homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.105.24
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?

 

Brett_Tabke




msg:126326
 6:04 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

There are stories being written as we speak about the sand box.

Google was on 60 minutes earlier this week - mega press generation from that -- obviously.

Aside from adwords being loaded with ebay links, I've found Google results to be as good - if not better - than ever. All depends on the kw sector you are in.

caveman




msg:126327
 6:25 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yeah, when I tell people about the sandbox, they seem really appalled that Google would/could do such a thing. Sounds really bad.

But then after a few seconds I usually get something like, "...but, when I think about it, I can't really say that I noticed anything."

Of course this is just kitchen table research, but I have a feeling it's a pretty widespread reaction.

Nobody cares. Nobody cares. Snif, snif. :(

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:126328
 9:09 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I know that here in the UK the press and the BBC have both been notified about the sandbox situation and they have done nothing about it. I am fairly sure that this has also happened in other countries. If this had been in any other business field it would seem almost like a conspiracy.

What is it about this that is keeping the press from highlighting it? Can it be that they are contacting Google for a statement and being told something that convinces them that nothing is wrong? Very, very strange.

energylevel




msg:126329
 9:25 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Brett_Tabke ... When ever I do a search these days for a product(s) that I want to buy or browse the Google results seem to be dominated by shopping channels, I dunno what the masses preference is but you could say this is almost like pay for placement in Google, I don't want to see a host of shopping channels who's contents are paid advertising in one form or another.. this area of searches is really suffering from lack of variety and quality

walkman




msg:126330
 9:35 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

sandbox or 302 errors it doesn't matter at all when it comes to the results. They are so many pages that that the quality decline or improvement is within the margin of error. Your page or mine isn't going to tip the scales so Sergei and Larry aren't losing any sleep.

That's why Google gets away with the sandbox and letting sites (for at least 3-4 months) essentially being hijacked by someone linking with a 302 (even innocently). This will eventually lead to arrogance if it hasn't already.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:126331
 9:54 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't want to see a host of shopping channels who's contents are paid advertising in one form or another ...

Me neither. I know I am flogging a dead horse but I just don't see Google's results being much (if any) better than the others. People keep saying this but as far as I can see it is based on perception as opposed to evidence.

They are so many pages that that the quality decline or improvement is within the margin of error. Your page or mine isn't going to tip the scales so Sergei and Larry aren't losing any sleep.

Very true, but it does not explain why there has not been even a teensy weensy mention of it in the media while the plaudits continue unabated. Their PR guys are GOOD! They seem to have a monopoly on good press.

rj87uk




msg:126332
 11:52 am on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that google results are ok, i search for something and I find it with ease.

If the results were that bad then the people would search on yahoo or msn but they seem to be staying with google.

But from the point of veiw that 'my website is in the sandbox' i think that its annoying - so why doesnt everyone think of new ways to get traffic?

LostOne




msg:126333
 12:15 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"if not better - than ever."

WOW! I wonder if that statement has been influenced by his success and relations with Google as well? I've followed the 12 steps for almost two years now. Did very well in Google until April of this year. Looking at some sectors within my industry I always paid attention to the crap and wondered why they ranked.

Only recently did it ocurr to me websites with excellant content are being pushed deper into the SERPS while many sites with ridicolous fluff and all sorts of black hat reign in the better positions. Even those better sites had decent rankings before--ahead of me as well--with good reason.

I wonder how I would have reacted if I had no clue what was going on? I suppose the site about "monkey widgets" on page 1 knew more than the sub domain authority sitting on page 11.

Google seems to be more of a confused library of website collections than anything else thesedays.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:126334
 2:18 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

If the results were that bad then the people would search on yahoo or msn but they seem to be staying with google.

Here are some facts that may explain this ...

1. People resist change - that's human nature. This is even more evident in people who use computers but don't know much about them.

2. Lots of people would not be able to tell you what search engine they used if you asked them. They get shown how to search for something on Google or MSN or Yahoo and they are signed up for life. I have asked some small business clients, "What search engine do you use?" only to be asked, "What's a search engine?"

3. People who are not in the know don't know how to search properly and they will often blame themselves for the poor results. I know, I did this myself when I started using the Web.

4. The People who think that Google is OK could probably find the information they need as easily on some of the other search engines.

Only recently did it ocurr to me websites with excellant content are being pushed deper into the SERPS while many sites with ridicolous fluff and all sorts of black hat reign in the better positions. Even those better sites had decent rankings before--ahead of me as well--with good reason.

That's what I see when I use Google. Some of the stuff they are placing at the top is just crap. They have lost control of the situation, probably because they have started to get involved in too many other things at the expense of their search technology.

Come to think of it there's another newspaper heading I would like to see ...

Google Search Technology Suffers as a Result of their Quest for World Domination

Added: I should perhaps have said that I see poor results on the other search engines too but at least they are fresh.

jk3210




msg:126335
 2:40 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>Here are some facts that may explain this ...<<

one you left out...

5.) 99.999% of the people in the world feel exactly the way Brett stated.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:126336
 3:04 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have told you ten million times not to exaggerate :)

Are you saying that 99.999% of the people in the World use Google? If so you need to take a reality check.

Here's what Brett said ...
Aside from adwords being loaded with ebay links, I've found Google results to be as good - if not better - than ever.

Brett is of course entitled to his opinion as I am mine and I disagree. Google's results are fine for many things but they most certainly are not better than ever - no way.

How can any search engine that has been hiding 99.999% of new websites from it's users for almost a year be better than ever?

jk3210




msg:126337
 3:48 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>Are you saying that 99.999% of the people in the World use Google?<<

Good point. I'll re-word it for you:

5.) The fact is that 99.999% of the people in the world WHO USE GOOGLE feel exactly the way Brett stated.

teesside media




msg:126338
 3:53 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm a tad confused, can someone help please, i agree google has screwed up as our website has started losing business because of it, at the same time yahoo has sent us from the real bottom to no.6 for a decent keyword to no. 2 and now no.3 all within 3 weeks and nothings changed... how do we get on googles good side again? or do we just wait for something to happen?

is there anyway i can find out how to get a page rank of 6 or 7?

energylevel




msg:126339
 3:55 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

<<<The fact is that 99.999% of the people in the world WHO USE GOOGLE feel exactly the way Brett stated.>>>

Hey .. that's what I call stating the obvious!

How about this : 99.9999999999% of people who drink beer like it!

vabtz




msg:126340
 3:59 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't think its your "right" to be included in the google index. If they want to sandbox a site or new links thats their business.

Certainly its annoying but what am I gonna do about it?

I suppose I could rant on WW about it. That'll show 'em

[edited by: vabtz at 4:00 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2005]

walkman




msg:126341
 3:59 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"how do we get on googles good side again? or do we just wait for something to happen?
is there anyway i can find out how to get a page rank of 6 or 7? "

:). Do you really expect an answer without knowing anything about your site or industry?

walkman




msg:126342
 4:01 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I don't think its your "right" to be included in the google index. If they want to sandbox a site or new links thats their business. "

No, but Google also claims to try to do the right /the moral thing.

vabtz




msg:126343
 4:03 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Its immoral to enact controls to protect their system from manipulation?

rj87uk




msg:126344
 4:04 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

teesside media,

To get a better page rank (for all its worth) you should read more into link development: [webmasterworld.com ]

You should be trying to reach number one in Google not trying to increase your Page rank...

BeeDeeDubbleU,

Yes that is a good point about change. and i Agree with you :)

The People who think that Google is OK could probably find the information they need as easily on some of the other search engines.

Thats troo, so why move if you can still find what you need with the same ease?

I do think that google is trying to be MS... and thats not good...

jk3210




msg:126345
 4:05 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>How about this : 99.9999999999% of people who drink beer like it!<<

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

vabtz




msg:126346
 4:07 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think all the anger about the sandbox issue is due to bunch of oldtimers getting bent out of shape that google changed the rules on them.

So the field goal is a little further away. You'll still make it there so why be so upset.

beren




msg:126347
 4:10 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh please. Is a news article directed to the general public supposed to mention the "sandbox". That terms is used only at places like Webmasterworld as far as I can tell. And the whole concept of a sandbox irritates frustrated webmasters (myself included) much, much more than the mass of Google users, most of whom don't particularly care that new websites don't place as highly as their owners would like.

I agree that there is too much Google hype and I wish the competing engines were better. Google could also be better (finding a way to devalue paid links, for instance). But you can't fault the press for not mentioning inside baseball stuff like this in articles for general readers.

airpal




msg:126348
 4:11 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think all the anger about the sandbox issue is due to bunch of oldtimers getting bent out of shape that google changed the rules on them.

The "oldtimers" probably dominate all the keywords they're trying to optimize for. I've seen many webmasters that have old sites which escaped the sandbox, who are now calling themselves SEO experts and charging hundreds per hour. These new "SEO experts" are in for a big shock, after the "oldtimers" dump their new domains, and buy old sites to optimize on.

vabtz




msg:126349
 4:12 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can see the Wall Street Journal headline now....

"GOOGLE SANDBOXES REAL-CHEAP-EXAMPLE-VIAGRA.COM, WEBMASTER PISSED, PUBLIC OUTRAGED"

richlowe




msg:126350
 4:18 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

A year ago when I searched for something on Google, a good match would be on the first page of the SERPS. Sure, there were a couple of silly entries, but usually I could find something useful right there. I didn't need to go much further than page two or three to find several good matches.

Nowadays, I usually find myself almost immediately jumping to the 2nd page, and occasionally I have to scroll 30 or 40 pages to find something even remotely useful.

And as a note, I do one heck of a lot of searches. Hundreds a week at least. And based upon my searches, I might spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for my company. Or I might use the information for an article that I'm writing or a trip I'm planning.

The top of the SERPS seems to be full of affiliate crap, 404 pages and, well, just junk.

Personally, I haven't been effected at all by the supposed sandbox. My web sites are informational, and more of a hobby than anything else. I don't even pay attention anymore - I just spend my time writing content. I figure it will all work out in the end.

I do find myself, however, in the same situation as I was several years ago. Remember when Altavista was the king? Now that search engine really rocked - until the porno kings figured it out. I discovered google and never looked back at Altavista and the other engines.

Now I'm looking at Yahoo and MSN search. And I'm finding what I want more often than not, and much more quickly.

I don't know what's causing the phenomonon: sandbox or really smart spammers or bugs in algorithms. But I am very aware that something is not right.

And, sad as it may be since google is in many ways an old friend, perhaps it's time to move on.

Just my 2 cents...
Richard

walkman




msg:126351
 4:23 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Its immoral to enact controls to protect their system from manipulation?"

oh here we go. Let me break it down: Is it immoral to jail people to protect innocent victims from harm? No!
is it immoral to jail innocent people? Yes!

vabtz




msg:126352
 4:24 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

haha

you just compared your sites to people

thats just silly

Brett_Tabke




msg:126353
 4:53 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

We have a bunch of sites in the freezer, and some that are new and not ;)

If it isn't the freezer/sandbox - it is something else.

You could reroll this post every couple of months for the last 5 year. Hey Wait! We have!

ssdd...

Welcome to G optimization 101.

jk3210




msg:126354
 4:58 pm on Jan 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

[edited so my mailbox won't fill-up with hate mail]

[edited by: jk3210 at 5:14 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2005]

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