| 8:30 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have tried it. It is very simple. It gives you 100MB of storage. It does not have ads on it yet but I'm sure it will soon. It won't let you put anything but simple html on it. No java script or flash.
| 9:12 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This could yet prove to be counter-productive....
More spam... only this time GOOG has a vested interest to ensure that advertising is carried and to 'protect' pages of this nature.
Plus with [yourgmailusername.googlepages.com...] does that come with or without sandbox?
It is a great idea, but I wonder how this is going to be policed?
| 9:27 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have you seen the code it produces! Blooming Heck! Isn't this just a more difficult to publish version of Blogger?
| 9:50 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
And check out the page naming scheme - odd to me...
ohh dont forget to not have punctuation at the end of the page title/actual page name... it could give you a 404 error.
doesnt work in safari - but does for firefox.
| 10:20 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Have you seen the code it produces! |
The final output is XHTML 1.0 Strict with the layout done with CSS - seemingly inline CSS with a huge stylesheet embedded in the head section of each page, unless I'm missing a control which allows for an external stylesheet. The headings etc. use semantically-rich
h2, etc. elements. The end result is certainly a cut above many Google pages, and similar in approach to the kind of markup seem with blogger, however unless the styles can be shared across many pages the page weight is a concern, and the content is pushed a long way down the page.
For the publishing interface itself, my first reactions are not all positive. There are some bugs, which is a given due to the fact that it is (another!) beta - the "Image" button is non-functional, for example. The look is clean and simple and the controls are clear.
At a first glance (I haven't done a full evaluation), Google has learned nothing from this experience. There is still not a single clickable standard anchor link on the page. Even the Google logo and "My Account", "Help" and "Sign out" links are standard text with onclick events - "fake" links styled as anchors. No accessibility aid will be able to find these links. There is seemingly some attempt at keyboard navigation, but when you tab to, say, the Heading button, pressing Enter on the keyboard has no effect whatsoever (no onkeypress function, I assume).
The solution to Gmail was that Google were pushed into providing an alternative interface which had better accessibility. It is a huge shame that caring for users who don't or can't use a mouse or who don't have two functioning eyes doesn't appear to be particularly important part of Google's philosophy. The criticism about Google using CAPTCHA images [webmasterworld.com] is sadly the tip of the iceberg.
| 10:38 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I noticed this bit in the Terms and conditions:
|You acknowledge that Google has set no fixed upper limit on the number of transmissions you may send or receive through Google services or the amount of storage space used; however, we retain the right, at our sole discretion, to create limits at any time with or without notice. |
Anyone who is using this service notice what kind of meta tags can be accessed through the interface? Could be an interesting indicator of the meta tags Google want used.
| 11:04 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It is fast and very user friendly too!.
| 11:17 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Pretty neat. I will take it for more intense drive soon!
| 11:29 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nice Idea, but once again you have to sign up, so now they have domains, hosting and web design tool, then they have all the info about the site/person, Im not sure I like that, its as if everything what does the internet great is being closed, registration here and there, also special google gets A LOT of info from site creators, that way also a lot of ideas from the users, like in the cold war time and still going on bizz spionage.
| 12:04 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They say that the pages will be crawled by Google within a few hours and may be picked up by other search engines. But as far as I can see, googlepages.com access is only allowed with a GMail login.
| 12:40 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks like it's Google's response to Microsoft's tool that is coming out as part of the Live! suite.
| 12:58 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I created a page. It was very slow this morning though. Nothing too exciting. Just a very simplified HTML design tool.
|But as far as I can see, googlepages.com access is only allowed with a GMail login. |
The page I created was accessible from anywhere, by anyone. No login was required to view the published page.
Does this seem like a move towards the Myspace.com market to anyone? Google has the blogging, groups, and easy HTML pages. If it adds a social networking component - is it essentially satisfying the same needs as myspace.com? I have never used myspace.com, so I am curious if this comparison holds any water.
| 1:04 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm wondering how google integrate individual products together, for example, this page creator , blogging and others. Currently papge creator only provides fundamental html editor.
| 1:09 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Notice the server header on Google pages is
Server: GFE/1.3 rather than the normal GWS
| 1:20 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google certainly has all the components to create a portal - blogger/picasa/IM/GMail/webspace. It could easily try to compete with My Yahoo/Yahoo 360/Geocities.
What MySpace has, though, is music with hundreds of thousands of band pages with music on. I signed up and found 50 (mostly unsigned) bands whose CDs I'd reviewed were already on there. That gives it credibility in young peoples eyes (and even old people like me)
| 2:25 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google Page Creator is having a little trouble right now. |
This is not because of anything you did; it's just a little hiccup in our system that will hopefully go away soon. We apologize for the inconvenience, and recommend you try reloading this page.
It seems down for the moment. Same thing as with Google Analytics?
| 2:44 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
hermannen, I'm getting the same message.
| 3:06 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just tried it - it appears to be working fine now.
| 3:06 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If it adds a social networking component |
I assume Orkut would satify this?
| 3:17 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I assume Orkut would satisfy this? |
Good point. Is it just a matter of integration at this point?
And to Iguana's point regarding music and credibility - Google Music could satisfy this specific need. Again - they just need to weave all the pieces together.
Thinks of all those AdSense clicks all those teenagers spending 5 hours online a day would generate!
| 3:36 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, at the least it is taking up a larger percentage of my time trying to figure out what each one of these new services actually does!
| 5:45 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just tried it but got this message
"Thank you for your interest in Google Page Creator! Google Page Creator has experienced extremely strong demand, and, as a result, we have temporarily limited the number of new signups as we increase capacity. In the meantime, please submit your email address and we will notify you as soon as we are ready to add new accounts. Thank you for your patience."
| 6:02 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
At first when using google search, back when they were a search engine, we asked a question and got natural serps.
Then we typed in a question and got google ads and then the serps.
Now we ask a question and we get google ads and sometimes google image/definition/ect results before the natural serps.
Soon when we ask a question we will get google ads, google image/definition/ect results, then google page creater pages (with more google ads). After all that, we get the natural serps.
If they keep this up the natural serps will have to be moved to page 2.
| 6:18 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, they got slapped on a wrist with Images, now they are afraid Google cache is next (and rightfully so); what next - they'd have to ask webmaster permission to crawl? It seems to mee that Google is gearing up for this exact scenario.
They will NEVER be able to compete with MySpace. Slapping together a bunch of services doesn't a popular site make.
| 7:21 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It seems like a lot of the newer items are purely there for experimental purposes as they figure out what the online community is really looking for. I managed to get in to the Page creator earlier today, but had trouble later on.
| 9:47 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Cool! This will be useful.
Very "me too" though, can't imagine anyone investing in Google if this is what they're churning out.
| 1:37 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
with a URL like this:
The site you create better be a hobby site or something you don't intend to make any money on because the options are too limited and if you ever want to move it to a REAL domain in your own name then you'll have to start all over with the search engines. And I'll bet they don't allow htaccess to 301 redirect the site to your new domain either.
On the otherhand real web designers could get a lot more work redesigning sites made with this WYSIWYG program that aren't likely to go anywhere. He he.
| 4:26 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's handy when you want to share a website with people but don't want to connect them with all your various other businesses via whois or whatever.
You can do this with geocities as well, but this seems like something which is easier to use.
| 1:24 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I tried, but failed. Will try again. It's an interesting stuff.
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |