homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 521 message thread spans 18 pages: < < 521 ( 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 > >     
September, 2002 Google Update Discussion - Part 1
Discussing the major changes that took place

 3:32 am on Sep 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

How on earth can they justify dropping sites that were ranked in the top 10 and are now page 20 and NOTHING at all has changed on the sites from the last month?

The biggest thing is they move the toilet mid stream without a hint they are going to do it...(change the rules)

Googles a joke..

tired of their games..

off to support ANY other search engine..enough of this every month change the rules nonsense..good bye Google ..Good riddence..



 7:56 pm on Oct 4, 2002 (gmt 0)

Every time I do a search I get a ton of doorway pages ranked from #1
to #x.
So I suppose doorway is the vogue.


 9:15 pm on Oct 4, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>I actually have a Google Adword campaign running now that got an average of 3.5% click through while there were relevant results displayed. Now with irrelevant results I am getting 20%! <<

I don't think you're the only one, some folks in this thread [webmasterworld.com] are getting so much adwords traffic (and charges), that they are turning off accounts.

I'm sure some OV advertisers will be getting socked too, via the yahoo/google thing.


 9:47 pm on Oct 4, 2002 (gmt 0)


Our site is owned by a consulting company.

What they have found relevant from the recent massive changes is the suddeness and total unpredicatability of these changes, occuring literally overnight and leaving people guessing as to precisely what happened.

They do not believe it makes business sense to make any continued reliance on a medium where apparently fundamental changes, directed by unseen hands, can occur overnight and leave people guessing as to precisely what happened.

For the first time since the inception of the www, they have frozen all Internet-based advertising expenditures. Contracts which cannot be cancelled will not be renewed.

All search-engine related advertising and promotion is being halted.

All web-related advertising and its accompanying revenue is being shifted to conventional print-based media.

Their clients are being advised accordingly.


 4:27 am on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

webadmin, your consulting company client seems to be shortsighted and mightily reactive.

Because maybe they have been hit by a downgrading in Google and because some are seeing less relevant results in google by itself is a very thin argument for withdrawing internet based promotion all together. I would guess that either internet based advertising was not the right media for them to advertise in the first instance could be one explanation. Just because Google changes does not mean the Internet changes! In fact it may represent an opportunity for advertisers!

Companies who act like your client make it one less competitor for us. This G! update may well have hidden advantages!


 4:29 am on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

"being shifted to conventional print-based media": well we don't get those where we are located so you won't reach us. Demographics are not the same for different medias as everybody knows. What kind of "consulting company" would give such an advice and can't deal with "recent massive changes"?


 5:50 am on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

"P.S. I do feel for all people who lost their ranks but from a user's perspective google did exactly what it was supposed to do. And did it great." -GoogleGuy

I'm a little at a loss here. The users have been calling in and asking for less relevance? Or are the users you refer to Micro$oft and AOL? If so, they CAN "Go to Hell";)

One question. I find it much easier to use the 'dissatisfied with search results' link at the bottom of the first serp page. Will this make it to the same place as the spam report?


 7:26 am on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

Powdork - I think you have misquoted. Googleguy was quoting another post


 8:22 am on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

Powdork - I think you have misquoted. Googleguy was quoting another post

I for one think its high time Bret came up with a foot in mouth graphic counterpart to go with the smilies :).
Perhaps < ' ;0 >
I actually thought it was an uncharacteristically 'high and mighty' thing for GoogleGuy to say, since he typically comes across as being much more objective. Sorry GG

Now I have three questions.

Will the 'dissatisfied with results' form work when we are not satisfied with the results rather than the spam report? Somehow it seems more RELEVANT ;)

OK this is not so much a question as a request.
Could we start a thread where people could post a search query where they thought the results were strange, different from the past, etc. (not spammy) in some way. The search query could be the only thing in the post, no mention of positions or anything, no urls.

How does Google weight 20 letter words? I used one here.:)


 8:40 am on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

Anyone getting deja vu?

Just remember this discussion - it will come back up again in a few months, and a few months after that. Just like we had this exact same convo last november...


 7:05 pm on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

I think some of you may have missed the point.

It is not the position of any particular site in rankings, but the fact -- evidenced by this thread -- that major changes take place, in a totally opaque manner.

It's surprising that Google's 'secret sauce' is accorded so much respect.

Would any of you stand up for the same kind of behind-the-scenes totally invisible manipulative control in any other area?

It would be loudly de-rided, not sheepishly spoken to as if it were some respectful riddle from on high.

The challenge of divining Google's ways (and most search engines have been following Google lockstep) may make a great hobby, and some of you may enjoy this regular 'guessing game' of what happened, and why, and what will happen next.

But from the point of view of anyone considering devoting significant resources to the net, or from an advertiser's viewpoint, CPM on the net have been anything but a bargain, and as search engines themselves become less relevant, it makes sense to go back to mature media.

[Magazines have audited circulation. What if they never told you how they 'audit', and then changed the way they 'audit' whenever they felt like it? They would be free to do so -- but would be treated as flaky].

If any of you care to look, the Internet is no longer attracting resources. And the types of 'experimentation' Google plays on live patients is not the sole reason, but indicative of the reasons.

None of you REALLY have any idea how Google 'ranks' things. And yet their so-called 'rankings' have a big impact, don't they?

What if next month they do it by how close the letter 'i' is to the letter 'e' in all listings? For all you know, that's how they're doing it now.

"Gee- what major shake-up are they secretly planning this month to introduce next month"?

The discussion of 'gee, what did Google do, and why', and 'gee, what will Google do next month", is not indicative of the type of medium on which any reliance will be placed, or on which any planning can be reliably done.

Great fun, but no place to commit resources to.

Is there any other type of 'ranking' which any of you would submit to, let alone treat with awe, if it were so opaque?

The only other company in computerdom that has signficant impact and acts with the same degree of 'opaqueness' as Google is Microsoft.

But Microsoft is treated critically, whatever they do. Seeing the name 'Microsoft' attached to something is enough to draw critical knee-jerk reaction.

Google's shenanigans are somehow treated as exalted. Seeing the name 'Google' attached draws out the warm fuzzies. There is the same suspension of critical faculties -- this time in favor.

The withdrawal of resources from the Net is widespread. Google's most recent 'experiment' is indicative of the reasons.

In any other aspect of life, these types of actions would be viewed not as something to be 'divined', but as what they are -- flaky.


 7:47 pm on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

Webadmin - perhaps the reason Google is treated as "exhalted" is because they don't kiss ass.

I don't think it's their mission to draw resources to the internet. Perhaps it's their independence that makes it all so frustrating, but it's also their strength.

I feel just like you, believe me. Perhaps my situation is more precarious. One more slip and my business is dead. Still, no point in grumbling about it. We've made our beds and we have to lie in them.

We can look for new sources of customers.... yeah, right. :(

Like it or not, the internet is here to stay and at least for me, if I put all other advertising mediums together, the internet would still bring 95% of my custom, and Google half of that. What to do? Nothing I guess.


 11:36 pm on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

None of you REALLY have any idea how Google 'ranks' things - Webadmin

Well we have 2 sites: PR7 and PR6 and they still are top 3 in serps for our top KW and nothing changed with this update.

The receipe? Better content then our competitors so we get the most incomming links. No artificial ingredients.:)


 11:45 pm on Oct 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

Webadmin, what you are talking about really when comparing Google ranking with Magazines and how to controll investments is - adwords. You can controll adwords success, just like other PPC offers.

SE ranking is a whole different story. You don't pay Google, or Fast or any other seriosus search engine for ranking.
Basically a Google serp is not an adspace. Adwords are, and sponsored listings. Hard to believe, but that's the way it is.


 12:31 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

well, i gotta go with webadmin on this one, his analysis is correct, google has become a hobby of SEOs. this sorta thing would be fine except, SEOs i assume want to charge business's for this hobby. like it or not, once google put ads on their search results, they became an advertising agency, simple as that. as an ad agency, business customers are going to require that the rules of the google game be known or they will find other ways to market their products. what surprises me in all of this is how WEB people in general just assume or expect that all real world business realities are suspended or dont count. nothing could be further from the truth.


 12:40 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

jacon4, the only rules of the game Google needs to be let known are for the paid adwords. Nobody pays Google for their ranking in the SERPs.


 1:21 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

"SE Ranking is a whole different story".

Yes! And what is the 'story'?

Case in point:

A specialty information site for which we maintain is listed in Google's OWN directory, under Keyword 1 Keyword 2. It is one of less than a handful of sites listed there.

If you punch those same two keywords into the Google search box, the site [which used to rank in the top few], doesn't show up.

Let me repeat that in case it isn't clear:

Google's own directory lists a site as one of a very few in its own directory under Keyword 1 Keyword 2.

But Google's own vaunted "search engine" apparently can't find it under a search for those same 2 keywords.


The issue here is NOT any specific interest we have in this site, or whether we will reach the users we want to reach.

The majority of users we want to address, or direct to the site, can be and are addressed both via the web [through special interest newsletters, ezines, and special interest groups], and through targeted advertising.

Who was finding the site through "search engines"?

The people finding the sites through search engines were, insofar as we can tell (and as the related inquiries show) students doing research and others with general interest. We made no money off these users, but were happy to extend the information.

It is unlikely they will ever find the site now.

The sites they will find using Google (and all the search engines that rely on Google) are peripheral to the topic.

In fact, almost all the sites which I would recommend for the topic will no longer be found through Google. And, because of the search engines that hang off Google, they won't find them there either.

They will find them through DMOZ.

And it seems that they will find them through "AlltheWeb".

Does it make a difference to us? In terms of dollars and cents, no. In terms of the fact that general interest searchers will no longer find the site, that's really unfortunate. The Web was supposed to promote access to information -- not limit it through propietary algorithms.


Someone in an earlier post paid Google the ultimate compliment "They don't kiss ass...they're independent".

But if you look beyond the "emperor's new clothes" sheen, Google does worship at one specific altar -- their own.

Google have one of the only unassailed 'proprietary' algorithms in use today.

Surprisingly, netizens who consider themselves 'pro-web', attack proprietary algorithms, but often stand in awe of Google's proprietary algroithm.

You have no idea how it works, or what it does, but respect it.


No disrespect for the "Google Guy", but why does Google get so much 'respect"? Is it fear?


Google's algorthm, {it's 'secret sauce') can only be judged for efficacy the same as any other algorithm: IS IT LOGICALLY CONSISTENT?

And, as pointed out in the example above {and many more could be set forth -- and some have been set forth in this thread), GOOGLE'S ALGORITHM IS NO LONGER LOGICALLY CONSISTENT. {Perhaps they would like to shoot their own foot off, and claim that it never was).

Google started out with a very simple and fundamentally sound idea for an algorithm: essentially, the more sites which point at a specific site for a specific topic, the more LIKELY (not definitely, but LIKELY) that site was authoritative.

This 'pointing' algorithm seemed to be sound both iteratively, and regressively.


Google spread LARGELY by word of mouth. People found Google's search results relevant, and individuals, newsletters, columnists, ezines, magazines, -- you name it -- starting recommending Google.

But word of mouth works both ways. Remember when Yahoo was the unassaialable king? Yahoo had a pre-eminent position, but the real owners of all things public -- those who are often derided as the 'little people' -- started complaining about arrogance, non-responsiveness, and many other things.

And suddenly the new kid on the block -- Google -- took over the once unassaialalbe position held by Google.


Google now is a black box.

Who runs it? How do you contact them? Do they respond to -- anyone?

The appearance of an anonymous representative of Google on this forum is not 'responsiveness'. It is a statement to how much a power-unto-themselves Google have become.

Why should this algorithm be so secret?

And what kind of valid algorithm is valid one month, and turned on its head the next month?

Are Google tweaking? Is this a 'tweak'? Or is it beta-testing on a sample which is really not a sample, but the global user base?

This is not 'tweaking'. It's a wholesale of shuffling of the deck. Why?

What was wrong with last month's algorithm?

What's better about this month's?

Which one was right?

Will next month produce a whole new algorithm?


The fact that there is so much guessing about 'what' was changed, and 'why' it was changed speak volumes about what's wrong.

Lots of things have been hinted at in the thread, including conspiratorial motives and a scheme to promote Adwords.

The truth is probably far simpler: they suspected that people were starting to suss out enough about their secret sauce to do the right things to gain position.

So what?

If you're a control freak, that would bother you.

But if your interest is in bringing the most relevant sites to the highest positions, AND YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ALGORITHM ('formula') for assessing how sites should rank, then what difference would it make if people found out how your judged things?

If you think your criteria are right -- for anything -- then you shouldn't be afraid to publish those criteria.

If the criteria REALLY ARE VALID then you should WANT people to know what those criteria are, and do the right things to achieve high ratings.

ANY valid objective 'rating' or 'ranking' system, must, by defintion, to be valid, be TRANSPARENT.

[Remember in school when you complained the teacher was 'unfair' because no-one knew 'how they marked you'?]

Let's say that MOTOR OIL (for your car) was judged by a 'secret algorithm'. Would you put much faith in that system? If motor oil manufacturers found out what that 'secret ranking system' was, and started to manufacture their oil to meet it, wouldn't that be a good thing? If the company that did the ranking suddenly changed their 'secret algorithm' because motor oil manufacturers were manufacturing their motor oil to meet it, wouldn't you wonder just what the 'ranking system' people were trying to promote?

Google apparently 'penalizes' sites that use programs like WebAgentGold [a program we don't own or use}. Why? What are they afraid of? If they have the CORRECT ranking algorithm, wouldn't they want sites that match it to rank high -- however they find out about it.


Word of mouth is a wonderful thing, and the intelligence of everyday people is a powerful force.

Google's latest 'shufffle' suggests that they have created a house of cards.

The results do appear to be less relevant -- and as pointed out, and this is the crippling point -- LACK LOGICAL CONSISTENCY within their own site.

As people find the results less relevant, they will gravitate to other search engines. A columnist here, an ezine there, a newsgroup somewhere else, and workers at adjacent cubicles will suggest and gravitate to other search engines -- and Google's decline will come about through the same means as its ascent.

For anyone who is familiar with the Web or computerdom for more than an eyeblink, there are legions of companies who started to believe they actually owned specific niches, and then started to act as if they were truly 'independent' -- beholden only to themselves.

In reality Google and all other companies are reliant on 'users'.

Based even just on the contents of this thread, and the lack of logical consistency shown on Google's own site, Google has bent their own algorithm out of shape.

As a user, you would be well advised to look at the ascendancy of DMOZ (where several hundred thousand human beings provide the 'algorithms'), and perhaps "alltheweb" (which seems to be one of the few search engines not totally tied to Google).

Google may choose to laugh off these comments, but if we were providing strategic advice to Google I know what we would tell them.

For now, I would a few simple questions, for a company who has staked its claim to fame to an algorithm:

Was the algorithm right last month?, or is it right this month -- wildly different results? Or will it be right next month?


 2:07 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

webadmin?. i think many points you made seem to be based on your site(s) falling through the ranks ... that is no reason to draw literally illogical conclusions.

if you noticed non-relevant, spam results like GoogleGuy said report them.

a slight change in algo could have a major effect on what those first 10 results of 1,000,000+ results google finds in some competitive keywords.

i think drawing any sort of conclusions/statements based on "my site used to be number 1" and "now it is on 100th+ page" is a meaningless dialogue!.

what matters is, are the results relevant?. IMHO, they are better now!.


 2:46 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Re: comments by przero2

Could you please point out ONE illogical thing in any of what was posted?

You seem to miss the point. This is not a complaint about our, or any other, speicific site.

Let me put it to you simply:

Someone comes along and states they are AN EXPERT at ranking things.

Month number 1: he ranks you #1.
Month number 2: he ranks you #1.
Month number 3: he ranks you #1.

Month number z (say month number 16): he ranks you #41.

You have made no changes.

You ask him why the change.

He says that's none of your business -- HE's the expert.

At what?

You ask him how he ranks things.

He says that's none of your business-- HE's the expert.

You accept it. Because HE's the expert.

When was he ranking things correctly? When you were #1? When you were #41?

When will it occur it to you that maybe this guy is wearing the emperor's new clothes, and you're pretending you can see them.

A sensible observer would question your blind faith in this person's ranking system.

Was he right when you were #1?

Was he right when you were #41?


 3:14 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Question: is this site in Google at all? Or, is it lower ranked than usual?


 3:31 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

re: >Question: is this site in Google at all? Or, is it lower ranked than usual?

Which 'site' are you referring to? The one in the example, or 'this site' as Webmasterworld?


 3:37 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

The site you are referring to. Please list this in your profile. I want to check and see if it is Google at all, and if it is in Google if anything seems off with obvious searches for it.


 3:49 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Great post, webadmind.

PD: Take it easy with rfgdxm1. It may not be apropiated to give him too much data about yourself.

[edited by: Marcos at 4:00 am (utc) on Oct. 6, 2002]


 3:57 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

>rfgdxm1 may not be just an anonimous poster. Take it easy with him.

Heh. Actually, what I am wondering most if this is yet another case where for whatever reason a site got totally dropped from Google. We've had a lot here; it even happened to me one month. Thus, it may not be the Google algo is bad, but instead his site just isn't in Google at all. Note he wrote "But Google's own vaunted "search engine" apparently can't find it under a search for those same 2 keywords." If the site is in Google, it should come up with those 2 keywords if you keep drilling down far enough.


 4:06 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)


Re: Your Question

Unfortunately, a client site cannot be made 'grist for the mill'.
But I assure that there are numerous instances.

If you look at a previous post, there is reference to a site which is listed in Google's own Google Directory as one of a handful under 'keyword 1, keyword 2', cannot be found using those same keywords using their own Google search box. This demonstrates a serious problem with Google -- it is not even INTERNALLY consistent.

We are able to communicate with users of interest and not dependent on Google do so. But Google used to open the subject area up to non-expert searchers.

Bssed on my reading of this multi-page thread, and sample searches I have run in areas I am familiar with, Google's results are becoming marginally relevant, and far less relevant than DMOZ or 'alltheweb'.

My concern is not with a specific site, but that participants in this forum are flagellating themselves [or patting themselves on the back] for reasons which have very little to do with themselves, and should be taking Google to task for what appears to be an ultimately arbitrary and opaque rating system, of dubious validity.

Ultimately, if even part of the complaints in this forum are true (and it seems they are), Google will undo itself.

There are steps they could take, but it seems not only unlikely that they will, but that they won't be aware of what has to be done until it's far too late. It's a very common problem in computerdom and webdom -- ascendancy to the top of a niche, followed by forgetting how and why you got there, followed by a precipitous decline.

{Remember when "Yahoo" was the cock of the walk -- see my previous post).

[edited by: webadmin at 5:41 am (utc) on Oct. 6, 2002]


 4:21 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Thanks, webadmin


 6:01 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

"and should be taking Google to task for what appears to be an ultimately arbitrary and opaque rating system, of dubious validity" - webadmin

You could say that about ALL SE's.

Yes it's opaque, it's their products, it's a private enterprise, they own it. I truly think that eventually a solid public service not for profit SE will be necessary. Just like there is plenty of bookstores but that does not replace public libraries. At least they are a googol time more honest than M$N search (to name only one) in identifying what's paid and what's not. And there is no PFI (so far).

"dubious validity", well in my field, it's still the best on the block. If you expect Google to crash and burn because your site (or sites) went down several notches, get a comfortable chair and store plenty of food and drinks.

40% of our traffic is Google related so we diversify and make sure we are in the top results of other SE. Also a spare URL with good ranking is not a bad idea (different ownership and server). Naturally so not to be depending 100% on serps, we use PPC's (we hate them but at least we have some control). Newsletter, link exchange, traditional media reviews, word of mouth, etc. The point is not to get lazy and don't put all your eggs in the Google basket. Lastly, SE's are much more difficult to spam than a few years ago (at one point we had 8 of the top 10 results in Lycos for example). When running some personal search, I usually find what I'm looking for on the first page. To me that proves that the algos are getting better. No perfect: better.

Now, what about moving on and talking about the subject of this tread: "Let's find out what happened "?

We noticed some competitors with spammy incoming links and high KW density going down both in PageRank and serp.


 7:22 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

If you look at a previous post, there is reference to a site which is listed in Google's own Google Directory as one of a handful under 'keyword 1, keyword 2', cannot be found using those same keywords using their own Google search box. This demonstrates a serious problem with Google -- it is not even INTERNALLY consistent.

Hmm, who said they were supposed to be consistent?
Internally? Directory is just a listing from ODP which anyone can download, organized in the order that google thinks is the right one (by pr or whatever).

Who said that ODP contents even have to be in the main google base?

That does not make much sense just like the rest of the comments.


 7:28 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Let's find out what happened - Sept. 2002 Update- Pt. 2
No emotions please, just the facts

<looking up> Oh yeah... THAT'S the topic! ;) </looking up>

What began as an incredibly valuable thread with nuts and bolts details leading to very sound suggestions has derailed and fallen deeeeep into the emotional diatribe pit... once again.

This signal to noise degradation occuring in other threads is exactly why a new thread was started in the first place.

If anybody has any insightful on topic contributions to make let's hear them...

Off Topic = Emotionally charged rhetoric about the value of Google, the value of the SERPs, and the moral obligations of a Search Engine.

On Topic = Information brought to the table in the spirit of cooperative research to help understand the technical how and why of this months SERP shuffling.


 8:39 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

My immediate advice would be wait and see what happens next update before making any changes, my main site's been more deeply and regularly crawled than ever before, so I'm not keen to make too many changes just yet. For the future though this is the way I see things playing out...

The beauty of the internet is that there are no barriers to entry, any Tom, Dick or Harry can become somebody online.

The problem with the internet is that there are no barriers to entry, any Tom, Dick or Harry can become somebody online.

You don't need a licence to trade, more often than not you don't need to sink $$$ into it in the first place, there are no tariffs or quotas, it's a total and utter free market place, therefore there is going to be a huge amount of competition all the time. That's the most appealing thing about it, it's not closed shop. However, what this means is that you'll be foolish to think you can make an online business work consistently forever....it's the nature of the beast that is the internet.

The one certainty that seems to be arising from the Internet is that whenever "anyone" has ever tried to cash in on their "big" online name, they crash and burn.

In another couple of years Google may well be old news. There will be at least 10 other engines as good as Google and we'll be able to spread our risk better. It seems to be the way... cash in and float on the stock market before you crash and burn... and this is what Google are doing. All their hard work has to amount to something. The .com bubble has burst, Google's is currently on the brink of it, and they're probably one of the only online companies left that can float successfully and cash in - because of their audience. We've seen it happen to all extremely successful "free" sites...take Napster as an example, the minute they try an charge a fee, another 10 Napsters spring up in their place. And that is where the Internet excels.


 8:59 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

webadmin, we try to give the best rankings we can every time. When we come up with a scoring improvement, we test it carefully and then we put it out. It may not improve every single search, but in general we're very confident that things improved across the board.

I definitely believe that people should try lots of different search engines and find the one that works best for them. If you read what many people have been posting on other threads, they've actually been saying that they've been getting more traffic, even if their rankings have changed for specific queries.

As far as the "Google have one of the only unassailed 'proprietary' algorithms in use today." bit, I think we're just about the only search engine with 4-5 good research papers describing the foundations of our system. :)


 9:11 am on Oct 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

GG, you're asking us to report spam. I'm still getting spammy SERPS where sites are using techniques that must be at least 2,3 years old. Whats the deal here? I thought you already had this under control.

This 521 message thread spans 18 pages: < < 521 ( 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 > >
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