softplus wrote: > You have to promote your stuff yourself > first, you have to get those initial links to your stuff first before > anything else happens.
> Once you have the first bunch of traffic, the first group of interested > visitors, you'll quickly see if what you offer is in fact what people > want to see. Do they like it, do they hate it, do they just not care? > Do they recommend it to their friends or their enemies (both works), do > they just not care? Do they buy something? Do they just like to browse? > Do they come back for seconds? Do they come back with a friend? Which > parts do they like? Which parts did they oversee? How long do they > stay? If they buy something, is it worth it to you (profit-wise)?
It doesn't work this way in the *real world*.
Say you have a cool website about refrigirators. There's not one soal in this Earth that is interested in refrigirators at this time!
Even if there is, how should I find that one person or few people who are interested in knowing about refrigirators?
Certain things don't interest people at all until they are ready to research on that product.
Hey if I don't plan to buy refrigirators, why would I be interested in what your site says?
These days the only thing people seem to like are stuff that's bizzare, or quality stuff that's given away free, news and that's about it.
You go around marketing your refrigirator site, and they'll mark you as SPAM.
Softplus said . 'The hash-sign (#) is only processed on the client side,'
Thank you for the help softplus.
Webadoo said .. 'they are suddenly finding their names, or sites associated with some notion or in an unflattering context'
that is so true!!!! A long time ago one of my colleagues had a row with a DMOZ editor on a forum. Ever since, if you search Google for 'legal facists' there we are #1 on page 1! Yet there are law firms running paid adword campaigns to get on that page which in many ways reinforces Rick's argument that over-reliance on a link-driven formula will produce distorted results. I believe a little less reliance on links, combined with a snippet/flag of data given to a webmaster when a page is supplemented, will help reduce this distortion. Moreover a small fee for this flag service would give Adam and his colleauges more beer money, whilst giving webmasters more time to focus on getting their web design more searchable.
softplus wrote: > >A webmaster cannot possibly work on getting hundreds of links to ALL of > >his or her pages, nor should they HAVE to! > I know this isn't going to go well with some people here, but it IS > that way. Whatever you put online, you have to promote if you want > traffic. It's the same all over in life -- you can't just open up a > shop in your house and expect people to come by to buy your products if > you don't promote it. You don't have a "right" to get listed in the > free directories, nor do you have a "right" to get reviewed in the > high-distribution newspapers. You have to promote your stuff yourself > first, you have to get those initial links to your stuff first before > anything else happens.
How do you "promote" something WHEN IT WON'T GET INDEXED!!??????? Ok, DONE. But, our pages WERE THEN LATER DELETED!
> Once you have the first bunch of traffic, the first group of interested > visitors, you'll quickly see if what you offer is in fact what people > want to see. Do they like it, do they hate it, do they just not care? > Do they recommend it to their friends or their enemies (both works), do > they just not care? Do they buy something? Do they just like to browse? > Do they come back for seconds? Do they come back with a friend? Which > parts do they like? Which parts did they oversee? How long do they > stay? If they buy something, is it worth it to you (profit-wise)?
> The idea is that the people which you send to your site / shop want to > tell others about it. You need to hand-pick those people to make sure > that they will fit and that they like to recommend sites / shops to > other people. Remember, recommendations in "real life" are links on the > web. The web is a web because of the links. Without recommendations > your shop will not prosper -- unless you spend lots of time and money > on getting people to come (paid advertising!).
> What is a website without any links? If your website has had those > initial visitors which you lured to it, and if they don't link to your > site, what could that mean? Could it possibly mean that your site is > not hitting the right buttons on your visitors? Perhaps you just lured > the wrong batch of visitors to your site? Perhaps your site has > something which visitors don't understand enough to really want to link > to it? It's a really hard process, especially if you have spent a lot > of time on your site, but in the end: if your site does not attract > recommendations, *something* has to be wrong with it.
It means THEY DON'T HAVE WEBSITES!!!!!! FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! You're comparing apples to.....BRICKS here!! You are single-minded!! It's the chicken or the egg thing!! You cannot have one without the other!!!!! Virally NONE, maybe NONE of my customers HAVE WEBSITES!!! They can tell everyone they want about me, (and they DO, that's how I get most of my business) but they'd have to tell MILLIONS about it in order to find a few that could LINK TO IT!!!!! It's a FLAWED SYSTEM that DOES NOT WORK with MOST NICHES!!!!
> If your site does not gain links over time, with the visitors you lure > to it, then that could be a sign that it does not have "value" to the > visitors. (or what else could it mean?)
Again, it means your visitors DO NOT HAVE WEBSITES where they could PUT your links!!!!
> Google takes those links as > recommendations, and if you don't have "enough" then it won't index > you. If your site used to have links but now doesn't, it'll push you > into the supplemental index.
My IBL's have GROWN and GROWN, yet it has done NOTHING but put more of my webpages, PEOPLE's webpages INTO SUPPLEMENTAL!! Your statement is FLAWED John!!!!
> Taking it a step further: if Google recognizes that the links to your > site are all "unnatural" recommendations, then it might devalue them. > It's kind of like someone noticing that you're writing your own > testimonials... THAT is the problem with supplementals: the pages used > to have link-value, but now that has either dried up (perhaps people > have stopped linking to it) or been recognized as being bad (traded > links, link-farms, etc -- not all link trading is bad of course, but > you guys know the kind I mean...).
Maybe no one EVER linked to the supp pages!!
PEOPLE HAVE NO WAY TO CONTROL WHO LINKS TO THEM as I just pointed out!!
People CANNOT, nor SHOULD THEY HAVE TO POLICE THE WHOLE GO*DAMN INTERNET FOR PARASITES or SCUM THAT SHOULD NOT BE LINKING TO YOU!!!! One CANNOT, CANNOT, be held responsible IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM if "Madam O's online house of pleasures and anal intruder dildos with part time section on diplomas, viagra and mortgage loans" and the like wants TO LINK TO YOU!!!!! WHAT do you suggest we do, go out and KILL HER and BURN HER PLACE DOWN TO THE GROUND in order to STOP the linking?? COME ON, GET REAL!!! I've got a few scumbags "linking" to me, if you want to call it that, (as I've repeatedly pointed out) that are hijacking my URL's, stealing my meta data and descriptions, and those pages OF MINE GET DELETED yet THEIR PAGES REMAIN!! I CANNOT CONTROL THAT, I have even THREATENED these people with being SUED, and they STILL WON'T STOP IT, and I'M THE SORRY SOB THAT'S GETTING SCREWED FOR IT!! AND, getting screwed for it IN GOOGLE BUT NO OTHER SEARCH ENGINE!!!!!
> So where does that bring us?
A lawsuit against google! Since (if this is true) people can't go out AND KILL ALL THE MADAM O's OUT THERE!!!!!!
> Assume your website is a restaurant. You have several ways of getting > visitors:
Again, IRRELEVANT if YOU CAN ONLY SELL ONLINE and CAN'T SELL LOCALLY!!!!!!!
> - once your restaurant catches on, the people will drag friends along, > they'll talk about you, they'll come back time and time again. They'll > recommend you to others: links
They DON'T HAVE WEBSITES.
> - you can get listings in restaurant and city guides.
Again, PEOPLE DO NOT USE THESE when they want to BUY A RED WIDGET!! They GO TO SEARCH ENGINES and ~70% of the time unfortunately GOOGLE!!!!!!
> Some of them you > can contact yourself and get a free or paid listing (Yahoo, etc),
Y (MSN, etc.) is irrelevant, NOT ENOUGH people use it!!
> some of them want to discover your place for themselves (Google, etc)
How, our pages are SUPPLEMENTAL and WILL NOT BE FOUND in G!
> - If you're good and your place has a good name, you might even get > reviews in papers and books (DMOZ, haha).
I'm IN DMOZ.
> If you're really good, you might be able to get enough traffic with > only natural means (no paid advertising), but in general, a restaurant > (or any commercial shop) needs some paid advertising to catch new > visitors.
Paid advertising (IF one can afford it) will not GET YOU IN GOOGLE! The topic here is NOT visitors, it is WHY our webpages are GETTING DELETED. You are still trying to sway the subject and the attention AWAY FROM G!!!! It ain't gonna work with me!!!
> So, what am I trying to say? Good links are a natural sign of a healthy > website. If you don't have them, you need to do something about it -- > on the content, design or promotion side.
And by exactly WHOM and HOW are these "good links" determined? I just proved that's flawed by the domain.com example!!!! IBL's CANNOT BE TRUSTED NOR RELIED UPON to show ANYTHING ACCURATELY!! Something that can be MANIPULATED so easily BY OTHERS, for which you HAVE NO CONTROL OVER, is INACCURATE therefore I submit FLAWED!! It doesn't take a judge to figure that out!!!!
> Add to that: Googles system works with links. It's well known, it's the > way it is. We aren't going to get that changed any time soon, and > personally, I think it works pretty well that way.
Well of course you would, that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone here. "I, softplus, pay everlasting worship, loyalty and homage to the almighty google......uhhmmmmmm"
> It evolves over > time, devaluing links which can be recognized as being unnatural, > tricks that used to work won't work forever. Isn't that the same > everywhere?
Nope, certainly NOT. And NO ONE, I certainly am NOT, using any "tricks". Google really needs to pay you (and another person I won't name) a healthy commission for all the damage control, attempts to change the subject and deflect attention, and laying the blame elsewhere you do. If EVERYTHING you are saying is indeed true, then G needs to be "put down" and for the life of me (and most others here) cannot comprehend HOW you can not only agree with it but think "it's all good".
Guys we're just waisting our time here talking to brick walls, until Adam shows up with some DEFINITIVE answers and HELP.
webado wrote: > That's why you should use example.com and never ever use a real domain > in a form that can be resolved to a url (with www or http:// in front) > as example especially of something bad.
Yeah, it's a little late for that now. People have been doing that for years. When trying to help others with entries in an htaccess file for example, it's hard not to put a www or http in there since it has to be there in the htaccess file.
> Those who complain about scrapers, squatters, spammer sites - don't for > goodness' sake give them more importance by providing an easy backlink > to them in a forum. You're doing their dirty work for them and they'll > love it. It doesn't even matter if the context is flattering or not - > any attention is good attention.
That's a good point and I've never done that.
> Remember that site called sitesthatsuck.com ? Some of the sites > appearing there are still around, they still suck, and have a high PR > exactly because of links like that. Those belonging to people with a > modicum of good sense would either have disappeared in shame or gotten > improved so as not to make that "shame" list any more.
Well that again proves my point about how domain.com got such a huge inaccurate unwarranted, unearned PR.
> By the same token don't use your own domain url with some stupid > comment which will come to torment you forever when it readily appears > indexed in any search engine, in a way you don't want to see.
I did that once.....ONCE.
> I mod a couple of forums (with have all manner of search engine bots > crawling every single minute of the day) where every so often users ask > me to please edit this or that thread or delete it altogether because > they are suddenly finding their names, or sites associated with some > notion or in an unflattering context, which they don't want to see > publicized. Well, doh! Think before hitting the enter button!
Yeah, I get spam all the time on an email address I ONLY use for ONE email list because the messages are archived, nothing wrong with that, but so are our email addresses with the posts. Maybe all URL's and mailto:'s at message boards and forums should have a rel=nofollow tag or something to stop the URL's from getting PR and bad bots from getting them. Of course if PR never existed, that would not be a problem.
softplus wrote: > Rick1 wrote: > > It's not INTERNAL linking, from what I have understood so far, it's how > > OTHERS link TO you! (And I hope to hell I'm wrong about that). > Actually, internal linking makes a big difference as well. Check some > of the better articles on pagerank -- you can distribute pagerank to > the pages that are important with a good strategy, or you can hope it > goes "somewhere" and not know.
To most ordinary people surfing the web, Google PR doesn't exist. Even if they install the Google Toolbar, unless they enable viewing the PR they won't have it automatically. And if they do, they have no clue what it is. And the "other" PR, the one that's not published yet, even fewer people know anything about.
PR has been used and abused by greedy webmasters to sell links and by eager desperate ones to buy links on high PR pages. Thus it's irrelevant.
About a year ago all PR values vanished from the Google Toolbar. Gaad, what a hullabaloo that caused! All manner of websites started speculating on what was going on and when PR was going to come back, Google dance and all that stuff. A new passtime got kickstarted: PR-spotting.
It's been said so many times to not lay any score on PR - neither the one published in the toolbar nor even the "hidden" one because it's not got anything to do with how well your site comes up in searches. It's an ego thing only. Just like the Alexa traffic ranking which depends on people useing the Alexa toolbar when surfing. I suspect (maybe I heard it) that the Google PR may also be related to how many people use the Google Toolbar when surfing and who allow it to collect information. I bet tons of people when faced with that notice decide to turn that off - ergo, no data will be logged based on that. Would that cause the displayed PR to drop? No idea.
Do I like my reasonably high PR that I see in the tollbar? Yeah, sure, it flatters my ego, it gives off a warm and fuzzy feeling. But I know it's nothing but window dressing. And it can vanish as quickly as it's appeared because its meaning and method of calculation keep changing over time.
I have had offers to buy links on some of my high PR pages. I now have an advisory on my contact page to forgeddaboudit, I don't do that - neither sell nor buy such stuff. Why? because I have priciples to uphold, that's why. Case closed.
I link to whomever I want to link to because I want to do so, not because they pay me. I may like the site, I may find it useful to me or to my clients, whatever. That's natural linking, not you scratch my back and I scratch your back. And it's got nothign to do with whatever PR they have. Same as sites that I bookmark. I don't do it because they have a screaming line saying "Bookmark this site", but because I find it useful and I want to go back to it easily. So it's entirely my choice.
The other thing that's been said numerous times is that your site cannot be affected negatively by whatever links to it as far as PR is concerned. It's either neutral or it can be positive, but not negative. And that makes plenty of sense to me and most who pause to think abou it, because you cannot control who and how they link to you.
The only possible negative fallout from "bad" inbound links is from some possibly unflattering anchor text associated with that link or connotations associated with the site where that link is found. If a request to stop that doesn't give results (probably wouldn't), then you can fight by legal means if it's derrogatory or slanderous - if you are worried enough about it and feel the need to set the record straight. Otherwise live with it, deal with it, get over it and carry on.
>Say you have a cool website about refrigirators. There's not one soal >in this Earth that is interested in refrigirators at this time!
Please tell me, how can you make a cool website about refrigirators without being in contact with lots of other people who like them as well? :-) If you have something great, you will have most likely researched it online as well -- where did you end up? There are forums for just about everything, I bet there's a refrigirators-anonymous forum with 7 or 214 people who just love everything about them. And if you notice that there are only 7 people in the world interested and you can't get them excited enough to link, then what is the site supposed to be for? And if those 7 people interested aren't excited, for what should Google put it online? How can you make a site without having direct contact with at least a small part of your target group?
That said, I know where you're coming from... and I feel a lot of stuff is being lost because people either can't link to it, don't know how (don't have a site), the site is technically a piece of trash even though the content is valuable, etc. It would be great to get these things into Google, to get them findable. So you can't get those 7 people excited enough, perhaps there are a few 1000 who would be interested if they knew about it or happened to stumble upon it. "Findability" of "small sites" (or at least unestablished sites) is something that has been mostly neglected by all engines.
I had a neat site lined up to help new webmasters get indexed (see http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=31124 ), but just from the mails I got because of those postings I realized that it would be deadly (for my nerves ...) -- all those junk-sites demanding to get listed, etc etc. I would hate to have to be the lightning-rod for all those who can't get into Google, I don't want to run another hated "dmoz", I don't need to get flak for trying to help. In the end, I never put it online. Instead I concentrated on helping people get their sites in order, help them to get links, etc -- which in the end resulted in the same index-entry, only *they* learned what was involved and wouldn't need my help to get the next site in.
Well said, John. Like the old adage: give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime (ugh.. don't like fish that much, but chicken isn't as noble sounding ;) )
So true in most cases and certainly true in this case. But also so much maligned, drawing ire from those who simply don't want to accept that they've not covered all the bases, that they've missed their own backyard and left loose ends, things to do on a rainy day when they live in Arizona. Too easy to blame it on somebody or somethign else.
Okay, I have now read... or at least heavily skimmed... all 150+ posts here. I'm going to do my best to answer *questions* that have been asked and respond to a few bits of commentary and so on.
> Linking to a site without PR or a site with PR0.
It's done all the time. How do you think new sites like youtube or howardforums or the amphibian conservation alliance get PageRank? They once had no PR or a PR of 0. They grew by creating compelling services or content or community, word of mouth, and natural links.
> [The creating a new car example]
Believe me, if someone made a car that ran on garbage, it'd get linked from boingboing or fark or a professor/expert who specializes in cars or batteries or garbage or the Sierra Club or the chamber of commerce from the city where it's being developed or the online alumni magazine from the founder's university or a skeptics site or...
> [PR on the Toolbar]
It's updated occasionally, not in real time. So just because you see pages with PR0 indicated on the toolbar in the index doesn't mean that they indeed have a PageRank of zero.
> [Assistance for a fee]
We've discussed this option internally and have felt that it's not a route we want to go down at this time. I really can't get into specifics, but we've determined that it'd be more harmful than helpful in the aggregate given internal and external factors.
> [Refrigerator web sites] and > You go around marketing your refrigirator site, and they'll mark you as SPAM.
For fun, I also did searches for "left-handed radios," "face blindness," and "hubcap collectors."
No matter what product or service you sell, there is someone online who probably is not only interested in it, but also with a site about it or a related product or service.
> [sites linking to you]
We realize you have no control over this. If Madame-whoever is linking to you, we're very, very unlikely to care. Same with scapers (though morally, we care... and we do our best to kick scraper sites out of our index!)
> [getting links]
Some options, off the top of my head: 1) Feature a [whatever] of the month (photo, joke, tip...) 2) Have a blog (and an RSS feed!) and/or update your site regularly with compelling content. 3) Post thoughtful, relevant comments on blogs or forums, including this one. 4) Include your URL within your profile here. If you provide valueable, friendly comments, I can't imagine someone NOT linking to you. It's also, as I've noted, just good common sense so Googlers and others can help you better (or debug). Along those lines, I'm a bit surprised that at least a couple of the most vociferous commenters in this thread haven't mentioned their site's name or put the URL in their profile. That makes specific advice a bit harder, you know ;) 5) Write a smart letter to the editor of your local paper online and include your URL. 6) Give out your business card at industry events, and do other offline marketing and promotion.
Hmm... seems like "online/offline promotions 'n' publicity ideas" might be an interesting topic for someone to start, eh? :)
* * *
Anyway, I think I've pretty much exhausted what there is to say about supplementals and have tackled all questions in this thread. If I missed some (*questions*, that is, and not rhetorical ones), feel free to repeat them.
EXAMPLES: Question: "Okay, if I get quality backlinks, how long would it likely take for my pages to get out of the supplemental index?" Answer: "It depends. I've seen new sites get into or back into the main index in literally days, though depending on crawl cycles, it could take weeks."
Rhetorical-question: "Does it bother you that Google is evil, you are personally the spawn of Satan, and no matter what you say or do, I'll stick voodoo pins in my GoogleDoll?"
* * *
I've read the concerns about supplemental index issues and have indeed discussed them with my colleagues. And, as always, we take your input and use it to make Google better over the long haul (that's why I was hired, that's why we just hired a Webmaster Trends Analyst last month, that's why we had *25* Googlers attend the Webmaster World conference last week -- more than all other search engines combined, I think)
There comes a time, however, when we've all got to move from talk into action. With all due respect, I think that time has come in this context. As I noted, we're working on refreshing the supplemental index more rapidly and expanding our main index as well. But in the meantime, it's up to you to understand, accept, and work with the supplemental index as it exists. You have the knowledge, you have the tools, and tons of other helpful forum members are undoubtedly willing and able to provide tactical advice and encouragement.
[email address] wrote: > What about this one? Getting in an argument on the internet is like > running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still > retarded. :)
give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime they say denied the taste of roast pork, Fruits galore never again to embrace his fork, Never once more to taste the sweetness of honey on his dish - Why? Because all his lifetime he's eating bloody fish!
Thank you Adam for your input which i will try and digest withour further comment.
'online/offline promotions 'n' publicity ideas" might be an interesting topic for someone to start, eh?' .... I'm waiting and chomping at the bit.
Thanks for your comments, Adam. Your choice of websites is interesting :-)
>'online/offline promotions 'n' publicity ideas" might be an interesting >topic for someone to start, eh?' .... I'm waiting and chomping at the >bit.
Actually, I think there are more than enough threads and whole forums out there to cover this tidbit... I don't think "Crawling, indexing and ranting" really needs another?
silverstall wrote: > Webadoo you omitted the rest ..
> give a man a fish and he eats for a day; > teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime they say > denied the taste of roast pork, > Fruits galore never again to embrace his fork, > Never once more to taste the sweetness of honey on his dish - > Why? Because all his lifetime he's eating bloody fish!
LOL! I love it! :) Me feelings precisely in re that darn fish ;)
PSSSSTTTT::::::::::: just one O please ......... sssshhhhhhhhhhhh!
Google's main objective is to give the most relevant (upto date my be?) choice of website pages that have information that a search engine user is looking for based on the capacity of the search engine user's knowledge of how to use a search engine (which is limited)
BACK LINKS, ARE THEY GOOD OR BAD? Other sites linking to your site, that show's up in the search engine results are they good or bad?
It's GOOD It gives confidence to the search engine user that the information has value, the more reviews,articles, statements, Boggs about a product, service or information their is the better
It's BAD Other sites linking to your site, this is not easy! you may have a person with the best secret in the world sitting on their website but if that person 1. dose not make the effort to go and get links to their website it will stay a secret 2. dose not have the knowledge or experience to make a website that works it will stay a secret
So is the important (Google PR) information, driven not by information but by driven people that can work out how google works and are good at marketing, not the person that has the secret
If a website is built by a person with no knowledge how to make a proper website and all that goes with it, do you relly think it's Google's job to help promote it and bring it up from obscurity?
I like the reference to creating a site about refrigerators, but the only thing I could write about refrigerators is something on the order of how to try to figure out what something that got lost in the back of the bottom shelf was when it was still somewhat identifiable.
Is there anyone who thinks that this Supplemental Index business has little or nothing to do with crawling efficiency and how decisions are made which sites to crawl, when and how much? This is an old paper, but it still makes a darn good read
webado wrote: > To most ordinary people surfing the web, Google PR doesn't exist. Even > if they install the Google Toolbar, unless they enable viewing the PR > they won't have it automatically. And if they do, they have no clue > what it is. And the "other" PR, the one that's not published yet, even > fewer people know anything about.
> PR has been used and abused by greedy webmasters to sell links and by > eager desperate ones to buy links on high PR pages. Thus it's > irrelevant.
PRECISELY!!! Exactly, no will can argue with that, and THAT is why it CANNOT BE USED to determine supplemental status (nor anything else)!!! Yet G thinks it IS relevant therefore proving the point, the FACT, that on what they base supplemental status is FLAWED and erroneous!
> About a year ago all PR values vanished from the Google Toolbar. Gaad, > what a hullabaloo that caused! All manner of websites started > speculating on what was going on and when PR was going to come back, > Google dance and all that stuff. A new passtime got kickstarted: > PR-spotting.
Too bad that wasn't permanent, the world would be better off without it.
> The other thing that's been said numerous times is that your site > cannot be affected negatively by whatever links to it as far as PR is > concerned. It's either neutral or it can be positive, but not negative. > And that makes plenty of sense to me and most who pause to think about > it, because you cannot control who and how they link to you.
That makes sense to me, but goes against what another has mentioned. I also had my PR DROP about maybe a year ago, after getting many hundreds MORE IBL's. Which would seem to possibly support that who links to you CAN devalue your PR.
> The only possible negative fallout from "bad" inbound links is from > some possibly unflattering anchor text associated with that link or > connotations associated with the site where that link is found. If a > request to stop that doesn't give results (probably wouldn't), then you > can fight by legal means if it's derrogatory or slanderous - if you > are worried enough about it and feel the need to set the record > straight. Otherwise live with it, deal with it, get over it and carry > on.
That's what bothers people and is cause for concern. One cannot deal with it, live with it and carry on if it's HURTING you, something must be done. NO ONE should be forced to have to pay out of their own pockets some lawyer to handle something THAT GOOGLE SHOULD HANDLE; for it is THEY that would be penalizing you for something you cannot control therefore this is why they have no business putting so much precedence on how others link to you.
Thoughts wrote: > What I was trying to convey with the "Refrigirator Site" was that > people simply don't link to a site even when it provides good quality > rich and useful content when they are simply not interested *at that > point in time* about what the site is talking about. They are not > interested in refrigerators.
> People have a *state of mind*. That's why it's difficult for sites > focusing on *certiain products* to obtain back links.
It's useless to try and get these facts across to him.
> I could afford to advertise too, if I had the money to do it.
> Anyway, I think I'll go back to the job world - *working for someone > else* is better than building a website these days!
Pathetic isn't it. That is EXACTLY what G wants to hear too. They want to get rid of all the billions of "backbone of America" type websites and index and give top precedence to the monopolies. Sounds like some "insider dealings" and conflicts of interests here. I only hope it happens VERY quickly, for the quicker it does the quicker the info will get out that their SE is tainted and people will stop using it, and believe me, I'll be one of the millions getting the information out there. I suggest you do the same.
webado wrote: > If a website is built by a person with no knowledge how to make a > proper website and all that goes with it, do you really think it's > Google's job to help promote it and bring it up from obscurity?
If I may say, no, I think most will agree with that. HOWEVER, it's also not G's job to PENALIZE it or discriminate against it. Yet this is exactly what one of the things that's happening.
softplus wrote: > >Say you have a cool website about refrigerators. There's not one sole > >in this Earth that is interested in refrigerators at this time! > Please tell me, how can you make a cool website about refrigerators > without being in contact with lots of other people who like them as > well? :-) If you have something great, you will have most likely > researched it online as well -- where did you end up?
The manufacturers' websites. That is the only place you can go for the correct specs/info/datasheets/manuals on the products (one) sells.
> There are forums for just about everything, I bet there's a refrigerators-anonymous > forum with 7 or 214 people who just love everything about them. And if > you notice that there are only 7 people in the world interested and you > can't get them excited enough to link, then what is the site supposed > to be for?
Forums are irrelevant. Once again, forums CANNOT be used in EVERY NICHE and when the overwhelming majority of people want to buy something they go to a SE, not some discussion forum. But let's say some DO go to a discussion forum, but they CAN'T go to (it) because it's NOT INDEXED by G therefore they can't find it!
> And if those 7 people interested aren't excited, for what > should Google put it online?
It is not G's job to decide how many may be interested in or excited about a product, nor is it their job to discriminate against it due to how many may or may not be interested! What about unique, one-of-a-kind items, or unique, one-of-a-kind items that are very expensive that most can't afford.
> How can you make a site without having > direct contact with at least a small part of your target group?
Easily. Again, unique, one-of-a-kind items. However you bring up a great point: Yes, you cannot have a site to have direct contact with a part of your target group, because......YOU'RE NOT INDEXED! Ah yes, but there is the forums. Oh, but the perfect forum you're looking for is not indexed because a million others don't link to it because it's either NEW, or, there just happens to not be millions of people that NEED the product...therefore you are penalized for that and it's back to GOOGLE determining the NEEDS OF PEOPLE and the demand for a product!!
G is trying to rewrite the needs and direction of the entire global economy by these actions and that will also be their undoing. <grumpy look stern face with bobbling head and pulled in chin and possible crack pipe or bong close by> "Let's see, there's this new product or existing product [size "D" red widget] but I don't see the need for it so f**k 'em, they won't get in the index or we'll just sandbox 'em or leave them in supplemental hell forever because so few will have the need to the link to ALL of their webpages. Hell, I don't need a size D, do any of you? Even if we did, not in RED, right??".
> "Findability" of "small sites" (or at least unestablished sites) is > something that has been mostly neglected by all engines.
Neglected by GOOGLE, obviously, but not neglected by Y or MSN (nor Ask, AV, etc). I've never once had any problem getting ANY of my sites nor pages IN and indexed GREAT by Y or MSN.
Thoughts wrote: > Rick1 wrote: > > it, and believe me, I'll be one of the millions getting the information > > out there. I suggest you do the same.
> No, I'll just give up building websites, or simply treat it as a hobby. > I can't go around telling people stuff. I'll just be rediculed and I'll > end up going broke.
You, WE will, end up going broke expecting traffic from G.
You can't be ridiculed if you present FACTS, and threads like THIS ONE to back them up.
> At least I get a few visitors from MSN and Yahoo.
Yeah, me too. A **FEW**, and that's they it will stay until everyone knows what G is doing.
> I am also getting a few visitors from Google now but only for those > pages that have strong back links. > Some of my pages that have original/unique rich text content are > supplemented but some are not.
Some of my pages that are in supplemental have a PR of 3!! Now how is that BS possible??? How 'bout all the totally useless & blackhat PR ZERO sites that have NO supplemental pages!!??????
> I guess it all depends on how many unique hits I get which again > depends on whether people like the page or not.
