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.
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
-
Searching for Compelling Hard Data on why B2B Websites Should Be Responsive
I am being asked to provide hard data in support the migration to a responsive website for a large B2B website. I have searched for any case studies showing before/after comparisons - no luck. I can easily show: Current data on desktop vs mobile visitors, their bounce rate, pages per visit, etc. Google Analytics Benchmark data - really compelling stuff there! In the past year, 100K visitors have come to the site from mobile devices. GWMTs shows the client not receiving mobile impressions for important keywords, All the close competitors have gone responsive. In APAC regions, mobile is more widely used than in the USA. BUT, I can’t show that making this expensive and time-consuming transition will result in more revenue. The client is a financial services software company, with a 2-3 year sales cycle. Has anyone seen data to support this transition? Thanks everyone! Have a great long weekend.
Algorithm Updates | | RosemaryB0 -
Are localised results affecting search query volumes?
As the questions says. I've had some conversations with colleagues of mine and they definitely feel that search query volumes are being heavily affected by localised results - and even more so recently. So, for instance, you may have a Google UK rank of 3 for a keyword yet be hardly visible in other parts of the UK because of the localised-based results. Thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | Webrevolve0 -
Search Engines Traffic for New Site?
Hi, Can anyone tell me please when a new website starts receiving traffic from the search engines? Regards
Algorithm Updates | | kywebsol0 -
Does the Search Algorithm vary considerably locally?
Hey, i am from india and I just noticed that most of our searches are extremely different to those from the gooogle.com searches. Not some searches. I mean entire layouts. For instance, there were no google places in the search results in India. There was hardly any integration with the G+ for a long time after it launched, even though a large population on G+ was Indian. I got thinking on these lines. Any pointers?
Algorithm Updates | | rahul.bitmesra0 -
Do you think Google is destroying search?
I've seen garbage in google results for some time now, but it seems to be getting worse. I was just searching for a line of text that was in one of our stories from 2009. I just wanted to check that story and I didn't have a direct link. So I did the search and I found one copy of the story, but it wasn't on our site. I knew that it was on the other site as well as ours, because the writer writes for both publications. What I expected to see was the two results, one above the other, depending on which one had more links or better on-page for the query. What I got didn't really surprise me, but I was annoyed. In #1 position was the other site, That was OK by me, but ours wasn't there at all. I'm almost used to that now (not happy about it and trying to change it, but not doing well at all, even after 18 months of trying) What really made me angry was the garbage results that followed. One site, a wordpress blog, has tag pages and category pages being indexed. I didn't count them all but my guess is about 200 results from this blog, one after the other, most of them tag pages, with the same content on every one of them. Then the tag pages stopped and it started with dated archive pages, dozens of them. There were other sites, some with just one entry, some with dozens of tag pages. After that, porn sites, hundreds of them. I got right to the very end - 100 pages of 10 results per page. That blog seems to have done everything wrong, yet it has interesting stats. It is a PR6, yet Alexa ranks it 25,680,321. It has the same text in every headline. Most of the headlines are very short. It has all of the category and tag and archive pages indexed. There is a link to the designer's website on every page. There is a blogroll on every page, with links out to 50 sites. None of the pages appear to have a description. there are dozens of empty H2 tags and the H1 tag is 80% through the document. Yet google lists all of this stuff in the results. I don't remember the last time I saw 100 pages of results, it hasn't happened in a very long time. Is this something new that google is doing? What about the multiple tag and category pages in results - Is this just a special thing google is doing to upset me or are you seeing it too? I did eventually find my page, but not in that list. I found it by using site:mysite.com in the search box.
Algorithm Updates | | loopyal0 -
Keyword search results
Is there any tools that provide information on how many results there are for a given keyword? Also, would this be a good way to do research for which keyword I should optimize my page for google SERP, basically to find a less competitive keyword. My thinking was that if the search results were lower it would be easier to rank for that keyword with SEO.
Algorithm Updates | | bilsonx0 -
Do Google donations to Wikimedia show any bias in search results?
Over the weekend we learned Google co-founder Sergey Brin donated $500,000 to Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia.com. Last year I believe Google donated $2 million to Wikimedia. I now ask, is this suspicious in anyway, seeing that Wikipedia ranks so well in Google for so many terms? There are several blog posts about it online here and there throughout the years, but what does everyone think?
Algorithm Updates | | DanDeceuster0 -
Dramatic drop after rapid rise for new site
just launched a new site edenprairieexperts.com. The site jumped to the first page on yahoo and bing within a couple of days then fell off a cliff and isnt in the top 10 pages. Any reason for this? seems really strange for me. The only think I can think of is I got some really poor quality back links from someone screwing with me. If someone could take a glance at the site or give me some general direction I would appreciate it.
Algorithm Updates | | jjwelu0