Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it (brave souls!)
Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: - don't deal with a specific site or sites - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the world - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our Help Center
And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an existing doc to cover your question. - Do a blog post on the topic.
Some ground rules: - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to point there from this thread!) - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ everyone in this thread. - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your questions here.
Adam - Thanks for this excellent initiative! I think it will be appreciated in several different ways.
How about explaining/exploring issues around extreme movements/ fluctuations in SERPs results for some keywords and some sites that occur over short timespans.
For example, we frequently get questions along the lines of: My website is on SERPs page 1 for <keyword> every other week. On alternate weeks (or at weekends etc) it dives to about 300th position and then returns to Page 1 the following week.
Rationale: Forum regular members can usually give quite detailed and hopefully insightful comments/feedback about many website indexing/ ranking issues such as crawlability, redirection, use of head titles, header tags, Toolbar PR, hidden text, keyword stuffing, content- duplication, etc etc. However, there seems to be little clarity when responding to queries about oscillations/fluctuations in the SERPs over short time periods. We cannot even see independent evidence that what the webmaster is claiming is in fact true.
So I think it would be helpful if Google staff experts could focus on the mysterious area of short-term oscillations/fluctuations. Is there hard evidence that this phenomenon does occur? What causes it? What can webmasters do to mitigate it or avoid it altogether? Is the "problem" on the site itself? Or is it to do with the way indexing algorithms interact and revisions to ratings? Why do some sites allegedly experience this sort of thing repeatedly while others have very steady positionings (including long term rises and long term falls)?
webmasters need to be told if their site is under a penalty, as there is to much guess work going on and theories are being made up. I suggest maybe having some thing in the tools with different level of penalties 1-5 with one being a minor penalty and 5 being the most extreme. Each penalty could have a generic explanation next to it. What do you think? Most of the questions in this forum are related to penalties and most of the answers from what I have seen dont really help, as they are personal opinions. So people who dont really have a penalty all of a sudden start changing things that dont need to be changed.
Good to see you back :) Ok.. I'll get the ball rolling.
"Proxy Hijacking seems to be a recurrent theme in recent months. The theory goes that it is quite possible for the original copy of a site to be surpassed and even excluded from the index by another site hosting proxied copies of a web page. Given that a) Google seems pretty effective at detecting duplicate content and b) Google has the means to authenticate website owners (via webmaster tools and sitemaps etc) is it possible / would it be beneficial to attempt to overcome this problem by allowing gbot to visit 'on command' each time a new page is added (the same way mediapartners bot does)."
> Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > (brave souls!)
> Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > world > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > Help Center
> And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > existing doc to cover your question. > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> Some ground rules: > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > point there from this thread!) > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > everyone in this thread. > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > questions here.
> webmasters need to be told if their site is under a penalty, as there > is to much guess work going on and theories are being made up. I > suggest maybe having some thing in the tools with different level of > penalties 1-5 with one being a minor penalty and 5 being the most > extreme. Each penalty could have a generic explanation next to it.
Dear Google
I want to spam the hell out of your index and manipulate the search ranking as much as I can. When I get notified exactly what and when I get a penalty, I can just change that to just remain under the radar scope until I push a little hard somewhere else. Thanks for notifying me exactly what I am doing wrong, so I know exactly where the 'line in the sand' is, so I can continue to manipulate so I get better rankings than I really deserve by playing this game with you.
I'd like to know if any Google parser ever has to flush any part of a page because of broken HTML.
Just the URI as a "heads up". Not where it flushes or what the potential effects are - just the fact that it has done. My job to get the validator out.
> Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks. > Some ground rules: > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore are welcomed... > but not wish lists, okay? > e.g., "I wish Webmaster Tools stats were updated hourly!"
Thats true! but im sure that any site misusing the system would get banned anyway. Can you also fill out your profile as i like to know who I am talking to.
> > webmasters need to be told if their site is under a penalty, as there > > is to much guess work going on and theories are being made up. I > > suggest maybe having some thing in the tools with different level of > > penalties 1-5 with one being a minor penalty and 5 being the most > > extreme. Each penalty could have a generic explanation next to it.
> Dear Google
> I want to spam the hell out of your index and manipulate the search > ranking as much as I can. When I get notified exactly what and when I > get a penalty, I can just change that to just remain under the radar > scope until I push a little hard somewhere else. Thanks for notifying > me exactly what I am doing wrong, so I know exactly where the 'line in > the sand' is, so I can continue to manipulate so I get better rankings > than I really deserve by playing this game with you.
Call me a sceptic (and many do), but I want to know what Google is going to do in 3 weeks time? What are you going to do to ensue more top posters don't abandon the group? Why cant your initiatives in this group be proactive rather than reactive?
> Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > (brave souls!)
> Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > world > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > Help Center
> And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > existing doc to cover your question. > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> Some ground rules: > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > point there from this thread!) > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > everyone in this thread. > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > questions here.
> Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > (brave souls!)
> Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > world > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > Help Center
> And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > existing doc to cover your question. > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> Some ground rules: > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > point there from this thread!) > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > everyone in this thread. > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > questions here.
"webmasters need to be told if their site is under a penalty, as there is to much guess work going on and theories are being made up. I suggest maybe having some thing in the tools with different level of penalties 1-5 with one being a minor penalty and 5 being the most extreme. Each penalty could have a generic explanation next to it. What do you think? Most of the questions in this forum are related to penalties and most of the answers from what I have seen dont really help, as they are personal opinions. So people who dont really have a penalty all of a sudden start changing things that dont need to be changed."
And it would be great if we had some place to address the issue with someone at Google, if we knew what the issue was, and got feedback.
> What are some appropriote ways to use the nofollow tag other than to > protect against blog comment spam?
> Thanks!
> On Sep 24, 2:12 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > (brave souls!)
> > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > world > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > Help Center
> > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > existing doc to cover your question. > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > Some ground rules: > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > point there from this thread!) > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > everyone in this thread. > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > questions here.
I would like to know why Google has a problem indexing the home pages of some sites. Most of the people who write in with this problem say that this Yahoo has no problem with their home page. This question keeps re-appearing and so far there has been no answer to or explanation for problem.
> "webmasters need to be told if their site is under a penalty, as there > is to much guess work going on and theories are being made up. I > suggest maybe having some thing in the tools with different level of > penalties 1-5 with one being a minor penalty and 5 being the most > extreme. Each penalty could have a generic explanation next to it. > What do you think? Most of the questions in this forum are related to > penalties and most of the answers from what I have seen dont really > help, as they are personal opinions. So people who dont really have a > penalty all of a sudden start changing things that dont need to be > changed."
> And it would be great if we had some place to address the issue with > someone at Google, if we knew what the issue was, and got feedback.
> On Sep 24, 8:44 am, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > Question:
> > What are some appropriote ways to use the nofollow tag other than to > > protect against blog comment spam?
> > Thanks!
> > On Sep 24, 2:12 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > (brave souls!)
> > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > world > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > Help Center
> > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > Some ground rules: > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > point there from this thread!) > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > everyone in this thread. > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > questions here.
Another issue I have seen mentioned a number of times in this forum is the fact that googlebot sometimes comes up with fanciful incorrect links (which are then dutifully reported in web master tools as broken links) when there are in fact no such links in the crawled pages. This seems to be a transient phenomenon, in that it usually goes away after the next crawl. This has been reported several times here, but I have seen no indication that anybody at Google is looking into it. I understand that it is easy for you to say "Oh, that's due to syntax errors in the html", but there seem to be reported cases where it is clear that is not the cause.
(More specifically, when this happened to me, it seemed clear that googlebot had looked into inline Javascript to try to find links, and hadn't properly accounted for all kinds of JS expressions. In other reported cases, it doesn't seem so clear where the bad links come from.)
Besides this specific problem, there is the larger issue of how any user would go about reporting a situation where he/she believed there was a bug in googlebot. I haven't seen a mechanism for this.
> I would like to know why Google has a problem indexing the home pages > of some sites. Most of the people who write in with this problem say > that this Yahoo has no problem with their home page. This question > keeps re-appearing and so far there has been no answer to or > explanation for problem.
> On Sep 24, 8:14 am, Becca800 wrote:
> > I agree with Comzign who wrote:
> > "webmasters need to be told if their site is under a penalty, as there > > is to much guess work going on and theories are being made up. I > > suggest maybe having some thing in the tools with different level of > > penalties 1-5 with one being a minor penalty and 5 being the most > > extreme. Each penalty could have a generic explanation next to it. > > What do you think? Most of the questions in this forum are related to > > penalties and most of the answers from what I have seen dont really > > help, as they are personal opinions. So people who dont really have a > > penalty all of a sudden start changing things that dont need to be > > changed."
> > And it would be great if we had some place to address the issue with > > someone at Google, if we knew what the issue was, and got feedback.
> > On Sep 24, 8:44 am, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > > Question:
> > > What are some appropriote ways to use the nofollow tag other than to > > > protect against blog comment spam?
> > > Thanks!
> > > On Sep 24, 2:12 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > > (brave souls!)
> > > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > > world > > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > > Help Center
> > > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > > Some ground rules: > > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > > point there from this thread!) > > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > > everyone in this thread. > > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > > questions here.
Don't collect snippet content from sites other then the originators. I've got a client that their snippet still shows a factory they closed years ago, all because some old site link to them and reference the old content.
Courtesy of Donna http://www.seo-scoop.com/2007/09/25/a-question-for-google-groups/ "We know that we should avoid linking to "bad neighborhoods", and while it may be impossible to know "for sure" what a bad neighborhood is, we can judge for ourselves fairly well. However, let's say I linked to a legit site 2 years ago, and have since linked to hundreds more sites since then (in various blog posts for example). There's a strong chance I don't even REMEMBER who I linked to two years ago in some post. Now let's say Google penalizes or bans that site now for something he has recently done. Am I going to be punished because I linked to that site long, long ago? Keep in mind that I probably don't even remember linking to it. I probably don't know that it has recently been penalized because I certainly can't track every site I've ever linked to. So...will the fact that I am now, unbeknown to me, linking to a "bad neighborhood", affect my site? Will I be punished?"
--------
I'd appreciate advice (or a Google tool) WRT identifying bad neighborhoods which is practicable for non-search-geeks. Sebastian
> Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > (brave souls!)
> Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > world > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > Help Center
> And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > existing doc to cover your question. > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> Some ground rules: > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > point there from this thread!) > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > everyone in this thread. > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > questions here.
> Call me a sceptic (and many do), but I want to know what Google is > going to do in 3 weeks time? > What are you going to do to ensue more top posters don't abandon the > group? > Why cant your initiatives in this group be proactive rather than > reactive?
> On Sep 24, 7:12 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > (brave souls!)
> > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > world > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > Help Center
> > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > existing doc to cover your question. > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > Some ground rules: > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > point there from this thread!) > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > everyone in this thread. > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > questions here.
I do not believe you are Matt Cutts because you do not have a cool G icon next to your name! =P
New ideas:
How about allowing webmasters to use blockquotes to have Google ignore chunks of duplicate text on our sites? This would be helpful for information (like shipping instructions) that we would like to NOT appear on each page. If not, please confirm that algorithms are already doing this (ignoring duplicate blocks of text for the most relevant).
How about getting ahead of the privacy crowd and allowing people who are verified by Google (as being themselves) to "blank out" personal information that might appear on other folks websites like, home addresses? What happens when crazy people get in the news for stalking via Google? It is a little scary, do a search for yourself! So if you use Google search and look for something personal someone has confirmed that they do not want others to see it gets pinked out, even scarier idea? ;)
BUT I would be happy to have a further explanation of good uses of the nofollow tag, I just put it all over my product site to disallow the links to useless stuff like the contact page and duplicate forms, am I doing wrong?
> Red Cardinal, I think we're open to things that encourage people to > participate in this group. :)
> Best wishes, > Matt Cutts
> On Sep 24, 2:39 am, Red Cardinal wrote:
> > Call me a sceptic (and many do), but I want to know what Google is > > going to do in 3 weeks time? > > What are you going to do to ensue more top posters don't abandon the > > group? > > Why cant your initiatives in this group be proactive rather than > > reactive?
> > On Sep 24, 7:12 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > (brave souls!)
> > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > world > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > Help Center
> > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > Some ground rules: > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > point there from this thread!) > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > everyone in this thread. > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > questions here.
As a signed-up member here I'm sure it's safe to say that the regulars are very open to things that encourage Googlers to participate in this group.
Actions speak louder than words, and given JohnMu's recent induction to G and JLH's decision to quit the group, I don't think recent Google actions have been successful in encouraging participation.
Why not be frank and state what the Google plan is for this group? This isn't a personal attack on Adam, but he really needs to update his remarks made some months ago about Google participation in the group. Anything less is a slap in the face to those who contribute here tirelessly and supply a support function on Google's behalf.
> Red Cardinal, I think we're open to things that encourage people to > participate in this group. :)
> Best wishes, > Matt Cutts
> On Sep 24, 2:39 am, Red Cardinal wrote:
> > Call me a sceptic (and many do), but I want to know what Google is > > going to do in 3 weeks time? > > What are you going to do to ensue more top posters don't abandon the > > group? > > Why cant your initiatives in this group be proactive rather than > > reactive?
> > On Sep 24, 7:12 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > (brave souls!)
> > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > world > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > Help Center
> > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > Some ground rules: > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > point there from this thread!) > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > everyone in this thread. > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > questions here.
> As a signed-up member here I'm sure it's safe to say that the regulars > are very open to things that encourage Googlers to participate in this > group.
> Actions speak louder than words, and given JohnMu's recent induction > to G and JLH's decision to quit the group, I don't think recent Google > actions have been successful in encouraging participation.
> Why not be frank and state what the Google plan is for this group? > This isn't a personal attack on Adam, but he really needs to update > his remarks made some months ago about Google participation in the > group. Anything less is a slap in the face to those who contribute > here tirelessly and supply a support function on Google's behalf.
> Best rgds > Richard
> On Sep 26, 4:07 am, MattCutts wrote:
> > Red Cardinal, I think we're open to things that encourage people to > > participate in this group. :)
> > Best wishes, > > Matt Cutts
> > On Sep 24, 2:39 am, Red Cardinal wrote:
> > > Call me a sceptic (and many do), but I want to know what Google is > > > going to do in 3 weeks time? > > > What are you going to do to ensue more top posters don't abandon the > > > group? > > > Why cant your initiatives in this group be proactive rather than > > > reactive?
> > > On Sep 24, 7:12 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > > (brave souls!)
> > > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > > world > > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > > Help Center
> > > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > > Some ground rules: > > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > > point there from this thread!) > > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > > everyone in this thread. > > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > > questions here.
I must mention, that most of the support and research out there doesn't seem to help much for a site that is already thoroughly hijacked. Reverse cloaking of the robots-no-index meta tag? - That could be trouble - is that the best way? - does it make sense? - does Google agree with that tactict? I'd be interested in hearing what Google proposes as a G-safe solution to dealing with proxy-hijacking.
> Good to see you back :) Ok.. I'll get the ball rolling.
> "Proxy Hijacking seems to be a recurrent theme in recent months. The > theory goes that it is quite possible for the original copy of a site > to be surpassed and even excluded from the index by another site > hosting proxied copies of a web page. Given that a) Google seems > pretty effective at detecting duplicate content and b) Google has the > means to authenticate website owners (via webmaster tools and sitemaps > etc) is it possible / would it be beneficial to attempt to overcome > this problem by allowing gbot to visit 'on command' each time a new > page is added (the same way mediapartners bot does)."
> all the best,
> doc
> On Sep 24, 4:12 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > (brave souls!)
> > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > world > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > Help Center
> > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > existing doc to cover your question. > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > Some ground rules: > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > point there from this thread!) > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > everyone in this thread. > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > questions here.
> I also do not believe anyone who posts in here believes they are owed > anything.
Perhaps a little more respect? No problem if Google wont participate here. Just be frank about that rather than say 'we'll be participating more in the future' and then not delivering.
What do I know? Maybe I'm in the wrong place? Maybe better to contribute somewhere else...
1. Will Google offer hosting plans in the near future as i am fed up with hosting companies that do not take search engine crawlability seriously eg. misconfigured virtual hosting etc 2. Does moving hosts frequently lead to negative scoring and if so what is a reasonable amount of times that a domain can move without penalty.
Robbo's original post, right down to the very last letter. Please?!
Another question that would be nice to see answered: "What do you do if your site complies 100% with Google's webmaster tools suggestions but still finds itself penalized?" Specifically looking at who to contact and how to notify Google that possibly Googlebot has made an error that is causing a worse index on Google for that particular search than other search engines.
Which leads me to 3: "How often does Googlebot get it wrong or have bugs?"
Can one assume if a URL that is 301 redirected and it is not cached, is that site penalized? (Even though googlebot has crawled it for several months according to the logfiles.)
> Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > (brave souls!)
> Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > world > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > Help Center
> And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > existing doc to cover your question. > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> Some ground rules: > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > point there from this thread!) > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > everyone in this thread. > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > questions here.
