To most in the search industry, it is common knowledge that Google values "off-page" optimization (backlinks, in-bound links), while Yahoo seems to prefer on-page optimization (title tags, keyword density). Although there are some indications that Yahoo is placing more value on links.

This topic of search engine preference has been discussed extensively. In this WebProWorld forum thread, a comment about using both engines equally and receiving satisfactory results was made, leading to a discussion about the relevancy of Google's results. Poster Downstrike had these thoughts:

"Time was - and it was quite some time - Google was the best place to do most any search. The kind of people who send spam to our Inboxes quickly realized that sending spam to our search results was even better.

[In this regard,] Google's reaction [has been similar to] email networks trying to filter out virus messages. For several months earlier this year, they were filtering out more legitimate emails with attachments than viruses… If you want to see all of the best results, you'll need to get a second opinion. In your case, it's Yahoo."

Several forum participants share Strike's opinion with comments like; "Google is slowly dropping the ball" and "I agree that Google is not the same it used to be".

Yahoo's results didn't necessarily receive the highest marks either. On ihelpyou, moderator Chrishirst said, "IMO, Yahoo results seem to be more about the $$$ than relevancy and notably the same site doesn't even appear in the first couple of hundred results at Google." If you take a quick scan of the SEO forums, the Yahoo categories are littered with topics like, "I've just lost all my Yahoo listings. Please help." These situations indicate that each engine still has some growing pains to work through.

Which set of results do you find more useful? In the WebProWorld discussion, Venividi summed the state of search results quite nicely, "Normal sites are buried deep beyond the first 6 to 10 pages. Google and Yahoo have become a list of portals and other search engines, which is really a waste of time."

To be fair, Google results aren't the only ones being taken to task. In a post on WebmasterWorld, Isitreal offered a scathing evaluation of search engine users, "Who uses Yahoo/MSN? People who don't change their default browser search settings. IE is set to MSN. Yahoo website users [use Yahoo search], and that portal [has] heavy traffic… People who know nothing about search engines, and just [search with] what they're used to."

Another poster on WebProWorld defends Google, saying, "Until MSN and Yahoo can update their results daily (like Google does) they will not compare to the big G." However, the point made about results updating is disputed in the HighRankings forum, where Semko says, "Yahoo search results are very dynamic, they get updated nearly every second, as tons of info are constantly added to Yahoo." The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in between.

With the increased search engine bot activity Google and Yahoo may be trying to streamline their indexes in order to root out spam and provide more relevant results. In the end, it comes down to preference. The search engine gives you the results you are looking for, no matter your level of experience, is likely to be the one you use.

The question remains, which engine gives you these results?

I'm a hardcore Google fan with no plans to change that. I think that all search engines get spammed and I doubt that there will be an end to that. The bottom line, however, is that it's not much trouble to find what I'm looking for. When it is, I'll look elsewhere.

The size of the problem that SEO and spamming practices create, IMO, depends on what you're searching for. If you search for 'affiliate programs' or 'make money', it's not all that surprising that the first results are full of hyper-optimized sites and that the "normal sites" are buried 6-1o pages down. People trying to sell you stuff have more incentive to improve their rankings than do "normal sites".

Of course, people trying to sell you stuff also have more incentive to make good-looking sites with quality information so that potential customers will want to stay there and maybe come back sometime. I don't know about you, but some of those 'mom and pop' sites (the ones 6 pages down) are really terrible. I don't really want to see them anyway.

In addition, Google changes as the web changes. It shouldn't be what it used to be. If it was, it would list a lot of old sites and dead links. We wouldn't use it anymore because it wouldn't give relevant results. Maybe some of the stuff that used to be on top isn't getting updated anymore. Or perhaps it's just gone. Cut-throat SEO may not be the only reason for change.

In conclusion, I think that Google still gives enough relevant results to make it far better than any other SE. The web is expanding very rapidly and I'm impressed that Google even exists. The fact that it functions very well almost all the time is saying something. It may not be perfect, but what software is? It's certainly more consistent than Windows. As for Yahoo, I just look at what other people are searching for there, but don't search there myself. Same with MSN.

That's about it. Interesting topic you've brought up RS Tom.

I fondly remember the days of Infoseek (now go.com), Altavista, Hotbot, etc. :thumbs_up

The normal life-cycle of a search engine seems to be:
1) A new engine comes out with something new or innovative
2) A flood of "eye-balls" and consumers ensues
3) Webmasters, noticing this, specifically target this engine with "optimized" pages.
4) The quality of the results degrades, ever so slightly, and people begin to search for an alternative.

Google has hung on very tightly to there thrown, and quite well I must add. However, it is in our human nature to find that engine that is "bigger and better." While there has been a push by companies to provide more relevant results, I believe that in the coming months we will see an effort by companies to better organize this data. See IceRocket.comm it's basically other engines' results with a face-lift.

Let us not forget about the new breed of Search Engines: the personalized SEs. New SEs like amazon's A9 are poping out every day offering people search results not only based on what they are searching but also offers results based on things they search before. I believe that amazon's A9 will become a player simply because of Amazon's reach and the options given to A9 users.

It is nice to get lots and lots of search results like in Google but when people have to go 6-10 pages deep to find good content pages, that is a saturation that will have people go to SEs like A9. I truly think the future of search engines will go that way.

Well right now it seems like Yahoo,Msn and Google are the Main Players in traffic and most popular in the Search Engine World. Even Though I really like the Smaller Search Engines like altavista.com as there search results are not full of spam sites and you do not see un-relavent search results where in google, some adult sites are using hidden keywords in there site that has nothing to do with what people are searching for and get into good search results in google and Yahoo, Just an Example why I like the smaller Search engines better sometimes. I think A9 from Amazon will turn out to be a key player in the future just because of Amazon's Popularity. I agree that don't always forget about the smaller engines as they are still sending some traffic to you, (Example: Ask.com) is a interesting search engine. Even Though back on the subject of this thread, I believe Yahoo has a much more relavent and clean search result feature then google based on search engine spammers techniques. However Google does more web searches then yahoo. But I never forget about the Small search engines or other ways that people may not think will work in bringing that traffic.

As far as getting traffic for your site is concerned, I think that it would be unwise to neglect any well recognized search engine.

As for the future of SE's, I think we're going to be seeing a push toward integration and personalization (as Marifer mentioned). Both Microsoft and Yahoo are developing desktop search applications much like the one Google already released as a beta test. If desktop search catches on I think it will trump other search options like A9 (which is powered by Google anyway...).

I think that Tom is right about the rise and fall of search engines. It's all about technology and inovation. In the past, seach engines came up with something cool, produced great results and rose in popularity. Altavista is a good example of that. It became popular because it delivered great results. But then Google came along with better technology, an inovative approach, and a lot more results. When someone comes along with something that beats Google, and has the marketing resources to get their name out, then we'll see changes.

What might be different this time around is that Google has made way more money than any other strictly SE company ever has. Where Altavista began to lag behind, Google has the resources to continue R&D and stay ahead of the game. Instead of someone else replacing Google as the leader, Google may replace Google in the same way that Microsoft does when it releases a new OS.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, my Google toolbar is staying.

I do think Yahoo is more relevant right now as it focuses more on on page factors unlike google. This is what drives me so nuts about google.

Then of course some folks have pages that drive Google nuts and G doesn't know what to make of it, becasue there simply aren't any consistent factors on which to judge the page for placement. Those are the pages that get rolled up in a little ball and tossed in the bucket.