| 7:24 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
thayer - did you clean up your act?
If the ban is permanent - you should perhaps consider building new sites.
Google answers currently more than 50% of all queries done on the www.
Asking for PR matters (public relations): 99,9% of Google users will never know about this.
| 7:27 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Google answers currently more than 50% of all queries done on the www. |
| 7:32 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think that you, like everyone else who makes this argument, overestimate your importance to Google, and misunderstand the politics of opinion.
The amount of "ill will" Google creates with penalized webmasters is far outweighed by the goodwill it creates with searchers. That goodwill is Google's greatest asset: goodwill is marketable to advertisers and other companies (like Yahoo). If Google's users are happy without seeing your site, it doesn't matter how upset you are.
Beyond that: It's Google's database. They can be capricious as they want with who gets included.
| 7:32 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Heini - I agree with your second statistic, which is the one most important to Thayer. Not too sure about the first one, though :)
| 7:39 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Exactly. Unless your site is extraordinarily in demand or incredibly unique, it's not all that important to Google. And any ill will is only among the very small minority of site operators who get directly penalized; those who do not may feel some sympathy but just the same are happy to see you gone, and their own sites moved up one spot in the SERPs as a result!
|The amount of "ill will" Google creates with penalized webmasters is far outweighed by the goodwill it creates with searchers. |
| 8:21 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I assume you understand that there is also such a thing like a "natural PR0", when no other well-ranking site links to your blue widgets? You don't make any statement as to why you'd expect them to rank higher than they do, after your own circular links are discounted for. Without a significant number of independent incoming links, your site simply doesn't exist for Google.
| 8:33 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
...are a tricky thing.
In Germany the standard quotation concerning stats is from Winston Churchill. Can't find the original on the web so I'll translate it back to English:
Never believe any statistic as long as you didn't forge it yourself.
Anyhow: here's a new statistic [net4nowt.com], based on results from OneStat.com.
|7 largest search engines on the web are: |
1. Google (51.07%)
2. Yahoo (19.88%)
3. MSN Search (8.43%)
4. Terra Lycos (4.34%)
5. Altavista (3.81%)
6. Ixquick (2.34%)
7. AOL Search (2.18%)
added: anybody know the original quote from Churchill?
| 9:01 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Quoting from memory.
| 9:03 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. |
| 9:18 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|added: anybody know the original quote from Churchill? |
The only reference to Churchill and statistics that I found was:
|I gather, young man, that you wish to be a Member of Parliament. The first lesson that you must learn is, when I call for statistics about the rate of infant mortality, what I want is proof that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than when anyone else was Prime Minister. That is a political statistic. |
Not sure that's what you're thinking of, but it fits the concept.
| 9:28 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hmm thanks folks
(and sorry for taking this thread completely offtopic)
those two things are the ones I found. It's interesting: I suspect this whole "quote from Winston Churchill" thing in Germany is a complete fake.
| 9:42 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
So if we can't trust your quotes, how can we trust your statistics? :)
| 9:47 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
don't trust me - trust the stats you make up yourself ;)
| 10:04 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Which site got hurt? hghcompany.com, or
Looks like hghcompany.com is listed with
some Zeus pages, so I'm guessing that's the
one that you're talking about?
| 10:13 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yeah I wish I could get a non-indexed site indexed! This non-indexed site is listed in dmoz, yahoo, all major SE's (except yahoo). It is listed in Google's categories directory. There are no mirror sites. There is little, if any optimization on the site. The site is not cloaked. There are hundreds of legitimate links pointing to my site. The site is legitimate in every way but not listed in Google and several emails to Google have gone to no avail. The site is not listed in my profile, but the site that is linked from my profile has a link to it.
| 10:16 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Let's face it - Google is very popular these days. It gets THOUSANDS of these e-mails on a daily basis and you really cannot blame them if they don't have the time to answer everyones 0 pagerank problems.
This month I've been pro-active. I've waited 6 months for my sites to re-appear and you know, some have come back with 2-4 pagerank on the index but 0 on the interior pages. But there are some that won't budge off that damn 0!
How can I blame Google when it was my fault when I did the crosslinking back in Dec/Jan? I have no ill-will towards them. I love them. They are cool and groovy, and they know it.
But plan B is now in operation: Ask Mr Googlebot to not visit my 0 rank sites and hopefully I will be removed from the index.... then the following month when I'm deleted I will remove the bugger-off robots.txt file get myself crawled fresh..... and yep, be back big and proud in Google at around... Christmas time.. Doh!
| 10:24 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 10:44 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> Is Google creating a reservoir of ill will?
Of course they are, the real question is will it hurt them?
If you want my personal opinion then yes it will. One of the most destructive forces on the www is an SEO savvy webmaster with nothing to lose, how can they be hurt? Once you are effectively banned then the gloves are off, fight as dirty as you like when already banned because the_worst_that_can_happen is you get banned again, nothing to lose.
I think they are overly concerned about how sites get ranking as opposed to search quality, it's a sutble difference but important all the same.
Have a quick look at the [brief] history of SE/Webmaster relations and see who wins out. Remember AV's black Monday of 99 [AV who?], Inks summer 2000 fit [Ink who?]. If you look back the most sucessful search engines have been the ones that SEO's have targeted most or to put it another way SEO's improve the SERP's[;)]. I think it's about time some of them said thank you.
>gets THOUSANDS of these e-mails on a daily basis and you really cannot blame them if they don't have the time to answer everyones
Real simple, if you aren't prepared to answer your email then don't publish the addresses.
| 10:48 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
<<Real simple, if you aren't prepared to answer your email then don't publish the addresses.>>
I agree with that statement ;)
| 10:53 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
agree with NFFC.
The webmaster/seo might be a tiny part of the google audience, but its savvyness and leadership far outweighs its tiny size.
let me give u an e.g.
at my university, this year, the computer department decided to install the google toolbar as a default set up. they did it, because they knew google was cool, and they found this out from the webmaster/seo "net savy" world.
now everyone at university uses google because its there. everyone says "oh, did u try a search on google for that?".
BUT i can guarantee you that these 1000's of people are doing this because the google toolbar is there as default. If the computer department got wind that google was no longer promoted so much by the net savy people, they would change it.
Now this could take a year, granted, but the point is this: if the computer department decided to put an msn default search on instead of google toolbar, all the 1000s of people would start using that, and within a couple of months, they would be saying "oh, did u try an MSN search for that?".
MOST people's loyalty to one search engine is absolutely fleeting. Our's isn't - we know the specifics. Where we lead, most people, through these kind of processes i described above, will eventually follow.
And i think with the pr0 penalty and the incredibly short sighted and useless PENALISING LINKS strategy (instead of just ignoring), google might have damaged, to some extent, their "net savy" status for the future.
| 11:23 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Actually he does have one of the sites mentioned in his profile. Googleguy might know more than I thought about his particular case ;)
Brett:Also when you get around to changing member name etc ;)
| 1:04 am on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I feel for you 100%. Google doesn't particularly care for indivivual sites. The loss of traffic near as hell put me out of business.
On one side of the argument, you can say: "Well, Google doesn't owe you traffic"
On another side, the one I stick with, is that Google took traffic from other search engines which not have a PR0 penalty for what I see as valid cross-linking.
Yes, I'm bitter about Google's PR0 penalities and the seemingly impossible task of having those penalities removed.
| 3:54 pm on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
To Googleguy- yes, that is the site- Zeus pages??? Not mine and I don't think I ever linked to same. Thanks.
| 5:13 pm on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Before this thread goes any further, I think it would be a good time to remind everyone that Forum 3 is not the appropriate place to seek personal help from Google. Nor is it the appropriate place to conduct recruiting for the spam police.
Quite frankly, I find it somewhat offensive that Google occasionally shows up here and provides direct assistance to a couple of our members, while they have thousands of emails sitting in their inbox that have been completely ignored.
| 5:26 pm on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hmm. I view my role a little differently. I try to dispel myths and provide an
informal way for webmasters to communicate their concerns. The street is two-way,
so I try to keep webmasters appraised of info that they'd want to hear.
But you're the moderator, WebGuerrilla. What would you recommend?
| 6:17 pm on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>I try to dispel myths and provide an
informal way for webmasters to communicate their concerns.
And I fully support that mission. However, when the informal communication comes at the expense of the formal communication, I think it becomes a problem.
Through the course of this thread, thayer had his site looked at, and was then told that the site in question had been penalized because of an association with Zeus.
I know dozens of people who have followed Google's formal instructions for inquiring about a possible penalty who have been patiently waiting for even the inital canned response for months. How is it fair or appropriate for that to happen?
And from a Mod's point of view, where do I draw the line when dealing with all the "Googleguy, please look at my site too" posts that start popping up after you've given a specific answer to an individual member's problem in a public thread?
There have been many "webmaster concerns" mentioned in this thread that provide Google the opportunity to fulfill the mission you stated above. But providing answers on an indiviual basis doesn't get the job done.
How about providing some answers to the broader questions?
How long should one expect to ride the pine if they have been penalized for bad linking?
Why is it that the same cross-linking penalties never seemed to be applied to the big network of sites like internet.com?
Why doesn't Google just ignore intenral/cross links?
What does Google have planned for the future in terms of improving their response times to email?
| 7:04 pm on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think most searchers will never notice a small percentage of missing sites, unless they are trying to find a particular site by name and can't do it. Heck, I'm aware (painfully) that sites have been eliminated from their logical rankings by the PR0/low PR penalty and even *I* still use Google for most searches!
It's too bad, because the effect on the individual site owner can be serious indeed. It's not dissimilar to the plight of a store owner in the path of a road expansion - everyone is happy about the nice new road, except the guy whose building gets demolished. At least in that case, though, there are legal provisions to balance the scales a little bit.
I can't support the 50% figure for replies to inquiries about sites. Or, maybe my inquiries are just in the wrong 50%. I've had only autoresponses and one very generic reply that said something like "site rankings depend on lots of factors".
It really shouldn't be necessary to abandon a domain, or to set up an alternate Google domain. Does Google really want Acme Widgets to abandon acmewidgets.com or to keep the old domain for everyone else and set up acmewidgetsinc.com to have an Google-unpenalized domain? There's enough junk and duplication on the web already...
| 7:14 pm on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
In support of WG's comments - some guidance on the "big questions" would be great:
1) How long do penalties last, in particular the PR0 that morphs into a low PR situation that might as well be PR0?
2) What is a reasonable timeframe to expect an answer about an individual site? These inquiries, I'm sure, mostly come from legitimate site owners who don't want to abandon their sites - spammers cut their losses and move on. I understand that the volume of questions must be overwhelming, but it seems that when mysterious (to the site owner) penalties get applied there is some responsibility to help site owners sort things out.
Well said, WG.
| 7:21 pm on Jun 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Also agree, well stated, WG. However, I wonder whether Google even has the PR zero penalty removal issue sorted out well enough to even provide guidance. In any event, I think they do have some work to do.
| This 144 message thread spans 5 pages: 144 (  2 3 4 5 ) > > |