| 9:47 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well Apollo, I must admit that this is news to me but I definitely have not heard it being used. I would not use it myself because to my mind it sounds mildly obscene. How long before we hear, "Go Google yourself!" or "Let's get the Google out of here!"
| 5:04 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hi BallochBD. Not sure if you've sent in an email to webmaster [at] google.com or done a spam report to talk about your site? I think I tried to look for any specific info on your site a while ago so I could try to help, and I didn't see your nick at that time. Just clicked on your profile and there was no site listed there.
Make it easier for me to try to help you. :)
| 5:23 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hi GoogleGuy, you've started early today? I have fully updated my profile and any help you can offer would be most gratefully accepted.
| 5:57 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not to dish reporters
but few years ago went on cruise jolly with all the big IT companies onboard trying to sell their stuff
all free booze food etc. with 4 reporters on board from the media
who do you think you could find at the bar at 8.00 AM breakfast time till 2 AM each day and they never moved
you got it right
| 7:12 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>Brin lectured attendees at the Davos conference about how one becomes, and remains, hip. "If you have to think about being hip, you're never going to be hip," he told them. (No doubt they carefully wrote it down.)
| 7:27 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BeeDeeDubbleU, now isn't it easier when I can tell what you're talking about? :) Looking at that, seems like there was a lot of link stuffing going on in the past with that domain and 8-10 others. I'll ask someone to re-investigate and check if the links to the bad neighborhood are gone, and if they are they'll reinclude the domain. I'd give it about a week or so to start to see any positive effects though.
Hope that helps,
| 8:00 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So GoogleGuy - does the no title/description showing = penalty?
| 8:39 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|the people I know that read the Guardian are quite the opposite, generally over 50 with some weird social ideas |
Handbags at dawn, Essex. Perhaps it depends on the professional circles you mix in. After university I worked first in Education and then in the Media. In all three instances , The Guardian was the rag of choice for most.
| 9:12 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|But what they did was excellent - they leveraged their search results by syndicating them. |
And now, their attempts to monetize their search results are going to lead them losing major syndicators (Yahoo, AOL, etc.). In other words, why send people to Google search results if the ads there compete with the ads on my network/site? There's even talk now of AOL dumping Google in favor of a search engine it might build or buy to stop users from leaving AOL's marketing machine.
| 9:49 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 10:09 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have the same problem as BallochBD, BeeDeeDubbleU and others that have commented in:
Your cause of the problem to BeeDeeDubbleU seems to be different from the response from webmaster @ google.
I did send webmaster my urls. My site had no link stuffing or any other black hat crap but just dropped out of the index on 1/18/04.
Seems something went astray with the latest crawls and may not be penalty related.
My inquiry to webmaster @google elicited a response on 2/24 and I understand:
The Google index contains two types of pages: fully indexed and partially indexed pages.
Pages that show the URL as the
title and have no cache are partially indexed. This means that although
the page is included in the Google index, Google's robots have not completely
reviewed the content of the site in past crawls and that partial indexing does not
adversely affect PageRank or inclusion in the Google index. However, it
does mean that the Google crawlers do not have enough information about the site
to provide a detailed title for the site. As a result, the page is listed
by its URL in the Google index.
Webmaster at Google does understand the frustration this situation may be causing and is working
to change the way that partially indexed pages appear in Google's search
results, and hopes that I will find the descriptions and titles of
these pages more satisfactory in the future. Additionally, Google will
continue working to increase the number of fully indexed pages in their
|BeeDeeDubbleU, now isn't it easier when I can tell what you're talking about? Looking at that, seems like there was a lot of link stuffing going on in the past with that domain and 8-10 others. I'll ask someone to re-investigate and check if the links to the bad neighborhood are gone, and if they are they'll reinclude the domain. I'd give it about a week or so to start to see any positive effects though. |
Hope that helps,
| 11:13 pm on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Googleguy, thank you very much for taking this on and I would of course be very grateful for anything you can do to help. WRT the link farm and bad neighbourhoods, I am an engineer and I used to link my site to about 9 or 10 other sites who were in related industries. I shelved this a few weeks ago in my frantic attempts to solve my ranking problem.
It would be stretching things to call this a link farm. It was just a few associated maintenance and engineering sites that were linked together to generate business. Excuse my naiveté but at the time I did not realise that this was contrary to Googles rules. I don't know about any bad neighbourhoods but you have seen my site and I am sure that you can see that it is clean. Does this mean that reciprocal linking to associated sites is now a no no?
Anyway I am now looking forward to my recovery and my first relaxing weekend for a few weeks :o)
| 2:29 am on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
With the greatest respect to people who have posted here, as I am sure you are very concerned about your rankings, it is becoming quite absurd how every thread in this forum degenerates into a "Help me google guy" thread no matter what the topic is.
This thread has nothing to do with rankings and getting help from googleguy. I note and avoid all threads that are based on the "Help me google guy" theme. This particular thread began with an interesting topic and article and some discussion about people's perceptions regarding that article. I have therefore continued to read the thread but as usual it has now degenerated into something other than the original topic. With this particular example I am not sure whether to give up the thread or to keep reading in the hope that someone might make another post related to the topic. I am usually fairly patient, so I doubt that I am alone in having this reaction to the way this forum is going.
Maybe WW needs a special forum where people can post their various and ever-increasing requests to googleguy to either remove sites that are ranked above them or to reinstate their own sites after they have removed whatever caught them out in the first place.
The forum could be called the "Wailing Wall".
| 4:42 am on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I work with both the UK media and major business.
a) To them Google is number one and will stay number one until a new SE spins a story and deliver a major USP. Google was the best yet today their results are much the same as the others.
b) As I understand it Matt Cutts worked for the National Security Agency so Google will know why the CIA dropped cookies.
In short I guess the owners of Google will float much of their stock as fast as they can. Google no longer has the wow it did and the cookie and cache aspects mean possible future liabilties.
How many Billions would it take to beat Google?
Well done Google!
| 5:08 am on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"So GoogleGuy - does the no title/description showing = penalty?"
Hi conroy. Typically no title/description showing = url was seen but not crawled. Off the cuff, I can think of a lot of reasons for that. The site could have been down when we crawled it. I checked the thread that someone pointed to. For the original poster, they said that they had just launched their site(s). The following response that counseled patience was the right one--don't be disturbed if it takes a little while for Googlebot to find a site when it's first launched, although it's better/faster than in the past. In some cases it can be a penalty. For example, BeeDeeDubbleU, if you think the 9-10 sites you were linking to were innocent, I'll sticky you the 1400 words of keyword stuffed text from the front page of one of the sites in question. It's your responsibility to check out a site at least mildly before you associate with them. It took me only a minute to look at the cached copy of one of the root pages, and it's right there plain as day. The thread that someone else pointed out had 24 posts, and 1/3 of those were BallochBD, who hasn't put a url in his profile.
Hopefully that closes out some of the specific questions but also gives a useful general answer as well. apollo: apologies if things drifted off-topic. The headline was a little attention-grabbing to get people to read it, but I enjoyed the actual article a lot.
| 5:24 am on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
6 billion? It should do much better than that... that is if the $1,000,000,000 revenue figure I've seen floating around is what their revenue is and $300,000,000 is their operating profit. If the business can grow 100% next year, which may be likely, expect to see a cap of around $30,000,000,000.
GoogleGuy... you're gonna be rich!
| 7:06 am on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Forrester say a $15 billion valuation is a significant overestimation. Googles growth is slowing.
Today they are a very strong brand. Nothing more nothing less.
Google Guy will do well but frankly it will not be based on your figures Squared.
| 4:46 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yep. A forward PE of 50 is only for companies with a lot of good growth potential.
As the article pointed out there is also a lot of risk.
| 5:24 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Googleguy said <I'll sticky you the 1400 words of keyword stuffed text from the front page of one of the sites in question. It's your responsibility to check out a site at least mildly before you associate with them.>
I think I know the site you are talking about Googleguy but could you please sticky me anyway because I removed all these links a few weeks ago. I have only been in business for a couple of years and web design is not my main business. I have already apologised for having been naive WRT these things but unfortunately, when I started my site, I was not aware that links to/from another site could get mine penalised.
One thing that surprises me is that if the site in question is the one I am thinking it is then it does not appear to have been penalised as I was? If this is so then is this not a concern?
(Anyway I better not say anymore for fear of upsetting Apollo further :o)
| 5:32 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I saw this in my newspaper and was initially engaged by the exciting headline. So I read with great interest as I ate my morning toast whilst kicking the family hunting leopard under the breakfast table.
But it was just journalistic puff: great title, looked good, filled several long columns - but said nothing, and concluded a little less than nothing.
I would have posted the reference to this journal myself, if I hadn't been engaged in having my hunting leopard removed from my nether regions by my nurse.
Life's like that in the UK :(
| 5:36 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There was another interesting article on Google's 'net domination in yesterday's Guardian (UK). You can read this here: [media.guardian.co.uk...]
Back on focus Apollo :>}
| 5:39 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Good spot. That article is far more interesting.
| 6:26 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google is more than a brand. It's also all the great people they hire. It's their patents. It's the technology. It's the strategy. Yes, Google's growth is slowing... but to what? It's revenue growth is likely slowing to 100% growth for the year.
I was thinking of a PE of 100. Yahoo has a PE of 120. Does this mean you think Yahoo has more growth potential than Google?
| 7:17 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Google is more than a brand. It's also all the great people they hire. It's their patents. It's the technology. It's the strategy. |
Calm down, you seem to have gone into a small ecstatic frenzy - you're not an advertising executive hyping yourself up for a meeting at the Plex are you?
| 7:45 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
He he. No - it means Yahoo is rediculously overvalued, even with the profits Overture will add to their bottom line next year.
Those valuations are just insane. After investors had their pants pulled down in 2000 I am surprised they are coming back for more.
| 8:53 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That article BallochBD is dated Thursday February 27, 2003 which makes it a year old.
I think you are confusing everyone including GG with your double identities.You should make it clear that BallochBD and BeeeDeeeDoubleUU are the same.
| 9:20 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am calm. I was just being truthful. To think that Google is only a brand is a gross oversimplification of things.
Those valuations are not ridiculous if the financial performance can back it up. A business that can grow revenue and profits at 100% for the year can justify a 100 PE.
| 1:33 am on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BallochBD and BeeeDeeeDoubleUU are the same? One nick per person, folks. :)
BallochBD/BeeeDeeeDoubleUU (if you're really the same person): not to worry, that site with the 1400 keywords stuffed will get its due.
| 9:32 pm on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm really surprised KW stuffing works any more - particularly in Google. I've always kept my sites squeeky clean, but link stuffing seems to be the order of the day in the sites that outrank me. I used to ignore spammers, because they are basically lazy and create rubbish sites. But post-Florida they have made an effort with their sites, and then applied the same spam tactics they were never punished for before.
| This 59 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 59 ( 1  ) |