| 6:33 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In my opinion, a lot of pages are duplicate and url-only ones. Maybe that's how the count number has gone that high.
| 9:12 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Who cares? Many of the "pages" indexed are duplicates, redirects, url-only, hijacked, etc. They need to spend time fixing the bugs, and making the search better, and focus less on how many pages are indexed.
Its all about QUALITY...not Quantity!
| 11:49 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Many of the pages are sandboxed and basically are inaccessible anyways.
| 2:07 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Many of these pages are out of date "Supplemental Results" which have not been crawled for months if not years. For example, there's pages in Google for one of my sites which have been 404'd for 10 months.
| 2:32 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Its all about QUALITY...not Quantity! |
|Many of the pages are sandboxed and basically are inaccessible anyways. |
These quotes sum it up.
I have been in touch with their staff at Awords (we have a 120USD budget per day) and their staff at firstname.lastname@example.org. After complete and total frustration for months I have sent Google a copy of the email below. I hope one day they will stop this complete unfairness to newer sites. Before it destroys all their webmaster/public relations.
Thank you for your speedy reply,
Why does your spider index and crawl almost every page of the site and yet it is nowhere to be seen in your competitive SERPS? All the other engines rank it well.
Why is it on page 4 of your SERPS for "keyword 1 keyword 2 sitename", for instance - the other results being mostly non- keyword 1 keyword 2 related site's link pages which list sitename.com?
Your search engine is either broken or sitename.com must have some type of penalty/filter/sandbox.
Incidentally, we are no longer going to use Google for Adwords advertising on moral grounds - because after 6 months your engine is the only search engine that doesn’t list sitename.com (by far the largest keyword 1 keyword 2 website) in any of your competitive SERPS.
If Google did list sitename.com fairly and accurately (or at all) we would have no hesitation in continuing our advertising with Google to compliment your 'natural' traffic flow.
Unfortunately this is not, and has never been the case.
I wish your company well.
| 2:55 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Great point, why should we support Adwords when they hold sites back. I have a very similar experience. My site was launched back in March, its featuring on yahoo, MSN and MSN beta but not google. In fact not on google under any keyword despite the bot visiting ever day taking thousands of hits and then never indexing any of the pages. loads of my site pages are PR5s but frankly whats the point.
The sooner MSN wipe the floor with them the better if this is the way they are going to treat webmasters
| 3:08 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As with you RichTC my pages are PR 5 - all 3000 of them. Nothing unusual, just huge content...
I've reached my patience point - now I'm going to black Google out, just as it has done with my new sites!
Adwords traffic is really bad quality compared to 'natural' traffic anyway...
Yahoo and MSN you have $120 per day comming your way.
| 3:22 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I worshipped Google's ethics and customer support for years.
I launched a site almost 10 months ago and it is still sandboxed. How do I conclude this? Both Yahoo and MSN list me in a way that is completely accurate to the way I have marketed myself.
I am fully convinced (as I work on helping other sites market themselves as well) that Google is squeezing new companies and forcing them to pump money into AdWords. I think it is a despicable and disgusting thing to do. Competitors that are most definitely inferior in their product lines have now had a year of prosperity with little to no need to worry.
I never thought I'd love the sight of Microsoft invading another industry.
| 3:32 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The shame and the key problem that I have with the sandbox is not that your new large site with a $120 a day marketing budget does not get through the rankings, it is that some other sites small time site with a budget of .05 a day doesn't get through. to me the beauty of the web has always been that a couple of kids doing a school project could compete with multi-million dollar companies and even beat those companies, that a guy could start a company out of his parents garage and one day have billion dollar companies (target, macy's, etc) begging his company to show them how or run their online presence for them. The great thing about the internet is and in my opinion always will be that the playing field is level. If I wanted to create a B&M store I could never be able to compete with the big guys but online it is possible.
Somewhere along the line corporate profits have gotten in the way of the vision. From googles perspective I am sure their are A LOT of new sites that are 100% SPAM and the sandbox helps eliminate this to a point but creating a sandbox system to make it where only those that have large (or at least some) major financing can compete is Stupid and in my opinion will one day lead them to loose to some other kid somewhere who is sitting in his parents basement or doormroom or somewhere coding a spider that can detetct spam and product good results
All of that from someone who doesn't even have site in the sandbox, This is me stepping off of my soap box
[edited by: mcockrel at 3:35 am (utc) on Jan. 16, 2005]
| 3:32 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I never thought I'd love the sight of Microsoft invading another industry. |
The problem with G$$gle is that they like too much to be another M$... and forgot their roots in the community!
| 3:35 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The IPO seems to have taken care of that.
| 3:39 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is amazing how quickly G$$gle is becoming a dirty word!
| 4:19 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That's because Google switched from being a fairly open, if hypocritical company, to a closed, deceptive, money centered company. This switch happened as soon as the IPO started becoming a reality. Well, actually the first time I saw it was around November 2003. That's the first time I saw that the whole 'don't be evil' nonsense couldn't hold up to the money pressures.
Very naive, google people.
All closed, proprietary software companies will go down this road, google isn't immune, as we can now easily see. Time for an open search engine, I don't want a proprietary system controlling access to the world's information, the potential for abuse is simply too high, eg adwords boost etc.
| 8:24 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ha, this is great!
I knew that info would spark some type of google bash. I personally agree that google holds much rubbish, and can use some good straightening out.
I was just blown away by the number. I don't care what it is, anything with that many comma's is impressive.
Good old Google, the one you hate so much you love. A love hate relationship as always, and probably always will be!
| 9:38 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google has become so arrogant that they will be the cause of their own demise. Pissing off webmasters is NOT the way to make money for their investors. Google, wake up and listen to what we are saying before your stock values plummet. At the very least, take care of your serps. Allowing urls to be hijacked is utterly ridiculous. You have known about this problem for a year and have done NOTHING. When investors realize how incompetent you are, they will start pulling their money OUT, as I intend to do.
I miss the old Google. I also miss Googleguy. I have the feeling he was told to stop speaking to us. How arrogant would that be, huh?
Searching 8,058,044,651 pages. LOL. Big freaking woo.
| 10:29 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah something needs to be done if MSN Beta can get it right I may have to move my money where I can expect some return.
I love Google but I would really like to see google get rid of this. Its been way too long and NOTHING has been done. Yahoo had this problem too and even deleted sites out of its database and never put them back because of it. It is a new day and I hope MSN brings life to search that Yahoo and Google have let us down on. Let 2005 bring in a new year of search!
| 4:34 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I miss the old Google. I also miss Googleguy. I have the feeling he was told to stop speaking to us. How arrogant would that be, huh?"
Public company. if he slips up and says something it could hurt the stock price and open them up to lawsuits if things go south. Also, it woud like Coca Cola discussing their formula online or a Symantec guy giving tips on hacker forum.
| 6:12 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Webmasters made Google popular and it will be webmasters responsible for its downfall, if it doesn't quickly get its search engine in order and get rid of that stupid sandbox.
Florida, dull results, sandbox, 302 hijacks.... where is it heading? Google must realize that it is/was loved world-wide because of its clean serps, quick crawling and indexing, good ranking system, and its wonderful relationship with the webmaster community which I am sorry to say has taken a backseat.
If there's anyone who can bring Google back on track, then its MSN. Wait till it launches and see how Googleplex buzzes with late night activities. Can't wait till Feb 01.
| 6:27 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I believe that the Google tally first appeared around November 9th. That's when I blogged it, at least.
| 6:12 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I miss the old Google. I also miss Googleguy. I have the feeling he was told to stop speaking to us. How arrogant would that be, huh? |
Not true. He posts quite regularly in an another forum.
| 12:12 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes...I belong to that forum. But he hasn't posted in a while there either to my knowledge.
| 4:34 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually, I think he's still around a bit.
I think most webmasters are looking for an excuse to like Google. I for one have historically impressed with the 'Gooogle way'. I hope they clear things up soon!
| 5:21 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The issue at steak isn't Googleguy and his presence in the forums. I should have never said anything about Googleguy's absence because it is irrelevant. The issue is Google bragging about pages indexed when they have numerous bugs to work on. The pages indexed are often nothing to brag about.
[edited by: crobb305 at 5:25 am (utc) on Jan. 19, 2005]
| 5:25 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've got no gripe with G. I'm glad I'm in there somewhere. 2 sites I have that go back to 98 are doing great. 2 sites went up 1 year ago, not so good. All 4 are different businesses. Google is making the phones ring, least for me. That is a lot of pages, seems accurate, last time I counted.
| 5:28 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I've got no gripe with G... 2 sites I have that go back to 98 are doing great. |
Congratulations! Count your lucky stars that you are not a victim (yet) of page hijacking which has been discussed at length in various threads. But while you are counting stars, knock on wood! I was #1 across numerous terms for three years before my index page became the target of malicious sabotage. Before you brag, consider the possiblities and the obvious shortcomings of the modern-day Google. You may be next.
| 5:35 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Weren't we told as kids that it's quality, not quantity.
| 5:42 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes...and that's exactly what I said in the third post of this thread. In light of their bugs, hijacking, url-only listings, etc...Google bragging about pages indexed is ridiculous.
| 9:38 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And to hear people say that Google wouldn't miss a beat without webmasters?! Laugh! I beg to differ, if webmasters weren't around google would have NADA! No sites, no google!
It's just too bad Google's site itself can't be highjacked because then they'd take action! It's also too bad Google can't be sandboxed. Imagine if Google was nowhere to be found?! Do you think they'd be objective?
Google sucks now more than ever and I have moved on to other search engines entirely. It would be nice to see other webmasters support the new engines by putting search engine code on their sites so that the public could be enlightened to the fact that other search engines produce quality results. I for one am fully supporting the MSN beta even though it's in beta still. I used to have google search engine code in my footer on all 14 of my sites but have since changed over. I also contemplated using adsense but took a step back and realized that all that would do is add to Google's pocket books and why do I want to help a search engine that lacks respect for webmasters? I used to love Google but now I can't stand even using it for any search I do. Yahoo and MSN both provide me with what I'm looking for 9 times out of 10.
Of course this is all just IMHO!
Bring the heat MSN!
| 3:36 pm on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Before you brag"
So if i'm not in here bashing google, i'm bragging? I don't brag about anything. I make my living on the Internet and have since 98. I tell my experiences the way they happened. And yes I have pages that are highjacked, things that are going on with Google, other sites, and my pages, I can't explain them. But I'm banned on Y or penalized with all my sites, and Google is all I have, until MSN now. Back to work
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |