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
-
Are you seeing 404's from utililab.mysearchguardian.com?
I've been noticing a lot of 404's popping up in my Google Webmaster accounts coming from utililab.mysearchguardian.com. Utililab itself seems to be some sort of malware, but why is Google indexing it and sending 404's?
Algorithm Updates | | EthanThompson0 -
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 -
How Google's "Temporarily remove URLs" in search console works?
Hi, We have created new sub-domain with new content which we want to highlight for users. But our old content from different sub-domain is making top on google results with reputation. How can we highlight new content and suppress old sub-domain in results? Many pages have related title tags and other information in similar. We are planing to hide URLs from Google search console, so slowly new pages will attain the traffic. How does it works?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
QA for Sitelinks Search Box
hi all, I have added the suggested code to my homepage as follows: This was added 10 days ago. I continue to see on Google SERPs a search box sitelink, but it produces a page of results on a secondary SERP page for my site instead of bringing people directly into my site to the search result page relative to their query. Is there a time lag from the time the code was implemented to when it is functional on Google? Is there any way to QA the code to ensure it works correctly and if Google has yet to include it in their latest cache?
Algorithm Updates | | dsinger0 -
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 -
SERP's & Search Engine Differences
Hey, I recently modified my pages to conform more closely to the "A" page rankings for MOZ's on-page report card but saw declines in my keyword rankings. They keywords in question appear in my title tag, description, one image alt tag, either an h1 or h2 tag, and 4 times throughout the text of the document. I don't think MOZ would recommend these changes if it was seen as stuffing - is there any other reason why my rankings might have dropped by 1-4 positions? Also, does anyone know of a good article/book for Yahoo/Bing SEO? My Yahoo & Bing rankings are far below Google's in most cases. Any help would be appreciated! -Michael
Algorithm Updates | | Stew2220 -
Location and how it affects search results
I'm ranking in the top 3 for a keyword in Google but when I change my location to a state of city I'm at the bottom of the page. Can anyone help? I made sure that the state I want to rank for is both in my title and body. The page has been up for almost a year and is a PR3. It is not my home page but a sup page under "areas we serve." I'm looking for someone who can explain how I can optimize for a state or city. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | donnye0 -
Local SEO url format & structure: ".com/albany-tummy-tuck" vs ".com/tummy-tuck" vs ".com/procedures/tummy-tuck-albany-ny" etc."
We have a relatively new site (re: August '10) for a plastic surgeon who opened his own solo practice after 25+ years with a large group. Our current url structure goes 3 folders deep to arrive at our tummy tuck procedure landing page. The site architecture is solid and each plastic surgery procedure page (e.g. rhinoplasty, liposuction, facelift, etc.) is no more than a couple clicks away. So far, so good - but given all that is known about local seo (which is a very different beast than national seo) quite a bit of on-page/architecture work can still be done to further improve our local rank. So here a a couple big questions facing us at present: First, regarding format, is it a given that using geo keywords within the url indispustibly and dramatically impacts a site's local rank for the better (e.g. the #2 result for "tummy tuck" and its SHENANIGANS level use of "NYC", "Manhattan", "newyorkcity" etc.)? Assuming that it is, would we be better off updating our cosmetic procedure landing page urls to "/albany-tummy-tuck" or "/albany-ny-tummy-tuck" or "/tummy-tuck-albany" etc.? Second, regarding structure, would we be better off locating every procedure page within the root directory (re: "/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/") or within each procedure's proper parent category (re: "/facial-rejuvenation/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/")? From what I've read within the SEOmoz Q&A, adding that parent category (e.g. "/breast-enhancement/breast-lift") is better than having every link in the root (i.e. completely flat). Third, how long before google updates their algorithm so that geo-optimized urls like http://www.kolkermd.com/newyorkplasticsurgeon/tummytucknewyorkcity.htm don't beat other sites who do not optimize so aggressively or local? Fourth, assuming that each cosmetic procedure page will eventually have strong link profiles (via diligent, long term link building efforts), is it possible that geo-targeted urls will negatively impact our ability to rank for regional or less geo-specific searches? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | WDeLuca0