homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.197.153
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 68 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 68 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Google's Public Relations firm into high gear
No mention of sandbox, though,`
dickbaker




msg:126325
 5:34 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

In the past three days, we've had three newspaper articles in our state gushing over what Google has promised. Librarians, in particular, seem enamored over what G has promised to do.

The third article, pubished today, was positively gloating about the idea that The Tiny Google could beat Bill Gates.

That article can be found here: [jsonline.com...]

(If this link violates the TOS, I'll figure out a way to get it on WW legimitately).

Nobody---and I mean nobody--in the press has mentioned the sandbox. Nobody in the press talks about how Google has held back quality sites for over a year.

I'm more than steamed at Google. The SERPS over the past few months absolutely stink.

I'm also a veteran of many political grassroots fights. Want to get Google to improve? Write the editorial and finance editors at the largest newspaper in your area. Bitch, and #*$! often. Get others to complain. Explain to the public how badly Google has screwed up.

What the Big Dogs at Google are doing is nothing less than what other insider traders have been indicted upon. When the buyers of Google stock realized they got bamGoogled, will the government come down as hard as they did on Martha Stewart?

 

energylevel




msg:126355
 5:10 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

<<<<< energylevel, P-L-E-A-S-E...there are alternatives to using Google...there is NO alternative to drinking beer >>>>>

Dude where u livin ... wine, whiskey, brandy, cocktails of a zillion types (slight exaggeration) .... shall I go on!

walkman




msg:126356
 5:21 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"you just compared your sites to people
thats just silly"

not my problem if you don't see it...

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:126357
 8:53 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

This thread is degenerating. Google have not mentioned the sandbox. The sandbox is a fact Google are being economic with the the truth.

lizardx




msg:126358
 9:31 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Even though it's claimed people aren't noticing the decline, for some reason my yahoo/msn traffic is now routinely coming in at over 50% of my referals. These are power user type searches by the way. Before this sandbox and other nonsense started I was lucky to get more than a handful of yahoo searchers.

All my traffic is going up, but the percentages are moving away from google. And MSN beta isn't even live yet.

Personally, I see power users as the proverbial rats leaving the sinking ship. Powerusers will in fact notice the absence of sandboxed sites after a while, unlike standard users [unless looking for moviex.com, cdx.com, politicianx.org, campaignx.com... oh, unless they are looking for the latest sites and information... weird idea that].

Poweruses will go back, once Google again figures out a way to actually deliver results based on quality and not age of domain, or presence or absence of sandbox flags. In other words, go through the web, spider it, figure out which page has the best answer, then give the searcher that page back. Remember those days? That's what made Google number 1. Those algos would be detecting spam etc in the process. No idiotically unexplained 6-9 month wait to see what might potentially be that correct answer. MSN will not have a sandbox, they're smart enough to have bothered reading these last year's threads I think.

Maybe even one day a search engine company will have the brilliant realization that, just like real email user trained spam filters, there is simply no programmed method that can even remotely equal human judgement. Algo set to high spam detection, spits back sites for human verification, human says yes or no. First search engine to realize this wins the next round hands down.

LizardGroupie




msg:126359
 10:29 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

no programmed method that can even remotely equal human judgement

Very true, my lizard brother.

RichTC




msg:126360
 12:09 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think googles absolutely had its day

The algo has changed so much now that the results in the SERPS are currently dire. The are full of non relevant content websites and shead loads of directory sites. In addition, with the sandbox any new site with quality content doesnt stand a chance.

Years ago when the web only had a few thousand sites on it the principle that one site linking to another another one meaning that that site was an authority and more valuable was perhaps true and worked. Now with 8 billion web pages the link concept is utter crap, lets face it any site with half decent marketing can get shead loads of links.

And just because a sites been on the web a long time doesnt mean its any better than a new one. Thats like saying, im not trying that new shop, the old one thats been in the high street longer is better. Google gives far to much weight to older sites.

Oh and as for google directory powered by DMOZ, dont make me laugh, yet more tosh. Google should have pulled out of DMOZ years ago, or made a better job of their own directory.

Meanwhile, MSN will wipe the floor with google this next 12 months, watch this space, Currently the beta is producing relevant results based on content as its first priority - that my friends is what a search engine should be doing imo.

The google party is over..... they are having their last dance!

MLHmptn




msg:126361
 12:10 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well said RichTC....I agree 100%!

For those of you that hate Google start promoting the other search engines by helping the end users realize other search engines exist and actually produce more relevant results than what google does these days.

MSN has code to install a search engine on your site as does Yahoo. Since a good share of us webmasters are sick of google let's promote the other engines. It's certainly one way we can help the end user realize that google is producing poor results!

I myself am promoting MSN Beta Search on all 14 of my sites at the moment simply because Google's results are a joke. If 25% of my visitors use the search engine on my site for what I'm selling they will at the least see that in my sector Google's results are extremely poor and that MSN beta (even in beta stage mind you) produces more relevant results!

For those of you that want the code for your sites here it is :

MSN

<!-- Web search from MSN -->
<form method="get" action="http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx">
<input type="hidden" name="cp" value="CODE PAGE USED BY YOUR HTML PAGE" />
<table bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://beta.search.msn.com/">
<img src="http://beta.search.msn.com/s/affillogo.gif" border="0" alt="MSN Search"/> </a>
</td>
<td>
<input type="text" name="q" size="30" />
<input type="submit" value="Search Web" />
</td> </tr> </table>
</form>
<!-- Web search from MSN -->

Important! In the following code, you need to replace "CODE PAGE USED BY YOUR HTML PAGE" with the 3- or 4-digit codepage number representing the language in which your website is written.

For example, if your website is written in a Latin-based language such as French, English, or German, you would replace this instruction with the number 1252, so that the code would look like this:

value="1252"

Code Page Values :
1250 (Central Europe)
1251 (Cyrillic)
1252 (Latin I)
1253 (Greek)
1254 (Turkish)
1255 (Hebrew)
1256 (Arabic)
1257 (Baltic)
1258 (Vietnam)
874 (Thai)

Yahoo

<!-- Begin Yahoo Search Form -->
<form method="GET" action="http://search.yahoo.com/search">
<img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/yahootogo/ytg_search.gif" width=98 height=23 align=top alt="[ Yahoo! ]">
<input type="text" name="p" value="" size=18>
<input type="submit" name="name">
<font size=1>
<a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search/options">options</a>
</font>
</form>
<!-- End Yahoo Search Form -->

Bring the heat MSN and Yahoo! :>~

jk3210




msg:126362
 12:47 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since many are predicting the demise of Google due to their stale results and the total unfairness of the way they operate, I have a couple of quick questions here concerning what the future may hold for my business once Yahoo and M$N no longer have an effective competitor in Google:

After Google is gone...

1.) Do you think the Y/M$N spiders will still show-up every day at my site for free, or will I have to pay to get spidered?

2.) Do you think my inclusion in Y/M$N will remain F-R-E-E, or will I have to pay? (Are you sure?)

3.) How much of a listing fee do you think I will have to pay PER MONTH TO REMAIN LISTED in Y/M$N after I've paid the initial "site inspection fee," once Google is gone?

4.) If Y/M$N decide they have too much crap in their index, do you think they will still spend millions of dollars developing anti-spam algos (like Google did), or will they simply raise my monthly listing fees, thereby causing me and most other small-time operators to drop out? ("small-time operator" = Revenues under $10 million per year)

5.) What would a $1,000 per month listing fee do to my current ROI? (By the way, that's $1,000 per month PER SEARCH ENGINE...total of 2 Large per month for Y+MSN)

6.) After they compute my monthly fee in number 5 above, do you think they will hold the listing fee to the initial $1,000 per month, or will they raise it...say 10% every quarter...or will they simply pick a number and say "pay-up, scab," since they no longer have an effective competitor in Google and they can charge whatever they want to.

7.) And here's the most important question of all: Did anyone read about Y! buying up all those other search engines last year? Any ideas why they would do that?

Thanks

Elixir




msg:126363
 1:01 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

They need good PR people they are in very big trouble. Google's super hyped page rank and their link based algo are so out of date that it will be the rock on which it falls. Many sites are returned in the results purely based on the sites linked to them. Now with the sandbox they are unmovable. How can Google keep saying that their results are the most relevant (or have they stopped saying that).

They should be saying

"The results which you will see in the natural serps are purely based on the sites linking to that site and may or may not bear any relevance to what you searched for, nor is content a factor in determining which results you see. Also note that since these links can be bought you may only see sites which can afford to buy the links and if you are looking for unbiased results which return sites with relevant content you need to search elsewhere, but there is'nt really a credible elsewhere so we dont care. Google serps are totally link based unless its a new site then we ignore them whether they have links or not. You may also not see sites which deserve to be there in our algorithmic opinion as they have been hijacked by their competitors but we dont care about that either. This sitution is a direct result of our brillant page rank idea and we will not give it up"

I would love to see what their spin doctors would do with the real truth.

The Google people are very smart and I absolutely have to believe that as we sit here and whine they are working it out.

Powdork




msg:126364
 1:02 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

And here's the most important question of all: Did anyone read about Y! buying up all those other search engines last year? Any ideas why they would do that?
Yes we all remember that. it was so they could combine the technologies and ideas of those companies to create an engine which could replace their reliance on Google, which they have successfully done.
And the rest of your hypothesy is ridiculous.

lizardx




msg:126365
 1:07 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

<< For those of you that hate Google start promoting the other search engines >>

Who said anything about hating them, they are a business, they run like a business, they are hiring Microsoft people so they can learn how to become like microsoft. I don't hate that, I just hate their pathetically sad 'don't be evil' nonsense, that's so dumb it's hard to put into words.

I just want there to be real competition in these industries, so we all don't have to always obsess over what google is doing. Happily google seems to be helping that process along nicely [I'd like to personally thank you all at google for messing up your serps enough to bring in about 6-7 times more yahoo traffic this month to a site I do than I've ever seen before, thanks guys...].

That doesn't mean I want to help msn or yahoo, I don't want to help any big company for free unless they want to pay me for my help, and even then I don't want to help them get more powerful or richer so they abuse that power as they grow.

ken_b




msg:126366
 1:22 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

According to someone or another Google has been on the verge of death since I came to WW a few years ago.

Hasn't happened yet. Maybe it will, someday.

My "guess" is that the average viewer of the 60 Minutes piece thought it was cool, if they thought about it at all.

Rather than worry about Googles P.R., it's better to spend your time worrying about your own sites P.R.

Build that up so that even if all the search engines dropped your sites you could still thrive via public/market awareness.

jk3210




msg:126367
 1:40 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>And the rest of your hypothesy is ridiculous.<<

and your reasoning is...?

Powdork




msg:126368
 2:10 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

The invisible hand

jk3210




msg:126369
 2:15 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>The invisible hand<<

WHAT'S GRAVITY GOT TO DO WITH IT?

;)

dauction




msg:126370
 2:20 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Too amusing.. like any news media really gives a crap about webmasters whining because google wont hurry up and list their websites ..

Of course the serps wont stick any longer when your websites are released from the sandbox..then G will once again rule lol

mfishy




msg:126371
 4:32 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

like any news media really gives a crap about webmasters whining because google wont hurry up and list their websites ..

News media may care about the fact that the world's most important website is having massive technical problems.

Is it possible to make a statement like, "Google is doing a poor job of scoring newer sites" without someone claiming it is webmaster whining? Nearly every decent webmaster has found numerous ways around the filter -open your eyes to the wider issues here. Of course the search engine experts, those that study serps for a living will notice trends first...

Chndru




msg:126372
 5:01 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

News media may care about the fact that the world's most important website is having massive technical problems.

mfishy,

Have you read on any authority search engine site (SEW, Battelle, etc) about sandbox?

Have you seen any leading authority figures (BT included) even talk about it in public?

And i wonder why?

Powdork




msg:126373
 5:29 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Have you read on any authority search engine site (SEW, Battelle, etc) about sandbox?
If you search the forums on SEW for the term 'sandbox' it will return 30 threads. You can also try searching on Google for -->"Danny Sullivan" +sandbox<-- and that will show he has not ignored the issue.

Interesting is the site:www.searchenginewatch.com query.

grandpa




msg:126374
 6:14 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Did no one learn anything from the Florida fiasco?

1) Diversify. If you depend on G for your traffic you need to re-think your model. We've moved into catalog sales as an alternative source of referrals. It works! We've moved into other on-line sources for exposure - relevant to our industry. Yes, we still get a lot of traffic from G, but if they drop us, we won't be stranded ala Florida. We also hit the local fairs and events, spreading our product and our name one customer at a time. I'm even thinking a few well placed billboards might work.

2) G has billions of indexed pages. The simply cannot all be in the top 10, top 100, even top 1000. Those lucky enough to be in the top 10 today may not be there tomorrow. No one from G ever promised me anything with regards to positioning or referrals in the SERP's. I've personally done everything I can to make my site usable to my visitors, not to any search engine. Maybe this is one factor that puts me at the top of the heap?

3) Expand your web presence in other ways. Links, more links, then add more links. It's a simple way to let others find you, and just may reinforce your presence in the SERP's.

4) Google has other sources of referrals too. I sent our cheesy little catalog to them, and they now send traffic from Google catalogs. If you haven't tried it yet, give it a whirl. Let's not forget Froogle either.

5) You say you aren't a retailer, but offer information or something else. Find other places to get listed. The World Wide Web and Google are NOT one and the same.

Maybe we should all complain because our products are under-represented at Wal-Mart. I would love to be in the major retail outlets, but our production model is holding us back. <sarcasm>But that shouldn't be a reason for any major retail outlet not to stock my items. </sarcasm>

The bottom line is this - Google as a corporation has a responsibility to their shareholders. They don't care about your site. They care about the bottom line. Putting your site at number 1 won't affect their bottom line. Getting you to use Adwords will. I'm not even implying that by using Adwords you will move up in the SERP's. But using Adwords certainly will improve your presence in the SERP's, as a Sponsored Listing on the first page.

I've had no experience with the sandbox. The site I maintain is well established and has been listed for years. What I'm reading now, to use an analogy, is akin to starting a new Brick and Mortar store, then complaining because the Yellow Pages don't bring you traffic. You have to buy an Ad first, and if that doesn't work, buy a bigger Ad for the next year!

Finally, I'm not a big fan of Google. Right after Florida I would have gladly joined a throng of people camped outside their office for just about any nefarious purpose. Instead, I focused on what I could do to make my site better. I'm a lot happier with G today than I was a year ago. I'm also a lot less dependant on G than I was a year ago.

So, piss and moan, or use that same time and energy to promote your site in other ways.

AlexK




msg:126375
 6:17 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

MLHmptn:
<!-- Web search from MSN -->
<form method="get" action="http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx">
<input type="hidden" name="cp" value="CODE PAGE USED BY YOUR HTML PAGE" />
...
In the following code, you need to replace "CODE PAGE USED BY YOUR HTML PAGE" with the 3- or 4-digit codepage number representing the language in which your website is written.
...
Code Page Values :
1250 (Central Europe)
1251 (Cyrillic)
1252 (Latin I)
...

Will Micro$oft never learn to use internationally-agreed standards? These are Windows code-pages. What am I supposed to do if I run a Mac or *nix computer? Stupid prats.

HughMungus




msg:126376
 6:56 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Maybe even one day a search engine company will have the brilliant realization that, just like real email user trained spam filters, there is simply no programmed method that can even remotely equal human judgement. Algo set to high spam detection, spits back sites for human verification, human says yes or no. First search engine to realize this wins the next round hands down.

Or something as simple as my suggestion months ago: a little button that says, "Don't show me this site again." Can you imagine the effect of millions of people opting out of seeing crap sites and how it would improve the quality of the results? Yes, it would be open to abuse, but, that would be managable.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:126377
 9:03 am on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Too amusing.. like any news media really gives a crap about webmasters whining because google wont hurry up and list their websites ..

Oh yes? They seem to happily "give a crap" about how wonderful Google is to the extent of writing utterly fantastic stories about how they saved peoples lives, etc. They don't have a problem with the fact that Google (and the others) are probably responsible for the provision of half of the information supplied to terrorists, etc. They don't have a problem with Google continuing to list the anti-semitic Jewwatch site at the top of the results on a search for the word Jew. (This despite the minor furore that developed last year when this was revealed.)

Come to think of it I don't recall them ever being able to find any problems at Google? All they do is provide them with invaluable free press and write sycophantic reports about what are mainly non events. Do you really think that the majority of the public are interested in this?

Nearly every decent webmaster has found numerous ways around the filter

Confession: I must now confess to not being a "decent webmaster" :)

mfishy




msg:126378
 1:44 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm also a lot less dependant on G than I was a year ago.

What the heck does that have to do with google and their PR department or the sandbox? Do you want a cookie?

The point is that google is doing an incredible job continuing to get amazingly positive free press. Some of us are curious to see whether any of their PROBLEMS will be of interest to the media. If you have no capacity to engage in a rational discussion about these issues, best move on rather than rant about whining webmasters.

Chndru




msg:126379
 3:01 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you search the forums on SEW for the term 'sandbox' it will return 30 threads. You can also try searching on Google for -->"Danny Sullivan" +sandbox<-- and that will show he has not ignored the issue.

Powdork, the google query you mention is about MSN sandbox!

Forums are just whispers. They mean a little.

vabtz




msg:126380
 4:53 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just don't see it as a problem.

I don't care about the results google gives as long as I am at the top. They aren't going out of business anytime soon, their flush with cash so I am not worried about M$ taking over. Furthermore they are run by a incredible group of people I doubt they are going to have any issues, despite everyones dire warnings.

walkman




msg:126381
 4:55 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I don't care about the results google gives as long as I am at the top"

those who aren't do though and pray that someone doesn't link you with a 302 redirect and you will care.

As far as flush with cash: it's because people like their search results and that advertisers use adwords.
A loss of credibilty on neither and Google is toast since they make the money only one way...no other sources of revenue so far.

eZeB




msg:126382
 5:06 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not hard to see why the press are so thrilled with Google -- do a search for Tsunami -- awesome results -- fresh as a daisy...

walkman




msg:126383
 5:30 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Not hard to see why the press are so thrilled with Google -- do a search for Tsunami -- awesome results -- fresh as a daisy... "

Bad choice ;): yahoo is not doing bad either
[search.yahoo.com...]

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:126384
 5:37 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Same goes for most things. Google is now not much different from the rest.

Try building a new site about Tsunamis and see where you feature on Google ;) (or rather when you feature on Google!)

artdog




msg:126385
 7:36 pm on Jan 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

As far as the general public and their awareness. Every sale I make results in a phone conversation with buyer. Can't help but ask where they found site and for what search terms.

Most recall search terms but that is all.

75% have no idea what search engine they were on.

95% can't tell you the domain name of one site they visited including mine.

I don't think the gen public pays much attention to or cares even remotely about the same things we do.

This 68 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 68 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved