Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
Last I hear when americans venture over to LONDON ... they either drive on the left side of the street or TAKe A CAB ... so only ones mind can find things which are natural in the real world to be incomprehensible ...
You think your heart is sinking now ... waite till you think about this for a day or two ... and you are still not on the field .....
you know how GOOGLE goes on and on about MIRROW SITES, and "spammy affiliate programs with little content" being so bad ....?
Well on MANY of my search terms ... the top 50 will be comprised of 2 or 3 links to DMOZ ... then 2 or 3 MORE to the GOOGLE DIRECTORY ... which is of course a SMAMMY AFFILIATE PROGRAM of DMOZ ... or a window site more or less .... and THEN on top of that a few REALLY SPAMMY direcotries who ALSO copy the DMOZ data .....
Then GOOGLE has the AUDACITY to tell people with REAL JOBS that their doing them is not what the internet USERS WANT TO SEE ...?
How does that stick in your heart?
I'll even go one step farther ... SOME of the VOLUNTIER editors at DMOZ are SO BUSY promoting their own sites that they REFUSE to add MANY GREAT SITES to their directory to start with .... so PROMOTING that to start with is like promoting some backwoods article on civilization.
Why do you thik google is not up to making their own QUALITY directory like YAHOO does? instead of SPAMMING their own search results with a " mirrow affiliate " site results?
All the local guys like us with the local knowledge ( with local staff to pay:( ) have been bombed back to the dark ages. Sites like yahoo travel who are now on the first page fom nowhere, would never bother to pay for adwords anyway.
The owners of these sites have never even out a foot in my location. Total disaster.
One ray of light. I prepared for judgement day by building 3 sites for each location. Maybe you call it spam but I call it insurance. One of those sites came back yesterday and now my mofo site has gone down in flames I still have some back up. I am going to build even more sites now to take Google on.
BTW, Google doesnt owe anyone anything other than proper placement for a paid ad. One may set up shop along the side of a private road, but the owner of the road has no responsibilty to the shop owner for continued traffic if he changes the on ramps and off ramps to his road, widens it, narrows it or even moves the road, therefore changing the amount or type of traffic.
If he has sold the shop owner a billboard and guaranteed a certain amount of cars passing it per day, that is different. But without a contract to this effect, the shop owner has no argument.
If one relies on free traffic, thats their choice, but as Confucius says, "He who waits for Peking duck to fly into his mouth will soon starve."
has it never occurred to you that WITHOUT OUR CONTENT GOOGLE WOULD NOT BE IN BUSINESS ....?
IF everyone told the google bot to GET LOST ... they would be OUT OF BUSINESS TOMORROW ....
So, you are DREAMING if you think google does not OWE EVERYONE OF US A "FAIR SHAKE" ...
Regarding Google does not owe me anything that is true. I know that and I pay for my traffic but what I hate that it is a little green ad on the side. If I am paying top dollar, which I do as a premium customer on some campaigns. I would prefer to see my ad in flashing lights.
Natural listings give me more customers that is why I do SEO. I also pay far more to adwords than I do to my web team for their time.
Preferably I would like to see all traffic paid for. Sort out the men from the boys
[edited by: theman at 8:59 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
2) is it fair for GOOGLE TO FOCUS on honest optimization technique and FORGET about evaluating CONTENT ... as they are now ... I THINK NO
3) is it fair for google to use what little tallent they have to rub out honest optimization techniques and FORGET BLATENT SPAM Like INVISABLE images loaded with alt tags ... and pages with NO CONTENT except a few keywords .... just because those methoda are HARDER TO FERROT OUT - I THINK NO ...
got to get back to work OPTIMIZING MY SITES NOW .... for ALTAVISTA ... has anyone noticed thet their results are REALLY HIGER QUALITY LATELY ....? I BET THEY WILL be doing more searches than google by the time the investors who LOOSE THEIR SHIRTS in googles IPO get finished sueing googles financiers ..... :)
Actually, it was mostly calm here lately, until Florida... :-)
Believe it or not, most threads on WW are good exchanges of observations and theories. It's Google News, forum3, that is like the wild west when these algo changes happen.
The particular WW member you were priming the shoe for is a pretty cool guy. He's usually as helpful as he can be under the conditions. If you read between the lines of his posts, you can figure out what the problems are for some sites.
Those who says IN is better.
Is it because you site VANISHED in other datacenters but reappear in IN? so it is a consolidation prize for you...
Your site perform better than PRE-FLORIDA?!
I think this is definitely important when you guys say 'It is Better'.
Our site vanished on all datacenters when Florida was unleashed. We are now listed again in -in, but also on all the other datacenters. The funny thing now is that some show us top 10 again and other show us top 40. -in is showing us top 10, so I like it better ;)
Interesting note, that only 1 other site returned to our most commonly used terms. Over 80 disappeared originally.
Anyway so what you at Google trying to do to my sites? Is this stuff on google 2 and google3 going to stick or disappear?
I'd be interested about feedback people have about www-in. If you want to send email to webmaster [at] google.com with the keyword "filey" (or fill out a spam report) with the keyword filey somewhere in the comments, I'd be happy to see any feedback (positive or negative) about www-in.google.com. Most users wouldn't notice much difference, but I'm happy to hear comments from folks.
[edited by: GoogleGuy at 10:09 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
GG - Filey (North Yorks)! Nice touch!
Please forgive me that final 'off-topic' remark.
That is all.
[edited by: superscript at 10:19 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]