Comments on: Blog Search Revisited – Google vs Technorati vs Techmeme

By: Brick Marketing

Brick Marketing — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:09:43 +0000

Technorati has always been our blog search engine of choice. Was not as familiar with the Google Blog Search and are now seeing that Technorati may actually be a better choice anyhow. As Jen said above, it is cool to see that Google really has every avenue covered as far as internet ideas and implementation goes. Guess you can’t expect much less from them!

By: links for 2008-02-17 « CF Bloke blog

links for 2008-02-17 « CF Bloke blog — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:19:40 +0000

[...] Blog Search Revisited – Google vs Technorati vs Techmeme | Andy Beard – Niche Marketing (tags: blogs) [...]

By: Jen, writer MembershipMillionaire.com

Jen, writer MembershipMillionaire.com — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:31:33 +0000

Interesting! I never noticed that Google finally has a blog search. Okay, I basically use Google News and Google Scholar but they must have blinded me from Google Blog. I suppose this means that a great and growing number of credible or popular sources are coming from blogs now. Good for Google! They really know how to move forward over there and create new ideas!

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:58:50 +0000

Technorati is far more accurate reporting links (aka “reactions”) from other blogs. Since WP 2.3 I miss terribly to see Technorati reactions in the Dashboard. Andy, is there a plugin out there to fix it? By “fix it” I mean to show incoming links from Technorati instead of Google Blog Search.

By: Navillus99.blogspot.com

Navillus99.blogspot.com — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:55:43 +0000

I never knew any of this…I appreciate your posting it has been rather helpful

By: Dui

Dui — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:02:41 +0000

I have always just used google blog search. I’m not sure why.

I had no idea that technorati was so much “fresher”. Ten in 10 minutes? That’s surprising.

I knew that keywords in the titles was supreme. It’s nice to hear confirmation of that.

I’m surprised that rss subscribers doesn’t really make a difference.

Thanks for the VERY useful info.

By: Search Engine Land: News About Search Engines & Search Marketing

Search Engine Land: News About Search Engines & Search Marketing — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:02:01 +0000

SearchCap: The Day In Search, February 13, 2008

Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the web….

By: Fire Town

Fire Town — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:50:59 +0000

I hate to say this, but I don’t consider any current blog search engine useful. I may use technorati here and there for the lack of anything better, but the results are still poor.

By: Beautiful Minds

Beautiful Minds — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:22:42 +0000

Thanks for the post and reminds me the importance of title and the other stuffs..

I think the results about a site comes easily in yahoo these days..

By: Mani Karthik

Mani Karthik — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:50:29 +0000

Andy,

In Google blog search, time and freshness seems to one qualifying factor..and the results are updated hourly right? Do you see a pattern while re arranging results?

In Screenshot 4, for “Microsoft Yahoo” search, the 2nd(Andybeard.eu) and third (scripting.com) result is pushed down, while a new entry is made at the top(NYTimes).

What’s interesting is there’s a site “Mavericksatwork” which was in the third position on screenshot 3,being pushed down, while there’s a “new” entry from NY times (result 4 of screenshot 4).

What’s even more interesting is the first result (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com) was indexed 3 hours earlier, while the fourth “duplicate entry” from NYtimes (titled – after rejection Microsoft Yahoo hits a fight) is actually indexed just one hour ago.

So there are two entries from NY times, the one o the top is indexed 4 hours ago, and theres a new entry after 19 hours (as u suggested) which was indexed one hour ago.

I find it confusing. When you say that – when you are selected as relevant, you stay relevant – it doesnt hold true for the new entry (4th position screenshot 4) right? Had he been better in the onsite factors (KW proximity, KW density etc) he could’ve broken into the first position even.

What is your finding on this? (Hope it all makes sense)