commander viagra en ligne 
viagra contre c a jaculation 
forum viagra 
viagra achat forum 
generique du viagra inde 
achat en ligne viagra 
europe viagra 
cialis remboursement secu 
viagra coût en france 
remede impuissance 
generique sildenafil citrate 
kamagra oral jelly 
viagra belgique ordonnance 
viagra generique en inde 
viagra pour femme 
comprar kamagra oral jellymg viagra faut il une ordonnance vente cialis france kamagra en venezuela prijzen cialis levitra pharmacie cialis generico on line farmacia online cialis kamagra gel kaufen cialis prix france sante viagra cialis enh pas cher ventes cialis andorre viagra pillen shop comprar viagra generico

On-Site Searching Still Stinks

It has been said many times before. Jared Spool said it in 1997. Today 8 years later little have been done to improve them: Site-specific search engines.

If you browse a website chances are that it has its own build-in search engine where you can search its content. But chances also are that you never get any good results when using them. How come? What can be done to improve them?

When referring to a study about site navigation and whether or not users found what they where looking for Jared Spool writes:

Using an on-site search engine actually reduced the chances of success, and the difference was significant. Overall, users found the correct answer in 42% of the tests. When they used an on-site search engine (we did not study Internet search engines), their success rate was only 30%. In tasks where they used only links, however, users succeeded 53% of the time.

Ranking

The main difference between an on-site search engine and search engines for the web is the way they rank the results. Google is very silent about their own ranking algorithm (PageRank) – but it’s no secret that the corner stone of the web (hyperlinks) is quite a big factor in the equation. Google themselves explain it this way:

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves “important” weigh more heavily and help to make other pages “important.”

If you could just do the same with links between the pages locally on your website, you would be on your way. But the reason this works for Google is because the web is so enormous. This is the same reason why a survey covering 10.000+ people gives a clearer and better image of the reality than one that only covers 10. Of course you could just make your own indexing bot whose sole purpose was to traverse the net and log all links pointing to your website. But why waste time, bandwidth and money on this when you can just ask Google?

Asking Google

Google have what they call Google Web API. This is a semi-free Web Service (a thousand free queries allowed per day) you can use in your on-site search engine to tap into Google’s huge databases and use it to search your own site. You can easily limit the Google search to only cover a specific domain by using the “site:” operator. In this example I’m searching the domain justaddwater.dk for the word “Google”.

When doing a search through the API, you can either use the retuned results as they are and just display them (properly formatted of cause). Or you can use the ranking and apply this to your own algorithm.

Of course to be able to use Google like this, all the corners of your site must be reachable to Google’s indexing bot. So you can’t ask Google to find stuff on your intranet or even a password protected forum on your public website – In that case you have to host the indexing and searching technology in-house. If you are a Google fan this is possible to do with their enterprise solutions (we at Capgemini Denmark are currently implementing this solution on www.dk.capgemini.com – so hopefully we can review this later when we have gathered some experience).

Asking MSN Search and Yahoo!

After Microsoft have woken from their great slumber and entered the search engine market they as well have developed a Web Service you can use to access and query MSN Search. I haven’t tested it yet, but you can find more information about it on MSDN.

MSN Search has learned from Google and has also implemented search operators which are an important factor if you want to use it for searching your own site. Even the format is the same – so the “site:” operator can easily be used.

I haven’t been able to find out if Yahoo! supports search operators (it doesn’t seem like it!), but they do have an impressive collection of Web Services. Of interest here is of course their Search Web Service.

What to do?

The message is clear enough. If your search engine is not working, don’t let your users use it. In that case it can do more damage than good. If you want to have an on-site search engine please implement it properly. This means:

  1. Rank the results with the most important once at the top of the page.
  2. Make all your content searchable. Many on-site search engines does not search for example a product catalog because this in many situations is implemented via 3rd party software.
  3. Show matching text snippets with highlighted keywords. If the user can’t see the relevance of the results he or she can’t judge how well a given one matches the query. So do like all the major search engines and show two or three lines of text where the keywords match.
  4. Remember the title-tag. Make sure each page on your website has a proper title! This is the headline that will show up in search results and the first thing the users sees in a result set – very important!
  5. Group the results by category. This is hard (if not impossible) to do by the big internet-wide search engies since they don’t have control over the content. But surveys show that this actually works very well on site specific search engines. One of these is detailed in this PDF by Microsoft Research: Optimizing Search by Showing Results In Context.

Of other important points could be the use of proper meta keywords and maybe also a meta description. But Google does not use any of these when indexing or ranking results though. David Callan from akamarketing.com explains:

I imagine many of you know this already but Google does not use meta tags such as the keywords meta tag or the description meta tag. This is because the text within these tags can’t be seen by visitors to a website. Therefore Google feels these tags will be abused by webmasters placing lots of unrelated words in them in order to get more visitors.

In a controlled environment like a single website you could of cause argue that the level of self discipline is so good that this is not an issue – so maybe you should also consider this?

Final words…

This post does not at all do the subject justice. It even leaves some unanswered questions. This is both because one post is simply too small to cover this subject in depth and also because I want to hear your opinions. So feel free to comment. But just remember this: When developing a new website, you should never let your users depend on a search engine. This is just a sign of bad usability. Make sure that your users easily can find what they are looking for via the normal navigation. If they have to use your search engine it just means that your navigation is flawed.

Technorati tags:

6 Responses to “On-Site Searching Still Stinks”

  1. Piotr Says:

    Another angle on the subject and a little O/T:

    The best site in the world would not need a in-site search engine cause everyone would find what they need right away.

    When you look at the userbility view of things, a search engine should in theory only be used when you dont want your users to find stuff throu the navigation.
    And when looking appart fron VERY BIG sites, when do you do that? Besides.. even on very big sites.. what people search for is the “not-deep-down” things, but still basics like contact, adress, products etc.

    The point is … In-site search engine usage ofte indicates the lack of userfriendlyness of the site, why people tend to “run home to mama” and use the search engine.
    Improving the in-site search engine is solving the symptoms, not the illnes.

    At least that’s my 2 cents….

    But yea, you are right, the in site search engines are pretty bad. For many reasons, mostly because Google or MSN can be improved in one single point, and can do ROI.
    An in-site search engine can not prove its ROI that easy. You can’t sell banner space on your in-site search engine … if you could would you? So what is the point in making it good? It doesn’t sell your products – alt least not directly – and it doesn’t make more ppl come to the site? At least that’s what ppl tend to think.
    This in terms means that you are not motivated to improve it. Unless you have a high standard for your site or other independent reasons come in to play.

    Some times search engines are so bad, I use Google to search on some sites. The syntax is btw, “site:www.yoursite.com Keyword1 keyword2 etc.” in Google….

    But again.. It should not be necessary.

  2. Jesper Rønn-Jensen Says:

    Jared Spool has just published an update to the article you’re referring: “Our Current Thinking on Search

    Our current thinking hasn’t changed much since 1997. Local Search is only necessary if you can’t make the investment in ensuring the right links are on the right pages. Some local search can be very inexpensive (such as tying google.com search into your site as we’ve done on uie.com), so it may be the more cost-effective investment. (Warning: Google works because of some parlor tricks that only succeed because the Internet has billion of links. Networks removed from the Internet, such as an intranet, don’t work so well with Google.)

    We still recommend our clients solve findability issues with better links, not better Search. Better Search will always be fixing the symptoms, not the problem, and is unlikely to ever reach desired goals of success.

  3. Jesper Rønn-Jensen Says:

    Thomas. Very good and indepth article. Just to add a comment about Google PageRank: Brin and Page described their original thoughts in their final thesis (I think) from Stanford.

    From The Anatomy of a Search Engine section 4.5.1

    In order to rank a document with a single word query, Google looks at that document’s hit list for that word. Google considers each hit to be one of several different types (title, anchor, URL, plain text large font, plain text small font, …), each of which has its own type-weight. The type-weights make up a vector indexed by type. Google counts the number of hits of each type in the hit list. Then every count is converted into a count-weight. Count-weights increase linearly with counts at first but quickly taper off so that more than a certain count will not help. We take the dot product of the vector of count-weights with the vector of type-weights to compute an IR score for the document. Finally, the IR score is combined with PageRank to give a final rank to the document.

  4. Avi Rappoport Says:

    While many sites are still in the stone age of site search (e.g. Excite for Webservers or Microsoft Index Server), many others have made significant advances over the last few years. Web SEO has encouraged them to put in unique and descriptive title tags, finally. Most site search offers better relevance including additional weighting for phrase matches and title matches, match terms in context and so on. It’s getting harder and harder for me to find “bad examples” to use in my talks, so I take that as a very good sign.

    Finally, I believe that any site with an a large number of pages — such as a corporate site with products, information and support, or an offroad vehicle parts store — should provide a search option. I find that some people just don’t process links on pages and prefer to search, other people want to skip multiple levels of navigation and go straight to a known item, and yet other people are trying to understand the scope of the site and what content it covers.

    Improving search is great. Insulting search is not necessary.

  5. justaddwater.dk | Live search explained Says:

    [...] Problems here involve that people often misspells words. Google registered 593 ways of spelling Britney Spears, and a study (that we mentioned earlier) showed that 3% of all searches are misspelled. (I wonder if that number has raised since 1997). Jakob Nielsen found that only 51% find what they’re looking for in the first search. [...]