| 2:08 pm on Nov 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Great stuff - even though I couldn't open it through Chrome!
It should end a few arguments (eg meta descriptions), and start a few more - I think the URL structure advice could have been clearer. It doesn't settle the hyphens debate, for example.
I like the stuff on content, but I'll need to read it a few more times in case there's hidden meanings ;)
I was pleased to see the 'useful 404' advice - I'm getting sick of saying it.
Finally, I was pleased to see nofollow included as part of basic (read essential) SEO - that should put a cat among the pigeons.
A useful resource.
| 3:00 pm on Nov 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Actually I intend to make great use of this. It's useful for my designing partners who don't spend as much time with this as I do, and it's a mighty tidy document to ship off to clients where I don't have a lot of control over the site.
| 5:20 pm on Nov 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
it's thursday, another post by Google, checked and no new info. moving on to next post *smirk*
personal commentary: ...
We all think we know why they haven't told people all these things for all this time.
why everyone who wanted Google traffic had to 'read between the lines' and hunt for even the basics.
It's both a joy and frustrating to see the basics summed up, officially, and published.
done in a way as if ...like it wasn't 2008.11. Like it hadn't been n years since the launch of the system.
as if it was a blog post, one in a hundred.
casually, just like that.
Apparently it sums up everything very well.
makes one happy, sad and furious at the same time.
why wasn't this available before? what's in it that was a threat to Google in 2004? 2006?
MSN or Yahoo! would have stolen the 'technology'? No, SEOs knew these things for ages, and so did the competition.
All the people who I know or knew to have (had) sites, and STILL thought that Google ranks are based on traffic.
... i could go on all day praising and bashing this company - one of those that helped reshape business through the net. Their service saved a lot of companies. And probably also ruined quite a few, without telling either businesses why things happened and even warning AGAINST those who knew. ( thnx btw )
thnx go out for those who came up with the idea and wrote/posted it.
but no thnx for Google Corp. for NOT DOING THIS ANYTIME SOONER IN THE PAST DECADE.
wanted to see an informal 'apology' but there's no mention of the fact that they were way too late with this...
"I know I should have told you before all the gossip reaches your ears and all. I feel very sorry about my timid nature but please understand I didn't know how you'd react... whether you'd turn against me or... whether we could finally join up as a real family. I guess it's because I've burned myself too many times with friends and colleagues whom I felt real close to me, but even so, I should have no excuses. I know it's coming late and you've probably guessed it by now, but I wanted to tell you myself. Let me say it like I should have said a long time ago...
...Luke, I am your father."
| 5:28 pm on Nov 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Hey, I think we've all written one of these at some point in our tenure. There is nothing ground breaking in the document. It is well presented and really covers the core basics of on page optimization. This is stuff we've talked about for years around here and at other places. Now we have another authority link to reference when the questions come up. :)
Pay special attention to the section on rel="nofollow" as they DO NOT mention anything about PR sculpting or using it for internal website links. That leaves some white space for the sculpters to fiddle with. ;)
| 6:16 pm on Nov 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Actually, this saves me from having to write it again. I can just send it to the clients and say "Look what Google says" and that's it.
It's basic to us because we live in this world. For most of the end users I get, this would be a revelation)
| 6:19 pm on Nov 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You might also supplement that authority link with some additional authority, as well:
Lots of informative stuff there, laced with the usual ambiguities.
| 1:06 am on Nov 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps Google should have included one additional piece of guidance to answer the following question.
Q. "I am thinking about setting up a website to allow me to quit my day job in 3 years time by religiously following the invaluable information provided in your most informative guide. What should I do next?"
A. "Think about doing something else instead."
| 5:02 am on Nov 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Very nice. Great for beginners and as others have said, to pass on to clients to explain things. Not much advanced stuff in there of course but that's because it's not mainstream yet. Use the good stuff while you can!
| 11:19 am on Nov 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|"I am thinking about setting up a website to allow me to quit my day job in 3 years time by religiously following the invaluable information provided in your most informative guide. What should I do next?" |
"So is everyone else - Be Better"