| 7:54 am on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Can the googlebot see facebook pages? Does it go to l.php? |
Here's facebook's robots file
|Disallow: /ac.php |
| 9:42 am on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I thought this was a very good video I Matt.
I disagree with some of the comments that they don't care.
I think they genuinely are trying to educate people about their new system. I don't ever remember anyone at Google announcing features of a future system.
I believe they have a high degree of confidence because of these recent changes. I believe they have put a serious dent in web spam. I think the Penguin 2.0 as described by Matt, will also have a severe impact on black hat and spammers.
When people say they don't care about our individual websites, I think it's accurate. But they do care about producing high-quality results. For a number of years Google received a lot of criticism about web spam. So the new system rewards websites that have above average content. In some markets it requires extraordinary content to beat the national brands.
The fact that he made the video to clear up any misconceptions and to help people plan for the future, is very good.
I have some clients who are struggling with this new google system. Because their websites are average or below average.
Some of my research websites are doing fantastic. The content on those websites is very good. But I'm still surprised on one of them how the traffic is growing so much.
As others have mentioned, Google can monitor the reaction to great content. Based upon that they can we reward website better placement in more search categories. All that translates to higher traffic.
I am actually looking forward to their changes. Some of the people with cheap linking methods are still ranking. I expect this new Penguin to fix that.
| 11:27 am on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Google is starting to remind me of a spoiled little red-headed stepchild lately. |
Freely allowing others to play in their multi-billion dollar pool and so far as I can tell all you have to do is obey the rules of the pool.
If it was your pool would you allow everyone else to crap in it?
Wouldn't be much fun swimming with floaters!
| 12:01 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Here's my analogy:
Once Google was like this massive barn. You could get your stuff into the barn fairly easily and when you visited to find something it was like a massive rummage sale. You'd get sent in roughly the right direction and you'd sometimes get junk and sometimes some real gems. It was fun.
Now Google is like a department store. You bring your stuff to sell, if your truck is from Amazon or a big brand your stuff generally gets put on sale with no problem. If not it goes through a filter. A robot looks at it and tries to guess if it's quality. Sometimes it gets it right, sometimes it doesn't.
When you visit now you get loads of items from the brands that are all almost identical. It all looks much more quality now, trouble is a lot of it is boring and it's harder to find the gems. You also keep getting pushed towards the things you've already seen.
Sometimes you need to go next door to the Bingstore or the Yahoostore to find what you want. Sometimes those stores are a bit less polished but you get better variety.
The Googlestore owner thinks his store is the best and that you only get in his store if your product is "quality". Trouble is you don't always like what you see in his store - it doesn't look quality at all.
Who is the Googlestore for? the owner, the buyer or the product producer? My answer is he wants to create an illusion that his store is the best, fooling both the buyer and product supplier into thinking that what's in his store is the best (quality). You spend ages trying to get your product into the Googlestore based on his "quality" guidelines, but that stupid robot keeps demoting your product. However much you do to follow the guidelines/ do what the successful products are doing, you just can't get in there. In the meantime some entrepreneurs in the black market do still manage to get their products in by dubious means.
The googlestore owner keeps refining his algorithms and actually believes that he's offering a great service. Actually what he has is a monopoly and he is making massive money from it.
To make his Googlestore ubiquitous he sets up lots of free transport services and other services to get people to keep going to his store so that many people think his store is the only store.
More people need to go and use the yahoostore the bingstore and even just forget about stores altogether and set up there own little shack at the side of the road.
So these updates? I think we're facing a losing battle. I hardly bother to read them now and focus much more on my other search engine and non search engine traffic. Even if I can get a product in the store today, it'll probably get chucked out tomorrow. Oh and I might dabble a little in the black market to get the odd product in his store from time to time.
| 1:35 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|I thought this was a very good video I Matt. |
I agree. It was well presented and informative.
|I think they genuinely are trying to educate people about their new system. |
I think that's true too, and the fact they are giving us info about the direction they are moving before it's even finalised is a good thing IMO. These comments are genuine and without sarcasm, which leads to a glaring observation. The video does not address any of the valid concerns/criticisms raised in this thread alone, let alone the countless others raised on this and every other webmaster forum.
So how can that be? How can such a "good" video fail so miserably to answer the questions that are being asked over and over and over? I think I know the answer but there's a couple of problems. 1-The answer is complex so there just isn't enough space to answer it in a single or even many posts. 2-To properly answer this question would take a lot of time and effort on my part, and to do that Google would have to pay me handsomely and I don't see that happening. Having a degree of some kind seems to be a bare minimum to work at Google and although I came within one semester completing a degree, I don't have one.
I know this sounds incredibly arrogant, and it is. The reason I feel so confident is because I know more than webmastering, I know people. Most importantly though I know webmaster AND people. Actually I'm not a great webmaster. For me it's a hobby that stops me going insane thinking about some of the truly awful life experiences I've had. And right there is what gives me the ability to see solutions few others can see. Not because of any lack of intelligence but because of clouded viewpoints. We are all human unfortunately so we all have our judgement clouded to some extent.
So having said all that, I'm not going to explain anything specific but I will give this outline. Google, in a general sense, lives in a bubble while webmasters live in their bubble and users are in yet another bubble. That's pretty simple and any thinking person knows that. Where it gets complicated is when you try to consider how these bubbles overlap and then attempt to figure out what the result of all the overlapping is. That's the hard bit.
Now, just in case you think I'm a raving lunatic (who knows maybe I am) let me ask a simple question:
How did google go from one of the most loved companies in the world to such a hated one?
Why are the concerns of so many webmasters, users, and dare I say Google employees themselves remaining unanswered/unaddressed?
Food for thought and that was two questions. I will leave it there but WOW, I just let my true thoughts out. FEELS GOOD MAN.
| 1:39 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I can't wait for your ebook..
| 2:05 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to WebmasterWorld gift4goog and whatever you're on please PM me it:-)
|Having a degree of some kind seems |
It would appear to be zoölogy with most of them being the animals supposedly being tested meanwhile they are actually toying with us ... think of the mice in the film Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.
|How did google go from one of the most loved companies in the world to such a hated one? |
Because they stopped all contact with the people who put them there, not just webmasters, everyone ... they have this crazy belief that everything can be resolved by a FAQs page, nothing they do EVER goes wrong and that they have THE definitive answer to everything.
Using the same guidelines if they tried to open a restaurant they would FAIL on their opening night because they have no concept of being a servant to THEIR customers, they, quite simply, are too arrogant to accept that others just may have an equally different and correct point of view.
This has been seen throughout history, it's not their intelligence we are all now questioning, it is their perceived WISDOM, and that would open a Pandora's Box if they were to try and explain it!
| 2:36 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
You made it good :-) Just for the sake of this discussion, let me through something.
What does a regular user want?
A. Quick answer right to the point.
B. Builtup story using all kind of interactive media tools to convince, build trust and loyalty.
I can guess that users opt for a trust worthy A with an option to dig inside B.
So, what's better ? A, B or A+B (A and then B)
I guess it is A+B (A and then B).
Google struggles to find A+B content and still fails.
Webmasters are more for shortcuts and mostly fail - Who really wants to work hard?
I have worked with a lot of writers and I can count in one hand the few that able to provide A and B in a very interactive/interesting way. I paid them good enough so they continue working only with me.
| 3:23 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|There are some fantastic sites that people go to and buy from and recommend and go BACK to and buy from again - that do not feature anywhere in Google. There are bustling communities online - that do not feature anywhere in Google. |
|WHY do they keep doing this domain stuffing |
These are both reasons people I know - totally average searchers - have given me recently for why they're using Google less. I know it's not hurting Google's earnings yet, but people ARE learning. (Esp. when you consider that one of the "bustling communities" that doesn't rank like it should in Google is Yelp. Yelp is big enough that it's a real "huh?" moment for people when it's not #1 for a query about, say, local restaurant reviews.)
|I agree turbocharged, and I get your inference here - creating quality content should be for reasons nothing to do with Google, but simply to give a good impression to visitors and maximise conversions. |
The reason to "build for users" is not because Google says to. It's because Google will not always be here as it is now, but users will be. It's because even if Google's algos were much better than they currently are, the sheer density of information online makes it harder to rank, no matter how good you are.
I first started dabbling in the web before search engines existed, when web rings, links and word of mouth were the only way to discover sites. As far as I'm concerned, we're getting back to that. Algorithms simply aren't capable of parsing a web this big very effectively. It's inevitable that good sites will be left out and bad sites left in. Building for users, and then giving users reasons to want to share your site with other users, is the only business model that has a chance of weathering all the changes the web is going to see.
| 4:01 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|How did google go from one of the most loved companies in the world to such a hated one? |
I think that the web grew very quickly and Google found it challenging controlling spam for a while a few years back. When the emergence of blackhat techniques and automation of links exploded in popularity. With link spam automated Google have attempted to regain control by penalising inbound links. Thus blackhats simply automated competitor links instead creating allot of false positives.
Its easy to assume Google is hated but I don't think thats true in general and certainly elements of google ie. maps and youtube are universally liked. I also think Google love for most webmasters depends on the ranking of their website.
I think whats hard to accept is the internet has become so big so quickly that any website is a drop of water in a sea. The days of working hard and producing a great website then expecting the money to roll in are gone. Now its harder than ever to establish a new site and often the investment in time simply isn't worth it. That of course is the market not Google's fault, whilst only a few years ago you could enjoy a living online fairly easily now its a much tougher prospect.
| 4:59 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|1. Stop advertorials that pass PageRank |
Note that the top priority is to eliminate AdWord competition.
I sell ads and some pass PR, some do not, and I really didn't have any plans to change it one way or the other because those that do pass PR aren't sold because they pass PR. They were installed on the site in this manner long before Google and PR existed and if they ding me for doing something that's been done the same way since 1996 then we may have to have an unpleasant conversati
I understand trying to protect consumers from ads that are indistinguishable from content but Advertorials are a legit thing, even newspapers and magazines do it, and now Big G's telling people they're out to get them.
The anti-competitive nature of some stuff is starting to even raise my hackles and I'm pretty low key when it comes to that stuff.
I'm just say'n...
| 5:10 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|The reason to "build for users" is not because Google says to. It's because Google will not always be here as it is now, but users will be. It's because even if Google's algos were much better than they currently are, the sheer density of information online makes it harder to rank, no matter how good you are. |
You have my full agreement, diberry. It's pretty much sarcasm from Matt Cutts when he tells us to write great content, since the company he works for fails time and again to actually detect this great content they want us all to create. It's like a blind man judging a beauty pageant, and telling the contestents to look their best to give themselves the best chance of winning.
| 6:34 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
It is possible to have Google success, even if you're just an informational site.
When we started our company blog two years ago, we barely got any visits from Google. It was until January this year that we started accumulating more visits every month.
What happened? An increase in the number of posts. Whereas before we had been posting one, and maybe sometimes two, posts a day, we increased to three or four times a day. For some reason, Google seems to like this and rewards it. We also started posting during the weekend. Apparently people like to read blogs on Sundays.
At the same time, we expanded our horizons a bit. We've always written about topics related to our niche, but now there is more of it.
Finally, we started posting our articles on social media more frequently than we were before. More than anything else, this has likely helped with discovery, especially on Twitter and G+. When the articles can be found more quickly, they can be indexed more quickly, which is especially helpful when we discuss something that is timely.
As a caveat, I will note that we've done well with Google organic for a longer period of time than the blog has been live, which no doubt helped in its success. From what I can tell, though, the blog's recent Google success has been mostly independent of the rest of the site.
| 7:58 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|if they tried to open a restaurant they would FAIL on their opening night because they have no concept of being a servant to THEIR customers, they, quite simply, are too arrogant to accept that others just may have an equally different and correct point of view. |
Ah ha! That explains the last episode of Kitchen Nightmares. The human owners were only a front; it was really Google's Bakery.
We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.
| 8:00 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
When people say they don't care about our individual websites, I think it's accurate. But they do care about producing high-quality results.
If it doesn't affect me negatively, (which it shouldn't) then i'll probably be here cherishing the update.
But with google, you never know..
| 8:21 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I just watched the video, which was a bit short. It came over to me as a PR spin on 'Opps - sorry we got a lot wrong , but don't worry we will fix it and we are also doing ....'
IMHO of course, but hey what do I know ?
| 9:07 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|What's with the Firefox t-shirt, can't they afford Chrome ones? |
Sorry if someone has already stated this I haven't read through the entire thread. Since this is not in color it's very symbolic of the death of firefox.
| 9:31 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Sorry if someone has already stated this I haven't read through the entire thread. Since this is not in color it's very symbolic of the death of firefox. |
Ah come on now, I think firefox is very very far from dead and I wouldn't mind hazarding a guess that Google had a hand in its development.
| 9:44 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Just having a bit of fun. Firefox phones home to Google So I'm not too surprised to see the Firefox shirt
| 9:50 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
LOL On my mac Chrome just won't work properly so I work with Firefox (to be honest I can't see the difference). But while we are on the subject does IE still dial home to the illuminati?
| 10:09 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Why would IE dial the Plex..
| 10:26 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I think we're all beeing gamed here suckers Apple own shares in Microsoft, Google probably own shares in Microsoft, Microsoft own shares in everything, Yahoo is run by an ex Googler, Baidu is part owned by Yahoo.......I am off to Yandex!
| 10:41 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Wonder how many Webmasters are hoping their competitors get murdered by these upcoming changes, and how many of those will find they are the only ones actually affected in their niche.
I'm gonna make a prediction: if your website has been in decline for a while then get ready for more disappointment. If your website has been on the rise, things are about to get even better.
| 10:46 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|I think we're all beeing[sic] gamed here suckers |
Without wishing to offend in the slightest :)..not "all" of us "are" ..nor were we ever..:)..The game is subtle..and very interesting to behold..as are the players..
| 11:07 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
we are suckers because we all think we are independent and not working for the "man" anymore. the delusion is that google is the "man"!
| 11:11 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
But we don't all work for Google..and some of us do not depend on them..I suggest more try it..:)..You won't watch Matt..et al..in the same way..:)
| 11:29 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Matt Cutts Tweets
|In addition to [mattcutts.com...] … it's safe to assume webspam will continue to tackle link networks that violate our guidelines as well. |
|In fact, we took action on several thousand linksellers in a paid-link-that-passes-PageRank network earlier today. |
Oh how I love this game!
| 11:31 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|top priority is to eliminate AdWord competition |
AdWords listings don't pass PR. I agree that trying to segregate editorial links from advertorial links is self-serving, but I don't think the web spam team is trying to drive more AdWords spend. They're trying to fix their broken down organic algorithm.
| 11:32 pm on May 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
It amazes me the amount of people who seem to depend on "supposed trading" via Google with computers.
IF Google were to disappear tomorrow it would not make one iota's worth of difference to me, if the WWW were to collapse I still very much doubt it would make any difference other than the frustration of almost instant contactability etc.
My business would continue (we've been around 10X the WWW), 99.9% of most real world business would continue, the ones that would not continue are those who have been trying to "game" real business for the last 15 years!
My proposal...Shut the WWW down for 6 months and then re-start it:-)
Fill in here
| 12:22 am on May 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|The anti-competitive nature of some stuff is starting to even raise my hackles |
+1. Very worrying indeed.
I find it utterly awkward that Google is trying to regulate the usage of HTML attributes.
The world's largest marketplace (Google) is trying to use its advantage in the market to force users (merchants/webmasters) to conform to their rules. They demand honestly (in the form of nofollow), yet refuse to remain transparent themselves on so many levels. What they're really saying is "you follow our rules, or else". Nobody can really say with certainty what their actual rules, and ultimately, their ulterior motives are.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding Google itself and the companies that it controls and/or owns, none of which actually negate the fact that something is seriously wrong here.
The fact remains that Google is involved in too many businesses to remain objective as a market leader in any particular field. Furthermore, the corporation contributes far too much to political campaigns to be scrutinized in any meaningful manner.
I actually believe that the usage of 'nofollow' for advertorials or paid links serves a genuine purpose, but I can't fathom that a company like Google has any right to dictate what HTML attributes a webmaster may or may not use.. "or else".. in order to be able to participate in a the world's largest marketplace.
| 1:24 am on May 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|What to expect in SEO in the coming months |
If someone is paying for links that pass PageRank (which violates our quality guidelines), that can affect both the source site and the destination site. [mattcutts.com...]
Just in case anyone is confused with previous statements.
With the disavow data in place, and the "unnatural link notices" in, these are probably the last few days left to correct the situation [ if indeed it's not too late already ].
|Hmm. One common issue we see with disavow requests is people going through with a fine-toothed comb when they really need to do something more like a machete on the bad backlinks. For example, often it would help to use the “domain:” operator to disavow all bad backlinks from an entire domain rather than trying to use a scalpel to pick out the individual bad links. That’s one reason why we sometimes see it take a while to clean up those old, not-very-good links. [mattcutts.com...] |
There are some "good" "authority" sites out there that still sell links.
I'm coming across SEO's still setting up footer link networks between their clients with unrelated subjects in their anchor text subjects and ranking with it. This is 2006 SEO trickery.
And lot's of reciprocal link pages that pass little to no influence, yet still hang around. Since Google ignores these I wonder if it will soon penalise sites for leaving the pages up.
It seems to me that although this next Penguin update will hit hard, Google still relies on webmaster participation to inform Google through the disavow tool, editorial quality control on key search verticals and FUD.
Given the ineffectiveness of the battle to have 100% control and the commercial objectives of Google, I would expect brands to still have a free ride, unless they have gone hog wild.
Because Google has issued a warning, it must back that up with action. And I expect that to be painful with plenty of the usual false positives, and stripping of income from a lot of dependent business', often with limited resources to counteract and repair.
Google has provided communication, true. But it's communication delivers "gaps" except to high publicity exceptions, such as the recent BBC case [ [webmasterworld.com...] and [seroundtable.com...] ] , where only one page in millions was effected causing a generalised "unnatural links" notice to be sent.
Not everyone is treated equally in these communications
What we can expect is another significant scythe sufficiently large to cause the reaction that MC expects to come out - big. Personally, I think Google's actions are too aggressive requiring a more considered approach that would be fairer with better communication through WMT. Allowing site owners to make changes, and be rewarded for their innovation and tidying up.
[ Still, don't get too hung up about the SERP's. I saw only one organic slot left on a popular search the other day, which kinda signals the direction Google is moving to with it's various other assets and advertising products. Even the most mindful CEO can become a slave to Wall Street's demands of "more" and "growth" - just look at the US processed food industry to provide that precedent.]
Panda 2.0 : Because Google has issued a warning, it must back that up with action. And I expect that to be painful with plenty of the usual false positives, and stripping of income from a lot of dependent business', often with limited resources to counteract and repair.
| This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > |