| 6:28 am on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Googleguy, don't get lost in the gap though.
| 6:55 am on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Would you like to answer them in another thread?
We originally collected a few hundred questions for GoogleGuy. Every variation of the questions you want answered were included in the original list. he graciously agreed to answer some of the questions we collected under the condition that everyone understands that he can't/won't answer them all.
He has also mentioned that he would be willing to do this again in the future. (after the next update).
So until that time, we are going to refrain from bombarding him with additional lists of questions.
| 7:04 am on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the answers, googleguy. Wish there were more of them, though.
I personally believe googleguy is someone rather high up in the googleplex hierarchy, and it's really great to have him here, but do we have to keep calling him 'gracious' and 'kind'? No offense meant, it's a genuine question - it either is ultra-formal language, or a little like how you address the Bishops! :)
Perhaps we should stop embarassing googleguy, what say?
| 8:40 am on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|After the next update, I'd also like to get people's feedback(the constructive kind to make sure we're doing everything we can to give the best search results. |
You know when you start talking about the update in this fashion.... (Runs to his favorite dance tool.);)
| 2:47 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Crivens, indeed, GoogleGuy!
I've read with pleasure the clear, focused answers GG has given to some good questions. Thanks to him for that - it has helped us all, and I certainly gained a lot of new information.
Good, grown-up communication.
Perhaps we've all learnt something from the Dominic debacle, and we'll now hear fewer of those famously Delphic pronouncements ("..more than weeks and less than months.." etc, etc etc), and more of this sort of helpful dialogue...
WebGuerrilla tells us that GG "graciously agreed to answer some of the questions".
Princesses and Countesses "graciously" agree things. The rest of us - and GG - get along just fine with plain, honest speaking.
It would be a shame if any of the participants in this newsgroup felt that openly-expressed disagreement was in some way impolite, or that GG would walk away from the group if members spoke their minds.
| 2:56 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Okay, it's late and I'm gonna surf around the rest of the web for a while before heading to bed. |
Er, don't you have spiders to do that for you?
Thanks once again GG for your excellent contribution.
| 5:07 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"It definitely makes me want to do the Q&A thing again in a while."
Would that be " more then weeks, less then months":). By the way GoogoeGuy, are we on "step 2" still of this new google dancing, data swapping thingy? And if so, can we expect the next step to take as long? Thanks?
| 5:30 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It would be a shame if any of the participants in this newsgroup felt that openly-expressed disagreement was in some way impolite, or that GG would walk away from the group if members spoke their minds. |
If Googleguy was gonna to walk away from this group if members spoke their minds, I think he'd probably be looong gone by now.
I agree that he has been gracious and kind. And I think it would be great if we could be as gracious and kind when we express disagreement with him.
|Er, don't you have spiders to do that for you? |
Good one, EBear. :)
| 5:51 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GG said there will be another update. After the update occurs you can expect the newer data/filters to be applied. A ways back when he mentioned the steps many were confused - thinking that much would be done in between updates. Recently, however, GG has made things much more clear.
So, expect another "traditional" update to come within the next few weeks (hopefully sooner).
| 6:28 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy's aim is not to give webmasterworld members a competetive advantage. Nonetheless, I feel he did.
1. He implied that theming is not yet a part of the Google algorithm. This has been a hotly debated topic.
2. He told us that Google intends to keep their relationship with DMOZ. For sites that wish to get into the Google Directory, this is quite important.
3. He told us that freshbot is now doing the job of deepbot. This let's people know that if they aren't getting hit by freshbot, they are in trouble and need to do something about it. In the past many pages were not visited by fresh but were deepcrawled in time. This appears to no longer be the case.
4. He told us to expect another traditional update and they are aiming for June. Many have thought that there was an end to updates and we would be moving to a fluid index. This helps SEO's manage their client's expectations as well as business' plan their strategy.
5. He told us a lot about penalties that isn't clearly spelled out in the Google guidelines. Anything a webmaster can do to avoid the Google death penalty is quite helpful.
6. He told us that the recent drop of index pages is a glitch that should be fixed in the next update. No need to start optimizing only for your interior pages.
This is just a short list.
I get the distinct feeling that people want GoogleGuy to come out and say, "joe webmaster, this is how you get to be #1". It ain't gonna happen.
I'm trying to recall a time that a representative from any major SE has come into a public forum and gave information this useful to it's members. Can't do it.
[edited by: Marcia at 11:07 pm (utc) on June 14, 2003]
| 6:34 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I for one, was relieved to hear this:
|Q: For many sites, the index page seems to be buried on search terms for which logic determines they should rank highly. Is this a transient feature, like some of the other recent issues, resulting from the changeover to newer data? Or is it due to a more fundamental algorithmic change? |
A: I donít think itís a fundamental algorithmic change. I donít recall hearing about any changes would bring about long-term behavior like this. Iím pretty sure that itís more of a transient issue, and I wouldnít be concerned about this.
| 6:36 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Best summation I've read yet, thanks. :)
| 9:27 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks GoogleGuy for all your answers.
Quick follow-up question to cloaking and session-id's:
Would serving content with session-id's removed from URLs for UA Googlebot, while keeping session-id's in URLs for human browsers be considered cloaking?
| 9:51 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|He implied that theming is not yet a part of the Google algorithm. This has been a hotly debated topic. |
He certainly did, but google inc seems to suggest they do - I guess it depends on what your definition of themeing is.
"Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query. [emphasis added]"
That seems like themeing to me, but I guess googleguy has a different - and probably better definition.
| 10:13 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"And the content of the pages linking to it" could simply refer to anchor text.
| 10:29 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 11:09 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For those of us that follow these topics very closely sometimes you have to read between the lines and also understand that its also what GG does not say that is just as important and most often just a reasurance that you're on the right path is most important of all and can be a real timesaver in the future.
[edited by: Marcia at 11:07 pm (utc) on June 14, 2003]
| 11:33 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<and the content of the pages linking to it>>
I always just assumed this was anchor text. If not, I would be really surprised, since "on theme" links seem to have no more bearing on rankings than any old link. The importance of the vote is judged by PR and the meaning of the vote is judged by anchor text. If they are attempting any other "theming", I doubt it is very complex (actually strongly doubt it exists). I would agree with GoogleGuy in that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as off topic liks can be quite important anyway.
<<So I could see where someday we might our scoring to reflect that in some part.>>
This is fairly clear anyway. I doubt GG is an engineer over there and totally unaware of an integral part of their algo.
| 1:54 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>I would agree with GoogleGuy in that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as off topic liks can be quite important anyway.<<
Precisely. If I've got a site that gets a Best of the Web link from Forbes and a Top 100 Web Sites link from PC Magazine, those links should be worth at least as much as links on pages of equal PR from my own carefully themed Web site...even if those Forbes and PC Magazine pages aren't "on theme."
Theming may have some value, but it's also a concept that would be easy to abuse.
| 2:14 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why is linking / popularity such an issue?
Why can't Google and others figure out a page ranking system that ranks our sites/pages according to the content on them? I have a client who is having a very hard job getting Google to list his site (we've been trying since Jan) and it seems because we can't get others to link to the site (by others I mean other sites with similar content) then Google picks it up and drops it like a hot potato.
He's even bought adwords on Google, and while these are working as soon as he stops them Google drops the site again.
So while I thank Google Guy for his answers and I did learn lots it still doesn't tell us the BASICS of how to get a singular standalone site to LIFT it's rankings, and it seems Google doesn't care.
| 2:51 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I understand that penalties are not given out frequently, but just the same (for the paranoid here) I would like to ask two questions regarding the "penalty box":
1) Does a penalty delist a site completely or does it just lower its ranking (or either)?
2) Do penalties apply to particular keyword phrases or searches across the board (or either)?
| 3:03 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We are dicussing points that GoogleGuy addressed.
The administrator stated <<Also, once we start allowing responses, it is important that everyone sticks to the questions he addressed.>>
On of the questions he addressed was the impact of theming.
I could not agree with your statement more. It is easy to get links from sites within your niche, but the most important sites often get links from all over the web.
| 5:14 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think the theming that GG is referring to goes something like this.
You search for swimming.
Currently (without theming), Google returns pages containing the word and linked to with the word.
With theming you would also get sites containing the word 'pool' However, you would only see this in the serps when it pertained to swimming. Sites about your office football pool or Minnesota Fats would not be returned. I know this also applies to semantic stuff, but that's my take on what he was referring to.
| 10:27 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Actually, he was specifically speaking about on theme inbound links. The question was posed to him "should we focus on getting on theme links and he replied that some of the best links are off topic and he wasn't convinced of the "theming argument"
| 2:40 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Googlespan? Oh lordy. Does that mean I have to contemplate how the color of my tie affects webmaster sentiment? No thanks.. :)
Of course, I can't remember the last time I *wore* a tie anyway.. ;)
| 3:27 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Actually, he was specifically speaking about on theme inbound links. The question was posed to him "should we focus on getting on theme links and he replied that some of the best links are off topic and he wasn't convinced of the "theming argument" |
We've skrewed the rational of theming over time.
About a year ago I remember the example of theming pushed forward by Brett (paraphrasing now - sort-of)
"trees" to "leaves" to "foliage" to "fall" to "seasons" to "winter" to "tires" to "cars" to "batteries".
Trees to batteries are not common to each other but through theming there is a relationship.
Therefore coming back to GG comments "off-topic" links can be important links in this process.
| 3:52 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From the answer to Question #8:
|I think two important challenges for the future are discovering user intent and uncovering webmaster intent ... Our bots do a pretty good job, but it would always be nice to do more ... |
I can only guess but this can't be done by a algo if the algo doesn't also analyze keyword / phrase relations ... erm, ... thus recognizes themes ...!?
| 4:58 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yidaki, again the question was raised in relation to themes of linking pages. The point GoogleGuy was making is that all different types of links can be quite important- on or off theme.
As far as GG working more towards determining the theme of pages, this only makes sense a a goal for the future. Even so, this would not take away from the fact that links from pages without matching themes can still count as much toward ranking.
Europeforvisitors made a great point by demonstrating that a link from Forbes or PC magazine 100 should certainly count as much or more as a link from a niche site in your industry. GoogleGuy was simply confirming that it does, which most of us believed to be the case anyway.
| 11:24 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just another reminder: Please stay on topic, as has been repoeatedly suggested, so that we can keep the dialogue open, enjoyable and productive for everyone.
| 3:22 pm on Jun 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Wow, kudos to GoogleGuy for taking time out and making this into one of the most fascinating threads yet!
| 11:08 pm on Jun 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GG mentioned spamming and the need for google to see methods of spamming, and to be honest I'm not really sure of how one defines spam, is it that a site ranked above mine, or this site uses a system I hadn't thought of? Or should the real definition be that the serp was not what was expected? From the majority of "spam" complaints I've seen on this forum it appears to be sour grapes (or would that be bad apples and oranges?). The official google guidlines are really a tad bit on the gray side, and I could see an instance where some song lyric pages could be kicked out because of a repeated phrase.
So GG (mods) if I'm being an idiot please delete this post.
| This 152 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 152 ( 1 2 3 4  6 ) > > |