Shared publicly  - 
3
10
Steve Spott's profile photoGreg Gorman's profile photoTom Blue's profile photoJesse Walker's profile photo
11 comments
 
My best guess is that MG Siegler is 1 degree away from nearly everyone in your circles. And somehow, Google’s algorithm is thinking, “If you like these people, and all these people like MG, you’ll like MG.”

But I have to agree. The artificially high ranking of Google+ in search results reeks of self-promotion, and definitely leads one to lose whatever trust you may have had in Google’s algorithm being neutral with respect to content (creator).
 
Yes, I guess they think i will like him for some reason. The thing is that I only have 24 people in my circles total.
 
I saw that (that you had only 24 people in your circles). So, I did a little test. I did have MG in one of my circles, and he showed up in results similar to yours. I then removed him from my circles, and he disappeared from my results (replaced by a Google+ link to Guy Kawasaki).

The point is, they are injecting Google+ into the results, and rather highly into the results, regardless of the relevance of that particular result. The algorithm may go something like this: search Google+ for the same search critieria, and then post the most important person's results.

MG is deemed important because of the high number of his "followers", just as is Guy Kawasaki. But their post may have little to no relevance to the search. That's where it fails.
 
That's interesting, and good news, I hope. I've always been a moderate fan of Google, and now that they're as big as they are (and trying to move as fast as they're trying to move), I expect them to make mistakes and missteps like this one.

The bigger question is, how do they respond to these mistakes?

If they "fix" it, then it gives me even more trust than had they never made the mistake in the first place.

In my opinion, the Google+ results should show up as advertisements, the equivalent of house ads, at least until they can make sure that the results are more relevant than they have been.
 
Yes, that would certainly help.
 
Ack; I wouldn't even mention that sort of thing on here, the 'Google Slap' isn't a myth, even scarier,the penalties range from 6 months to 2 years.
 
I wonder if they are just throwing everything they got against the wall, waiting to see what produces irrelevant results and then sculpting that out of the system. At least that is what I hope they are up to.
 
+Jesse Walker i just posted this on Rand's page too. IMO, it is obvious they don't care about relevancy when it comes to G+. It took FB/Twitter 2 days to build a plugin to make the People/Pages in Google section so much more relevant. Their goal is to get as many people engaged and using it regardless of relevancy as their new ultimate goal is social. http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee-bonuses-to-the-success-of-the-googles-social-strategy-2011-4. Come on bing!
 
Wow! I had no idea. Well that is a pretty convincing case. I guess they figure 90% search marketshare is unassailable. Thanks for the link +Tom Blue I'm reading reading this book right now called "Drive" by Daniel Pink. Great read. Its about how rewards such as Google's often backfire. I wonder if Mr. Page has read it.
 
+Steve Spott - i have zero plans to game google. If I did I wouldn't have told anyone about this... I would have just been trying to add as many people to my circles as possible. only whitehat stuff for me. Build as much good content and get people to link/share it. I just thought people should know. Anyway, how are things with you?
Add a comment...