Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: open
My pages have a Google PR from 6 to 4. I didn't even know that until last week when someone told me the only way to see PR was to use Internet Explorer with the Google Toolbar (I prefer Netscape or Mozilla). The recent Google update did not seem to affect me much. Somehow my sites tend to be near the top of relavant searches.
I track a few of my pages with a third-party tracker (Extreme). Google is clearly the best at letting searchers find good content. MSN search is just about the worst. I say that knowing that MSN ranks me higher on some things than Google -- too high, and uselessly. I feel bad when someone looking for information about fire insurance finds a page of mine talking about life insurance.
If my livelihood depended on search results, then I would probably be more sympathetic to the complaints about shifting rules concerning PR and SEO. From my actual vantage point as webmaster and user, I feel they are doing a great job. (Their image search should include PNG images, though.)
-- Rich Franzen
Have you checked out All the Web? They are better than Google now, just not as popular. The results used to be precise on Google, but after this last update, they went sour. All the Web is better now. Your searching time will be cut by 75% for precision searches with All the Web.
Welcome! I am also a "hobby" webmaster of non-commercial sites. My main site qualifies as a medium site I suppose (15-20k pages). I have also had amazingly good results with Google. Most of the individual pages on the site are for a specific proper name (person or group). Incredibly my site shows up toward the top of many of these proper names!
All in all, I have to say my experiences with Google, both as a webmaster and just as a researcher, have been very good.
Google is THE number one search engine for a simple reason - It delivers the best results. And let's face it, GoogleGuy goes above and beyond the call of duty helping people and offering bits of advice too.
Sure, I can understand why people are attacking Google in the other forum - but it's only when you take the Webmaster shoes off and look at the results as a user that you really see how good things are...
Of course, one site of mine that fell of the index with this update should really be in Google on the front page - as I'm sure many visitors are missing out on some superb deals... Tsk.... ;)
jtoddv/Helpmebe1, if you think specific searches have gotten worse, or that a site doesn't deserve to show up for a search, I encourage you to use the spam report form at
I don't mention the form too often, because some people on this forum disagree with the idea of reporting spam, but that's the best way to contact Google to highlight a specific search or site.
The web form is anonymous, so it doesn't hurt to fill it out. Someone will read the report; you might want to mention that GoogleGuy suggested you write in on webmasterworld.
Thanks for your help...
After looking around her, it has become clear that for deep crawling you either need to improve your PR (get more links) or get some deep links from the outside.
I have a similar problem in that the content at my site is buried from 3 to 5 levels down in the tree. As this was the frist time I got any PR, on my site, the only 2 reports that were indexed were pointed to by their manufacturer directly. You might try getting some of your outside links to point to a specific section of your catalog.
On a non-google note, I thought I would mention that I no longer shop at any Yahoo stores since they decided to opt everyone in to their program to sell personal data, and I know I am not the only one. It is just something you might want to consider about where you run your site.
This is simply one of the best things about Google. If you are a good netizen and accept your *responsibility* to help Google, they do deal with/punish spam far better than any other search engine, despite the fact that because they are soooo dominant that cheaters take direct aim specifically at tricking/fooling them.
For some reason my user profile doesn't show my home page. Maybe it's because I just joined a little while ago. If anyone is interested, a search on my name should suffice.
Wow, at least 6 of you actually did look me up. Cool. :) I hope you liked the color wheel!
Just checked -- my home page is now shown with my User Profile. Probably the moderators wanted to verify it wasn't a link to illegal content before making it available.
In response to another message, I am not impressed at all with AllTheWeb. Right now they should consider changing its name to AllThatsUseless. I experimented with a word I made up and have on one of my pages, "opissary". AllTheWeb found 16 false hits, and it didn't even find the real hit. (Google had only 1 hit, the right one.) It did a better job on "interactive color wheel", but the third hit had to do with guitars and the SE result for it contained 100 lines of cr*p. That engine has some growing up to do.
In all fairness, the sites that are ahead of me experience significantly more traffic than mine and I am wondering if Google is using the toolbar to monitor traffic and perhaps let that factor into the rankings. Going out on a limb here, but I'll bet Ebay stores will pick up points for that (for sure).
I did notice that a lot of our sub-pages picked up significantly. They were pages with a lot of content, not really selling anything.
Maybe Google isn't broken after all.
BTW . . . I looked at ATW and it was seriously out of date on the things I saw. No minty freshness there.
joined:Nov 20, 2000
>> Have you checked out All the Web? They are better than Google now, just not as popular<<
Pre-update I would have laughed. Post-update... hmmm... try a few searches in a few different areas on the pair of them. I found that there's not a great deal of difference in quality anymore.
>> I encourage you to use the spam report form at
Is it a great idea to start pointing fingers at each other? Could it be that Google has just raised quite a bit of poor quality to the top... and now they want webmasters to help them identify it?
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in what has happened (and by the way, my sites haven't been hit too badly). I just think that if the change was not forced by the possible loss of Yahoo, Google has dropped a clanger.
For the one-word vestigand which names the general subject
area, my site has just moved up from about number 40 to about
number 15 -- and I'd have to say that all of the sites above
are arguably better results. No spam, no junk, no dead sites.
For the three-word vestigand which names the narrow topic of
my own site, my site comes number 1, as was true before (it's
the only site so narrowly focused on just that specific topic,
and Google has always noticed).
A searcher would get the best broad information (including my
site) using the general vestigand, and would get the best
sharply-focused information using the specific vestigand.
Google produces exactly the right thing, out of two and a
half billion pages.
My site is a non-commercial amateur effort, which provides a
lot of historical information previously available only in
research libraries along with a lot of original material. It's
had no SEO attention at all, just content. It has about 15 links
from other sites, all similarly non-commercial efforts. It is
listed in DMOZ, as are most of the other sites that link to it.
The homepage has a toolbar PR of 5. The domain name is
P.S. I don't see the word "vestigand" used enough, although the
concept comes up all the time here; the word means "that which is
searched for". "Vestigand" is the gerundive form of the Latin verb
"vestigare", meaning to track, to search for, or to investigate.
Latin verbs ending in "-are" form gerundives in "-andus, -a, -um"
(cf. analysand, multiplicand, operand, ordinand), always passive in
meaning; hence, "vestigand" means "that which is searched for".
Surely the Ph.D.s at the Googleplex must use this word all the time!
In what fields would that word find common use? These aren't PhDs in searching, they are mostly CS, math, and linguisitcs would be my guess.
I first heard "vestigand" from professors of
Computer Science and of Linguistics at a leading
US research university. It was used to talk
about searching algorthithms in computational
linguistics. It's sort of the obvious quasi-mathematical
term, similar to "operand" and "multiplicand" and
others. It may well be in use at the Googleplex.
(And BTW, the Latin derivation is correct.)
As to who and which specialties use "vestigand",
I'd expect it is webmasters discussing search engine
optimization. Who else has greater need for a word
which means "that which is searched for"? That's
the context in which I use the word, and it comes
in very handy.
Since I have never been an MSN subscriber, I don't have any insights into what is on their side of Fairyland. What I do observe is that their discrimination is extremely weak between appropriate search results and misleading results.