Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Thanks for the info vBMechanic and McMohan.
Do you think its worth while removing these tags from my sites or maybe wait until Jagger is complete, to date i've always ranked very well with them?
WebmasterWorld would become more boring than it already is ;)
>>It's all about Google trying to establish trust in Webmasters.<<
Or what I call Collaboration Not Confrontation Policy
If Matt & Co wish us to cooperate in reporting spam, fine.. we shall do it. No white hat webmaster wish to see spam on the serps. In return, we expect our friends at the plex to handle reinclusion requests from our fellow masters whos site were hit by "collateral damage" in a speedy fair way .
[edited by: reseller at 12:13 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
[edited by: Tinus at 12:16 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
reseller, I agree and I think this is what we'll see rolled out in the near future.
I think that Google has realised it's mistakes in not 'looking after' webmasters and in relying on pure algo search.
I can't remember what it was called right now but I remember reading something about a new way of submitting sites to Google. Like an expanded sitemap program. That would be great for me. Especially if it allowed feedback and perhaps even someone who would SHOCK HORROR! answer emails.
You can do something right now. Make sure that you apply a 301 redirect from non-www to www on a per-page basis, and then add the <base href="http://www.domain.com/"> tag to all of your pages too.
Make sure you have no canonical URL issues with your main index page; that is a key point - and I am in the middle of an experiment that I think proves this point beyond doubt.
[edited by: g1smd at 12:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
I think that Google has realised that it cannot stop spam through algo's / filters alone. By encouraging spam reports it is allowing human judgement a bigger role. And human judgement is always going to be better than algorithms at weeding out bad sites in the ever changing spam game.
First principle in AI as I see it is do not expect computers to be cleverer than people,
Second principle: Human make mistakes
Third: So will algos and their programmers [sometimes erronously clustered together with humans]
Forth: Google please give me more hits :-)
This sounds fair enough but will it happen? I hope so because then the help is two way - we help them they help us (and I don't mean anything OTT, in the least a personal email reply rather than an auto generated one).
Time will tell, or maybe GG could pass comment on this matter to clarify that it isn't all take with no give on Google's behalf.
Google doesn’t even process the DMCA complaints filed to their office.
I’ve seen warz sites cloaked from google with PR 8 and a low 5 digit traffic score. Are the new results almost pure spam – sure are, but does google care, I don’t think so.
I am willing to bet google knows the resentment that is going to be generated by the proposed joining of Amazon.com and google.com It will be much like the general distrust Microsoft has for being such a large controlling corporation. I believe their coporate policy is changing from building the better mouse trap to max profit for this reason.
I am willing to bet they are going to lose the next generation of computer users too for these same reasons. People just don’t want to be controled
"Google and Sun to shadow Microsoft?
'Going places' Google has teamed up with once 'going places' Sun Microsystems to promote each other's wares. There is compelling logic in using Google's pervasiveness to promote Sun's cheaper alternative and Microsoft clone, OpenOffice. The latter could be quite threatening to Microsoft. Possibly Google has it in mind to offer a virtual desktop delivered via a browser. This would hurt Microsoft from both an operating systems and applications revenue stream perspective. Maybe Google might promote Sun's now open source operating system Solaris. This would enable Sun to get on with what its does well, engineering, and relieve Sun of what it does badly, marketing."
www. progressive .co.uk /newsletter/ oct05/ progressive.htm#1
Bill will fight back though ;)
Through the offering of Hot-Spots (free internet)and the horrible results they are now displaying they would be effectively controlling peoples access
Kids catch on pretty quick
Do you think its worth while removing these tags from my sites or maybe wait until Jagger is complete
I am almost certain you are looking in the wrong place for your problems, for META tags are least likely the reason for your problems. META tags are standard part of any website, and ethically so. Suggest, you wait until Jagger3 and the subsequent flux settles before making assumptions.
Best wishes
Intresting g1smd
Keeps us informed - I see that you also think it is the homepage that is key - rather than internal pages which have been indexed on the non-www.
IMO - I can see G picking the non-www homepage as the canonical - but would be amazed if it picked something like domain.com/widget/widget.html
One thing that is holding back the fix of the 301 redirect is that Google keeps the page even when you think it may be fixed - eg. If I search on domain.com it could show the result, backlink and PR of www.domain.com - but you can sometimes still pull up the non-www root on a site:domain.com -www search.
So how long Google holds onto the non-www pages (even when it appears fixed) seems to be partially the problem too.
It would be nice know an ETA for the "collateral damage" to be at least reviewed.
I am going through a redesign and my webmaster is asking if I should include software for this.
What's the general thoughts out there regarding this?
Should I stop and just get directory and one ways?
Now imagine trying to reasearch if a site has hidden text, sneaky CSS, belongs to the same owner, all belong to some crazy site farm etc....
Now pile onto that all those topics and niches that your are not familiar with or care about like porn, warez and imagine what the spam reports would look like then.
I have 0 recips and got slammed
Subject: Something is seriously wrong
Well something is up - never mind that personally we got slammed pretty good for most of our SERPs. I just did a search on a broad geographic term (like "europe" or "north america") and I get a family fun site from go.com (at #7) that has nothing to do with the search term, nor is that term anywhere on said site. Sort of unreal. The only silver lining would be is that this obviously can't stay like this -
I also have a question - can I get the short answer on what exactly is the "canonical" problem? Does that mean you can not have your server configured for www.domain.com and domain.com and/or other domain names that just point to it?
Further, we have an old shared hosting account, where a lot of people still find us through www.hostname.com/myaccountname/ - we have meta tag re-directs there since we can't use other methods. Could this be hurting me?
Thanks -
If you read how the Internet actually came about you'll understand this methodology which Google still applies. I see more and more sites which have historically relied on link exchanges actually going down the serps.
My main site got badly hit with jagger and is still nowhere to be seen. Google accounted for 70% of my traffic. However, as soon as this happened I came up with some creative methods of generating traffic. Traffic to my main site is now at the same level before jagger hit (still no Google traffic by the way).
Who needs Google anyway? There are SO many ways of generating traffic....you have to think out of the box.
Now imagine trying to reasearch if a site has hidden text, sneaky CSS, belongs to the same owner, all belong to some crazy site farm etc....
Now pile onto that all those topics and niches that your are not familiar with or care about like porn, warez and imagine what the spam reports would look like then.>>
My point was that once Google has checked a site (or group of sites) and has established trust in it's webmasters it will not need to be checked again. At least not checked very often.
This will take up less manpower in the long-run than constant filter/algo modifications and constant checking on serps because it is does not need to be repeated all the time.
Once a site has trust (trustrank anyone?), Google could automatically check a site by looking at the html and flagging when a percentage amount of change is reached. Only then would that site by re-verified by a person.
Also, by asking for spam reports the process is sped up since the hunting is not done by Google. Google just does the killing.
And, finally, Google has 1 Billion Quadrillion Pounds. It can hire enough people.
[edited by: thecityofgold2005 at 1:35 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
How can you be "famous" if in the first place no-one can find you on the internet?
Can someone tell me when results are supposed to be spread out from Jagger2 on all DC's?
Jagger3 should hopefully start about that time.
It achieves quite a bit. It is a great cross check to see what their spam filters miss. Who knows spam techniques better than webmasters? Who better to report them? Besides, if you are a competitor, you can bet google is checking the other results nearby.
I have seen sites removed within 18 hours of spam reports this week. I have also seen webmasters cleanup their own sites before reporting others. Google kills two birds with one webmaster's stone.
lost me there. He's giving advice on how to survive G updates and then he has a "link manager".
Maybe I'm not clear on what a link farm is, but the website I reported has 5 websites interlinking. Google shows over 6,000 links and most of them are from these websites. They are ranked #1 for all the related keywords. Is this or isn't this a link farm?
You are assuming that this "reporting" will be a result of some sort of philanthropic desire to "cleanse" the serps, rather than resulting from any sort of vested interest in the outcome....
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there are plenty of well meaning webmasters out there, but this could be heavily abused by those seeking to gain an advantage. Leave it to the algos, we give some feedback, they either listen or they don't..
