That's a laugh.

Instead of saying right up front that contacting Google is a black
hole with NO support form, NO email address, NO phone to a real
person, NO contact, NO matter what you need, Google prefers to hide
this basic truth until people have spent a whole lot of their time
going from "referred to this" "referred to  that" "referred to  the
other" ALL of which amount to "no contact."

But they don't bother saying it up front.

Be unresponsive if you're going to be, so people can start off in the
first place knowing  the only way to "contact" you is with a picket
line in front of your door or a letter from a lawyer. Or can at least
not waste their time getting sent in circles on a snipe hunt by you
jerks.

You know what? I hope the copyright suit bankrupts you down to your
shoe leather.

You aren't a "service", you're a menace, and I hope you get the full
measure of trouble you so richly deserve.

Why's it posted here? Well, it's the only place one of those jerks
MIGHT see it. Not that it matters, but I sure feel better for having
said it.

Google telling you that they don't respond to site specific questions
but there is a tiny chance that a Googler replies when you post a
compelling question here isn't fair enough? This group is populated by
folks who are able to answer most of your questions. Give it a try.
Sebastian

On Aug 3, 12:54 am, BlueWillow wrote:

How much are you paying Google for the service you expect from them?
Why not ask for a refund.

On Aug 3, 8:54 am, BlueWillow wrote:

BlueWillow,

Sorry to hear about your frustration.  Can I assume that you're upset
about a webmaster-related issue that you're finding confusing or
aggravating?  If so, Sebastian is absolutely right:  there are great
folks in this group that are laudably up for helping out.

Did you just want a Googler paying attention to your feedback?  We
have an entire multinational team that scours this group, as well as
international blogs and forums to better understand webmasters'
concerns.  We really can't respond to the majority of posts around the
world, but I think you'd agree that it's better for us to be actually
building, troubleshooting, and improving things.

We used to offer e-mail support for webmasters, but found that we were
answering nearly the exact same questions zillions of times a year.
"How can I add my site to Google?"  "I'm trying to find info on [foo]
for my high school paper.  Can you help me, please?"  "I want to
return the sofa I bought.  I don't like it anymore, and I want a
refund!" (I'm actually serious about this last one; we got an enormous
number of questions that had nothing to do with Google, much less
Google Search but -- since people use Google everyday -- they wrote us
anyway.)

So we set out on ways to do a better job really helping more people...
especially webmasters.  Our Webmaster Help Center is now in about
twenty languages.  We have, I think, Help Groups in more than a dozen
languages.  And -- what especially excites me -- we're the only search
engine in the world to offer comprehensive free diagnostic and
analytics tools to webmasters (Webmaster Tools and Analytics)...
again, in many languages.

*  *  *

Can we do more?  Absolutely.  A colleague and I are personally leading
training internationally this September to help more Googlers work
with webmasters.  We have exciting plans to make our Help Center even
more useful and comprehensive, and we're working hard to find ways to
get information to and from even the "smallest" webmasters around the
world.

But even with a growing number of dedicated Googlers... remember,
there are MILLIONS of webmasters out there.  We can't personally chat
with all of you, as much as we would like to.  But I encourage you to
speak out about ways we can better communicate with you; this
Crawling, Indexing, and Ranking subgroup isn't really the right
place... a better area would be our Random Chit-Chat section which is
also frequented by us Googlers.

Anyway, BlueWillow, I think all of us need to get out a good rant now
and then, so I'm glad you "feel better for having said it."  Now I
look forward to seeing some more constructive suggestions from you and
others... and I promise to make sure the feedback is seen by many on
our team here.

Adam, I don't know if you'll read this message but you should really
get the help of the community on this. Get volunteers to filter out
the 99.9% of redundant/misplaced questions. Then you can answer the
0.1% of questions that really *do* matter.

On Aug 3, 6:12 am, Dan42 wrote:

I've been saying that for years.  They have billions of dollars and
they wouldn't even have to pay people.  There's thousands of college
kids (and older) in their area that would KILL to get even a voluntary
job at the Gplex as some kind of internship, or just to get the
experience in the internet fields.  They try and find reasons not to
give direct help because they generally simply don't care about site
owners.  They are "too big and important" for that, they forget it's
US THAT GOT THEM THERE in the first place!  The other SE's can answer
email, even with their relatively "limited" resources, so certainly
could google!
Randy

Randy, will you please stop assuming you can read people's minds and
know their motivations?

Were you to read the mind and know the motivation of someone who comes
to a search engine's help forum and only posts complaints, could you
not maybe come to the conclusion that they worked for a competitor?

I'm not saying you actually do but if one tries to infer motivations
based on actions, one can come to a lot of strange conclusions.

More often than not, inferred motivations have more to say about the
one doing the inferring than the one having their motivations inferred
and in any event, they achieve nothing.

Craig

On Aug 3, 8:27 pm, Randy P. wrote:

I disagree. Even preselecting threads would require knowledge and
experience most college kids just don't have. I second Adam's
statement from my own experience, Googlers do care about site owners.
That's not a new thing, I got email support from the Googleplex many
years ago, and their ongoing activities on our side of the fence prove
that they indeed care. Check jobs at Google and you'll find open
positions under "webmaster relations" like this one:
http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/answer.py?answer=48264
Talking with each and every Webmaster out there just doesn't scale. As
for your weird theory that Webmasters made Google, please rethink
that. Searchers made Google popular. Without Google we Webmasters
would still spam Altavista, Infoseek, Excite, Northern Light and
whatnot to generate traffic. Google gave us more trafic, and esp.
better targeted traffic, so it's more the other way round, Google made
a whole lot of Webmasters (rich).
Sebastian

PS  Before you mention it, my GoogleGroupie post is here:
http://sebastianx.blogspot.com/2007/08/seos-home-alone-googles-nightm...

On Aug 3, 1:27 pm, Randy P. wrote:

I just want to say the obvious, that it helps
a lot this help group when messages are
polite and .... helpful.
Most messages in this group are very polite
and informative, messages with questions
help other people with similar problems.
Many times people who posted a
question write back to say how they solved
the problem, and this is very useful.
There are a lot of very useful postings by Google Employees
and help pages and FAQs and
Google Webmaster Help Center and
Google Webmaster Tools introduced a while ago
the possibility for a webmaster to ask for
a reinclusion of a site to the Google index.

I think it is very important to keep the tone
of this group polite and helpful,
it is called the Google Webmaster Help group :)

On Aug 3, 7:17 am, Sebastian wrote:

Who's talking about preselecting threads?  It doesn't take a genius to
delete BS like Adam mentioned, and KEEP and ADDRESS other emails.
Hell, simple filters can do most of that!  Certain phrases can be set
to be automatically deleted.

????  If they CARED about site owners, they would:

NOT be deleting UNIQUE WHITEHAT webpages AND entire websites from
their index.....with absolutely NO EXPLANATION to the site owners.

Using something as asinine, nefariously manipulated, and harmful as
PR.

There would be no "supplemental index".

There would an EMAIL ADDRESS for contact like MSN, Y, Ask, et al have.

There would not be class-action and independent lawsuits against them
filed by victimized whitehat site owners.

I could go on and on.  When these aforementioned things start to
disappear, then I'll say they care about site owners!

Talk is cheap.  ACTION speaks.

Once again, I cite the OTHER search engines.  If YAHOO can do it, if
ASK can do it, if MSN can do it, SO CAN GOOGLE!

Let's see....G is a SEARCH ENGINE.  SE's INDEX websites to MAKE THEM
BETTER at providing information to searchers.  SE's are supposed to
provide a service to users so they can find the information at
websites for which they seek.  NO WEBSITES = NO GOOGLE.  Ok, I've re-
thought it.  Same thing.  The "weird theory" is that G would exist
without websites!  They may exist, but NOT as a search engine!

The **MEDIA** made G popular.  They dominate the search market because
their name is a household word, simply because they are mentioned in
every TV newscast, TV shows, movies, etc.,.....all because of their
"name".  Their name has become a verb because of this.  It's genius
marketing because they had nothing to do with it.  They get billions
of free advertising on these media outlets simply because of their
name, which has snowballed.  The public has a short memory in these
outlets.  If they hear a name enough, all is forgotten about the
rest.  Also, the other SE's interfaces suck.  They are (either or
all): cluttered with ads, too slow, and don't have the advanced search
options G has.

Sure, I totally agreee....IF YOU'RE INDEXED BY THEM!!   What about the
millions of site owners with ALL of their UNIQUE RELEVANT pages
indexed by the OTHER SE's, that are deleted in GOOGLE?  Ever think
about those deserving people??  Apparently not.  There are OTHER site
owners out there besides yourself that are in DEEP TROUBLE with G
through NO WRONG DOING OF THEIR OWN.  Only a fool would deny that
fact.  (I'm not yelling, just trying to place emphasis on phrases).
Randy