As you know, I've been fighting for my shop, and the jobs of 4 here (in the last days).
Someone kindly pointed me to Matt Cutts blog, and said I should try to write him there and make him aware of my special situation (with losing Christmas sales, losing my shop, and being dropped by Google for something I did not do myself - and aren't sure what is)..
While emotionally effected and sad, due to my particular situation, I humbly tried to catch Matts attention in the comment section. I've asked for forgiveness for the form, and the desperate situation 5 shop-owners currently have in Denmark. Not 5 crazy SEO people, but 5 serious shops that have their daily work in a completely other area. My shop deals with design furniture in a small city, 60km west of Copenhagen. Below is a newspaper article about me, from when I opened the shop. I'm a real person. Not a nerd, not an SEO expert (even though I feel I'm getting to be one:), and not a spammer/hacker.
I'm more than willing to admit and accept that Google is free from problems, and that our end is responsible for every problem. My interest is only to figure out what the problems are and have them fixed. My shop provider has shown the same interest and tried to communicate it to Google in my reinclusion request.
You should be able to see my last days posts to Matt here, if Matt didn't remove them.
What I can't believe is that Matt would be able to joke with his friends, while completely ignoring 5 small businesses in Denmark and tens of employees - cought in a virtual conflict between Google and Denmarks largest shop system provider. I call it a virtual conflict, because the shop system provider is also willing to do whatever is needed, but as any change for them will have dramatic impact, they need to understand what they can do differently. A new shop system without frames is in the works, but it will be a good while before any existing shops can expect to be ported over to such a new system. Many shops will be gone at that time, since we already missed the Christmas sales!
I've offered to do ANYTHING in my power and I lie flat on my stomach for Google. All I'm seeking is a small piece of advice about how a framed shop can present its products in a way where both Google and end-users can see the products. Should we use the noframes tag (we tried), should we generate a static set of pages (we tried), should we let google index the framesets (we tried). Nothing has worked for my shop, while other shops thrive with a method that employs redirects - redirects which Google might see as sneaky (from a pure mathematical evaluation), but which in reality are just to get users from the static pages into the same framed site (i.e. no cheating, no shift of content, no special benefits).
It's Christmas eve here (5:00 AM in the morning here and a 28 old girl is still up - begging Google for help - and I'm still hoping to get a guideline that I can pass to my shop system provider).. Matt is writing in his Blog (e.g. addressing an insignificant comment of a humorous nature). He must have seen my many comments and all I've asked for is a small acknowledgement for him to indicate that he is aware of my case (it's not like I need his help on Christmas eve, but he could at least ACK that he has seen my messages of extreme dispair).
This type of behavior exceeds my wildest immagination. Has the world gotten this cold and have I used my money to help build another global monster/monopoly, who doesn't care one bit about its users (until a case reaches the top anyway). This is very hard for a soft, sweet and always helpful girl to comprehend.
I wonder if Google's strategy to shut me up is to keep ignoring me, until I say something emotionally that they can use as an excuse for not dealing with my question/situation. "Sussie called Matt Cutts arrogant. We can't take her serious!". Something like this.
Well, I hope that I'm simply getting paranoid and that there is another explanation for what I'm seeing from Matt.
You need some patience. You've made, what, six threads about this in the last day? The earth does not revolve around you, no matter how much you try to tilt its gravitational forces. Google is known for not being super-speedy with regards to support, and people sometimes have to wait days or weeks to hear back from them. Matt Cutts is not your concierge, and neither is anybody else here. Did you even look at Adam's response to your other thread? (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/tree/br...)
Google is made up of people, too, and those people also celebrate the holidays. Stop wasting your time here, and stop wasting ours.
This might help you understand why he isn't commenting...
Before you leave a comment on his blog he asks that you read his guidelines for comments...
"I have a limited amount of time to blog, so going forward I won't be able to answer site-specific questions or requests. If I answer one question about a site, that just encourages more people to post with questions about their site. Those types of posts are rarely of interest to most other readers. That includes "Matt, I think I have a great business and/or patent idea; will you please call me?" posts. Since I started this blog, the comment-to-post ratio is over 50 comments to every one of my posts. I'm grateful for that interest, but there's no way I can respond to every comment. The best way for me to spend my time is to talk about topics that are of wide interest. I'm sorry that I can't give feedback on particular sites. Going forward, I won't moderate questions/comments about individual sites to be visible to everyone; I hope it makes sense why not. Your best bet is to ask questions that generally applicable to a lot of people."
I'm happy that someone would stay up at night time, in anticipation of my next post, regardless of the reasons. I take it as a sign that my passion about my shop and my Google misfortune shines through. I've asked for forgiveness for putting out these many posts, and fully admit that I'm emotional about losing my creation and being put on the street. I can't take it lightly when I led down my investor (who trusted part of his own small-scale savings in me) and when I have to lay off people that I care about. I'm emotional about having to show my mother that her single doughter failed with her dream. Excuse me for being human.
It's 7:30AM (7:51 now as I passed this spot again) on Christmas night in Denmark, which should show that I'm serious and that this misfortune is preventing any rest for me.
Someone here seemed to indicate, on a more personal note, that I'm someone born with a golden spoon in my hand and that noone ever said "No!" to me. It hurts me deeply and literally brings tears to my eyes. I grew up without my father (who flat out disregarded me, like some of his other kids - who were "accidents"). My last name is Sicilian, which might give a clue about my fathers merits. I met my father for the first time when I was 19, along with 4 siblings. I have known him till about 1 year ago, where I, because of shop preparations had to turn down an invitation. In response, I got a text-message saying that "he would never talk to me again". Knowing his Sicilian temper I figured he was hurt and that it would pass (like it does for most Italiens). It didn't. I have had my family cut off since then, and was once again abandoned by him. It almost felt that me accomplishing something in life, would have to be accompanied by a great sacrifice. My father now lives in Bulgaria, with his new wife and kid (who I'm sure is more intersting than me). If anyone here has tried complete rejection as a kid, by their father, then they know exactly how that feels. As a result of this rejection, I got teased all the way through school (you project strength while feeling rejected). To those that have tried that, they know EXACTLY what that feels like (it didn't help that I was a natural red-head, after my mother). Well, I didn't give up on life, but I became a fighter, knowing that I had to do extraordinarily well in order to pick up the pieces of my misrable beginning and get things sorted out. I'm a firm believer in the American dream (and the Danish faritale of the "ugly duckling" inspired me as well).. They touch a romantic and live-reassuring nerve in me ... Getting to where I am today, without spreading hurt and anger like other people have done to me, is an accomplishment that I can finally start to appreciate. My shop was a successful project that I had made from scratch, my employees are dear to me, and I have my own place to live. To those that have tried setting up a shop from scratch and getting all the pieces together, and also earning the cash required, will know what that's like (as a young woman in particular). Well, this is all very personal, but I hurt deeply and I'm naive enough (by choice) to call even on the biggest company for help. I'm also humble enough to admit any failure and take full responsibility. As with anything else I've said, I can document any single bit of data that I've put out here. The value of honesty was the first lesson life tought me (and probably why some still care to listen to me) and I've appreciated my lessons - and thank God for each and every one of them.
Now, I know some of you can't resist the easy pray and will jump at me .. I know my story sounds like a big cliche and this level of honesty is difficult to relate to. The bad news is that this isn't a movie, but my real story. I've lived this and fought daemons from hell to retain a heart and a belief in the human race. I'm vulnerable and putting myself on the spot makes me an easy target. If you feel that picking further on me is the right thing to do, then go ahead and do it. You won't be able to throw anything at me that I haven't tried worse before.
Bad things can happen to good people. I've planned for everything I could. I've NOT put all my eggs in one basket, but I just couldn't foresee getting booted by Google on the 6th. of December, in my first year - right after buying the Christmas stock and the marketing campaign. I couldn't foresee not being able to get out a single piece of information from Google about why mine and 5 other shops where thrown out of the index, while my main competitor (using the same structure and shop system) got all my business and remains in the index to date. I've taken the challenge of learning all I can about Google and the challenge of making my shop provider open up as well (another struggle where I had to be humiliated, but I didn't give up). Anyone in here, will see now that taking this struggle with my shop provider was needed for me, but the hundreds of shops that are running fine, weren't supporting me.
Despite having made aware of my unfortunate situation, I can see Matt Cutts making jokes right over the top of my head, while completely ignoring the small businesses that ask for a simple guideline on how to structure a framed site, to Google's satisfaction. I find it odd to prioritize that way.
Bear in mind that I've not created my shop system, even though I'm ultimately responsible for using it. I'm a user! I deal with design furniture, and I do my best. If Google's motto is "do no evil", then I think they need dialog with my shop provider and not randomly exclude their clients. Google was immediately made aware of the shop provider and asked questions by them, all the way back around December 6th. This took place through Google Denmark and through the Inclusion request. The shop provider heard nothing back and have been unable to take a path that would satisfy their many shops.
The shop provider has announced that a frame-less version of their shop-system will ultimately be made available, but by the time it's there, I'm gone. It shouldn't have to be like this. My shop provider designed for people (they have outlined a number of benefits of frames in regards to a shop system), but now it's actually Google that's implicitly dictating how their system needs to be. Getting a guideline from Google about how a framed shop site is best structured, so it will satisfy both the users and the sarch engine is a pretty humble request. Rather than making a fuss about it, it would be simpler to just address it head on.
As I mention in my blog posts, I'll gladly admit to anything and take full blame, even though I didn't make the shop system..
Sorry if I didn't get to address all the comments in this post.
I definitely agree with you on the patience. What you can't see without me telling you, is that I didn't start fixing this problem today. I started contacting Google on December 6. My shop-provider contacted Google a few days after.
While I write this, I see Matt Cutts having just found the time to prepare a blog post about his cat.
First, I agree with you and that's why I ask Google this simple question:
- What is the proper way to get the frames indexed? What does Google recommend, as the ultimate resource on the subject.
Now, to address your post a little more/critically, just for the theory of things.... If you can't have Javascript redirects and frames, then please explain the hundreds of shops that run in parallel to mine that have exactly this - and continue to have this - despite being crawled daily. Shops that btw are putting me out of business and getting my market share. Can't we expect Google, which is a black box based on an algorithm, to be at least fairly consistant (if indeed the user-friendly javascript redirect is the problem - which I'm not at all sure it is)? If you have followed my postings, you will have seen examples of such sites.
I know you can just say that Google will get to them or some other speculative statement. We don't know, and it might be, sure. But I do know for a fact that these sites are crawled a lot and that they continue to operate. I'm not talking a few sites. I also know that Google processed my re-inclusion request, and with that was a description of my shop providers system. That description did not lead to any additional comments from Google and it hasn't lead to additional exclusion. Go figure.
Also, the Java redirect can be explained .. The webmaster guidelines say that a webmaster ultimately should be able to explain his choices. The redirects are a compromise and a solution to a technical problem with frames. It's NOT to cheat Google, it's to help Google and to help the users, in a 100% clean and unharmful way. It's not spamming, it's not deceiving, it's not a way to present different content than advertised, etc. It's solely to allow the crawler to index pages that it understands and for the user to see the framed version. Surely, an algorithm can flag this as being bad, but then provide an alternate solution that Google supports and warn our shop provider that Google no longer accepts the method that our shop provider choose (probably as a compromise, as they have developed their system alongside Google developing their algorithm). Anyway, I'd rather not get dragged into a deep discussion about something I didn't design and only recently got to understand. The e-mail from Google to me said that my 301 front-page redirect was the problem and I trust that. If Google had told me that other redirects were the problem, then I would have trusted that. I'm a user; I'm not a shop system designer. I'm asking for a guideline and I'm not at all telling Google what to do. Most of all, I'm describing a situation that Google might be able to recognize as problematic and solve (or at least help solve). Secondly I'm pointing out that I'm a user that unfortunately got cought in the middle, with some extremely unfortunate timing, and I'd like to make things right (through my shop provider, who I have on high alert in case I hear anything). No more, no less.
"Now, I know some of you can't resist the easy pray and will jump at me .. I know my story sounds like a big cliche and this level of honesty is difficult to relate to. "
Being someone who has lived on the street... And someone who has resurrected and lost a business... I cannot sympathize with you... nor can I excuse the way you have behaved and treated others throughout this entire forum...
Everyone here has jumped at the opportunity to help you and you have managed to offend and shoot down nearly everyone in the process... You have done nothing to help yourself...
If happy to hear you pulled out of your misfortune.
In this forum I've tried to be very clear as to what type of advice I was seeking. It's been very challenging and I've deliberately tried to challenge the quality of any idea, rather than blindly accepting any input provided to me. It's a very difficult balance, when under my kind of pressure.
Given my situation, I wouldn't want to risk being sent off in wild goose chaces, like with the W3 validation. Had I for example gone down that path with my last energy and hope, valuable time could have been lost in the wrong place - as other people argued as well. W3 validation is a good idea I am sure, but it's not what is causing my present problems.
I understand that you only meant well and I'm sorry if I have appeared insensitive. I'm not a native English speaker, so my language is constantly at risk of being "raw" and without the delicate understanding of how it sounds to the native speaker. To relate to that, imagine you learning Danish and having to express yourself delicately/convincingly to me in a stressful situation - where everything you fought for is on the line. I can't begin to describe the feelings that have rushed through my head this past month and how it's been affecting me. I'm fighting unknown details in other people's systems, to safe my business. It's been a surreal experience to me and the other shop owners.
I'm not sure it might be a good idea to invite the other shop owners in here btw? (anyone's feedback is welcome).
Right now, I'd prefer the technical advice from Google, because I have so much at stake and I'd hate to make another mistake. I'm trying to be responsible and strong, not impolite.
My apology in the previous e-mail was directed towards Matt Cutts and Google for me getting carried away in my month-long disappointment - and writing while without rest for more than 48 hours. I'll go rest again now and hope for a Christmas miracle.
In case I have upset anyone in this race to fix my site, then it wasn't my intention .. I'm DEEPLY sorry if I did, so I ask you humbly to accept my apologies.
A very merry Christmas to you Mr. Gamma. and everyone else that have followed my case Sussie
Your language is quite articulate... I have understood everything you have meant... You are not deeply sorry for anything... You apology is not accepted...
There are volumes of advice from many many forum posters, if you truly did not have a silver spoon in your mouth you would have done something about your problem by now... anybody reading these posts is well aware of how many hours people have invested into you... all of the advise provided to you has been good and all of it is worth investigating...
Instead you have abused everybody... and you have accomplished nothing...
If you put several people out of a job, you will have no one to blame but yourself... They will be much more fortunate to work for someone else... imo...
I'm sorry to gratify MrGamma's post with a serious reply. There is a MrGamma in every public discussion, it seems :(
I had already made it clear above that I would be an easy target, because of the desperate situation I'm in and the way I've put myself on the spot - in order to save my venture. The weakest among us are likely to attempt standing on my bag to raise themselves higher.
I hope the serious readers of my posts, will clearly remember how MrGamma gave a piece of advice that once the least bit challenged, caused him to excuse himself from speaking too fast. That's not helping! Initially I thought it was very mature of MrGamma to apologize, but it appears now that being belittled that way by a female user can be too much for the ego after all, so please don't let MrGamma's noise overshadow my original question and the misfortunate situation I'm in.
If there is one thing I didn't want in here, it's the usual flame wars. MrGamme. Let's stop that and focus on my one serious issue. Can we?
Thanks for coming forward and addressing my issue.
You probably haven't seen my many other posts, in which I clarify that we know that page well (the one you are now guiding me too), but that the recommendation didn't seem to work for any of us (we are some shops here in Denmark).
My shop provider also tells me that they appear to not be successful with any tests that relied on for example the noframes tag.
If I may trouble you further and ask for a quick dialog on the subject, then I think we could quickly compare my site to Google's recommendation - and somehow see a structure of my shop site which suits both google and our users. I'd rather not start over describing everything without some kind of management and attention devoted to it. Can you tell me how I best go about documenting the state of affairs to you, or could I trouble you to visit some of my other posts about my problem? I'm a little afraid to be left only with a reference to an URL that everyone here has studied in great depth and which hasn't answered our questions.
You write at a time, where my steam is almost running out, so I barely know how to present the my story at this time. If I may, as humble as possible, reach out for a little dialog, then I'd be very thankful. May I?
It was great to hear from you, but as you might alrady have had an idea about, the 2-line reference to the framed guidelines wasn't exactly the kind of advice I needed at this point.
While I like the Google guidelines in general, then in particular for framed sites, the guideline-text is very ambigious and hardly something you want to base significant business decisions on.
I'm by no means here to tell Google how to do business (just like I don't like people telling me how to run my business), but as an idea from one of your long-time fans, it would be great if you could use this cricis in Denmark as an opportunity to go a little more in depth with a typical problem (that doesn't relate to spamming, but to people that have their core business in other areas - and who aren't directly responsible for their backend systems). By doing this, you could easily help desperate business owners here to not lose their businesses.
I understand Google is in a pickle with releasing any information, but Matt frenquently releases information in videos and that's helpful to anyone. I'm sure it must be possible to also set our shop provider straight in regards to our technical question, so business in Denmark can get back to normal.
Providing me a 2-line somewhat "canned reply" in a complicated and unfortuntate situation, that threatens to close a business of 4, is something I'm grateful for - but at the same time, your reply is probably of more value to Google than it really is to the user (who read and understood this framed guideline long ago, and being unable to get pages indexed this way).
I'd hate to go back to that web-shop support forum and tell that after days without sleep and probably around 50+ posts about our crisis over here, the 2-line advice from Google was to read the framed guideline - which we have already followed - without success.
I'm in a position now where my web shop provider really listens to me. I can tell them any message and I can get them to write you directly. There are hundreds of serious shops shaking in their pants right now, and as before, I beg for Google to help with setting a path.
We want no benefits or other particular treatment, but just a guideline about how we can present our products on the web in a framed site, without upsetting google and facing exclusions.
I'd also be able to find out on my own, but then I'd appreciate if you can confirm that my site is free from penalties, cause even simple static pages aren't getting indexed. I can only handle so many factors and I do have a daytime job, which isn't Google, so I'd prefer to just be told something simple that I can go by - so I can be on my way.
Now, my shop is reincluded in the index, but it's without any products and the webmaster tools says my products won't get indexed. Can I ask you for a more elaborate reply or could we otherwise find a method of getting information back about what we do that are upsetting Google (and what our shop-system provider can do differently as a result)?
Well, I'm obviously an idiot, cause I'm losing my business that I've developed myself towards all my life, and my options are limited. Vanesse, we are probably around the same age. Can I ask you as a human to put yourself in my shoes for a brief moment and appreciate the power that Google has over the small businesses in the world. I know it's emotional, like everything I've said in here, but maybe you can use this to direct Google in direction where you'll also be able to handle normal people like me.
I can take a look when I get back into the office, although reading other threads, it sounds like Adam may already be doing that as well (many people are out for the holiday, so it may take a little longer than usual).
Looking at your site, I would suggest the following:
-Redesign the site not to use frames. That may be difficult for you to do for various reasons, but that is the best advice I can offer. The link I posted really is the best recommendation that we have about frames.
When I look at your home page with images turned off in my browser, I see very little text. I would add a paragraph or two of text that describes what the site is about, as well as add a meta description tag.
You might also consider rewriting your URLs to be visitor friendly (provide information about the item type).
Make sure that the item descriptions are unique (for instance, aren't just imported from a manufacturer database -- since then your pages will simply have the exact same content as other sites on the web who import the same database).
Ensure you have quality, relevant links from other sites to your site.
You might also revisit your navigation. It's difficult to navigate from various parts of the site. For instance, if I click the large image of the white chairs on the home page, I get to a page with no navigation back.
If I come across anything else that might help, I'll let you know.
First a few things that you might find interesting from a strategical standpoint.
We are a reseller of the worlds most popular/copied design lamps, which is the PH lamps of Louis Poulsen.
As authorized resellers (you find a link to us from Louis Poulsens web-site) and we are contractually required to describe their products with the texts that the supplier hands over to us. This is because Louis Poulsen Lighting worked hard for their position as a global leader and they don't want independant resellers to change author product texts which might not reflect their vision. What would you recommend in such a situation and isn't it maybe something Google should anticipate in product descriptions?
I have the option of taking your advice back to a supplier like Louis Poulsen Lighting, which I'm sure they would appreciate (hoping to get a box of chocolate:).
The site is a shop system I subscribe to, which can't be converted into not using frames by its users.
However, a decision to go non framed was made - partly because of my ranting.
While it's not my business, then I do feel a little disappointment over the fact that it's the search engine that then controls the web-shop design, rather than the concern of the users. A better guideline for framed users, would have been great, but I won't be pushing for that.
To deal with the frames, my webshop provider provider an alternate set of content (not made first and foremost for the search engines). I'll explain that briefly in the next post, for your review.
To get our shop indexed again, our shopping system provider (a large company), did this:
1: Created a static frontpage, since the Google exclusion letter pointed to our frontpage redirect as the problem. 2: Created a robots.txt to keep Google completely away from the framed web pages. 3: Generated alternate non-framed pages. One page per product and one per category (sofas, chairs, ..). 4: Put a link on our frontpage, which points the Google bot to our products.
The alternate pages are all dynamic, which is why the URL doesn't contain the product names.
It's the simplest possible hierarchy that I can think of.
Once a product is found, the user can manually click a link to be taken to the framed page.
Ealier on, the alternate product pages would link (via a javascript redirect) to the framed page. This was good for for the users - who needs to see the framed shop page, in order to navigate buy -- but it's controversial from a Google standpoint. If there is any type of redirect deemed valid in this scenario, then it would be great to know.
The redirect would have to index the page it's on, and then forward the user to a framed page - that contains the same info + shopping carts or the like. Would you say that is possible in anyway that falls within the Google guidelines?
The redirect wouldn't be deceiving, but is only to get the user into the framed page, rather than looking at the ugly simple page.
Yes, Adam wrote me a great reply as well and we are bunch of people waiting for his conclusions - so we can get back in the Google fold and return to our businesses.
I'm going to give you some mixed comments and questions below, which you can do with and address, as you see fit (I mean, it's as much to give you real-life information from my corner of the world).
Thanks. I will fix this ASAP. It a temporary front page - made for Google in response to the exclusion letter (to replace a 301 frontpage redirect to /shop/default.asp). I knew the general advice about having some text on a page, but figured it couldn't be the source of my much bigger problems. There was no time for the usual design effort that a front page should receive.
> You might also consider rewriting your URLs to be visitor friendly > (provide information about the item type).
I get the advice, but the shop is stored in a database (like it should be) and the pages are therefore dynamic, with parameters. Everyone does this, including this very page where we are writing this.
> Make sure that the item descriptions are unique (for instance, aren't > just imported from a manufacturer database -- since then your pages > will simply have the exact same content as other sites on the web who > import the same database).
Yep, I'll take that to heart, but please also see my other message about that. I'm under contract with several highly regarded manufacturers (Danish design is no joke:) to use their texts. Whenever I'm allowed, I have a text writer author unique product descriptions (which other shops then unfortunately steal from us, risking to make our site look like a duplicate content spam site to Google, maybe?).
I write this, because you then may be able to raise it as a point at some internal meeting.
I wonder if this duplicate content that many alike shops will have is a really a significant problem in the eyes of Google? I sure hope my shop won't look like a spam/affiliate site to Google, cause similar looking product texts are really always going to be the nature of any shop (that doesn't deal exclusively in unica products).
> Ensure you have quality, relevant links from other sites to your site.
That's a given. The manufactures link to us, directories link to us, DMOZ links to us,as well as all the links that get created by themselves (by interestees). With a page rank of 6, this part got to be okay.
> You might also revisit your navigation. It's difficult to navigate from > various parts of the site. For instance, if I click the large image of > the white chairs on the home page, I get to a page with no navigation > back.
Hm, you mean for the users.. And not for Google, right? A link back to the front page can't affect Google crawling/indexing much, I think. Our real users, who pick "Enter shop", get to a framed web-site, which has a menu bar and front page links.
> If I come across anything else that might help, I'll let you know.
Thanks Venessa. I appreciate your help and look forward to get more information about what pitfalls to be aware of, when running a database driven web-shop.
Seeing a page on your blog with common pitfalls for shops (we all have much duplicate content, due to the nature of the many similar products) would be helpful to a lot of people.
A set of Google guidelines for shops would be awesome too.
Sussie wrote: > I get the advice, but the shop is stored in a database (like it should > be) and the pages are therefore dynamic, with parameters. Everyone does > this, including this very page where we are writing this.
I think what Vanessa was referring to was a process called dynamic rewrite of the URLs, still using the database but presenting the URLs in a cleaner way, stripping all the parameter stuff on the server side before users or spiders see them. She wasn't talking about making the pages static with hand written URLs.
I just wanted to thank you for extending yourself -- and during the holidays at that -- to offer more specific guidance to this lady.
I've personally just about stopped visiting these forums simply because they so often prove to be an endless do-loop replaying the same basic questions and answers over and over. A number of these questions never actually get answered adequately (adequately = "problem solved"), but simply subside until the next reported "event" begins the cycle anew without hope of real resolution. The information offered here on a mutual-help basis can be excellent, but sometimes amounts to no more than the blind leading the blind, in spite of efforts by smart, experienced, and dedicated people wishing to help others. Conflicting opinions offered about what specifically does or doesn't work, with endless speculations as to why, are often no more than best-guesses, even if well motivated. Wash, rinse, repeat. Endlessly.
Speaking only for myself, my time is more valuable than to dump it into an ever-expanding black hole which now consumes tens (hundreds?) of thousands of manhours, world-wide, as people try -- often without success -- to reckon where they may have run afoul some hidden Google requirement no one could possibly guess, further subject to sudden and arbitrary change without notice. The problem for Google folk is that they have only so much time they can devote to answering specific questions. On both sides, it's a mugs' game.
Perhaps more "case study" examples (and a way to access them without having to read miles of guidelines and monitor random postings and personal blogs on a continuing basis) might prove helpful in offering specific and actionable instructions based on live examples which can be relied upon as authoritative. Would a Google webmaster wiki organized on a case study approach work better? Dunno. The advantage of such a wiki would be that whatever information is offered -- regardless of source -- could be monitored by Googlefolk and corrected or supplemented where necessary to assure its accuracy.
That would provide a single point of maintenance, with the added ability to cross-reference to applicable "guidelines" connecting the dots between the theoretical and the practical. What we don't have now is an acid test as to whether Google instructions actually meet the needs of practitioners who find themselves baffled and in serious trouble. There's a huge disconnect at the practical level.
As it is, Google documentation is spread across many pages of guidelines, various unofficial (but supposedly authoritative) blogs, and -- yuck! -- a bizzillion postings (worthwhile or inane) stuck in various threads and thus scattered like confetti over space and time.
Given the massive effort people like John, Webado, and many others have poured into these forums for many months -- with much of it soon passing into oblivion -- there simply has to be a better way to organize this knowledge and make it more accessible (and verified authoritative) on an ongoing basis.
No one is good at everything, and that includes Googlefolk. It's become obvious (to me, at least) that concise organization of relevant knowledge simply isn't Google's strong suit. The documentation has grown like Topsy and now requires ordinary web site owners to become full-time geeks simply to stay out of jail. Getting out of jail, once there, can be a formidable challenge. For people running businesses or otherwise having an actual life, becoming a Google expert isn't practically possible. It is an unreasonable expectation, IMO.
After a couple of years of monitoring and commenting in these forums, this will probably be my last posting here for the foreseeable future (no applause, please), since I've found the signal-to-noise ratio well beyond my available time to sift out those few real gems which do, in fact, pop up from time to time. Very good stuff.
But for the most part, much of what is said here has been said before, again and again. And the same things will be said in future, again and again. All that really changes in many of these threads are the particular personal sniping remarks and food fights which inevitably break out among opinionated people, who are sometimes operating on no more than blind faith, gut feel, and/or unconfirmable assumptions.
The landscape is increasingly littered by slain business sites whose owners have no clue why Google (and only Google) has suddenly dropped them into purgatory. If these sites ever recover, it would be very useful to know just what steps had to be taken to restore them. A "before" and "after" comparison is worth a thousand words, which is why business schools and others rely on case studies -- rather than massive textbook verbiage and droning lectures -- to accelerate comprehension. Who can RTFM when TFM is spread from hell to breakfast?
What is needed FIRST is an open and frank discussion between Google and webmasters BEFORE some bright young engineer hauls off and imposes his own personal stroke of genius on the masses.
Without some meaningful and effective change of method/venue for offering concise and actionable information -- actively supported, monitored, and endorsed by Google -- the same "emergency" questions and (real or imagined) answers to them will continue to be recycled again and again, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Perhaps it's time to examine whether the present "emergency room" model should be replaced by something less reactive, more proactive, and definitively authoritative.
|
