Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
1- ask one question
2- be brief.
3- no commenting on other posts.
4- no specifics please
5- violators will go posting off ;-)
6- 1 q - 1 q only.
7- thread will be scrubbed of junk/offtopic/etc
After we get 10-20 q's we will submit them to the plex...
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.
joined:May 23, 2005
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.