| 9:19 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|There are some quality posts in the thread but there is just too much noise around them. |
I'm with you there. I find the posts trying to define the possible/probable tweaks in the ranking algos very usefull and interesting, but a lot of the posts are useless.
The problem here is more how to define which posts are good and which ones are not. Guess it is more of a self-regulation thing. Everyone should be able to see whether he has something useful to contribute or not. If not, don't post.
| 9:23 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have to disagree.
We're human. We need outlets. The Google updates are a huge issue for many/most of us.
If anything, I'm very pleased to see that post up to 370, because it means that those posts are not spread out over 200 or so individual threads.
I'm sure that if anyone has a real pearl of wisdom or an important question they will post it separately... preferably when the SERPS have stabilised, the excitement has settled a little and they have had the chance to actually confirm/analyse the problem a little.
| 9:39 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I'm sure that if anyone has a real pearl of wisdom or an important question they will post it separately... preferably when the SERPS have stabilised, the excitement has settled a little and they have had the chance to actually confirm/analyse the problem a little. |
That is exactly how it should be done!
If you need an outlet I suggest you take a friend to pub or go to the pub conference ;) However, in order to maintain a quality forum we need minimize the noise.
| 9:44 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think as long as it kept to a few threads, we have the option of not going!
I have a feeling that there has been a major increase in new members, and many new to the game, almost as if another board closed and sent all its members here! To the participants there it can be fun, and i enjoy visiting it personally. It's 95% fun, and 5% useful for sure in that thread, but it lets people let off steam who have tried to optimize for Google. It also shows that there is far too much reliance on google, as people start getting a bit depressed and morbid and start slanging off! Most of us know that being in Google is a long term thing, and an easy way in and staying is getting far less easy. Long term its all about improving your site and making it worthwhile, and G will tend to pick it up. Particpating in that thread allows people to learn from experience, though I do wish some would learn from previous knowledge in the Google knowledgebase first, before asuuming things!
| 9:57 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Maybe we could all agree that posting a "Hurray, great update, my site has moved to No. 1 for all keywords" is worthless for anyone else. But if you post your URL in your user profile and you offer possible explanations why your site is doing so well, then it might be heplful for other members.
| 10:05 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
As a new member with much interest in learning all the big boys algos, I find many of the threads useful - much more useful than the few "pay for techniques" I have tried. In regards to the update thread, I find it pretty entertaining to watch the anxiety of all those type A optimizers. I agree that the most useful thread is that the update is happening.
| 10:08 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
bluemi, we certainly do not encourage people to use their profiles to enable site reviews.
It's pretty obvious that update threads serve more a social purpose than anything else.
With Google dwarfing every other search engine on the web traffic wise the updates are very important points in many members lifes.
And, lets face it: this update ritual is one of the most powerful PR instruments in Google's arsenal.
People just love rituals... ;)
| 10:20 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>I stopped reading the Google update thread a long time ago because it is useless.
And, why is this a problem if you know what the update thread is, and can ignore it and stop reading it?
| 10:24 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am with Torben as far as the utility of Google update threads is concerned. Almost 400 posts in 12 hours makes the thread unreadable.
They should not be forbidden though, they seem to work as a therapy for some of us.
To avoid loosing the (very) few useful posts from that thread, maybe another one, heavily moderated, can be started in 1-2 weeks time, called update findings, where only hard facts (algo changes) would be discussed?
| 10:29 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm with Toben on this... just too many "WhooHoo I've done great" stuff, or the opposite.
It's a shame because there are indeed some good posts in there... analytical posts... the ones that really add value.
Using the keyboard to express emotion is never a great idea. Using it to explore and share theories, to analyse, to seek guidance... much better and far more useful to everyone. I doubt that there's much that can be done to stop the tide it though.
And hey rfgdxm1... your posts certainly fall into the good category!
| 11:12 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>And hey rfgdxm1... your posts certainly fall into the good category!
I realize that analysis is a whole lot better for the general reader instead of "WhooHoo I've done great" stuff, or the opposite. Perhaps the reason from me that you are reading the former is that my Google SERPs just haven't changed that much in the latest update. ;) I'm a bit up from some major keywords, and a bit down for some others. However, nothing that has me totally jumping for joy, or crying in despair. As such, I'm trying to analyze in minute details what exactly is different between this update and the last. It just so happens not only do I know well about my site, but have in the past analyzed other sites that do well on the same keywords to find out what was making them do well. And, looking at the lastest update I can make some good guesses as to what is different in the algo this month. Too early to really say, as the dance isn't yet over. However, at the moment I'd say that either anchor text of inbound links is lower weighted, or PR is now a bit more important, or perhaps both.
| 11:20 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"Maybe we could all agree that posting a "Hurray, great update, my site has moved to No. 1 for all keywords" is worthless for anyone else."
I'd have to agree with that. I really can't be bothered to read the thing and the thread is too large and too populous to stimulate any interesting debate.
I think it should just be locked after the first few posts confirming the update. Any other issues could be brought up in new threads.
I don't think a brand new thread just saying "well I did really well this month, I'm going to sleep" would last long (or that anyone would post it)- so why have a great big chunck of html with hundreds of people saying it.
Fair enough people need to let off steam- but it would be good if it was interesting or insightful steam- and if it was- it would probably merit its own thread...
Just my two cents...
| 11:23 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you don't want to read it don't, why ban it just because you personaly don't like it?
| 11:31 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Google Update Threads are Worthless - agreed
They should be forbidden - disagree strongly
I notice we get a lot of exitable new users around this time of the month, a recognised outlet is both necessary and desirable, IMO.
| 11:32 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Because on Webmasterworld, worthless and/or irrelevant threads are moved or deleted... Thats part of the attraction of coming here and being part of the community here.
| 11:40 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
But are these update threads *totally* worthless and irrelevant? I'd have to think out of hundreds of posts some meaningful content is in them.
| 11:53 am on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yup- but who is going to go through a 380 post thread looking for the speck of gold?
If the thread was locked early then the useful and new information (which is, no doubt, somewhere in there) could be posted in a new thread and more people would see it.
| 12:24 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The point is that the thread as a whole is near to worthless, not every individual post. And the trouble is that no one wants to go through the whole thread for the insights speckled in it.
I second the proposition of having the thread closed after the dance is confirmed. Insights are worth their own threads, whereas nobody (I hope) will start a new thread just to tell us he/she has done great.
| 12:32 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Because on Webmasterworld, worthless and/or irrelevant threads are moved or deleted... Thats part of the attraction of coming here and being part of the community here. |
Whats FOO on this forum for then?
| 12:34 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I disagree with the thought that the google update thread has been useless. I am new to this submitting thing and have spent MANY hours feeling frustrated with no body to share my thoughts with. (it's not like you can go sit in a pub and share your frustrations or joys about the "web world") I think people would look at you cross eyed. hehehe
Anyway, I have appreciated the knowledge that even experienced webmasters encounter the same problems that I do.
Plus, I told my husband that reading these threads is sort of like watching a ball game in overtime.
| 1:04 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Dino- you may have just proved my point there... Foo is where the irrelevant things should be posted so that they don't clog up the other forums...
| 1:23 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It is tempting to post in the google update threads to get my post count up, but i find my time is much better spent quietly analysing.
If others want to get emotional about it, let them. I will be busy tweaking for the next update.
| 1:32 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Complete silence from the mods on this issue?
Edit- here I am, 75 posts, and trying to run the place... I'm going to be quiet now.
| 1:34 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Dino- you may have just proved my point there... Foo is where the irrelevant things should be posted so that they don't clog up the other forums...
And the Google forum is irrelevant to Google updates?
| 1:40 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ok... I wont be quiet...
Why not just announce the update and that would be it? I'm not saying that the google update is irrelevant. I am saying that the detritus that is spawned as a result of the update is mostly irrelevant and no good to anyone.
| 1:56 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The options were like this:
- have 450 threads on the update cluttering the board
- have one thread with 400-500 post on the update.
Personally for the time being I prefer the latter.
Added: Community is most definitely not a place for irrelevant posts. It's the place for members who care for WebmasterWorld to discuss this board. It's an important forum.
| 2:07 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
First off: I never said that Community was a place for irrelevant threads.
Secondly: I don't think there would be 350 irrelevant threads as opposed to one thread with 350 posts- I think that locking the thread early would stop the irrelevant threads alltogether. No one would post "yipeee I'm nr 1 again" in the google forum (at least not with a clear conscience)... And, on the other hand, the Google update thread is not likely to spark any informative debate, because of its size/character.
If it is locked early then I think it would branch off into many interesting threads.
| 2:09 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Its crazy, but i have to agree with Heini's point, that its a necessity for alot of people, and a bit of fun, and record breaking post numbers, though generally a bit junky.
Hence, though i posted to say that i could not see the update, early in the alarm. I've not read it since, and would not entertain the idea of adding another post.
| 2:56 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This sure has been an interesting discussion. I didn't espect that much response :)
This thread has reached 30 post so even though we haven't heard much from the moderators I'm sure that this discussion has shown up on the radar and that they have been observing.
Have a nice week end. I'm off to the pub :)
| This 61 message thread spans 3 pages: 61 (  2 3 ) > > |