Forum Moderators: goodroi
In the mean time, I have a question for you. What can we can do to be more responsive to webmasters? Would it be helpful if Google could index new filetypes like Word or Excel? Or do you want better ways to complain about bad search results? Other ideas? Just post your suggestions here.
Take care,
GoogleGuy
P.S. Hey Brett, my nick is related to my domain--hope that's okay. I figured most people would want to know when Google's around. :)
Now, what can you do to be more responsive to webmasters?
Update the index twice monthly instead of once, or put another way update more frequently.
In addition to the standard results, provide a downloadable file in some raw format for that keyword query entered. Webmasters and SEO'ers are analysis junkies and we don't want to upset Google by spidering your results. You can hide the link and only reveal to us where it is ;)
Include pagerank in that raw file and now you've really given us something to work with.
I suppose what I am really going for is some tools that let us analyse your index without compromising yourselves in any way, we can build such tools but they require spidering your index, which is a no-no with Google and we don't want to annoy you :) but it would be nice to be able to see keyword searches, top searches by category, heck about spider activity, gives a peek into the spider queue, I think it'd be cool to see the spider wandering about through some window on your site.
Just "blue skying" so hope you'll forgive the suggetions that bring the most laughter at Google.
[webmasterworld.com...]
I think most of these rumors started with a ZDNET UK article. The reporter saw our push toward fresher crawls and assumed that we'd charge for that. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have any plans for a pay for inclusion program. Like Brett says, bear in mind that I'm just one guy with a login--I'm not a spokesgoogler. I can't go out on a limb and say "Google will never ever do this," but our "don't charge webmasters" program has been very popular so far. :) Hope that helps.
Okay, off to work. Thanks again for the chance to open up some communication. I'll try to stop by again soon and tackle more questions.
Some very nice suggestions by Brett, I only hope he tells us how he really feels!~ ;)
Sure it does :)
Big welcome from Europe where googling is getting increasingly popular too.
A humble welcome GoogleGuy. Thanks for lending us an ear.
Q: dublicate (or near) pages on different CTLD domains i.e. .co.uk and .com same language different public, is that ok ?
Thanks for joining in GoogleGuy :)
You could update from ODP a little more frequently too.
2. I wish you'd pay me for sending people to Google Groups pages, but I'm not holding my breath.
Welcome aboard!
(edited by: littleman at 1:03 am (gmt) on Oct. 9, 2001
>algo
>
Leave it alone. I just checked, it's fine. Trust me. ;)
For example, a search for 'web site promotion' may well be a search for either companies providing this service, or for information about DIY promotion. And, as with all search engines, mixed results are returned on Google.
I would like to be able to specify whether I am seeking a shop/service/business or whether I am looking for non-commercial information.
I presume that you could use the ODP data to assist in this aspect, since it has commercial and non-commercial categories, and possibly the site themes (?)
Anyway, just a thought.
What everyone else said ... plus
1) I have spent literally days carefully scouring the internet and collecting links for one of my sites. As of the most recent link update, only a handful of these links show up when I search, "sites linking to". I don't understand this at all. All the links collected are in Google's directory, all have good to very good page rank and all are relevant to the subject matter contained in my site. Even my DMOZ link does not show up? However, a link from my old WmW user profile shows up? (I have since removed my site address since as much as I love WmW ... it has nothing to do with my business.)
2) Is it true that if you have one or more sites hosted by the same IP and if they are cross-linked, this will serve to get you penalized by Google. Say for instance that I have a purely informational site about a specific location as well as a business site related to tourism in that location (which I do), will one or both of my sites be penalized just because they are cross linked and hosted on the same IP?
Thanks much for the opportunity to discuss our concerns. Can't wait to read more of your answers!
I, too, am humbled and honored by your presence here.
Maybe, I could ask... what could we do for you, to ultimately make a better web site? What can we do to make our industry a friend of your industry?
I speak for companies(companies I represent) that ultimately want nothing more than to provide legitimate, valuable content to their 'would-be' visitors.
We do not want to cause your engine difficulties with our reports, nor do we want to misrepresent ourselves incorrectly to your audience.
I guess I am saying, without asking you to divulge your 'secrets'... if I, as a SEO company, can be more valuable to your site, what can I do?
Your engine has been amazing for us. So in return, how can we help you?
Thank you for your participation. This is really fantastic.
Sincerely,
- Sage
If your client has gone down the road of making a site entirely in Flash, then the advice that they received when initially creating the site was either flawed or ignored. (I've seen both)
One key thing about search engines is that indexing must be automated - otherwise its a directory - and will have teams of reviewers. Though not an expert on the SWF format I guess automated indexing of the content is either impossible or extremely difficult. Also there are all the side issues of; will the surfer's browser support the plugin, where to link into to - if a site has good content it may only be reachable after wading through endless presentations. I avoid flash based sites due to this - though occasionally I'll do a swanky sales presentation for opt in users - eg. "view our sales pitch here"
Practical advice for you on this particular project - charge your client a lot more :) Build a parallel site that mirrors all the content in plain old searchable indexable html and link to the flash version for those that have it.
In this case IMHO the mistake is your client's and trying to get the search engines (or even google) to solve this mistake is just not realistic - no offense :)
So lets be nice to Googleguy and hopefully we'll have an open and responsive channel to some of the best inside advice on the net :)
Welcome Googleguy - thanks for dropping by - I hope we see you on a regular basis :)
Continued at: [webmasterworld.com...]
