Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
This quote is from Matt Cutts blog:
I’m about blogged out for the day, and there are better places to discuss this stuff (WebmasterWorld, Search Engine Watch Forums, etc.). The best way to get people to process your feedback is to use the spam report form or the dissatisfied link, make sure that you include the keyword “bigdaddy” and try to be as specific and clear as you can.... I’d be delighted to get webspam feedback, but I’m most interested in hearing feedback about canonicalization, redirects, duplicate urls, www vs. non-www, and similar issues. Before you send in a report, please read my previous posts on url canonicalization, the inurl operator, and 302 redirects.
[mattcutts.com...]
[edited by: tedster at 11:45 pm (utc) on Jan. 4, 2006]
[edit reason] shorter quote - add link [/edit]
Maybe it is very difficult for them to do so. To put a timeframe on a whole new restructuring of their system is a difficult thing to do especially on a MASS scale. They are just in the testing phase STILL. Once they are satisfied then and only then should they put a timeframe on it. What fixes they are putting into place may or may not affect each site the same. A little at a time.
My company has taking a beating. Hundreds of thousands down the toilet. I feel for everybodys pain. Believe me! I wish I new precicely what is going on. At least I/we can be thankful they ARE trying to do something about it. Any spam/crap/scrapers/hijackings/redirect problems from other engines currently/past never have I seen them respond to webmasters like Matt does.
>>At least be thankful they ARE trying to do something about it. Any spam/crap/scrapers/hijackings/redirect problems from other engines currently/past never have I seen them respond to webmasters like Matt does. I know I am.<<
Please tell me, which other major search engine has a canonical issues?
Which other major search engine has a supplemetal issues?
Which other major search engine has a redirect issues?
etc..
IMHO, its better for Matt to keep quite than telling the webmasters whos lost business because of, for example canonical and supplemental issues: Don't worry..your problems will be resolved "down the road" or "In time". Thats what I call insulting other people intelligence.
Ok I will answer one for just an example. Does anyone remember Yahoo and their 302 redirect hijacking issue a few years back? I do. It was one of the main reason for us switching to a 301 redirect. Do you remember how long it took them to put a "fix" in place? Years! Any regular feedback from them? Not much that I can remember.
"Which other major search engine has a supplemetal issues?"
I never stated supplemtal issues now did I! That is something that pertains largel (soley?) to Google.
-but if you have read MAtt's Q/A you would take note:
"Q: Okay, how about supplemental results. Do supplemental results cause a penalty in Google?
A: Nope."
Who said Google owed you or anybody else a living?
Its a search engine and if you get excellent free results then good luck and enjoy it while it lasts.
Most companies understand that marketing costs and freebies from search engines are a bonus.
Anybody building a business around free Google SERPS is asking to be hammered.
We lost 10's of thousands of dollars post Jagger but fully understand the risk of accepting free business and are very impressed by the Big Daddy results so far.
The best way to avoid destruction is to ensure that your marketing strategy includes a lot more than free Google ranking.
Just my opinion of course but there really seems to be a lot of whinging considering that Big Daddy is about fixing the index which will obviously not happen in one quick fix.
Companies testing new products ask for feedback to try to ensure the product is working WHEN its released not before.
Why not wait and see what the results look like when its officially released....
Happy days.
But even though it has been a hell of a year and I really don't think we did anything wrong and that the problems probably stemmed from the 301's 302's and canonical problems on googles end I am thrilled to see that they are addressing the issue.
I will be grateful to get back all that free traffic no matter who's fault it was that we lost it.
Hopefully you and I both will see good changes in the way google handles our sites with bigdaddy.
I think that those of you who hear comments like the ones that Reseller has posted tonight should wonder what it has taken to extract this anger. If google can wind up the likes of Reseller, then it's a sorry day for them and I hope they're proud of themselves.
Many thanks Reseller ... See you for Coffee in the morning ;-)
Actually I am not sorry nor do I feel sorry for Resellers anger. I don't care who did what to whom. Anger is an emotion run and expressed soeley by the person feeling it. It isn't extracted. It isn't forced. It is a choice that is made. Reseller gained a LOT of respect over the year. That respect is diminishing quickly through the actions Reseller is taking now with the ranting, which again is a choice.
I do hope Reseller drops the rant and starts to think clearly again and take a more positive actions towards fulfilling the purpose of his site (be with or without Google).
>>Reseller,
Who said Google owed you or anybody else a living? <<
Nobody said that. But at least one expect of the people of Google a decent conduct. A mong the things that are included in decent conduct is to respect other people.
There is no respect when you tell people who are suffering: you will be great down the road or in time.
As I said, better for Matt to keep quite. He doesn't owe us anything and webmasters owe him nothing.
>>Many thanks Reseller ... See you for Coffee in the morning ;-) <<
Thanks for the kinds words, my friend. Much appreciated.
And for sure.. see you in the morning for our traditional danish brand cappucinno ;-)
God night to you and God bless.
I just call it how I see it too Arbicus ... Reseller has supported GoogleGuy and all the "Just wait and see" brigade at Google HQ and just exactly how far has that brought us ... Absolutely nowhere!
Reseller is cool, calm and collected (It's all that coffee he drinks). When he gets angry ... it's for a reason ...
Maybe Reseller ran out of coffee? LOL that haaaasss to be it.
>>I do hope Reseller drops the rant and starts to think clearly again and take a more positive actions towards fulfilling the purpose of his site (be with or without Google).<<
First off, my site is doing very very well on BigDaddy. So it isn't because of that I'm questioning that poor elastic call for BigDaddy feedback.
But if you are just like me, you have been reading since Feb 2005 how some kind fellow members have been suffering of canonical and supplemental issues, how GG and Matt started talking during Jagger about improvements in connections with canonicals which gave hope to those kind fellow members and then at last saying: send us feedback and your problems mightbe resolved down the road and in time. If you have witnessed all that, and you don't feel with those kind fellow members because you wish to preserve "respect". I don't need such respect.
-but if you have read MAtt's Q/A you would take note:"Q: Okay, how about supplemental results. Do supplemental results cause a penalty in Google?
A: Nope."
I just read that too. What a relief. I had about decided to quit fighting the supplementary problem but I feel better about that decision now.
Does anyone know why some of us who had problem during Bourbon that were later resolved came back up while others haven't? Even tho I have my site back I now know that clean sites can suddenly be penalized for no apparent reason. I wonder if we could tell the difference between the ones who have come back and the ones that haven't. Mabe there is a clue in there that would help the ones who haven't made it back.
And the comment about the September 22nd update was something like "that update was to address something else." Jeeze, thanks for the information. That will help me fix my site because we dropped without warning.
>>Who said Google owed you or anybody else a living?
Google doesn't own webmasters anything except to attempt to fairly represent the content contained on their websites. After all, Google has to be one of the biggest users of Internet resources around. They have been less than fair to some webmasters lately.
Finally, I think the door has been swinging in only one direction lately. Google asks for specific feedback, yet is very vague on the exact changes BigDaddy set out to address.
And finally (again), why is it that Yahoo actually answers emails sent to them by webmasters? Matt asks for comments, but has anyone ever received a response telling them "thanks for the heads up." I often wonder if emails even make it there...
I understand your concern for others but surely Google are currently demonstrating that for the first time they are actually trying to resolve a "known problem" publicly and with the help of the webmaster community.
Surely they deserve just a little of your respect for that.
What will you say if in three weeks all canonically related issues are fixed and big daddy is released as the promised land?
Perhaps the rant should simply be saved until their current time limited efforts are exhausted. If the new index is not a lot better accross the board I will join in!
>>Maybe Reseller ran out of coffee? LOL that haaaasss to be it.<<
LOL.. that never happen. Nescafe Gold instant and Cappucinno are a standard supply here at home.
Q: Okay, how about supplemental results. Do supplemental results cause a penalty in Google?
A: Nope.
I found that response interesting, since the follow up response was this:
I wouldn’t spend much effort on them. If the pages have moved, I would make sure that there’s a 301 redirect to the new location of pages. If the pages are truly gone, I’d make sure that you serve a 404 on those pages. After that, I wouldn’t put any more effort in.
If they're not that important, then why does Matt go on to tell you - make sure there is a 301 or a 404? Further, if they are not important, then why does Google store them in the first place?
I'm sure there is a logical explantionand I'm sure Matt is a great guy and all, but sometimes half the story doesn't help.
[edited by: BillyS at 11:35 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2006]
if they are not important, then why does Google store them in the first place
Makes for a nice large number on the front page.
Nescafe Gold instant and Cappucinno
BTW now you have become disillusioned with the google PR dept and their "seem to be caring for you blog" you should try also genuine coffee ..and non PR blogs ( if you have to read blogs anyway ..nasty icky things )..real websites or even ( heaven forbid ) going outside are better for you ;)
If you remember back then I was right in the middle of the whole ordeal trying to figure this thing out. I feel for those fellow members I really do. I really feel for you also. Just NOT your actions you are taking out of anger.
I believe I have lost just as much as other have emotionally. I also believe I lost more financially than the bulk of us here. Yes it hurts. BUT rather than letting these emotions degrade the QUALITY of my actions I will stand strong and make progress in every way I can. This is my hope that you will do also.
Respect of your peers does not mean that you shouldn't show emotion. To preserve respect is to show those emotions in a respectful way. This is what I called you on. I believe you are BETTER than that from what you have shown in the past. You were the emotional leader here at WebmasterWorld. No matter what bad was going on you stood strong. You giving up to anger is showing others here that there is no hope to continue. Without hope...well you get the point.
>>Does "ersatz" have the same meaning for Danes?<<
Don't think so :-)
>>BTW now you have become disillusioned with the google PR dept and their "seem to be caring for you blog" you should try also genuine coffee ..and non PR blogs ( if you have to read blogs anyway ..nasty icky things )..real websites or even ( heaven forbid ) going outside are better for you ;)<<
Honestly, I still have great respect for Matt and still wish Google well. Never have had the pleasure to meet him, but he sounds as a fresh nice guy when he write personal matters.
But lately, during Jagger and BigDaddy Matt made the mistake by forgetting that he is writing to intelligent webmasters community.
The majority of us have been willing to help with spam reporting and lately with BigDaddy feedback. In return, at least, we should expect more substance in Matt's words. Unfortunately, there is no much substance in words like "down the road" and "In time".
>>If you remember back then I was right in the middle of the whole ordeal trying to figure this thing out. I feel for those fellow members I really do. I really feel for you also. Just NOT your actions you are taking out of anger. <<
No anger in my words. But rather disapointed.
Maybe I have expected more than elastic words from Matt regarding BigDaddy feedback. Maybe I shouldn't.
Bed time.
Good night and God bless.
You can use absolute internal links, ones that start with "http://www.domain.com/...." and/or you can use the <base> tag. Both of these will help, a lot.
I had the same problem recently when a client arranged with the wrong hosting company. (now this was an apache server with no individual redirect available in .htaccess) I contacted their support team and explained the problems with google without the 301- pointed out to them that almost all hosting companies did this automatically for their clients upon creating the domain and told them I would be moving. I also directed them to Webmasterworld to read up on the problems.
Suddenly they saw the light and automatically converted to 301's for all their clients.
However, they can do this on shared hosting even in IIs. the instructions are extremely simple and takes less than 5 minutes. They should be able to do this for you easily.
You can use absolute internal links, ones that start with "http://www.domain.com/...." and/or you can use the <base> tag. Both of these will help, a lot.
Always have since day one (mostly to improve handling of http vs https pages) I guess all it takes is a few inbound links pointing to [mysite.com....] I remember a few years ago lots of people were linking without the www because they felt the www was redundant.
Upon further check, I have 13,000 pages indexed with the www and 21,000 indexed without it. While it doesn't seem to be hurting my placement, and the www pages appear in all keyword searches, wasn't Bigdaddy supposed to get rid of the Canonical dupe content problems?
