Google vs Other Search Engines

[kevgibbo]

I prefer MSN for SEO reason's, it's much easier and quicker to get a #1 ranking on them, have to work a bit more on Google.

[zee.syed]

Originally Posted by kadirsiva

I prefer MSN than others .

Yeah! MSN is good!

[zee.syed]

For a guy like me Google is impossible to catch up with!! :S

[finety]

I know I will have bad response about this post but I will explainbr
br
I've discovered google at the begining when nobody knows it and I deed
setup all my clients with google as homepage on their browsers.br
Because the default home pages (msn for windows and mac.com for macintosh) was terrible long time to com.br
br
Google was the fastest and provided the best point to start web. More the result was very pertinants and no adds never br
The paradize regarding all other search engines.br
br
But I detect now that google growup more and more and creat a monster that I'm afraid they will loose head.br
br
They have chance for now because new engines doesn't appear with a
total new way and power for please to users but it will I surebr
br
What need this chalanger ?br
br
I think simplicity and rapidity is the key but also a real back
attention for the content because the content of google is down and
down every year I thinkbr
br
This is my opinionbr

[wasim_at_drushti]

span style="font-weight: bold;"MSN/spanbr style="font-weight: bold;"span style="font-weight: bold;"-----------------------/spanbrMSN has got better at crawling, but I still think Yahoo! and Google are much better at crawling. It is best to avoid session IDs, sending bots cookies, or using many variables in the URL strings. MSN is nowhere near as comprehensive as Yahoo! or Google at crawling deeply through large sites like eBay.com or Amazon.com. brbrI think all major search engines consider site authority when evaluating individual pages, but with MSN it seems as though you do not need to build as much site authority as you would to rank well in the other engines. brbrbrI believe MSN might be a bit better than Yahoo! at processing queries for meaning instead of taking them quite so literally, but I do not believe they are as good as Google is at it. brbrDue to MSN's limited crawling history and the web graph being highly polluted before they got into search they are not as good as the other engines at determining age related trust scores. New sites doing general textbook SEO and acquiring a few descriptive inbound links (perhaps even low quality links) can rank well in MSN within a month. brbr

[wasim_at_drushti]

span style="font-weight: bold;"Yahoo!br--------------------------------------------------------------------/spanbrYahoo! is pretty good at crawling sites deeply so long as they have sufficient link popularity to get all their pages indexed. One note of caution is that Yahoo! may not want to deeply index sites with many variables in the URL string, especially since brbrYahoo! already has a boatload of their own content they would like to promote (including verticals like Yahoo! Shopping) brYahoo! offers paid inclusion, which can help Yahoo! increase revenue by charging merchants to index some of their deep database contents. brYou can use Yahoo! Site Explorer to see how well they are indexing your site and which sites link at your site. brbrBeing the #1 content destination site on the web, Yahoo! has a boatload of their own content which they frequently reference in the search results. Since they have so much of their own content and make money from some commercial organic search results it might make sense for them to bias their search results a bit toward commercial websites.brbrUsing descriptive page titles and page content goes a long way in Yahoo!brIn my opinion their results seem to be biased more toward commerce than informational sites, when compared with Google. brbrBeing the largest content site on the web makes Yahoo! run into some inefficiency issues due to being a large internal customer. For example, Yahoo! Shopping was a large link buyer for a period of time while Yahoo! Search pushed that they didn't agree with link buying. Offering paid inclusion and having so much internal content makes it make sense for Yahoo! to have a somewhat commercial bias to their search results. brbrThey believe strongly in the human and social aspects of search, pushing products like Yahoo! Answers and My Yahoo!. brbr

[wasim_at_drushti]

span style="font-weight: bold;"Googlebr/spanspan style="font-weight: bold;"-------------------/spanspan style="font-weight: bold;"-------------------/spanspan style="font-weight: bold;"-------------------/spanspan style="font-weight: bold;"-------------------/spanspan style="font-weight: bold;"-------------------/spanspan style="font-weight: bold;"-------------------/spanbrbrGoogle is much better than Yahoo! or MSN at determining the true
intent of a query and trying to match that instead of doing direct text
matching. Common words like how to may be significantly deweighted
compared to other terms in the search query that provide a better
discrimination value.brIf a phrase is obviously targeted (ie: the exact same phrase is in most of the following location: in most of your inbound links, internal links, at the start of your page title, at the beginning of your first page header, etc.) then Google may filter the document out of the search results for that phrase. Other search engines may have similar algorithms, but if they do those algorithms are not as sophisticated or aggressively deployed as those used by Google. brbrGoogle is scanning millions of books, which should help them create an algorithm that is pretty good at differentiating real text patterns from spammy manipulative text (although I have seen many garbage content cloaked pages ranking well in Google, especially for 3 and 4 word search queries). brbrYou need to write naturally and make your copy look more like a news article than a heavily SEOed page if you want to rank well in Google. Sometimes using less occurrences of the phrase you want to rank for will be better than using more. brbrYou also want to sprinkle modifiers and semantically related text in your pages that you want to rank well in Google. brbrSome of Google's content filters may look at pages on a page by page basis while others may look across a site or a section of a site to see how similar different pages on the same site are. If many pages are exceptionally similar to content on your own site or content on other sites Google may be less willing to crawl those pages and may throw them into their supplemental index. Pages in the supplemental index rarely rank well, since generally they are trusted far less than pages in the regular search index. brbrWhile Google is more efficient at crawling than competing engines, it appears as though with Google's BigDaddy update they are looking at both inbound and outbound link quality to help set crawl priority, crawl depth, and weather or not a site even gets crawled at all. brbrIn the past crawl depth was generally a function of PageRank (PageRank is a measure of link equity - and the more of it you had the better you would get indexed), but now adding in this crawl penalty for having an excessive portion of your inbound or outbound links pointing into low quality parts of the web creates an added cost which makes dealing in spammy low quality links far less appealing for those who want to rank in Google. brbrWhile I mentioned above that Yahoo! seemed to have a bit of a bias toward commercial search results it is also worth noting that Google's organic search results are heavily biased toward informational websites and web pages. brbrGoogle is much better than Yahoo! or MSN at determining the true intent of a query and trying to match that instead of doing direct text matching. Common words like how to may be significantly deweighted compared to other terms in the search query that provide a better discrimination value. br

[peterk]

All of the different search engines have their own advantage, but I think that google is King because it is so easy to use and gives quick and usually reliable results

[Ash_007]

The algorithm used by google is far more complex than the one msn uses,
so it is not easy for a site to get indexed in Google & hence
whatever result we retrieve for our query are far more relevant than
those we retrieve from other search engines .... So I always
favour Google for it's superior quality of search results..!

[goforward]

Of SEO reasons I prefer all other search engines apart of google. They accept the seo influence much faster and it is easier to get good rankings.

Google seems to have a kind of intelligence. Sometimes you only have to take the right link to get a good ranking. I have the theory of a initial link to get good rankings. Because after you have got this really good link other keywords of a domain will also get much better rankings. For google it is not only the link popularity or the page rank apart from other factors. Because I don´t think that print magazines in the web are really search engine optimized. Althoug they have very often goog rankings.... Google SEO`s have to act intelligent. Then they can reduce the time for optimization. Other search engines don´t allow this.

To think about.

greezBRgoforward