO 2.0 Blog

Cuil Stumbles Out Of The Gate