Forum Moderators: open
Now, for the most part, I think users are still happy, but there is no doubt that computer-literate folks I know are beginning to use other search engines if they don't immediately find what they want on Google. This trend is likely to continue unless Google gets a grip on its problems.
I will kick off with the following suggestions.
1: Read javascript links (or publicly admit PR is broken and won't be fixed). Also, where possible, read cgi-links. (Where the link contains an url beginning http:// or www. this is easy. However, this might open a door to cheating SEO so this is debatable.)
2: Fix the link: tool so that it shows all links are displayed. Also change it so that it works like ATW and AV and can show backlinks for an entire site. It need not show more than, say, 200 but it should give the total count. This would allow webmasters to feel more confident that Google is working properly if nothing else.
Kaled.
PS
Please vent unhelpful comments and waffle in other threads.
In this file extra information could be added to:-
Allow/forbid caching of html files.
Allow/forbid caching of image files.
define what urls should be treated as identical
e.g. dir, dir/, dir/index.html
define whether the www. prefix in urls should be ignored.
i.e. treat [domain.com...] as [domain.com...]
I'm sure that webmasters more knowledgable than I could add to this list. I imagine that instructions for dynamic pages would be very useful.
Kaled.
Eliminate the ability for this to show an arrow in the search results: ►
Thanks for listening! You guys rock <g>.
De-emphasize the <title> tag in SERP. Too much baloney out there to continue supporting this, and far, far too easy to maipulate
And even in the case of history, the professor's old paper would be beaten by the student's new paper.
Again: new is not necessarily better. Your statement is even not necessarily valid if there has been done new research in the field. The student paper may be new but perhaps lacks quality content or good language. I even know dozens of doctoral thesis that are new but never will be quoted by serious literature...
Conclusion: I agree with rfgdxm1. Static text even over is not subject to be punished.
/bull
I think title tag deserves every bit of emphasis. The more you manipulate it the more wary potential visitors become when they see it. And it's a great way to tell the SE's and potential visitors what your page is about.
This is my point exactly... With Google's present emphasis on the importance/weight of the title tag, it is, in fact a terrific way for spammers or unscrupulous SEO's to "claim" a particular page is about "this-n-that" when in fact the page in question has "this-n-that" primarily in the title tag, and repeated maybe once more in the page's text.
Page Title
This has been discussed in another thread in the last few days. I think it concluded with the thought that adding huge lists of keyword was pretty pointless, however, I did not give that thread much attention.
Kaled.
But why would you put a keyword in the TITLE if the page wasn't about it? Who does that benefit? Not your visitors, and therefore not you.
A good question, and a sensible one at 1st blush..
There are a variety of reasons to do this, and most relevant (opinion) are sites that use very popular search terms to draw traffic, and do so in hopes once they've captured a visitor, the visitor will fill out a form (designed to capture e-mail addresses for spamming), or possibly "impulse buy" something similar or different once in the site; an old variation of the retail "bait-&-switch" techinque.
Discounting the <title> tag, link anchor text etc. would make normal search ranking impossible
I strongly disagree.. If title tag manipulation was dealt with, Google's search ranking's integrity would improve significantly. For example, a site touting one thing in the title, but actully focused on selling something completely different would no longer appear in top listings for the goods or services touted within the title.
As regards link text, this is how many successful "link farms" operate, in conjunction with the title tag abuse.
If a site links to "www.mydomain.com" with text about widgets, then the linked-to site should reflect that it is, in fact about widgets. Link text reflecting only what the linked site's title tag touts, where the linked site has little or nothing to do with widgets, and having this inbound link count as a "vote" for the linked site furthers the SERP abuse and only gives rise to furthering this practice.
Just for grins, let me add this..
When I say the things I do, I speak from more than just search experience; until it's recent demise due to strong discounting competitors I ran the highest ranked web site
(in any major search engine) on the Web for certain goods. Moreover, it ranked in the Top 5 in Google under five (completely) different search terms, which is rare at best;
and we stayed in the Top 5 for three consecutive years, through umpteen Google dances.
My site had pages left from old site revisions with database calls; I left them in Google's site cache for obvious reasons. The actual product called by ID number had long since changed and the pages displayed a completely different product than the one set forth in the page's original title tags - nonetheless a search for a particular product named in the outdated page's title tag yielded these old pages in Top 5 rankings.. yet these pages mentioned the product only in the title tag, and in some cases nowehere else on the page.
Granted some of this had to do with the site's very good PR, and the tremendous cache but the fact remains... These pages ranked very highly in Google for one particular item, which appeared (often) only in the page's title tags.
When I consider new SEO clients, I do a lot of searching before taking the work as I won't take a job where the chances are slim the site will ever make it to where the client hopes - it is in these searches I notice the same fluke in Google's rankings.
But I'll always listen to advice, and if that's changed in the last month or so (I see no evidence it has) then I stand corrected. Are there any current/very recent threads revolving around something I should learn...? ;-}
Are there any current/very recent threads revolving around something I should learn
recent demise...web site
Surely not... "Google should run and edit its own directory" implies "Google should employ 10,000 more people to do what the dmoz volunteers are already very experienced at doing."
Maybe they should. If they can offer timely inclusion, lower prices than Yahoo, and still make money at it.
But, I don't think that a human-edited directory would be the best use of Google's time.
why not base popularity on bookmarks?
Very cool idea. Imagine the search built around this.
Q: Would Google consider a two tier system for spam reporting?
Level 1 - the current 'report a specific spammer' - where the focus is on reporting a specific (usually competitor) url.
Level 2 - a higher level, formalised programme leveraging the skills of SEO professionals - where the focus is on reporting 'spam methods' - with an aim of improving the filters and improving the results.
GoogleGuys answer was:
A: I would love to see more reports of spam methods rather than just individual instances. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then reports of spam methods can be almost as valuable in the same way. Since we’re most interested in working on scalable algorithms, it helps to have descriptions of methods rather than pointing out a specific instance of spam.
So - I'd like to suggest that Google actually implements a 'level 2' spam reporting process for professional seos - in conjunction with the current 'level 1' joe public 'dob a competitor' reporting system.
The purpose would be to identify the spam process for new scams as they arose as a major issue in the serps- the eg. ebay API scam (identified & reported 3 weeks before it hit the press) - so Google can actually combat spam by algorithmic tweak. ie target the process - not individual sites.
Or - alternatively - I'd suggest that Google just drop the statement
"Ask your SEO firm if it reports every spam abuse that it finds to Google using our spam complaint form at [google.com...] Ethical SEO firms report deceptive sites that violate Google's spam guidelines." (from [google.com...]Chris_D
Sydney Australia
This may already be in the pipe-line as the frequency that Google updates the directory is very, very small.
Death to directories! I know that my site gets VERY little traffic from ANY directories so the users have already voted.
Dave
Dmoz is doing very well at keeping up with the growth of quality sites on the web - remember that its mission is not to list every web site, only the ones with significant, valuable and unique content.
I agree that Google's copy of dmoz is suffering from more than six months of link rot - there's a simple solution...
What about the traffic derived from your SERPs, which are largely influenced by the link popularity derived from your listing in directories?
The PR etc gain from DMOZ, and other directories, is no better than from any other page with the same PR. In fact, it's often worse as you cannot use the anchor text of choice and there are MANY more links on the same page. Having a link in DMOZ is largely over-rated.
Dmoz is doing very well at keeping up with the growth of quality sites on the web - remember that its mission is not to list every web site, only the ones with significant, valuable and unique content.
Sorry, totally disagree. "only the ones with significant, valuable and unique content" and that all boils down to the opinion of one single volunteer. I know that in my area of business the DMOZ directory is stale, outdated, full of mirror sites, doorways and dead links. I took the time to tell the editors about this months ago and nothing has changed. I find the new sites (some really good IMO)in my area at *least* 3 months before DMOZ does.
I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that DMOZ volunteers use Google to hunt down 'good content'? Well guess what, so does most of the worlds population, which is why Directories are dying.
As google (the king of SE's)don't even bother to update the feed from DMOZ it too must hold little value to it.
Dave
Surely it would be VERY easy to implement this in Google results. If memory serves correctly (I don't do much HTML coding) it is simply a matter of specifying the full title in the title attribute of the link.
Ok, there has been some discussion about pages using super-long titles so an upper limit would also have to be set. I would suggest a value of 128 chars. The settings for this feature (on/off, max length) could be added to the preferences.
Kaled.
The fact remains, you told Google your pages were about the wrong products by not updating the titles with the right product names. This isn't Google's fault and wasn't Google right in previously determining your pages were about the right products when you had the correct product names in the titles of the pages?
It would seem you are correct, but my log files told me the "old" pages with {title tags saying one thing and the page's content now changed to another product via the DB call} were re-crawled at least a dozen times after the page's content no longer matched the title tags.
In fact, come of these pages were moved to different directories, directories that didn't exist when Google first crawled the pages I speak of, so when Google found them they were entirely 'new' to Google, yet Google still ended up ranking these pages in SERP related to the product in the title tag, not the SERP for the actual content of the pages.
_____________
Some other comments in this string are interesting.. (I sure hope Google Guy is still following and reporting what's being discussed :} )
..think Google should either dump DMOZ or start their own directory. DOMZ can simply NOT keep up with the growth of the web while it relies soley on volunteers.
...I know that in my area of business the DMOZ directory is stale, outdated, full of mirror sites, doorways and dead links
If one drills down through identical directory categories (no search, just following directory levels) in DMOZ and then in Google Directory, compares the sites under identical categories e.g. following a drill down such as: "widgets > blue widget technology > hardware".. often there are significant differences. Google Directory is a tad more up to date and seems to be filtering out the outdated & dead links DMOZ still displays - the results aren't exactly identical in many identical categories. I agree whole heartedly that it's not feasible for Google to use human editors.. as another member commented probably 10,000 people would be required to keep current.
As regards quality/integrity in SERP, DMOZ should be commended for establishing a human-review based directory, and actually succeeding to a point but the Web these days is far too overwhelming for volunteer editors to keep up with - I agree Google's ranking procedure really shouldn't give weight to DMOZ listings which I can say from experience are not always reliable, certainly not "current" by any definition and/or always properly categorized.
I have a question or rather an issue with this.. If a site pays Yahoo! for a listing in their directory, why should that site receive a PR 'vote' for that listing over a site that elects not to pay for a similar listing? That seems biased, and appears to award better ranking for sites that are willing to shell out promotional dollars..
.
I have a question or rather an issue with this.. If a site pays Yahoo! for a listing in their directory, why should that site receive a PR 'vote' for that listing over a site that elects not to pay for a similar listing? That seems biased, and appears to award better ranking for sites that are willing to shell out promotional dollars..
That's a good point. If Google do decide to move against the selling of links for PR, they may also move against paid directories. Given that Yahoo will cease to use Google in the near future, presumably Yahoo paid listings will not be exempt.
From a business point of view, Google should move against paid directory listings (for PR) in order to maximize their own revenues. However, I am not certain that this would improve results from the user's point of view.
Kaled.
If one drills down through identical directory categories (no search, just following directory levels) in DMOZ and then in Google Directory, compares the sites under identical categories e.g. following a drill down such as: "widgets > blue widget technology > hardware".. often there are significant differences. Google Directory is a tad more up to date and seems to be filtering out the outdated & dead links DMOZ still displays - the results aren't exactly identical in many identical categories. I agree whole heartedly that it's not feasible for Google to use human editors.. as another member commented probably 10,000 people would be required to keep current.
Erm, actually the Google Directory is derived directly from the dmoz directory, although Google last took a copy approximately half a year ago. There is no mechanism in the Google Directory to filter out outdated and dead links, other than taking a more up to date publication of the dmoz directory. By contrast, dmoz has automated methods to highlight potentially dead links, which are then dealt with as a priority by editors. Dmoz is therefore always, by definition, more up to date than the Google Directory and with fewer dead links.
In response to a previous post, dmoz editors use plenty of different sources for new listings, including print publications, links on related sites, searches in a wide variety of search engines, television programmes etc. I've recently been building a category in a relatively new industry (~2 years old) and I found that 75% of the major players were not listed in dmoz despite being large and reputable companies.
It would be interesting to have some kind of feedback from Google as to why the directory isn't being updated. Is it:
a) because Google has a technical problem
b) because there is an as-yet unidentified technical problem with the dmoz RDF dump (note that Alexa has a much more up-to-date version)
c) because Google can't be bothered to update the directory
d) for some other reason
?
There is no mechanism in the Google Directory to filter out outdated and dead links, other than taking a more up to date publication of the dmoz directory
There are a lot of searches I do that takes me to "identical" categories in Google and DMOZ.
I'm puzzled.. If Google doesn't have any mechanism in place to clean up the DMOZ listings, how are the dead and outdated links leaving the Google Directory category that still show in the mirror category over in DMOZ..?
.
What's the whole point of PageRank? Google believes what others say - (off the page) - more than it believes what you say about yourself (on the page.) Hence the importance of anchor text. Directories aren't just about the PR as a link 'like any other link'.
Directories - in my opinion, are a fundamental part of the whole PageRank deal.
If Google *really* does see the DMOZ directory as important, then why does it only bother to update it's feed about every 6 months? I see the answer as patently clear, that is, Google sees very little value (anymore) in the DMOZ directory.
Dave
If Google *really* does see the DMOZ directory as important, then why does it only bother to update it's feed about every 6 months? I see the answer as patently clear, that is, Google sees very little value (anymore) in the DMOZ directory.
I'm guessing that Google used DMOZ (and probably Yahoo! too) as a starting point, didn't it? And probably doesn't "see" any real value anymore in ODP.. except to offer Google users a "human edited" directory..?
