Wow! this is really unprecedented, welcome.
Now, what can you do to be more responsive to webmasters?
Update the index twice monthly instead of once, or put another way update more frequently.
In addition to the standard results, provide a downloadable file in some raw format for that keyword query entered. Webmasters and SEO'ers are analysis junkies and we don't want to upset Google by spidering your results. You can hide the link and only reveal to us where it is ;)
Include pagerank in that raw file and now you've really given us something to work with.
I suppose what I am really going for is some tools that let us analyse your index without compromising yourselves in any way, we can build such tools but they require spidering your index, which is a no-no with Google and we don't want to annoy you :) but it would be nice to be able to see keyword searches, top searches by category, heck about spider activity, gives a peek into the spider queue, I think it'd be cool to see the spider wandering about through some window on your site.
Just "blue skying" so hope you'll forgive the suggetions that bring the most laughter at Google.
I was wondering if GoogleGuy take a look at what we are calling the Google Glitch but really could be some kind of penalty. The discussion is here:
I would like to be able to add a [small] logo to my adwords stuff.
Zoiks! Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone! There's a lot here to think about. Let me tackle one issue that came up early on: pay for play and pay for inclusion.
I think most of these rumors started with a ZDNET UK article. The reporter saw our push toward fresher crawls and assumed that we'd charge for that. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have any plans for a pay for inclusion program. Like Brett says, bear in mind that I'm just one guy with a login--I'm not a spokesgoogler. I can't go out on a limb and say "Google will never ever do this," but our "don't charge webmasters" program has been very popular so far. :) Hope that helps.
Okay, off to work. Thanks again for the chance to open up some communication. I'll try to stop by again soon and tackle more questions.
Thought that I would offer my measly Welcome GoogleGuy! Thanks for popping in.
me too ... Welcome Googleguy :)
Some very nice suggestions by Brett, I only hope he tells us how he really feels!~ ;)
>our "don't charge webmasters" program has been very popular so far. Hope that helps.
Sure it does :)
Big welcome from Europe where googling is getting increasingly popular too.
Wow, Google once again continues to surprise and impress. Always too bad most other search engines think more cash the merrier. I can hear the many dead engines rolling over in their graves.
A humble welcome GoogleGuy. Thanks for lending us an ear.
Like earlier mentioned a nice clear "not to do" list will be most welcome.
Q: dublicate (or near) pages on different CTLD domains i.e. .co.uk and .com same language different public, is that ok ?
Thanks for joining in GoogleGuy :)
1. When doing a search within a directory category, could you include or make it an option to include, subcats that are either @linked or relcatted (those are ODP terms) to the category in question. ODP keeps deciding to move subcategories out of the topical categories and into cats like Shopping or Regional and this is diluting the effectiveness of your really excellent directory search feature.
You could update from ODP a little more frequently too.
2. I wish you'd pay me for sending people to Google Groups pages, but I'm not holding my breath.
Did h*ll just freeze...cause i could swear i'm in a thread started by a google rep!? ;)
Yeah its pretty damn cold down here
come on GoogleGuy - you are going to have to devote more of your spare time to WebmasterWorld! We will love you for it. :) And it will be worthwhile.
How do you know that "Googleguy" has anything whatever to do with Google? Personally, I don't believe it.
Are we now going to get new members such as "Yahoogirl", "Lycosdude", "Excitesister",
"Hotbotcowboy", etc so we may now communicate our concerns?
Don't you think Google and all the rest regularly visit this forum and are already aware of the issues that concern us? Does it take some "Googleguy" to become a member for us to get our points across?
I think people here have been made fools of and some joker out there is having a real belly laugh.
Nell, when a spider hits your site with a googlebot user agent how do you verify it? The same process has happened here.
Learn a bit more about the people here and the way we operate. Brett has been in contact with Google and they were invited.
(edited by: littleman at 1:03 am (gmt) on Oct. 9, 2001)
>Would it be helpful if Google could index new filetypes like Word or Excel?
I'd prefer that .doc and .xls files NOT be presented in the SERPs with HTML pages. If you want index them, make it a specialized search like images. The general public doesn't appear to bother with tuning their search terms and I'm concerned that they will be further put off by what they perceive to be irrelevant "clutter" if more and more file types are listed together.
Leave it alone. I just checked, it's fine. Trust me. ;)
One of the things that I have always wanted from search engines is the ability to differentiate between businesses and information. Obviously there is no clear cut line, but it would be useful if Google gave the option to search for info or for businesses.
For example, a search for 'web site promotion' may well be a search for either companies providing this service, or for information about DIY promotion. And, as with all search engines, mixed results are returned on Google.
I would like to be able to specify whether I am seeking a shop/service/business or whether I am looking for non-commercial information.
I presume that you could use the ODP data to assist in this aspect, since it has commercial and non-commercial categories, and possibly the site themes (?)
Anyway, just a thought.
>Would it be helpful if Google could index new filetypes like Word or Excel?
I really don't think that is a good idea. Why give a MS format any more exposure than what they already have?
|Mr Green Thumbs|
I'm one of the Websites that has lost some good positioning of only some of my pages by google. Lycos still likes me. Google has been going throught my site in the last two days. Will this help or hinder? Another Web master has suggested that I change my html pages to asp. Will this help me on Google? Will it hurt me on other search engines?
Welcome swisston and Mr_Green_Thumbs, thanks both of you for posting :)
Well I take a few days off and I miss one of the most exciting events on WmW in a long time! A visit from a GoogleGuy. Thanks for dropping by!!!
What everyone else said ... plus
1) I have spent literally days carefully scouring the internet and collecting links for one of my sites. As of the most recent link update, only a handful of these links show up when I search, "sites linking to". I don't understand this at all. All the links collected are in Google's directory, all have good to very good page rank and all are relevant to the subject matter contained in my site. Even my DMOZ link does not show up? However, a link from my old WmW user profile shows up? (I have since removed my site address since as much as I love WmW ... it has nothing to do with my business.)
2) Is it true that if you have one or more sites hosted by the same IP and if they are cross-linked, this will serve to get you penalized by Google. Say for instance that I have a purely informational site about a specific location as well as a business site related to tourism in that location (which I do), will one or both of my sites be penalized just because they are cross linked and hosted on the same IP?
Thanks much for the opportunity to discuss our concerns. Can't wait to read more of your answers!
Isn't it funny what makes a group of people REALLY excited!?
I, too, am humbled and honored by your presence here.
Maybe, I could ask... what could we do for you, to ultimately make a better web site? What can we do to make our industry a friend of your industry?
I speak for companies(companies I represent) that ultimately want nothing more than to provide legitimate, valuable content to their 'would-be' visitors.
We do not want to cause your engine difficulties with our reports, nor do we want to misrepresent ourselves incorrectly to your audience.
I guess I am saying, without asking you to divulge your 'secrets'... if I, as a SEO company, can be more valuable to your site, what can I do?
Your engine has been amazing for us. So in return, how can we help you?
Thank you for your participation. This is really fantastic.
Backus - I'll put in my 2c on flash.
If your client has gone down the road of making a site entirely in Flash, then the advice that they received when initially creating the site was either flawed or ignored. (I've seen both)
One key thing about search engines is that indexing must be automated - otherwise its a directory - and will have teams of reviewers. Though not an expert on the SWF format I guess automated indexing of the content is either impossible or extremely difficult. Also there are all the side issues of; will the surfer's browser support the plugin, where to link into to - if a site has good content it may only be reachable after wading through endless presentations. I avoid flash based sites due to this - though occasionally I'll do a swanky sales presentation for opt in users - eg. "view our sales pitch here"
Practical advice for you on this particular project - charge your client a lot more :) Build a parallel site that mirrors all the content in plain old searchable indexable html and link to the flash version for those that have it.
In this case IMHO the mistake is your client's and trying to get the search engines (or even google) to solve this mistake is just not realistic - no offense :)
So lets be nice to Googleguy and hopefully we'll have an open and responsive channel to some of the best inside advice on the net :)
Welcome Googleguy - thanks for dropping by - I hope we see you on a regular basis :)
Continued at: [webmasterworld.com...]
| This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1  ) |