Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Ask folks about this more in New Orleans too, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, use the Campaign Negative Sites feature of AdWords to specify any sites that you don't want your ads to show on. That's an indirect signal of feedback as well.
The Google Web Directory integrates Google's sophisticated search technology with Open Directory pages to create the most useful tool for finding information on the web.
The Google Web Directory integrates Google's sophisticated search technology with Open Directory pages to create a pretty darn useful tool for finding information on the web.
JudgeJeffries, I see reinclusions go through, and there's a fair number of them. Once it reaches a person to investigate, I'd budget four weeks up to six weeks for it to show up.
Things that help: lots of details about how it happened, how the stuff was cured, and how it won't be happening again. Smaller problems in quality (10 words of hidden text as opposed to thousands of cloaked, redirecting doorways pages).
Things that hurt: when the site is less mom&pop or genuine, and more buy-cheap-viagra-for-my-debt-consolidation-loans.com or suchlike. The intent and scale and recency of the actions can also be taken into account.
whats a .5 update mean and is that supposed to be good? so far the update is spam filled... will the remaing updates increase or decrease the spam.
oh thats two questions, nevermind the first one.
So far the only thing thats clear is that theres talk and then theres results... not lining up.
[edited by: mickeymart at 9:27 am (utc) on June 2, 2005]
The thing with AdSense last week was actually a recently introduced bug that was quickly reverted once the problem was pointed out (thanks Patrick!). If I give a deeper dissection of that, I promised to do it over on the SearchEngineWatch forums though--Danny asked about it first. Maybe next week I'll talk about it there if people are interested, but it's independent of 302's/canonicalization.
Once the cards are allowed to "fall were they may" and all sites are all created equal with no bias towards them ie. " Sandbox " and are allowed to rank for merit of links , on page factors , internal linking structure , site map , etc. and a site ranks a " trademark term " is it commonplace just to remove the offending site regardless of the comic nature of the site , bad design, bad colors, and obviously " no IT Tech " onboard?
SEO's know that throwing a monkey wrench to search engines can cause a whole head ache of legal problems and since google has the ie. " financial backing " and some webmasters don't shouldn't they wait till the @#$# hits the fan before pulling it for fear of scaring away a advertiser or business partner?
I am curious if that plays a factor if google would just rather avoid the headaches than make some poor boarderline bankrupt comedian some money.
Here's an example of a site that I recently ran across: [thefacebook.com...] It's like a friendster for college students. I think you have to have an .edu email address to join (note the cachet factor + the prevetting/safety factor). If you belong to ucsd.edu, you can get more in-depth stats on those students from ucsd.edu. But you can still search for random names and see snapshots of random people at random schools. It's highly addictive. A site like that builds up it's own reputation through word-of-mouth, and that can happen quite quickly.
It's all very well improving spam reporting features (don't get me wrong, a lot of us will appreciate that), but with all due respect, it's not down to webmasters to maintain the quality of the Google content network.
IMO and in the opinion of many others, a more proactive approach is needed.
Perhaps my question isn't right - I (and I think a lot of people) just want to know that there's more going on in the adsense camp than just making ways for webmasters to self regulate the web.