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
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> > 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.
> 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
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
> > 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.
> 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
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 :)
> I disagree. Even preselecting threads would require knowledge and > experience most college kids just don't have.
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.
> I second Adam's statement from my own experience, > Googlers do care about site owners.
???? 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!
> 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
Talk is cheap. ACTION speaks.
> Talking with each and every Webmaster out there just doesn't scale.
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!
>As for your weird theory that Webmasters made Google, please rethink > that.
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!
> Searchers made Google popular.
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.
>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).
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
> Randy, will you please stop assuming you can read people's minds and > know their motivations?
What the hell are you talking about??
> 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?
What the hell are you talking about??
> 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.
What the hell are you talking about?? Craig, "will YOU please stop assuming you can read people's minds and know their motivations?" Who's a competitor? It's like you're replying to some other post. I'm simply agreeing with Dan42 and BlueWillow the same you are free to agree with whomever you choose. If you have a problem with that, too bad, nothing I can do about it. I don't bash you when you agree with someone, I expect the same in return. Thank you. Randy
> 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 :)
>There would an EMAIL ADDRESS for contact like MSN, Y, Ask, et al have.
Instead of email addresses Google provides much more detailed and robust information in Webmaster Tools than all of those engines combined. And if you cry enough about a specific issue someone from Google will eventually respond. Is it perfect, no and I would also like to Google to provide more direct contact options. The fact is they still provide much more information than all of the other engines and since nobody cares that much about traffic from them I am sure they have plenty of time to answer the few direct email queries they get.
>There would not be class-action and independent lawsuits against them
filed by victimized whitehat site owners. Oh, you mean like the Kinderstart lawsuit? The one where they had to PAY Google for such a moronic suit. Face it, being indexed is not a right. You are not paying Google anything and you signed no contract. There is no cause to sue for not being indexed. It would be like suing the local library for not coming to you for an advertisement to place on their bulletin board.
> > I disagree. Even preselecting threads would require knowledge and > > experience most college kids just don't have.
> 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.
> > I second Adam's statement from my own experience, > > Googlers do care about site owners.
> ???? 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!
> > 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
> Talk is cheap. ACTION speaks.
> > Talking with each and every Webmaster out there just doesn't scale.
> 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!
> >As for your weird theory that Webmasters made Google, please rethink > > that.
> 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!
> > Searchers made Google popular.
> 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.
> >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).
> 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). > Ra>ndy
Sigh. We had these discussions way too often here, and I've read every sentence in other posts of disappointed Webmasters. You've got so many facts wrong that I just reply to the last aberrant.
>NO WRONG DOING OF THEIR OWN
1. Define "wrong". Refer to Google's guidelines because it's Google's search engine.
2. From many years of doing Webmaster support I do know that the canonical translation of your phrase is "not doing enough". So your next exercise is defining "right", same rules apply.
Everybody following the guidelines and a decent business plan can get indexed by Google. It may be tougher than with Google's competition, but there must be a reason for that ... probably a slightly different algo? So just because you think you can drive a tricycle in the backyard that doesn't qualify you drive a truck on the highway. Oversimplified analogy, but there's truth in it. Work on every engine's ranking factors.
Often I get new stuff indexed by Y/M/A first, but on the long haul working harder to make it into Google's index and eventually rank pays by much more traffic. Relevance is just one signal, work on popularity, authority, trust, and generating human traffic from other sources too.
> > I disagree. Even preselecting threads would require knowledge and > > experience most college kids just don't have.
> 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.
> > I second Adam's statement from my own experience, > > Googlers do care about site owners.
> ???? 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!
> > 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
> Talk is cheap. ACTION speaks.
> > Talking with each and every Webmaster out there just doesn't scale.
> 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!
> >As for your weird theory that Webmasters made Google, please rethink > > that.
> 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!
> > Searchers made Google popular.
> 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.
> >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).
> 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
> Sigh. We had these discussions way too often here, and I've read every > sentence in other posts of disappointed Webmasters. You've got so many > facts wrong that I just reply to the last aberrant.
> >NO WRONG DOING OF THEIR OWN
> 1. Define "wrong". Refer to Google's guidelines because it's Google's > search engine.
> 2. From many years of doing Webmaster support I do know that the > canonical translation of your phrase is "not doing enough". So your > next exercise is defining "right", same rules apply.
> Everybody following the guidelines and a decent business plan can get > indexed by Google. It may be tougher than with Google's competition, > but there must be a reason for that ... probably a slightly different > algo? So just because you think you can drive a tricycle in the > backyard that doesn't qualify you drive a truck on the highway. > Oversimplified analogy, but there's truth in it. Work on every > engine's ranking factors.
> Often I get new stuff indexed by Y/M/A first, but on the long haul > working harder to make it into Google's index and eventually rank pays > by much more traffic. Relevance is just one signal, work on > popularity, authority, trust, and generating human traffic from other > sources too.
> All the best > Sebastian
> On Aug 3, 3:28 pm, Randy P. wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 7:17 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > I disagree. Even preselecting threads would require knowledge and > > > experience most college kids just don't have.
> > 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.
> > > I second Adam's statement from my own experience, > > > Googlers do care about site owners.
> > ???? 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!
> > > 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
> > Talk is cheap. ACTION speaks.
> > > Talking with each and every Webmaster out there just doesn't scale.
> > 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!
> > >As for your weird theory that Webmasters made Google, please rethink > > > that.
> > 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!
> > > Searchers made Google popular.
> > 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.
> > >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).
> > 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
> > 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 :)
You got a response, a great one, hopefully you come back and post your concerns here. I can't say that I agree with Adam answering your inflammatory thread, it's a dangerous precedent to set. When the squeaky wheel get's the grease, the rest of the wheels start squeaking. That aside, you've got their attention and I'd take advantage of it now.
> 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 agree with Bluewillow's frustration. What you are saying is nice and dandy, but it does not resolve the problem and the fact that when Google screws up there is absolutly no recourse except Lawyers. If a large company like ours had to resort to legal tactics to get any response whatsoever, I can just imagine what small businesses must be going through. There must be a better way to filter all the complaints and get rid of the stupid stuff, which I know there is plenty, and isolate the ones that have a genuine grievance. Then you create an e-mail that only works until that grievance is resolved with that individual company, after which that e-mail quits functioning. We are a paying Google customer and even as such we have been unable to get help. This eventually will backfire when enough people complain to the FTC. Peter
> 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.
> when Google screws up there is absolutly no recourse except Lawyers.
What rubbish! Google are not providing any sort of service to webmasters and have NO obligation to webmasters, therefore you have no recourse!. They have no obligation to rank a site; to list a site; etc.
>We are a paying Google customer and even >as such we have been unable to get help.
What are you paying for? Adwords? In that case you will get some customer service for that. That does not entitle you to any sort of service for the free listing and free ranking in the free organic search results.
Think about what Adam said and look at it this way. There might be a 1 000 000 sites who want to rank for a particular keyword. There is only room to list 10 on the first page of the search results. If Google did provide some sort of service to webmasters for this free listing, then they would get 999 990 sites emailing them every week wanted to listed on page one. Multiply that by the billion or so keywords .... you do the math.
It just ain't going to happen. The good thing is that Google have done way more than any other search engine in this regard and have done way more than I thought they would have in what they are providing regarding free rankings in the free organic results.
>I can just imagine what small > businesses must be going through.
That should not be in business and deserve to go out of business if their business model depends on getting a free listing and free ranking in a free search engine. What Google (or any other search engine) provide with the free rankings should be the "icing on the cake". The problem is too many expect they are somehow entitled to a free cake.
also, based on a lot of the posts here many of those who want help are doing something to game the search engine (eg multiple domains; duplicate content; etc). Why would Google (or any other search engine) want to give help to those who are trying to game them to get better artificial rankings?
BTW - one of my 3 yr old sites has long been PR0 (all my experience and knowledge and with the number of links it has, it should easily be a high PR4/ low PR5) and based on my experience and knowledge, should easily rank in the top 10 for its main keyword (it actually ranks around 400). Guess what? Its a forum and its growing and growing. Its easily the most visited site in its sector; I make OK money off it. I have not once expected that I am entitled to any sort of PR (for what its worth) and page one rankings - if I get it, well and good. I do all right as a business by using other means to promote it. (and I still can not see what Google don't like about it for its free listing and free rankings in the free organic search results)
Artprints - do you think I should be consulting my lawyers over this?
Blue Willow, Randy, Artprints, you can see very easily that this group is about people giving details of website problems, and people, including Google Employees, give answers and/or discuss those problems. Please note that without the URL of the site any discussion/solution is somehow difficult. You can always give technical details of these problems so they can be discussed/solved as Adam and Sebastian (in alphabetical order :) ) already mentioned.
> >There would an EMAIL ADDRESS for contact like MSN, Y, Ask, et al have.
> Instead of email addresses Google provides much more detailed and > robust information in Webmaster Tools than all of those engines > combined.
Useless. That's common sense items, at least to me. Those are all way too basic and you KNOW IT. So what happens when none of the REAL questions are ask/answered by them on FAQ's in their WMT section? Nothing, we have to rely upon other site owners in forums such as this where rarely if anything is ever settled. The other SE's, you CAN ASK.
And if you cry enough about a specific issue someone from
> The fact is they still provide much more information than all of the other engines > and since nobody cares that much about traffic from them I am sure > they have plenty of time to answer the few direct email queries they > get.
While they may or may not provide more info that then other SE's.....with the other SE's you DON'T NEED IT! They don't have the problems of deleting whitehat pages from their index!
> Oh, you mean like the Kinderstart lawsuit? The one where they had to > PAY Google for such a moronic suit. Face it, being indexed is not a > right. You are not paying Google anything and you signed no contract. > There is no cause to sue for not being indexed.
No, others.
No one is claiming it's a RIGHT.
> It would be like suing > the local library for not coming to you for an advertisement to place > on their bulletin board.
No, it's like suing a library for not carrying your book, when your book is totally unique, helpful, useful, etc. and they're calling it something it is NOT. To carry on with your analogy, from another post of mine:
Being a "free service" is irrelevant. It's sort of like a library; which are free. Which is supposed to put as many books as they can in their branch, and if a book is not there they'll get it for you. If you're an author, and there are countless similar books as yours in the library ("A Brief History of Turtle Sweaters", "A Concise History of Turtle Sweaters", "The Beginner's Guide To Turtle Sweaters", etc. etc.), and you have a book "Turtle Sweaters For the Layman", and the library refuses to carry the book and won't get it for anyone, you could have a case, ESPECIALLY if the library is ***erroneously*** calling your book "porn" or whatever other topic that may violate THEIR TOS for inclusion in their branch (i.e. flawed algo's). The same can be said if your book WAS in the library and they removed it because it was ***erroneously*** tagged as something that violates their TOS for inclusion in their branch. (i.e. flawed algo's).
This is the analogy lawyers are using. Furthermore, like people always say here and at other forums; with great power comes great responsibility. It doesn't matter if they are free or not. When a company has such MASSIVE power, and has countless millions that have to rely upon it to make a living for their company; and a site owner does NOTHING wrong, then suddenly they screw you by removing your webpages or site from their index, you're ruined*. And, they SHOULD BE held accountable for this....and they will.
*Ruined or close to it because of the massive market share G has. And before the typical "SEO'ers" here make the same BS comment about "it's your fault for relying on them", I say this: all of you constantly lose site of the fact that NOT everyone has a blog or news site! Yes, contrary to your popular belief, there ARE niches out there that HAVE to rely upon SE's. From where else is the customers going to come? Directories? Classified sites? No, that traffic is negligible. There's no way around the (should be obvious) FACT that when someone needs to purchase something online, where do they go? SEARCH ENGINES. And which one? GOOGLE. Therefore it should not take a genius to realize that when someone's small legit sales website gets trashed by G, that is BAD news.
> Sigh. We had these discussions way too often here, and I've read every > sentence in other posts of disappointed Webmasters. You've got so many > facts wrong that I just reply to the last aberrant.
> >NO WRONG DOING OF THEIR OWN
> 1. Define "wrong". Refer to Google's guidelines because it's Google's > search engine.
Just who the hell is "rick" anyway? "Wrong" meaning, when you FOLLOW THEIR GUIDELINES TO THE LETTER, and your pages STILL get trashed from their index! You can't figure out that simple fact? You cannot possibly be so misinformed to think that G has never deleted any pages or sites from their index that violate NOTHING! As in, no wrong doing. Their guidelines are USELESS, for they don't even follow them THEMSELVES. Anyone can list thousands if not millions of sites and pages that violate every aspect of their "guidelines" that are not only indexed, but at the TOP of the SERP's, IN PLACE OF totally whitehat pages and sites that they have DELETED FROM their index! That's simply reality and anyone that's not aware of that, needs to wake up and look around more often.
> Everybody following the guidelines and a decent business plan can get > indexed by Google.
No, they cannot, not everybody.
>It may be tougher than with Google's competition, > but there must be a reason for that ... probably a slightly different > algo?
Yes, flawed algo's.
> Often I get new stuff indexed by Y/M/A first, but on the long haul > working harder to make it into Google's index and eventually rank pays > by much more traffic.
Sure, because G is more popular.
> Relevance is just one signal, work on > popularity, authority, trust, and generating human traffic from other > sources too.
If a niche is not "popular" enough, G will penalize you for it by not indexing the page (and the other SE's will not, they WILL index it). If you're not indexed, you have no "authority" nor "trust". As I just stated, there are no other viable sources of "human traffic" other than search engines simply because that is where 99%+++ people go to SEARCH for their product (or info). Directories, classifieds, etc., account for negligible human traffic.
> also, based on a lot of the posts here many of those who want help are > doing something to game the search engine (eg multiple domains; > duplicate content; etc).
And it's those types that we are NOT talking about! They get the bad they deserve!!
|
