This is hilarious.
I search for “fuji premium plus” glossy longevity on google because i want to find some info on the cheap consumer paper that i’ve been using.
On a small set of 11 results, I look at #4 and find this page which in summary has the right keywords – if you count the ads. There isn’t a cached version of the page either – which is kind of suspicious. The crawled site could have tricked google by feeding it different content, or the site could respond to referrers from google with different content than folks who come in straight, which in fact it does along with a couple of google ads.
It might make sense that google didn’t keep a cached copy of the page because it looks like search results – but why wouldn’t it cache a copy? Maybe because of the meta http-equiv 60 second refresh?
Still, it seems like the game of serving back search content with irrelevant marketing messages to referrer searches has been around a while and it’s easy to check if straight-through-page != referrer-through-page.
I wonder if the reason why these sites aren’t filtered out is that they also tend to be high users of the google’s adwords revenue generating service? And so, relevance in this way, would be an unprofitable move for google.
Related Posts
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 22nd, 2005 at 5:55 am and is filed under Computers.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This is hilarious.
I search for “fuji premium plus” glossy longevity on google because i want to find some info on the cheap consumer paper that i’ve been using.
On a small set of 11 results, I look at #4 and find this page which in summary has the right keywords. There isn’t a cached version of the page either — which is kind of suspicious. The crawled site could have tricked google by feeding it different content, or the site could respond to referrers from google with different content than folks who come in straight, which in fact it does along with a couple of google ads.
It might make sense that google didn’t keep a cached copy of the page because it looks like search results — but why wouldn’t it cache a copy? Maybe because of the meta http-equiv 60 second refresh?
Still, it seems like the game of serving back search content with irrelevant marketing messages to referrer searches has been around a while and it’s easy to check if straight-through-page != referrer-through-page.
I wonder if the reason why these sites aren’t filtered out is that they also tend to be high users of the google’s adwords revenue generating service? And so, relevance in this way, would be an unprofitable move for google.
Related Posts
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 22nd, 2005 at 5:54 am and is filed under Computers.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
