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 273 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 273 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >     
November 2002 Google Update

 5:09 am on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Did I announce it first?



 11:21 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

About our dynamic pages we used Apple's WebObjects however we also made the URL's "book markable" as requested by our client, this will also help GoogleBot presumeably.

Intead of a URL with "?" and other odd characters plus numbers and letters that are not very human friendly we have URL's like this:


we do allow underscores and periods so some pages URL's are like this:




Dashes are also allowed perhaps, basically we want the URL's too look like a static site. This isn't an eCommerce app or a product catalog though that is a common source of dynamic URLs.

So if you make dynamic URL's it should almost go without saying for people and for GoogleBot try to make them as 'readable' as possible.


troels nybo nielsen

 11:21 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Rather funny: On www3 one of my pages fluctuates between PR2 and PR5. On www it's not there at all. :-)

Visit Thailand

 11:22 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Since this thread started I went to www, www2, and www3 and saw Yahoo with 632,000 b/links on all three, and I am not seeing any difference at all on any search terms I look at.


 11:40 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hello everybody,
quick question, is it too late to change something on my home page


 11:41 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hello everybody,
quick question, is it too late to change something on my home page

NOT for the december update... ;)


 11:43 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Google's new result not on Yahoo! yet?

troels nybo nielsen

 11:48 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

> Hello everybody,
quick question, is it too late to change something on my home page

Welcome to WW, Bernie. This is a good time to upload new stuff for the december update.


 11:52 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

if that really was it - it was pathetic...failed to re cache any pages as far as i can see, even the major ones on a PR6 site...

how come www2 and www3 now wont show, come up as page not displayed - i thought once things were over they were accessable...?


 12:04 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Google's update showing up in Yahoo.


 12:14 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

I was too quick - its dancing again.


 12:15 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just so I can be proud like the rest here! It's an update - I moved, it's better, I'm happy.

I don't want to thank my family, my new girl-friend nor WebMasterWorld - this prize was won through many months of torture, pain - and trying to live the 'Google' way. Having worked for years to try and achieve PR - I lost. I thought that my previous 'grey-bar' award was proof that I was going to be the great unknown person in the Industry.

I was wrong. Suddenly I gained the PR0 award and knew that I was recognised by the 'Google' awards team as a possible runner-up in the 2000 Millenium ranking stakes.

I was under-estimated! The 'Google' awards team gave me the 'high 5' and I emerged a leader in the SEO 'Handicap Stakes' (European Regional Final).

What can I say? It's the Holiday Season - I've got into the Top 10 - and my Wife is happy!

Thank-you Google - thank you readers - thank you, all of you - for having the patience to put up with my learning curve - my hopes, desires - and frustrations.

I couldn't have put up with all of this - without you!

Now, why do people complain about Google? Hard work, intuition and doing it the 'right way' will always get a great result!

Why is it that people who do it other ways always seem to beat my honest results?

Not that I mind - it's a great learning curve :)


 12:15 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Still looks like things haven't settled down. www is back to old update.


 12:23 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)


You don't want to thank WebmasterWorld but you go on to thank everyone here?

You have a girlfriend and a wife?

Just giving you a hardtime. You were probably excited when you wrote that. I am happy that you were successful.


 12:26 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

>You have a girlfriend and a wife?

It was all the years I spent in the Far East!


 1:22 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hi Everybody
1st post although I have been lurking and learning for some time now. I am wondering if anybody could help me.
I started out with www.mysite1.com. A few months later I changed to www.mysite2.com. I had my host forward #1 to #2. A month later I went from 10th page to #11 (2nd page) on google with #1 website. The next month #1 disapeared altogether but #2 came in 25 (3rd page) NOW #1 is back and #2 disapeared all together. Am I making a mistake by forwarding #1 to #2 and do you think one day I might have neither of them up. Any help would be appreciated if you read through my confusion.


 1:25 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)
Hi all,

Well not much change in the update for me, but wanted to make a comment on Googleguy's brief notes.

A couple of days ago we all read with interest a new page on Google that seemed in a way to acknowledge and give legitimacy to SEO as an occupation. http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

However, Googleguy (who's comments are viewed with great interest and appreciation by most of us) highlights radiosky and europeforvisitors comments about having got great SERPS by ONLY producing good content and laregely ignoring traditional SEO techniques.

OK, so if we take 'creating good orginal on-topic content' as a given of this forum (since we all know it's essential) - what does this mean? Call me paranoid, but to highlight these two comments seems to be giving credance to a 'what's the point of seo at all' argument, which would kind of make this forum a waste of time.

Of course I don't think that, and most people here don't, but given that Googleguy's comments are as near as we have to being a voice of the company itself, you must forgive me for reading into this a little :-)

GoogleGuy, whilst I like most appreciate your comments and that you are keen to help in many situations, might I make 2 suggestions regarding this page:

1) The page is written with an overall negative emphasis on SEOs. It starts by acknowledging that some are good, and then goes on to highlight all the 'things to look out for' (i.e. which would scare me off if I was a client).

Couldn't it be written in a positive fashion? By this I mean talk about what a 'good SEO' should do, and then finish up by talking about things to be wary of?

2) "For your own safety, you should insist on a full and unconditional money-back guarantee" - Many comments have already been made on this. I don't hink I need to repeat.

I'm sorry to whine, and Googleguy I think most of what you say is of great value to both the community and maintaining a relationship with all us SEOs, but I'm sure you will understand that as the only representative of Google that we know about, you will be in the unfortunate position of being that target of our moans :-)

Sorry for the length of this post guys, hope you all did well in the update, and sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but I thought as I was referring to comments made in this thread, it was the best place for it.


 1:59 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

"hope you all did well in the update"

Can we rename the thread November 2002 Google Downdate?
I'd like to thank my host for these spectacular results.
3 sites down off and on over 3 days and now I have dropped off the planet.
I followed the rules, I didn't do anything even remotely close to being even a bit shady, and I get fairly decent and fairly consistent results.
Then my host goes belly up for a few days and it's all for naught.

My advice?

Don't put all your money into adwords, etc.
Save some for quality, RELIABLE hosting.
Sometimes you get caught up with all the other stuff and forget that without a good, solid footing, there's no way you can climb higher.


 2:04 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

>> I didn't do anything even remotely close to being even a bit shady......

Do you mind ;)


 2:10 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

podawg .. oh yeh, good hosting is VERY important as I too learnt a while back :-) Do a search on here, you'll find some quality recommendations.


 2:12 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't say I ignored "traditional SEO methods," but if building a page as Brett recommends in his 12 months to a successful site in Google - I hardly think that qualifies as SEO. I just hit the traditional techniques. Once in the title, meta kw, meta description, some h1 or h2 and sprinkled naturally throughout the page in normal usage. All of it built around a "simple" page. (clean, simple code). I hardly use images and my page loads super fast. (You would laugh if I told you what I built my sites with, but it has worked for me for 18 months with solid ranking most of the time).

Is that basic common sense approach to building a web site = SEO? If so, then SEO experts everywhere are overselling themselves bigtime. To me, and maybe this is my own semantics, but I would just call that being SEF (search engine friendly).

Besides that common sense approach, I added quality content and worked hard to gain respectable links. (My site jumped from 8 pages to 35 and will probably be around 70 six months from now). I attribute the increased content and backlinks as most responsible for my recent high serps.

I am just a joe shmoe who took much of the rock solid advice I found here and applied it. I don't think I can term the common sense approach I took to rebuilding my site as SEO. If it is, so be it. The simple techniques I used were "no brainers" - time consuming, safe, but effective.

The bad rap SEO has these days is because of the unscrupulous "experts" that got greedy. They (not all) did it to themselves. Like many others, I wasted money on an SEO "expert" in the beginning. I have no compassion for the reputation that they (most, not all) have built for themselves.

As billionare investor Warren Buffett did during the tech stock investor craze and eventual fiasco, I am now sticking to basics and it paid off.


 2:39 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

radiosky and europe - I didn't mean to criticise at all your posts - in fact what you say are words of wisdom that are repeated here on many occasions.

The only thing I have a problem with is 'downgrading' legitimate SEO techniques as a valid occupation.

Sure, if I make a page with few images and a simple design it would be fairly easy to get good rankings depending on the market, but clients rarely meet this spec :-)

My only gripe was with the wording of the SEO page on Google, which i think could be modified to convey more respect to legitimate SEO businesses.


 4:00 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

This is good -- my home page increased from 482 backlinks to 854.


 4:02 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

oops .... sorry shady ;)


 4:40 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Well I'm happy this this month I got back the page rank that I lost last month.

whats up skip

 4:48 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

It is not over 'til its over!

SERP are still changing around.


 4:48 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Which are the most accurate results in this stage of the update? www? ww2? www3? Other server?


 5:26 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

That's exactly my question at this very second, Copyboy! Hopefully, results from www2 or www3 will be the final, cuz www is no good for my site!

Fingers crossed...


 5:42 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

podawg, it's possible those sites might show up further into the index switchover. Or if not, our fresh crawl might pick them up. Sorry to hear your hosting company dropped the ball--finding a rock-solid place to host domains is definitely a foundation for everything else.


 6:09 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Happy Thanks Giving to all,

Hey GoogleGuy, you don't sleep or something? I mean, day or night, you are here - (kinda good though), or you think you have gotten addicted to WebmasterWorld like everyone else?

P.S. One of my friends site is now showing up PR5 and PR6 for different pages. The interesting thing is, the previous PR on the site was PR1 and PR0. Do you think the PR5 and PR6 is to going to stay or why would it showing high if it is not going to stay atleast PR5? -- Just wondering :)


 7:51 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

lavapies wrote:

However, Googleguy (who's comments are viewed with great interest and appreciation by most of us) highlights radiosky and europeforvisitors comments about having got great SERPS by ONLY producing good content and laregely ignoring traditional SEO techniques.

I didn't exactly say that. What I said was:

Indeed, I think that SEO is one of those areas where "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I try to provide helpful "spider food" in the form of descriptive titles, headlines, etc., but that's as far as I go. Today's killer SEO technique is likely to be tomorrow's death sentence, so I figure it's better to focus on content and let Google do the rest.

I'm in the content business, so that's my focus--but it doesn't mean I expect SEOs to become editors or copywriters. Oe the contrary: I think SEO professionals can provide an extremely useful service to clients by being SEOs--providing they can do it without resorting to techniques that (a) Google doesn't like and (b) aren't helpful to search engines and users. Let's look at some of the things an SEO can do that won't get clients into trouble and will help those clients do better in Google:

1) Optimize the client's page titles. (How many clients know about title tags? How many know that title tags need to tell search spiders what the page is about, but in a way that won't look like spam or meaningless lists of keywords to people who are browsing through Google SERPs?)

2) Educate the client in how to structure an article, online product brochure, or catalog for the reader and for Google. (I.e., how to break it into pages on subtopics, with each page having appropriate titles, headlines, etc.) If necessary, go through the client's site, prioritize sections or pages for optimization based on their commercial importance or whatever, and then work with the client in having those sections or pages revised to match your "spider food" objectives.

3) Analyze the navigational structure of your client's Web site for both usability and transfer of PageRank. Explain, for example, that every click away from the home page means a diminution of PageRank--and help the client create a linking structure that will serve the reader while maximizing PR transfer to the pages that need it most.

4) Do a "spam check" on your client's Web site to identify things like excessive crosslinking, doorway pages, cloaking, etc. that may have been added by a former SEO consultant or by an employee who got bad advice from a two-year-old article on search-engine optimization.

5) If the client insists on dodgy SEO techniques, explain the potential risks in writing--and require that the client sign off on your risk report before you proceeed.

6) Make sure the client understands other options that are available, such as pay-per-click listings. If the client is interested in PPC, help the client determine where and how money should be spent.

I'm not in the SEO business, but I'll bet that many SEOs are providing services like these every day. All are worthwhile services for the client, yet they don't conflict with the needs of users or of Google. Indeed, they're services that Google almost certainly approves of, because they help Google find and rank relevant pages in response to users' search queries.


 8:25 am on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Let me tell ya...

No, no, no...! Don't det rid of all our link! I thought you were experienced is search engine techniques. Don't you know anything! Link popularity is the most important thing to getting ranked high in search engines.

You know... I told my boss that you were probably useless, (seriously, he said just that) and he should just give me a raise and I'll take him to #1.

I really loved this one... Now let's put all of this in context.

1. five (in-house maintained) web sites heavily crosslinked.

2. three other partnered companies web sites (resellers) heavily crosslinked.

3. Every "transparent gif", "comma", "hyphen", "quotation marks", and "period", on every page was a link, including the periods between...

Product . . . . . . . . . $100.00
Product . . . . . . . . . $100.00
Product . . . . . . . . . $100.00

...were all crosslinks.

But link pop is very important.

[edited by: fathom at 8:26 am (utc) on Nov. 29, 2002]

This 273 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 273 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >
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