| 3:03 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
NickJAllen, your thread has been consolidated into the one main update thread that is taking place. This is a new policy that has been instituted to prevent the board from being flooded with multiple update threads. It can get really out of hand based on previous history.
<edited to reflect that NickJAllen only had one thread going, I worded it incorrectly, sorry!>
[edited by: pageoneresults at 3:28 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2002]
| 3:07 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ouch! But let's see. After months of viewing these pages, postings critical of Google technology have certainly been notable for their absence.
The much feared ro-bot(tom) simply cannot be that sophisticated if it allows the most basic spam through the system.
| 3:08 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 3:11 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
OTOH, it's getting difficult to follow threads if they are move all the time and then disappear from the recent posts page until someone writes a new post.
| 3:15 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> Ouch! But let's see. After months of viewing these pages, postings critical of Google technology have certainly been notable for their absence.
Not at all. I see the exact opposite. There seems to be an almost equal balance of both criticism and kudos. The criticism is really heavy during and just after the dance. Then things go back to normal and in about 3 weeks, the critics arrive again! ;)
| 3:16 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
there are plenty of people complaining about Google - just not as many as those who like it. Many people here have pointed out the problems of Google - random site dropping, undisclosed penalties, ignoring robots.txt, meaningless "descriptions" in the SERPs and so on.
| 3:18 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> move all the time and then disappear from the recent posts page until someone writes a new post.
Any thread move/merge/split is done as quickly as possible with the available board tools (which are jaw-droppers by comparison to other board scripts). That said, we're now managing nearly 200 active threads daily -it happens.
| 3:19 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nick, as PG1 said, your post about the update was tacked onto the end of the update thread. We are doing one update thread per month per user requests. The noise just got out of hand.
As to the pro-this engine or pro-that engine, we just don't do the flame thing. Doesn't matter which member it is, we do not allow personal attacks. Not that you were into that, just that is what can drive that perception. That and the fact we don't do googles spam reporting for them.
SinnerG, we are aware of the situation you talk about. Trying to keep topics consoludated. See other post in a minute in this forum.
| 3:22 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This comes up a lot. I think you will find people on both sides of the aisle.
| 3:24 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I don't understand the reference to flaming, and I don't understand the reference to my multiple threads - I'd only made one posting!
| 3:25 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nick I guess what the mods mean is that your (single) post was about the august dance and thus was better placed into that thread.
| 3:26 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry NickJAllen, I did not post that correctly. What I meant to say was that multiple threads related to the Google Dance are being consolidated into one. Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
| 3:33 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You mentioned that critical comments were a problem. They are not a problem if they are done in a civil manner. We get alot of po'd 1st time posters that come in and flame up a storm. We don't allow obscene language, libelous, or slanderous comments. That sometimes can lead to the perception that we don't want critical comments about some particular search engine.
We want people to enjoy reading here, and flamming or repetitive adult language is not something most people find enjoyable.
| 3:34 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
O.K. - it made passing reference to the dance - but by most people's judgement really wasn't about the dance. And now it is lying hidden in a thread about the dance.
| 3:36 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> And now it is lying hidden in a thread about the dance.
Oh, its not hidden at all. That one thread is probably causing more stress on the board than 4 or 5 pages combined. One of these days Brett will show how many times a thread has been viewed! ;)
You can be assured that your comments are being read by all. Its easier to bookmark one thread than it is to follow 20 or 30 of them relative to the dance.
| 3:37 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, but "Bottom" is not an obscene word, and I haven't flamed at all. What I *have* done is criticise Google - and this appears to have caused some panic and accusations of flaming! And I'm not a first time poster!
Please read my original posting - perfectly harmless!
| 3:54 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|What I *have* done is criticise Google - and this appears to have caused some panic and accusations of flaming! |
NickJAllen - Having been one to criticize the board for having too many Google dance threads going, I can understand why your post was added to a thread where the mods felt it would fit.
If you think there is no criticism of Google allowed here, just do a search for PRO - you will find plenty of unhappy posters. I have posted before that the two most common threads here are "Why I love Google" and "Why I hate Google."
I don't think reasonable criticism of Google or any other entity will result in panic - or censorship - here. If stifling discusssion was Brett's goal, he could have killed this thread :)
Just my thoughts.
| 3:59 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nick, that was not meant at you. That was in general to the issue we are talking about. It's why the pro-this or anti-that threads come up.
| 9:43 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks people, WebmasterWorld has been very patient and professional - and so have I!
(here it comes....)
I agree that there is scattered criticism of Google in these pages, but it tends to be individual rather than generic. e.g. woe stories about PR0s and a few technical concerns.
What I am trying to say is that the GoogleBot appears to be doing a very bad job indeed. The justification for this statement is simple - sites full of the most basic and primitive spam are not being penalised, or even detected by GoogleBot. The spam filtering is bad -that's the thesis, and all the evidence is there. Marcia even suggested in a previous post that it was there for "research" reasons - what - all in my search category!
I have never seen a general complaint about this on these pages (except for a previous posting of my own).
And it must be said that when GoogleGuy makes an appearance the tone of the postings becomes uncomfortably reverential - alike to the appearance of the King himself at an Elvis convention! There is an almost embarrassing fawning surrounding his posting - "Hey GoogleGuy, I got a PR zero and my business is finished. I don't know why, and now I can't afford to feed the kids - BUT WE LOVE YA ANYWAY!"
I've got no bad PRs, and the site is doing fine. But it bugs me that this level of respect is given to an engine which is able to overlook blatant spam. And I *still* don't understand why I haven't seen more complaints of this type on these pages.
| 9:53 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>and now I can't afford to feed the kids
GG is round my place every other weekend :), when we walk in the dining room and there is no food on the table my kids look at *me* with sad eyes, they don't look at GG.
>And I *still* don't understand why I haven't seen more complaints of this type on these pages.
Our dark and dirty secret is, no whineing.
| 9:57 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Because it is the TYPE of spam that is being penalized. Keyword stuffed, hidden text, css tricks are not the problem to Google. Everything they do stems from PageRank. They look for linking anomolies and little else to address spam.
We also don't get into specific "spam site" issues for member protection. If someone comes in and points out your site as spam, how would you react? We can't know who is narking on who, or who's site is who's. Once we get into that, we are into a huge area of privacy concerns. The only thing we CAN do, is ask members to go to Google and use the reporting system they have in place.
<edit> I dropped a "not" in the 2nd sentence</edit>
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 10:20 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2002]
| 10:01 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just stop using Google Nick if you dont like it.
| 10:17 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Brett - that was a fascinating and revealing posting.
Are you're suggesting that link malpractice / PR is what Google really cares about. And that the type of primitive spamming I'm complaining about is overlooked. Why hasn't this important info been posted?
As for the chap who says I should stop using Google: that's a little like suggesting that I stop breathing because I don't like the quality of the atmosphere - an irrational posting.
| 10:23 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Search Quality and Your Feedback [google.com]
And the correct spelling is... Whining
Pronunciation Key (hwn, wn)
v. whined, whin·ing, whines v. intr.
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.
| 10:25 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nick, you might want to take a serious look into the archives here. Use sitesearch, take your time and you will come up with such loads of critical comments, made by newbies and experienced members alike that your complaints will look like childsplay ;)
As to the hidden this and that: it has been explained over and over again that this kind of things mostly do not get caught by any engines, but also is in most cases not what makes the success of sites.
| 10:31 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Edit: we don't do rudeness
Now I'm really worried - can that Google Toolbar I mistakenly installed actually detect that I have a high pitched voice and then pass it on to third parties!
[edited by: NFFC at 10:49 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2002]
| 10:32 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nope, Google doesn't put a real high priority on old school tricks. Most of them don't work. The only ones that do, all involve linking. Hidden links and such are a problem, but one-two here or there - no problem.
As GG himself said, they don't like to penalize individual sites, they want to address the core problem in the whole system. Once you start ear marking specific sites with a red pen, it's a never ending battle. But, if you find and address a linking problem, it's fixed on everything everywhere and you don't have to revisit the issue again and again with each problem site.
Read what I said in the FAQ on spam (that was from two years ago). Basically the same thing as here.
| 10:39 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think I've made a serious point.
Direct me to those postings on this site which have made *general* complaints about overt spamming consistently overlooked by Google, and also to postings which reveal Brett's sentiments about the lack of importance given to these practices and I'll be happy.
I will also provide my full apologies for my ignorance.
It has to be borne in mind though, that the title "Junior Member" on this site is simply a measure of the number of postings on this site -and is not a measure of the experience or expertise of the poster.
Food for thought.
| 10:50 pm on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Direct me to those postings on this site
| This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 (  2 ) > > |