 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-05-18 21:24
Gary van Cott, the proprietor of Van Cott Music Services Inc. http://www.vcisinc.com/, has provoked a lively discussion on the Klarinet list about an apparent change in Google's selection rules that make listings on his site difficult to find. He says that Bing http://www.bing.com/ puts his listings near or at the top, the way they used to appear in Google.
Bill Patry, Google's Senior Copyright Consultant, has replied that there has been no change at Google. Gary replies that hits in Google search results for his small business listings, which had been near the top of Google's results, now appear several pages deep, or not at all.
If you're looking for things available at Gary's site, you'll probably do better to go to the site and use its (rather difficult) search function.
I hate the Bing interface. I use Bing, if at all, through DuckDuckGo https://duckduckgo.com/, which combines hits from several search engines, including Google and Bing, and blocks the garbage. Another possibility is the multi-engine search site Dogpile http://www.dogpile.com.
I'm a very satisfied van Cott customer. For clarinet material, it's my first and usually my last stop.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2013-05-18 22:56
I NEVER use Google as a search engine because of the way they it provides results. (Thanks for the heads up on Gary's situation, Ken.)
I use Copernic Agent, which is free, and searches using multiple search engines, not just one. You can select which search engines it uses, and it provides all search results in one list.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill Patry
Date: 2013-05-19 14:26
What is your problem Ken? I don't care what search engine you use, but can't you at least get the facts correct? Leaving aside the trite fact of not even being able to my title correct, it is simply not true that I said "there has been no change at Google." There are always changes at Google, large and small. Those changes are part of an effort to improve the service. The changes are publicly discussed and widely reported on. If you are interested in the actual facts of these changes, in the present and over history, I suggest you go the leading independent web site, Search Engine land, at searchengineland.com. Education is a liberating experience.
Aside from getting the basic fact on change versus no change wrong, the original post on the Klarinet llst this concerned not Gary, whom we all adore, and whom I give lots of business to, but rather about John Gibson's decision to close music4woodwinds in July. Gary made a comment about how, in his opinion, changes in Google's search engine had affected his business. As a loyal customer of Gary's and as an almost 7 year employee of Google, I was concerned, so I did some empirical research. Here is my Klarinet post about my results:
"Rather than relying on vague comments ("It seems to me," "I think") I decided to actually compare Google search returns to Bing search returns. I used Gary's site because he is the only retailer that has spoken on the thread. I picked bass clarinet music, because that is my instrument. I went to the first 15 entries on Gary's site so that I couldn't be accused of cherry picking. Here is the URL so that anyone else can double check my work: http://www.vcisinc.com/clarinetbassmusic.htm."
"Here are the results. G stands for Google, B stands for Bing. The number after the letter is where the link to Gary's site appears on the search results. Thus, G1 means that a search for the music as available on Gary's site was the first search result returned by Google. B1 means the same thing for Bing. Retailers want to be first or at least on the first page of search results, so the lowest number is the most desirable."
"I did NOT include Gary's name in the search query. The search query was simply the title of the work and the author. Here is the first query: Difficult Passages and Solos for Clarinet and Bass Clarinet Book 1 edited by Alamiro Giampieri."
"Here are the results, in order for the first fifteen entries, which also constitutes the first complete section for bass clarinet music beginning with the first piece of music and ending with the 15th:"
1. G1, B1
2. G1, B1
3. G1, B1
4. G1, B1
5. G2, B3
6. G1, B1
7. G2, B7
8. G1, B1
9. G1, B1
10. G3 (1 and 2 are the original publisher's site), B1
11. G14 (1 is Harry Sparnaay's own website), B not displayed at all on any page
12. G1, B4
13. G1, B2
14. G5, B21
15. G10, B3
"There are two in these 15 where the Bing result was higher than Google's, numbers 10 and 15. In the case of number 10, it is hard to argue that returning the original publisher's site is not a valid and maybe even the best search answer. There are six instances where Google returned a higher result, and in one case, number 11, Bing returned no result for Gary's site. In seven cases, both Google and Bing returned the query as the first result. This is not to say that Gary should or should not be the first result, only that from this sample, that Google returns more favorable results for Gary than Bing."
"There may be other examples where Bing returns more favorable results, and Gary provided me one such example in a separate email. My purpose is not to knock Bing. From this test, Bing does a very good job. From this sample, it is obvious that for Gary, and hopefully for consumers, the two return very similar results."
"I would be happy for others to run similar tests, so that we can evaluate things on the actual data."
OK, that is the end of my post on Klarinet. My point, was forget about what people's vague beliefs are, what do the facts say?
No one else has taken the trouble to do any other test. After this, Gary and I spoke. I offered to, and will, pay to have someone look at his site and make recommendations to try and improve the way in which data is presented. Gary is satisfied with that and as a result, posted on Klarinet that it was time to close the thread. For reasons known only to you, you then decided to post about the issue here and to get the facts wrong.
John Gibson, who got the issue started on Klarinet, said this at the end of his Klarinet posting:
"Per Bill: I think people need to understand that search results are a mix
of things including what sites have been visited the most often, this may
impact rankings for other sites. I think that says a lot to people like me and Gary, Bill. I am a big fan of Google and use it for almost everything. But, the problem small (yea, tiny) businesses have is when you are in a limited niche, the larger, more visited sites get the higher rankings. One way to get around that is to tightly focus your search terms, but really, how many people are truly good at that? I am not at all bitter about closing my music4woodwinds site because it is probably a natural selection of business models going on in the marketplace. I am proud to have accomplished what I did and to have grown the business."
It is easy to be ignorant. It is easy not to understand things. And it is easy to blame others for things you don't understand. John Gibson, to his great credit didn't do this. It takes effort to understand the facts. My problem with your post Ken is that you chose the easy route, and did so without noting the complexities, without noting that Gary and I agreed to tackle them. We are going to do the hard work of understanding things and then improve them. You haven't.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-05-19 15:46
Bill -
So how do you explain Gary's experience -- i.e., that he suddenly found it impossible as a practical matter (i.e., without drilling down through many screens of results) to find hits for his site that had previously appeared near the top?
With your help, Gary may be able to tweak his site to move it up in the results list, but I don't think that the large sites, which now appear at the top, suddenly and unanimously found a way to put themselves at the top.
Finally, remember that I simply said that Gary had evoked a lively discussion, based on his perception (which I'm inclined to accept) that it had become much more difficult for customers to find him using Google. I grant that hard work will be required to understand what happened and then improve them. But I'm not a programmer, and I suggest that I have no responsibility to solve anyone's computer problems.
I take your position seriously. You of all people are in the best position to know. I also think you're going beyond the call of duty to find out what happened and help Gary regain his position near the top. But I think it's undeniable that *something* changed, even if it's purely the result of Google's admirable dedication to improving its analysis engine.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill Patry
Date: 2013-05-19 16:21
Hi Ken:
Thanks for you thoughtful reply. What I was interested in is whether things had changed the way Gary thought they did. And if they did why.
I don't think we know that yet until we do the hard work of looking at actual results, which is why I did a preliminary test, the results of which I copied. Those results belie the idea that large sites always appear first: Gary's site appeared first most of the time. There is no inherent reason Gary or anyone else's site should appear first: neither Google nor any other search engine accepts payment for rankings or favors advertiisers or one company over another.
Rankings are the result of a host of factors, including quality and popularity. To go beyond our beloved area of sheet music, if for example, most people go to site X for lawnmowers and other ranking factors favor rank X, then we as people searching for lawnmowers would want site x displayed first at near the top, even if site x is Sears, and site Y is a much beloved local store. That was John Gibson's point: business models change and sometimes we like those changes and sometimes we don't. Some search engine changes result in higher rankings for some sites and lower for others, or, result in higher rankings for some parts of a site and lower rankings for others, which I suspect but don't know may be the case for Gary. My small test certainly shows that Gary's rankings for the works I tested were fantastic for Gary.
In any event, my point is let's find out what is actually going on and why, rather than relying on vague impressions or biases. We are dealing with a data driven service and it is only understanding the nature of the data that can help us solve problems.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-05-19 21:56
Thanks Bill.
Fairly recently, Gary improved his site search function. Previously, a search for a particular item (for example, the Sutermeister Capriccio for Solo Clarinet in A) took you only to the page of clarinet-alone works where the Sutermeister appeared. Then you had to scroll or search down the alphabetical list. Now, it takes you directly to the hit. Perhaps this change involved the internal workings of his site and brought about his Google problem.
At any rate, thanks again for your dedication and generosity with your time and expertise.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
