New Search Engine.... Vanoogle.com
-
I'd like to see google start a new search engine. They might call it Vanoogle.com (Vanilla Google).
This search engine would not be stinked up with social data, freshness inclusions, crap from my last query, skewed based upon my IP, warped because of my browser, targeted because of my cookies, no personalization, no image results, product results, none of that stuff.
Ads are OK if labeled.
I just want a plain vanilla search. Something that I know is "clean".
Just like the good olde days. Millions of people will start using it right away.
Would you use Vanoogle.com?
-
I wonder how much money Google make per user of their search engine. Would you pay for vanoogle.com? Say, US$20 a year? $50? $100?
TV channels without commercials isn't so strange a concept - here in the UK we have the BBC! Though we have to pay a yearly license. Partly as a result of the lack of adverts, I watch more television on the BBC than all other channels combined. The quality is often higher too. The TV license converts to about US$240.
-
This has to be the most entertaining thread I have read since Q&A started!
http://blekko.com/ states right on their home page "the spam free search engine
I don't see any adwords stuff on there. Maybe Blekko will take over the world. Oh wait, facebook search might take over. No wait... Bing is taking over...... No no no, my xBox 360 is taking over! Yeah that's it. My xBox 360. Nothing but Bing.
-
I use Google custom search to filter out a lot of things I do not need or want. You can put as many urls in that you want . Very useful in looking at your competitions SERPS.
-
We currently have a browser session on a local server used for serving search results without any of the cr*p that Google like to push. This gives a completely clean and accurate search results page in any brand of search engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing etc) and type of search engine (web, image, maps etc).
This is mainly controlled via the use of query parameters in the URL string. No results are ever clicked on within the session as to not influence rankings. There is no web history, no personalisation, no geo-targeted within the results.
I hate everything Google have done to make search results more 'personalised' or 'targeted'. And that's not just because I work in the SEO industry either.
Granted, stripping back your search experience to the raw criteria as we have done shouldn't be this difficult and I would certainly be a solid user of Vanoogle but what we've done works for us and ensures we don't see skewed results (when we require).
-
Like SEO Moz has Roger, Bulloogle.com could have this as their mascot http://bit.ly/HUIovX
I think advertising is so overkill and its only getting worse. I really don't like route search engines are taking when showing their SERPs and other content, personally I use google with JavaScript disabled the "page preview" on hover of the link/arrow is useless and really naff.
FYI: The twocents html tag is depreciated and won't help your SERP rankings on bulloogle.com
-
I tested this out myself but couldn't replicate it, however I can imagine it happening - like you and others have said they are testing things all the time.
Maybe they ran out of bananas that day! Just imagine all those years we have spent trying to second guess the algo of Googlebot and the key was a monkey haha.
The only problem with vanilla is that it is easily influenced by other flavours around it don't you think..?
-
Bulloogle.com would definitely have to be a metacrawler - putting emphasis on metatags - oh the good old days haha!
-
I remember what Google was like a few years ago. The SERPs were full of relevant information (in my opinion). Now they have a few relevant at the top and marginally relevant below... and some other things that are tangents.
-
It would also enable us to see how much better these additional factors make the search results with out own eyes and not have to rely on Google's promise that they do. Show us the evidence and let us come to our own conclusions!
At the moment it's a bit like a kid being told to eat their greens...
-
I would most definitely use it! Dare to dream, dare to dream.................
-
When I want to access the "official" site without having to dig through the commercialized sites on the SERPS, I use Bing instead of G. Much more pleased with the results when I'm not searching for "long tail" phrases. Vanoogle (your idea of a toggle to get "pure" results) is a great idea but G wants ALL the ad revenues it can bleed out of a page.
-
For pure results we should have all the sites that match the search term listed in alphabetical order.
-
Thanks for your dad's perspective.
He thinks any weakness in the results returned are because he "must have types the wrong thing."
That is eyeopening!
Experienced people might enjoy the toggle feature you suggest... that will allow them to filter the "fluff" and get pure results.
-
That's all well and good, but how do you get the average man on the street to switch?
For example, my dad has never "chosen" a search engine in his life. He just goes with whatever he browser defaults to / manufacturer set up as a default and failing that "google" because it's the only one he's heard of... He thinks any weakness in the results returned are because he "must have types the wrong thing."
It would be really nice to be freely toggle all the factors your mentioned on/off (and set defaults) so that you could have the search that you wanted.
-
I used to have a "clean machine" that I used to check rankings, never signed in and never clicked anything in the SERPs. That has stopped working because previous searches are stinking up the SERPs.
I want a button to "turn off all bias".
-
Yeah that would be nice, the nearest thing I got to that is going 'incognito' in chrome.
-
It would be nice if they gave you google classic (AKA Vanoogle.com) as an option. That way everyone would be happy.
-
The other 20% with the yellow pages.
No need for vanoogle, why don't you just go back to the very beginning and use http://www.dmoz.org/.
-
Your sites ranking well is the most important criteria for Vanoogle!!
-
I like it. The Faveicons add character. (... and my sites rank well)
-
So, you would use vanoogle for the other 20%?
I think that most people would use it all of the time.... so if 80% of people use it all of the time and the rest use it 20% of the time that would be 84% market share.
-
Nice Post, EGOL. You don't like Google with all the "improvements" - like to I rank 6th on page 1 or 17th, depending on what Google decides to display on the SERPS.
How about DuckDuckGo? They are pretty generic and without personalization.
-
I don't think so EGOL, maybe you are just looking at it from the SEO side of the fence.
When im searching for my own purposes Google 80% of the time delivers everything I want, whether its a map of places to eat in my local city or youtube rich snippets of a band ive heard about.
-
Right! It might replace StumbleUpon.
-
SEOs would like to have it to know "where they really rank".
The average guy would like to have it just to enjoy "crap-free SERPs".
-
Now Bulloogle.com, that is something I can get behind
all BS all the time, you never know what you will get!
-
ha... That's really funny.... and I think you are right!
-
Never Seen BS tags before, is that a way to rank higher in Vanoogle?
Heaven's no!
We will need yet another search engine for that.... Bulloogle.com
Lots of what I write should be indexed there.
-
I was surprised last week when I searched for "georgia" and then searched for "guitars" a moment later and found that google was delivering results contaminated by previous queries. http://www.seomoz.org/q/google-query-contamination
They monkey with the SERPs and don't tell.
So, I agree, sometimes vanilla is the best flavor.
That's why I want Vanoogle.com
-
Never Seen BS tags before, is that a way to rank higher in Vanoogle?
I would not sorry
I am a convert, I like the way search is going. of course there are gonna be bumps along the way, but I think the social integration is a better way to connect people. We have already shown our predisposition to loving this mentality of online communitites, so i think this is just another stepping stone to the new social "It"product.
I also like geolocation, I think as an SEO/Internet Marketer it makes my life more confusing and more confusing to clients/employers, but as a general user I think it is definitely on the right track to helping people get with local resources, as well as brands, which i thinks makes for a more informed consumer.
just my 2 cents
-
yea i'd like to see TV channels with no commercials too.
-
mmmmmmm.... I like Vanilla!!
My life would be complete if Google decided to do that!
-
Vanilla sometimes is the best flavour - I'd definitely give it a go! Here's to making the web a better place Egol.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google Images search traffic and image thumbnail issues
Hi MOZ community! Need a little help with a strange issue we are seeing of late on our project CareerAddict.com. We have seen a sudden and significant drop in image visibility in Search Console from the 27th August onwards. I understand that Google has been updating their filters and other bits in image search, so maybe this could have impacted us? I also noticed that the images which are mapped to our articles are not the full featured article 700px wide images which we provide to Google in the Structured Data. They are instead taking the OG share 450px wide images now on many occasions. You can see this by searching for "careeraddict.com" in images. Any insight or suggestions welcome on both of these. Interested to understand if any other webmasters are experiencing other or similar problems with image visibility in Google also. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | dqmedia0 -
Search traffic plummeting after HTTPS fumble - what to do now?
Hi all, Our website typically gets about 80% of our traffic from organic Google search over thousands of keywords (i.e., no single keyword (or group of) drives a large portion of our traffic). It's a nine year old website, and we have been growing steadily -- including about 30-40% year-over-year growth for the past 9-months. That is, up until Feb 2nd. On February 2nd, we switched to HTTPS. Everything was done per Google's recommendations: pages individually 301'd to HTTPS pages, no security warnings, added the new site in Webmaster Tools, etc. Google started to pick up our new site -- albeit 3 weeks into the transition, traffic was still significantly down. However, the big problem that we discovered was our ad revenues were getting destroyed. We're an ad based business and our CPMs were tanking, some of our ad partners were having problems serving ads, etc. We were losing a lot of money. So, we made the decision to reverse the HTTPS change and go back to HTTP. That was on Feb 22nd. Our traffic started to recover, and our ad rates did recover. However, 2-weeks after switching back -- March 8 -- our traffic started to fall and has continued to do so. Our traffic is now half of what it was a year ago, and only 1/3 of what it was before we made any changes. I am totally at a loss for what to do. I have spent endless hours digging through Webmaster Tools with no real insights. Here's the most I've been able to glean: Google picked up the new HTTPS site a lot faster than it has reverted back to the HTTP. Particularly for AMP pages. We had about 2,000 indexed AMP pages, which were quickly picked up when we switched to HTTPS, but since changing back to HTTP Google has been slow to re-index the HTTP. Only 935 AMP indexed pages now. According to Webmaster Tools, our overall ranking position has not been affected (the overall average). However, in a sampling of keywords I notice that a number of keywords seem to have been dropped completely from ranking, while others show the same rank position but Google seems to only be showing us in the results intermittently -- e.g., rank is unchanged, but impressions and clicks are much lower. I do not know what to do at this point, and sadly, I'm starting to get desperate for some help. I feel like all the hard work of almost a decade is slipping away and I have no idea how to change course. I've done absolutely everything I can think of from a technical standpoint. Am I being penalized for abandoning the switch to HTTPS? Should I now try and reverse course again, and switch BACK to HTTPS? Is this a temporary bobble that Google's algo will 'forget'? It's a super high quality website with long, unique, detailed articles. Not spammy and we have never had a manual action against us. I don't know what to do. Please help! Here's a link to the website. Thank you in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | tustind0 -
Category Containing a Product searched shows up higher in google then the product page itself?
Hello Moz Wizards, We have recently launched a new eCommerce website www.memoky.com and think we did a pretty good job with the markup structure for feeding the hungry google bot all information available about a the products. However google doesn't like us very much : ( It seems every time you google a product that we carry; the category pages that contain that product will show up, but the product page itself does not. Below are two examples, however this seems to be site-wide which makes me feel like there is an underlying issue that we are missing. Examples
Algorithm Updates | | Memoky
when searched for "Eduardo floor lamp - matt black/matt yellow shade"
Shows ups - http://www.memoky.com/lighting/floor-lamps.html
Does not - http://www.memoky.com/eduardo-floor-lamp-matt-black-matt-yellow-shade.html when searched for "Derrick arm chair - white leather/ walnut"
Shows ups - http://www.memoky.com/living/lounge-chairs.html_
Does not - http://www.memoky.com/derrick-arm-chair-white-leather.html_ that is the pattern for almost all the products on this site. Any thoughts on why this could be the case?0 -
New TLDs
Hiya Moz, So the new TLD domains have been out for a little while now but I've yet to see them ranking or even seen them in Google etc. I was wondering if anyone else has or has had any luck with them? I would also welcome thoughts on the new TLDs. if you have no idea what I'm on about please take a look here - http://uk.godaddy.com/tlds/gtld.aspx or http://moz.com/blog/next-domain-gold-rush Thanks Moz
Algorithm Updates | | GPainter0 -
Our organic search traffic went flat for 2 weeks Oct 2 - Oct 17\. It has since resumed to more normal numbers. Anyone have any idea why this would happen?
Does anyone have any insight as to why our organic search traffic would go to nearly nothing for roughly a 2 week span Oct 2 - Oct 17th? Our regular traffic remained fairly consistent so we were still being indexed. It has now resumed to more normal numbers but I cannot think of anything we did that would make this happen? We did make a 302 switch to be a 301 permanent redirect on our site in early August but that is all I can think of? Any insight or help would be appreciated!
Algorithm Updates | | mwuest0 -
Content, for the sake of the search engines
So we all know the importance of quality content for SEO; providing content for the user as opposed to the search engines. It used to be that copyrighting for SEO was treading the line between readability and keyword density, which is obviously no longer the case. So, my question is this, for a website which doesn't require a great deal of content to be successful and to fullfil the needs of the user, should we still be creating relavent content for the sake of SEO? For example, should I be creating content which is crawlable but may not actually be needed / accessed by the user, to help improve rankings? Food for thought 🙂
Algorithm Updates | | underscorelive0 -
How come google image search doesn't link to the right page?
For one site I work with the images link to the home page of the site rather than the page the image lives on. I think this is hurting my bounce rate quite a bit. Thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | NetvantageMarketing0 -
Will Ranking Reports be Affected with the new Google Changes?
For example: Raven stopped use of scraped Google, SEMRush data on Jan. 2 Raven stopped offering unauthorized Google SERP rankings and keyword data (a.k.a. scraped Google data) on Jan. 2, 2013. The change included the retirement of the SERP Tracker and the elimination of SEMRush data from the Raven platform. Raven has released new SEO performance reports that make it easy to show clients the impact of campaigns to improve organic traffic. Raven will continue to upgrade reports through the year. We thank the many customers who continue their business with Raven. More details about the SEO performance reports and other recent releases are available Is SEOMoz protected in some way? Or will you have to give up rankings reports too?
Algorithm Updates | | MSWD0