Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
What I would like most of all as a business owner from Google is the ability to pay a fee to get an answer directly from the source. I would pay $25-$50 to turn in a competitor for spamming that was stealing my traffic, if I could get an email reply letting me know if they are taking action.
I am sure many people would pay money for definitive answers to questions they have about Google. I.E. What is, and what is not allowed?
Seems like a money making operation if done properly. With an IPO in the future, it makes sence.
If you look closely enough at Google's HTML, much of the 'invalid HTML for speed and bandwidth' argument fades away, IMO.
Most of the validation errors on Google's front page are designed to make the page load faster and save bandwidth:
- no doctype
- no type on style element
- no type on script element
- unquoted attributes (lots of these)
- no src on img element (clever)
- • is invalid (what does this mean?)
- unknown entity ie (the most dangerous error)
The only questionable error on the front page is "id must begin with a letter".
I think you're right when it comes to Google's serps. Ironically, the only HTML error in the serps that causes me trouble is not reported as an error by the validator: the paragraph tag for a spelling suggestion is not closed. As a result, the table containing adwords ads is inside a paragraph when there is a misspelling, and not inside a paragraph when there is not a misspelling. I set paragraphs to max-width:30em in my user style sheet, so pages that contain both spelling suggestions and ads look ugly. (The W3C considers <table> to automatically close a <p> tag, even in strict; browsers don't, even in strict.)
It seems if companies and indivduals cant compete they resort to spamming Google with literally thousands of pages of useless "content" and then attack companies and indivuals that are providing products and services that people are actually looking for.
Think of the money Google would save buy banning any site with more than 20 pages..I mean really ..anyone writing 300 , 1000 pages should be paying Google a PUBLICATION FEE ..hey know there 's an idea !
Want to increase the popularity of google?
GET RID of PAGE RANK ALTOGETHER!
I think it serves absolutely no purpose other than to upset every one of the webmasters. Pray tell, how does it help the surfer find sites he or she is interested in?
And, how does the poor sap doing the searching even know the page rank if they have no wonderful googlebar?
I think this may be an upsetting ploy to ultimately scare the webmaster into buying adwords....could this be the case?
I have been hanging at a pro1 for months on a site that used to be ranked well...I can't afford to buy your adwords and I have no idea what kind of penalty I am under, if any at all....
So prove your good faith in fair listings and drop the PR, it is a totally unfair and discriminating practice that makes Google look bad.
2) On local searches (Google.co.uk) you could put the UK flag next to the UK results if they search worldwide so the user can immediately see the differences.
Or even better, how about a 'site down' button on the front page, upon clicking all adverts are paused. You could have a server repeatedly checking the site (every 30 or 60 minutes would be good) and automatically unpause the campains when the site is accessible again.
Why you chose me to contend with I have no idea. I simply made a post the same as others..go pick on someone else...I'm not interested.
My websites speak for themselves...no spam-ever!
Sorry, Googleguy. I won't post in this thread anymore as I do not like to get off topic like this and spoil your thread.
I want to buy, let's say, a Leatherman tool. How could Google help me a) find information about it b) actually buying it. Google's prety good about a) but can't really help me on b).
It would be cool to get search results displayed as Mindmaps (similar to Touchgraph), so searching for "Harry Potter" would put "Harry Potter" in the center and show different clusters, e.g., Books, Movies, Merchandising, Fan-Pages. Klicking "Books" would show edges for each book. Klicking on the first book would show edges for reviews. To make a long story short: allow for visual browsing/surfing of the results. I guess it's too early for this since Java sucks and there is no cross-browser/cross-platform language/tool available yet (so make it stand alone, open source, more powerful API, whatever, ...).
Split crawling and ranking. Sell both to other search engines, so they can either apply your ranking to their crawl results or rank the stuff you crawled using their ranking engine.
How about establishing or using more meta data (either Dublin-Core or s.th. else, e.g., site wide meta data).
How about something that makes the following information readiliy available: incoming and outgoing links of a specific domain, theme, topics, pages crawled, status, file types, popularity, whois information, web server, availability, 404s, customer reviews, stock information, ...
Yeah, I like brain storming. And remember: You must not critizise during brain storming. ;) And you must stay on topic.
Dosent work I've tried it LOL!
When you find the right formula for INk please post it though ;)
Seriously I do not understand this attack of keywords..Keywords ARE very important ..and should be when doing a search on any engine..
the PROBLEM is that the SE's have not figured the formula for seperating rightful keywords matching the content of a web site to keywords used that have no bearing on a web site...
SE's CAN use algo's that can determine if a site is abusing keywords ..keyword density for example..your site is using a "keyword" at a 40% clip rate ...a se can send it to the back of the list so to speak..
It can be done...whats worse is determing a site by inbound links....just as easily abused ...and inbound links combined with PR from another site is simply pyramid building..we all remember those schemes now dont we..
Rankings should IMO be based upon some vote by visitation method ..length of visits , repeat visits , percentage of new traffic against new visits ..number of visiters in percentage of the size of the site (# ofpages,bandwidth etc..)
Bottom line if you attract traffic..attract repeat traffic for whatever keywords then you maintain your rankings or climb..you dont maintain and update your web site and your traffic drops ..then so does your ranking..
PR rankings is simply a means for webmasters to scratch each others back ..I'll trade you a PR 6 link to so and so web site if you'll do the same etc..so the rankings are determined by the webmasters INSTEAD of the traffic..you know the people ACTUALLY shopping for the product/service or information..
I want the customer to determine if I deserve to be on the first page or 2nd or 50th..not a gang of other webmasters with more resouces determing my rank ..
thats the way it SHOULD be..
Many site owners are very dependant on google for their income. So at the moment they have to have 2 or 3 sites as a back up if one gets slammed.
If Google warned site owners of problems with a site they would not need to have other sites as a fall back position. This would avoid semi duplicate sites clogging up the serps.
If a site has been "banned" for whatever reason, make it easier for me/us to find out when commisioned to fix it. Sometimes the worst has been corrected and no record exists of the ingenious attempt to rule the SERPs.
Give us a more certain means to get re-spidered (possibly with acknowledgement) when we have fixed previous transgressions whether ours or some previous clever sods.
One of the problems with current search technology is the diffulty of searching resources, businesses, and information that is/are geographically relevant without resorting to manually browsing through manually organized categories.
Thats just my two cents.
I think what Google needs to do is first discover which domains are non-profit and which are ecommerce. Then give low PR/high relevency sites good ranking for non-profit or very specific searches, and high PR/less relevent sites good ranking for ecommerce searches. This way if someone is looking for something very specific or doing research, they will get their good results google currently serves up, and if someone is searching for products to purchase, they will get high-PR and well established sites (and not fly-by-day spam pages).
My 2 cents :)
I'm up to four cents now.
I come back from holiday and now I want to post
my suggestions... impossible to run a dupe check
Brett: if we have direct line to googleguy here, it might be necessary to split suggestions for google into subcategories...
With a voting system?
Ok, here we go: some webmasters suggested a login/personalized MyGoogle. I would like that too, with a filter for certain keywords...
(new entries for your keyword "foobar")
Id like to see the catalog stuff in Germany as well and like weblamer suggested:
split the PDF and DOC serps into a serperate window:
1234 web results found, 234 in PDF, 321 in DOC files
leave the PDFs and DOCs out and make a link to them?
And please: could I have a grey PR tip on the left of the result (4/10), please ;-))
Keep up the good work! Keep in touch... and greetings to the bay area... been a while :-)
red eyed pontifex after reading 119 messages in a thread!