Is Google filtering content?

[longview]

I have a NOAA reference site I use often because it has good numbers on CO2 and CH4.
NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
I did not have it bookmarked because it was so easy to find, almost always the first on the list if I searched for
"Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".
Today I did the same search I have done a thousand times, but the site did not show up in the google search.
To be fair, I only looked at the first 15 pages of results.
There is nothing controversial about the physical measurements of the CO2 and CH4 levels, I wonder why
it is excluded from the search results?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I have a NOAA reference site I use often because it has good numbers on CO2 and CH4.
NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
I did not have it bookmarked because it was so easy to find, almost always the first on the list if I searched for
"Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".
Today I did the same search I have done a thousand times, but the site did not show up in the google search.
To be fair, I only looked at the first 15 pages of results.
There is nothing controversial about the physical measurements of the CO2 and CH4 levels, I wonder why
it is excluded from the search results?

More ads more money.

The more pages you sort through the more ads you see, the more money Google makes.

Google has gotten quite bad at searching more obscure items than it was 5 years ago. Still better than Bing but no where as good as it was.

Plenty of articles about it and complaints about SEO being the reason

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I have a NOAA reference site I use often because it has good numbers on CO2 and CH4.
NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
I did not have it bookmarked because it was so easy to find, almost always the first on the list if I searched for
"Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".
Today I did the same search I have done a thousand times, but the site did not show up in the google search.
To be fair, I only looked at the first 15 pages of results.
There is nothing controversial about the physical measurements of the CO2 and CH4 levels, I wonder why
it is excluded from the search results?

Interesting. I typed "Trends in CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6" in Google and your link was the very first one to appear. Why would they exclude it from your search but not mine?

 

[longview]

Interesting. I typed "Trends in CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6" in Google and your link was the very first one to appear. Why would they exclude it from your search but not mine?

The query was different, using your query, it came up first also, but I used simple "Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".

 

[Anagram]

The query was different, using your query, it came up first also, but I used simple "Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".

Personally, I copied and pasted "trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide" from your post into google and got the NOAA website as my first result. Have you re-tried the search? I did it on an incognito browser too so presumably there should not have been any algorithm filtering changes.

 

[Napoleon]

I don’t know about this specific case but, yes, companies can and do pay Google for result rankings.

 

[Jason Warfield]

an online platform that filters content!?!?

Oh my stars and garters!

 

[joluoto]

I have a NOAA reference site I use often because it has good numbers on CO2 and CH4.
NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
I did not have it bookmarked because it was so easy to find, almost always the first on the list if I searched for
"Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".
Today I did the same search I have done a thousand times, but the site did not show up in the google search.
To be fair, I only looked at the first 15 pages of results.
There is nothing controversial about the physical measurements of the CO2 and CH4 levels, I wonder why
it is excluded from the search results?

Interesting. I typed "Trends in CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6" in Google and your link was the very first one to appear. Why would they exclude it from your search but not mine?

The answer is algorithms. You do know what algorithms are, right?

 

[Ikari]

I would imagine google filters content and runs its own algorithms to direct advertisements and such.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I have a NOAA reference site I use often because it has good numbers on CO2 and CH4.
NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
I did not have it bookmarked because it was so easy to find, almost always the first on the list if I searched for
"Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".
Today I did the same search I have done a thousand times, but the site did not show up in the google search.
To be fair, I only looked at the first 15 pages of results.
There is nothing controversial about the physical measurements of the CO2 and CH4 levels, I wonder why
it is excluded from the search results?

Money is the reason my friend.

 

[longview]

Money is the reason my friend.

It came back, I think it was a DNS problem, but have no way to be sure.

 

[Revelation]

Money is the reason my friend.

if only. big G has an Agenda that involves more than just money.

this is not just CT, but fact.

come back with more facts about the G and we talk.


blessings.

 

[CLAX1911]

I have a NOAA reference site I use often because it has good numbers on CO2 and CH4.
NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
I did not have it bookmarked because it was so easy to find, almost always the first on the list if I searched for
"Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide".
Today I did the same search I have done a thousand times, but the site did not show up in the google search.
To be fair, I only looked at the first 15 pages of results.
There is nothing controversial about the physical measurements of the CO2 and CH4 levels, I wonder why
it is excluded from the search results?

Rules on my learned back when I was researching metallurgy use dogpile for niche searches like that. I always keep it open on a second browsing tab.