Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010081861 = product of:
  0.020163722 = sum of:
    0.020163722 = product of:
      0.060491167 = sum of:
        0.060491167 = weight(_text_:i in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060491167 = score(doc=3891,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.35726398 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Let us start with your positive experiences with Google. I have known Google longer than most. At Opera, we were the first to add their search into the browser interface, enabling it directly from the search box and the address field. At that time, Google was an up-and-coming geeky company. I remember vividly meeting with Google's co-founder Larry Page, his relaxed dress code and his love for the Danger device, which he played with throughout our meeting. Later, I met with the other co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, and got positive vibes. My first impression of Google was that it was a likeable company. Our cooperation with Google was a good one. Integrating their search into Opera helped us deliver a better service to our users and generated revenue that paid the bills. We helped Google grow, along with others that followed in our footsteps and integrated Google search into their browsers. Then the picture for you and for opera darkened. Yes, then things changed. Google increased their proximity with the Mozilla foundation. They also introduced new services such as Google Docs. These services were great, gained quick popularity, but also exposed the darker side of Google. Not only were these services made to be incompatible with Opera, but also encouraged users to switch their browsers. I brought this up with Sergey Brin, in vain. For millions of Opera users to be able to access these services, we had to hide our browser's identity. The browser sniffing situation only worsened after Google started building their own browser, Chrome. ...
How should Google be regulated? We should limit the amount of information that is being collected. In particular we should look at information that is being collected across sites. It should not be legal to combine data from multiple sites and services. The fact that these sites and services are using the same underlying technology does not change the fact that the user's dealings is with a site at a time and each site should not have the right to share the data with others. I believe this the cornerstone of laws in many countries today, but these laws need to be enforced. Data about us is ours alone and it should not be possible to sell it. We should also limit the ability to target users individually. In the past, ads on sites were ads on sites. You might know what kind of users visited a site and you would place tech ads on tech sites and fashion ads on fashion sites. Now the ads follow you individually. That should be made illegal as it uses data collected from multiple sources and invades our privacy. I also believe there should be regulation as to how location data is used and any information related to our mobile devices. In addition, regulators need to be vigilant as to how companies that have monopoly power use their power. That kind of goes without saying. Companies with monopoly powers should not be able to use those powers when competing in an open market or using their monopoly services to limit competition."

0.0099784555 = product of:
  0.019956911 = sum of:
    0.019956911 = product of:
      0.05987073 = sum of:
        0.05987073 = weight(_text_:i in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05987073 = score(doc=2546,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sometimes I think that us SEOs could be wonderful characters for a Woody Allen movie: We are stressed, nervous, paranoid, we have a tendency for sudden changes of mood...okay, maybe I am exaggerating a little bit, but that's how we tend to (over)react whenever Google announces something. One thing that doesn't help is the lack of clarity coming from Google, which not only never mentions Hummingbird in any official document (for example, in the post of its 15th anniversary), but has also shied away from details of this epochal update in the "off-the-record" declarations of Amit Singhal. In fact, in some ways those statements partly contributed to the confusion. When Google announces an update-especially one like Hummingbird-the best thing to do is to avoid trying to immediately understand what it really is based on intuition alone. It is better to wait until the dust falls to the ground, recover the original documents, examine those related to them (and any variants), take the time to see the update in action, calmly investigate, and then after all that try to find the most plausible answers.

0.009835679 = product of:
  0.019671358 = sum of:
    0.019671358 = product of:
      0.05901407 = sum of:
        0.05901407 = weight(_text_:c in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05901407 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.381109 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008109535 = product of:
  0.01621907 = sum of:
    0.01621907 = product of:
      0.04865721 = sum of:
        0.04865721 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04865721 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.008109535 = product of:
  0.01621907 = sum of:
    0.01621907 = product of:
      0.04865721 = sum of:
        0.04865721 = weight(_text_:22 in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04865721 = score(doc=4996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4996, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4996)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 2.2019 17:22:00

0.0070558335 = product of:
  0.014111667 = sum of:
    0.014111667 = product of:
      0.042335 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 2542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=2542,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2542, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2542)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

If you're reading the Moz blog, then you probably have a decent understanding of Google and its algorithm changes. However, there is probably a good percentage of the Moz audience that is still confused about the effects that Panda, Penguin, and Hummingbird can have on your site. I did write a post last year about the main differences between Penguin and a Manual Unnautral Links Penalty, and if you haven't read that, it'll give you a good primer. The point of this article is to explain very simply what each of these algorithms are meant to do. It is hopefully a good reference that you can point your clients to if you want to explain an algorithm change and not overwhelm them with technical details about 301s, canonicals, crawl errors, and other confusing SEO terminologies.

0.006884975 = product of:
  0.01376995 = sum of:
    0.01376995 = product of:
      0.04130985 = sum of:
        0.04130985 = weight(_text_:c in 1706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04130985 = score(doc=1706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 1706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1706)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0040547675 = product of:
  0.008109535 = sum of:
    0.008109535 = product of:
      0.024328604 = sum of:
        0.024328604 = weight(_text_:22 in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024328604 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2017 10:16:49

0.0039342716 = product of:
  0.007868543 = sum of:
    0.007868543 = product of:
      0.02360563 = sum of:
        0.02360563 = weight(_text_:c in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02360563 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Google hat seine Suchmaschine um eine Datenbank erweitert, die die Suchergebnisse um Fakten zu verschiedensten Objekten und Personen ergänzt. Diese semantische Suchfunktion, die vorerst nur Nutzern in den USA zur Verfügung steht, soll Suchbegriffe inhaltlich erkennen und Zusammenhänge zu anderen Themen herstellen. Damit soll Google noch besser erkennen, wonach die Nutzer suchen und möglichst auch gleich weitere Fragen beantworten. In einem Blogeintrag [http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not.html] erläutert Google-Manager Amit Singhal die neue Funktion, die unter der Bezeichnung "Knowledge Graph" [http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/search/knowledge.html] firmiert und in einem Video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmQl6VGvX-c] vorgestellt wird. Dabei handele es sich um eine große Informationsdatenbank, die derzeit über 500 Millionen Objekte und mehr als 3,5 Milliarden Informationen über die Beziehungen zwischen ihnen enthalte. Darunter fänden sich Sehenswürdigkeiten, berühmte Personen, Städte, Sportmannschaften, Gebäude, Orte, Filme, Himmelsobjekte, Kunstwerke oder Ähnliches. Anhand der Suchanfragen und der Ergebnisse wird die Datenbank immer weiter verbessert, verspricht Google. Dank dieser Neuerung verspricht Google seinen Nutzern drei merkliche Verbesserungen. So könne die Suchmaschine nun besser erkennen, wonach genau gesucht werde, beispielsweise das Gebäude Taj Mahal oder der US-Musiker mit gleichem Namen. Weiterhin könne Google durch den Knowledge Graph wichtige Inhalte besser zusammenfassen, beispielsweise die Lebensdaten einer berühmten Person und ihre Leistungen. Auch bereits getätigte Suchen andere Nutzer könnten künftige Suchergebnisse dadurch beeinflussen. So sei für für Suchende etwa von Interesse, welche Bücher Charles Dickens geschrieben habe. Bei dem Architekten Frank Lloyd Wright sei jedoch weniger die Literatur interessant, als die von ihm gestalteten Gebäude.