I want to address bluegill01's question in our "Popular Picks Part
Deux" thread about Google's communication efforts with webmasters.
Over the past few years we've made great strides alerting webmasters
to issues with their site. As a starting point, having your sites
verified with Webmaster Tools allows us to use the Message Center to
alert you to a few issues I'll go into below. To learn how to verify
your site with Webmaster Tools, check out the following Help Center
article:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35181
So when can you expect to receive an email from Google?
- Malware: If Google detects that your site may host or distribute
malicious software, we will email several addresses for your site,
such as abuse@, admin@, and administrator@. You can read more about
our malware warnings and what steps you should take to remove malware
from your site here:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=45432
In your Message Center, you may see a message from us in the following
instances:
- Infinite Space: Googlebot may detect a large number of links on your
site that provide little or no new content for Googlebot to index,
such as a calendar with a "Next Month" link. Site owners will be
notified when we discover this problem on their web sites through the
Message Center. For more information on "infinite spaces" and how to
correct them, check out the following blog post:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-infinity-and-be...
- Reporting Paid Links or Web Spam: If you find a site that you
believe violates our Webmaster Guidelines, we encourage you to use our
reporting tools, either to report paid links:
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/paidlinks or spam in our index:
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport If you use either tool, you will receive a message confirming that we
have received your report.
- Crawl Rate: If you change the crawl rate on your site through
Webmaster Tools, you will receive a confirmation message. To learn
more about changing Google's crawl rate, see this Help Center article:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=48620
- Violations of our Webmaster Guidelines: Finally, you may also
receive a message alerting you to Webmaster Guidelines violations. You
can read more about our Webmaster Guidelines here:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769 If you're unsure if your site may be in violation of our Webmaster
Guidelines and you have not received an email from Google, I recommend
asking the webmasters in this group. The savvy webmasters here are
often able to provide concrete technical and content related issues
that may be most relevant to your site's performance. Susan provides
additional context in her Popular Pick post about reconsideration
requests:
http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
We are constantly working on scaling our communication with webmasters
and certainly appreciate your comments. Now that this issue has been
separate from the "Popular Picks" thread into its own post, please let
me know if you would like further clarification.
>Violations of our Webmaster Guidelines: Finally, you may also
>receive a message alerting you to Webmaster Guidelines violations.
>If you're unsure if your site may be in violation of our Webmaster
>Guidelines and you have not received an email from Google, I recommend
>asking the webmasters in this group.
Thanks for the above post Reid - very informative.
Vis-a-vis Violations of Webmaster Guidelines: does Google _usually_
inform webmasters if a particular site is in violation of Webmaster
Guidelines?
Webmaster Tools should not be necessary to receive such messages.
RFC2142:
5. SUPPORT MAILBOX NAMES FOR SPECIFIC INTERNET SERVICES
For major Internet protocol services, there is a mailbox defined
for
receiving queries and reports. (Synonyms are included, here, due
to
their extensive installed base.)
MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS
----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
POSTMASTER SMTP [RFC821], [RFC822]
HOSTMASTER DNS [RFC1033-RFC1035]
USENET NNTP [RFC977]
NEWS NNTP Synonym for USENET
WEBMASTER HTTP [RFC 2068]
WWW HTTP Synonym for WEBMASTER
UUCP UUCP [RFC976]
FTP FTP [RFC959]
So a message to webmaster@ would actually be the conformant way to do
it.
>...It has gotten to the
> point where an honest webmaster has to spend all his time on
> optimizing, instead of improving content.
>...This is a good place to communicate here, but I seldom
> see anyone "actually from Google" in here giving definitive answers .
> How about an official Google liaison here to answer questions on a
> regular basis?
Two things:
Improving your content is almost synonymous with optimizing. Lately it
seems that the Google's bot frowns upon what would be considered
"optimizing." If webmasters just make their sites for users, and have
good original content, instead of making it for search engines, there
won't be a problem. And if your trying to go up against big-business,
good luck, it doesn't work in the real world and it doesn't work on
the web. Us small business owners have to find passionate niche
markets that don't hear the screams of corporate crap.
Also, someone that is "actually from Google," just told you, in the
above post, to listen to the people on this forum. There is your
personalized help from Google so you know that they care, they made
this place so that you can get help, if you listen to folks like Phil
Payne, Webado, etc.. It comes straight form the horses mouth, if you
won't trust the people that Google tells you that you should trust,
what makes you think that you'll trust Google when you speak to them
directly?
> much of a chance. Huge high funded websites can afford to change every
> time Google changes what it wants in a website. Mom and pop cannot.
I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to get banned in Google if
you follow the guidlines. It is not their job to find out why your
site isn't ranking or even tell you why. That is a courtesy of Google
and on these forums. If you haven't noticed, Google gives you tons and
tons of free information to help you site succeed. They want you to.
There hasn't been a huge change in the rules in years except for the
paid linking. Perfect example is a website where the webmaster knows
nothing about the search engines but designs strickly for the
customer. How can they get banned? Breaking the guidlines never
happens by accident. It is planned in every case to manipulate the
engines. There is a difference in breaking the guidlines and having
poor code which doesn't help the engines. The later is one of the main
reasons people post here and if you want to rank on any search engine,
that has to be well thought out before your site goes into design.
Everybody has a fair chance to rank naturally. We see it here
everyday. Doesn't matter how big or small you are. Ranking high enough
naturally to make a living is a different story. That's why there is
adwords:))
Metronome, I would believe that if there weren't adwords ads placed in
these boards. Google is about Greed - plain and simple and they are
the worst in cutomer service. The problem Google is facing is huge -
Just saw it on MSNBC today (traders are now starting to price this
factor into the price of Google stock and it is only going to go
lower). The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
years ago. The feds themselves are shortly going to deliver Google
the ultimate smackdown - a government ordered split up. Then when you
have 5 or 8 different ex-google companies things will improve 100% -
they have to as competition will force it to happen. Customer service
will be great after the split up.
> > much of a chance. Huge high funded websites can afford to change every
> > time Google changes what it wants in a website. Mom and pop cannot.
> I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to get banned in Google if
> you follow the guidlines. It is not their job to find out why your
> site isn't ranking or even tell you why. That is a courtesy of Google
> and on these forums. If you haven't noticed, Google gives you tons and
> tons of free information to help you site succeed. They want you to.
> There hasn't been a huge change in the rules in years except for the
> paid linking. Perfect example is a website where the webmaster knows
> nothing about the search engines but designs strickly for the
> customer. How can they get banned? Breaking the guidlines never
> happens by accident. It is planned in every case to manipulate the
> engines. There is a difference in breaking the guidlines and having
> poor code which doesn't help the engines. The later is one of the main
> reasons people post here and if you want to rank on any search engine,
> that has to be well thought out before your site goes into design.
> Everybody has a fair chance to rank naturally. We see it here
> everyday. Doesn't matter how big or small you are. Ranking high enough
> naturally to make a living is a different story. That's why there is
> adwords:))
Metronome, I would believe that if there weren't adwords ads placed in
these boards. Google is about Greed - plain and simple and they are
the worst in cutomer service. The problem Google is facing is huge -
Just saw it on MSNBC today (traders are now starting to price this
factor into the price of Google stock and it is only going to go
lower). The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
years ago. The feds themselves are shortly going to deliver Google
the ultimate smackdown - a government ordered split up. Then when you
have 5 or 8 different ex-google companies things will improve 100% -
they have to as competition will force it to happen. Customer service
will be great after the split up.
> > much of a chance. Huge high funded websites can afford to change every
> > time Google changes what it wants in a website. Mom and pop cannot.
> I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to get banned in Google if
> you follow the guidlines. It is not their job to find out why your
> site isn't ranking or even tell you why. That is a courtesy of Google
> and on these forums. If you haven't noticed, Google gives you tons and
> tons of free information to help you site succeed. They want you to.
> There hasn't been a huge change in the rules in years except for the
> paid linking. Perfect example is a website where the webmaster knows
> nothing about the search engines but designs strickly for the
> customer. How can they get banned? Breaking the guidlines never
> happens by accident. It is planned in every case to manipulate the
> engines. There is a difference in breaking the guidlines and having
> poor code which doesn't help the engines. The later is one of the main
> reasons people post here and if you want to rank on any search engine,
> that has to be well thought out before your site goes into design.
> Everybody has a fair chance to rank naturally. We see it here
> everyday. Doesn't matter how big or small you are. Ranking high enough
> naturally to make a living is a different story. That's why there is
> adwords:))
Personally I'm quite satisified with Google's customer service. I'm
buying only contextual advertising from them.
And I get perfect customer service from them currently with a
relatively small AdWords account, and I've got the same quite high
level customer service before with one of the biggest account in
another country.
What is your special problem with Google's customer service?
> Metronome, I would believe that if there weren't adwords ads placed in
> these boards. Google is about Greed - plain and simple and they are
> the worst in cutomer service. The problem Google is facing is huge -
> Just saw it on MSNBC today (traders are now starting to price this
> factor into the price of Google stock and it is only going to go
> lower). The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
> they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
> means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
> years ago. The feds themselves are shortly going to deliver Google
> the ultimate smackdown - a government ordered split up. Then when you
> have 5 or 8 different ex-google companies things will improve 100% -
> they have to as competition will force it to happen. Customer service
> will be great after the split up.
> On Sep 9, 10:17 am, Shades1 wrote:
> > The little guy doesn't stand
> > > much of a chance. Huge high funded websites can afford to change every
> > > time Google changes what it wants in a website. Mom and pop cannot.
> > I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to get banned in Google if
> > you follow the guidlines. It is not their job to find out why your
> > site isn't ranking or even tell you why. That is a courtesy of Google
> > and on these forums. If you haven't noticed, Google gives you tons and
> > tons of free information to help you site succeed. They want you to.
> > There hasn't been a huge change in the rules in years except for the
> > paid linking. Perfect example is a website where the webmaster knows
> > nothing about the search engines but designs strickly for the
> > customer. How can they get banned? Breaking the guidlines never
> > happens by accident. It is planned in every case to manipulate the
> > engines. There is a difference in breaking the guidlines and having
> > poor code which doesn't help the engines. The later is one of the main
> > reasons people post here and if you want to rank on any search engine,
> > that has to be well thought out before your site goes into design.
> > Everybody has a fair chance to rank naturally. We see it here
> > everyday. Doesn't matter how big or small you are. Ranking high enough
> > naturally to make a living is a different story. That's why there is
> > adwords:))
Metronome, I would believe that if there weren't adwords ads placed in
these boards. Google is about Greed - plain and simple and they are
the worst in cutomer service. The problem Google is facing is huge -
Just saw it on MSNBC today (traders are now starting to price this
factor into the price of Google stock and it is only going to go
lower). The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
years ago. The feds themselves are shortly going to deliver Google
the ultimate smackdown - a government ordered split up. Then when you
have 5 or 8 different ex-google companies things will improve 100% -
they have to as competition will force it to happen. Customer service
will be great after the split up.
> > much of a chance. Huge high funded websites can afford to change every
> > time Google changes what it wants in a website. Mom and pop cannot.
> I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to get banned in Google if
> you follow the guidlines. It is not their job to find out why your
> site isn't ranking or even tell you why. That is a courtesy of Google
> and on these forums. If you haven't noticed, Google gives you tons and
> tons of free information to help you site succeed. They want you to.
> There hasn't been a huge change in the rules in years except for the
> paid linking. Perfect example is a website where the webmaster knows
> nothing about the search engines but designs strickly for the
> customer. How can they get banned? Breaking the guidlines never
> happens by accident. It is planned in every case to manipulate the
> engines. There is a difference in breaking the guidlines and having
> poor code which doesn't help the engines. The later is one of the main
> reasons people post here and if you want to rank on any search engine,
> that has to be well thought out before your site goes into design.
> Everybody has a fair chance to rank naturally. We see it here
> everyday. Doesn't matter how big or small you are. Ranking high enough
> naturally to make a living is a different story. That's why there is
> adwords:))
> The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
> they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
> means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
> years ago.
I worked for some years for one of IBM's major mainframe competitors -
the Amdahl Corporation.
I exceeded my targets in several years and won corporate awards - one
was a week in the sun with the heads of the corporation. I was
sitting on a very warm beach with a very cold drink when an
importunate salesman mentioned the possibility of a then-active anti-
trust case resulting in the breakup of IBM.
(It didn't - but it did result in IBM's 1984 "Undertaking" to the
EEC.)
The CEO was present. "For ****'s sake I hope not! We have enough
trouble competing with one of the ****s let alone having to deal with
loads of the ******s."
Google can dodge around it all they want and blow smoke up your
proverbial butts as Reid did in his artful dodge above, but the
reality is that there is much more at stake here than meets the eye -
the feds are going after Google for antitrust legislation and Google
knows this - why else would they be trying to beef up their legal
department so much all of a sudden? Just look it up at their website
and others (ads on Monster.com and more). Google needs lawyers more
than any other position -why? And why is Google stopping and cutting
short some of its extravagant behavior? To fund their growing legal
staff (headed by David Drummond) and war chest to try and prepare for
the inevitable - lawsuits based on everything from anti trust
legislation to unfair and deceptive business practices to
discrimination and more.
I look forward to the aftermath of Googles split up - better customer
service, better search, no more hidden agendas and no more shenanigans
on Googles behalf (for proof of Googles monopolistic control of the
internet just search for "how to build a search engine like Google"
and see what you find - nothing worth even looking at - why? Because
Google doesn't want anyone to compete with them). Google knows that
99% of their revenues and profits come from search and the advertising
offered there. They know that it would be very easy for someone else
to come along and take over their turf). Google was started by 2 grad
students at Stanford. Google knows there are thousands of colleges
with computer science programs with some very adept and extremely
capable students - some of which hate Google, and some of which, if
given the right impetus, could easily smoke Google's search engine and
fast. This is why Google has branched out into everything they can as
fast as they can.
If Google had exhibited a good customer service program early on, then
peoples complaints, word on the web, etc... would never have gone up
the chain (BBB, California Attorney General, other states attorney
generals, FTC, ACLU, Representatives and Senators, US attorneys,
federal regulators, etc...) That's the usual order it goes in
depending on the verbage of the complaints. This whole process didn't
start in the past few months. It takes years and millions of
complaints (some of which are from elected officials in the senate and
house) for a company to progress through to the top of that list (now,
some of those complaints and such may be bogus, but not millions of
them). Google is now at the ultimate end and there is only one
outcome at that level - Ratigan and his crew on Fast Money surmised it
best - "Google is on a south bound train and I don't want to get on
that ride".
As I said, I look forward to the inevitable forced split up - it will
improve the search and the entire internet 100% as competition can and
will make it better! I can only wonder what all the new companies
names will be?
> > The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
> > they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
> > means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
> > years ago.
> I worked for some years for one of IBM's major mainframe competitors -
> the Amdahl Corporation.
> I exceeded my targets in several years and won corporate awards - one
> was a week in the sun with the heads of the corporation. I was
> sitting on a very warm beach with a very cold drink when an
> importunate salesman mentioned the possibility of a then-active anti-
> trust case resulting in the breakup of IBM.
> (It didn't - but it did result in IBM's 1984 "Undertaking" to the
> EEC.)
> The CEO was present. "For ****'s sake I hope not! We have enough
> trouble competing with one of the ****s let alone having to deal with
> loads of the ******s."
Wow, it's amazing, my site just dropped considerably again right after
that last post was put up and the link to this discussion can no
longer be found through the regular discussion board (you have to use
the search feature to find it and I am sure that will soon be gone too
- I saved it for future reference purposes if anyone needs it).
Evidently someone at Google doesn't like the truth and their true
colors are showing. Just more clear and documented evidence of their
shady behavior and business practices. If Google were to operate
fairly I would have no problem with them (even though they are a
monopoly), but unfortunately they don't. I guess that's what
attorneys, the FTC and the ACLU are for, right, Google?
> Google can dodge around it all they want and blow smoke up your
> proverbial butts as Reid did in his artful dodge above, but the
> reality is that there is much more at stake here than meets the eye -
> the feds are going after Google for antitrust legislation and Google
> knows this - why else would they be trying to beef up their legal
> department so much all of a sudden? Just look it up at their website
> and others (ads on Monster.com and more). Google needs lawyers more
> than any other position -why? And why is Google stopping and cutting
> short some of its extravagant behavior? To fund their growing legal
> staff (headed by David Drummond) and war chest to try and prepare for
> the inevitable - lawsuits based on everything from anti trust
> legislation to unfair and deceptive business practices to
> discrimination and more.
> I look forward to the aftermath ofGooglessplit up - better customer
> service, better search, no more hidden agendas and no more shenanigans
> onGooglesbehalf (for proof ofGooglesmonopolistic control of the
> internet just search for "how to build a search engine like Google"
> and see what you find - nothing worth even looking at - why? Because
> Google doesn't want anyone to compete with them). Google knows that
> 99% of their revenues and profits come from search and the advertising
> offered there. They know that it would be very easy for someone else
> to come along and take over their turf). Google was started by 2 grad
> students at Stanford. Google knows there are thousands of colleges
> with computer science programs with some very adept and extremely
> capable students - some of which hate Google, and some of which, if
> given the right impetus, could easily smoke Google's search engine and
> fast. This is why Google has branched out into everything they can as
> fast as they can.
> If Google had exhibited a good customer service program early on, then
> peoples complaints, word on the web, etc... would never have gone up
> the chain (BBB, California Attorney General, other states attorney
> generals, FTC, ACLU, Representatives and Senators, US attorneys,
> federal regulators, etc...) That's the usual order it goes in
> depending on the verbage of the complaints. This whole process didn't
> start in the past few months. It takes years and millions of
> complaints (some of which are from elected officials in the senate and
> house) for a company to progress through to the top of that list (now,
> some of those complaints and such may be bogus, but not millions of
> them). Google is now at the ultimate end and there is only one
> outcome at that level - Ratigan and his crew on Fast Money surmised it
> best - "Google is on a south bound train and I don't want to get on
> that ride".
> As I said, I look forward to the inevitable forced split up - it will
> improve the search and the entire internet 100% as competition can and
> will make it better! I can only wonder what all the new companies
> names will be?
> On Sep 11, 6:53 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 10:48 pm, bluegill01 wrote:
> > > The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
> > > they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
> > > means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
> > > years ago.
> > I worked for some years for one of IBM's major mainframe competitors -
> > the Amdahl Corporation.
> > I exceeded my targets in several years and won corporate awards - one
> > was a week in the sun with the heads of the corporation. I was
> > sitting on a very warm beach with a very cold drink when an
> > importunate salesman mentioned the possibility of a then-active anti-
> > trust case resulting in the breakup of IBM.
> > (It didn't - but it did result in IBM's 1984 "Undertaking" to the
> > EEC.)
> > The CEO was present. "For ****'s sake I hope not! We have enough
> > trouble competing with one of the ****s let alone having to deal with
> > loads of the ******s."
You've came here to get help with your site, how your site may rank
better in Google. You've got it, it would involve some work on your
side, but instead of doing it you are continously attacking Google.
On the other hand your comments only show the lack of at least the
basic understanding of economics, and online business models.
So at least by me it would be very welcome if you would stop poisoning
other threads then yours with harsh stupidity, and for example let
this thread to be what it should be about: an official clarification
that in which cases and what kind of communication can we expect from
Google (regarding to the free natural search).
Because for example I'm really interested in the original topic,
though never and neither of the sites that are and were under my
control depend on Google's natural listings.
> Wow, it's amazing, my site just dropped considerably again right after
> that last post was put up and the link to this discussion can no
> longer be found through the regular discussion board (you have to use
> the search feature to find it and I am sure that will soon be gone too
> - I saved it for future reference purposes if anyone needs it).
> Evidently someone at Google doesn't like the truth and their true
> colors are showing. Just more clear and documented evidence of their
> shady behavior and business practices. If Google were to operate
> fairly I would have no problem with them (even though they are a
> monopoly), but unfortunately they don't. I guess that's what
> attorneys, the FTC and the ACLU are for, right, Google?
> On Sep 11, 7:04 pm, bluegill01 wrote:
> > Google can dodge around it all they want and blow smoke up your
> > proverbial butts as Reid did in his artful dodge above, but the
> > reality is that there is much more at stake here than meets the eye -
> > the feds are going after Google for antitrust legislation and Google
> > knows this - why else would they be trying to beef up their legal
> > department so much all of a sudden? Just look it up at their website
> > and others (ads on Monster.com and more). Google needs lawyers more
> > than any other position -why? And why is Google stopping and cutting
> > short some of its extravagant behavior? To fund their growing legal
> > staff (headed by David Drummond) and war chest to try and prepare for
> > the inevitable - lawsuits based on everything from anti trust
> > legislation to unfair and deceptive business practices to
> > discrimination and more.
> > I look forward to the aftermath ofGooglessplit up - better customer
> > service, better search, no more hidden agendas and no more shenanigans
> > onGooglesbehalf (for proof ofGooglesmonopolistic control of the
> > internet just search for "how to build a search engine like Google"
> > and see what you find - nothing worth even looking at - why? Because
> > Google doesn't want anyone to compete with them). Google knows that
> > 99% of their revenues and profits come from search and the advertising
> > offered there. They know that it would be very easy for someone else
> > to come along and take over their turf). Google was started by 2 grad
> > students at Stanford. Google knows there are thousands of colleges
> > with computer science programs with some very adept and extremely
> > capable students - some of which hate Google, and some of which, if
> > given the right impetus, could easily smoke Google's search engine and
> > fast. This is why Google has branched out into everything they can as
> > fast as they can.
> > If Google had exhibited a good customer service program early on, then
> > peoples complaints, word on the web, etc... would never have gone up
> > the chain (BBB, California Attorney General, other states attorney
> > generals, FTC, ACLU, Representatives and Senators, US attorneys,
> > federal regulators, etc...) That's the usual order it goes in
> > depending on the verbage of the complaints. This whole process didn't
> > start in the past few months. It takes years and millions of
> > complaints (some of which are from elected officials in the senate and
> > house) for a company to progress through to the top of that list (now,
> > some of those complaints and such may be bogus, but not millions of
> > them). Google is now at the ultimate end and there is only one
> > outcome at that level - Ratigan and his crew on Fast Money surmised it
> > best - "Google is on a south bound train and I don't want to get on
> > that ride".
> > As I said, I look forward to the inevitable forced split up - it will
> > improve the search and the entire internet 100% as competition can and
> > will make it better! I can only wonder what all the new companies
> > names will be?
> > On Sep 11, 6:53 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > On Sep 11, 10:48 pm, bluegill01 wrote:
> > > > The feds are looking beyond the Google and Yahoo ads thing -
> > > > they are actually now talking about anti trust legislation. That
> > > > means fairly shortly Google will get split up just like Ma Bell did
> > > > years ago.
> > > I worked for some years for one of IBM's major mainframe competitors -
> > > the Amdahl Corporation.
> > > I exceeded my targets in several years and won corporate awards - one
> > > was a week in the sun with the heads of the corporation. I was
> > > sitting on a very warm beach with a very cold drink when an
> > > importunate salesman mentioned the possibility of a then-active anti-
> > > trust case resulting in the breakup of IBM.
> > > (It didn't - but it did result in IBM's 1984 "Undertaking" to the
> > > EEC.)
> > > The CEO was present. "For ****'s sake I hope not! We have enough
> > > trouble competing with one of the ****s let alone having to deal with
> > > loads of the ******s."
You are really all over the board with this stuff. You start with one
thing proposed as a question, but now was obviously just another way
to spout off your frustrations with Google because they don't like
your site as much as you do. But then Google answers you personally
about your questions and you call them on diversion and shenanigans.
Then, you bring up every proposed lawsuit that ever made it into a
sensationalist lawsuit craving media. Then you prop your foot atop,
and lick your chops over, the imagined beaten & bruised body of the
beaten former Google.
Google is beefing up their legal department because shysters are
hungry for the blood of a new highly successful business model that
they don't understand, because they're stuck in the past. People are
scared of Google because they don't understand it... I don't
understand it, but I don't fear the things I don't understand. What I
can't gather from your rants, is how your imagined penalty and drop in
the SERPs provoked you to go paranoid conspiracy theorist and gather
all the information you could find to try and make Google look like an
Orwellian devil.
Then you jumped into the even deeper end, suggesting that they are
suppressing your oh-so damaging revolutionary thought crimes and also
punishing your angelicly perfect white hat site in the SERPs as a
retribution for your dissent against their iron hand of search engine
domination.
If you spent the time take gathering conspiracy theories against the
Google dictatorship improving your site... you might not have dropped
in the SERPs. Instead you spend time in denial of the work that must
be done to pull your site out of the dump, and you pay for it.
And as far as being fair.... how can they make every site #1? You make
your ranking, your problem is with a robot, man, not a company... do
you see how strange that is?
It's funny... I never even noticed the ads that Google put on this
page until you mentioned it.
Why all the negativity directed towards me? I didn't cause all the
consumer complaints, governmental inquiries and now the federal
regulators. Watch the news and you will see for yourself. I saw it
twice yesterday about the feds going after Google for anti trust
stuff. Google brought that on themselves. It's not that people are
scared of new technology. If you look at the actual complaints that
carry weight - watch the channels that show house and senate debates
and such and some of the more intellectual news shows - the complaints
stem from 2 things. Google is getting too powerful and there are too
many complaints on everything from advertising to search and almost
everything in-between. All I did was relay this info exactly as it
was stated on TV and elsewhere. Yes, there are hate filled websites
out there that have crazy conspiracy theories, like one I saw
yesterday where they think Google is the antichrist and another that
thinks that Google is unfairly pushing Obama in its search - did you
notice I didn't include any of that. And it gets much worse out there
- I stuck with the factual stuff.
I even stated that I had no problem with Google if they would change a
few simple things like 10 better communication and 2) be fair straight
across the board - don't favor big companies like BMW and Ricoh and
then implement different policies for others. I don't hate Google -
I'm not wearing an I hate Google shirt or starting a Google sucks
website - am I? No. I am just relaying facts and the biggest fact in
this whole thing is that if a company had good customer service and
didn't have complaints forwarded up the chain (BBB, attorney generals,
FTC, ACLU, senators, etc...) then it wouldn't be at the federal
regulators for anti trust review now would it? The last thing the
feds want is for the public to see them attacking a good company the
public loves. There are quite a few other monopolies that are allowed
to exist because they have great customer service, strive to keep the
complaints down and do everything they can from gaining negative
attention in the publics eye. Google took the wrong approach and now
it is in the hands of some government officials that are going to
envision the demise and split up of Google as their political
launching pad. All Google can hope for now is a government scandal
with the regulators that eclipses Mr. Spitzer from NY.
Guys, you can hate me all you want. I'm just telling it like it is.
And you can watch the news and see the exact same stuff. It's also in
Business Week and other related magazines. You know its inevitable
when wall street gets wind of it and starts to price the outcome into
the stock price. Now, its not going to be tomorrow and it could take
several years, but it is going to happen and Google allowed it to
happen with their arrogance - same as Ma Bell. Ma Bell thought they
were too powerful and too important for the government to intervene
with. They were every bit as big back then as Google is now, maybe
even bigger. And look at what happened - it got split up and the
result was what? Better pricing, better service, better technological
advances, better everything.
Another thing, did you notice that when this thread is not in the
newest 8 or so it disappears completely and can only be found through
search. Just try and go through the recent entries and find it?
That's called censorship. Is it right? That's for you to decide (the
reason it is not listed like other threads is the stuff about computer
science departments and competing with Google search - Google censors
this stuff big time on the web - it is their #1 most censored
subject). Again, I don't hate Google. I just don't like companies
that have bad customer service, use unfair business practices, etc...
- especially ones that have a motto similar to do no harm or evil.
Google could learn a lot from companies with similar mottos like REI -
they really do no harm. It's not too late - Google can still change
their ways and have some control of the feds outcome. But they need
to start immediately and hiring more lawyers and lobbyists ain't the
answer. You have to change the people's opinion - especially in a
major election year. And it all starts with customer service - how
else does a company like HSN stay afloat with higher prices than your
local stores? Why do its minions keep coming back and buying more
even in tough economic times - Phenomenal customer service - that's
how. Bad customer service only brings complaints, authorities, and
eventually government intervention.
You guys may hate me, but unlike you all, I am actually giving Google
a way out of this mess. Sitting back and saying Google is great the
way it is by 1,000 of you on this discussion board simply carries no
weight against millions of unhappy people in the public eye
(especially when some are very powerful elected and non elected
officials). This discussion board and the few of you that continue to
tear into me with your one star ratings and such will have no effect
on the government and federal regulators. If you really feel the way
you do - which ever way that may be - then you need to make your voice
known where it counts - write your elected officials and tell them how
great or bad Google is - or whatever other matter interests you. Just
picking on me here won't help your cause or Google's one bit. The
above is not a conspiracy theory when it is confirmed by numerous
reputable news sources and that it is actually happening and under
review.
> You are really all over the board with this stuff. You start with one
> thing proposed as a question, but now was obviously just another way
> to spout off your frustrations with Google because they don't like
> your site as much as you do. But then Google answers you personally
> about your questions and you call them on diversion and shenanigans.
> Then, you bring up every proposed lawsuit that ever made it into a
> sensationalist lawsuit craving media. Then you prop your foot atop,
> and lick your chops over, the imagined beaten & bruised body of the
> beaten former Google.
> Google is beefing up their legal department because shysters are
> hungry for the blood of a new highly successful business model that
> they don't understand, because they're stuck in the past. People are
> scared of Google because they don't understand it... I don't
> understand it, but I don't fear the things I don't understand. What I
> can't gather from your rants, is how your imagined penalty and drop in
> the SERPs provoked you to go paranoid conspiracy theorist and gather
> all the information you could find to try and make Google look like an
> Orwellian devil.
> Then you jumped into the even deeper end, suggesting that they are
> suppressing your oh-so damaging revolutionary thought crimes and also
> punishing your angelicly perfect white hat site in the SERPs as a
> retribution for your dissent against their iron hand of search engine
> domination.
> If you spent the time take gathering conspiracy theories against the
> Google dictatorship improving your site... you might not have dropped
> in the SERPs. Instead you spend time in denial of the work that must
> be done to pull your site out of the dump, and you pay for it.
> And as far as being fair.... how can they make every site #1? You make
> your ranking, your problem is with a robot, man, not a company... do
> you see how strange that is?
> It's funny... I never even noticed the ads that Google put on this
> page until you mentioned it.
|
