Do you have a search site? Submit it free to the internet's best search industry directory. » Click Here Search Engines Google, Yahoo, MSN... Search Marketing Marketing, Budget, Planning... Pay Per Click Bid, Price, Quality... SEO Companies Optimization, Manage, Company... SEO Tools Track, Search, Create... Analytics Statistics, Counter... » Submit your site for FREE « More... Get Your Site Submitted for Free in the World's Largest B2B Directory! Email Address: * URL: * *Indicates Mandatory Field Terms & Conditions Titan Quest Forum Nintendo Wii Graphics Forum Halo 3 Forum Mac Software

Google Explains Ranking

Singhal writes that Googles ranking system is based on three guiding principles:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

1. Best locally relevant results served globally.
2. Keep it simple. -Thanks for not calling us stupid.-
3. No manual intervention.

Now for the breakdown: -musical break, awesome choreography-

Ahem. Now for the interpretation:

Best locally relevant results served globally.
Despite the fact that Singhal says this one is obvious, to me this is the most oblique of all of the statements here. But yes, apparently he does mean that the best local result should be the best overall result:

We often call this the no query left behind principle. Whenever we return less than ideal results for any query in any language in any country - and we do (search is by no means a solved problem) - we use that as an inspiration for future improvements.

Kay, maybe Im dense, maybe Im just too bounded by the denotations of the words that hes using, but . . . what? What hes saying here sounds like When queries dont return good results, we want to improve. Thats awesome. But what does that have to do with local and global results? Or does he mean that the best local result (results served in other languages/countries, not we would actually consider local searches, I guess) should be as good as the best overall result? That raises a slew of other questions.

Keep it simple.
The first principle is obvious and this one seems obvious. (I think Im in for a headache, especially when he asks Isnt it the desire of all system architects to keep their systems simple? Oh, if only.)

No, really, this is simple:

We work very hard to keep our system simple without compromising on the quality of results. . . . We make about ten ranking changes every week and simplicity is a big consideration in launching every change. Our engineers understand exactly why a page was ranked the way it was for a given query.

But no, they wont tell you if you corner them at a search conference.

No manual intervention.
Singhal gives two reasons for this: first, that any one individual is too subjective to render good, objective results and second:

often a broken query is just a symptom of a potential improvement to be made to our ranking algorithm. Improving the underlying algorithm not only improves that one query, it improves an entire class of queries, and often for all languages.

This does come with a caveat:

I should add, however, that there are clear written policies for websites recommended by Google, and we do take action on sites that are in violation of our policies or for a small number of other reasons (e.g. legal requirements, child porn, viruses/malware, etc).

Singhal promises more fun in a future post, promising to discuss in detail the technologies behind our ranking and show examples of several state-of-the-art ranking techniques in action. Excellent.

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Furl