DISQUS

I agree, Wingnut. You've got to find the right crowd to follow, but then it's like having an extended brain. :)

Thanks, Bob. I don't know James D. Brausch but I guess I owe him one. :)

I assume an advertiser on the second panel is paying a lower PPC so perhaps his ROI is better if ever he is seen.

@Michael - I agree entirely with your sentiment that Google should improve the relevance of the results it shows. I just don't think your knowing whether a specific web page is in the regular index or the supplemental index is going to help you get higher rankings in the SERPs.

@Bill - I agree that people worry, but I don't think they can do much with that concern. Google says it's reduced the significance of whether a web page sits in the regular index or the supplemental index. That's what needed to be done. Changes probably need to be seen on a timescale measured in weeks and months rather than days. Look at results in the next month or two and see whether there is improvement. How do your web pages compare with those that are high in the important keyword searches?

What counts is the relevance of the results? If they are still unsatisfactory in your eyes, then that may be due to the algorithms used. The operational question of whether they hold web pages in two indexes or one may have very little to do with the new ordering of results.

Thanks for that comment, Bill. The .gz version works for me and is recommended by some experts in the field so I don't know why you had a problem with it.

Thanks, Bob, for getting the ball rolling. I don't want to be too confrontational. That's fine for them, but could it be tweaked a little so that it offers some benefits to their 'customers'? That way the slogan can help them to achieve better values for their shareholders.

You're right, Chris, there are two sides to the argument. Neither side is going to go away, I'm sure.

Yes, Elizabeth, you're right .. very much a wannabe. You almost get the impression that growth is happening organically without any master plan.

You're right, Jo. However the One Web principle does require that one URL will deliver that 'same information' to all devices. Just on bandwidth cellphone charges and on limited battery capacity, I think it's better to have several URLs delivering that 'same information'. There's a limit to how far device detection and different style sheets can deliver a technically satisfactory content to different devices from just one URL.

You're right, Joe, big companies have to be extraordinary to escape from the typical assumption that they're entirely out for themselves. If Google was working hard to be a solid "neutral", that would be fine.

I wish I knew. :)

Bena, I'm most please to have you stop by. I'm enjoying what you're coming up with in your blog.

Of course, you're right, Jeff. It's a sad, sad, sad, sad world.

Perhaps at the time of Backrub, Clickfire, before the world became aware that links would be counted as votes, then links would reflect human judgement.

Once Google becomes successful, then cyberspace gets filled up with back links created purely to derail that natural 'voting' process. These back links are fuelled not by human judgement but by human greed.

I'm not sure whether as Michael points out, different data centres may produce different results. In my searches, the site:domain.com/& search always produces the same number of web pages as site:domain.com/ search. I did not look at the ordering of those web pages.

I agree, Michael, but I don't think Google sees how its bottom line will be better off if it goes along with our wishes.

Thanks for the comment, webprofessor. It certainly is the final result that counts. However the % of web pages in the regular index gives a quick alert relative to similar websites if you have a global problem or not.

I think you're spot on with this post. I joined because family members were joining but I find an increasing number of my global market contacts are joining. It doesn't take long to do one or two things each day but it just maintains the contact with others.

When will the powers that be realize that the Internet flattens the landscape. The mountains are not such mountains. So perhaps it's they who must go to Mahomet.

A great post and a great topic. Perhaps I can add a related thought. I found the Business Edge article via Techmeme and now via your blog, Andy. Otherwise I would not have seen it since it does not have a RSS news feed. That's my radar screen on the world. If there isn't a news feed, I am very much less likely to see it. With Google Blogsearch, a blog with a news feed has instant recognition. That's another powerful factor in suggesting a business blog is what every company should have.

It's an excellent point you make, James. Of course we've got to be customer-centric or user-centric. Usability and User tests are just a thin sliver of what is implied by that. Somehow we've got to think ourselves into the mind of that user and design what they're looking for.

Unfortunately so many of these highly technical questions very quickly get into technology and away from users. Technology is clearly stimulating and mind-challenging. What is often not realized is that if you're going for challenge, then delivering satisfactory user experiences is even more challenging.

I think it's going to be a tough challenge to change the world, Darren. Thanks for joining the change team. :)

Thanks for stopping by, James. I don't think customers will accept a minimalist approach. I believe the competitor who offers the best customer service will beat the pants off the competition.

Thanks for those interesting musings, Jeff. I fear that if DMOZ couldn't make it then Mahalo has even less of a chance, so we likely won't have to face the dilemmas you describe.

Thanks for your support, Fred. I've always felt that three is not too many and not too few. :)

Thanks, Christina. .. but as Stephane Boyera points out, it's going to need many powerful agents to get involved to make it happen.