On the (rapidly) decreased uselessness of Google Search

You may recall we wrote a story just after the Christmas holidays about the "Increasing Uselessness of Google Search" - well, it got so far as being mentioned on TWIG (where Jeff Jarvis roundly dissed us for not knowing what we were talking about*, despite a lot of agreement by ordinary users that they too had experienced a similar thing). Well, today, Google admitted - in their own roundabout "there was no problem, and here are some changes to fix the non-problem" way, that there was a problem:

First, the "there is no problem" bit - Matt Cutts:

Reading through some of these recent articles, you might ask whether our search quality has gotten worse. The short answer is that according to the evaluation metrics that we’ve refined over more than a decade, Google’s search quality is better than it has ever been in terms of relevance, freshness and comprehensiveness. Today, English-language spam in Google’s results is less than half what it was five years ago, and spam in most other languages is even lower than in English.

Tut - silly users - the algorithm says there is No Problem, so....anyway, then comes the "so now we are fixing the problem that doesn't exist" bit:

As we’ve increased both our size and freshness in recent months, we’ve naturally indexed a lot of good content and some spam as well. To respond to that challenge, we recently launched a redesigned document-level classifier that makes it harder for spammy on-page content to rank highly. The new classifier is better at detecting spam on individual web pages, e.g., repeated spammy words—the sort of phrases you tend to see in junky, automated, self-promoting blog comments. We’ve also radically improved our ability to detect hacked sites, which were a major source of spam in 2010. And we’re evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content. We’ll continue to explore ways to reduce spam, including new ways for users to give more explicit feedback about spammy and low-quality sites.

.......

As “pure webspam” has decreased over time, attention has shifted instead to “content farms,” which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. In 2010, we launched two major algorithmic changes focused on low-quality sites. Nonetheless, we hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality content.

While I hear all this, and am heartened by it, I do believe there is a little bit of trying to tell us that we didn't see what we saw. To reiterate what we observed empirically, in late 2010 and early 2011, if you clicked on something monetisable (like buying a consumer product) you found that most of Page One would lead to sites that basically served more links and Ads, and others that basically copied Wikipedia text and links and Ads, and I wrote the article because my family (and some friends) also remarked on it, and judging by the response a lot of other people noticed it as well. (searching for say "Byzantine Iconoclasts" does not contain spam, but then there is b*gger all money in that, these days anyway). So, I am delighted that these steps are being taken, but I suspect that Google's attention has been refocussed in early 2011 by what was, essentially, a massive user outcry. I have just searched again for the things I was looking for in November/December, and there is a marked improvement today - seeing the camera brand name's website up first again is soooo 2006 :-0
.

So while I am heartened, I am pretty certain these algorithms have mainly come in very late 2010/early 2011, and may I hypothesize that it was mainly due to the user outcry - and I would also hypothesize that this is why I am reading Matt Cutt's post on 21 January 2011, not say 07 January 2011

Also, perish the thought that we may wonder if they may have been making money in this (potentially) symbiotic relationship:

To be crystal clear:

- Google absolutely takes action on sites that violate our quality guidelines regardless of whether they have ads powered by Google;
- Displaying Google ads does not help a site’s rankings in Google; and
- Buying Google ads does not increase a site’s rankings in Google’s search results.

These principles have always applied, but it’s important to affirm they still hold true.

Well, whatever the reason, I am delighted at the changes made so far, and I look forward to proof positive that they are not making money from the spamsites. A rapid deterioration again in a few months would be a "thing that made me go "Ummm".

*In fairness, he then went on a rant about Buzz, which I enjoyed