Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.73.3.107

Forum Moderators: open

Google in the New York Times

Article on Sunday's edition

   
8:10 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



An interesting article in tomorrows NY Times about the power of Google. They question if Google can maintain it “Do No Evil” style. It goes on to cite a few complaints about Google's rankings, but seems to be fairly balanced.

Is a Do-Gooder Company a Good Thing? [nytimes.com]

Nice quote from Brett....."People optimize for Google; they study Google,'' said Brett Tabke, the chief executive of Webmasterworld.com. "It's Google in the morning, Google at night, Google all the time. "
Might be a song in there........
jb

1:07 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



The above URL is broken.
2:16 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)
2:26 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Brett is The Man!

Of course, this is recognition to the entire board as well. Take a bow.

4:16 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



A search for "St. Louis" and "embroidery" used to list (read the article for name), a small embroidery store in St. Louis, in third or fourth place, said (read the article for name), the company's chief executive. Since November, he said, it has "dropped off the face of the earth."

"It was devastating," said (read the article for name), who said he didn't complain directly to Google because he assumed his company was too small to matter.

A quick check of whois information shows that (read the article for name), has duplicate sites online, keywordkeyword.com and keyword-keyword.com, hosted at different ip addresses. Tsk, tsk.

This is a common mistake with news reporting about Google, that they don't check their Google detractors to see if they're quoting someone who caused their own problems. Makes Google look bad for getting rid of spammers.

3:08 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Are you sure? I see two very different sites.
3:17 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Are you sure? I see two very different sites.

I'm 100% positive. Last night they were exact duplicates.

That's why I checked the whois information to see if the sites were being served from different ip's and thus duplicates, or if one domain was merely redirecting to the other domain. They were the same website being served from different ip's.

The owner must be have been tipped off and he changed it.

3:39 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Ok, so that's settled. Looks like a nice try by the SEO to cover up the evidence. The whois record was last modified on May 2, 2004.

Either way, you don't need to have duplicate sites to utilize a hyphenated domain. Any decent SEO could have set them up with a redirect that wouldn't raise the ire of SEs.

3:41 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



>I'm 100% positive. Last night they were exact duplicates.

Check the cache on Google and on other SEs. Finally check archive.org if they were same about 6 months ago.

4:05 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Archive.org didn't cache the hyphenated domain. If you do a search on google for where the hyphenated domain (without www) shows up on a web page, you'll see the evidence of the duplicate in the ransom note shown by Googles non-indexed supplemental results.
6:11 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I'm probably the best person to answer the questions ;)

The domains are mine (well, I'm - shall we say - fighting for control over the hyphenated domain).

The site to which the hyphenated domain goes is to my old web hosting site. They're good folk, but our moving to another hosting company wasn't exactly smooth between us.

So, I appreciate all the more knowedgeable information presented, but honestly, I'm not an SEO (but trying to learn quickly), I'm just trying to do business on the web. I'm much better at digitizing embroidery designs than designing web pages, or getting them ranked.

I've spent a good deal of time over at web pro, and have found their input invaluable. I'll take that here as well.

No feelings on the sleeve, If you have criticism, let me know - there's a ton on which I can improve, and if I've offended anyone, I apologise.

Cheers,

Mark

6:17 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



BTW: martinbuster You said:


If you do a search on google for where the hyphenated domain (without www) shows up on a web page, you'll see the evidence of the duplicate in the ransom note shown by Googles non-indexed supplemental results.

I was trying to see what you meant. Could you explain what you mean by a ransom note?

Thanks again & cheers,

Mark

6:40 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Welcome to WebmasterWorld, Mark. The "ransom note" refers to the text snippets displayed by Google to show the context of the search terms.
6:49 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Thanks, yep - those have been there for a long time, never updated (so I guess G has a pretty good memory). Even that text is pretty old. Thanks for the info.

Funny, as I'm trying to get more results from the <hyphenated domain> via google, they seem to be _quickly_ dissapearing? Maybe too much coffee or conspiracy theory...

Mark

[edited by: mhalloran at 7:45 pm (utc) on May 2, 2004]

7:15 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Yes, welcome, Mark. Nice to see the dignity in your reaction. And really an interesting example of how easy it sometimes is to get into a situation where you do not look particularly well. Hope you get your problems sorted out.
8:10 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



troels,

Thanks for the words. If I'm not looking particularly well, I guess I ought to respond. Two issues really.

First, our changing service providers did not coincide in any way with a drop in google rankings. We changed hosting sites early this year, our rankings suffered last year (when both URLs pointed to the same page).

Second, an earlier post stated that both urls pointed to the same page _yesterday_, that just isn't true, I wish it were, because we have a number of domains that still point to that site, only two of which ever went live and were indexed (both those sites are those under this topic, one we moved, the rest we'll move when we have the extra cash).

So, in a nut-shell, our rankings have come back up, not quite as well as they were, but better. Mostly, I've been paying attention to back links, something I've learned in forums like this. More importantly, I've also focused on the business, making sure that when someone does purchase from us, they're going to be a repeat customer and spread a "good report" by word of mouth.

Ok, ok - no more venting...

Cheers,

Mark

8:39 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Does anyone here think of Google as a "Do-Gooder Company"? I look at Google as the being to the Internet what Microsoft is to the home computer. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have about as much commitment to the public interest, and probably less, than does Bill Gates. Not that I necessarily consider it surprising that "greed is GOOD" is the mantra at the Googleplex. After all, they are a for profit business.
12:45 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Right on rfg... it's a bloody crock, in my books.

<rant>

Full disclosure, etc, etc. Our little .org site rocks in Google, Y, and MSN, Overture, Bob's-your-uncle's SE, because it's the best site for what it does. So, I don't have a grudge against Google because of serps...

BUT, if I read, "Do no evil", one more time about G, and how they're such a swell bunch of guys, I'm going to puke. They're trying to make a big pile of money, (the raison d'etre of the whole thing... they're not doing all of this to bring peace and joy to the planet), and putting some BS spin on it. This IPO is the limit... Americans only, eh? I think it's time to change the default page for my browsers.

</rant>

2:00 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Does anyone here think of Google as a "Do-Gooder Company"? I look at Google as the being to the Internet what Microsoft is to the home computer. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have about as much commitment to the public interest, and probably less, than does Bill Gates. Not that I necessarily consider it surprising that "greed is GOOD" is the mantra at the Googleplex. After all, they are a for profit business.

Count me, for one, as a Google fan. Integrity--doing what you say you are going to do--is tough, especially on the scale which G operates. Yet, they have come close to pulling it off. Are their results always perfect? No. But, they are the best. And they have yet to the satisfied with their success. And they have made most everyone who has done business with them on the web either richer, or at least not poorer. That's do-gooder enough for me.

2:18 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



>Are their results always perfect? No. But, they are the best. And they have yet to the satisfied with their success.

Windows is by far the most successful of all OSes. And until the Mac OS X came along, Windows was unquestionably the best OS in the sense that Unix is so complex the vast majority of the population could never figure out how to use it. Or, would even want to use an OS that wasn't mouse oriented.

2:53 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I am amazed that nobody here has complained about what MUST be disclosed in order to "view" the thread at the New York Times!

Jeeeesh, I gave them my name and my e:mail address but that wasn't sufficient! They want me to "tell them about myself" including gender, age. etc.

That is BS! Sorry I won't be able to "view" the article but for heaven's sake ... doesn't anyone else find that "requirement" offensive? I sure as hell do!

3:05 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



>They want me to "tell them about myself" including gender, age. etc.

I have found out that when I make "errors" in filling out info - like age: 0 or -1000, most of these don't have any validation checks. (In drop-dowm menus too I am error-prone.)

PS I didn't read the article because if it is in NY Times, Wash Post or LA Times, it is quite easy to guess the entire content without reading.

3:10 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



They want me to "tell them about myself" including gender, age. etc.

Hey Liane, just tell them anything, (I believe I'm a gay Patagonian Baptist for the NYT). It's ridiculous for them to ask for that info, so you're entitled to give them ridiculous answers.

3:16 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



It's ridiculous for them to ask for that info, so you're entitled to give them ridiculous answers.

I prefer, (by way of declining to supply any answer at all and just leaving their site) that they get the bloody message and remove that requirement.

Its offensive and outrageous. I will not supply any answer whatsoever!

For the record ... I am female and 50. Does that have any bearing on "viewing" their article? I think not! They need to put their nose to the grind stone instead of in my business.

BTW ... I offer the above information willingly and without coercion. I will tell whom I want about myself ... when and where I want ... but no web site should make it compulsory in order to bloody well VIEW an article!

[edited by: Liane at 3:27 am (utc) on May 3, 2004]

3:23 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



You can usually get the same articles from google news - and they have this little magic gate pass that says "&partner=GOOGLE" on the end which jumps the "gate".

there was a NYT article I linked to from my site and I just added &partner=MYDOMAIN" and it worked too :P

1:33 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Does that have any bearing on "viewing" their article?

Nope, but as an advertising-supported site, NYTimes.com does have to provide demographic info to its advertisers. I greatly prefer ad-supported news outlets to paid subscription-based or pay-per-article sites, and don't mind providing some info to keep the content free. My hometown newspaper has gone to a fee-per-article after 7 days. It's a real pain.

If providing demographic info bothers people, they should use free e-mail addresses not associated with their name.

<added>Oops, sorry to contribute to the hijacking of this thread. Congrats to Brett on the well-deserved PR. And Mark, this is a great place to hang out to learn how to promote your site and deal with issues like balky web hosts.</added>

9:57 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I just want to say thanks to you all. You've gone to great lengths to make me welcome here and share information - whether via mail or forum. You've all been great.

Cheers,

mark

5:46 am on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Wow you have to give them all that? The moment I saw you had to subscribe I just hit back.
 

Featured Threads

My Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month