jump to navigation

A for Apple and only Apple Inc March 8, 2009

Posted by simarprit in : Domain Names, Google, Search Engines, SEO, Uncategorized , 6comments

Working further on understanding Domain Name and its growing importance within Google, I went back to the basics: A for Apple.
When you search for Apple in Google, Google is 100% certain that you only want to know about Apple Inc and their products. So eight of ten results are from http://apple.com – try this http://uurl.in/Apple – the other two results are from Slashdot and Yahoo and both are again about Apple Inc. Now where does this leave the poor Apple, I mean Apple the fruit, I mean Apple the inspirational fruit behind Apple Inc – no where.

So what would have I liked, Google should create, or maybe even now has  “A Conflict Filter”

Conflict Filter can be a web 2.0 creation allowing surfers to suggest serious conflicts, like this one – which dries up all juices from the real apple. This conflict filter can then act as a base for forking and offering a choice, maybe splitting the screen to show two important conflicting terms. The results on Apple Inc can be in one window and the results on Apple the fruit can be in another window and if possible accommodate a third window which covers images of the two conflicting results.

If A is for Apple Inc, O is for anything but Orange the fruit in Google search results. B for BAT throws the first result as BAT.com the British American Tobacco Company website, fortunately the wikipedia result quickly follows at number two and saves Bat the mammal. Wikipedia also comes to the rescue for Cat the cat, but looses first position to ironically Caterpillar, yes it is Caterpillar Inc, which owns the domain cat.com

Google has been taking the challenges head on and I am sure something exciting would cover up for this.

Rediscovering Google February 14, 2009

Posted by simarprit in : Google, Search Engines, SEO , 1 comment so far

This one is a self-assigned project to understand how Google works for a “yet another surfer”

  1. Lovely adaptation for Valentine’s Day – Google logo played around looks good.
  2. Search term: Indian restaurant in San Jose ca
  3. Google Search or I’m Feeling Lucky
  4. I’m Feeling Lucky
  5. Wow – takes me to Yahoo local – http://local.yahoo.com/CA/San+Jose/Food+Dining/Restaurants/Indian+Restaurants
  6. I like what I see. I am done. 10/10
  7. Google Search
  8. I am happy with what I see, Local results and also with the first few listings. No spamming
  9. Results 110 of about 20,800,000 for Indian Restaurant in San Jose ca. is misleading – A higher degree of semantic search deployment may make results and selection more meaningful.
  10. Let me try…
  11. “Indian Restaurant” + “San Jose ca”
  12. Results 110 of about 15,100 for Indian Restaurant” + “San Jose ca.  Great, this is a more realistic number of content pages which can exist for this particular search term
  13. Image search for the term in 12. doesn’t excite me at all. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%22Indian%20Restaurant%22%20%2B%20%22San%20Jose%20ca%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi – maybe the SEOs don’t consider it worthwhile to work on keeping this one structured
  14. Let us opt for  Maps for the term as in 12. Nice, neat, useful  – http://maps.google.com/maps?q=%22Indian%20Restaurant%22%20%2B%20%22San%20Jose%20ca%22&sa=N&hl=en&tab=fl
  15. News – fr the term as in 12. makes me no wiser – http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Indian+Restaurant%22+%2B+%22San+Jose+ca%22&hl=en&sa=N&tab=ln – This is not expected, there should be some news, maybe
  16. 20 adds and no results when you opt for the Shopping tab – http://www.google.com/products?sa=N&tab=nf&q=%22Indian%20Restaurant%22%20%2B%20%22San%20Jose%20ca%22  Is it right?  – Yes and No. Yes because technically one doesn’t go to shop at restaurants. No because there are twenty advertisers showing up.

I am loving it. Would be back with more shortly…