The ground rules:
- Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
around the world
- Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
- Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
thread
- Have fun!
That's great news because up to now I haven't gotten an answer to a
question I posed back in July. This is one that I find totally
frustrating and one I'm sure many webmasters share and that has to do
with Google's indexing of images.
Here are the details, I have a domain. On my domain I have a blog and
a web site. Google has indexed all the pages of both my web site and
my blog. I also have a number of pictures on both my website and
blog.
Given that:
1) Google has indexed all my web site pages and blog pages
2) I use alt and title tags for all images
3) All my images (blog and website) reside in the same physical
directory
4) All pages (blog and website) use full path names to target the
images (as opposed to relative path names)
5) My web pages are 100% W3C compliant
6) Most blog pages are newer than the web pages
Then WHY has Google indexed 100% of the images that appear on my blog
and not one single image that appears on my web site???
This makes absolutely no sense to me and I am dying to know the
answer.
What is the real reason to ad Google Suggest to Google Search? Make
more money in AdWords? Sure "suggest" in search boxes woks great on
niche websites, but does not on search engines. How/why try and guess
what people want to search? Just let them search :)
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
However, I have a case study where I found scraper websites had copied
a sites meta description, and the rankings dived from 12th to 93rd for
the main homepage search phrase. When I made the meta description
unique again, the homepage went back to its 12th position for the
search phrase.
Say I rank #1 in organic search for "rakes" and have images all over
my website of various rakes.
Question #1 - How come I can not be found high in Google image search
for the phrase "rake" if what I sell has become popular?
Question #2 - Since Google image search is obviously having an issue
figuring out which "rake" to show in image search how do I specify 1-2
images that I would like to show up in image search for the phrase
"rake"? How do you focus down on a single image if a site is filled
with multiple images that are relatively the same?
Note: I suspect that if I make a page and title it something like
"free rake images" and offer various sizes/resolutions of a couple
popular rakes Google will then take notice and allow me to show up
higher in "image search" for what I sell, yes? BUT I am not sure and
have yet to try anything, my image optimization is still a mess!
(for those who know what I make and sell (not rakes) you will see
exactly what I am talking about if you do a search for what I make).
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
An area that might benefit from clarification is requests for
reconsideration. I appreciate you recently added a new blog post (with
helpful video) yet this subject still seems mired in confusion. One
area of that post relates to falling rankings due to technical
problems e.g. repeated failure to access URLs. What is left a fraction
unclear, is whether you see a reconsideration request as appropriate
after the problems are corrected, or if you feel natural crawling
should then be allowed to take it's course.
I accept the above may be situation dependent but not so the greater
reason you give for requests " To clarify, reconsideration requests
are usually used for when you notice issues stemming from violations
of our Webmaster Guidelines."
Despite the fact you have explained the situation in places, many
people still seem not to feel that in general, to place a
reconsideration request, you need to be aware of a problem and correct
that, along with any others you might remember. There still appear to
be a fair few posts in other forums and occassionally this one, which
essentially folow the lines of " Looks like you've been penalised,
stick in a reconsideration request." Not too wild to feel this may be
counterproductive for the site owner, we often see posts along the
lines of "I've submitted six requests, still nothing." They may simply
do little and wait, equally, one would imagine that repeated requests
from the same site might not be viewed ideally. Nor can this be very
helpful to your team, who must be inundated with requests every day.
Of course you do not wish to lay out the procedure in detail for the
world to read but for such a vital area, spelling out every aspect you
can will help both sides of the equation. Although this may not be
precise and vary from site to site, a general idea of time taken to
process a request would also be helpful. I appreciate the feeling of
weeks generally prevails but not on a consistent basis.
Summing up the process in a few lines may not be easy either but if
you feel that is possible and can add any clarity to the FAQs, this
would be welcome. The current FAQ link page states " If your site
isn't appearing in Google search results, or it's performing more
poorly than it once did (and you believe that it does not violate our
webmaster guidelines), you can ask Google to reconsider your site."
This may well be exactly what you want to say and I am missing the
point but is an open invitation to anyone who feels so inclined to
bang in a request, without any particular reason, other than their
site isn't ranking as well as they would like, or maybe has dropped
due to an algorithm change.
The latter may be more common than people accept and having what they
perceive as an open door to set their ranking right, because they
believe Google are at fault, is not productive for them, or for
improving search returns. The same could be applied to the belief that
a drop is due to any number of mythical penalties, rather than the
need to improve their site, or accept that times have changed. Adding
a degree of balance to the reconsideration request notes could help
change perceptions, just a few lines pointing out this is not a cure
all, giving every encouragement to people to improve their sites,
alongside the need to file a request when that remains the viable
option. That can only help encourage improvement in websites and help
search engines return the best pages.
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
1. Better explanation of Sitelinks - in particular what happens if
they are blocked by a user. Very grey area to date, and I've learnt
different things from different Googlers, and even more different
things from experience, and someone said even more different things in
her interview over on StoneTemple [\glances at Maile\]. So in a
nutshell I think this is VERY confusing for most.
2. Some discussion on in-site dupe content for multi-country sites
using Geotargeting tool - in particular how this tool [geotargeting]
affects the way Google filtters dupe content on different sub-
folders. I've seen some truly weird and wonderful ranking issues with
this. More relevant for large sites I know...
3. Personal one now - why does google.ie show .co.uk sites so much on
web search when selecting 'pages from Ireland' returns a quite
reasonable result set? Is geotargeting borked?
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
It appears that currently the types of sitemaps that webmasters can
submit to Google in Webmaster Tools include:
- general web
- mobile
- code search
- geo
- video
From the perspective of podcasters around the world, it would be great
to be able to submit an audio sitemap. Any plans for this
functionality, or could you comment on that possibility?
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
Is it possible in the case of permanent redirects
HTTP status 301
to show in Google Webmaster Tools
some information about the progress in transfering
search results (or PageRank) from the URL
source of the redirect to
the URL destination of the redirect?
Another thing is that there have been some threads in which
a guess about the problem was
that Googlebot could not easily follow or store
the destination of a redirect if the
value of the Location field in the HTTP response header
of the redirected URL was a relative URL
(like /destination-page.html) instead of an absolute URL
(like http://www.example.com/destination-page.html)
I think it is better to have absolute URL in the
Location field anyway,
but does Googlebot have a problem in following or
storing in its database the URL destination of
a redirect if the value in the Location field of
the HTTP response header of the source URL is a
relative URL?
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
Can web sites (particularly e-commerce) suffer if they have two or
more different themes?
Using our web site, for an example, we sell fashion items (clothing,
footwear, accessories) but we also sell quite a bit of what could be
called spiritual items (religious statues, books on Buddhism and
Hinduism, etc.,).
Or take another web site that might sell auto parts to customize cars,
but they also sell books on great road trips throughout the US and
sightseeing guides. While these two things might seem like a natural
fit to most customers, would they seem like a natural fit to google?
> Why are the sets of data different for a Google search of
> link:example.com and the links shown in GWT?
> On Aug 26, 7:18 pm, Reid wrote:
> > Hey webmasters!
> > Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> > (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> > ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> > five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> > The ground rules:
> > - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> > around the world
> > - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> > by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> > thread
> > - Have fun!
I have a question about the nofollow attribute in links. If I have
pages on my site that have the noindex meta tags on them, should I
still allow googlebot to go to them via links from other pages on my
site, and let googlebot navigate through the links on those pages onto
the next pages, even though nothing is being indexed from the page
itself due to the noindex meta tag on it? I was under the impression
that it was good for googlebot to have ease of access to work through
the links on all the pages of a site, even if not indexing some of the
pages concerned. However, after reading about page rank sculpting, I
am wondering if I got that wrong. Should I instead put the nofollow
attribute on all the internal links on my site that point to pages
that have noindex meta tag on them? Should I also put the nofollow
meta tag on them as well? Please excuse this question if it is a bit
basic. I am fairly new to being a webmaster, and there is a lot to
learn! Thanks.
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
Google needs to make a better effort in contacting and such with
webmasters. If you can take the time to ding someone either through
your filters or through personal intervention than you can also take
the time to state why. Also, what good is the messages section if you
never ever receive a reply or communication of any sort from Google?
Another thing, why is it that some websites have been getting away
with black hat crap for years and Google has known about these sites
for years and nothing gets done about them? I could understand if it
took a month or two to get it in your algorithms and such, but
years...
As to the contacting problem, Yes, there are webmasters that do black
hat tricks and should suffer for it when caught, but as one can see
through this discussion group, there are hundreds if not thousands of
people, local city websites, government sites, etc... that never did
anything wrong and got the Google smackdown in one form or another.
Many times, lately it is due to hacking and this, as we all know is on
the rise. If Google doesn't tell people what to look for or why their
site is down, it could take months or even years for some of these
people to get their websites back up where they belong in the
rankings. Yes, some hacked stuff is quite easy to find, but some is
much more insidious and can be very difficult for even an experienced
SEO or advanced technical geek to find - basically the way things
stand right now is that if someone wants you to be hacked you will get
hacked. Just look at these links below, Stanford has been hacked, so
has NASA, the Whitehouse, the pentagon, and of course even Google:
Basically, with Google's new algorithm changes and such, they are
discriminating against the self employed and small businesses as they
can't afford the SEO staff that is necessary to thwart these hackers.
Yes, I am all for people becoming smarter and gaining a better
understanding of the internet, but is it right to make it so anyone
that isn't a nerd or involved in a large company can't possibly
compete fairly? If Google had a smaller share of the internet market
it probably wouldn't matter, but when you literally control more than
a major stake in it, this sort of matter actually becomes a major
liability in its own right - just Google the terms ACLU and lawsuit or
settlement or judgment or discrimination. I believe that Google needs
to take a little more responsibility to the little people that are
actually the majority of the web and start with better communication
and maybe speeding things up for those that were dinged or penalized
due to outside forces like a hack that they had no control over.
Besides, Googles founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin along with Apple
founders Wozniak and Jobs and even Bill Gates were all little people
and tiny companies at one point, some even operating out of their own
garage. It isn't good to stifle innovation which usually starts with
the smallest of business models - the sole proprietor.
> I have a question about the nofollow attribute in links. If I have
> pages on my site that have the noindex meta tags on them, should I
> still allow googlebot to go to them via links from other pages on my
> site, and let googlebot navigate through the links on those pages onto
> the next pages, even though nothing is being indexed from the page
> itself due to the noindex meta tag on it? I was under the impression
> that it was good for googlebot to have ease of access to work through
> the links on all the pages of a site, even if not indexing some of the
> pages concerned. However, after reading about page rank sculpting, I
> am wondering if I got that wrong. Should I instead put the nofollow
> attribute on all the internal links on my site that point to pages
> that have noindex meta tag on them? Should I also put the nofollow
> meta tag on them as well? Please excuse this question if it is a bit
> basic. I am fairly new to being a webmaster, and there is a lot to
> learn! Thanks.
> On Aug 27, 12:18 pm, Reid wrote:
> > Hey webmasters!
> > Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> > (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> > ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> > five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> > The ground rules:
> > - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> > around the world
> > - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> > by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> > thread
> > - Have fun!
Bluegill
You asked here and found your answer -> Try that with any other search
engine.
Just because you put up a web site full of products, that does not
make you a business. Like any other business there are costs involved
and in these times that has to include paying someone that knows what
they are doing if you are not inclined or capable yourself. If you had
planned your business properly and knew you had a need for a certain
ammount of traffic then you would have accounted for advertising and a
web designer cost in your budget.
Anyway, back to the thread subject....
It would be really good to hear a bit about multiple domain ownership.
Much is said regarding it on here. Is it OK as long as each has its
own content and they are not interlinked? Should one only have one
domain in any market? At what granularity can you say that two domains
are in the same market
eg, Car Sales - Car Hire - Car Parts - Ford Parts - Vehicle Cleaning -
Transport Forum, are all related but could easily use separate domains
for one reason or another
Say I sell rakes, I sell them online and depend on organic rankings to
show up for ALL states in the US. I notice webmasters putting regional
text on their index pages to try to influence search engines have them
show up all over the place. So... if someone does a search for "rake
in Alabama" they find their site. To me this is spam because it is
done not for users but to manipulate search engines. Is there a non
spammy way to do this without making a big, ugly, state text list with
full intent to outrank everyone region by region? Or is this just
smart "SEO"?
How about tick boxes in webmasters tools where people can choose if
their intent is nation wide or regional?
We sell rakes to:
* Alabama
* Alaska
* American Samoa
* Arizona
* Arkansas
* California
* Colorado
* Connecticut
* Delaware
* District of Columbia
* Florida
* Georgia
* Guam
* Hawaii
* Idaho
* Illinois
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Maine
* Maryland
* Massachusetts
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* Montana
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* New Jersey
* New Mexico
* New York
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Northern Marianas Islands
* Ohio
* Oklahoma
* Oregon
* Pennsylvania
* Puerto Rico
* Rhode Island
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Vermont
* Virginia
* Virgin Islands
* Washington
* West Virginia
* Wisconsin
* Wyoming
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
I have just rechecked the duplicate content case study on
http://www.searchmasters.co.nz/articles/160/sites-disappearing-from-g... , and found that the specific websites homepage has again bombed on
Google for its main homepage search phrase - it had crept up to 10th,
and its now 87th on Google.co.nz (and not even the homepage thats
ranking, a clear sign that its a duplicate content penalty). Yes, I
mention a specific website, but I have found this issue to exist with
many websites. The problem is a glitch in your algorithm Google, that
needs to be fixed.
I found that most of the text around search phrases on the home page
had been copied - both in the meta description, and the text on the
page.
While I have now changed the text to make it unique again, I would
appreciate it if you/Google, could fix this problem. Other sites
should not be able to harm the rankings of websites like this.
Gissit,
That wasn't necessarily about me, that was for the housewives and
homemakers, retired folks, handicapped people, American Indians,
blacks, hispanics, common everyday folk, etc... that basically just
want to have equal opportunity on the web as elsewhere. It's in our
constitution - the land of equal opportunity. That's why the ACLU was
formed and that's what it defends - equal rights for everyone. You
can't discriminate against people of lesser means or such - else the
ACLU and other similar organizations will legally squish you. What
Google has basically done here is raise the price of entry into the
internet world. That is good in that it gets rid of some of the
scammers, but it also takes away from people that maybe want to start
a website for their local whatever. How are they supposed to compete
with others and what if they get hacked? They have no budget to pay
for an SEO team or legal staff or whatever. What then? Do we just
draw the line there and weed them out and say only people with a
yearly budget of $50,000 or more can stay? This is part of why
organizations like the ACLU, FTC, SBA, state and federal attorneys,
etc... exist. To try and keep a level playing field for all
participants regardless of handicap, age, race, religion, financial
means, etc, etc... This undoubtedly will become the biggest issue in
the internet world over the next few years as Giants like Google and
others compete for market share, advertising revenue and develop new
features and more.
> Say I sell rakes, I sell them online and depend on organic rankings to
> show up for ALL states in the US. I notice webmasters putting regional
> text on their index pages to try to influence search engines have them
> show up all over the place. So... if someone does a search for "rake
> in Alabama" they find their site. To me this is spam because it is
> done not for users but to manipulate search engines. Is there a non
> spammy way to do this without making a big, ugly, state text list with
> full intent to outrank everyone region by region? Or is this just
> smart "SEO"?
> How about tick boxes in webmasters tools where people can choose if
> their intent is nation wide or regional?
> We sell rakes to:
> * Alabama
> * Alaska
> * American Samoa
> * Arizona
> * Arkansas
> * California
> * Colorado
> * Connecticut
> * Delaware
> * District of Columbia
> * Florida
> * Georgia
> * Guam
> * Hawaii
> * Idaho
> * Illinois
> * Indiana
> * Iowa
> * Kansas
> * Kentucky
> * Louisiana
> * Maine
> * Maryland
> * Massachusetts
> * Michigan
> * Minnesota
> * Mississippi
> * Missouri
> * Montana
> * Nebraska
> * Nevada
> * New Hampshire
> * New Jersey
> * New Mexico
> * New York
> * North Carolina
> * North Dakota
> * Northern Marianas Islands
> * Ohio
> * Oklahoma
> * Oregon
> * Pennsylvania
> * Puerto Rico
> * Rhode Island
> * South Carolina
> * South Dakota
> * Tennessee
> * Texas
> * Utah
> * Vermont
> * Virginia
> * Virgin Islands
> * Washington
> * West Virginia
> * Wisconsin
> * Wyoming
> Spam?
> On Aug 26, 8:18 pm, Reid wrote:
> > Hey webmasters!
> > Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> > (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> > ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> > five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> > The ground rules:
> > - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> > around the world
> > - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> > by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> > thread
> > - Have fun!
Google recently removed an entire paragraph from their "How can I
create a Google-friendly site?" page. The paragraph which was removed
concerned "creating static copies of dynamic pages... (such as URLs
containing question marks)...". Here is the paragraph:
http://www.beussery.com/blog/index.php/2008/08/has-google-changed-pos...
Question:
Does the removal of this paragraph mean that Google no longer suggests
creating static copies of dynamic pages and/or that Google has
overcome the "?" in URL issue?
> Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> The ground rules:
> - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> around the world
> - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> thread
> - Have fun!
I didn't think there has been a "?" issue for a long time now. At
least not since I've been playing around with query strings myself,
which would be about 4-5 years now.
Maybe the only problem there would be due to forgetting to encode urls
adequately, whcih would cause problems. But that's not a Google
problem - it's a consequence of having invalid code.
> Google recently removed an entire paragraph from their "How can I
> create a Google-friendly site?" page. The paragraph which was removed
> concerned "creating static copies of dynamic pages... (such as URLs
> containing question marks)...". Here is the paragraph:http://www.beussery.com/blog/index.php/2008/08/has-google-changed-pos...
> Question:
> Does the removal of this paragraph mean that Google no longer suggests
> creating static copies of dynamic pages and/or that Google has
> overcome the "?" in URL issue?
> Thanks for your help! :)
> -Brian
> On Aug 26, 8:18 pm, Reid wrote:
> > Hey webmasters!
> > Seeing as how our inaugural "Popular Picks" thread was well-received
> > (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> > ), we're at it again! Over the next two weeks, we'll provide at least
> > five substantive responses to your questions on webmaster'y topics.
> > The ground rules:
> > - Please ask questions that are likely to be of interest to webmasters
> > around the world
> > - Refrain from questions that deal with specific sites or are covered
> > by a recent blog post or in our Help Center
> > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this
> > thread
> > - Have fun!
> > Thanks and we look forward to your questions!- Hide quoted text -
I have a site that truly qualifies for <changefreq>always</changefreq>
- every page is dynamically generated and two successive accesses will
likely produce different results.
_But_ - not in the keywords. Just prices, availability, and the like.
Both the page date and a checksum of a page will show a change, though
these rarely affect the pages' eligibility for its keywords. Indexing
at the normal static page rate would be perfectly acceptable.
I _could_ create static pages - but doesn't Google itself say I
shouldn't do anything that I wouldn't do if search engines didn't
exist?
So what _exactly_ does <changefreq>always</changefreq> mean?
Do we really need to extend the sitemap schema with
<changefreq>dynamic</changefreq> ?
> Gissit,
> That wasn't necessarily about me, that was for the housewives and
> homemakers, retired folks, handicapped people, American Indians,
> blacks, hispanics, common everyday folk, etc... that basically just
> want to have equal opportunity on the web as elsewhere. It's in our
> constitution - the land of equal opportunity.
Bollocks. If Daddy can't afford Harvard or Yale your chances of
making CEO of a multinational are drastically reduced.
"Every child can make it" is very largely a myth - one or two poor
kids a decade get rich. Bill Gates didn't come from nowhere - Mummy
was a _very_ rich lawyer who sat on the board of United Way and was a
personal friend of John Akers, then CEO of IBM. Akers used to call
billg "Mary Gates' boy".
PMSL - some people seem to think the internet is somehow a place for
the poor to get rich... They seem oblivious to the fact that Google
was launched with $27,000,000 or so of VC and seem to think it was a
couple of nerds in their college dorm / dad's garage.
bluegill
If you want to atart another thread somewhere to talk about this I
will gladly contribute. This is not the place
> > Gissit,
> > That wasn't necessarily about me, that was for the housewives and
> > homemakers, retired folks, handicapped people, American Indians,
> > blacks, hispanics, common everyday folk, etc... that basically just
> > want to have equal opportunity on the web as elsewhere. It's in our
> > constitution - the land of equal opportunity.
> Bollocks. If Daddy can't afford Harvard or Yale your chances of
> making CEO of a multinational are drastically reduced.
> "Every child can make it" is very largely a myth - one or two poor
> kids a decade get rich. Bill Gates didn't come from nowhere - Mummy
> was a _very_ rich lawyer who sat on the board of United Way and was a
> personal friend of John Akers, then CEO of IBM. Akers used to call
> billg "Mary Gates' boy".
I agreed with the second paragraph of your first post. If Google put
it in their algo to give registered webmasters an error code for
penalties or something so when you don't know you've done something
black or grey hat, or if you've been hacked, we can remedy the
nuisance of you on the internet, and maybe get some more good content
for the user up.
But then, you went t o t a l l y c r a z y... It sounds like, from
what you said, that you think Google is actively discriminating
against minorities. Or purposely restricting you because of your
budget. Or discriminating against "handicap, age, race, religion,
financial means." Or any other sort of wildly unethical thing that the
ACLU would be involved with. Google discriminates against bad sites
that aren't good for users. period. If your site is not good for
users, it will be punished. My budget is low, but my site is good, and
we're third in rank for our target keyword, and I don't need 55,000 to
keep from getting hacked, and I don't have any SEO working for us
(except for all the great advice I get on this forum). I think almost
everyone on this forum are the people that you accuse Google of
discriminating against, but we're doing well.
I can't tell if you have Big Brother paranoia, or you want a golden
ticket or what. But your going about it the wrong way. And Google
isn't going to get into legal trouble for penalizing websites in THEIR
SERPS. If you are so vehemently anti-Google, I'm sure they would
gladly remove you fully from their discriminatory evil web service if
you asked.
No, you guys have me all wrong. I'm just for fair business practices
across the board and you're right, this discussion has gotten way off
kilter here. My main point is that if anyone gets dinged I think
Google should post a easily referenced code (similar to a vehicle
OBDII code) to make it easy for them and to make it easy to look up
what area or such has the problem. Some people argued with me in
another thread that they would never get hacked and such so I included
the above links just to show that it can happen to anyone and is a
growing problem.
The other point was that if a penalty is due to outside influences
that reinclusion or whatever should be quicker.
I do not hate Google. I just do not like their stance of minimal or
no response.
> I agreed with the second paragraph of your first post. If Google put
> it in their algo to give registered webmasters an error code for
> penalties or something so when you don't know you've done something
> black or grey hat, or if you've been hacked, we can remedy the
> nuisance of you on the internet, and maybe get some more good content
> for the user up.
> But then, you went t o t a l l y c r a z y... It sounds like, from
> what you said, that you think Google is actively discriminating
> against minorities. Or purposely restricting you because of your
> budget. Or discriminating against "handicap, age, race, religion,
> financial means." Or any other sort of wildly unethical thing that the
> ACLU would be involved with. Google discriminates against bad sites
> that aren't good for users. period. If your site is not good for
> users, it will be punished. My budget is low, but my site is good, and
> we're third in rank for our target keyword, and I don't need 55,000 to
> keep from getting hacked, and I don't have any SEO working for us
> (except for all the great advice I get on this forum). I think almost
> everyone on this forum are the people that you accuse Google of
> discriminating against, but we're doing well.
> I can't tell if you have Big Brother paranoia, or you want a golden
> ticket or what. But your going about it the wrong way. And Google
> isn't going to get into legal trouble for penalizing websites in THEIR
> SERPS. If you are so vehemently anti-Google, I'm sure they would
> gladly remove you fully from their discriminatory evil web service if
> you asked.
bluegill01 - do you know how spammer/hackers do their work? they do
stuff, see if google figures it out then do something new, with these
"codes" you could figure out how to game google. i think this is why
what seem to be simple questions go unanswered year after year.
now back to the questions, anyone got more good ones to try to figure
out how to influence Google to make all your domains show up in
search? kidding! ;)
> No, you guys have me all wrong. I'm just for fair business practices
> across the board and you're right, this discussion has gotten way off
> kilter here. My main point is that if anyone gets dinged I think
> Google should post a easily referenced code (similar to a vehicle
> OBDII code) to make it easy for them and to make it easy to look up
> what area or such has the problem. Some people argued with me in
> another thread that they would never get hacked and such so I included
> the above links just to show that it can happen to anyone and is a
> growing problem.
> The other point was that if a penalty is due to outside influences
> that reinclusion or whatever should be quicker.
> I do not hate Google. I just do not like their stance of minimal or
> no response.
> On Aug 29, 10:09 am, metronome wrote:
> > bluegill,
> > I agreed with the second paragraph of your first post. If Google put
> > it in their algo to give registered webmasters an error code for
> > penalties or something so when you don't know you've done something
> > black or grey hat, or if you've been hacked, we can remedy the
> > nuisance of you on the internet, and maybe get some more good content
> > for the user up.
> > But then, you went t o t a l l y c r a z y... It sounds like, from
> > what you said, that you think Google is actively discriminating
> > against minorities. Or purposely restricting you because of your
> > budget. Or discriminating against "handicap, age, race, religion,
> > financial means." Or any other sort of wildly unethical thing that the
> > ACLU would be involved with. Google discriminates against bad sites
> > that aren't good for users. period. If your site is not good for
> > users, it will be punished. My budget is low, but my site is good, and
> > we're third in rank for our target keyword, and I don't need 55,000 to
> > keep from getting hacked, and I don't have any SEO working for us
> > (except for all the great advice I get on this forum). I think almost
> > everyone on this forum are the people that you accuse Google of
> > discriminating against, but we're doing well.
> > I can't tell if you have Big Brother paranoia, or you want a golden
> > ticket or what. But your going about it the wrong way. And Google
> > isn't going to get into legal trouble for penalizing websites in THEIR
> > SERPS. If you are so vehemently anti-Google, I'm sure they would
> > gladly remove you fully from their discriminatory evil web service if
> > you asked.
