| 3:13 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The name of this forum is "WEBMASTERworld.com". Not "GOOGLEUSER.com".
I don't give a *@%# about users. I care about money and client satisfaction that results in more money.
Seattle_SEM: Tell your clients that Google is backed up a few months and may take a couple more to figure out what went wrong. And that Google doesn't bother to explain ANYTHING EVER.
Tactfully spam your way to better results in the meantime. Don't believe the bone-heads here that stress quality content. You already have that. Now, you know that a fair amount of trickery is needed to weather the next Google-Flop.
It's like they forgot who built all those billions of websites.
It just cracks me up that the only way I can compete against my clients biggest competitor and top 100 commerce site is to make some crappy affiliate program that will muck up the Google index and at the same time convolute my client's brand. But, hey! Great way to build back-links!
| 3:28 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I could go on and on, but I think the point is obvious: For most searches and most users, Google is working just fine. |
Yes and no. Yes because most search terms are not targeted by commercial spammers. NASA, UC Berkeley, or even San Francisco Giants and so on are left to rise to top in peace.
On the other hand, as the example of search term God has shown us, it is possible for any site with enough firepower in terms of backlinks etc. to become #1 in almost any search, if it wants to. Unluckily spammers do targeting search terms with maximum revenue potential.
| 3:45 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<This is your problem - not the users. People still find what they are looking for with ranking data that is a couple months old.>>
It is not my problem actually, and the ranking data is from February. I do quite well as my sites are older and the new ones rule freshbot (freshspam).
At what point would you feel that using old data to rank sites does matter to the user whom you speak for?
If it is 10 months later will it matter? Will it ever matter to the users which you know so well, or can the snapshot of the web that they used for ranking the index stay the same forever and not affect the quality of search?
Why did Google ever update their index monthly if backlink data was good for 3-4 months? Why waste the resources, the users don't care?
PLease expalin how you think freshbot might rank sites accuratey, other then for news. I would love to hear this :)
| 4:00 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Yes because most search terms are not targeted by commercial spammers. NASA, UC Berkeley, or even San Francisco Giants and so on are left to rise to top in peace. |
The thing is, there were all sorts of complaints about spam day in and day out on this board long before dominic.
So now, google is setting themselves up to be able to do something about it. Their old system had problems with being able to hook in spam filters. The new system sould be able to handle this much better.
The problem? Google has to port the old filters over to the new system. It takes time. Then they will start adding the new filters.
Google in some sense IS broken. Not like steveb seems to think, but it is. It was intentionally broken because that was the only way that they could meet the needs of the webmasters and users that were complaining about SPAM and slow updates.
If you dig back through the older posts by those that are bitching and moaning the loudest, you will find that many of them were the ones that used to complain the loudest about spam. Well google listened, and they got what they asked for. A system that will do a much better job of filtering spam. They just don't want to wait for the job to finish.
| 4:03 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone noticed how many "new users" have stopped just watching this forum and have started participating?
| 4:31 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If you dig back through the older posts by those that are bitching and moaning the loudest, you will find that many of them were the ones that used to complain the loudest about spam. Well google listened, and they got what they asked for. |
| 8:34 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Well google listened.."
Umm, spam filters haven't been applied. You just get here or something?
We are seeing an index of what Google looks like without the spam filters it had in place, and it's pretty scary.
I'm pretty confident Google will apply some spam filters again.
LOL, "Google listened"... right, their method of "spam filtering" is to have the deepcrawl fail twice in row! Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
| 8:47 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Where do you guys come up with this stuff? |
| 8:54 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 10:04 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Marcia wrote >>It makes a difference to Google, because those type of sites don't make them money.<<
Im not sure what yoy are saying here Marcia. Forgive me if i incorrectly interepreted what you are saying but surely these types of queries are why people go to a search engines. (most research suggests that people use SE's for info rather than commercial uses most of the time). For almost every search Europeforvisitors mentioned, you can have commercial sites that are relevant that can go into adwords, and that's where google makes their money right? The main index attracts them, adwords provides good commercial sites where they can buy in the query area.
I accept that many info quyeries dont have as much potential revenue in Adwords, but they are gradually being utilized, and it is the info seacrhing that brings people to google in the meantime.
| 10:07 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There is too much bitterness in this thread, as always. Very little insight has been offered beyond what has been discussed over and over and over for the past 6 weeks, despite the efforts of Chris_R, et al. Maybe one of the mods should just close it out.
[edited by: crobb305 at 10:11 am (utc) on June 8, 2003]
| 10:09 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe one of the mods should just close it out. |
| 10:15 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe one of the mods should just close it out. |
| 10:21 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes? Let's here it....
| 9:53 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am getting sj's results coming on www2 and www3 today, for several searches. Am I being optimstic, is Google doing something?
| 10:16 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Dont Know Abigail - Latest Fresh results (June 6th) are moving accross datacentres at the moment though :)
| 10:21 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't know either...but I am seeing some major changes coming in www. 2/3...
| 10:26 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a page that has been jumping between being listed at #2 and at #24 in the various Dominic junk. Now on -sj it jumps between those two each time I refresh a page.
| 10:30 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing some June 6 fresh tags on -fi. Finally.
| 10:35 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>>>I am seeing some June 6 fresh tags on -fi. Finally.
To be fair it is only June 7 :) and we did have some fresh pages updated June 5th....
It is interesting to see how quickly they spread between the datacentres on the google-dance tool
| 11:24 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So, your back to watching datacenters again?!?!?
Been there, done that, we all talked about it at length, and now it's time to move on.
| 11:34 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
To answer the original question, yes you are being optimistic. Watching the datacenters at this point will only destroy brain cells.
| 1:41 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You're right - better preserve the few I've got left! :)
| 3:02 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google has a cache of my homepage from April 2nd on all the datacenters I care to check.
* sigh *
| 9:07 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Google has a cache of my homepage from April 2nd on all the datacenters I care to check.
* sigh * "
One of mine too - April 2nd - same day. But that's only a sign that my site isn't worthy enough to be visited more often. Yes, it's top of the keywords I wanted (1st in 600,000) but it's a minority interest topic and so I can't really get many links into it.
So what do I do? I try to make that page interesting enough that people will click on it in Google and come and visit, despite it being old. Once they're on my site, they can have up-to-date information.
Being listed in Google isn't the point, it's getting them to click on you that matters. And a good welcome page doesn't have to be current to draw visitors in...
| 10:30 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For my site, Google has a cache of the 2003-05-07 content that they took on or after 2003-05-11. The content changed a lot before then, but hasn't changed at all since then so I cannot yet tell if Google took a copy since. Anyway it has data that is less than a month old.
| 9:18 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There's been a lot of acrimony about how slow the Dominic update has been. As the morning coffee starts to work, here in the UK, I was trying to put into words something quite simple. Not sure even now I can express it, but it goes a bit like this...
Google has traditionally done monthly updates.
If Google could have updated weekly, would they have done so? I think so.
So the work involved must take getting on for a month to do.
Now GoogleGuy has said there are some big changes coming. It seems clear to me that any extra workload is going to take them longer to do, hence the slip in schedule. You can't run faster than you can run, after all, and asking Google to run a four minute mile in two minutes while carrying three suitcases does seem a little unfair.
I don't think it's anything more complex than that.
It's only the electronic equivalent of having your car serviced in 3 hours and then at one service you ask to have it serviced, valeted, resprayed and a sun-roof fitted, and then expect it to still only take 3 hours.
By the same token, I really can't see that any one part of our community is more disadvantaged than another in terms of freshness of listings.
Isn't the knack of writing good content for Google when there's a delay exactly the same knack as writing good copy for a magazine article that will take 3 months from draft to publication?
I think we've all become just a tiny bit complacent in assuming that our pages will appear world-wide in days.
It's certainly caused me to spend more time writing good copy and less time rushing to "put something up".
Darn - the coffee I referred to was very nice, but it's working it's way through.
| 9:24 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From trying to keep up with all the "Update Dominic" threads I gather that the idea is that Google is changing how it does updates, which involves a major change in how the data is structured. This will then let them do almost continuous updates rather than the monthly ones. The long time for this change over is because of the enormous amount of work involved in doing this.
[well, that's what I think from having tried to keep up]
| 10:59 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Bit of a newbie.
I have done a search on my term at google-dance and I see myself at about 15th on the majority of them but 6th on a couple, how do I tell which way we're heading?
| 3:12 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
They are all live. Google load balances with DNS. You can get results from any of the data centers when searching www, search again and you can results from another data center.
| 12:16 pm on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So, will they ultimately read the same? If not, why are they different?
| This 237 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 237 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 ) > > |