Forum Moderators: open
Lo and behold, a web definition came up. Now, I know the definitions aren't new, but I think Google answering questions is. Anyone seen this yet?
page markup, at least regarding the <dl><dt><dd> tags, is still irrelevant
So it is. I had only noticed pages using <dl> before. Any ideas on how they select sites? I've seen sites with Ambrose' Devil's Dictionary marked up with <dl> but none of those definitions are listed.
What about <acronym> and <abbr> tags? Does those come into play? I can't tell for sure...
The only people I know of compiling definitions from <acronym> and <abbr> are [materials.ac.uk...] and they're rather specialised and by the looks of things only spider sites by invitation.
Not sure what the excitment is...
For me the excitement lies in the fact that Google is taking a step toward processing natural language queries. Instead of using geeky modifers, link, define, site, you can just ASK.
Achieving this goal will allow Google to reach out to people who don't rtfm, or who did and still can't understand it.
Lot easier to ask, "show me the backlinks for foo.com."
Can you say major copyright infringement.
This will be gone, very very soon. Google will have to write their own definitions.
I can't even believe they tried to do this.
The following words are very common and were not included in your search: what is. [details [google.com]]
My best guess would be Google using an if command in their programming language, i.e.
if ($q = "what is $q") {
displayDefinition();
} else {
};)
Sid
Bahah.
Can you say major copyright infringement.
This will be gone, very very soon. Google will have to write their own definitions.
I can't even believe they tried to do this.
Really? What are you gonna tell Google ... "Take me off your search results or else ...?"
a) They individually get permission from the websites regarding their usage
b) They trim down so the full definition doesn't show
c) They change the program in some other way so that they can abide by fair usage.
I won't give odds, though :)
And you can simply send Google a copy of the DMCA.
Someone is really coked up to think that this is going to fly.
I mean really. Google is nuts.
What if I started publishing thousands of websites which simply lexically stole content from websites?
This has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen a corporation do.
I reported this over 7 months ago:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Can you say major copyright infringement.Google doesn't stand a chance here.
Google's entire business is based on copyright infringement - this is just a logical extension.
IMHO Google Groups, Google Images, etc. violate copyrights.
Heck, I am not even sure about regular SERPs. Are snippets really fair use? What is a search index but an unlicensed derivative work of copyright material. The Terms and Conditions on many sites say things like "this material is for the exclusive personal use of our site visitors" that would seem to exclude automated robots.
Either way, there will be a day of reckoning.
I did a search on "how do I submit a glossary to google?" and got mostly garbage.
The good news is that there are places like this where there's human brain power behind answers to questions.
So, anyway, back to my question...
I just added a Glossary to a site this week. Will Google automatically figure out that it's a Glossary or is there a Submit Glossary page for Google out there somewhere? Thanks.
The glossary of publishing terms on my site is in the Google glossary database, and I did nothing to get it there.
I suspect that pages with the term "glossary" (and possibly other related terms?) in the Title/Header/etc. tags get flagged during the usual indexing, are reviewed somehow, perhaps even manually, and then included or not in the GoogleGlossary (or whatever you want to call it.)
Will Google automatically figure out that it's a Glossary
So, I haven't done any kind of exhaustive testing here, but common attributes across G sourced definition pages include the use of the word Glossary in the title tag. For example, "widget Glossary" seems to work nicely.
And, it looks like there has to be some internally consistent markup on the page. This seems to work well on many referenced pages:
<p><b>Term</b> - Here's what it means.</p>
<added>Didn't see hunderdown's post, sorry for some duplicate info!</added>
I did nothing to get it there
Google lives in a magic world where one has to opt-out to protect their intellectual property.
Good thing physical property laws don't work this way, or else everybody would have to walk around with a sign saying "please don't mug me."
I was responding to Whoa's question--he wanted to know if one had to submit glossaries to Google through some kind of separate mechanism. And I just meant I didn't submit the glossary.
Obviously, I put the page up on the web, and linked other pages to it, etc.!
I don't share your (apparent) anger over this new feature on Google--the glossary on my site is actually from a book I wrote and am promoting on my site. Google's use of it is further promotion of my book.
Of course, others with glossaries being used in this way aren't so happy about that. But as you note there are actions that can be taken to keep such glossaries out of the Google glossary index...
