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.
