Google search results: biases and quirks
Mar. 22nd, 2009 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslI think Google is biased in favor of Wikipedia articles (i.e. they get a higher ranking because of their domain). This is a good thing, except perhaps for the fact that it increases the incentive for interested parties to edit Wikipedia.
Hits from the same domain are usually lumped together. I find this somewhat artificial: I believe in the holy separation of host and content. OTOH/instead, I would like Google to see gustavolacerda.livejournal.com with optimizelife.com as one domain.
Blogs: if I search for things in an LJ entry, Google may return gustavolacerda.livejournal.com, even if the content is long gone. Instead, it could link to the entry directly.
Linking to other search engines: sometimes Google links me to another (crappy) search engine that will try to sell me whatever my query was). Some examples of this are pretty ridiculous and even ungrammatical (something like "buy logistic regression for only 19.99!"). I never understood why Google would link to URLs that are obviously time-wasters.
Hits from the same domain are usually lumped together. I find this somewhat artificial: I believe in the holy separation of host and content. OTOH/instead, I would like Google to see gustavolacerda.livejournal.com with optimizelife.com as one domain.
Blogs: if I search for things in an LJ entry, Google may return gustavolacerda.livejournal.com, even if the content is long gone. Instead, it could link to the entry directly.
Linking to other search engines: sometimes Google links me to another (crappy) search engine that will try to sell me whatever my query was). Some examples of this are pretty ridiculous and even ungrammatical (something like "buy logistic regression for only 19.99!"). I never understood why Google would link to URLs that are obviously time-wasters.