Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
[edited by: goodroi at 1:18 pm (utc) on Jun 12, 2013]
[edit reason] per author's request, added question to the community [/edit]
I'm convinced the Webspam team don't want the situation you've described
[edited by: Whitey at 2:35 pm (utc) on Jun 12, 2013]
Nothing else matters and our focus should be on the complex day-to-day building of new and exciting infrastructure / content.
Diberry: ..resorting to very broad strokes, not because it represents the SERPs they really want..
Whitey: ...I have never been confronted with so much transparency on changes and plans.
[edited by: hitchhiker at 5:33 pm (utc) on Jun 12, 2013]
It seems to me that if Google's worked SO HARD to end spam and we're still finding a lot of it at the top, then they might want to reconsider their entire strategy.
Do we need, as a community, to establish better dialogue with Google? If so, a proper way to do that. To keep the signal to noise ratio down.
10 years ago their were a lot more sites that did rank higher than they deserved through pure reverse engineered seo - but overall the results produced much better and interesting fruit than they do now. There was far more diversity, and much more purely hobby, and informational gems to be found.
What I think we need is an alternative to Google, and soon - as in, the next 5 years.
Your analogy is apt, it is precisely how many of us feel. In the end your ranking should reflect the quality of information you offer.
The internet seems to be losing a significant amount of SMEs and hobbyists. Those that could otherwise contribute to the next-great-iteration of the internet experience.
[edited by: ColourOfSpring at 10:39 pm (utc) on Jun 12, 2013]
I guess when looking for the right 'widget' to buy (failing 'word of mouth') I personally end up trying to find expert forums and see what the threads say. If this was 5 years ago, i'd say: 'you should start an expert community on that!' - now, pfff - noooo :)
DS: Why not just update them and announce them?
MC: We used to do that. By the end of the year, people were like Ö okay, 53 Panda updates, can we stop talking about it now?
We do more than 500 algorithm changes every year. Itís always difficult to assess what to share. With Penguin 2.0, we knew that a lot of people would be affected, so we wanted to get the word out [searchengineland.com...]
Need to help Google understand more about what's important to share. They won't / can't always, but here's a good example.
For months webmasters were debating what to do about the upcoming update. Damned if you, damned if you don't was the mood where a lot of webmasters choose to sit tight. A directive in advance with the right tools would have saved a lot on angst. Consensus amongst many was that using the disavow tool was a risk - and MC himself even urged extreme caution, followed by the recent "machete" communication and reconsideration request process feedback.
But the follow up on the penalty release process was the best and quickest I've heard. Of course we have yet to hear from those good news stories.
joined:Oct 15, 2011