| This 237 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 237 ( 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 ) > > || |
|Well there ever be another monthly update?|
| 6:45 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Is it going to be days, weeks, or months, before the next update? At this point, I'm completely exasperated. I've had to explain the current situation ten different times, to my clients, and I don't even have enough information to explain the situation with a modicum of confidence.
Regardless of what everyone else says, I know that this is affecting the quality of the results which Google is providing to it's users - how could it not, the last deepcrawl results are from months ago. And what percentage of the results are from the deep crawler? 80%? 90%?
Try searching for Today is April 6th 2003 [google.com], this stuff hasn't been updated in months. How could this not affect the quality of user results?
All the work that I've done in the past two months is worthless, right now, and it hurts. I'm just asking for information, so I don't continue to look like a fool.
| 4:31 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Quite frankly, I find it offensive and bordering on flaming when, everytime someone criticizes Google, you accuse them of whining. Wouldn't be much of a forum if we all thought things were just perfect. |
Actually, I use the word "whining" only rarely (and only when it's deserved.) On Webmaster World, the word is most commonly used by those who defend spam and want to stifle any discussion of that potentially embarrassing topic.
Nor have I ever suggested that Google is perfect. How could it be perfect when I dropped from #1 to #6 for an important keyphrase? :-)
I do think it's foolish for Webmasters and SEOs to play Chicken Little ("The sky is falling, the sky is falling!") when:
1) Most users don't have trouble finding what they want, and...
2) Webmaster World members have been warned repeatedly by GoogleGuy that Google's index is going to be in flux for a while.
It's possible that Webmasters and SEOs, especially those of the shadier variety, will have reason to panic over Google's SERPs in the future.
It's even possible, though far less likely, that users will have reason to complain about Google after the current transition is complete.
But it's a bit premature to put on widow's weeds and wail about the death of the Google gravy train or the long-term quality of Google's search results.
| 4:37 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
After reading your examples, I searched on "metropolitan museum of new york" and found the Metropolitan Museum of Art in position #1. I then searched on "discount air fare" and found Bestfares.com in the #1 spot. In both cases, Google's results were right on target.
| 4:43 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>It's possible that Webmasters and SEOs, especially those of the shadier variety, will have reason to panic over Google's SERPs in the future.
ROFL I don't think webmasters "of the shadier variety" will worry much about Google one way or the other. It's all the whitehats that seem to have their undies in a bunch.
Thousands of posts, people claiming Google is broken, the algo is destroyed, doom, destruction, oh why Google, why?
Patent oves, timent canes, intrepidus maneo. ;)
| 5:16 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> In both cases, Google's results were right on target. <<
Oh... everything must be alright then after all.
Come off it. Even Google knows it has problems at present. Pretending the garden is rosey when it isn't doesn't get anyone anywhere.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing the state of play with the index. There are problems and people are simply speculating when they will be resolved. That's natural, especially for people who are hurting, like the guy who started this thread.
As whinners "the word is most commonly used by those who defend spam"... no... it IS a word used frequently for those who see their only route forward to climb up the rankings by attacking competitors. That's very tiresome indeed, and extremly hypocritical (what are those people doing on here if it isn't to learn how to optimize themselves).
| 5:33 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>After reading your examples, I searched on "metropolitan museum of new york" and found the Metropolitan Museum of Art in position #1.
I also checked the search, and in all fairness to members, we need to point out that the example was a purely neutral, hypothetical one, appropriately chosen as an illustration to draw an analogy. It's highly unlikely that the Metropolitan Museum has an SEO posting in this forum whining about being beat out by Britney.
There are occasionally some who do post search terms related to the space they operate in that slip by. Perhaps we should take closer notice and make an effort to eliminate those, lest they set a bad example.
That is, however, clearly not the case in this discussion.
| 5:41 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
--Patent oves, timent canes, intrepidus maneo--
If Google is so broke, why was I able to type in the above phrase and find out what the heck it means since I don't speak latin?
Google just now taught me a phrase of latin on my first search.
Looks like it's working to me!
| 5:45 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<<Perhaps I need to add another form of SEO to one of my foundations - spam. I can't believe I'm thinking of that. I'd say there's plenty wrong with Dominic!>>>
You are already spamming if you are doing SEO. You are complaining that you can not manipulate the results and be found on the first page.
That's exactly what Google try to prevent with this update.
This is the last thing they want, you SEO yourself to the top. Call it spam call it SEO it's all the same.
Look around with all the other search engines, they all want to be able to SEO who ever the want($) to the top. Google is the same thing.
Base on the reaction around here, I think Google is pretty happy with the results. They don't want anybody beside them to SEO their results.
[edited by: powerstar at 5:50 pm (utc) on June 7, 2003]
| 5:45 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google isn't broken, Google just changed a bit, and people fear change.
| 5:49 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I dont think doing spot checks on certain search terms is really going to find out if Google is working effectively or not.
After all latin or the metropolitan museum of New York is not a new product/topic/movie star/musician etc that has come to light in the last few months :)
This thread was not started as a spam thread it was stating that all (most) the work website owners/seos etc have done in the last few months has not been indexed. :(
| 6:08 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Google isn't broken, Google just changed a bit, and people fear change. |
Well, fear? <shrug> There is some inconvenience to folks who updated or created sites in February.
Now if we all owned a large network of sites to do with what we pleased, maybe it wouldn't be much of a big deal. ;)
Many of us simply haven't had the time or resources to build an SEO empire yet.
But since SEO is dead it's all about the copywriting, right? :)
Cum larvis non luctandum.
| 6:22 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> There is some inconvenience to folks who updated or created sites in February
I agree, and I didn't mean to imply that what's happening right now with Google is a good thing, just that there's a need for patience. There's nothing anyone can really do at the moment other than build two or a hundred sites and carry on. ;)
And it's always about the copy. :)
| 6:40 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>always about the copy
DG, while copy is an eternal virtue, the flaw in that logic is that there are those with plenty of good copy that have been getting whupped big time by some of the Bad_Boyz, some of whom believe it's about links.
It's not the all-in-all, but for the most part in some markets they're right on - much to the chagrin of some of the whupped. That could be one of the things Google will be trying to combat, though why should it matter if users are finding what they need?
[edited by: Marcia at 6:46 pm (utc) on June 7, 2003]
| 6:43 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I agree, and I didn't mean to imply that what's happening right now with Google is a good thing, just that there's a need for patience. |
Exactly. How many times has GoogleGuy told us that the current index is a work in progress? He must feel a bit like the recording at my local airport that recites "You are nearing the end of the moving sidewalk" at 30-second intervals. :-)
| 6:49 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Anyone searching for weapons of mass destruction will find them in this 100+ thread.
| 6:52 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
LOL Ranking is about links, links, links.
Selling is about copy, copy, copy.
All the people getting whupped by the bad boys will be filling out those spam reports, I'm sure of it. The bad boyz will take a small hit and move on. Many of the "good guys" that are playing by the rules will get whupped by their own lack of skill, some will win, some will get whupped by the bad boyz.
Rinse, lather, repeat. ;)
| 6:54 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Your are missing the point, again. GoogleGuy is NOT an effective voice for Google corporation to dispense news that it owes webmasters.
OK. Then if GoogleGuy can't tell us his name, Durant, then what is his job? Is it customer service? It is public relations? Who is responsible? You write as if GoogleGuy is Google's representative with the specific job of keeping us aware of changes and potential pitfalls in an accurate and timely manner.
My name is Peter Klein and my job is President of a small business Internet marketing consultancy. Now, if you are a client of mine, you should expect that I will provide accurate and timely information regarding issues that are important to you.
Who at Google provides this service, if NOT GoogleGuy?
| 7:07 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy has clearly stated that he is an employee of Google who posts here on his own time with a two-fold purpose (slightly paraphrased):
1. To help clear up misunderstandings for webmasters.
2. To help make Google as good a search engine as they can be.
If Google were paying GoogleGuy to post here, that would make him a professional forum spammer. ;-)
| 7:16 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If Google were paying GoogleGuy to post here, that would make him a professional forum spammer. ;-) |
Hmmm...maybe you'd better check his posts for hidden text. :-)
| 7:21 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Seattle_SEM, I commiserate with you.
Your current predicament regarding those new clients of yours who are still waiting to get into the Google index reminds me of an old adage:
"The one thing you can count on in this world is change -- the kind in your pocket, and the kind around the corner."
Perhaps if you incorporated this philosophy into your sales presentations, it would make the waiting game a lot easier for you and your new clients.
I have a growing roster of clients all over North America, and I have had some success in educating them about the necessity to focus on the long haul when it comes to a realistic timetable regarding the eventuality of an Internet "payoff".
***I tell my new prospects that there is one steadfast rule when it comes to the Internet: There ARE no rules.
***I tell my new prospects that it could take six months before they see even a WHISPER of activity on their new sites.
***I tell my new prospects that overnight success is a thing of the past in this game, and if they are not with me for the long haul, I see absolutely no point in joining forces. I tell them that I intend to be working with them 10 years from now, and if they aren't going to refer business to me, in a quid pro quo fashion, while I steadily work to make their sites as successful as they possibly can be, there is absolutely no point in moving forward together.
(You might give this last technique a try. It really works. Especially if you incorporate it as part of your close. Wink, wink.)
An ounce of prevention is definitely worth a pound of cure here.
As far as dealing with those pesky new clients of yours who are expecting some action from their sites RIGHT NOW... well... I would send them all an email and explain the current state of affairs over at the Googleplex.
Nobody outside of the 'Plex KNOWS what's going on, because everything is in a constant state of flux, everything is changing, and if your clients try to keep their focus on the long haul, everything will work out just fine...
That's my two cents' worth on the subject anyway, and I hope it helps you out.
[edited by: FleurDeLis at 9:20 pm (utc) on June 7, 2003]
| 7:40 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks, FleurDelis, great post. And welcome to WebmasterWorld.
| 8:41 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Google can not be held responsible for a service that they do not charge for or guarantee to SEOs and webmasters, and upon which some SEOs promise far more to their clients that it ever deserves. |
I agree that google is a great search engine, probably still the best. But the idea that they can't be held responsible for a service they do not "charge" for is hogwash. Internet service is not free. And Google provides it's search results to so many search providers (aol, Yahoo, etc) that they practically have a monopoply. Google makes millions of dollars a year off of their search technology, so they are not providing search results out of the kindness of their own hearts, for free. They are a legitimate business, and ultimately have the search community to answer to.
Right now, Google is just experiencing some growing pains and things will get back to normal. There is a lot of legitimate complaining right now, but we should all just try to relax until next update.
[edited by: crobb305 at 8:48 pm (utc) on June 7, 2003]
| 8:45 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
With all the conspiracy theories and whining, it's actually amazing that GG even posts here.
| 8:46 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A small business owner puts up a website 12 months ago with the help of an industry specific website company that follows Google's 'beware of' advice.
By chance or word of mouth, learns of forums about search engines, internet marketing, etc, and goes online to learn whatever they can. Is told to be patient, don't spam, spend time adding more and more content (information) to benefit the user while also linking to and from other sites and pages that are industry specific.
Over time the pages get indexed. Being #1 is not the expectation. 9 months into this and sees page 1 & 2 results.
11 months late disappears from the index. 1 month later (now) using the same keywords, lo and behold at #4 is a link to a forum thread post with the url in the signature. That is it! Nothing else. No other pages.
This could just as well have happened to Seattle_SEM's client. IMHO, the only answer for Seattle_SEM and others is that Google, at least for the moment, isn't working correctly. Call it broken, call it an algo change, but at least call a spade a spade! Google isn't working like users and web owners have come to expect. This isn't whining, this is reality.
| 9:28 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Google, at least for the moment, isn't working correctly. Call it broken, call it an algo change, but at least call a spade a spade! Google isn't working like users and web owners have come to expect. This isn't whining, this is reality. |
Which users? Which Web owners? I haven't had any trouble finding the things I'm looking for, and my site is doing just fine in Google. Your experience may be different, but whether Google "isn't working like users and web owners have come to expect" depends entirely on who's searching or who's tracking pages in the SERPs. Claiming that Google isn't working is like complaining that the air-traffic control system isn't working because planes are backed up at JFK. That complaint may be valid for people who are stuck at JFK, but it isn't valid for people whose planes are going in and out of PHL or MSP on schedule.
As the bumper sticker in the edited-for-TV version of FORREST GUMP said, " IT HAPPENS." And the " IT" will turn into " inola" when Google gets the current kinks ironed out.
| 9:33 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I take it that's a true story, Kirby. It sounds incredibly frustrating, try to keep up hope for a return.
europeforvisitors, I have to ask... what is "shinola"?
| 9:42 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, I'd say you could look it up in google, but 1/2 the peeps here already believe that and did, and the other 1/2 would simply post miltiple responses on how they can't find it because google's broken, or it's buried way too far below spam, or some other such rot.
So, it's shoe polish, albeit no longer in production.
| 10:21 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Google isn't broken, Google just changed a bit, and people fear change."
This is objectively incorrect, and those that don't "get it" need to understand that this isn't a point of contention, even though they sidetrack discussions with such comments.
The March deepcrawl failed, period. Objective fact. Those who bothered to look could see that a large percentage of backlinks (say 25%) were not showing in places where there was zero sense to them being missed, Google's own directory. In one alphabar category (where the letter categories were all PR5) only eight of the letters showed as backlinks for the parent page. Two-thirds were missed.
You guys have to wake up. You think Google did and then abandoned the April deepcrawl just for fun? You think they spent money just because they have money to burn? You think they reverted back to *February* data because they forgot March data existed?
Ignoring objective reality doesn't make it go away, it just clutters message boards.
If Chris_R wants to say spam is good, fine. If others want to say that results that are based on unproven data, old data, and no spam filters are "good" because users can eventually find *adequate* sites offering what they want, well, that is the low threshold that spammers love.
A lot of us hold Google to a higher standard, which they have earned in the past. Relevant, quality, authoritative results are what we expect of Google.
The Google we have now is so broken that for six weeks they haven't been able to filter out uk.co domains that haven't existed for quite some time now. Again, that is broken by definition.
So please, some extent of "brokeness" must be accepted as an objective fact. They showed the failed deepcrawl for the whole world to see, except those with heads buried in the sand I guess. They still show uk.co domains for the world to see, except those with their heads buried in the sand or in their own sites. The more subjective brokeness in ranking guestbook, doorway page and free for all link sites is something that could be debated, but the sun rises in the east. Accept it.
| 10:27 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>You guys have to wake up
No Steve, you're the one that needs to wake up. Work on your sites, work on your content and forget about what Google is doing right now because there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Typing your fingers to the bone telling God and country and that Google is broken isn't helping you nor is it helping anyone else. Bitching about Google is like bitching about the weather.
Yes, it is fine to make a few points, debate issues, etc. It is not okay to get so wrapped up in something you cannot change that you fail to do anything positive.
| 10:31 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> Bitching about Google is like bitching about the weather. <
Such a simple but true analogy.
BTW........it rained like hell today.
| 10:33 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"It is not okay to get so wrapped up in something you cannot change that you fail to do anything positive."
LOL, who is wrapped up in stuff? Just because your blood vessels start bursting about stuff doesn't mean that is what other people are doing.
Some of us work on our sites every day, adding good content and making them better all the time. If you don't want to do that, or haven't been doing that, fine. If you refuse to understand what is going on fine.
But this is a *Google* forum that exists to discuss *Google News*. What on earth you doing here if not to discuss Google?
Google is the #1 search engine, and discussing what is going on with it is something sensible webmasters do. You can do what you want.
| 10:38 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
europeforvisitors: "Claiming that Google isn't working is like complaining that the air-traffic control system isn't working because planes are backed up at JFK. That complaint may be valid for people who are stuck at JFK..."
I've been stuck at JFK for at least 2 months and it's not working.
| This 237 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 237 ( 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 ) > > |